1f. Minutes' CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 28, 1994
' Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
' COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman
Mason, and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Kate Aanenson, Roger Knutson, Charles Folch, Sharmin Al -Jaff, John Rask,
and Steve Kirchman
' APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the agenda as
presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
j. Resolution #94 -124: Resolution Authorizing Advanced Right -of -Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF)
Application Submittal, Holasek Property.
' k. Amendment to City Code Relating to the Control and Prevention of Dutch Elm Disease and Other Arboreal
Diseases within the City, Final Reading; and Approval of a Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes.
1. Resolution 094 -125: Accept Public Street and Storm Drainage Improvements in Lake Susan Hills West 9th
' Addition, Project 93 -5.
All voted in favor and the motion caned unanimously.
R APPROVE GAMBLING PERMIT REQUEST, CHANHASSEN LIONS CLUB.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I wanted to pull (f), which is a gambling permit request for Chanhassen Lion's just
so I can vote against it. So if someone else would like to move it, that would be fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I will -move that particular item. Is there a second?
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
'
following
Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
'
a.
Resolution #94 -121: Reinitiate Feasibility Study for Powers Boulevard (CR 17) Improvement Project 93 -29
(Carver County Cooperative Project)
c.
Designate West 78th Street (from Powers Boulevard to Kerber Boulevard) as an Urban District Roadway
'
with a Speed Limitation of 30 mph, Project 92 -3.
d.
Resolution #94 -122: Accept Utility Improvements in Shenandoah Ridge, Project 93 -3.
'
e.
Resolution 094 -123: Accept Utility Improvements in The Meadows at Long Acres, Project 94 -7.
g.
Approve One Year Extension for Wetland Alteration Approval, Mark and Kathy Sanda, 1685 Steller Court.
h.
Approval of Bills.
j. Resolution #94 -124: Resolution Authorizing Advanced Right -of -Way Acquisition Loan Fund (RALF)
Application Submittal, Holasek Property.
' k. Amendment to City Code Relating to the Control and Prevention of Dutch Elm Disease and Other Arboreal
Diseases within the City, Final Reading; and Approval of a Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes.
1. Resolution 094 -125: Accept Public Street and Storm Drainage Improvements in Lake Susan Hills West 9th
' Addition, Project 93 -5.
All voted in favor and the motion caned unanimously.
R APPROVE GAMBLING PERMIT REQUEST, CHANHASSEN LIONS CLUB.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I wanted to pull (f), which is a gambling permit request for Chanhassen Lion's just
so I can vote against it. So if someone else would like to move it, that would be fine.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I will -move that particular item. Is there a second?
0
0
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #94 -126: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Gambling Permit
Request for the Chanhassen Lion's Club. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Dockendorf who opposed,
and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
L APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I believe I was present at the City Council Minutes dated November 9th.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. With that correction being made, can we have an approval of item (i).
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following Minutes:
City Council Minutes dated November 9, 1994 as amended.
City Council Minutes dated November 14, 1994.
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated October 25, 1994.
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated November 10, 1994.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None
REQUEST TO RECONSIDER PRELI] IINARY SITE GRADING, SHAMROCK RIDGE DEVELOPMENT,
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND THE LAKE LUCY ROAD EXTENSION.
Mayor Chmiel: I've already called for item number 2 and we're ready to move. I know that I said it may be
about 7:45 but it seems like things are moving a little quicker than I expected. Kate, is there anything that
you'd like to say prior to that?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, thank you. This item was brought back for the staff based on a reconsideration that was
directed to us at your November 14th City Council meeting. Specifically you requested that the applicants, Ed
and Mary Ryan review the grading plan because you were concerned about the amount of grading that was
proposed with the subdivision. We met, the staff met with Bill Engelhardt, Chuck Plowe, the applicant's
engineer and their attorney on Wednesday, November 16th to review some of the issues that we felt were the
Council's directive to the staff and to the applicant. We gave them some options that we felt may reduce the
grading and asked Bill Engelhardt to review those options. The applicant did provide some alternatives to the
plat, which you have copies of the three sheets that were requested and Bill Engelhardt did review those when
he met with their engineer, Chuck Plowe on November 21 st. You have a copy of Mr. Engelhardt's letter to me
as he reviewed the plat and it kind of concurs with what we said all along. Based on the density that was given
to this site, as far as the design parameters, there wasn't a lot of flexibility. If you take from one, try to preserve
a knoll in one area, you actually push and cut into another knoll and it summarizes in this, in the fourth
paragraph of Bill's letter where he says everyone knows this site is difficult not only because of the elevations
but also because of the balancing of the dirt on the site. As you reduce cuts in one area, additional cuts are also
required in other areas and that's kind of what we felt all along. To take it and save in one area, you're going to
do excessive cutting or filling in another area. Based on that we asked, in the meeting that we did have back on
the Wednesday, November 16th, we also asked the applicant if they felt this was the best design. That they
2
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
needed to do a better job of explaining that to the Council. Unfortunately, that wasn't given to you in the
packet but the applicant did mail you a letter explaining those reasons. The Mayor was also, had agreed to meet
with the applicant and that meeting was held on November 23rd. Dave Hempel, myself, Ed Ryan and Chuck
Plowe met again to review the alternatives. The three sheets that you have and also to see if there was another
way to minimize the grading on the site, which is the big issue. We felt that there was one alternative that
could be considered. We did find out, as they have done further research in the plat, that there is some poor
soils adjacent to the wetland and we felt like, because of the poor soils there, that maybe additional lots could
be eliminated and that would also reduce maybe some cutting and filling. And so we gave that suggestion to
the applicant and asked them to give that some consideration and that's basically where we left the meeting so
the plat is at a stand. We feel, and it's concurred by Bill Engelhardt that trying to do alternative designs really,
when we have different designs with the cuts and fills would pretty much be equal. So we turned it over after
our meeting, just asked the applicants to give consideration to maybe dropping a couple lots. That would be
one may to really to minimize, really only the way to minimize some of the excess cutting and filling. That's
all I had.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Kate. Would the applicant, Mr. Plowe.
Chuck Plowe: Your Honor, members of the Council, my name is Chuck Plowe. I'm project engineer for Ed
and Mary Ryan. This is the original plan that was presented... I won't go through the issues of moving Lake
Lucy Road as I think Kate covered it pretty well... reiterate that but if there's any questions or any details you
want to see clearer on that... Let me go right to what we are looking at as far as making some adjustments to
look at reducing some grading. The highlighted lines, this is just a ... copy of the preliminary plat that was
approved with the change shown that we're proposing in this area here. We end up with now 15 lots rather than
17 on Block 1. We're proposing to change Mary Way to a private drive which in itself will reduce some of the
grading. We'll remove the cul -de -sac street and removing Lot 7 and making Lots 5 and 6 larger, which is a
fairly significant change in the grading as well. Removing Lot 3 and making Lots... Essentially what does
happen with that, the edge of the grading limits are changed by this amount. And up within this area that I'm
not showing, the fills are reduced quite a bit so I'm just showing you the edge of the fill slope that's being
pulled back. But in addition to that, we're reducing the fills up in this area and in this area. Also we have
raised the grades behind Lots, well I guess now they're Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9. They were 8, 9, 10 and 11, and
reduce the cut in this area by probably ... As Kate had mentioned, there are some soils within this area down here
that are marginal. We fully intended to maintain those lots as you do the slope corrections on those lots but
looking at it further, we recognize there could be significant grading to two of those lots so that's what we chose
to do. I have other drawings that will show the amounts of fill in this area prior to the change and the amounts
of fill after. I do have the red line cut /fills. If you'd like to see those, I could show those to you. We would
like to make this change contingent on this being the extent of the changes that we make on the plan. So if you
would like to see any other cut/fill drawings, I do have them with me.
Mayor Chmiel: I think maybe if you'd do that please.
Chuck Plowe: I have to bring them up closer because they're kind of hard to see from a distance. This is the
original plan. This is the land as it's proposed to be changed. The biggest, you can see that this fill has been
pulled in considerably. Here's the reference line. This line down here. The same line. We're not showing the
pond down there but if you look at this line here, you can see the closeness of the fill. This fill actually comes
down in here and got cut off a little bit. But the 14 fill line is quite a bit smaller and you can see the ... is quite
large. Over here again we were up to the 14 foot fill and 12 foot fill ... so we have to pull those back away from
3
7
P,
n
i
I City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
this line... And we had some cuts back in this area. I guess they were up to the 16 feet and now they're at 12
feet. Back in this back yard. Any questions?
Mayor Chmiel: You said from 16 feet to 12 feet?
Chuck Plowe: 16 feet to 12 feet. So we've reduced some of the cuts and reduced some of the fills... We've
also looked at moving Lake Lucy Road further to the south and essentially what happens when I did that is that
I pushed the fill slope that we have here further, increased the fill and also pushed them further towards the
wetland. And also what happens to us is that the house pads are pushed into the marsh so trying to move Lake
Lucy Road further south caused a real problem.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I wouldn't want that road on those soils either. Okay. Are there any questions?
Michael.
Councilman Mason: No. No.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark, do you have any questions?
Councilman Senn: No questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess when we had discussed this the first time my understanding was that the
extent of the cut and fill was directly related to Lake Lucy. Not necessarily?
Kate Aanenson: It's one of the factors but really the only way to accomplish preservation of this, we looked at
other alignments of Lake Lucy and we directed them to do another alignment where we would come in and
swing along that first knoll. But what happens is, you take the knoll that's further north so you compromise one
area to save another and that's what we've always felt in looking at this. The best way would be to come off
the top.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: You've just got to balance it off, right?
Kate Aanenson: Right. Because you're saving that knoll but then you're digging deeper into another.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And is that just to keep the same among of soil on the piece of property?
Kate Aanenson: Well there's a lot of issues. A lot of it's the density that was given for the lot. The lot size.
Just the design constraints of the wetland. And Lake Lucy meeting, it's all summarized really in his letter that
he mailed to you. A lot of the issues.
4
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. Could we achieve the same kind of mitigation to cutting and filling if we
did the same lot reductions to the north or to the east of where we're doing it here? Or would be a significant?
I can't tell whether it's significant or not.
Kate Aanenson: Preservation?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah. It's not extensive to me. And would the same thing be accomplished if we
reduced lot size?
Kate Aanenson: Could you accomplish more preservation?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right.
Kate Aanenson: That's the only way you could do it but at what would that point be, I don't know. That
question came up the first time. Would it be losing 4 lots? Would it be losing, I'm not sure because you have
to get access. You have to get a public street. And would there be...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: My point is, when I came away from the last meeting I thought reducing lot size
would not accomplish anything. I thought it was all tied to the road alignment and that's why I was not happy
but satisfied with what we had done. Because nothing.
Kate Aanenson: Well you can't have front facing lots. There's a lot of factors. When it's a collector street, you
can't have front facing lots. That complicates it. There's a lot of other issues so yeah, if this would have been
given a rural 2 1/2 acre density, could you preserve more of the slopes? Certainly.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But not given it's current history?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. And that's the framework we were working under so but that doesn't mean they
certainly couldn't have proposed something different.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And we're, just to reiterate, when you're talking about balancing out the cuts and
fills, it's in order to keep all the current material on the property as opposed to having the trucks and all.
Kate Aanenson: Well yes and no. I mean some of it has to do with the fact that you have to have certain street
grades. You're trying to provide a design that meets our storm water criteria. Provides ponding and direct it on
the street into the storm sewer system. Some of it has to do - with the constraints as far as street grades. House
pads, driveways, all those issues.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Alright.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Mike.
Councilman Mason: How much has the grading changed because of this? Excavation and fill.
Kate Aanenson: From what he just showed tonight?
Councilman Mason: Yeah.
5
I City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
' Kate Aanenson: I haven't seen it specifically. Charles and I haven't seen it. He just presented it tonight. Now
in looking at it, we directed them that we felt that would be when we met with them on Wednesday, we
directed them because we felt that would be a good faith effort to show because we felt that would be an area
that you could preserve. There was a lot of fill. That was an area of significant fill adjacent to the wetland.
Whether you can constitute that as significant, that's up to you to decide. It seems like they're making an effort
to try to preserve some more of the topography. There's no way you can develop that without some cutting and
' filling based on that density so I think what we believed the objective was given to staff was try to reduce that.
And I guess that's what he was showing you is that he's trying to reduce that.
' Councilman Mason: Good, thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard.
' Councilman Wing: Don can I just, throughout this whole issue we seemed to be struggling with intent
statements and as I met with Roger, he gave a rather clear explanation to me of intent statements and intent
statements are quite romantic and they try to capture the rainbow. And they want to preserve and we use words
like topography and density, hills, knolls, bluffs, but then we go from the intent statement down to reality which
is the body of the ordinance that has the specifics so the intent statement only sets up an intent but then the
actual, oh now I'm losing my, I'm not going to call on you to restate this.
' Roger Knutson: You're doing a much better job than I did.
Councilman Wing: So I guess my only suggestion of the Council in '5 is that if this continues to be a problem,
' that you may want to look realistically at the intent statement of this ordinance and then get into the specifics or
the body of the ordinance and maybe you want to discuss topography and density and hills, knolls and bluffs
and do we in fact want to save the topography of this land. And if we do, then we're going to have more in the
' body of the ordinance that specifies what you can cut and what you can't. How much slope you can take and
maybe get in to better definitions here so the developer -owner has a better idea of where we're going but then
the Council and Planning Commission has more specifics and numbers to work with because I think they've had
the developers- owners rights here and our desire to enforce an intent statement without the body to really do it
' and hence the confusion. Planning Commission wanting to do what's best and difficult issues so, from the
philosophical side, the bigger picture, I think there's some questions that need to be answered to avoid this in
the future.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess that the meeting that we had last Wednesday was to try to meet some of
Council's directions and providing a bit of a change within the Shamrock Ridge development. I know originally
' from what had come in, there were 5 lots that were dropped. Now there's an additional 2 lots, is that correct
Kate?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
' Mayor Chmiel: That we have come down from with that. By making the other lots a little larger, by
eliminating Lot 7 and splitting those between Lots 5 and 6, does a certain amount of that. Also for the fact that
' there's also a 16 foot to 12 foot cut difference still not probably meeting all expectations of everyone who are in
and adjacent to this proposed development. But it looks like from sitting there and having our discussions and
it looked like we were at sort of a stalemate and I do appreciate the fact that you've come in with something a
little bit more than what we finalized last Wednesday. And I think we're getting to a point that I think Mike
6
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
brought out, was to consider some modifications to the plat and minimize the grading. Moving that road a little
more so from existing location would put that into soils that would be not acceptable for roadway as well. And
I don't want the city to pick that up and absorb those additional costs either. I can understand and also
understanding the mere fact that for a couple of those lots, it also affects them because of those soils. I guess
one of the things that was brought up was the fact that depending upon total amount of soils that are taken out
of there, which would be up in the 20 some tons of cubic yards of dirt that would have to be removed, as
opposed to putting back the soils that would be acceptable and also then putting foundations in for those
particular homes would become rather costly because it takes 1/3 more additional soils to put into what you've
taken out to have a certain amount of correction. But there again you don't know how far that goes down and
by putting footings into that respective lots for foot pads or whatever they're going to build, would eliminate
some of those problems and some of the concerns I had is some of the problems that we had within the city a
few years ago where a few homes started sinking and it was because of poor soils. And finally after sitting
down with the contractor, he did buy the home back and took care of those soils and rebuilt another new home
on that particular lot and I keep looking at that one specifically and it appears as though there's no given
problems with it and I'm not going to say where it was because then we'd get people all excited who live there
but from all I see, those corrections have taken place. But it boils right back to where we're at right now. I
think Council's decision making was to see if somehow that plat could have some minimized additional grading
and I think that's what you brought up at the time Michael. Is there any other discussion? Okay.
Councilman Senn: What do we need to do? I mean do we need to reaffirm our previous decision with the
grading modifications?
Mayor Chmiel: That is part of it that we're going to have to do to accept what you either have seen before you
now this evening as well. And if you feel comfortable enough with what has been discussed and the
determination as to which way we go. Yes.
Jerome Carlson: I realize this is not a public hearing but I would ask the Council to ... before you vote.
Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. Would you like to step forward?
Jerome Carlson: Jerome Carlson, 6950 Galpin. One of the interesting threads that I've noticed has been the
notion that because someone applies for x number of lots, that anything you do that reduces that number, I've
heard the words time and again, we are taking away. There are no lots there today except one. This is clearly a
piece of property that should not be intensely developed. There should not be a dense development on this
property. The intent of the ordinance is clear, and I think there's no question in anyone's mind that the intent is
stated quite clearly to preserve steep slopes. I find it just very, very interesting if you think about how often
you've heard and maybe thought yourself, gee they applied for this many. Now we're taking the lots away.
Away from what? You didn't create the land. You're merely trying to be the stewards of it. There are no lots
there now except one. That land should not have density that is proposed because it destroys much of what the
intent is to preserve. I don't understand or follow the need to provide, based upon the original application, X
number of lots against the total. And if someone comes back and reduces the number of lots by 5 or 2 or 7 on
40 to 50 lots, on a property that clearly should not be developed in that manner based upon the intent of our
own ordinance. I would request that the city look at the intent and compare it to what is actually going to
occur. I don't believe legally or any other way this city is compelled to provide a given number of lots on any
particular piece of property if it violates the intent as clearly stated by the ordinance. That is how you preserve
and that is how you diminish some of the grading. Cut down on the density. The land is full of steep slopes.
You've all seen it. That I think staff has said tonight, I've heard density, density, density. The current density is
7
0
P 1 ,
0
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
the problem. I believe everybody understands that is the problem. And because the applicant came with a
proposal for 47 or 52 lots or whatever it was, I don't feel you should have an obligation or feel an obligation to
come close to that number or if it's reduced by 7 or 8 or 9, then it's okay if it doesn't fit the terrain and the
topography of the land. I do appreciate Mr. Mayor your allowing me this opportunity. Sincerely. I realize
you didn't have to do that. Thank you.
Sam Mancino: I also appreciate the opportunity to address the Council. Sam Mancino, 6620 Galpin Boulevard.
I don't believe that there's a lot of new information that's been provided on this property other than to say that
throughout the process the owner /developer has presented in essence a singular plan with a series of small
incremental changes because it, in their opinion, wasn't in their best interest to show a good faith alternative that
took the land into account. I would submit that the same document in the comprehensive plan that suggests
future zoning as residential single family, at that density also provides you the language of intent statements and
you have ordinances that contradict, I think this is a clear place where you have a conflict. It wasn't anticipated
in the comprehensive plan and I don't believe this property should be zoned to that density or should be
negotiated in a way that violates the terrain the way it does. I think to encourage a process that has a developer
basically showing you a singular plan and bringing in last minute small incremental changes without proper time
to review, shouldn't be accepted. You should be stewards... thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Okay. Any other questions Council may have.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just have a comment. I think Sam you hit the nail on the head. The land is
improperly zoned, and I feel more than I did the last time we looked at it, that my hands are tied and I know
that sounds very powerless and we are the final authority, and it does feel powerless. However, that is the way
the land was zoned and the Ryan's are allowed to benefit from that zoning I guess is where I'm sitting. It's
going to be just as tough as it was the first time around.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Anything else? If seeing no other discussion, I would call a question reaffirming.
Councilman Senn: The question is reaffirming with the changes?
Mayor Chmiel: Correct. Reaffirming as to what with the proposed changes to be made to be implemented into
the platting for the development and preserving some of those, or minimize the grading in the areas that they
have brought forward this evening.
Councilman Senn: You need a motion to that I take it?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Senn: So moved.
Councilman Mason: I will second that.
Mayor Chmiel: A motion and a second. Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to reaffirm the previous motion for Shamrock Ridge
Development noting the grading changes presented by the applicant showing the removal of 2 lots. All voted in
favor, except Mayor Chmiel and Councilman Wing who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to oppose this also if I can make a statement. I personally find
myself respecting the applicants and they've been very respectful to me but I do feel that the night I voted I was
felt under extreme pressure at last minute changes and I hated to turn my back on the Planning Commission. I
think that's why maybe tonight just wishing to make this statement. They were very decisive in their statements
that this was the worst they had seen in 12 years and that it was tampering with the land kind of hit home. And
I agree, Colleen hit it on the head. I think our hands are tied and I think it's a zoning issue and perhaps the
Council will or will not address it in the future. But I do, just for the record, the comments made by Jerome
Carlson represents where I stand on the use of land and the lot size and the way to do this is to change the
density and that would be through zoning so, with his comments already on the record I'll just say ditto to that
and thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Very good, thank you. Next item.
Jerome Carlson: Mr. Mayor, what was the vote? That wasn't clear.
Mayor Chmiel: It was 3 to 2.
PRELEKWARY AND FINAL PLAT OF 1.87 ACRES INTO 3 SINGLE FAMQ.Y_L_OTS, 6330 MURRY HILL
ROAD HOBENS WILD WOOD FARMS 1ST ADDITION, HOBEN CORPORATION.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: This item first appeared before the Planning Commission on October 19th, 1994. The
proposal showed 1.87 acres that was going to be subdivided into 4 parcels and was going to be served by a
private street. The majority of the neighbors that appeared at the meeting seemed very concerned with the
density of 4 homes on that parcel. The applicant took the plan back and revised them. Basically took the 1.87
acres, divided it into 3 parcels. Eliminated the private street. The average lot size is 27,211 square feet. The
density is 1.6 units per acre. It exceeds all of the requirements of the ordinance. Access to this site will be
provided via Murray Hill Road and Sommergate. There is an existing single family home and detached garage
that are proposed to be removed and new homes will be built. It's truly a very simple, straight forward
subdivision and we are recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. There is one minor
correction on page 10. Condition number 14. On the third line. Driveway access to Lot 3 rather than Lot 1.
With that we're recommending approval, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Sharmin. Is there anything in addition to that that the developer would like to
present to what Sharmin has already indicated?
Jim Hoben: Not really... did bring this larger... This is Murray Hill Road...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So what's happened here basically is another lot has been dropped from this particular
development?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Exactly.
Mayor Chmiel: And some of the concerns I think that the neighbors had the last time with all the cars coming
off onto that same road, and now with the changes that are shown, we have two of those proposed lots exiting
onto Murray Hill with the other exiting on what street was that?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Sommergate.
L"
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Is there anyone here this evening who was here at the last meeting wishing to say
anything? Seeing none, is there a motion?
Councilman Senn: I have a question real quick. Condition 1. No offense but why are we getting that specific?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: That's just a standard.
Councilman Senn: In the second place, those aren't being the best methods to use.
Kate Aanenson: That's in all of them.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, maybe I'm just finally picking a bone with it but I mean to say that those two
practices are better than all the other practices out there, I guess we're requiring it in here?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: It's a standard condition we've always required. Charles, do you have any comments
regarding?
Kate Aanenson: It's from the Best Management Practices that the City adopted. So unless there's another
alternative that's acceptable under the Best Management Practice, that would be acceptable. Otherwise... same
thing.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so they're not self limiting to these two?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, unless there was something else that would be an equal practice that's acceptable.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions of staff? Anyone have any other questions? Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: As an addendum to condition number 2, I assume we're saving all the cottonwoods
and the black walnuts and all that other stuff?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Yes. One thing, the two cottonwoods located right here, the applicant has shown the house
pad over them but revised the plan later on and I believe it's shown on this plan to where both trees will be
saved.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. And do we have . a., penalty in here if they die within a couple years?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: We'll keep an eye on them.
Councilman Senn: I don't have a question. I have a comment I'd like to... I think this one is really different
than the one we reviewed previously with Shamrock. I guess I don't agree with all the statements that were
made. I think most of the cause there was the road but in looking at this and then looking back at the number,
I'm not going to say a number, all of the residential subdivisions that have come through here in recent history.
It seems like every single one of them, one of the major points of accomplishing the same thing, which is
reducing the number of lots. If that is in fact, you know I don't understand why we should sit up here and
haggle with that every time it comes to the City Council. I guess what I'd like to do is challenge ourselves as a
Council or whatever that maybe we should re -open the discussion of the ordinance as it relates to densities and
lot sizes. When we did that last time.
10
1
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: What you're saying is increase from where we're at now or?
Councilman Senn: Well, you know Don I went back to the Minutes of the meeting when we did that and there
was a lot of discussion about what the minimum lot size and I remember being uncomfortable with it when we
ended up voting on it and then I sense there were other people who were uncomfortable with it too but it
became one of those deals that's kind of like, well you know you've got to do something that's reasonable, blah,
blah, blah. And it seems to me it's a lot more clear cut just to do it and put it in ordinance form than to spend
hours every time one of these comes in and whittling process of whittling down lots, which is effectively what
we're doing. All we're doing is creating work by ourselves by establishing an artificially low ordinance and then
turn around and trying to achieve a higher standard. So why not just take the higher standard and put it in the
ordinance if that's what we really want to achieve. If not, let's quit paying it lip service and let's quit spending
hours whittling away at lots. I'd love somebody to name one lately that we haven't done that to. Whether it's
Shamrock, whether it's this, whether it's many others that have come, I really would like to see us look at that
and I think it's unfair to people to have this, I'm going to say somewhat undefined double standard.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Richard.
Councilman Wing: I found the applicant to be a very cooperative and they seemed to be very concerned about
the area and the neighborhood and he appears to be a very quality builder and I guess I would call him a good
corporate citizen. I would like to move approval of Hoben Wild Woods Farm 1st Addition with all of them,
with the addition to item number 14 as noted by Sharmin.
Councilman Senn: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the Preliminary and Final Plat for Subdivision
#94 -15 for Hobens Wild Wood Fauns First Addition for 3 single family lots as shown on the plans dated
October 24, 1994, subject to the following conditions:
1. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood
fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise.
2. The applicant shall work with the city in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on the site. This plan
shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their size. The vegetated areas which will not
be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement
shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased. vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6"
caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the
location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description.
3. Building Department condition that the applicant shall obtain demolition permits for any buildings to be
removed before their removal.
4. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and /or trail
construction.
5. The existing garage shall be removed no later than December 31, 1994. Financial guarantees shall be
posted with the city to ensure compliance with this condition.
11
I
I,
I
n
'J
1
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
6. The applicant shall dedicate the following conservation easements for the protection of trees:
a. A conservation easement over the northern 40 feet of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1.
b. A conservation easement over the northern 55 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot 2, Block 1.
7. The two black walnut trees in the center of Lot 3, Block 1 shall be preserved. A tree protection fence at
the canopy dripline for these trees shall be installed prior to any construction on Lot 3, Block 1. The tree
protection fence shall remain in place until the home is completed on Lot 3, Block 1.
8. The 50 inch dbh eastern cottonwood located in the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1 shall be saved. A
tree protection fence shall be installed at the dripline of the tree. An exception to this placement shall be to
the north of the tree where the tree protection fencing may be placed at the edge of the driveway easement.
The tree protection fence shall remain in place until the home is completed on Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 1.
9. The applicant shall provide the city with a $500.00 escrow prior to the city signing the final plat for review
and recording of the final plat documents.
10. The applicant shall apply for an obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies for demolition of
the existing buildings and disconnection of the utility lines for Lots 1 and 2.
11. No berming, landscaping or retaining walls will be allowed within the right -of -way or utility and drainage
easements without approval by the city, and the applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement.
12. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and
shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
13. Lot 3 will be charged a hook -up charge in the amount of $2,425.00 at the time of building permit issuance.
14. Driveway access to Lots 1 and 2 shall be limited to the existing driveway locations on Murray Hill. The
driveways may be expanded to a maximum width of 20 feet at the street. Driveway access to Lot 3 shall
be from Sommergate. The use of retaining walls shall be employed to minimize grading.
15. The applicant shall pay the city a SWMP water quality and quantity fee in the amount of $3,879.00 in lieu
of on -site ponding facilities. These fees are payable prior to the city signing the final plat.
All voted in favor and the motion caaied unanimously.
PRELDONARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9.7 ACRES INTO 48 SINGLE FAMILY TWIN HOMES• SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR 24 STRUCTURES• AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT LOCATED WEST OF
POWERS BOULEVARD JUST SOUTH OF LAKE SUSAN HILLS DRIVE POWER PLACE JASPER
DEVELOPMENT.
Sharmin Al -Jaff: I will give a brief background on this planned unit development before I give the staff report.
In 1987 the city approved a concept planned unit development approval for Lake Susan Hills. The PUD
permitted up to 411 single family units. Created 3 outlots for medium density units and one outlot for high
density units. All the single family units have been approved by the City Council. The total number of
12
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994 1
dwelling units of mixed medium density residential property was noted not to exceed 221 or a density greater
'
than 9.3 units per acre. To date only 24 units have been approved leaving a total number of dwelling units of
mixed medium density, residential property of 197. Jasper Homes was the developer of the 24 units that was
previously approved. There are two ordinances regulating this subdivision. The first one is the PUD that was
,
approved in 1987 and the second one is the R -8 zoning district which permits 8 units per acre. The Outlot B,
which is the outlot that we are looking at currently, is permitted to have 31% hard surface coverage and a
density not to exceed 9.3 units. The R -8 zoning district permits up to 35% hard surface coverage and up to 8
units per acre. The applicant is proposing 48 units, townhome housing project on Outlot B. The outlot was
'
designated as a medium density site. The townhomes are proposed to be owner occupied and be located on 48
zero lot line parcels. The gross density is 5 units per acre. Access will be provided via a private street. The
current site plan was designed on the basis that grading on the site must be minimized and existing spans of
'
trees on the site must be preserved. As mentioned earlier, there are two regulations influencing this subdivision.
The first one is the PUD that was approved in '87 and the second one is the R -8 zoning. If we look under the
R -8 zoning, the maximum coverage is 35 %. And if we look under the ordinance, the PUD ordinance, the
maximum coverage is 30% yet it allows a density of 9.3 units per acre. It is very difficult for the applicant to
'
put in 9.3 units per acre and maintain the required hard surface coverage. The applicant is providing a 5 units
per acre but is requesting a variance for the hard surface coverage. Staff is recommending approval of this
variance. This application was revised since it first appeared before the Planning Commission. One of the main
'
issues was retaining walls, some of the retaining walls were as high as 12 and 13 feet. The applicant has
terraced those retaining walls and as a condition of approval we are also recommending that fencing be provided
to separate the fencing, retaining wall, and landscaping to buffer the single family, the residential units and the
medium density. Access to the site was also an issue originally. The site was proposed to be served via two
access points onto Powers Boulevard. The plan has been revised to allow one access point off of Powers
Boulevard. There is mature stands of trees along the southern portion of this site, The private drive will be
wrapping around those trees to minimize impact on them. As part of the Planning Commission's
'
recommendations,...two mature oak trees.
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Mayor Chmiel: Is the developer here? Would you like to make a presentation? Please state your name and
address and who you're representing.
'
Jim Jasper: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Jim Jasper. I'm with Jasper
Development, the owners of the project. What we put before you is a model of the project that is being
proposed with the exception of the slight adjustment of the unit that Sharmin referred to and had to ... save the
,
oak trees. As you can see on the side closest to me is Powers Blvd. There's the one single entrance into the
project about in the middle and then the road goes to the cul =de -sac that goes ... to serve all the units. The
retaining walls are all terraced so I think the maximum height of any wall is I believe 5 feet and at the tops of
,
the highest walls we're proposing to fence those for security reasons. For safety reasons and then landscape
behind those to soften the... The units themselves, there are two types of plans. Those on the uphill side are
slab on grade and then the one story units. The ones on the downhill side closest to Powers Blvd are one story
walkout units. Most of them with a walkout basement... Powers Blvd. The intent is to berm and landscape to
the extent possible along Powers Blvd, to the south side... The materials being used are maintenance free
materials and the architect of the project can describe those to you if you'd like in more detail. I think as far as
the hard surface coverage requirements is concerned, Sharmin mentioned that we are exceeding in our request
'
what the PUD agreement requires. However, I think we're equally what the R -8 zoning allows which is 35 %.
As you may have noted... requested density is significantly lower than would be allowed for this site but as we
13
w
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
discovered in planning the project, really the only way you could achieve a higher density would be to stack
units and put them in clusters of 8 or something like that and that was not the market that we felt we wanted to
try to meet, nor did we think it was appropriate for the site. So this will have a very low profile look to it.
Probably be somewhat unobtrusive to the single family residents who are perched on top of the hill up above it.
I think it will be a very attractive development. Do you have any specific questions...?
Mayor Chmiel: Were there any questions by Council?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, I'm having a hard time seeing where the, is each ridge here, is that a wall?
Jim Jasper: Each, no.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I didn't think so.
Jim Jasper: Each of those represents a 2 foot, roughly a 2 foot change in the grade as you go up the hill.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So where would the retaining walls be?
Jim Jasper: The retaining walls you can see here where there's an abrupt change in the grade. That's where a
retaining wall would occur.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So you've got more than a 2 foot drop there?
Jim Jasper: Yeah. This wall for instance, I don't have the plan in front of me but this is a double drop
retaining wall. It's terraced so there's probably a 6 foot area, flat area between the two terraces. What we're
proposing to do then is right along the top edge of this wall to fence that so the children inadvertently coming
down the hill, whether it be running or sledding or whatever, won't fall over the edge of the hill.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And that ridge up there is not looped barbed wire, is what it looks like. Is that
shrubs?
Jim Jasper: It's intended to be greenery...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is the trees here, is that the landscape plan as well or is that different?
Jim Jasper: It's only an indication of it. I think landscape plans were submitted with the project.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But this doesn't reflect the specific landscape plan?
Jim Jasper: Not absolutely.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Except for the cluster of trees that are there?
Jim Jasper: That's correct. And as you can see along Powers Blvd here, there's some indication of berms in
here. These will be landscaped and shrubbed. Again to break the views so we don't have just an open field of
all... The architecture, one of the things that concerned the Planning Commission was the appearance of this
project as people drove by it on Powers Blvd so what the architect has done he has introduced some
14
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
architectural elements into these units to give them some variation. Rather than having them in a straight line
configuration like they had originally, he's meandered them somewhat. That gives us deeper back yards in some
places and less in others so that it gives a little more interest and breaks the monotony.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And what is the list price for these units?
Jim Jasper: Phil, price?
Phil Jungbluth: $110,000.00 and up.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Which means realistically $120- $125,000.00 for most of them.
Jim Jasper: I know if Prairie Creek is any indication, we started that project thinking that our base price would
be between $130 and $140, which it was, and most of those units over there have sold at $180 to $190,000.00.
That may be a little bit different market being that people, those are mostly empty nester buyers and so it's kind
of their last gasp to buy a home and so maybe they tend to load those things up a little bit more. But I think
what Phil is talking about is truly a base price so people will be inclined to add things like porches and air
conditioning and...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Thank you. Is there anyone wanting to address this at this time? Okay,
if not. Mark. Do you have any comments?
Councilman Senn: No, not at this time.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any questions?
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright.
Councilman Senn: Well I guess one comment. I'd like to see 35 removed. If we're going to pass that
ordinance, I think we ought to pass the ordinance rather than we should start sticking them here, there and
somewhere. It's hard to call it a requirement.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I agree.
Councilman Senn: I thought that was a real oddity.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think it's going to be...
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I think we're going to accomplish the same thing anyway but I'd hate to have to go
back at some future date and figure out who we did and who we didn't.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
15
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Councilman Mason: No comment.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I have a concern, now that Richard has explained to me what cyclone fences
are, that visually just sounds atrocious. What are we going to be doing to screen that? I mean I understand...
Kate Aanenson: Well the issue with the neighbors, what would be aesthetic so you could see through it. So
what's going to happen is the fence will be on the townhouse side and the landscaping will be on the neighbors
side and that's what they requested. The neighbors. The adjacent neighbors.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But still, you're going to be able to see it from Powers, aren't you? I mean is
there anyway to accomplish.
Kate Aanenson: I'm not sure how much of it you'll see.
Mayor Chmiel: Before we get to 1 foot of barb on top, what's it going to look like?
Phil Jungbluth: The fence that we're talking about is a vinyl covered kind so I'm sure you've seen them.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Like the green?
Phil Jungbluth: Like it's green or black vinyl covered chainlink fence...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And the neighbors are amenable to that? I mean it was more of a safety concern.
Phil Jungbluth: I thought they were.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. To me that strikes me as atrocious but.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Not from me, no.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard.
Councilman Wing: Nothing.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. The only thing on the maintenance and upkeep of those fences, who's going to have that
responsibility?
Jim Jasper: Homeowners association...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: One more comment please.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
16
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
understood the answer I was looking for on the '
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think the developer misunderstood g pricing.
P
Yet one more time we're putting in townhomes that are not achieving anywhere near what's moderate income
housing in Chanhassen. You know one of the concerns raised by the neighbors is what is the city getting out of '
this and not a lot to be honest. It's a different type of housing and it will serve a certain market and I have no
doubt it will be successful and it will look fine. It's just yet again we see a development that's not achieving
something that we're looking to achieve. Having said that, I will move approval with the deletion of condition '
35.
Councilman Wing: Second.
,
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded for the preliminary plat to subdivide the 9.7 acres into 48 single
family homes, twinhome site plan review for 24 structures and a wetland alteration permit located west of
Powers Blvd. Now this would also entail an approval, and before we move that particular motion, we still have
'
the wetlands. Wetland Alteration Permit as well on that so I'm just bring that to your attention at this time.
The motion's been made and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: A quick comment on the housing issue. If I'm not mistaken, isn't there going to be some
presentation in January to the HRA about options for affordable housing in this city?
Mayor Chmiel: Yep, right.
Councilman Mason: Which yeah it's, the city needs to do something and HRA needs to do something about
that, not the developers at this point. I mean it's just not in their purview I don't think, whether I like that or
'
not. I think that's the option. So come to the HRA meeting in January.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there any discussion on the wetlands? As I look through this, I see that we're allowing
3 wetlands to be filled for the proposed development and even though there was some discussions previously in
the staff report, that these were probably not wetlands at one time, is that what you're basically saying? Are we
going to have enough area for the drainage going to the ponding?
'
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Yes we will.
Mayor Chmiel: And that will suffice all those specific needs for that?
Sharmin Al -Jaff: Correct. They are truly substandard in quality and with the mitigation that will be taking
place, it will improve it's quality substantially. '
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Very good. Okay, I guess that was the only other question I really had. Oh. One other
thing too on the proposal for the street lighting that I had seen in here and what you have. If we were to
approve it, which is on page 14. It says the applicant should submit a street lighting plan for the staff review '
and approval. I want to see that say will. I'd like that a little stronger than should. And I'm looking at item 4
and 9, the lighting plan shall be submitted for the interior private streets. There again shall is permissive. I
think we should put something really a little stronger. And that I'll let you toy that in there. Okay, any other
discussion on wetlands.
1 77
L
17 1
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve PUD #87 -3, Wetland Alteration
Permit #94 -5, and Site Plan Review #94 -7 as shown on the plans dated September 23, 1994, subject to the
following conditions:
1. A "No Parking" restriction shall be designated along the private streets. Appropriate "No Parking"
restrictions /signs shall be placed on the private street.
2. Amend the PUD Contract to state the impervious surface coverage of the site cannot exceed 35 %.
3. The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the applicant in their
attached narrative. Introduce some variation among buildings facing Powers Boulevard through the shape
of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, adding dormers, or color. Introduce new elements to
break up the large roof span.
4. The applicant will submit a street lighting plan for staff review and approval.
5. A cross - access easement shall be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street.
6. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of parkland dedication.
7. Plans shall provide one visitor parking space per 6 units.
8. Fencing shall be placed around the stand of trees to minimize impact during construction. Protected trees
lost due to construction must be replaced on a 1.2 canopy basis in accordance with a plan approved by
staff.
9. A lighting plan will be submitted for the interior private streets.
10. A revised landscaping plan which provide additional landscaping and berming along Powers Boulevard (CR
17), and the westerly portion of the site.
11. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final
plat approval. The plat must be revised to include the approved names after their review.
12. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. An additional fire hydrant shall be installed at the new "T" intersection. The remaining fire hydrants
shall be relocated with equal spacing. Fire hydrants shall be placed a maximum of 300 feet apart.
Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations.
b. Submit new street names for review and approval.
c. A twenty foot wide fire land must be maintained on the new proposed north/south street. "No Parking
Fire Lane" signs shall be installed on both sides of the street with 75 foot spacing.
18
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
13. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new
developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval.
14. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc -
mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
15. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review
and City Council approval. The street shall be constructed in accordance to the City's private driveway
ordinance for multi family zoning (Ordinance #209). Issuance of permits and inspection of the utility lines
will be performed by the city's Building Department. Streets and utilities, except the ponding areas, storm
sewer outlet and pipe systems, shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association.
16. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The city
will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20.00 per
sign.
17. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and
provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface
Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed
pre - developed and post developed storm water calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water
level and high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations between
each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized.
18. The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial
security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract.
19. Applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the
State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented
prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project.
20. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver
County Highway Department, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps
of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
21. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from the
units.
22. 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.
23. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way or utility and drainage easements
without approval by the City. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement.
19
�
L-1
I City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
24. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of
3 feet above the 100 year high water level.
25. The proposed storm water ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water
level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The pond(s) shall be sized in
accordance to the city's Surface Water Management Plan.
26. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The requirement for cash in lieu of
land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use
zoning.
27. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be
evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design requirements.
28. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and
shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
29. Prior to final platting, the applicant, county and city shall meet to discuss /resolve the specifics on pond
design and access to the site.
30. No decks or any portion of the dwellings may encroach into the city's drainage and utility easements.
31. The curves in the private street lying south of the access shall be "softened" to accommodate public safety
vehicle turning movements.
32. The plat should be redesigned to remove those lot lines which encroach upon the 25 foot building setback
line.
33. The applicant shall evaluate the potential for impacts to adjacent building foundations during the
grading process.
34. Retaining walls shall be engineered to incorporate subsurface drainage and surface water runoff.
35. The applicant shall provide a safety fence or other landscaping provisions to help prevent children from
falling over the retaining walls. These safety provisions or fencing shall be discussed and approved by
city staff considering the discussion held at the Planning Commission meeting.
36. The applicant shall relocate Unit 20 to save the 24 and 30 inch oak trees. 2 of the 4 oak trees shall be
saved in the vicinity of Unit 21, at a minimum, by relocating the placement of the unit. If it is not
possible to save at least 2 of the 4 oak trees in that vicinity, the unit shall be omitted from the
development.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
20
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994 ,
21 1
,
APPEAL OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS DECISION TO DENY A 1.5 FOOT
VARIANCE TO THE 25 FOOT REQUIREMENT 8283 ESSEX ROAD, JASPER DEVELOPMENT.
Adjustments Appeals denied Jasper
,
John Rask: At the November 14, 1994 meeting the Board of and
Development's appeal for a 1 1/2 foot variance from the 25 foot setback requirement for the construction of a
three season porch. The 25 foot setback requirement was established by the PUD agreement for Lake Susan
Hills. The Board denied the variance and based their decision on the following Findings. One, the Board has
'
set a .precedent of asking people to remove structures which do not comply with setback requirements. Two, the
City Building official made a very strong effort to correct the possible encroachment before the structure was
erected. And three, the applicant did not submit the requested information to the Building Official when asked
'
for and proceeded with construction of the three season porch. Just to give you a little background on how all
this came about. The City Building officials received a complaint from a resident in a near by subdivision that
this three season porch may be encroaching into the setback requirement. The City Building officials requested
information verifying the location of the property line to determine the correct setback. However this
'
information was not provided until after the porch was built. At that time it was discovered that the porch did
encroach into this 25 foot setback and the applicant now is requesting a variance, an after the fact variance to
correct this violation. To give you an idea of the surrounding land use, the adjoining property to the north is
,
Lake Susan Hill Park. This area of the park is low and wide and will probably remain as open space. To the
west would be Powers Boulevard and to the east would be the Prairie Creek townhomes. At this time I'd be
happy to answer any questions you may have. Steve Kirchman from Public Safety is also here this evening to
'
answer any questions that you may have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you John. I'm just wondering whether Willard had any, Willard Johnson who is
Chair of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Do you have anything you'd like to say at this time Willard?
'
Willard Johnson: Yeah, I have a couple things. I feel one of the reasons we denied it too, if we're going to
bend to all the city contractors that says whoops, we made a mistake. We've got a number of contractors in the
,
city who do... I think this is the first time that we've had a contractor say whoops, I made a mistake...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here?
,
Jim Jasper: Jim Jasper again Mr. Chairman, Jasper Development and Jay Jasper of Jasper Development. I think
that somehow there has been a misunderstanding of what the chain of events was that really caused this
problem. To explain a little bit, this porch or sun room that we're speaking of is part of a three unit complex
,
that was, as one unit was located naturally by the surveyor, all three were located and allegedly they were
located according to the site plan and development plan. And all three units were located within their individual
lots. Now when we do a townhouse lot we allow the lot to be deeper front to back than the size of the unit...
'
an encroachment of say a bay window or something like that where... An error was made by the surveyor when
we staked these units. The foundation of the unit was to go in but I need to point out that the sunroom on this
unit did not have a foundation under it. It's supported on three posts. And at the time that the neighbor
apparently made a decision that there might be an encroachment there which resulted in him filing a complain
'
or a question to the city about this, that unit was already framed up. That's the only way he could have known
that there was an encroachment or the possibility of an encroachment because there was no foundation on which
to base that judgment. Where the miscommunication perhaps comes in is Mr. Kirchman, or the building
,
department made us aware that there was a question raised about whether or not there was an encroachment and
asked us to have the surveyor verify the setback from the back comer. At that time our understanding was that
once it was discovered that there was a 15 3/8 inch encroachment, which is what this actually is, on one corner
'
21 1
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
' of the building incidentally. It's not the whole back of the porch. It's one corner of the building that's
encroaching about 15 3/8 inches. When it was discovered that that was the problem, our understanding and it
' may have been a misunderstanding, was that we would need to apply for a variance but that since the structure
was already up, we would not be required to remove the structure. And we may have misunderstood the intent
of that but we certainly would have not have gone ahead and completed and finished the interior of it had we
known that we faced the real risk of having to demolition that porch or at least really all or part of it because of
'
the ... so we proceeded under apparently a misunderstanding as to what we was expected of us. A later criticism
was made of us was that the delay in applying for the variance and I will acknowledge that looking back on it
now, it does seems like an inordinate amount of time passed from the time this problem was first discovered to
' when we actually applied for the variance. Again we ... a misunderstanding that while we needed to do this, it
was not an urgent matter to get it accomplished. It didn't mean that we weren't going to apply for the variance.
It didn't mean that we wouldn't... What this all gets down to is we have a little over a 15 inch encroachment on
a porch. 11 you go over there and drive by the site, there's nothing that would suggest to you that there's any
' encroachment at all. First of all we're not encroaching on anybody's property. We're encroaching about 15
inches on a 25 foot setback. That setback is abutting a city park and the city park that it abuts is undeveloped
park. My understanding is that there are no plans to develop that portion of the park because it's set aside as a
' wetland there. And I realize that it's a dangerous precedent to grant variances. I understand that. But at the
same time, we as the builder don't build perfect buildings. We occasionally make mistakes and had we known
that the expectation was ultimately going to be that we remove that, we certainly wouldn't have been foolish
' enough to proceed with completing that structure. If you think we're brazen enough to think that we had the
gall to come in here and expect you to approve a variance because we had the building all done, that was not
the case at all. We clearly misunderstood what was expected of us. We could easily have slid that unit forward
15 inches and stayed within it's lot had we known that ... that it was encroaching on ... setback. We apparently
' didn't know that and .so...That's really all I have to say.
Jay Jasper: The other thing is, at the time that this was discovered. Mr. Kirchman had tried to get ahold of me
' and I was, I lacked getting back to him but once we did.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you please state your name.
' Jay Jasper: Oh, I'm Jay Jasper of Jasper Development, sorry. We played the proverbial phone tag for I would
say about a week so there was a large delay and the majority of that was my fault in the beginning but at the
time that was up, there was no electrical brought in. No insulating. No stucco to remodel that corner or to fix
' that porch at that time would have been very easy for us. The unit wasn't sold. And so if we had known that
would have been any issue within our communications with public safety, we would have taken that up at that
time. We sold the unit. We lost the buyer because of that. That happens but we need to direct it by it so that
' we can sell the unit and move forward. It's very hard for us to think of any practical way to take care of that
issue without virtually tearing the whole porch out and that's that issue. Because of my lack of communicating.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any questions at this time?
' Councilman Mason: I was under the impression when I was going through this, how much of this porch is
encroached on the easement?
Jay Jasper: Can I draw you a little picture? It's a triangular comer. It's like, the setback runs like through
here. This is 25 feet and this is the 15 3/8 inches. We did have a footing inspection. They do, the building
' department does a footing inspection and at that time they checked out and so we, you know before construction
22
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
we didn't have any reason to believe that that had hired a surveyor, getting the permit approved and having a
footing inspection, that there would have been an encroachment. There are checks and balances and we point a
finger at our surveyor and probably ourselves but that's why we hire those people to do that and that's why it
goes through the permitting process. It happened. If it backed up to the neighbor's, you know directly to the
neighbor's yard or something, you know I could see that they're gaining a lot more resistance to this but it backs
up really to Powers Boulevard. The corner kind of faces Powers Boulevard and the wetlands and the park.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a question for Steve. Trying to following the chain of events and who's..
I'd like to know exactly what the date was that the work stop order was given and I understand that to be.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Steve could answer that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm reading July 8th in the Minutes but that seems to be in question.
Steve Kirchman: Okay, yeah. The stop work order was issued on July 8th and Jasper's response at that time
was pretty immediate. They called me and promised to me that they would get the lot re- surveyed with stakes
put up so it could be definitely determined whether or not there was an encroachment, which is why I lifted it 3
days later on the 11th.
Jay Jasper: We did have a surveyor... in fact I got someone to go out there that Saturday. That was on a Friday
I think...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And at that point the surveyor made a mistake?
Jay Jasper: No, he put in the lot corners so that, I guess... engineering wanted to go out and check the
measurement first so they staked that back corner.
Steve Kirchman: The engineering department and I went out previous to the 8th and put some stakes there
ourselves but we're not surveyor's and by our determination there was about a 2 foot encroachment. I should
tell you that every ... that building so we could definitely determine whether there was an encroachment or not.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Thanks.
Councilman Wing: What was exactly up at that time? On the 8th.
Steve Kirchman: It was framed up. The roof was on. The exterior was sheeted.
Councilman Wing: And the total here is 15 and 3/4.
Mayor Chmiel: 15 inches plus. Give some, take some.
those proposed sun porches or whatever they're called.
that shown for construction on the plans at that time?
I I
�I
The question that I had, upon submittal to the city for
I think they're really 4 season porches right now. Was '
Steve Kirchman: The 3 season or 4 season porches were definitely shown on the plans. The survey showed the
portion of the building to the rear as being a deck and that apparently created some confusion with the plan
23
C
u
7-
�J
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
reviewer and he didn't pick up on it in looking from one to the other that it was indeed an enclosed structure
and had he picked up on that at his plan review, then they would not have been issued.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Any other questions for Jasper Development? I guess not, thank you. The
question is now, I'd like some comments. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well I served on Willard's team for quite a while and I was fairly rigid on these variances
up until one on Kerber Boulevard came through. A real delightful couple wanted to put on a three season
porch. They needed 10 feet and I voted against it and the Council approved it and that's one of the nicest
additions I've ever seen in the city and it made the structure look better and frankly it's the, at any rate, 1 like
what got passed and it changed my mind on variances a little bit. I think that we have our rules and we have
our setbacks and we have our ordinances and I think we want to comply with them and I think we want to take
them seriously but it doesn't mean that someone doesn't have the right to come in and say you know, I really
would like to do this and I think it would fit in and it doesn't affect anybody and it does do this. I think it's
okay to be a little flexible. I don't think we set dangerous precedence. I think there are the people that come in
and they want a little favor, it's best for them. It doesn't affect anybody else. I don't think we change our rules
and ordinances in the process, and in this case I think oops do happen and I think oops are okay. The one we
did over on Minnewashta Parkway last year, the year before, somebody had a whole foundation in and all of a
sudden a neighbor who hasn't been in his back yard for 30 years said my word, I've got 6 inches on my
property. You know everything went biserk over there. 15 inches, and what's involved here and with all due
respect to engineering and code enforcement's important to me. I think what we enforce today, fire code and
building codes, prevent the problems in the future and I don't deny that at all but for 15 inches here with a
structure that's up, I just have no trouble with this at all. I think it's a reasonable request and I think it's a minor
request and a reasonable request. I have no problem with this so I would support the variance request.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I don't have a problem with the structure per se. I have a problem with the
proceedings, how it happened. I mean the fact that it's up and it doesn't affect anything and it's not hurting
anyone, at least that I can see, again is not the point. The point is a stop work order was issued and it seems to
be it was disregarded. Are you disagreeing Steve?
Steve Kirchman: I don't know. He immediately responded to the stop work order and he did make some
promises and from our point of view, it doesn't seem like he followed through on those promises. I couldn't say
what his difficulties were. If it's lack of communication. If they dropped the ball on their end. I really couldn't
say. I can't say. He did respond immediately to the stop work order but that's usually the case so.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, that kind of gets their attention right. So I'm not in the mood to hand slap
but it is disconcerting. But I mean we're talking about taking down a whole structure and that just doesn't make
sense to me.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well I voted against that 10 foot porch Richard. I remember that very clearly and I drive
by it every day and it does look very nice. I will grant that. There are a couple, as of last night I was planning
on voting against this and I quite honestly don't know how I'm going to vote. Believe it or not, I really don't.
It does seem a pretty minuscule problem. However I do share Willard's concern about people coming in and
24
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994 '
saying geez, I didn't know. 12 inches seems a little insignificant. A bigger problem, and this isn't even part of
this but I want to make it part of it, at least if nothing else to be in the Minutes, is how this turned into a porch '
when it was supposed to be a deck. And I see a nodding in the back and yeah, that is a concern. I see, quite
honestly I see that as a much greater concern than I'm going to give everyone the benefit of the doubt here and
say that I do believe that that 12 1/2 inches or whatever was ... I don't have any trouble with that at all. But I
think, I guess I see that the city needs to do, I don't know what. Some tightening up or whatever. And again, if '
this is an oops on the city's part from it going into a deck to a 3 season porch, well okay. But I think it
behooves us all to be as careful as we possibly can on stuff like this and Steve, I don't know. I mean obviously
this isn't your purview here because I would guess you don't do a whole lot of plat reviews. And I don't know. ,
I mean I'm not going to slap any, that's not my intent here at all but I wonder if some of this could have not
happened had we been able to catch it in the first place. But we didn't and it's before us. I have consistently
voted against variances so I'm having a real, yeah I don't know how I'm going to vote so that's all I'm going to
say. '
Councilman Senn: My, aren't we rigid.
Councilman Mason: Not very often. Not very often. ,
Councilman Senn: I on the other hand view ordinances as being guidelines, not hard and fast rules. You know ,
if somebody would come in and ask for a 15 inch variance up front, I don't think I'd have too big of a problem
with it. I don't generally disagree too much with Willard and Carol but I didn't happen to be there that night so
Don was the sticky I guess.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, you were lucky. ,
Councilman Senn: Yeah, it sounds like it. Boy, I share Colleen's concerns over the process and Mike's over the ,
deck versus the porch. I share the concerns over the precedent that it sets on the basis that it's kind of like after
the fact and the structure's there and does that open the door, I don't know. Maybe that's for Roger to answer. I
don't know if he even wants to try. I don't know what kind of precedence it sets one way or the other. Does it '
set one?
Roger Knutson: Only in the very limited sense. Precedence is used two ways. I think you're mostly concerned
with just treating similarly situated people similarly on the basis of fairness, which is fine. Which is '
commendable. But as far as a legal concern that if you approve one, and someone else comes in a year later or
6 months later, do you have to approve it because your hands are tied then, the answer is no.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Well I guess hearing that, you know if there was a real legal concern on precedent I ,
guess I would view a potential option as being maybe 15 inches of our land. Sell it to them and make them pay
all the costs along that side to pick it up and that might solve the whole problem. But if there is really no legal '
reason for doing that, I hate to give up 15 inches of our land but, and I'm not being facetious either. I guess
what I would like to see, to send a message, is I guess I wouldn't have a problem approving the variance but I
don't know whether this is possible or not but I'd also like to see some form of financial penalty involved so
you send a clear message that says basically don't do it again. ,
Mayor Chmiel: That was one of the suggestions that 1 had made that particularly evening as well.
25 1
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Councilman Senn: Yeah, and I would have far less problems with it on that basis. If we could do that. Now
again, I don't know whether we have the purview to do that or not do it.
Roger Knutson: Double permit fees would not be out of whack I don't think. I don't know what that number
is.
Steve Kirchman: Could we double fee them after the fact like that?
Councilman Senn: As a condition of the variance.
Steve Kirchman: I mean the building code's pretty specific about why you can double fee people. I don't know
that that's applicable in this situation.
Roger Knutson: Not directly obviously. What kind of money are we talking about?
Steve Kirchman: They could probably answer that better than me. I don't really know what the permit fee was
on this.
Jay Jasper: I think the permit fee part, not the SAC and WAC and all those fees, usually the penalty is based
on like.
Steve Kirchman: Just the permit fee.
Jay Jasper: I think it's like $400.00. $300. - $400.00. I don't know.
Steve Kirchman: What was the value of the building?
Jay Jasper: $100,000.00 I think is what we put down.
Steve Kirchman: What he said is generally in the right area.
Roger Knutson: I'm sure you'd find that acceptable wouldn't you?
Jay Jasper: Yeah. I mean yeah.
Roger Knutson: Since the applicant finds that very acceptable, I don't see any problem with it.
Councilman Senn: I love the way you did that Roger.
Jay Jasper: We would like to make one statement. I think that it takes, we haven't built in Chanhassen for a
very long time. Every community is different. Steve's different than the guys in Prior Lake and the guys in
Chaska and the guys in Waconia and it takes time for them to understand us and for us to understand them.
When we talked to the State Building Department, Chanhassen has one of the probably highest regarded
building departments as far as enforcement of the code and understanding of the code. You go to other
communities and they're all over the place and so it takes time to adjust to each building department and I think
communication is part of that, We've tried to do a better job of that and obviously this is a lesson we would
like to avoid. We're not very happy with our surveyor. You know he's gotten us into ... and he will be dealt
26
Councilman Mason: We've got the landscaping stuff here. '
Andrew Olson: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. '
Mark Harlander: Hi. I'm Mark Harlander and I live at 83.20 West Lake Court which is adjacent to the
development and I guess I agree with your comments. I don't really have a problem with 15 inches and I think ,
the townhouses came out. They look good. The people that have moved in there are good quality people to
have in the city but we moved from Nebraska about a year, a little over a year ago and we bought a house
based on plans that Andy hadn't maybe seen and I went out there. I had my real estate agent get the plans for
the townhomes. I didn't really have a problem with them if they were going to be a higher level townhomes. I ,
went to where the lot line was. I walked off 40 feet. I took a look back at the house. We have a fairly deep
back yard but then 40 feet, I figured living quarters 40 feet from there and then they started building and it
seemed like it was getting closer and closer and closer. All of a sudden, not a 4 season porch or 3 season ,
porch, I have a framed in living unit. It's not any indication that it's a porch 25 feet from my lot line and when
I bought the house I was thinking 40 feet with a deck they might be on 15% of the time. So to me that's what
really irritated me and the neighbors adjacent to me is that everyone in the neighborhood had gone to these
meetings. As they were built and going through this deal. The plan that they showed you tonight for their new ,
27 1
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
with on this as a contractor but I really believe that we didn't try to get by with anything... so we need to get this
solved without tearing the thing off...
'
Councilman Wing: I'll make a motion approving the required variance.
Mayor Chmiel: Before you go to that. We do have an individual here who did speak at the Board and
'
Adjustment and Appeals and I'd like him to just come forward. Please state your name and your address.
Andrew Olson: Andrew Olson, 8290 West Lake Court. I'm not adjoining that property currently but close to it
and when they first applied for their permits to go in that area and I knew it was zoned for medium density and
'
that was fine with me ... and they said then we'll do all the grading. We'll seed everything down so you won't
have it blowing—seeded down, a big pile of dirt there with a lot of weeds on it and they said it looked like
Waconia. What they had done similar and I took pictures of the Waconia townhomes, the backs of them which
,
have no 4 season porches, and a lot of the neighbors didn't like how plain they looked. They said we'll dress
them up and they showed us a back elevation showing a deck. They gave us what they handed out, had made
up showing the landscaping and like I show you this whole process but here in this landscaping plan it shows
'
40 feet from the line to the house proper to about 30 feet to the deck. Again there's nothing showing and as far
as this building coming out there on posts. This 4 season porch. Part of the solid building. They said they'd
take care of all the roads in there. We have 3 roads in and out sometimes. They shovel it down and they track
mud in and out beyond what they had planned on. You know we just didn't get what we were promised.
'
There's a lot of litter blowing around. I pick up stuff in my back yard. The parkland had stuff blowing. The
slew across the street to the south had stuff blown into it. And some of it was—but I didn't see anybody—clean
anything up. But I want to know the exact date. Now when I complained about this thing, I thought it was
'
about 3 feet over the line ... want a surveyor. But they were just a footing at that time. And the footings and the
basement wall was poured but there was no framing up there. That house was not built out there at that time.
'My first complaint, it wasn't framed out and awaiting finishing. It was still in the raw and there were no posts
in line. Just concrete and that could have been shorten at that time.
'
Councilman Mason: We've got the landscaping stuff here. '
Andrew Olson: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. '
Mark Harlander: Hi. I'm Mark Harlander and I live at 83.20 West Lake Court which is adjacent to the
development and I guess I agree with your comments. I don't really have a problem with 15 inches and I think ,
the townhouses came out. They look good. The people that have moved in there are good quality people to
have in the city but we moved from Nebraska about a year, a little over a year ago and we bought a house
based on plans that Andy hadn't maybe seen and I went out there. I had my real estate agent get the plans for
the townhomes. I didn't really have a problem with them if they were going to be a higher level townhomes. I ,
went to where the lot line was. I walked off 40 feet. I took a look back at the house. We have a fairly deep
back yard but then 40 feet, I figured living quarters 40 feet from there and then they started building and it
seemed like it was getting closer and closer and closer. All of a sudden, not a 4 season porch or 3 season ,
porch, I have a framed in living unit. It's not any indication that it's a porch 25 feet from my lot line and when
I bought the house I was thinking 40 feet with a deck they might be on 15% of the time. So to me that's what
really irritated me and the neighbors adjacent to me is that everyone in the neighborhood had gone to these
meetings. As they were built and going through this deal. The plan that they showed you tonight for their new ,
27 1
' City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
1
1
development, you should take a good look at it because I don't think it's going to look anything like what they
showed you tonight. There isn't one tree in one spot that I have on that plan that I got from my real estate
agent. There's some trees back there but there's barely any room to put a pine tree inbetween 25 feet to the
house and the lot where there was 40 to 35 feet and patches of trees, 3 or 4 clumps. Now they can only put the
single trees along the lot line because of the way it came forward. Again 15 inches, I don't really care about
that. I just, in the planning for the city, to me you have to, you know if you're going to show somebody and
you're going to have the neighborhood come to the meetings and make our comments and make adjustments,
then they should stick to them. Somehow it became a 4 season porch/living quarters versus a deck and
everyone in the neighborhood never saw those 4 season porches on any plans. Any approval. Any meeting and
then all of a sudden they were there and at the meeting, you know I was at the... Someone from the city
admitted that that got by them. They wouldn't have probably approved the plan if that was a 4 season porch.
And if that would have been a deck, this variance wouldn't be a problem because the deck, you can be a couple
feet either side of the 25 foot line but it's not a deck. It's a permanent unit. That's why it's an issue. That's my
only comment and I paid what I think is a lot of money for a house that now I've got someone 25 foot from my
back yard. I can watch his TV from my living room so.
Councilman Senn: I'm just curious. As neighbors, what would you see as a solution at this point?
Mark Harlander: Well to me the guy next to us moved. He retired and moved and when he was selling his
house, it's definitely an issue how close those townhomes were. You know he'd have several buyers through
and he said yeah, they don't like those townhomes. They're too close. They don't like them. If they're going to
spend $180,000.00 on a house, or more, and they've got these townhomes. Well they can go other places and
spend that amount of money and not have townhomes that close. Again, I think they look nice. Whatever. It's
just that it seems like the people that live there were somewhat slighted in what was put up, even though I don't
not like them. It's just, I don't know what I can do. When I go to sell my house, it's going to be an issue,
unless I wait for those trees to grow real tall and plant a whole bunch more behind me so, you know it blocks it
but, and I'll probably do that in the spring. Start planting trees. But I don't know what the solution other than
that. To me it feels like the neighborhood association and all the people ... were slighted by a plan that was
misrepresented from what was there. That's the way it goes but I think the units look great. Now that they're
done. It's just that they're a lot closer than what I anticipated when I purchased the house. And I also bid on a
house here on Lotus Lake and it didn't work out so I bid on two houses in Chanhassen... first one that met the
price and now I'm thinking well maybe I should have just waited and gotten one on Lotus Lake because of all
the things that have transpired since then because that was fully developed behind there. They couldn't do
anything different to that so that's it. Thanks.
Councilman Senn: I'm just curious, we've heard a number of different concerns relating to other development
issues. Has staff performed an evaluation of how this project has or hasn't met the conditions of the
development contract, or whether it's a PUD?
Kate Aanenson: This PUD was represented to the neighborhood and there were certain conditions. The person
is no longer with the staff that reviewed that project. I think you're right. I think maybe we could have looked
at it closer as far as what was represented as far as decks or porches. That person signed off on all the original
permits and that's usually what we do. Whoever worked on the project usually is the one to sign off all the
permits to make sure there's a continuity of issues that were raised and conditions of the PUD agreement. That
person did issue the first building permits so I'm assuming that they were consistent with the plan. There is
landscaping that still needs to be put in place. There is a letter of credit in place for that so additional
landscaping will be put in adjacent to these gentlemen's property but you're right. I think that's something we
28
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994 '
have to make sure that we're on top of Making sure the conditions of the PUD agreement are upheld. Now
when they misrepresent something and a new person takes it over, sometimes that happens. When it's a deck
and it's supposed to be a porch, as I stated earlier, that was an oversight. If it's an enclosed or 3 season porch,
'
it has different setbacks than a standard deck. But what happens lots of times too, you issue it as a deck and 2
years later they come back and they want to enclose it. You have the same situation but you're right. Internally
we can make sure that we, we have asked that, as you recall we had a rash of these before. Now when the
'
building department does plan checks, if they notice that it's a walkout, there's sliding glass doors or something
like that, they identify on the plans that there's a possibility of a deck being placed on the future and they mark
it that way so as we review those, it raises a flag for us to indicate to the builder that if you are going to put a
deck on here, or a porch, that you may not be able to meet setbacks. You'll recall we had a rash of these as far
as wetland setbacks and we've changed our policy on how we handle those.
Jay Jasper: Just a comment to city staff. I think the city staff does a rather thorough job of keeping us posted
'
on issues that are part of the PUD contract. Flood range. Seeding. We get a punch list, typically we've met
them out there... so they have kept us posted on things that need to be done, completed, finalized, punch list
items for...
'
Councilman Wing: I just had a clarification. This 25 foot setback, that was for the building pad of the
structure, correct?
'
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Wing: So as long as a deck could have incringed on it perhaps but the fact that it is a structure,
'
we're defining it as a structure still, with this one exception, meets the setbacks.
Kate Aanenson: Right. But I think what the two neighbors are saying, which I understand, is that they were
represented one thing. Even though they still are allowed within the setback, would have been more appropriate
,
to show the range of the building pad instead of saying this is where the building's going to go so it wasn't
misrepresented to them. I think that would have made it clear to them. That there was a possibility of it going
closer. That the building pad can slide within this area. I think that leads to a little bit of misrepresentation.
'
Again, just saying it's a deck as opposed to a 3 season porch. I think when we do go through ,this with the
neighborhood, we need to make those things clear. That they know there is some flexibility there.
Willard Johnson: Can I make one comment?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, sure Willard. I
Willard Johnson: There is no sliding doors to this porch... There's heat ducts in it. It's insulated... It's a room on
stilts. 1
Councilman Senn: For discussion purposes I guess I'd like to suggest a potential win -win situation. What if we
would consider granting the variance on the basis that the contractor provide, pick an arbitrary number of
$1,000.00 in additional landscaping to be placed as the adjacent neighbor's so designating either on this property I
or on their property.
Councilman Mason: In lieu of the double fee? I
29 1
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Councilman Senn: In lieu of the double fee and in doing so, I have no problems doing that because that
$1,000.00 is going to come out of his surveyor's insurance one way or the other. And I would like to see the
neighbors get something back out of this. At the same time as I think it's really kind of silly to start ripping
down structures over 15 inches and so it's just a suggestion. I don't know how everybody else thinks about it.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think it's an excellent suggestion.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that would be a good suggestion for the fact that even though that were planted would be
on city property.
Jim Jasper: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Jim Jasper: Would you permit me to make just one last comment concerning the.
Mayor Chmiel: Could you come up to the microphone please.
Jim Jasper: I guess until the comments from these two neighbors were made, it never occurred to me that we
might be misrepresenting what we were doing there when we offered buyers the option of be it a screened porch
or a 3 season porch or 4 season porch... Those were the options that buyers were given. I think that when we
conceived this project quite frankly we thought that very few people would opt for sunrooms or 4 season
porches. As it turns out, I think nearly everybody has opted for a 4 season porch, which maybe means what
we're building is too small. They feel too cramped. I don't know. I just want you to understand that I didn't
realize that we had misrepresented this in the presentation to the extent that it would cause a problem for the
neighbors. It never dawned on my that a neighbor might make a distinction between there being a porch there
and there being a deck there and to that extent I apologize. It was not our intent to deceive anybody. We
honestly felt this was an option that we needed to offer buyers, but probably very few would accept and now
that was wrong.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Okay. I'd entertain a motion of Richard's.
Councilman Wing: Just for discussion. I agree with Mark. That's an excellent idea and that's a solution.
Convert that $1,000.00 from your knowledge into landscaping. We've got 4 lots here and a distance of.
Councilman Senn: I'll get them a place where they can buy a dozen 8 foot pine trees for that, if they need a
place.
Councilman Wing: Do you think that's adequate?
Councilman Senn: They should be able to get that much out of $1,000.00.
Councilman Wing: I just wonder if it's enough. I mean if that's the solution and we're going to save them.
Councilman Senn: Well you've got limited land area is the only thing I'm thinking. I mean you aren't talking
about huge lots or a lot of depth and again, I'd like to see the neighbors have some input as to whether it goes
30
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
on this property, the city property or on their property if it helps as far as the screening goes. I'd like to kind of
see them get together and get that figured out because I'd like them to be the beneficiary of it basically.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. There was one thing that was done very similar to that with Mr. Curry, if you
remember over on Lyman Boulevard where they came up with that particular solution. And they did place
those trees on that person's property as well.
Councilman Senn: Well I'll move that if you want.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded to, as per discussion. Any other questions?
Councilman Mason: So with all of this, the variance will be granted. The homeowners will be getting
together with who, to talk about where these trees will be going?
Mayor Chmiel: They will have that option. Staff will take care of them. Okay, any other?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the Variance Request #94 -10 for a
one and a half (1 1/2) foot variance from the 25 foot setback requirement for the construction of a three season
porch with the condition that the applicant, staff and the neighbors work together regarding the placement of
$1,000.00 worth of landscaping. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE PRESS INC.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, Council. Before you for your consideration is a private redevelopment agreement
between, it says HRA in the packet but it is between the city and the Press Inc. This past spring you may
remember that the City Council created a new Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 -1. I've included in your
packet a map that shows that area. Along with that plan that you approved, you incorporated the city's current 3
year incentive program for businesses to locate in this area. But a business to take advantage of this program,
they must meet one of the following three qualifications. One, the city must try to discourage businesses from
moving to another state or municipality. You can provide funds to those businesses. Or two, if they increase
employment within the state. And three is to preserve or enhance the tax base of the state or the city.
Currently the Press would be meeting two of those qualifications. They are proposing to increase employment
base from 12 to 15 additional employees and also they would be increasing their overall tax base by $36,554.00.
You may notice the expansion is underway right now. They're approximately 75% completed. The amount of
incentives available to the Press total $54,831.69. At this point staff is recommending approval of the private
redevelopment agreement and would take this time to answer any questions of the public or the Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any questions?
Councilman Mason: None from me.
Mayor Chmiel: Colleen.
31
I City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Was this foreseen or is this, they need the money because the Kindercare project
fell through?
' Mayor Chmiel: Well that might be back.
' Todd Gerhardt: The Kindercare project's probably going to be back before you but if you noticed, there was
substantial amounts of dirt being moved around on the site so they did have some soil corrections and so that
will probably go to help offset that. But if Kindercare moves ahead or doesn't, they were going to ask for the
assistance in any case, to answer your question.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: No more questions.
' Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councilman Wing: No sir.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I don't have any either. You indicated all the concerns that I had right now.
Todd Gerhardt: Also attached in there, on the last page it determines how the Press would get their assistance.
' This is the tax formula used by Hennepin County in determining how taxes are calculated and they are adding
value of $600,000.00 to the addition. So based on that and minus out school aid and fiscal disparity
contributions, the total was $54,831.00 over a 3 year period.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is it ironic that the total amount of tax base is going to be that $36,554.45. When I
took those two increments that we're giving for '96, '97, '98, just taking the two, comes out to that total amount
of taxes.
Councilman Senn: You mean ironic or well planned.
Mayor Chmiel: That's the question. Okay. I guess I don't have any other. Is there a motion?
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I'll move approval of the private redevelopment agreement with the Press Inc.
Mayor Chmiel: Second? Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Private Redevelopment Agreement with
The Press, Inc. and their request for $54,831.69 in city assistance. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES (GAZEBOS) ON
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS, FIRST READING.
John Rask: Back in October, City Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the zoning ordinance
allowing gazebos on recreational beachlots. This issue was prompted by a recent conditional use request for a
beachlot with a gazebo. The City Council did not take final action on the conditional use request in order to
32
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
give staff time to draft an ordinance revision. Both Council and Planning Commission agreed that gazebos
should be permitted on beachlots. On November 2nd the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed
amendment and recommended approval. I guess staff is recommending the City Council adopt the ordinance
amendment and the standards that go along with it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks John. Let me ask you one question. By adding, except gazebos and unenclosed
shelters, I don't have any problem with gazebos at all but when we start adding unenclosed shelters, I can see all
kinds of Taj Mahals being built and I really have some concern with that.
Councilman Senn: Should look up really the definition of unenclosed, right?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Mason: Well that will be an issue.
Mayor Chmiel: And it could.
Councilman Mason: What is an unenclosed shelter?
Mayor Chmiel: Right. So I would just as soon see us just stick to a gazebo and then leave it there. But that's
just my opinion. Mark.
Councilman Senn: I had lots of questions. What about the screening? What about plumbing? What about
fireplaces? I mean these are all things I've seen in "gazebos ".
Kate Aanenson: Well a gazebo doesn't necessarily mean that. What we did is put some, first you have to
remember, this is part of the recreational beachlot, which is a conditional use. So that gives you the authority to
review that. And as a part of that we also put in standards for you to measure this against. So those standards.
Councilman Senn: So each one is a specific individual approval.
Kate Aanenson: No, it's part of the beachlot. This would be within a beachlot, recreational beachlot. As you
go through all that criteria, you'd be reviewing these.
Councilman Senn: But I'm just saying, if somebody already has a recreational beachlot.
Kate Aanenson: They would have to come back. Those are non - conforming. We've already approved them.
The only thing that's going to come in somebody new such as the one for Minnewashta Landings. You went
through and reviewed, decided whether or not architecturally it was compatible. We gave you criteria. That's
what this does is say whether or not, this is the height it can be. This is the maximum square footage. So if
you're not comfortable with those standards, then I think that's where we need to make the changes. But the
reason we left gazebo is gazebo has a specific definition which as you indicated, maybe this is somewhere
where you want to allow some screening. Maybe there's one where you don't want screening or maybe you
want a fireplace but you have that review when it comes before you. Now the non - conforming ones you're not
going to, those have already been permitted. They can't expand.
Councilman Senn: Is there anything, I guess of the things I mentioned, is there anything that's prohibited?
33
C
J
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
' Mayor Chmiel: Mark, maybe what we can do, just something as such, regarding fireplaces and all the rest of
what you're saying, is to completely exclude all those specifically.
' Councilman Senn: That's kind of what I was getting to in terms of, I raise these questions because I guess
we've gone through this discussion on this in our neighborhood where we have a beachlot. I mean we've had
certain people who advocate, you know they don't want a port-a -potty down there so they said let's build a
gazebo and put a bathroom in it. You know I mean like I say, everybody's definition is different. The (c) and
' (d) in here, I have great problems with as setting a standard because I think they're very excessive as standards.
In fact I think should never be something that's achieved. To me 10 x 25 gazebo is a picnic shelter, not a
gazebo. To me a 20 foot height anything is something far more substantial than is needed on a recreational
' beachlot.
Kate Aanenson: The one that Ken Durr came in with was 10 by.
I John Rask: 16 foot in diameter so roughly...
Councilman Senn: I understand that but the normal gazebo is maxed out at about 10 feet in diameter and your
' height is generally no greater than 10 to 12 feet. It just seems to me when we set this kind of a standard, we're
kind of challenging people to come in and meet the standard and I have real problems with that in terms of just
in terms of (c) and (d) and then I just, I'd still like to come back to.
' Kate Aanenson: I guess what we did is you liked Ken Durr's model so we took that standard and then we put it
in here so I guess what we're saying is, if you don't like his model, then we need to go back and tell him we
didn't like it because this is what we developed that around. We tried to develop it around that framework so, it
' does have a pitched roof to it. And again, these are the only ones that are coming in. It's not the existing non-
conforming. I think your other point, we just add (g) or modify to say no screening, no fireplaces.
' Councilman Senn: Well I'm not saying I'm necessarily opposed to screening for example. Or I guess I'm not
necessarily opposed to any of them. I guess my question is more of one, is there anything in the ordinance now
that prohibits any of those things or is it purely a Council determination on each one as they come through?
' Kate Aanenson: Right now you can't have a structure on the premises at all, unless it's.
Councilman Senn: No, but I'm saying if we pass this ordinance. Can they be anything as long as Council
approves it? Can they include any of those things?
Kate Aanenson: Well what we did is we said, it would have to be, architectural high quality design. So what
' does that mean?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So basically everyone that comes in has discretion.
' Kate Aanenson: Right. If you don't want it in, I think you should say you don't want it in there. You don't
want to see those things.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so there's nothing in the current ordinances once you plug gazebo in to prohibit
plumbing or prohibit fireplaces or whatever, unless the Council just wants to stick that stipulation in. When I
34
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
was trying to take that and plug it into the ordinance and figure that out and I couldn't figure it out so I'm sorry,
that's why I'm asking the question.
Kate Aanenson: Well, what it says right now, except provided, no structure, ice fishing house, camper, tent,
trailer, shall be maintained upon any premise. Now we're saying except gazebos or unenclosed shelters with the
following criteria. So if you want to add additional standards to that, I think that's where we should put it in.
Councilman Senn: Okay. But as written you could do any of those things.
Kate Aanenson: No plumbing, whatever. But again, the square footage, I agree with you. 250 seems big but
you felt that that beachlot, and you've got to remember, our beachlot standard is almost an acre. And that was
the size that you had placed on that beachlot that you felt comfortable with so we tried to develop the standards
around what you felt was an acceptable size. You're right, it wouldn't work on a 60 foot strip, non - conforming
beachlot and they couldn't do it anyway.
Councilman Senn: Well in my mind, and the reason I'm asking the question is that, and making the point on
the 250 is, I guess if it is our intent here to create picnic shelters, then I think that's what we should call them
rather than try to disguise them as a gazebo because if you go to 10 x 25, to me we're creating something more
than, at least in my mind, under any sense I can visualize as a gazebo. And I'm not saying that that's
necessarily bad but I'm just saying.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: To me that's semantics.
Councilman Senn: Geez, I've never seen a gazebo 10 x 25. I'm sorry, I've been in the business, in the industry
for many years and I've never seen one that large.
Mayor Chmiel: ...has one 10 x 20.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess I don't have a problem with it because it does give us latitude to evaluate
each individual one. I mean I don't feel that we're backing ourselves into a corner. An association's going to
come in and say, but your ordinance says it can be this big. I mean it's very clear just by the non - conforming
permit that we have ultimate control over what goes in and what goes out.
Councilman Wing: These are large lots that they're going into. They're not like a strip of narrow ones and if
Mark's happy to call them picnic shelters, that's fine with me. I mean gazebo sort of adds a touch of something
that picnic shelter doesn't. I'd rather have a gazebo than a picnic shelter.
Councilman Senn: Well and I agree with Colleen that it's semantics but an unenclosed shelter, I mean that's
kind of where you start opening the door.
Councilman Mason: I don't know if I like that word. That's scares me a little bit. Unenclosed shelter, well
what's that?
Councilman Senn: I mean how enclosed can it be without making it unenclosed?
Mayor Chmiel: I think if we defined it strictly as a gazebo and put those conditions in it, that no plumbing, no
heating, no fireplaces, no whatever else should be put in there.
35
n
0
E
r
L
I City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: See I disagree.
Councilman Mason: Yeah I guess I, and I think Kate just said it. Obviously I'm not saying anything well
' tonight but Kate had said it earlier. With all these conditionals, every one in a separate issue. So I don't know
that we have to put all that extra verbiage in it because we can clearly say no, it won't wash here and that's
done. I mean maybe.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah but at a later time I'm saying that if that gazebo is up and 5 years, 10 years goes down
the road and somebody wants to do some of these improvements to that gazebo by putting in those fireplaces
and doing whatever they want.
Councilman Mason: Well you'd have to get approval by City Council to do that.
' Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to bet?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Sure they will.
' Mayor Chmiel: Sure they will. As I was out at the lake, as one of my neighbors said, if you ever want to do
anything out here, do it on Saturday and Sundays. You never have to get a permit.
' Roger Knutson: Just throw in one comment. It's true you have a certain amount of discretion... The absolute
and easiest and best place to exercise discretion and cause the least amount of consternation, is to put it in here.
So what I'm suggesting is, if you know you never want a fireplace in a gazebo, then I think it's a great idea to
' say so. Then no one, then you never have to deal with that issue again. But if you think under certain
circumstances a fireplace would be okay, then you can leave it alone. But if you know you don't want it, I
recommend you put it in there now.
' Councilman Senn: ...fully educated I'd love a little time to think about it.
Councilman Mason: I can see the no electricity and no plumbing but I don't know, a fireplace might be kind of
' cool.
Councilman Senn: And I don't know either and it's kind of what I wanted to do tonight was get the ground
' rules set because like I said, I kept trying to take this and plug it in the ordinance and to me it was kind of like
all things go. Well, but do we want it to be all things go but if you want to be limiting, what do you want to
limit. I don't know.
I Councilwoman Dockendorf: ...I'm willing to limit fireplaces.
Councilman Mason: Plumbing and electricity. We don't need a little kitchen down in those things.
Mayor Chmiel: That's what you use the fireplace for.
Councilman Mason: That's right.
Roger Knutson: ...as some people do, I have a next door neighbor, for whatever reason has their television in
their gazebo.
36
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's really getting back to nature isn't it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, let's get back to the exact, time out.
Councilman Senn: I mean is there any urgency? Can we think about it a little bit?
Kate Aanenson: No. Do you want us to maybe think about some other standards to put in here. Just say the
Council may consider. We'll think of something to put in.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion to table?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the City Code Amendment regarding accessory
structures (gazebos) on recreational beachlots. All voted in favor and the motion carved.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mr. Mayor, I would like to have a Council presentation please.
Mayor Chmiel: I'm sorry you can't.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Please.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Senn: Only if we all agree at what it is.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Let me convince you. A couple Saturdays ago there was yet another bad accident
on Highway 5 and CR 117 and to put it bluntly I am sick and tired of the answers I'm getting from the city,
from MnDot, from everyone concerned about our hands are tied. We can't do anything at that intersection until
the school goes up next year. We're just ripe for another fatality at that intersection and we have to do
something. Next fall is not going to cut it.
Mayor Chmiel: Where did Charles go? One of the problems is the different things that it has to be tied in with
instrumentation from other lights up on down to that, and all over down to TH 41.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'd like some options of something that we can do. It doesn't necessarily
have to be lights. It could be warning signs. It could be something. You know a little more tar on the side of
the road so the bypass lane is bigger. Some cats eyes in the road so, it is so dangerous there and with all the
development both north and south on Galpin, there are more cars than ever. There are big trucks who are going
to the school. It's extremely dangerous. I don't even take it anymore. And it's getting to the point where we
can just not, we can't wait any longer. We certainly can't wait until next fall so I would like to see Charles or
whomever come up with a list of options. Including the city forking out some money for a stop light, if that's
what we need to do.
Mayor Chmiel: That's a lot of money.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I know it is.
37
City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
' Mayor Chmiel: But, and I don't disagree with you because you have a lot of your neighbors that have talked to
me too that are on the north side that don't even go out to get out onto Highway 5 going east. They go all the
way back in and around and come back out on Powers Boulevard to go east. But I agree, it's unsafe. It's not
' very good. There was an accident there just recently again. One of the things that we're looking at is having
that back in operation by August of this coming year and there are a lot of things that can't be done now and
I've had discussions with Charles on this. And it's tying in instrumentation of synchronizing lights from one to
the other and it takes a little more time than the normal.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But, I can understand synchronization of the lights right out here close to
downtown but from TH 41, the stretch all the way to Powers has got to be at least 3 miles so synchronization in
my opinion is not as much of a concern as it is with these ones close together here.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, actually it's probably up to Highway 41 is probably about a mile and a half.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: From Powers?
Mayor Chmiel: From Powers.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, so much for my depth perception but still. My point is, it's a greater
distance than the ones closer in town and I guess if we can't do stop lights, then we need some other options out
there. It's just way too dangerous.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, I think that can be discussed.
Todd Gerhardt: We can bring that back up.
ADNUNISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: COMMISSION INTERVIEWS. SET DATE/TEWE. CITY
MANAGER
Kate Aanenson: I can cover that for you Todd. You have an ordinance that requires that you interview the
potential candidates for the available Park and Rec, Planning Commission. In Don's staff report we listed the
people that are up. We're suggesting to you is on the next meeting, the 12th, it's a pretty big agenda, that
maybe you set a separate time for meeting those. In addition, you haven't always interviewed the people that
are on right now. We're assuming that you probably just want to interview the new people so we want
clarification on that. Whether you want to interview just those people that are new people applying or if you
want to interview the existing candidates again and if.you want to have it on the 12th or set aside a separate
meeting date. Because the 12th agenda is going to be a pretty full agenda. That will be your only meeting in
December.
Councilman Mason: A couple of comments. It was mentioned I know in here about waiting until after the first
of the year.
Kate Aanenson: Oh, that was the other issue, thank you.
Councilman Mason: Which I think has some merit. I also quite honestly think, I think we need to have some
sort of work session talking about commissions and how they are chosen. This Council, since I've been on it
has gone kind of full cycle about.
H
City Council Meeting November 28, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Cycle or psycho?
Councilman Mason: Well tonight I think it's psycho but this whole issue about how commission members gets
decided and what not, I think we need to revisit it. I really do. And in fact, well I just don't know how the rest
of the Council feels but I wouldn't mind waiting until after the first of the year.
Councilman Senn: Ditto.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I agree with that just because, not because the Council's going to change over
Basically because my brain is full and I know I just will not be able to deal with it on the 13th.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard really wanted to address that particular issue but. That's fine. 1 don't care.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'd like to see a work session too.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, I really do want to have a, and not just dealing necessarily with Planning
Commission but.
Councilman Senn: No, all commissions.
Councilman Mason: Yeah. And that would also be after the first of the year.
Kate Aanenson: So you want to schedule a work session before you do any interviewing, is that what you're
saying?
Councilman Mason: I would like to because.
Mayor Chmiel: I think really what you're saying is that, if you go through this process, whatever the second
Monday of the month is in January, that it'd be after that particular time.
Todd Gerhardt: For the first work session?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Mason: Second, that's going to be late. I mean first of the year is a Monday or Tuesday. No,
Sunday. Monday.
Councilman Senn: Sunday. Sunday's the 1st.
Councilman Mason: So when will the first Council meeting be?
Mayor Chmiel: It will be the 9th.
Councilman Mason: No, yeah that's fine. I'm not going to come here on the 2nd, I can tell you that.
Councilman Senn: And the 16th is a holiday so.
cm
I I City Council Meeting - November 28, 1994
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, so why don't we motion to table this and come up with a date.
Councilman Senn: Tomorrow's our tax hearing, right?
' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. By the way there's two things that I'd just like to mention again. Tomorrow evening is
the tax hearing here at 7:00. The second thing was, it's confirmation one more time with Minge for 6:00 on the
20th of December. Other than that, any other discussions? Seeing none, can I have a motion for adjournment.
1 Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendoif seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and
the motion carved. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
' Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
' Prepared by Nann Opheim
� I
� I
� I
� I
�
40
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 16, 1994
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
t MEMBEI
Farmakes
L�
I
Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott and Jeff
MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Mancino and Ron Nutting
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer;
John Rask, Planner I; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 8 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
ZONED RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED WEST OF HIGHWAY
7. EAST OF HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY AND SOUTH
OF PIPEWOOD CURVE, 4131 PIPEWOOD CURVE. LYLE DELWICHE. DELWICHE
ADDITION.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions for staff or comments?
Ledvina: Mr. Chairman? Kate, you said that they had conceptually given approval?
Aanenson: They do their subdivisions a little bit differently and on conceptual...
Ledvina: They have a conceptual and then preliminary?
Aanenson: Yeah.
Ledvina: Okay. So it has started the formal process through Victoria?
Aanenson: Right. So it has to be given the final City Council approval ... That would include
the cross over easement and accommodation of those two lots ... They wouldn't want to make a
lot and ... Victoria would landlock that Lot number 8.
Scott: Good, anything else? Would the applicant like to make a brief presentation?
Lyle Delwiche: We're really here to answer any questions you might have.
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Scott: Okay. Any questions of the applicant from commissioners? This is a public hearing.
May I just briefly see a show of hands for people who'd like to speak at this public hearing.
Let the record show that no one is here to speak on the public hearing. Therefore I would
like to get a motion to waive the public hearing please.
Harberts: Moved.
Scott: Second? Could I have a second to that motion?
Ledvina: I'll second that.
Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we waive the public hearing. All those in
favor signify by saying aye?
Ledvina: Discussion? It's going to remain a public hearing, was that okay?
Aanenson: You opened the public hearing. You just closed it.
Scott: Let's open it. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please?
Ledvina: We probably should withdraw that.
Harberts: I'll withdraw.
Scott: Okay, thank you. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing?
Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: There's no one here for the public hearing. May I have a motion to close the public
hearing please?
Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Comments? Diane?
Harberts: I'm okay with it.
Scott: Besides from the fact that I need a book of Robert's Rules of Order.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Harberts: I don't have any comments.
Conrad: Nothing.
Ledvina: No comments.
Farmakes: No comments.
Scott: Okay, can I have a motion please.
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
Preliminary Plat for Subdivision #94 -17 for the Delwiche Addition for 2 single family lots as
shown on the plans dated November 2, 1994, subject to the conditions in the staff report.
Scott: Is there a second?
Conrad: Second.
Scott: Any discussion?
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
Preliminary Plat for Subdivision #94 -17 for the Delwiche Addition for 2 single family lots as
shown on the plans dated November 2, 1994, subject to the following conditions:
1. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc -
mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the
city's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise.
2. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development and will be protected
by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of
dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height
shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location
of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description.
3. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition
and /or trail construction.
4. A cross access easement agreement shall be prepared by the applicant to maintain access
to Lots 1 via the existing private driveway.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
5. The applicant shall dedicate to the City on the final plat a 20 foot wide drainage and
utility easement over the existing drainage ditch.
6. Lot 2, Block 1 will be responsible for a hook up and connection change of $8993.42
(1994 figure) for connecting to municipal utilities. This fee will be payable at time of
building permit issuance. The fees may also be assessed.
7. The applicant shall escrow with the city $300.00 to cover the city attorney's time for
review and recording of the final plat.
8. Approval of the plat from the City of Victoria.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
' AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE, ARTICLE XXVI, REGARDING THE SIGN
ORDINANCE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Randy Herman
2792 Piper Ridge Lane
Vernelle Clayton
422 Santa Fe Circle
Leonard Thiel
5643 Green Circle Drive
Roland Danielson
6209 Lockmoor Drive
John Rask presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Questions or comments.
Harberts: I have a question. Who's your contact at Eden Prairie?
Rask: Gotchya.
Harberts: That dog. I take exception to the information he provided you. He's incorrect with
that.
Rask: Okay. He is.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Harberts: He is. He even sits on that commission.
Rask: Well he said I should tell you so.
Harberts: Pardon, what did he do?
Rask: He said tell Diane I told you so.
Harberts: Well I'll tell him something. Alright.
Scott: What is the correct info?
Harberts: Well there are benches around Eden Prairie. There's one at our site in Eden Prairie
that had advertising on it. Southwest Metro Transit has their own internal policy where they
do not allow any advertising at their park and ride sites. Bus shelters or anything. That's an
internal policy within Southwest Metro Transit. And I don't know if it was misunderstood or
whatever but I know in Eden Prairie there are benches through the American Bench Company
that have advertising on it so, but with regard to transit, it's a decision made solely by
Southwest Metro and not by the City of Eden Prairie.
Ledvina: Let me try to understand this. Then are those benches not allowed by ordinance
then or what? What is the situation?
Harberts: I don't know what Scott was talking about.
Ledvina: Are those against the ordinance then or what?
Rask: The way it's currently written, signs ... bus benches in Eden Prairie. There aren't any
benches.
Ledvina: That is their ordinance? Okay.
Rask: That's the way I understood it.
Ledvina: Okay.
Farmakes: I'd like a clarification on page 13 where it talks about the, these features shall be
applied toward the maximum allowable sign area at the rate of one -third the architectural
feature area. What exactly does that mean?
5
I Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
' Rask: It's talking about the color band. If those, if the bands say occupy 100 square feet of
the building area. If you take 1/3 of that. 33 feet would be taken away from the maximum
' allowable signs. So if you had 150 square feet of sign area was allowed by ordinance, and
you had your color bands that occupied 100 square feet, you take 1/3 of that. You're at 33
feet and you'd subtract that. So then if you have a sign, wall sign would be allowed
approximately 117 square feet.
Farmakes: If we had a sign limited to say 80 feet on Taco Bell and attached to that sign, or
' running up to that sign are large color bands of plastic. Are we defining that we only count
1/3 of that towards the maximum square footage of the sign or?
' Rask: Correct.
Farmakes: Okay. I was just wondering what the reasoning of 1/3. Why wouldn't we apply
100% to that?
Rask: Well I think that's all been, it's difficult to regulate some of these features within the
sign ordinance. It's better addressed through architectural review standards ... on Highway 5
corridor into, to pull this into the sign ordinance makes it difficult.
' Farmakes: I served on both committees and it's sort of catch as catch can but in the
architectural committee they said, well we'll address that with the signage ordinance and now
we're saying we'll address that in the architectural stipulations so. If we discussed the issue
' of dealing and evaluating a structural tie in to signage. What you see currently, and Holiday
just redid their banding. If you're discussing that as an architectural feature, it's not. It's part
of signage. It's meant to be, have the building seen as a sign. So my point is, if we're going
to apply the banding say around Holiday and get any type of moderation, if there isn't a cap
and allowing a vendor to have some discretion on how they use that, the interpretation of
' putting bright stripes on a building. Saying it's really for the purpose to make the building
look better and not to attract. Or the intent of serving the purposes of a sign, what point are
we solving. We're not moderating anything. Because if we have like an 80 square foot
' maximum to the wall sign and we're allowing them 1/3 of the architectural feature area, that
may double that. Would it not? So what have we moderated?
' Aanenson: We stumbled over this for 2 years. We've been asking for direction on this.
We're not sure how to handle this. We're not sure if the architectural features are being... If
you want to include that as part of signage...
' Farmakes: I think currently as I see in architectural, particularly in fast food operations and
gas, what you're seeing is the back lit striping and in some of the fast food areas, the back lit
6
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
canopy area. That's where they're connecting with. Adding an architectural feature that is
imposing as a signage attraction and again, I don't know if the way to approach that is to
prohibit that or to moderate that on square footage or if it's to interpret, just list those items
and say that these count as signs. As your signage maximum. Use them as you wish but this
is the maximum that you can use based on the size of the building. Just like we moderate
signage. But it seems to me that again, the intent in designing those buildings, to use that as
a signage attraction, that we should deal with that for what it is. And call it what it is.
Scott: Well I think what you're getting at is we talk about the intent statement is that a
business needs to identify their location and I think if the signage is used for that purpose, it
doesn't really matter if it says Joe's Bait Shop with blue lines around it. I mean if I were
faced with a situation with my business I'd say well, I think what I'm going to do is trade my
color banding for the name Joe's Bait Shop and make that as big as allowable by the
ordinance and I think maybe that's what we want to do. Is we want to encourage people to
focus on making it a real sign and then not try to get bonus attraction based upon colors. I
think that's, when I look at the intent statement of the ordinance, we want businesses to have
an equal playing field when it comes to identifying their location. But then I think we run
into the same situation, people who have more windows can get more window signage so I
think this will even out the playing field for those who don't use colors in their, the Super
America's, Holiday's, Block Busters, etc, etc. so I think I would agree with you in that we
need to apply the banding 100% against the sign area.
Farmakes: Well the other thing is that in reality, when you get the applicants to come in
together as a group. Say you get a grouping of fast food restaurants like you would say on
78th over there. You potentially could have one building here with green or bright green,
orange and red striping and the building across from it would be lime green and orange and a
purple striping. You get, there's no.
Harberts: Continuity.
Farmakes: There's no relief there. You're getting a bunch of buildings screaming, look at me
first and you're getting concentrations of them and it's certainly not an attractive, positive
issue for the city I don't think.
Harberts: But with something like that Jeff, are you saying that you'd rather see with a
situation like that where they're kind of uniformed, kind of consistent in building in their
signage. You know Eat at Joe's. Shop at.
Farmakes: I think we should allow the vendor the discretion of how they want to do it. I
think Wendy's did a good job on it. I think we say Taco Bell come in here and there was a
7
L
0
n
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
' perception that they weren't going to have the bands on there. When it came before the
Council, they were going to have the bands on there. And then the response was made, well
' all Taco Bells have the bands on there and that's not true. Several Taco Bells don't have the
bands on there.
' Scott: Yeah, Minnetonka.
Farmakes: And I think we keep on seeing this over and over again. Whether it's a tire center
' or whether it's a gas station or whether it's, I think we should make an attempt to deal with
that issue so we have an intent of what the final outcome's going to be once all the buildings
are up. And again I think the issue is not to exclude but to moderate.
' Harberts: Well I would tend to agree.
' Conrad: I don't agree at all so, I don't think that this is, we're not talking about signage. This
identification. There's no difference in a style of a building. That's identification. That's
why chains build the same style so it's identification. A stripe is the same thing. I don't
' perceive this ordinance regulating design. This is a sign ordinance. It's words. The whole
intent was to structure how many, what space you can put signs in period. It had nothing to
do with design of the side of the building. So it's, we'd have to start, if we're going to now
' start putting in design into the criteria, we'd better go back to zero and start again because
none of the rules apply.
Farmakes: How we design say in the Holiday where you have plexiglass striping on the top
of the building constitutes a major part of the building. Do you feel that that's architecturally
relevant to the building or is that there for an attraction?
Conrad: Is it architecturally relevant? It's their design. It's their style. It's not signage, in
my definition. It's not regulated by this ordinance.
Ledvina: It's not in the definition of sign does not identify architectural elements or colors or.
Farmakes: If a wall sign is attached to a building, the striping runs and connects to it, how is
that any different than typography that's in color and the red striping and the blue striping
running to it any different.
Conrad: Well then you could take it further. Is brick, you know, does brick do something
for identification versus a striping? You know, I don't think anybody starting from day one
when this was reviewed, really considered that type of architecture impacting the sign
ordinance. I really don't. I don't think we've really taken a look at that.
8
r
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Farmakes: But I think it is evident that developers and business, particularly chain
businesses, are addressing the issue of maximizing presence by dealing with that through
architectural add on's.
Conrad: I'm not debating that.
Farmakes: So I don't think we're addressing that in our architectural issues because we did
make the assumption that we were going to deal with that in signage, or define that. And
define it in such a way that it could be moderated.
Conrad: Boy I'd be real, here we are again trying to get this through after months and this is
the first I've heard of it Jeff. I've gone all those extra sessions and I just haven't paid
attention to that. I would have considered all the ratios, all the square footages entirely
differently. I would have found it terribly complex. I addressed all these in terms of what
does it take to get a word message out on a building basically or for it to advertise a service
or a product or whatever. I never considered it in terms of how the side of the building
overall should look and whether the impact had a bearing on the size of the sign, or the
materials of the sign. But if we were doing that, we should have, geez we should have
looked at it a long time ago. I'm real uncomfortable with bottling it in. I really am. I think
it makes it terribly difficult to understand.
Scott: Is that something that should be regulated?
Conrad: You know the whole issue goes back to design. Do we want stripes on buildings?
You know, that's really the issue. If people put designs there because they're doing exactly
what Jeff is saying. They want identification. I don't care if it's stripes or if it's brick or if
it's an arch for, you know if it's an arch on the top of your deal or a giant football, like those
restaurants to have. I think design criteria regulate that. I don't know. And they're not bad
issues to deal with. It's good to make the city determine if it wants to get involved in the
architecture game and simplicity might, there may be some simple things that we could agree
on but I know it's a complex issue and I don't know if we could really, I don't know if we
could come to some kind of consensus. It's terribly confusing to me.
Ledvina: I think the definition of sign as a whole meaning and it becomes a very fuzzy
thing. What if my colors happen to be like a tan and a nice forest green and I want to put
some colors on the building. If I can't do that, even though it looks great because it's
considered a sign, I don't think that would be fair. I'm tracking with Ladd because I think
that bands on buildings are an architectural treatment. I don't see that specifically as a sign.
At least not the way we've defined it up until this point.
6
J
' Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
I I
Scott: Does it matter if they're lit or unlit? Like a back lit band versus tile.
Ledvina: No, doesn't matter to me.
Scott: What do you think Diane?
Harberts: I think it does. I think when it's lit...
Conrad: That's an interesting.
Scott: I can see where Matt's coming from if it's architectural. I mean is it an attractant or
isn't it? Well it's more of an attractant when it's back lit and it's plastic and all this kind of
stuff but if it's something, I think there is a difference, at least in my mind, between an
architectural. When I think of an architectural detail, I think of something that is "built into
the building" like whether it's the brick or whatever. Something that's then architecturally
versus something that's signage is something that after the building is built, it's stuck onto the
building.
Harberts: Well I think the colors are just as important, especially a franchise or chain type
store as the word, and even to some extent more the colors and the placement than the word
itself. I mean you know when you're driving and oh, remember you just look for the golden
arches. You know you don't look for McDonald's. You look for that identity piece. I
understand what Jeff is saying when you, in terms of what we're trying to achieve in
Chanhassen. Do we want to, in a sense control that so it's more of a moderate or blended
look versus a piece that stands out by itself? You know in some of the places that I have
visited, such as Martha's Vineyard, they have no identity in terms like a McDonald's or
whatever. It's certainly the Cape Cod look and a little sign out front and that's all you see is
one continuous type of architecture. You don't have the individualities in terms of the
franchise or whatever.
Scott: Is that, do you feel then that's a pretty equal playing field?
Harberts: Well I don't know about equal playing field. It certainly added characteristic to the
island. It was a little hard adjusting in terms of you just can't pick out the golden arches or
something. You have to kind of look for it. That was the only thing I was struggling with
but I kind of like the characteristic it brought.
Scott: I don't know, there's a development that you can see from, I think it's on Weaver Lake
Road and 494, Maple Grove I think is where it is and what they've done is there's no banding
on any of these buildings. They're all brick and everybody gets their so many square feet.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
So whether it's McDonald's or Poppin Fresh or a Burger King, and they have them on very
short pylon signs. So I think if you're looking from a consumer standpoint, if the consumer is
being bombarded by all sorts of huge signage, trying to find a place can be difficult. But if
there's an equal playing field like what I've seen in parts of California and Maple Grove's a
good example, everybody knows that the logos are going to be about this far off the ground
and they're all going to be about this size. But there's an equal playing field and judging
from the parking lots of the place, I don't think any of the retailers are suffering. But they all
know what the rules are.
Harberts: But the burden then is on the businesses to somehow make themselves distinct
within those parameters because you don't get that immediate recognition. I mean when you
see that wave on a Coke can. The Coke words does not have to be there but you see that
wave and right away you think about Coke.
Scott: Well it all boils down to our definition of what's a sign and what isn't.
Harberts: Right, exactly.
Scott: And is that the thing that we need to recraft?
Harberts: Well I think it's the real, to me the question is, what are we trying to achieve and I
think that's again, it comes into the balance of being responsive to the business needs as well
as being responsive to the residents. You know I don't want to see a pink and green building
right next to each other because that's what their corporate colors or trademarks or whatever
but I certainly am sensitive to, I don't want to really place an undue burden on the business
climate because of things like that. I think there is a moderate or a compromising there. I
don't know what the answer is but.
Scott: Well that's what we need to do is to have an answer.
Farmakes: An example I think would be the Minnetonka Wendy's over there on TH 7 and
TH 101. They have a red, large red band going around that building, back lit where Wendy's
is on and the differences to the one they built here. I think this one's a much more attractive
building. It's a more moderate signage and I think there's just different outcome of what we
got there. Overall I think we're betting off having something like that, the perception of
higher class in this city than a piece of being a strip mall version over on TH 101.
Ledvina: There's a couple of dynamics that are working there though. That's an older
building. That's 6 -7 years old and I think Wendy's is going more upscale with their clientele
and I think that's the reason why we see a better building.
11
0
11
C
CI
rJ
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Farmakes: But the point is, when that building came by, we worked on that building. There
were red bands on that building so my point is that if I'm given a design assignment and I'm
told to try and maximize the presence of that building and there is a cap on signage, I'm
going to find a way to get around that cap. And the first thing I would recommend was to
incorporate an attractant into the architecture. Into the feature and create the banding and if
you look at Block Buster Video, they have a large blue back lit awning and a large blue
stripe running around the building. The intent of that is to attract. It's nothing to do with
architecture. It's not there to make the building look better.
Ledvina: But it is part of the architecture.
Farmakes: So is the wall sign. It's attached to the wall. If you're going to define the word
architecture, it's the overall presence of the building looking at it. I mean it's, to me the
intent of the brick is not to create an attractant. It's not to pull your eye. And if you're
looking at the outcome of a building and it's purpose, there are buildings where the signage
and intent of the building sort of proceeds the architecture. And you'll see that in a lot of
commercial areas where what you're looking at is signage and you're not looking at buildings.
Because we're building a downtown supposedly and not a strip mall, that's something we
should be concerned about.
Harberts: I think colors and design like that is a very important element of signage. It's not
just words. That's my feeling.
Scott: Well what about something like this. We're concerned about what's architecture and
what's signage. What about if we say if it's tenant specific? If the tenant of the building
changes, like if Block Buster Video in Eden Prairie decides that they want to move someplace
else and Edina Realty goes in, is the blue banding going to come down? Sure. Sure as heck
will be. Maybe if it's, because signage is tenant specific and architectural features are not.
Now I'm not stating that as a fact. I'm throwing that out. I mean is that kind of what we're
talking about here? If it's tenant specific, it's signage. If it's not, it's an architectural feature
which means, I think we're talking from a lease hold agreement, it's a fixture or a lease hold
improvement versus the physical building.
Conrad: We're not going to solve this one tonight. The issue is, do you want to, it's
' architecture. We're talking pure and simple architecture. It's definition. Some want to attach
it to a sign ordinance but we're talking architecture. Talking, does it fit? Are we mellowing
our architecture in so it's sort of the same in Chanhassen? That's sort of the direction that I'm
' hearing. And stripes don't do that. I can't, you're not going to be able to give me something
to vote on that says, by a definition we're going to solve this. If we bring architecture and
this into this ordinance, somebody else, not me is going to have to go through this. I can't
12
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
vote positively on the ordinance tonight and there's been a terrible amount of work put in on
it. It's just different definitions which means all this stuff has to be relooked at. If we
change the definition to say that if it's tenant related or whatever, we still have to go back and
say okay, now what are we talking about? Does the same 80 square feet that we allowed for
signage, is that the right number now that it's incorporating stripes? Or now that it's
incorporating neon. You know how about, we get into other cities where you have a lot of
lights. I like neon by the way. I think neon's a neat architectural element. I don't consider it
signage. I think it's architectural and I think it's generally pretty neat. But I think for
tonight's purposes, if we're uncomfortable that this ordinance is not incorporating enough, then
it should go back but I don't think we're going to come up with a resolution on it.
Farmakes: Is your point that you're making that the Highway 5 overlay architectural
standards should be changed or amended to address that issue versus...
Conrad: See what you're bringing up, you know what you're bringing up Jeff is, in my mind,
architectural standards and I don't know if there's a difference between Highway 5 or the
commercial or the CBD or Highway Business. I don't know the difference between
architectural standards in the different areas.
Farmakes: There isn't. I think that this area is intentionally brought together. The way that
you get around the limitation is to incorporate it into the architecture. That's the motivation
for doing it.
Scott: Ladd do you, do you believe that there need to be guidelines for the banding? Your
thought is that this is probably not the place for it.
Conrad: I think the sign ordinance should be looked at simply for signage and if we want an
architectural standards to apply, those standards can, somebody can develop that and the City
Council can review those standards as they apply to this.
Scott: What, from a Highway 5 standpoint and I've kind of lost track where that is Kate.
Where is the, is there an ordinance?
Aanenson: Correct.
Scott: So basically we'd have to include the banding as an architectural piece.
Aanenson: Right.
Scott: That would have to be an amendment to that ordinance.
13
0
n
' Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
' Aanenson: I think there's language in it that covers this issue. It's the City Attorney's
opinion too that really what we're doing, as Ladd indicated, we're pulling architectural issues
' into the sign ordinance and we're really kind of getting into a gray area there.
Scott: But we do believe that there need to be some specific guidelines for it and as long as
' there's a home for that, because I don't want to, I mean I've seen a number of instances were
we'll have an applicant come in and they'll say, I have several pieces of information between
this ordinance and that ordinance. Does that mean that I get two signs or you know, and if
' the applicants can't figure out the ordinance, you know we just need to know where the
guidelines are so these people can come forward relatively quickly. Know what we're
expecting and deliver a product that we can approve. So I mean if there's a home for it in the
' other ordinance, I think that will serve what you guys are doing. Or want to do is signage
here as defined as logos, service marks, sales marks, that kind of stuff. Banding and so forth
1
0
[l
become.
Aanenson: I think this will be more clearly defined in the Highway 5 overlay. It's in there
but it's not to the extent. The way we had defined it here, we're trying to separate, as you
indicated, more tenant specific but what we found is company logos or associated with the
company... If someone was just to put a band on, or an architectural feature and it's not a
franchise or it's not associated, we look at that as an architectural feature. Then you have to
find out what are the company colors and it's .... and I think that's where you're coming from is
more specific to a certain type of business association. So it's our opinion that if you want
something like that, then it really belongs in the Highway 5... architecture for the Highway 5
overlay zone.
Ledvina: Well we're going to need it more beyond the Highway 5 zone. I mean we need it
through the entire city essentially.
Aanenson: City ordinance.
Conrad: I think that's a real good issue just to float up to the City Council. Seriously.
Architectural standards is just a real difficult thing for a city to get involved in. Especially a
city the size of Chanhassen. But if we believe in those things, I'd sure like to get some
feedback from the City Council so that staff, it's not Highway 5. We're talking about you
know, you don't just have architectural standards for Highway 5 corridor. You have them for
the city. If you want them, you have them for the entire city. I'd like to see if the City
Council is interested in doing that, you know and then maybe something can be done. It's
still, it's still terribly difficult but.
14
Farmakes: The intent when we worked on it was that it be a blueprint to establish... but that '
was the point where we had a consultant brought in and discussing issues of how it was
handled in other cities. What recommendations they put together from, I forget the
consultant's name but we did deal with it for a year. '
Aanenson: Are you talking about Camiros?
Farmakes: Yeah.
Conrad: Do we allow lights shining on our buildings? Spot lights to illuminate our '
buildings at night? There's so many things, that could be considered, well that's a real
confusing but down south, that's a real popular thing to do. Real attractive. I doubt that we'd
allow it here.
Harberts: If you want to pay the electric bills.
Conrad: Well it's neat. It's neat. It comes up from the ground. ,
Ledvina: Are you saying we wouldn't allow it? ,
Conrad: I don't think we would.
Scott getting Well ettin back to the issue about what's signage and isn't, does it make sense to '
direct staff to beef up the section in the Highway 5 architectural?
15 1
'
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Farmakes: The Highway 5 task force had a subcommittee dealing with architectural standards
for a year. That's what we were discussing there in that ordinance. That was part of the
,
ordinance for the Highway 5 overlay district. And the standards covered the commercial area
of Highway 5.
'
Conrad: But not downtown. Not our CBD.
Aanenson: Yes.
'
Farmakes: Well, not to the south.
'
Aanenson: Not to the south. The y covered , there's two districts. One, the existing
downtown area and then the other district is from Powers going west. It does cover all the
,
downtown. There are places in the industrial park...
Farmakes: The intent when we worked on it was that it be a blueprint to establish... but that '
was the point where we had a consultant brought in and discussing issues of how it was
handled in other cities. What recommendations they put together from, I forget the
consultant's name but we did deal with it for a year. '
Aanenson: Are you talking about Camiros?
Farmakes: Yeah.
Conrad: Do we allow lights shining on our buildings? Spot lights to illuminate our '
buildings at night? There's so many things, that could be considered, well that's a real
confusing but down south, that's a real popular thing to do. Real attractive. I doubt that we'd
allow it here.
Harberts: If you want to pay the electric bills.
Conrad: Well it's neat. It's neat. It comes up from the ground. ,
Ledvina: Are you saying we wouldn't allow it? ,
Conrad: I don't think we would.
Scott getting Well ettin back to the issue about what's signage and isn't, does it make sense to '
direct staff to beef up the section in the Highway 5 architectural?
15 1
1
Ll
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Farmakes: I would recommend that. When we dealt with that as a subcommittee, we dealt
with that ambiguously. The reason being is ... when we dealt with the sign ordinance, that
we'd tighten that up. It seems to me that it would make sense to deal with it as an
architectural standards because that's truly what it is. It is a gray area because of-it's a
design attempt to get around the maximum requirements. That's what it is. And if you,
there's no aesthetic reason to back light an awning. You do it because you want to be seen
from the highway and there's nothing wrong with that but the question is, how much of it do
you have. Do you have an entire town of back lit awnings. It's jsut a question of what you
want to wind up with.
Scott: What would be your direction to staff with regards to that. The architectural standards
...in dealing with banding and that sort of stuff.
Farmakes: When we're dealing with it as a sign ordinance, if you have a maximum amount
of it like you do in a sign, it seems like a logical way to treat that. Because that would give
the vendor the option of what they wanted to do. If you deal with it as an architectural
standard, it becomes far more difficult because you're dealing with square footages. You're
dealing with the size of the building. You're dealing with, it's an accent mark that they don't
define that by square. So if you're looking at that for either eliminating it or having it, I'm
not quite sure how you would approach that other than to define it by how you would like to
moderate it. A percent or eliminate it altogether.
Scott: But the home for that regulation is, you're thinking the Highway 5 architectural
standards.
Farmakes: We used the terms I think, and help me out here. I think it was bright colors is
what they recommended. Unnatural bright colors. Dayglo orange or green or things of that
nature. We may be able to address it as defining it as the subject matter, the gray area where
it becomes, where the architectural feature becomes a gray area or it connects with the sign or
is a part of the continuation of the corporate colors.
Scott: I think we all agree it needs to be, there need to be guidelines.
Conrad: But it keeps coming up so I think.
Ledvina: Right. We should be reviewing it in terms of the direction that this thing should
go.
Conrad: Somebody should review the subject.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 '
Scott: And the home for the guideline should be in the Highway 5 document.
Conrad: Absolutely. Well no, it should be someplace else. '
Scott: Yeah, other than this. '
Farmakes: Currently the Highway 5 I think is the only, the two districts are the only ones
that are covered by that. '
Scott: So the consensus here is that we need to give direction to the staff to apply perhaps
the thought process that we used for signage, i.e. print logos. Use some sort, that similar '
methodology to the banding piece to somehow quantify it and express what you would like to
see as a percentage or whatever. But use the methodology that we use to regulate signage in
the sign ordinance with regards to size versus the building. And use that same sort of ,
methodology in the architectural standard section of Highway 5 to deal with banding. And
then I'm sure it comes with a definition of what banding is. We have a definition of what
signage is here. '
Conrad: Well I'd like to see Jeff go to City Council. You know more than, you know what
you're talking about. I guess I'd like you to go there and just address.
Farmakes: That'd be fine. I'd be happy to do that. I'd like to see the staff take some '
photographs of some of the examples of what we're talking about to use as visual aids in
defining it. I think that again the intent, whether you're a business person or whether you're
just a citizen in the city, the intent is to have a nice looking city. And I think again, the by
word is moderation and not illumination but to moderate the amount of this. We'll have a
better looking place and to use an example of the Wendy's to Abra or the Goodyear. If you
compare those to the same businesses elsewhere in surrounding communities here, we have '
nicer looking buildings here. And they're still seen from the highway. They're seen from the
road but they're not going to make a, cause a car crash or something because they're blinding.
Scott: Well the noise level. The visual noise level is lower because we've established a '
lower threshhold. That's why the buildings look better.
Farmakes: And as you group more and more buildings together, that becomes a factor in
defining the character of the city. And that's my point.
Scott: Okay. So we know where we're, is everybody clear on where we're going with this '
and staff? Okay. Any other discussion?
17 1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Harberts: Here.
Scott: Yes ma'am.
Harberts: I would really recommend that on page 5, number (d), that bus benches, that (d) be
changed to bench signs are prohibited except at designated transit stops as defined by the
Southwest Metro Transit Commission, or take it out entirely and have a different ordinance. I
think staff should put outlined and emphasize that cities have not had problems with it and it
is considered a benefit to the community. That's all I'll say.
Ledvina: Just a question Diane on that. Now that would relate specifically to ... benches
right?
Harberts: At transit stops.
Aanenson: So they can't just be anywhere. It has to be a designated stop.
Harberts: And it would be as designated by the Transit Authority which would include then,
we would let the city know what we're doing because we have, we get approval from the city
when we do that.
Farmakes: I have a question on the, are we done with that?
Harberts: I think so.
Ledvina: Well how do you reconcile the City Attorney's opinion then? That this is
exclusionary.
Conrad: She included anybody.
Aanenson: She included anybody so, if somebody wanted to get a permit and you came to
the city to have a bus stop here, at a Southwest Metro bus stop...
Ledvina: Oh, I see.
Scott: Because I know one of the things that Diane is talking about is the public /private. I
mean if the taxpayers don't have to pay to put it up but because these are, I mean they're a
public benefit but they are predominantly beneficial when they are, in my opinion, they are
only, or they're predominantly beneficial when they're associated with a transit stop. That
allows you to take advantage of that.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Harberts: Right. And again, I would say that except at designated transit stops that are
designated by the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. And I want to assure that that
interpretation includes that Southwest Metro Transit Commission is responsible for working
with the city and with any particular locations. There may be some transit stops where we
don't feel we want to see a bus bench there. But for instance at the park and ride lot, I think
it'd be fine.
Conrad: Diane should there be, I guess the issue is, either to take it out of this ordinance or
separate ordinance or keep it as simple as what you moved. Do we need more definition than
that? Is it so loose right now because it's only 10 words, do we need better definitions to
make it a separate ordinance or is it, are we comfortable enough as.
Harberts: Well the intent of my statement is that it allows for advertising at benches that are
located only at transit stops and I don't want to use the word regulated but I don't know of
any other word at this point.
Scott: As designated by the transit authority, whoever that may be.
Harberts: Right, right. Because on practices that we chat with the city about that because
there are liability issues with regard to sight lines. Do you even want to have a bus bench
there and things like that. So that's why I wanted to make sure that whatever wording, it
makes those, reaches those intents.
Conrad: The other thing though is don't we want to have permission from the land owner?
Harberts: Oh definitely.
Conrad: Now is that.
Harberts: That's why as designated by Southwest Metro. We would take on all of that
responsibility to make sure that those agreements are in place because I mean there's liability
issues here so that's why, by designated by Southwest Metro Transit Commission, they take
on the responsibility to make sure all those ducks are in a row. And again, with something
like that, it goes with city approval and consent or something. That's how we work. That's
the relationship.
Scott: Any other discussion before we open the public hearing?
Farmakes: I do have one definition I'd like clarified. On window signage, when we use 50 %,
do we define that as temporary signage? That's something that the ordinance does but is that
19
1
0
i
LJ
F�
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
what we're expecting when we're expecting 50% of the window space is covered by signage
on a building?
Rask: The way I understand it, it would be, it could be temporary or permanent. You just
can't cover more than 50 %.
Farmakes: So we potentially could be adding several hundred square feet in a large building
of signage from the projected out from the building, correct?
Rask: Correct. The way it is currently written, yes.
Farmakes: Is that the intent of what we want to achieve? It's my understanding when we're
dealing with window signage, that we're dealing with temporary signage. Sale specials
...displays, that sort of thing. We weren't dealing with permanent signage and I'm seeing
more and more of the back lit and the neon supplied by some of the franchisees where they're
mounted into the window as permanent signage. I'm wondering, what's the difference of
putting a moderation on signage, on the wall sign up above or on the pylon and then you're
adding several hundred feel in the window space of permanent signs. Should there be a
definition there between temporary and permanent?
Rask: I think one of the reasons it wasn't addressed more is the difficulty of enforcing a
condition like that. We'd have to control and see how long...limit temporary signage say to
one month time, we'd have ... it'd be difficult to enforce. ...put that in there, limit the length of
a ... window sign. I think that was the original concern brought up. We're trying to keep this
ordinance simple.
Ledvina: What would you suggest Jeff?
Farmakes: I don't know. It's my understanding from talking to some retail that's in town,
they're concerned about temporary signage. MGM - for instance.
Scott: That's 100% now.
Farmakes: Well they're 100 %. There isn't that much permanent signage in the windows.
There are a few companies that don't have much window space like Chan Lawn & .Sports that
do have the opportunity to put up a lot of back lit supplied franchise type signage that's
provided to them but they don't happen to have much window space. Festival puts up a fair
amount of specials in the window. I don't think they have any permanent signage ... in their
windows. Byerly's I'm assuming will have none by the looks of things.. Target also none. I
guess if there are no more large scaled buildings with a lot of signage in windows to put up,
20
u
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
the commercial buildings in Chanhassen I guess really isn't a major issue from what I can see
but there's a potential there if you had a building that had several hundred square feet of
window space. Half of that could be a permanent sign projected out to the street.
Ledvina: Are you saying all of a sudden they're going to look at this and say whoa, and put
up all kinds of signs?
Farmakes: Well no. That ordinance allows you to put up half of the square footage of the
window space. If I was at the Riveria, we'd have a lot less signage available to us because
the structure of our building does not have much windows. Another structure that has a lot of
window space like Subway. I'm not sure what the covenants within their lease are restricting
them to but they have I think 3/4 of their wall space is glass. Fully able to project to the
Gstreet there. I'm not sure how many hundreds of square feet it is but the ordinance allows
them to have it.
Scott: I know from a, is it to make a definition between temporary and permanent with
regard to window signage, you're right. I mean the sign police would be a full time job. And
I think it's really kind of, from an enforcement standpoint, you say 50 %. It doesn't matter if
it's permanent or temporary. I think if someone is going to use window signage effectively,
the purpose of window signage, at least in my view, is it's a rotating product oriented
temporary usage. At least that's what I think it is and it's a question of how heavy does the
regulation want to get. I think 50% is, and don't make a definition in between whether it's
permanent or whether it's temporary. I think the gest of what we want to do, we want to
moderate the amount of window signage. 50 %'s pretty easy to eye ball and whether it's
temporary or permanent, it really doesn't matter. So what? Any other discussion? Okay, can
I have a motion to open the public hearing please.
Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: Anybody who would like to address the Planning Commission, please step forward.
Introduce yourself. Yes sir. Introduce yourself. Give us your address and let us know what's
on your mind.
Leonard Thiel: Chair, members of the commission. My name is Leonard Thiel. I'm at 5643
Green Circle Drive in Minnetonka, Minnesota. As I've stated to you the last time I had a
chance to visit with you a couple three weeks ago, I told you that the principle, Mr.
Danielson, President of the company was out of town because we had changed, you had
changed the date of the public hearing and so he had made other arrangements and couldn't
be here. He wanted to be here so he'd like to address you tonight just for a couple seconds to
21
1
u
1
1
IJ
u
L
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
cover our viewpoints. Roland Danielson is the President of U.S. Bench and he'd like to
speak.
Roland Danielson: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. Roland Danielson
...mentioned and my brother and I own U.S. Bench Corporation and we've been in business
for 48 years. And I just wanted to support the motion that was made by Commissioner
Harberts relative to benches at bus stops. ...that's the essence of our business, and we have
been... serving the mass transit rider all through these years and we feel very, very strongly
about it being at a transit stop and no other place. And the whole idea and the whole premise
...local firms and local companies to help support the potential service ... As a matter of fact I
got a couple of letters today from ... so that's kind of the premise in which we work and we
have been doing that... I also wanted to mention that we insure all the benches for $3
million... They are covered. That includes the transit company. It includes the city of
Chanhassen and it includes ourselves and it includes the sponsor so we're very conscientious
about that ... so we feel that the bench system, that really works well can be enhanced by a
bench ordinance. We've had a number of ordinances and we..submit some and that just spells
our pretty carefully, very carefully, very rigidly how ... good bench system would work... I just
wanted to touch on a few things there and show our support ... Thank you very much.
Scott: Good, thank you very much.
Leonard Thiel: To reiterate... it's not a sign company. It's rather a convenience for bus riders
and an economical way for a small business in your community to advertise in an unobtrusive
way.
Scott: Thank you. Anyone else?
Randy Herman: Randy Herman, 2792 Piper Ridge Lane. I didn't intend to do this tonight
but I'd like to speak kind of as three people. I'm a resident, I'm a business owner. I'm also a
member of the Chamber that worked with you guys on the sign ordinance. As a resident,
when I sit and listen to these kinds of discussions, I'm bothered by what I see as an ever
increasing role of the city to kind of mandate everything bland. I get the impression that if it
was totally left up to certain people, we'd have nothing but beige and brown and tan. And I'd
like to speak for myself and I think a number of other people, I like a little color. I think
back lit awnings, with or without advertising are nice looking. I think they dress up a
building. I like to drive through the city and I like to see well lit, nicely done buildings that
might be green. That might be pink. There was mention of Highway 101 and Highway 7.
There also now is on that corner a couple of restaurants and a bank that use neon as a
highlight. They are great looking. They look neat. You drive down the highway, they stand
out and son of a gun, you actually know who's there and what business it is. At the same
22
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 ,
time, I think they add flavor to that corner. I don't think everything needs to be bland. I
don't think it does anybody any good. As a business owner, it's a control issue again. I think
'
if you want to limit the amount of signage, I think we've tried to do that. We've set criteria
about maximum allowables. I don't think it should be the business of the city to mandate the
color, the form, the graphics. What is good advertising taste. What is poor advertising taste.
Let the businesses do that. There seems to be an assumption that businesses will always do
the worst thing and I think if that was true, every building in the city that had a business in it
would be dayglo orange or dayglo pink but that's not true. Businesses try to present
'
themselves in a certain manner to attract a clientele that they perceive as their clientele. If
you think they're doing business in an upscale community, you'll probably try to present your
building and your business and your signage in an upscale way. And I think that what the
city needs to do is set solid criteria. Maximum allowables. Square footage, whatever, and
then get the hell out of the way. I mean leave it up to the businesses to decide what they
want to do from there. And again, as a resident, it doesn't bother me that Fina or Super
America wants to put a band around their gas tanks or above them on the awning. I think it
looks well lit. It identifies where they are. It identifies what they do. There's way too much
personal opinion that can get entered into this idea of what's tasteful and what isn't and we've
'
got to leave it alone. It's up to the businesses. If somebody wants to paint their building an
ugly color, it's likely that they'll attract less clientele. It will balance itself out. As a
Chamber member and someone who was at the meetings and worked on this, I'm floored. I
mean when I saw some of the things that got entered into here, I just kind of wondered what
were we negotiating. What were we working on that whole time? Again, if we're going to
talk about architectural treatments, and maybe that's a moot point at this point, but to me it
'
opens up the whole thing. I mean we didn't talk about maximum square footages based on
that there might be a restriction on the amount of graphic banding or color a building could
use or whatever. We talked about it based on signage. And maybe it's a moot point, I don't
'
know. But it got thrown in there theoretically because that was brought up last time but that
was not the intent I understood last time when we met here as far as what staff was going to
work on. The very first thing that hit me on the very first page under purpose, is we changed
the language which allows, permits businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to
advertise period. To advertise the location of a business. I mean what the heck. Signs are to
advertise what you do. I don't want to just put Moore on the front of my business. I want to
'
put Moore Signs. Merit would like to put Merit Heating. I mean if we want to do that, why
don't we just put big numbers up and we'll have a key and you look for number 2000 is
'
Byerly's. I mean signs are to advertise. It's a basic premise of the sign. I don't understand.
Why would you want to restrict that? And I don't understand where that came from. I mean
it's just foreign to me that it got thrown in there. Ah, there's a lot of them. On temporary
'
signage, page 6, number 9. This wasn't an addition but it got talked about last time. Nothing
was done with it. We talked about it and came up with a possible solution. This section
allows a 64 square foot sign under certain circumstances. A temporary sign. There was I
23 1
Planning Commission Meeting - November, 16, 1994
concern that if that sign was allowed to be 10 feet from the property line, which is the
standard throughout the ordinance, that a 64 square foot sign could fall over and be over the
property line. I think that's a legitimate concern. Our suggestion here would be, and this
section only allows a maximum of 64 square feet. It doesn't mean every sign will be 64
square feet. Our suggestion would be, set a minimum setback here of 10 feet and add one
foot of setback for every foot that that sign exceeds 10 feet in height. That's a simple
formula that will just say if it's 15 feet tall, it's got to be 15 feet back. Everywhere else pretty
much in the ordinance where we've got a temporary sign and we've set it's a maximum 10
foot tall sign, we've said it's got to be a minimum of 10 feet back from the property line.
Page 8, (c)(2). There's a restriction that allows only 4 signs per intersection. This is an off
site directional sign. I'm curious what we're going to do about the fifth developer that comes
in on that corner. Is it first come, first serve? Or what? I mean I'd hate to be that fifth or
sixth guy if I can't have an off site directional signage and the 4 guys before me could.
(c)(7), such sign shall be removed 12 months after the sign has been erected. It seems to me
it should be period there. And the developer may not apply for a second off premise
directional sign permit, there's no permit necessary over this section. Banners at 100 feet.
I'm sure there's a lot of people that think Byerly's banner currently is too big. I don't. I don't
think it's too big for the building. I don't think it's too big for the purpose. I don't even think
it's ugly at the size it is, and it's huge. It's probably 300 feet. It might be 4. We've allowed
a maximum of 100 square feet. That's a 4 foot x 25 foot banner which can't be read very far.
I think that ought to be increased and that was something we had talked about in the initial
discussions.
Ledvina: I'm sorry Randy, the size of banners ? - Is this page 9?
Randy Herman: Yeah that was, yes. Page 9. Page 12 (a). The second sentence is no sign
shall be placed within any drainage utility easement or utility easement. In (c) there's been a
collection made to say, it can be placed in a utility easement, if approved by the city. I think
that was the intent in (a) also. Because I think we've all determined that signs need to be in
utility easements. I mean that's where the majority of our permanent signs on main street are
and where most of the temporary signs go. I think it's very unusual that a city would ask for
permission to put a temporary sign in a utility easement but I guess that may be the way it's
going to be. I'm not sure what the concerns are. A temporary sign means temporary. If
there needs to be utility work, it's easily removed. Maybe instead of having to have
everybody come in and ask for permission, maybe we could just say the same thing that we
did with political signs for some of the other directional signs. Put a name and phone number
on it. Who's responsible for it. If it needs to be pulled, call. Have it pulled. The last
session we talked about window signage. One of the concerns I hear Jeff bring up was what
about somebody like the. Riveria. The Riveria, they don't have any windows. That's unfair to
them. How about a minimum allowable? How about if we say you can have 32 square feet
24
Plannin g g Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
of window signs regardless. And if you've only got 10 feet of windows, well you can at least
have, you can use them to their fullest use. When you get over a certain point, you've got a '
lot of windows, then the 50% maximum applies. The whole architectural sign feature, I
thought that was all very vague and again it just kind of places the city in the control of
colors and everything else. I don't agree with it. Maintenance and repair. To me this is
almost the heart of this whole ordinance. We don't have a lot of bad signage in Chanhassen.
Most of what's bad is bad because it's deteriorated. It's falling over. It's falling apart. Some
of the worst signage that exists in the city is on property controlled by the city. Hanus' sign.
Isn't that property controlled by the HRA? That's the Hanus building sign with Toll Welding
on it. It's the entrance to the city. It's the ugliest sign in this town. I mean that sign should
go. But it shouldn't necessarily go because of it's.
Aanenson: It's going. '
Randy Herman: Well I mean that to me it's right here. Take care of what's falling apart.
Make people maintain the signs. But don't put undue restrictions on them. It's been added
that 10 days after you get a notice to make a change, remove or alter, you've got to have it
done or you start getting fined. You start getting a violation. I'm here to tell you that 10
days is not going to be enough. 10 days to get a sign company out for a major sign repair, it
'
won't happen. It's got to be longer than that and 10 days is, I mean 30 days in the life of all
of us is plenty of time. I guess that's it. Again I feel like a whole lot of issues just got
opened right back up again after I thought we had pretty well resolved everything that was in
need of resolving. And I mean if all this stuff is back in and here to stay, two things. One, I
can tell you for sure this isn't going forward with any kind of Chamber support, and that may
not make a difference one way or the other to you. The other is that I feel like if we're going
'
to start adding things at this point in the game, let's go back and start talking about them
again. Let's open up the discussion about what makes sense. Let's get some counter points
in. I stood here last time kind of saying I thought we had come a long way. I take it back
this time. I think we've gone backwards and I guess I really don't understand why or where it
came from. Those are my comments.
Vernelle Clayton: I'm Vernelle Clayton. I live in Chanhassen at 422 Santa Fe Circle and I
have been involved in the, I'm sure as everybody else here ... been involved with the Chamber
group too and I guess I have to echo a little bit of what Randy said, although I was not able
r
to make the last meeting so he's had a little more involvement than I have. But we felt very
good and we told all the people that we represented, including in my case in addition to
participating as a Chamber member, I was ... representing Market Square in my participation.
'
One of the things I tried to do was keep it as orderly as we could and as efficient as we could
when we had our 3 work sessions and more than that work sessions on the part of the
chamber. And who you represented, and the folks that we would represent ... so we didn't have
,
25 1
LJ
t
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
a room full of people every time. We thought we'd have it orderly and I think that you said
that you appreciated that and we just feel a little bit ... I feel a little bit like we wish that these
things had been available to us in those round table discussions so that we didn't have to
stand here and make objections. I will try not to discuss the same things that Randy did but I
wanted to. Just a couple. I do agree with him that the message these days that America is
giving everyone is let's let government leave us alone. I think it came through loud and clear
on Tuesday not too long ago and I think that's what Randy's saying here and that's what the
business people have said to us. I think the location of a business here, it's presense here
tonight in this draft, I would like to think stems from perhaps whoever put it in or whoever
decided to put it in or the group that did may be a little too close to the issue. I think saying
that means something to you, or to whomever put it there and I kind of picture what they're
thinking but I think to the new person or the business person picking up this document, it's
going to look crazy. Because they're not just advertising their location of their business if
you take this literally. As Randy said, they're advertising their business. I think this is not
something that caused us a problem in the past. I think that ... will do what we're talking.
Signs are an advertisement and it's really ... So that would be my thoughts there. I had a
couple other specific things. One is, I think this could have just been an oversight or again
an interpretation of a word or two... appears in two places. At the bottom of page 6, item (g).
And it appears again at the top of page 7. The work is completed... when we're saying a
project is completed, we're... That means different things in different situations. Often to the
contractor, the builder whoever's doing it ... and I think what we talked about in our session
and I think ... I guess Randy mentioned the issue that ... on page 8, item 7 where we take a
portion out that relates to the fact ... I guess I would like to suggest that we do treat this
situation the same as we treated the former situation on the top of page 7 where it gives front
and back sides some latitude and... have been suggesting to everyone that if we're going to
use a banner for a short period of time to make an impact, then let's let the people make an
impact. Let's regulate this in a time period. 100 foot banner does not make an impact. It's
just, it's more, it just creates in my mind more clutter than a big oversized banner that you
know is only there for a little while. A smaller banner looks like it's kind of a piece of paper
on a big building... Now I don't think Byerly's banner looks all that bad and it's enormous. It
would never fly under this ordinance.
Ledvina: Excuse me Vernelle, which section are you speaking to right now?
Vernelle Clayton: ...I should have stopped. It's on page 9, number—Again, the Chamber's
position was that, the underlying position I think for the Chamber was let's have an open
mind in this special promotion kinds of things. This is what creates the fun, creates
excitement... commercial area. I have a sticky little point here on item 4 ... but I think that my
ear perk up every time I get to the point where it says that the city should do something, or
remove it upon complaint. Because we kind of respond to a lot of things that are going on in
26
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 ,
the city right now that are responsive in nature. We say okay, you can do it unless somebody
complains. And as soon as somebody complains ... if it was a good idea. It's a pretty negative
'
kind of way of doing things and also I happen to know from the work that I do with a lot of
the folks at Market Square, that ... love to complain. ...from adjacent residential areas. If there
are complains from people from residential areas. If I put up a..on some vacant lot that
was ... put up a large flag, I sure don't want to have to take it down because somebody that
parked in the parking lot on a Tuesday afternoon when it happened to be blowing at 50
mph...and so that's a lot of words about a very little point but I'd like... don't have any other
'
specific things to say here. Maybe I have one more. I passed by and... discuss the part about
architectural features... Architectural features is not defined. There was a lot of discussion
tonight that meant bands and anybody walking into this room not knowing ... felt about sign
bands would not know from having read the rest of this that they were related to bands. 10
or 15 years ago there was...I think it's the type of use that we typically are using to think now
when we're dealing with it. As you recall Midwest Federal a few years ago had round
,
buildings. In that case ... that would have been 100 %. The last thing, also I think if we had
this in place, Wendy's would not look like it does today. They were asking for very little
bright red. We could have said... Under the current ordinance we were able to get those units
'
burgundy. So I'm not sure, I think they're right... I've been involved in writing several sign
plans for various developments. Three of them in town ... in each case we used individual
letters. Back lit letters or... There are three buildings or shopping centers that probably have
'
up to 35, the possibility of 35 different signs. Different tenants that have the right... individual
letters or logos in their signs. So I guess I would question if this were to pass the way it is,
what happens if the ... leaves and a new one wants to put a sign up that's like the other people
had ... some logos there. More of course I think the ordinance should say logos. If we have...
or other little things that various people use, the little ice cream thing that... using for the i, if
'
they have those, then I think we want them back lit. I don't think we want them off to the
side, possibly not lit. I think we want them all to be consistent. I'd like to have you look at
that because I think when I look at these signs, if we put it the way those sign plans are
'
written...
Ledvina: Where would that be addressed? '
Vernelle Clayton: I have now wandered all the way over to page 14.
Ledvina: Did Y ou have a specific suggestion for that? '
Vernelle Clayton: Yes. Individual dimensional letters and/or logos. ,
Randy Herman: What about the industrial type buildings? The industrial building like the
one I'm in. There's no need to have illuminated letters. '
27 '
n
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 .
Vernelle Clayton: Well I think this says back lit letters. That's the proposal. It's been my
understanding that we're proposing all back lit letters all over town? ... okay, so individual
dimensional letters and /or logos. I just think it has to be in the sign ... could be back lit.
Thanks.
Scott: Yeah, thank you. Anyone else? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing
please?
Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Comments. Jeff.
Farmakes: I'll just be brief here. We've talked about this now for ... 2 years. I'll start out just
with the premise of a couple of issues. One is, I certainly think that the city is acting as it
should in regards to this issue. I don't think it's over stepping it's bounds. Certainly
Chanhassen's been a planned community for a number of decades and signage as an issue of
planned communities is a given. It's not an imposition on personal rights or individual rights.
It deals with the issue that the common good proceeds individual rights and certain issues of
planned communities. It's been to court and the issue at court has been established. What
we're looking at here I believe is the same premise that an independent developer uses when
they have a criteria covenant within that lease for that business that they have to cover
signage, as Vernelle just mentioned. She's been involved with three of them. It does a
number of things. It protects the investment of the developer. It protects the other lease
holders from abuse by another leasee. I don't think that the city's any different except instead
of one development we're dealing with many and I think the intent is still the same. To
protect the community's investment and we have an obligation to do that. I think we'd be
walking away from that if we treated that as saying, well you go ahead and do it and let us
know when you're done. We're certainly taking this opportunity here for this commission to
have that input. We've been working with it, city staff and numerous consultants here for a
number of months and I also believe that, what have we got here. Five out of a rather
complicated ordinance. Actually if this was representative of the amount of work that we've
done, it'd probably be 100 pages long. I think that it's been good that we've been with the
Chamber and that we've smoked out some of these things. Some of the nuts and bolts
applications. I think that there were some compromises made in the issues that were sent.
Starting out with the issue at the top of the list. The issue of the philosphical intent. The
issue to identify a location versus just the word advertisement. I'll take the benefit for that, as
requesting that in the last meeting and I think the reason being is that it certainly wouldn't
preclude if there was a sign saying Merit, to saying Merit Heating. That doesn't preclude
that. The issue of the intent would be what is the intent of the sign. If in the city regulating
28
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 ,
it are they trying to keep a business from identifying it's name or it's location. I think that
came up with American Family Insurance. They wanted to put the logo and they wanted to
'
put the word Insurance on there. All of that would seem to me as part of identifying a
location of a business. However, if you get in and look at Byerly's and you look at Byerly's,
Fine Food, Open 24 Hours, Wine and Spirits, you get into another can of fish. If you look at
,
Holiday, you start talking about Cold Beer and Cold Cuts and the issue again is whether you
have an equitable opportunity to explain all their services and all their goods. When you
come back and say, well I can put signs all over the building saying that, you know like a
,
special on beer and you can't regulate that. You can't tell me I can't put that up in the
window if I need to. I think again going back to the issue of what is it that the sign does. I
think that it identifies in a community a location of a business and that is the intent of
'
signage. The intent of advertising is to advertise goods and services and that is a sub -issue in
here within temporary signs and other forms of discussions for bus back advertising and
things of that nature, which defines it differently. For instance Merit Heating might say, list a
'
number of units that they sell or something of that nature. The unnecessary duplication of
signage in this ordinance, I'm still not sure whether or not we've covered that. I'm not sure
even if we had a statement on that, that would allow the city to deny a signage based on a
,
duplication for a sight line. I use an example of the Byerly's up here next door. That's a
duplication of signage, even though there's two different frontages. To me it's duplication of
the same sight line and it's unnecessary. But I'm not exactly sure how we could word that
'
into the ordinance. I have no problem with the issue of the banner. I think that perhaps the
banner issue is probably a well made point. We may be able to deal with that as to say three
different sized buildings or however we deal with the pylon issue constitutes different sized
signs for different square foot buildings. Obviously Byerly's used as an example is a 60,000
square foot building. There aren't a lot of those in Chanhassen. Perhaps we could come up
with something relevant there. I think the minimum probably on the signage is a good idea
,
to establish or look at that at least in dealing with the issue of fairness. For some buildings
that even have little window space. The pylon sign issue that we haven't addressed. I'm not
sure how to work that in but I think one of the big mistakes that the City Council, in their
'
wisdom have made was making an exception to the rule again with Byerly's to putting a
pylon sign on 78th or an intent of the pylon sign. I think that the purpose again was over
kill. It's not necessary. You can certainly see it from the sight line and speed of 78th in the
'
distance. Again, you're hit with 3 Byerly signs from the same sight line. Do we need that? I
think that Target followed a good example. You have a large building. That sign is readily
'
seen from several hundred feet away. You know where to turn in. It serves it's purpose and
I think again as an example, we drive through the city with this moderation and the height of
monumentature, we can see, actually see the buildings instead of all the buildings being
'
covered up by pylon plastic. And again, it helps enhance the issue of a city. Small town
without the numerous expanse of cars and covered with plastic. Anyway, I would like to see
that if there is a way, and I don't know how, if we could put that forth to the Council. I'd I
29 1
7�
F
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
like to see that maintained. I think that's a good idea that perhaps almost by I think
circumstance that started off of the SA over on TH 41 and TH 7 where they lowered the
monumenture down. That really cleans up the look and puts it out towards the building
rather than being blown away by a big cover up in front. And again though I support the
pylons on TH 5 simply because it serves that purpose. That's a much faster highway. Much
farther sight lines and so on. It's a different sign assignment and again, it's not that I'm
against signage on 78th or Great Plains or any of the internal drives, but I think it serves a
purpose. I mean you literally drive right by the sign and it doesn't need to be 20 feet tall.
Other than that I think the majorityof this ordinance is good. That's not to say that
everybody's going to agree on everything. I do have one final comment on an issue of, I've
designed actually put together bus benches and bus backs and internal boards on MTC and I'll
tell you, I never knew that I was doing a public service. I was doing it for the money and the
businesses that I was doing it for were doing it for the money. It's a business. It perhaps this
is so much a public service we can donate all the income from it to public charities here.
Harberts: It's called transit charity.
Farmakes: Right, transit charity. I do support staff on this issue. I think the way to treat
this, rather than be industry specific, is to treat it, either you have it or you don't and I see
this as outdoor advertising is what it is. And I think the less of it the better. In this case, if
there was a way to legally do it where it was fair, because of it's limitation to bus backs, I
don't know if, or bus benches, I don't know if legally there's a way to do that. I would
support the staff s recommendation of eliminating it. That's it.
Scott: Ladd.
Conrad: A couple quick points. Under the definition or the purpose, I'd sure like to change
and instead of saying the location of the business, I'd like to say the name and service. I
think that.just makes, I think that's clean. I agree with some of the points made to date by, at
the public hearing. I think we need to, I do believe that bus benches, transit style type of
signage should happen but it should be controlled so I can't, so the staff report as it stands I
don't agree with but I think there's a way to solve that. On page 6, points (c) under 9. I
think the Chamber's talking about a setback of 10 feet with an escalating setback for height.
Does anybody have a, I'm not sure exactly what the formula there is. Kate, didn't we think
that 10 feet was acceptable?
Aanenson: With this item ... that's fine. ...10 feet and if it's higher than that,,l foot for each
additional foot of the sign.
Conrad: Does that make sense?
30
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Aanenson: Yeah.
Randy Herman: It will be hard to have a 64 square foot sign that's only 10 feet tall.
Ledvina: But it can be 15 feet tall ... right.
Conrad: So Kate, what would you say in terms of a 10 foot setback and then 1 foot.
Aanenson: Plus 1 foot of setback for each additional foot on the pylon sign.
Conrad: Okay. There's some semantic issues that I think can be dealt with fairly easily. I
think page 8, point 7.
Aanenson: That's fine. Strike that...
Conrad: That makes sense? Page 9, I think the banner issue was sort of nobody knows what
the right footage is.
Aanenson: And that just came up from what we used...
Conrad: I would recommend, because temporary stuff is just that. It's temporary. It's going
to be down. It should have some kind of impact but when, I think it's not bad to have some,
a little bit of control there so I guess what I'd recommend is a 4 foot. I'm thinking real and
Randy works in the real world and maybe some of us don't always think about that but if you
had a 4 foot sign, height wise, I think that gives you some decent letters. And it works in
terms of probably dimensions of this fabric that he works with and if you went to 35 feet
long, that would create 140 foot, square feet and I think that's going to, it may not bundle in
the Byerly's deal. I don't know. I'm just kind of interested. So instead of 100 feet, that may
be not right. 3 x 33. That might not work but I'm just throwing around the 4 x 35 and I bet
you we could play with numbers all night long. I'm probably going to make a motion and
I'm just throwing that out right now that 100 foot, the way I got to 140 feet was 4 foot by 35.
That's how I.
Ledvina: If you recall from our work sessions, I think we started at 60 feet. We went to 80
and then we went to 100 and that's how this has progressed. I'm not saying that 140 is bad
but we have.
Conrad: We have gone up.
31
�I
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Ledvina: We have worked with this number but, and if there's a good rationale, a 4 x 35 foot
sign as a temporary banner, I'm okay with that.
Conrad: Well let's just take visually. That's a 4 foot height right there, is my guess. Is it 3
or 4?
Scott: Remember when we first started talking about banners we said well let's think about
examples. We talked about St. Huberts. Fine. Well I hadn't seen anything as big as the
Byerly's when I drive past it every day and I went, fine. I mean it's like we have to sanity
test it and when we see it on an application and you go, you know. They're hiring. That's
good to know. It's open house or something. I didn't fine that.
Conrad: I don't think whatever this number is is abusive. I don't think you know if it's, I
don't know. And again, I'm just looking for something that makes sense and we have gone
up, Matt I agree, but I think we started at something really ridiculous. That meant we
outlawed banners and I don't think that's really been the intent to do. So I'm saying, 4 feet by
35. 35 feet probably stretches across a street. Probably on the front of a building, that's a
couple hundred feet wide. It's not much of an impact. It's just not. So again, that's my
feeling on that one. I do throw out another, I think Kate and staff, page 12. General location
restrictions. In point (c) we said, unless approved by the city.
Aanenson: Well and duplication, okay. We can take out in (a) where it says no sign shall be
placed...
Conrad: Okay. At the bottom of that page. I guess I was pretty comfortable just with the
statement. There's been a statement tonight saying well, what about the folks that don't have
many windows. Should we govern that? I guess I'd listen to somebody talking or wants to
talk to me about governing. You know not having this cover buildings with window areas of
less than 32 square feet of something. I don't know. From a, I don't know. It's another
number and if somebody has some input on that, I'd sure entertain that. I don't think I need
to regulate 32 feet on a building. I guess whoever made that comment, I guess I could go
along with it unless there's a good counter point to it.
Scott: We're trying to even the playing field.
Conrad: Yeah. See I'm not sure Joe if I agree. People buy buildings based on what they
see. I guess I don't need to, I personally don't need to level it. But on the other hand, I don't
need to get into somebody's back pocket either and say, I'm going to manage your 32 feet. I
really don't feel I need to do that so. I may make a motion to that effect that we go down.
That we do not go down to that area. Under 32 square feet of window area is not regulated
32
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
by that ordinance. That's probably what I'm going to say unless I hear some discussion
coming back. On page 13, I want (h) deleted. Jeff, I'm sure I just lost your vote on that one
but I really would like to accomplish (h) through a different mechanism and not here. I think
Randy brought up a good point in terms of signage. On Section 20 -1266. 10 days is not
realistic. I can't get Randy to make a sign in.
Scott: Sounds like there's some...
Conrad: No, realistically in that business, if you want a decent sign to replace something,
you're not going to get it done in 10 days so I want to encourage quality. I really agree.
This section to me is probably the most important, or one of the more important ones. I think
we want to regulate signage on how big it is but I think we also want to regulate how well
it's maintained. It seems like we've had the easiest time over the maintenance, or this section
hasn't caused us any problem and it's probably one that has, if I want city staff to be really
monitoring anything in this ordinance, this is the one. This is where we can make an impact.
This is where the citizens do care and this is where I want staff out there looking. That's just
a personal deal but that's major. And the rest, that's real significant. So bouncing that
number up to 30 days seems reasonable and even that's tough. I think those are the
comments and if I get to make a motion, they're probably going to go that direction.
Farmakes: If you make a motion, on (h) being dropped.
Conrad: I will cover it in terms of.
Farmakes: Will you cover that with a direction to incorporate that into the architectural
standards section?
Conrad: Yeah.
Scott: Diane.
Harberts: I would support comments made by Ladd. Emphasizing that (d) on page 5 be
amended to read that bus signs are prohibited except at designated transit stops as designated
by SMTC, Southwest Metro Transit Commission. And then to strike, or to amend I guess on
page 11, number 8 to read the same. I guess based on the comments of the public hearing,
on letter 8, I'm going to sit on the fence and see where it goes. Those are my comments.
Ledvina: The comments that were made by the Chamber are all good additions and
modifications to the ordinance that we have here. I would support Ladd's comments,
33
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
especially as it relates to item (h) on page 13. I do feel that it's appropriate that that issue be
tackled in a different, or using a different mechanism. That's it.
Scott: Okay, can I have a motion?
Conrad: Sure. This is real exciting. Not that we're doing the right thing but it just may not
be back here.
Scott: Hopefully you're properly attired to make this motion then.
' Conrad: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the revised
sign ordinance, Article XXVI, as drafted in the staff report. There's not really a date on here
but, okay today's date, with the following changes. On page 1, item 1. We changed the
' wording, location of a business to name and service. On page 5. We revised under Section
20- 1255(d), we revise the wording to say, bench signs are prohibited except at designated
transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. Does that work?
' Harberts: Yes, I'll take it.
Conrad: I think legally that's the best way to do it. On page 6, point 9, item (c). Revise the
wording to say, such signs shall be set back not less than 10 feet for signage 10 feet or less.
Staff you're going to have to clean this up. Plus 1 foot of setback for each additional foot of
sign height. On the bottom of page 6, item (g). Last sentence. The word completed would
be changed to sold or leased. Top of page 7, third line down. The word completed would be
changed to sold or leased. Page 8. We would strike point number 7 under (c). We would
strike, and the developer may not apply for a second off premise directional sign permit.
Page 9. Banners shall not exceed 140 square feet, rather than 100. Page 10. Item number 4.
Add from surrounding areas to the end of that sentence.
Scott: Do you want to say residential? Are you talking about a complaint from a resident of
a leasee versus someone who's just driving in...
Conrad: Yeah, and I'd leave it open to business complaints as well. Page 11, number 8.
Bench signs are prohibited except at designated transit stops as authorized by the local transit
authority. Page 12, item under Section 20- 1265(a). Staff will make (a) and (c) of this section
consistent with the intent to allow temporary signs in the utility easement when approved by
the city. Letter (g), will stand as is except with a final statement that says, this section does
not apply to buildings with less than 32 square feet of window area. Page 13. We're going
to delete (h) altogether but with a note that says, but with a recommendation to the City
Council that staff, with the help of Jeff, review the architectural ordinance in the Highway 5
34
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Overlay and determine if the architectural standards should be reviewed by staff and Planning
Commission for a separate city wide ordinance. Section 20 -1266, fifth line down. Change
the number 10 to 30. Page 14, fourth line down. Add after the words, individual
dimensional letters add the words, and logos. That is the end of my motion.
Scott: Okay, is there a second to that motion?
Ledvina: Second.
Scott: Is there any discussion?
Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
amendment to the City Code, Article XXVI regarding the sign ordinance with the following
changes:
On page 1, item 1 change the wording, location of a business to name and service. On page
5 revise under Section 20- 1255(d) the wording to say, bench signs are prohibited except at
designated transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. On page 6, point 9, item
(c). Revise the wording to say, such signs shall be set back not less than 10 feet for signage
10 feet or less, plus 1 foot of setback for each additional foot of sign height. On the bottom
of page 6, item (g). Last sentence. The word completed would be changed to sold or leased.
Top of page 7, third line down. The word completed would be changed to sold or leased.
Page 8, number 7 under (c), strike, and the developer may not apply for a second off premise
directional sign permit. Page 9. Banners shall not exceed 140 square feet, rather than 100.
Page 10. Item number 4. Add from surrounding areas from residents or businesses, to the end
of that sentence. Page 11, number 8. Bench signs are prohibited except at designated transit
stops as authorized by the local transit authority. Page 12, item under Section 20- 1265(a).
Staff will make (a) and (c) of this section consistent with the intent to allow temporary signs
in the utility easement when approved by the city. Letter (g), will stand as is except with a
final statement that says, this section does not apply to buildings with less than 32 square feet
of window area. Page 13. We're going to delete (h) altogether but with a note that says, but
with a recommendation to the City Council that staff, with the help of Jeff, review the
architectural ordinance in the Highway 5 Overlay and determine if the architectural standards
should be reviewed by staff and Planning Commission for a separate city wide ordinance.
Section 20 -1266, fifth line down. Change the number 10 to 30. Page 14, fourth line down.
Add after the words, individual dimensional letters add the words, and logos.
All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously.
Scott: City Council?
35
0
L
i
' Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
I Aanenson: It will be on the 12th.
' Scott: The 12th? I'd like to thank the members of the Chamber of Commerce for coming in
and assisting yet once again. I don't suppose you'll be at the City Council meeting. Thanks
very much.
PUBLIC HEARING:
' REZONING OF 39 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO
RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO CREATE 48 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS AND 3 OUTLOW A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR
' MMGATION OF PONDING AREAS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
ALTERATION OF AREAS WITHIN A FLOOD PLAIN ON PROPERTY LOCATED
NORTH OF TWIN CITIES & WESTERN RAILROAD TRACKS WEST OF BLUFF
' CREEK AND EAST OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES AND STONE CREEK, CREEKSIDE
ADDITION (FORMERLY HERITAGE FIRST ADDITION), HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT
' COMPANY.
Public Present:
I Name Address
' John Dobbs
Lloyd Grooms
645 5th Avenue
1691 Lincoln Avenue
John Dietrich
922 Mainstreet, Hopkins
Steve McCurry
2050 Oakwood Ridge
'
Stan Rud
2030 Renaissance Court
0
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Harberts: Question. On what page, 25, under subdivision. That number 2. What is that
telling me? Number 2 that has a line through it.
Generous: Oh, I started to renumber this whole thing and then I redecided not to. How you
were going to vote and then...
Harberts: So 2 is included?
Generous: Yes.
W
0
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Aanenson: What we attempted to do is for your edification is to show you how this has
changed. When it goes to Council, then we ...so you can see where...
Scott: Okay. Would any of the other members from city staff like to make any comments
about this development?
Hempel: I did want to make a point of clarification Mr. Chairman ... the applicant with regards
to condition number 32 ... At this point I guess I'm open to deleting the condition with the
understanding that the condition may be brought back and put in the development contract
once it reaches the final plat stage. When the numbers are a little more...
Scott: So instead of having a blank check, which is essentially what that is.
Hempel: That's correct.
Ledvina: So you can do it at that point?
Hempel: That's correct.
Scott: So basically the condition would be used when the specific numbers or when the
developers or the applicant's exposure to special assessments is quantified by the city, then
those numbers will be included as part of the development agreement.
Hempel: In the... deleted at this point.
Scott: Okay. Do you have any comments Todd?
Hoffman: Chairman Scott, members of the commission. Last night at the Park and
Recreation Commission meeting the members did discuss the applicant's unwillingness to
show the additional park property which they had requested. They instructed me to bring a
message to the Planning Commission that they felt very strongly in that regard and that they
would uphold that requirement...
Scott: Okay. I also, I had a conversation with Jim Andrews regarding the subject of double
credit for the trail and then the ... if you could perhaps. I don't know if the other
commissioners are aware what the concern was for that.
Hoffman: The Park Commission had asked for an easement, a trail easement. The applicant
is showing that as a long, linear piece of park property which may have some merits as far as
37
C
0
'I
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
the dedication process and determined through the negotiation process once it reaches that
point....
Scott: So was the concern that the easement for the trail was also counted as park?
Hoffman: Correct.
Scott: Okay. And the position is that an easement's an easement and a park is a park and
they're not the same thing.
Hoffman: Typically, in past developments when an easement has been required or asked for,
they've been given to the city and not counted as park dedication.
' Scott: Okay. Can you think of a reason why, since that appears to have been the mode of
operations with easements versus parkland, do you see any reason why this development
should be different?
Hoffman: No, I do not.
' Scott: Okay. Do you have any other comments?
Hoffman: No, other than I just happened to have a photograph which shows the triangular
shaped piece of property of trees which is of interest to the park commission. Members of
the commission and staff and members of the staff and the applicant walked this area. It's
somewhat unique in that the Bluff Creek corridor is in a location which is defined ... from
Highway 41 south... Throughout that experience if offers a variety of environments. One
thing which is beneficial to a trail corridor. Does not just have one type of experience... open
areas and wooded areas, is one of the aspirations of the Park and Recreation Commission in
' acquiring this particular triangular shaped piece of woods would allow for that...
' Harberts: Todd, am I understanding then that the applicant, and I don't know if I'm
understanding the process here, would prefer to pay park dedication fees instead of providing
the land?
' Hoffman: No. What they're showing is the park dedication as the long linear strip along here
to accommodate the trail. And if indeed that was determined to be a taking, we'd be willing
to go ahead and give them credit for that. But then we would also like to negotiate a
' purchase, and which we have communicated with the applicant, for the remainder of the
property.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Harberts: Okay. So what they're proposing is that the trail easement be considered as land
dedication without any additional park fees.
Hoffman: Correct.
Harberts: Okay. And the question that Joe had asked you was that in previous developments,
that there have been situations when there's easements given for trails as well as either land
for the park or park dedication. Has there ever been a request that you're aware of, similar in
nature to this one?
Hoffman: ...full park and trail fees. And then also providing... around the wetlands which is
very similar to this one.
Harberts: Fine, thanks.
Conrad: A question on wetland classification. Wetland A15 -15. That's the one that you hit
right when you dump off of Stone Creek I think. This is designated as an ag urban wetland?
That is really a pretty wetland and we have a street running. I guess I'm kind of amazed that
we have a street coming right to it and obviously to continue that we're going to fill, and
that's what the applicant has to do, but I'm not sure I have a problem with the road. It's got
to go where it's got to go but I'm really kind of miffed that we allowed a road to get to this
quite nice wetland. If you took a look at it, you'd just be amazed and I guess when I see it
classified as an ag urban, I'm amazed.
Aanenson: Can you clarify that...
Hempel: Sure. The roadway alignment, the initial view of that is...Stone Creek platted when
Hans Hagen ... sort of set in stone. In order to make the design curve to maintain the
standards... small portion of this wetland area. There has been, created a storm water pond
adjacent to this for the wetland area to pretreat the storm water runoff portion of this
particular development as well as the development of Stone Creek. We have tried to
minimize the impact to this wetland and continue that with a future road for this plat.
Aanenson: If I could just add to that. That was part of the reason we ... and the applicant got
caught up in that whole process ... we see this whole Bluff Creek corridor and adjacent to
wetlands—and as Todd indicated, it gives different opportunities...
Conrad: Dave, help me again with what went wrong. Did we anticipate the road really
missing the wetland? I'm not really pointed at this issue. I just guess when I do get out to a
site and I see something happening like this, I'm wanting to figure out what my role should
39
7
I I
F
L
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
be and what you told me was when it really got delineated where the road went. Start me
there. When you saw where that road really went, it was too late to change it because.
Hempel: We were aware of the wetland outside of the Stone Creek plat and at some point
we knew we were going to have to run a road adjacent to it or try to minimize the impact to
it. And based on the topography is how this was explored. We actually got out, it was
probably a drier year when—than actually it is this year. But the applicant with this
proposal... roadway itself. Normally within the right -of- way...
Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff?
Harberts: I do. Again, going back to page 25. That number 2. When it says that shall
attempt to retain. That doesn't give me a good comfort level. Although this certainly isn't my
area of expertise, I'm just in terms of what kind of guarantee or is that giving us. I don't have
a comfortable level with that. If we were to consider shall retain, is that too restrictive given
what needs to happen? I don't know but this shall attempt. Who's going to make that
determination where that level of attempt is?
Hempel: Well that condition itself, you're right ... may not be appropriate. This goes back to
previous plats that have been before you. The issue of what is considered excessive grading
on this site. What are natural features? To what extent are we trying to retain them. When
we put in streets, utilities and so forth, there is some compromise. There is ... involved. I
guess staff has reviewed the plan. The applicant has made suggestions. The applicant has
not yet made those changes to improve, maintaining the knolls, the higher areas. He's still
not sacrificing or compromising on the street widths ... in that approach.
Harberts: What if we took the word attempt. You know attempt to. Take that out and just
say, shall retain. Does it still achieve what you're speaking to with regard to the discussion
staff has had with the applicant or again, is it too restrictive given what you reviewed on the
plans?
Hempel: I believe it's restrictive and it's also interpretative...
Aanenson: I think what Dave is saying is correct is that we've moved in this direction.
We've made recommendations ... street grades. Try to bring up the street grades... I think
we're... compromising on those issues... This was targeted to that point and we think it's pretty
much ... as Dave indicated... pretty vague. Maybe at this point it may help...
Harberts: But is it better off then that we leave it in to give I guess the city the opportunity
for interpretation on that, or not? I don't know. I'm just, again I was just uncomfortable.
40
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Hempel: Or should we rephrase it to say that the applicant shall for the most feasible
engineering practices or something like that, retain the natural topographic features.
Scott: Well what about, it seems like the major disturbance is going to be caused when the
streets and utilities goes in. I mean that's a given. Perhaps what it is, the applicant shall
retain the natural topographic features undisturbed by street and utility construction to
preserve the rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics with the final grading plan.
Then at least there's that, we know there's a given that's going to happen. I mean obviously
pads have to be put in, etc, etc but what we don't want is, you know unnecessary grading.
We're dancing around this thing but I know where you're coming from is that that's
meaningless. Well we tried, you know.
Harberts: Right.
Conrad: But Joe, they're moving a lot of earth.
Scott: Oh yeah, I understand.
Conrad: So I kind of like the vagueness at this point. You know bottom line is, they're
moving a ton of earth here and it's just like, this is, and the staff represented this very well.
This was some perspectives that we wanted in the very early parts and gave that direction. I
think the applicant has tried but they basically are saying we've got to move a lot of stuff to
fit our houses in there.
Harberts: And I'm understanding that the staff has understood that and you've reached
agreement.
Aanenson: As Ladd indicated it may not hurt if you wanted...
Harberts: Right.
Scott: This is superior to the one that came to us the first time. And that's what the job is.
Alright, any other questions or comments for staff? No? Would the applicant like to make a
presentation?
John Dietrich: Good evening. John Dietrich, RLK Associates representing Heritage
Development. I would like to thank Bob for going over the number of issues that we did
work on based on the comments that you had indicated last time. And we have addressed the
concerns we feel to the best possible solution within the confines of the city code
requirements as far as road grades, house pads, yards, side slopes that need to be addressed if
41
1
0
n
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
this site is to go a residential single family development according to the comprehensive plan.
The issue of site grading and cross sections, I have graphics and overheads if anyone has any
further questions, we can go over those so ... hit on a couple of the other issues. The roadway
alignment, we are going to maintain the roadway alignment as it is proposed. I think Mr.
Conrad makes a good point on this wetland. We have to do a delineation as part of the site
preliminary plat requirements and with that we would like to avoid that as much as possible.
With the roadway alignment where it is, it will be shifted a little bit within the right -of -way
to try and minimize that. We will definitely do that. As we would move through the wooded
area on the south, this alignment does make the most efficient use of coming through that
wooded area in order to minimize the tree loss which we also want to do. And with the
curvalinear fashion running through the site with the undulating topography, we feel that has
a ... set of aesthetics for both the users and the residential access would be placed on either side
of the street. In terms of the overall improvements to the site, we have a great opportunity
for the storm water ponding areas, identified as Outlot C and Outlot D to capture storm runoff
prior to it's discharging into the wetland itself and the wetland in the center portion of the
site. The opportunity to have a higher water quality element for this site will be one strong
outgrowth of the platting and development of this site. In turning to the parkland dedication I
would like to touch on that for just a minute. First off I would like to go towards the final
recommendations that are in the staff report. On page 28 of the staff report. Just a couple of
clarifications in terms of the recommendations. The first one is item number 28. Staff
recommends that the cul -de -sac at the southern end of the site be a private drive. We've
looked at it in terms of a public drive.' We feel it functions best as a complete public system
roadway but we will be willing to look at that as a private drive to try and close down the
space and a little less impact to the trees. Number 29. The extension of an 8 inch sanitary
sewer along the creek. We are still not convinced that that is the absolute best location. I
know that engineering wise it would be great if we could work it ... creek preservation
elements that would have to be looked at with that sanitary sewer line runs along the center
line of the creek. Thirdly the item number 24. Individual grading, drainage and erosion
control plans will be required for each of the wooded lots. We fully would intend that to be
the case because these will be custom graded homes and they have been designed as shown
on the grading plan submitted that the building plans will work with the grading out there. It
should be noted that the woodland management plan which increased the number of
replacement trees ... did account for the areas within the building pads and the driveways to be
removed so that as an application would come in to those individual lots, they would have the
right to remove the trees within that area because the replacement trees are being taken care
of at the time of the approval and are being replaced as part of the landscape plan and
woodland management plan. Item number 33, with the trail alignment along the wetlands and
Bluff Creek corridor. The proposal is that the trail alingment would follow within the 20 foot
minimal with parkland dedication running north and south through the site and that the trail
would remain along the eastern side of the ponding areas, generally in the location that is
42
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
shown. We will gladly work with staff and a soils consultant to place that trail in. it's most
appropriate place along that trail corridor. And Dave Hempel has indicated on number 32.
We'd be happy to look at that as a part of the developer's agreement. I'd like to then switch
to item number 12, the Park and Recreation Commission's condition. In terms of the parkland
dedication. The overall site of 39.5 acres identifies up to 8.2 acres of outlot wetlands that
would be considered, that will be turned over to the city for... In addition to that 8.2 acres, we
are proposing that we will meet code, or actually exceed code by having the parkland
dedication... for this site. Based on the 48 residential home sites on this subdivision, the
requirement is 1.92 acres of parkland dedication. It is our full intent to dedicate this property
to the city in lieu of park dedication fees. We will donate the property as we had suggested
in the plans submitted. With the plan identifying the north /south trail corridor, or parkland
dedication corridor, the comprehensive plan identifies... running north and south along the
Bluff Creek corridor throughout the city. Bluff Creek corridor in the comprehensive plan is
described as a linear park... and as part of the parkland dedication, trail opportunities are
described as part of the parkland dedication and we feel the dedication of this 2 acre parcel
running north and south provides the greatest experience for trail users to experience
woodland areas, wetland areas of a high quality, open space, wetland area vegetation and then
coming up to the north area, a chance to start having undulating trail system and then into the
ravine that is along the northeast side of the site. The trail would have to be carefully
constructed and maintained in that corridor to be in conformance with the bluff line protection
area. The parkland dedication ordinance determines what is proper for the parkland
dedication. And your ordinance also states that a trail is to be included as parkland
dedication. The plat as submitted shows 2 acres of the dedication parkland. The Planning
Commission has stated that it is interested in more parkland than the Heritage subdivision has
indicated and in the instance where the city wants more land than the developers are prepared
to dedicate, the ordinance states and has been identified in the staff report, that the land can
be purchased or condemned. Accordingly if the commission desires more parkland than this
subdivision identifies, we recommend that the Planning Commission approve the plat as
submitted with the recommendation that the city consider purchasing the wood lots in Block
2, Lot 8, 9, 10 and 11, located at the southeast corner of the plat which would essentially be
this area here. The subdivision presented to you tonight has been a culmination of over 12
months of work with numerous redesigns, reconfigurations of roadway. Considerations of the
environmental aspects and the number of lots that could be properly set into this north /south
undulating topography site. It is our intent that this plan is the best solution for a residential
subdivision within this site and it meets all objections of the subdivision ordinance for the
city of Chanhassen. The plat as submitted with the 48 residential lots meets the requirements
of the subdivision ordinance and we would request that the Planning Commission approve the
rezoning, preliminary plat, wetland alteration permit and conditional use permit necessary in
order for this preliminary plat to move forward and on up to City Council. With that I can
answer any additional questions.
43
E
11
0
F,
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Scott: Questions or comments for the applicant? Thanks.
John Dobbs: ...John Dobbs, I'm ... Heritage Development. As Mr. Hoffman mentioned... we've
been having conversations in one form or another about what this creek corridor parkland is
going to be like for some months now. Because for the reasons that Mr. Dietrich stated in
terms of what we believe the trail is in terms of park, a linear park ... that discussions follow if
there is more land required or desired by Planning Commission or City Council and staff
other than what we're dedicating here, we can discuss the option of purchase and ... you always
have the right to condemn and go forward and we've had that conversation for quite a while
so I'm in no way saying that either one of those options is something we'd be happy to look
at... But in the end it ends up basically being an issue of park or a trail easement is park or
whether it's a taking... Thank you very much.
Scott: This is a public hearing. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please?
Ledvina moved, Faimakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Steve McCurry: My name is Steve McCurry and my address is 2050 Oakwood Ridge and I
just had one question. I missed the previous meeting unfortunately and so I'm a little
puzzeled about item one in your list of five things. The transition between Timberland and
this development. I have one very tangible question and that was, if preservation of a gain of
4 feet in elevation doesn't help since I don't know where we started from, and then some very
general questions. I'd like some general information about the original plan.
Generous: This is the Timberwood Estates subdivision and this is the proposed new grade for
this development. This is another cross section within the development. The existing grades.
Steve McCurry: Where is that on the map? Just in the entire cross section...
Generous: They're both in the northern third of the property.
Hempel: By the cul -de -sac.
Scott: If you can show where the section goes through. Mr. McCurry, are you primarily
interested in identifying where your property is?
Steve McCurry: No, I'm curious in general about the, there was a comment about
maintaining the aesthetics of the transition between Timberland and ... and I'm curious to know
what the opinion was about what the aesthetics are and then I had a very specific question
44
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting November 16, 1994
because there are, there was a lot of discussion about ... and how much earth had to be moved
and so on and... certainly true. But knowing that it was 4 feet higher than it was...
Scott: Did you get your question answered?
Steve McCurry: I think so. My house is right on the bottom there.
Generous: You'll overlook this development.
Steve McCurry: Yeah, and I do now. I was just trying to get some understanding of how
low the hill was going to be. It doesn't look bad. Thank you.
Scott: Certainly. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing?
Stan Rud: I'd just like to... My name is Stan Rud, 2030 Renaissance Court. And it was
mentioned on the transition there. Is there any landscaping or any trees or anything that are
going to be put in as a buffer to Timberwood? Any evergreen type trees or will there be just
power lines on the east or west of the power lines, because you can't climb under it...
Generous: Just from the east side of, it's a mixture I believe.
Stan Rud: Is there any kind of a landscaping picture or anything?
John Dietrich: ...in the wooded area...
Scott: Good. Anyone else?
John Dobbs: John Dobbs again. Just briefly, NSP does... contact the people when they come
back to do ... so they will have to come back and contact people when they're cutting through
to trim trees...
Scott: Good. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Seeing none, may I
have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Conrad moved, Harlberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Ledvina: I think there have been some changes in the development plan. I think the
applicant has worked with staff in making many of the changes come about. I think that after
walking the site and having an opportunity to see the significance of the, and the innerelation
45
F
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
' between the Bluff Creek area, the wooded area and the wetland in the southern portion of the
site. I feel it would be a tremendous amenity for the future residents in that area so I have to,
I strongly support staff in their specific condition as it relates to the trail and the park in that
' area. As I was reading through the City Council Minutes when this thing was evaluated as a
PUD, I noted that the Council members were very concerned with the screening and the
transition from Timberwood and I share that concern as well. I think the real concern occurs
' pretty much along the northern 1/3 of the property boundary with Timberwood and affecting
those two residences. I know the developer has developed, or prepared a landscaping plan
which somewhat intensifies the plantings in that area but I guess I feel that I would like to
have this re- evaluated in light of the new grades. If we move things up. I don't remember
seeing this exact planting scheme so I don't know how it compares with the previous plans
but again I would like to see if there's an opportunity to intensify the plantings along that
' northern third of the property boundary and I'll leave that up to the applicant to work out with
staff if that can be done. I think as it relates to the public improvements, we can handle that
' with the development agreement. I would support eliminating I think it's condition 32. That's
the extent of my comments.
' Scott: Diane.
Harberts: I don't have any other comments.
I Scott: Okay, Ladd.
Conrad: I'm comfortable with the transition between Timberwood and this parcel. When
Matt and I walked the site there were two lots we were concerned with. Matt, I don't know
who's going to make the motion but there were two lots that I think if I were in Timberwood
I'd have a little bit of concern but other than those two, I think everything's fairly, there's
enough distance there so I think staf report in general and the applicant and the staff have
done a good job in making sure we have the right transition so, but again Matt, I don't know
if your comments relate to those two. If they do, I would support at least a relook at what's
appropriate for those two parcels. Kate, did we save any trees in the middle part there? The
oaks.
' Aanenson: We've got one.
' Conrad: They all coming down?
Aanenson: All those are down.
�J
46
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 '
Conrad: I'll re -echo Matt's point. I think the park, as requested by the Park and Rec
Department, the trail system and the park there, I think it's real appropriate. I think it is a ,
good amenity. I think it should be purchased or condemned or whatever the appropriate
vehicle is. I think that is something that Chanhassen should have for the residents. Other
than that, my only other comment is, and I'm not sure how to do this. The one wetland that I '
referenced before. It is a classic pretty clean wetland and I guess I don't have the right
motion to make but I guess the best I can do is to re -echo to staff that some great care I hope
can be taken when we go in there and put a road in it because it will be in it. That's all. '
Scott: Thanks, Jeff.
Farmakes: I don't have much new to add. In fact nothing. I support the city being '
aggressive in regards to the park. I think that considering the amount of work or planning
that's gone into the creek... The issue of the elevation plans, I'll just support the comments '
that have already been made on that...
Scott: Can I have a motion please? I
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend preliminary approval. I'm
sorry, recommend preliminary plat approval of Subdivision #94 -7 subdividing 39.5 acres of
'
land into 44 lots and 4 outlots subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report with the
following conditions. Elimination of conditions 1, 5, 11, 32 and addition of condition number
37 which shall read, applicant shall investigate modification of the landscaping plans to
'
further intensify planting along the northern Timberwood property line to enhance the
screening effect from existing Timberwood development, particularly those dwellings at 8001
Acorn Avenue and 2050 Oakwood Ridge. Condition number 38. Applicant shall adjust the
'
alignment of the roadway at the southern end of the parcel to adjust the roadway alignment at
the southern end of the parcel within the right -of -way to minimize the impact to the existing
wetland in that area.
'
Scott: Can I have a second please?
Conrad: I'll second.
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends preliminmy plat
,
approval of Subdivision #94 -7 subdividing 39.5 acres of land into 44 lots and 4 outlots
subject to the following conditions: I
1. The applicant shall attempt to retain the natural topographic features to preserve the
rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics with the final grading plan. I
47 ,
11
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
4. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review
prior to final plat approval.
3. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor elevation, top of foundation
' elevation and garage floor elevation. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show
standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
,F1
Ll
i
A woodland management plan will be required as part of the platting process.
Submit street names to Chanhassen Fire Marshall for approval.
6. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safety operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen
City Ordinance Section 9 -1.
7. Submit plans to Fire Marshal showing the connection to either existing or proposed
streets at the north end or south end of the proposed road.
Fire hydrant locations are acceptable.
9. Park and Recreation conditions:
a. The land bounded by Bluff Creek on the east, the railroad on the south, the
extension of Stone Creek Drive and Outlot B on the west, and the arm of Bluff
Creek on the north be shown as parkland. Said property to be purchased through
a combination of park dedication, fee credit and cash.
b. A 30 foot trail easement shall be dedicated along the Bluff Creek
Corridor /wetland complex along the north and east portions of the plat.
C. The alignment of the 8 foot bituminous trail be amended to reflect the direction
given the applicant by staff specifically that the trail shall depart the creek
corridor enter the parkland and meet the road extension at the southern wetland
prior to its connection with the railroad underpass. Said trail to be constructed
with the first phase of improvements completed by the applicant with a lump
sum cost for the trail being reimbursed by the city. Note: The applicant shall
supply the city with three quotes for the construction of said trail with the final
alignment being staked for approval by the City's Park and Recreation and
Engineering Department prior to construction.
48
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
10. The applicant shall revise the development plans to include a 100 foot setback buffer
around Bluff Creek and a 50 foot setback buffer along the tributary to Bluff Creek.
11. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface
Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be
submitted to the City for review and formal approval by the City Council. Type III
erosion control will be required adjacent to all wetlands except where storm ponds will
intercept runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. In these areas Type I erosion
control is required.
12. 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.
13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality /quantity ponds
in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre - developed and post -
developed storm water calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level
and high water level calculations in existing basins. Individual storm sewer
calculations for a 10 year storm event between each catch basin segment will also be
required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water
quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
14. 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.
15. the applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Carver County Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA,
DNR, Army Corps of Engineers and MnDot, and comply with their conditions of
approval.
16. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall submit to the City soil boring
information. On lots with fill material that have been mass graded as part of a multi-
49
r
r
IL
C
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
' lot grading project, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils engineer shall be
provided to the Building Official before the City issues a building permit for the lot.
'
17.
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. Consideration should also be given for access for
'
maintenance of the ponding areas.
18.
No berming or landscaping will be allowed within right -of -way areas.
'
19.
The lowest floor elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of 3 feet above the
'
high water level calculated according to the shoreland ordinance guidelines.
20.
The ro osed storm water ponds shall be designed with side slopes of 10:1 for the
P p P g P
'
first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1
throughout for safety purposes. The storm ponds shall be constructed with the initial
site grading.
'
21.
Individual grading, drainage and erosion control plans will be required for each
wooded lot prior to issuance of a building permit.
'
22.
Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. If the applicant
constructs the water quality ponds as proposed, these fees will be waived.
23.
Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer
trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design
'
requirements. The fees will be determined by staff upon approval of the construction
plans.
' 24. The applicant shall report to the City ENgineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
Engineer.
25. The southerly cul -de -sac shall be re- evaluated for a private driveway in an effort to
pull the house pads away from the tree line. A turn around in accordance with the
' Fire Marshal's recommendations shall be provided.
26. The applicant shall be required to extend an 8 inch sanitary sewer line to the westerly
edge of the plat along the Bluff Creek tributary (Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, Block 3).
n
1
50
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 '
'
27. The northerly proposed interim storm pond shall be shown o n the grading g p lan.
Details such as contour lines and the outlet control structure shall be included. '
28. The north /south street shall be extended through to the frontage road within three years
after the final plat is approved. The applicant shall provide the city with a financial
security to guarantee the roadway extension will be completed. '
29. The trail alignment around the wetlands (Bluff Creek corridor) shall be determined in I
the field after walking the site and consulting a soils engineer.
30. The final plat shall dedicate the appropriate utility and drainage easements for access ,
and maintenance of the storm sewer lines as well as ponding areas and wetlands. The
wetlands and ponding areas may be deeded to the city as outlots as well.
31. The applicant shall employ the use of retaining walls along the east side of the
southerly creek crossing to minimize tree loss.
32. Adjust the lot lines for those properties that abut the Bluff Creek tributary to use the
tributary/bottom of ravine as the lot line.
33. The applicant shall investigate modification of the landscaping plans to further
intensify planting along the northern Timberwood property line to enhance the
screening effect from existing Timberwood development, particularly those dwellings
at 8001 Acorn Avenue and 2050 Oakwood Ridge.
34. Applicant shall adjust the alignment of the roadway at the southern end of the parcel
to adjust the roadway alignment at the southern end of the parcel within the right-of-
way to minimize the impact to the existing wetland in that area.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Conditional Use Permit #94 -4 to permit filling and replacing wetlands on the site subject to
the following conditions:
The applicant shall comply with the wetland fill /excavation and wetland mitigation
conditions as stated in Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit. Mitigation work shall
be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in future phases of the
project. All mitigation work shall be limited to the Bluff Creek corridor and not in the
wetland located at the southwest corner of the site.
51
n
u
' Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
I All voted in favor and the motion carved.
' Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Wetland Alteration Permit #94 -4 to permit filling and replacing wetlands on the site subject to
the following conditions:
1. All buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked by the applicant in accordance with the
City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before
' construction begins and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign.
1
2. Wetland buffer areas are required around the wetlands in accordance with the City
Wetland Ordinance. The applicant shall revise the development plans to include a 50
foot buffer around Bluff Creek with a 100 foot building setback and a 10 to 30 foot
buffer with a minimum average of 20 feet around the tributary to Bluff Creek with a
50 foot building setback.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Kate Aanenson asked for clarification on the previous motiori of Matt Ledvina.
Ledvina: That motion would include the Conditional Use Permit and Wetland Alteration
Permit with the items identified in the staff report.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Harberts moved, Ledvina seconded to approve the Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting dated November 2, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Scott: Could you give us a City Council update?
Kate Aanenson stated that there was not a written update.
Scott: Well the significant matter, I got in at about 8:00 and basically the discussion centered
around reconsidering the Council's decision on the Ryan property. As you may recall, the
Mayor voted for denial. I believe Councilman Senn voted to approve. I believe Councilman
Wing voted to approve and I belive that Councilwoman Dockendorf abstained from voting.
Ledvina: Wing also abstained. Mason voted for.
52
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994 '
h '
Scott: Okay, good. So what Councilman Mason made a motion that the Mayor and the
Ryan's get together and bring all the information to the table. I guess they were somewhat '
put off. The concern I know Councilwoman Dockendorf was concerned that a lot of new
information came to the table at the City Council meeting and that they were put into a
situation where some of them felt they had made a bad decision. A bad decision to one that '
could have been better if it were better informed. So Councilman Mason was concerned to
make sure that his motion said that they wanted to basically reinforce the decision that they
made to approve the development. However, it was not to specifically reconsider it for the '
purpose of reversing their decision. So I mean it was very specific in that they didn't want to
give the impression that they were going to be over turning their decision. But they wanted
to re- investigate all the information and see it with enough time so basically the Mayor's ,
going to be getting together with the Ryan's.
Aanenson: That's already happened today. We met with the applicant today so we'll see, I
really what we're asking to do is to provide a little bit more detail...
Ledvina: What's that? The 28th? Not our meeting. ,
Scott: No.
Aanenson: No, no. City Council. We won't be meeting again until December 7th so that '
will be our last meeting for the year.
Scott: And that was really it. That meeting was over with at about 10 after 8:00. '
Aanenson: ...everything else was on Consent. And that came up I think... '
Scott: So that was to the best of my recollection on that one.
. You did table Lake Ann
large a agenda the next meeting. '
Aanenson: You will have a g g
Highlands. We met with the applicant and neighbors. Bob and I did go out and look at
one ... so we've asked them to provide, looking at the knoll on there and see if they can revise '
the grading and give us some alternatives. We have some additional landscaping plans but
we just think... '
Farmakes: Was there any involvement from the citizens over there?
Aanenson: Yes ... there were two spokespeople that were at that meeting and Brad has set a ,
neighborhood meeting with that group for November 30th. Neighborhood meeting to try and
resolve some issues. I think it was a productive meeting. There's a lot of feelings... 1
53 1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Farmakes: Do you feel that the spokespeople understand how the process works now? I got
the impression from the group.
Aanenson: We tried. I'm not sure they do quite yet. We tried to work on that.
Scott: Let me just ask a question. It's my perception that only in a few instances are
neighborhood meetings held motivated by the developer wanting to. I mean it seems like a
lot of times.
Aanenson: We always ask if there's a large neighborhood next door, like we did with the
Oaks. They worked very closely with those people. If there's a large neighborhood next
door...
Scott: Yeah, it seems like the motivation does not come internally from the developer. It's
more city staff. It's more tabling.
Aanenson: It depends on the developer but generally if there's a neighborhood...
Scott: Okay. Do we have any ongoing items?
Aanenson: No. I talked to you about, we're working with ... We'll be working on that and
then this Highway 5 thing and trying to get that resolved. The corridor. That's part of the
other problem is the neighbors are concerned about we don't even know where the road's
going to be—and now we're getting into a new year. We've kind of lost that learning curve...
thought process there. MnDot is ... we've got development happening and we need to know...
Scott: But that falls in the Council's lap.
Ledvina: But yeah. So is that decision going to be made?
Aanenson: ...MnDot make the decision. Whether or not...
Harberts: What's the approval time line?
Aanenson: Well, they're saying it's a 1998 project. MnDot's trying to get... already got
pushed back...
Ledvina: I had a question. I saw in the Chanhassen Villager that there were 3 seats that
were available with the Planning Commission. I thought there were 2.
54
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Aanenson: Yeah, we had to advertise. There was an ordinance that was passed that said that
the Council will always advertise positions. I mean the three that are up, I've told them that
you're interested. I have to get back to them to find out exactly what they want to do as far
as, in the past they've always interviewed but that was because there was a vacancy...
Ledvina: Yeah, there aren't any vacancies.
Aanenson: But they still always advertise.
Scott: Well yeah, that's fine and if people, I think as long as people know that the folks who
are here want to do it.
Aanenson: We put that in the ad too. The ad did say that all three...
Scott: And if someone wants to be interviewed.
Aanenson: ...but that's one of the resolutions... Then we will have just one meeting in
December.
Ledvina: I can handle a 1:00 o'clocker.
Scott: How about open discussion?
Harbeits moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
55
I /'
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
' REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 15, 1994
' Chairman Andrews called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Andrews, Jan Lash, Fred Berg, Jim Manders, Ron Roeser, Dave
' Huffman and Jane Meger
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
t STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Director; Jerry g Rue emer, Recreation
' Supervisor; and Dawn Lemme, Recreation Supervisor
' Andrews: To make the best use of the time of the people in the audience, we'll jump
immediately to item 5 which is a land subdivision proposal.
CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND SUBDIVISION, REZONING FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR AN OFFICE
CAMPUS/RESIDENTIAL USE ON 20 ACRES OF PROPERTY; LOCATED AT 1350
FLYING CLOUD DRIVE (FORMER ASSUMPTION SEMINARY PROPERTY);
FRANKLIN SVOBODA ASSOCIATES.
' Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Andrews: Thank you Todd. Is the applicant here? And if so, please step forward and tell us
more about this proposed development. For those people who just arrived, we skipped to
item 5 but we'll be going back to the beginning of our agenda here in just a few minutes.
1
Steve Schwanke: Mr. Chair, members of the commission, my name is Steve Schwanke with
RLK Associates. We are serving as consultants for Mr. Svoboda for site planning and his
landscape architecture and engineering services relative to his proposed redevelopment of the
Assumption Seminary site. I just have a couple of comments here and what we'd really like
to do is take care of a couple of things and actually have Brian come up and speak relative to
his vision and some of his thoughts that he has relative to the redevelopment of the property.
Actually Frank is, as many of you know, a nationally renown wetland and wildlife biologist
and has a company here located currently in Shorewood and through very good fortune the
company has grown considerably and unfortunately he is unable to continue to office out of
the Shorewood residence that he's in right now, which has created a bit of a good problem so
to speak, but unfortunately what he needs to do is find some new office space. This site here
actually creates the perfect opportunity for Mr. Svoboda given the type of work that he does.
In many cases the natural features and some of the environmentally sensitive areas that create
7
C
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994
problems for the more traditional developers actually serves as a benefit and a major attribute
to people like Mr. Svoboda and the type of work and the business that he's in. So I'll actually
let Frank speak to that, and of course he speaks to that much better than I ever could. A
couple of items though, and Todd actually has set this up perfectly relative to the subdivision
that is shown here. When we first began working with Frank and the city on this proposal
here, and you can imagine the number of major environmental redevelopment issues
associated with this property here. You're all familiar with it. As part of speaking with city
staff about the possibility of granting a redevelopment district for tax increment and in doing
so we realize to subdivide the property as generally shown here. Since then, and specifically
related to a conversation this afternoon with city staff, we've chosen to no longer subdivide
the property and no longer show the property as shown as it is in three lots but continue
through the process without any subdivision and without any further division of the property.
Primarily because we've chosen to discontinue our efforts to, at this time anyway, to pursue
the redevelopment tax increment project. So that part will be revised as we continue through
the concept PUD process. We will be continuing with that obviously because we do want to
rezone the property to PUD and as Todd mentioned, the comprehensive plan amendment that
is required, we've already met and of course everything else that will be required as part of
the redevelopment process. So with that in mind, unless there's any questions for me, I'd like
to introduce Frank and have him come up and talk about his proposal.
Frank Svoboda: Thanks Steve, members of the commission. Before I elaborate on what we'd
like to accomplish here I'd like to just bring to closure the issue of the subdivision. On
Monday we had an appraiser out at the property and he's looking at two things. One is the
rehabilitation of the existing 3 story building on the property. Secondly, and what it might
cost to rehabilitate that. And secondly, the other option would be to demolish the building if
it's not possible to rehabilitate it. Late this afternoon when I had a conversation with Todd
Gerhardt, that also came up as a subject in our conversation and that is, if the building cannot
be rehabilitated for some reason or another and it has to be demolished, then we would not be
able to put up another building within that footprint based on the Met Council's guidelines
and requirements. So in light of that most recent information I had to rethink the concept of
the subdivision because if we subdivide this and a portion of it is residential, a portion is
commercial, and then later we cannot use a portion of it as commercial property, I think it's
ultimate value, should our business continue to grow and we can no longer remain at this
location, if we can't use that building, then we would have to look at selling that property as a
20 acre residential parcel. Right now our intention, as I think this is a good transition into
what our business is all about. Right now our intention is to remain on this property over the
long term assuming that we can make commercial use out of that building. From what we
have been told it is an extremely sound structurally. The bigger question relative to the
property are some of the environmental concerns given the particular location and as the
configuration of the landscape. So with that I'll explain a little bit about who we are as a
2
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994 1
business. What we do and what our vision is about this property and then from there I'll
explain to you what we're faced with in terms of some of the very serious environmental
constraints that occur on this parcel. My background is in wildlife management. I received a
'
degree from the University of Minnesota in 1966. A masters degree in 1987 and have had a
variety of sort of employment experiences ranging from some work with the University. For
'
several years at the Department of Natural Resources. Department of Transportation. Then
back in about 1979 started working for the private sector and we came to get more and more
involved with wetlands starting about the late 1970's as the Clean Water Act passed and
'
wetland permitting began more and more of a, and wetland mitigation, wetland impacts, just
began more and more of an aspect of doing business. So in 1991, August of 1991 I left a
consulting company here in the Twin Cities and ventured out on my own with the
'
anticipation of remaining a one person operation and it's doing what I like doing. That was
getting out in the field and working with wetlands and going out of doors. That wasn't quite,
or so far the plan hasn't quite turned out that way. We now have 8 employees. This past
'
May, or this past summer we added about 5 employees and the result of that was that
originally we were operating as a home base business in Shorewood and we are now the size
that we can no longer operate out of our home. About the time we realized that we were
'
going to have to make a change, this property came up for sale and so we began the steps to
acquire that. So the attributes that really attracted us to this particular parcel of land is that I
was looking for some permanent office space that was essentially similar to what we have
'
now in Shorewood. We have a wetland that's right outside the back yard. We have a
wooded area. A lot that's quite sizeable and a house certainly that's large enough to
accommodate the individuals that we have in our employment but we can't run a business of
'
our size in a residential neighborhood. So I was looking for something similar to that. A
wooded area. High quality wetlands. Some space in which we could have an opportunity to,
like if our employees need a chance to just get outside and walk around and do some
'
thinking. Have a place that has that kind of a setting and also the other attractive part of this
particular site, in addition to those features was that perhaps as most of you are aware, there's
a large tract, a large marsh that surrounds this parcel on the north all the way up to the
,
railroad, the regional trail. That is one of four calcarious fens in the Twin Cities metropolitan
area and so being in such close proximity to that fen would be of our individuals, the people
on my staff, a chance for us to start doing some research being that close to this particular
'
resource. In addition to myself, other staff members have disciplines in aquatic ecology. One
of my employees, the aquatic ecologist has a very strong background in doing some research
on trout. We have a could of terrestrial ecologists. Water quality specialists and then some
'
graphic support people. So we have a good solid nucleus of individuals that could really start
making some interesting studies of this particular fen. Also I'm sure as you're aware, this
,
trout stream is perhaps one, or one of two or maybe three trout streams in the Twin Cities
area. And this particular trout stream as reported has a naturally reproducing population of
native trout so it makes it a fairly unique resource. And again, it's something that we would I
1
11
u
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994
be very interesting in managing and maintaining the quality of that resource and our staff has
the knowledge and expertise to do that. So this particular site was especially attractive in that
regard. Then as we began to start examining before making some commitments in terms of
purchasing this property, originally our closing was set for December 1st. Now that likely
will be pushed back for a couple of weeks because of some environmental problems but
particularly given the shape of this land. You'll notice that it's confined on one side by
Highway 212. On the other side by the trout stream so it's a triangular peninsula and we
don't have a lot of space to work with. What we discovered was that back in the late 80's
there was a report of solvents being disposed of on the property. This property has been
cleaned up as near as we can tell. We don't have any documentation from either the EPA or
PCA. That essentially closes the book on that clean-up process so we're pursuing that. The
houses, most being fairly old residences have old hot water systems with asbestos lined pipes.
The floors are covered with asbestos floor tiles so again we're told that asbestos is not as
much of a concern as it was historically but again the asbestos lined pipes, or the asbestos
covered pipes will have to be removed. The septic systems are old and antiquated and those
will have to be replaced. These are all things that we're faced with environmentally. I think
also as you're aware the building probably is, I don't know, it has a reputation for being a
hangout for young kids. Last Halloween the Carver County Sheriffs Department issued 30
citations to some individuals that were there for a party. Typically they'll get 2 to 3 calls per
week for trespassing so we have some security problems we have to deal with. So there's
some real challenges ahead of us in terms of developing the property but presuming that we
can overcome those in the purchase process and get some of these environmental problems
either resolved or get a mechanism in place to resolve them, it's our intent to move into the
home and occupy that as both a business and a residence. We would remodel the upstairs,
the third floor into an apartment for my wife and myself and then the first and second floor
would be available as office space for our staff. And again right now, given the size of that
house, which is quite sizeable, it would meet our needs for we would anticipate a year or two
years. And as we would restore the house, which is also in a fairly severe state of disrepair,
there's no insulation. The wiring is all old wiring. It has to be replaced. The furnace is
broken down. There's no central heating so we'd need central heating here. It's going to take
a lot of work to bring the house up to specifications. So we would occupy that for about 2
years and then depending upon what the results of the appraisal are, we would start either
making a decision to rehabilitate that large building and under that option what we would
intend to do is part of our business, in addition to doing wetland delineation and natural
resources studies, is also to organize and sponsor information and education programs in the
area of natural resources. Our - company has sponsored over the last two summers 5 classes
instructing individuals how to conduct wetland delineations and we also sponsored a statewide
conference last February for the Wetland Conservation Act... regulations. At that conference
we had about 167 in attendance. This March we are planning a National Conference for
wetland delineators with some of the major players in the wetland delineation process who
4
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994
have said that they will attend this conference. We're expecting somewhere in the
neighborhood of 500 to 700 people from throughout the United States and we've also had an
,
inquiry from Madrid, Spain about this conference so we're pretty excited about that. So part
of this office, this front building has a space within it that could accommodate somewhere
between probably 50 to 75 individuals so we would continue to have, or offer training
'
sessions on a day use basis. For example, when we were doing our wetland delineation
training classes we would rent space at the Chaska Community Center for our classroom
training and then we were using the picnic shelter out at Minnewashta Park for field
'
exercises. Given the fact that we have a fairly sizeable wetland on this side of TH 212 and a
fen on this side, I think we could probably meet most of our training requirements right on
this although there's specialized requirements... We have to look for an alternative
,
site,
location as far as the field exercises but certainly the classroom training we could accomplish
in this building. Beyond the conference space we would then look to rehabilitate the building
in stages with rehabing the front part of the building first and then perhaps, depending on the
'
demand for office space, doing it in three phases. The front part of the building first and then
each of the wings separately. The building does also have a full basement under it and it's a
walkout basement out the rear so there is also natural lighting in the basement so there's some
'
possibility that that would be useful for class space or something like that. So our long term
plan is perhaps over 5 to 6 years would be to rehabilitate that space into a combination of day
use conference and office space and we think that the amenities surrounding that building
'
would make an ideal location for sort of a natural resource base. Environmentally oriented
companies with similar hours as office space. In fact the Department of Natural Resources, a
'
year or so ago had looked at purchasing this house and using that as their office space for the
West Metro headquarters but it was going to be too costly in order to make it handicap
accessible so they dropped that. But we think that this building would be attractive for
'
tenants of that sort. Again we're faced with several constraints because of the configuration
of the property. In order to make that happen, right now as we understand it, there is a sewer
system in front of this building. We had that checked Sunday. We don't believe that that
'
system has the capacity to accommodate even office use, which is fairly limited in it's water
usage. We haven't checked it out completely. That's something that we would still intend to
do at a later date but assuming that that system would not have adequate capacity based on
'
the current code requirements, what the individual told us that examined the system was we'd
have to go to a mound system, which would have to be placed somewhere in this area. And
again, because of the wetland requirements from the wetlands to the south of TH 212 and the
t
wetlands to the north, we would likely be encroaching on that parking lot and as it is right
now, this dimension to the west is about as far as people would be willing to walk to get to
the building. We also, again because of my experience with storm water ponds and the fact
'
that this is a natural trout stream, I didn't want that storm water pond discharging through a
single point outletting into the stream so what we designed is a pond that will essentially
overflow in a deep flow fashion and then flow over land with the water gradually dissipating
'
1
C I I
n
n
I-J]
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994
and filter into the ground so that ... fairly significant events that we get any sort of direct runoff
into the stream. So I think we've been fairly innovative in dealing with the storm water
storage problem but again, because of the configuration and shape of the space, it's sort of
like pushing a balloon around. If you squeeze it in one spot, it sort of pops out in another
spot and so if you're trying to get a mound system in there, then we're going to be starting to
pinch the pond and parking so we can't really move the parking much in this direction
because even to accommodate the small amount of parking we have here, we would have to
do a modest amount of filling off of this terrace and then removing some of the natural
vegetation which occurs there which I'm very reluctant to do at this point. And if we try
pushing it any farther here, we start coming up against the existing residence so it's a very
difficult site to work with. But I've worked with developers for close to 20 years and I know
the problems that they've had to contend with. Now I'm here standing before you having to
deal with the same problems and come up with some creative solutions.
Andrews: I guess I have a couple questions.
get back to what the facts are at the moment.
property, is that correct?
This is a long discussion and I think I need to
Right now you are not asking to divide the
Frank Svoboda: That's correct.
Andrews: So at this point it's a non decision for us, the way I understand it. I mean I
appreciate and I agree with a lot of things you'd like to do and I'd love to see those things
done if this property were to be developed. I guess I look at your background as being ideal
as someone to own a piece of property like this. I think the one thing that Todd had
mentioned about looking for an easement along that trout stream, that'd be something we'd
love to see done but at this point we have no way to do business between us and yourself.
Frank Svoboda: At this point you know I appreciate your attention and what I really need is
as much support within the city as I possibly can get because this is going to be a tough
project. You know the more people that are aware of what we're facing here and want to
support ... I think the more chance we have of success.
Andrews: If this goes to PUD though, that would still come back for some sort of fee for
park and trail or would that be all part of the negotiation of the PUD contract?
Hoffman: Only if the property is subdivided do you have to ... and considerations for park and
open space as part of the project.
Andrews: I think a PUD is certainly a better way to attack this piece of property. More
flexibility and I think from what you've described here, what you're trying to accomplish is
N
J
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994 '
along the lines that we're interested in seeing happen. I guess my biggest fear, if this were to
be divided and we did not take any action, is that we have no assurance that you may not '
turn around and sell the property. I mean you could be unfortunate enough, as the owner of
Nash Finch was recently, and get hit by a bus and the property be liquidated. So from that
standpoint I guess I'd say as a park board we probably would still be looking to extract fees if '
this were being divided. I guess I'd feel like we have a responsibility to do that. Also I
would not want to be sued by other developers that have asked us to do the same thing and
we have consistently really given no favorites. 1
Frank Svoboda: No, we're not closing the door on this. On the subdivision at this point. I
think given what we've recently discovered, I think it's premature for us to do that because if '
we have to demolish that building, then we can't put anything else on that property, then
we're stuck. '
Roeser: You're saying if you would demolish the building that you wouldn't replace it? You
wouldn't build there? '
Frank Svoboda: From what I've been told, we can't replace it because the city, Todd told me
this afternoon the city has about 300 acres of excess commercial /industrial and the Met '
Council, in whatever fashion it gets involved in the process, with that excess. I mean
assuming that excess was still there in 2 years or wherever we are, they would never approve,
even if we built right within the existing footprint of that building, they would not take a '
favorable view towards replacing that within the commercial structure.
Andrews: That's only if it's split that this becomes an issue, or subdivided? '
Frank Svoboda: Can't have the building?
Andrews: Yes. '
Hoffman: No, it's an existing non - conforming use. '
Andrews: I guess another question I would have is if there's a fire that destroys the building,
where does that leave you? Are you out of business? '
Hoffman: Just as you have a non - existing use in any other cabin that's within a setback,
where now you have a more restrictive setback. If the cabin burns down, they're going to '
make you build it back...
Andrews: You've got a lot of complicated issues to tie up here at once. ,
I
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994
' Frank Svoboda: I'm just going to take them one at a time.
Andrews: Well I commend you for the project and I for one hope it happens. I think this
would be a fantastic use of the property. It certainly would enhance and protect the wetland
area and perhaps give us a centerpiece for other people to come and study.
' Frank Svoboda: And certainly it's a gateway to Chanhassen down here in the southwest
entrance right off of TH 212 so our intention is to...
' Andrews: Any other comments?
' Manders: Sounds good to me.
Berg: Good luck.
' Frank Svoboda: I need a lot of that.
' Andrews: We thank you and we hope we get a chance to see this come to pass.
Frank Svoboda: Thank you.
' Huffman: You know the plan we just saw Todd is a great idea. If you're going to do the
Bluff Creek charette, it's something that we're going to do, and for the plans that Mr. Svoboda
' has in terms of an interpretative center and research and nature, I mean maybe that's
something the city could tie into and help eventually classes, learning. The trout stream... are
the goals that the commission has.
' Andrews: Okay, now we're going to turn back to the beginning of the agenda.
' VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
METES AND BOUNDS SUBDIVISION TO SUBDIVIDE LOT 3. MINNEWASHTA PARK
' INTO 2 LOTS LOCATED NORTH OF ORCHARD LANE AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 7.
OBED AND MILDRED MELOM.
' Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Andrews: This is a routine item. I think we can just move on this one. Is the applicant
here? No, okay, fine. Let's just move on this one then.
8
0
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994 ,
Lash: I would move that we recommend to City Council that full park and trail fees be
collected per city ordinance in lieu of land dedication or trail construction in regard to the '
metes and bounds subdivision.
Roeser: Second. I
Lash moved, Roeser seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the
City Council require full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land '
dedication and/or trail construction (1 lot, current residential park and trail fees are $900.00
and $300.00, respectively per lot) for the Melom Subdivision. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. '
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 8 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY; LOCATED WEST OF HIGHWAY ,
EAST OF HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORFFY, AND SOUTH
OF PIPEWOOD CURVE: DELWICHE ADDITION.
Todd Hoffman p resented the staff report on this item. '
Andrews: I guess I look at this again as a routine item. If the applicant wishes to add any '
comments, you're free to do so. I'm not sure it's really. I don't know what questions there
could be here. Is there a motion to take action on this item? Or any discussion that would
like to need. ,
Lash: I move that we recommend to City Council that we recommend the Delwiche Addition
subdivision with conditions of full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance in lieu '
of land dedication or trail construction.
Meger: Second. '
Lash moved, Meger seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the '
City Council require full park and trail fees to be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land
dedication and/or trail construction, (1 lot, current residential park and trail fees are $900.00
and $300.00 respectively per lot) for the Delwiche Addition. All voted in favor and the I
motion carried.
CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE '
89.59 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD;
PRELIMINARY PLAT ONE BLOCK (48 UNHFS - 14 TWIN HOME BUILDINGS AND 5 ,
9 1
1
F
L
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994
FOUR PLEX BUILDINGS), AND 2 OUTLOTS; LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD;
AUTUMN RIDGE, GOOD VALUE HOMES. INC. (O'SHAUGHNESSY PROPERTY).
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Andrews: Is this the property that's directly to the east of the Opus property?
' Hoffman: Exactly.
Lash: I've got to get some of this stuff clear because I'm clearly confused. Are we only
' looking at the thing that's on the first page of the blueprint as the proposal? Because that
doesn't look the same as what's on the overhead. Are we just looking at the bottom?
' Hoffman: Just the bottom half.
Lash: Okay. And so is that sitting up there the way we're looking at that, is that Highway 5
' to the right?
Hoffman: Highway 5 is to the north? Sorry, this is to the north.
' Lash: Okay, so it's turned. Okay, this is why I'm confused. Highway 5 on this thing is
running along the right hand side. No, the other way. Yeah. So now which one are we
' looking at now?
Hoffman: It's subdivided here and you're looking at the lower half.
' Lash: Oka that's what we're looking at here. And the blue thin that filled in is what
Y� g g you Y
' they're saying they're proposing as open space.
Hoffman: As a land transfer, yes.
' Lash: And isn't that all wetland up there anyway?
' Hoffman: It's all wetland around this. This is that marsh ... talked about during the discussion
whether or not we should put ballfields down in there. It's kind of the low, sandy low spongy
stuff. It's really ... if we did a lot of corrective measures and.
' Lash: Essentially no one else would ever probably build on it and we wouldn't either would
we?
10
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994
Hoffman: No, we decided as a commission that we wouldn't do that.
Lash: So why would we then accept that 2.8 acres or whatever to remain open as something
that's going to transfer density when it probably would never be built on.
'
Hoffman: Sure, it could be. It's buildable property. The thing we're not discussing is that
this is just one piece of this and that we're attempting to make the land transaction with Mrs.
O'Shaughnessy and the rest of the property. So right now Good Value Homes does not even
'
own this piece of property. It's under the ownership of Betty O'Shaughnessy and I'm not sure
how the City Attorney would ask that to happen. Whether or not Good Value Homes would
have to go ahead and transfer ownership of this to the city at that time so they would have to
'
have ownership of both of these sites. So there's still some of those type of things to be
figured out as far as the land, overall land transaction.
'
Lash: Okay, and then one last question. On the northern, or the edge of the wetland, or the
development where it abuts against the wetland. Is that supposed to be just a walking path or
is that a road there with a walking path?
'
Hoffman: This one is just a road. This is a trail. This is a road.
'
Andrews: That's that proposed south boulevard?
Hoffman: Yep.
,
Huffman: Todd, is there also another development just to the, I want to say east of that. '
There's also a multi - residential area we talked about a month ago. 94 twin homes or
something.
Hoffman: Oh yeah, across from the school property. You have to come all the way back to '
this direction.
Roeser: To Audubon? '
Hoffman: Yeah. I
Lash: So it's on the other side of the creek from the school property.
Hoffman: Yeah, the other side of the creek. ,
11 '
I 7 —
� _J
r�
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994
Andrews: What's interesting is that during the Highway 5 study that most of the developers
were coming in and saying this was not going to be developable property and it's coming in
before the road's even being built.
Huffman: My question is, and I want to be delicate about this but you're building a school
and you're jamming a lot of things in and around the school when one of our main concerns
is ballfields, open space, scenic area. We're cramming a bunch of stuff in there. I mean is
that any of our business? Do we care?
Andrews: It's kind of what was zoned or anticipated for the property.
Lash: We care. I think we all care. Whether we can do anything about it is.
Berg: Are you concerned because of the use? That we're getting so many people in there
that the use is going to be overwhelming.
Huffman: I'm concerned about, you know you've got your school. You've got some open
space and then all of a sudden we keep saying, well this is dedicated to the school. This is
dedicated and then all of a sudden you've got the school's use is already taken over by
neighborhood. You've got so many families in there and I've got nothing against duplexes
and twin family homes and things like that but the use has already piled up. I mean you have
already loaded that school down to it's max and we haven't even opened the thing up. I mean
if I'm not mistaken, I was told the other time, there's got to be a ramp built under Highway 5
to get to the school. There's got to be this way coming to the school. Maybe it will be
natural because, well no only old people are going to live in these things I've been told. So
there won't be anybody there so that's not an issue I guess.
Hoffman: I just got ... with our planning department and in fact it came up in conversations
that the landowner can market this as a commercial property. To nurture that residential
type ... you have a school on a state highway so we wanted to try and mitigate that back a little
bit and push around the... surrounding the school is a good thing. The fact that it's zoned
medium density, that's what it's zoned currently so that's what the applicant is coming in at.
Now they're squeezing things slighting because they're asking for this land transfer.
Andrews: It's not a huge variance.
Hoffman: Yeah, the residential mass that will be around the school will obviously
accumulate in the future but right now it's fairly limited.
12
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994 '
Huffman: Okay. I mean the hard thing is you want to put it right. I don't have any
underlying reason. I'm not trying to keep out any income level. I'm not trying to keep out ,
anything anywhere. I'm just asking, that many people in that area for what we've got as a
dedicated space, I mean is it already built up? I mean is the land use already obsolete with
the amount of families and bodies of people who will be coming in there. I don't know. '
Manders: I guess one observation that I have is that the concentration is certainly a thought
and you've expressed it well but I wonder if the appeal of the open space by having that extra '
open space and be assured that that isn't going to be developed inside that wetlands isn't of
some benefit. I think it is to have that entire area assured that it's going to be open instead of
having some site or whatever might be put up in there. But that would be nice. '
Andrews: In my opinion this is a pretty good use of the property. It is sort of an anticipated
use. I mean you've got a commercial development to the west. The school to the east and '
this provides some sort of a transition between a residential and a commercial use. To try to
sell single family houses perhaps right next to a large industrial complex would not be easy,
and probably inappropriate. So I guess I'm okay with this one. I guess the trick is to get the '
100 acres from the O'Shaughnessy's to close it all up.
Roeser: It rides on that anyway, right? That they have that property from the '
O'Shaughnessy's. That they acquire that property.
Hoffman: Right. That piece of land. ,
Roeser: Otherwise it would have to come back and be done all over again right. I
Lash: I have one more question then and, if I'm still fuzzy about this then I'm going to guess
other people are too. This is a PUD, right? I
Hoffman: That's correct.
Lash: Okay so, and I've seen this other times. And my understanding of a PUD is that a '
developer is granted flexibility in what they're trying to do in return for providing us above
and beyond what we would normally be able to ask. Is that correct? Okay. And then how '
come when we're, and I'm not picking on this specific proposal. I'm just trying to find this
out for myself. When we look at this and the recommendation then would be that we would
collect full park and trail fees and that we would ask for a 20 foot easement for trail purposes '
and then ask the developer to construct, which the first two to me would be just normal.
That's what we would ask of anyone. Then when we ask them to construct an 8 foot wide
trail, why would we then reimburse them if we could, under the PUD agreement, we are t
13 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994
entitled to ask above and beyond what's normally required. Why couldn't we just ask them to
do that without reversing them?
I Andrews: We could.
' Hoffman: We have typically in any of the PUD's we've not asked for that piece of the pie.
We've gone ahead and championed an unwritten policy that we're going to ... construction in
PUD's and surrounding development... comprehensive plan and you have to build it as part of
your development. The city is going to take responsibility for that. There is quite a bit of
flexibility in the planned unit development process that most of these comes in zoning in
other areas. The one item which—park and recreation as parks and open space ... we're giving
' you I think it's 2.1 acres of it...
Andrews: I agree with Jan.
' Lash: Thanks Jim. I mean that's the one time we can ask above and beyond and we haven't
been doing it, I don't think.
Andrews: That's right.
' Lash: We get what we would normally get and then if we ask them to do anything else, we
turn around and reimburse them for it so I don't think we've been asking above and beyond.
' Huffman: I lived in a townhouse for the first 7 years we were up here in St. Louis Park and
when we hit a piece of swamp over off of TH 101 that's not even a useable swamp. I can't
even see it. Every day I drive by there, I don't even know where it is anymore. I mean if
' you can show it to me because there's nothing but dirt there. But you know it was required
that they have a natural area at our place and when they talk about the amenities of park, we
had a swimming pool, two tennis courts. The association, everything took care of. I mean
' there was something there besides a little duck pupal. And I guess that's what it comes back
to my concern is that yes, they can get over to the school. They can get all these things but
' people live in the neighborhoods too and what do they do in their neighborhood when mom
and dad look out the window or grampa or gramma, especially in these areas look out their
windows. You know where are they going to go? And that's my concern. I guess I haven't
' caught onto that one yet and if it's zoned for that, that's fine but you know, where will the
children play, is that what Cat Steven's says.
I Hoffman: Your observations are right on. We have not leveraged PUD's nearly as much as...
1
14
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994
Andrews: Well couple points. That 2.81 acres, is that an area that's, is it hilly or is it flat?
Is it an area that could be, not necessarily turned into a playfield but it is a field that's
suitable to play on?
Hoffman: No, it's a knoll with box elders on it. Pretty much... I
Andrews: I guess the other comment I was going to make is as we saw in our last exercise at
the City Council, land is scarce. Land is valuable. We're the ones with it. Why don't we get
what we can from it. I mean we're having to pay more and more to get the land that we need
as well and I agree completely with Jan here. I mean they'd be here under a standard
proposal if that was to their advantage. Now they're coming to us with a PUD because that's '
to their advantage. I think we need to extract the extra piece for that for the privilege. I
mean why should they do all the winning and we just sit here and say well we'll be nice and
we'll just treat you the same as any other developer when they're not coming to us the same '
as any other developer. So I guess in this particular situation I think that the developer
should construct the trail at their cost and if they don't like it, they can appeal to the City
Council and the Council has the authority to do what they wish. In my opinion I think our
recommendation should be that point number 3 be done at the developer's cost.
Berg: I would agree. Past practice is fine but there's time to change past practice too. I '
think the time has come to do that.
Andrews: Any more discussion? '
Lash: I guess I would, the other thing with this. I
Huffman: Oh don't change your mind.
Lash: I won't change my mind Dave. But on this site, if it is 2.8 acres, is there a possibility ,
of, I'm going to back Dave up on his comments... mutual admiration society here. It gets kind
of sickening. But is there a possibility in the future that we would just at least be able to ,
clear out a portion of that if it's not, if it's just some scrub trees and put in a little play
structure someday in the future if the need arose? Could we use it for something? Would it
support that, or will it support nothing? '
Hoffman: We can, we're not accepting it as parkland ... open space due to the fact that it's a
land transfer. There's other locations where you could put play equipment on in the city '
property which we're pursuing to the west and the Opus site where we want to obtain that
peninsula. Essentially the first industrial lot which they have identified would be a location
for a parking lot and trail head, nature center, if you wanted to do that future piece of play '
15 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994
equipment... kind of a central location. ...it's essentially right in the middle of this big 100
acre site and that's exactly what Jim was saying. We're trying to keep ... out of that and keep it
as a whole...
Lash: But there is the future of the potential for future something somewhere besides the
school site?
Hoffman: Yes.
Lash: You think to the west, okay.
Andrews: Can I have a motion? Does somebody want to make a motion please? Well I'll
make the motion that we accept the staff recommendation as proposed with item 1 and item 2
and I would change item 3 only in that our recommendation would be that we do not
reimburse the applicant. That the applicant install the trail at their cost.
Huffman: To city specs.
Andrews: Well yeah, that's, I'm not modifying any of that. I'm just saying that they not be
reimbursed for that being this is a PUD.
Lash: So item 3 would go all the way to the end of the sentence where it would say Director
and City Engineer?
Andrews: Yep. That's what it would say. Is there a second to that?
Lash: I would second it.
Andrews: Any further discussion?
Andrews moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the
' City Council require the following conditions of approval in regard to parks and trails for the
proposed Autumn Ridge planned unit development:
1. Full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance.
2. Dedication of a 20 foot easement for trail purposes as identified on the preliminary plat
' for Autumn Ridge dated October 18, 1994.
16
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994
3. The developer shall construct an 8 foot wide asphalt trail per city specifications within the
trail easement. This construction shall be completed in conjunction with street
construction. Final alignment of this trail shall be staked by the developer and approved
by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Andrews: Land is too scarce for us to be.
Lash: Well and money's too scarce and for us to move forward and try and accomplish
anything, we've got to get it where we can.
PROGRAM REPORTS:
A. LAKE ANN PARKING /GATE ATTENDANT YEAR END REPORT.
Jerry Ruegemer presented the staff report on this item.
Andrews: You're looking at like a billboard map or maybe.
Ruegemer: Some kind of a handout.
Andrews: Postcard? You know postcard, drive to here. Okay.
Ruegemer: There's always ways, we're looking for ways to motivate the people that are out
there.
Andrews: I've got an idea for that one. Put them on a commission.
Ruegemer: Other park and rec commissions, or other park and rec departments do have, as
far as some type of commission, they do it on a per hour basis. You work x amount of hours
over the summer, you get a bonus of some kind. I don't know if the Park and Rec
Commission would entertain anything like that.
Andrews: I meant like a commission on what they collect. Really motivate them. If you
want to see your revenues go up, boy that'd do it.
Jerry Ruegemer continued with his staff report on the 1994 gate attendant report.
17
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994
Lash: I had one question about South Lotus. Do you remember the gentleman who was here
earlier this year who lived adjacent.
Ruegemer: Mr. Melby?
Lash: Yes, that was his name. I guess I just want to follow up and see how things are going
with him. Is anything new? Did the problems get solved?
Hoffman: We went ahead and completed what was requested.
Andrews: Put up some screening was it?
Hoffman: Put the sign back up.
Lash: And does he seem to be content with the situation now ?..
Hoffman: I would expect that he'll be calling us again.
Ruegemer: We haven't heard anything, or I haven't heard anything for the rest of the
summer.
Todd Hoffman made a comment that was not heard on the tape.
Manders: Jerry, that speedboat. Number 677. I assume that it's talking about Lotus Lake?
Ruegemer: Correct. Lake Ann Park is a non - motorized lake. We don't keep those kind of
numbers out there. People bring their canoe, that type of thing...
Lash: Are you still going to do some kind of brochure or handout or something for Lake
Ann? I think it's nice if on it there was some way to condense it and have the rules and a
little map layout and maybe the amenities, all printed so people would know what was
available there.
Ruegemer: Does anybody have any other questions in regards to that?
Andrews: Let's move on to item B then.
HALLOWEEN PARTY EVALUATION.
Jerry Ruegemer presented the staff report on this item.
18
Park and Rec Commission Meetin g - November 15, 1994
Lash: How about a contest? Costume contest. Creative and maybe do it by age brackets or
something. We always have a big parade. It's not for Halloween. It's for Fairy Tales, which ,
just happens to fall at the end of October every year so we have a costume parade and boy
you see some really creative things come through. And you see 75 Power Rangers but you
see a couple of really creative ones and I think it'd be kind of fun. It maybe would encourage
kids to get a little more creative too in their costuming.
Andrews: I think moving it back to Saturday will be a big help too. I had a number of t
people in our neighborhood mention that was the very reason they didn't go so.
Lash: And you may have a better time getting volunteers too. '
Ruegemer: Yeah, it was tough getting volunteers this year. Very tough. We got by ... the last
half of the week here it really was nice that we had the people but like you said, that will be
'
easier to get. It'd be easier for set up too. We'd have more time to set up. You don't have to
worry about the after school programs that was there, which really wasn't a problem. They
,
were very flexible and that but it worked out ... to have more time would be great too so.
Those are just the type of things that we were experiencing this year. I think people really
liked the touch and feel area that was added. I know some kids were scared in putting their
hands in the box. They weren't sure what was going to happen but I think kids really enjoyed
'
it. So that was quite fun. Some were gory in some areas but the kids seem to get a kick out
of it so, and the ... so that was a good time. We'll definitely do that again. Just looking ahead
'
to next year too you know we're going to be having a new school site next year so that's one
area too that I'd like to get the commission to become really involved in that and we
discussed possibly doing a ball of some kind. Where the parents can come with their kids
'
and have entertainment and possibly a meal. I know that hasn't worked much in the past but
we'd certainly try to offer new activities for that. And then we have some entertainment type
of thing and I'd love to have the commission get involved in that. We will certainly try to
,
plan that for the... Do you have any questions on this or general comments? I think parents
really liked the door prizes. We gave away probably over $150.00 in Festival Foods gift
certificates and some other gift certificates as well so ... Do you have any questions?
'
Andrews: No. Dave wanted to make a comment. He has to leave here briefly to attend to
some sick kids at home.
'
Huffman: I'm sorry. You're going to talk about the agenda for the City Council and I just
wanted to get on record that the five things we had talked about beforehand, or four, whatever
your better discretion comes up with, you know so I support 100% whatever I can do to help.
I would absolutely be delighted to and I think Todd and Dawn and Jerry should be
commended for what they did at the City Council meeting. They did a great job. It was fun
'
19 ,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994
for me and if I can do anything to help, whatever. And I support everything 100% and I will
let Fred vote in my best conscience on every bit and piece and article that come out here.
Whatever he says goes.
Andrews: That means Dave has just volunteered for any committee that gets formed.
Huffman: I didn't say that.
Andrews: He said he would help any way that he could. Alright, thanks for that comment. .
Let's move to item 6(c) and that's with Dawn.
FEBRUARY FESTIVAL CROSS COUNTRY FUN SKI.
Dawn Lemme presented the staff report on this item.
Andrews: You know the Ski Patrol of Hennepin County has a cross country patrol and they
usually would be happy to help with something like that.
Lemme: Yeah, that's in some of our notes ... and possibly get the snowmobile club out there
too have a few snowmobiles in case we really need to get out there.
Berg: Yeah, they owe us.
Lash: Yeah, I was just going to suggest them because I'm sure they'd be happy to do that.
To have some strategically located or some walkie talkies or something in case you really did
have an emergency, it'd be nice to have.
Lemme: Yeah, people we have on the course all have walkie talkies...
Manders: What is the route?
Lemme: Excuse me.
Manders: What is the 4 mile route?
Lemme: It's actually a combination of two that you have and that's another reason we have
to have people all along the areas of the course because there's areas where people can come
in off of their property and if we're going in the opposite direction that you might normally be
going in, if you were to hop onto their trail.
20
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994 '
Manders: So it's all within the Arboretum?
Lemme: Yes. It's all within the Arboretum. Basically... the half mile just cuts off, it's a very '
short route. If people want to do it 2 -3 times, they can do that. If you're a beginner skier,
children. We want it to be really... '
Lash: Talking about February Festival and not necessarily the skiing thing but I know I've
said this before and this sounds like a broken record. I still think that it'd be fun to try a ,
sweatshirt sale or maybe more of a long sleeve t- shirt. You know have a thing set up where
people can buy those things. I think those things go pretty well and if we had a sweatshirt
and maybe it was more generic and didn't say February Fest or something on it, were the '
ones that didn't sell, we could put out again in the fall at Octoberfest or.
Andrews: Say Chanhassen on it with the maple leaf or something. t
Lash: Yeah, something a little more generic maybe would be fine. Or maybe a beanie thing '
for February Fest. Or mittens. I just think it'd be kind of fun and I think a lot of stuff goes.
People tend to buy that stuff.
Hoffman: Beanie? '
Berg: A beanie has a propeller on it. I
Lash: At least I think it's worth checking into. If you think they're really cost prohibitive or
something. I
Berg: Well I liked the shirts last year.
Lash: You know those new Lake Ann ones, the just generic Lake Ann, those were very
popular. I saw a lot of people who won them as prizes wanting to know where they could
buy them. They were nice. Sometimes the ones with the ears are nice but then it's a little '
embarrassing when you wearing a nice ... and everyone knows it's 7 years old.
KREATIVE KIDS. '
Dawn Lemme presented the staff report on this item.
SENIOR CENTER ,
Dawn Lemme presented the staff report on this item. '
21 1
I �
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994
' Andrews: I see the sweatshirt making item there. I just wonder if there's any coordination
between that and some sort of a theme for the February Festival. Maybe do something with
' the seniors to make something or do something.
Lemme: That's possible and possibly do, we have a small crafts room and something like this
' is really just a specialty thing. They come in for 3 hours and they just ... paint on the
sweatshirts and generally low cost...
Andrews: Alright, thank you.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
PROPOSED PARK, OPEN SPACE AND TRAIL ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT
REFERENDUM.
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Andrews: I guess I'd like to see this particular item, which really wasn't prepared for tonight
but to have that come back like a grid of millions bonded or voted in a referendum. Home
values across the top. Approximate estimated tax implication of that. That was something
we could probably just keep with us every time we meet because that's going to, that's going
to give us some guidance as to what might be possible. And then you said you're going to be
working on some estimates, Bandimere and some of these other wish lists.
Hoffman: Land acquisition.
Andrews: Yep.
Hoffman: Development of lights.
Andrews: Trails.
Lash: When we put this package together for the Council, how specific do you think we
need to be? Not dollar amount but say we wanted to earmark x amount for land acquisition
for community park or open space preservation. Do we need to get site specific as far as the
open space or I know specifically we had two large treed areas in mind. Do we need to be
specific about that?
Hoffman: We'll be site specific based on the work that we you did last year ... and without
that ... say we'll buy 150 acres over the next 5 years somewhere out in Chanhassen, it's going
22
Park d Rec Commission Meeting '
Par an g - November 15, 1994
to cost you this much. I think you can see from the first editorial in the paper, that's not
going to fly. People want to know. In fact we want to take them out, walk them on the ,
property so we'll schedule as part of this, if it goes forward, public tours of the property
which we're taking a look at. And I will be including the Prince Nelson's property and the
Camp Tanadoona property but there being a caveat that these are probably not available at the '
present time so you couldn't go out and purchase them.
Lash: So how do we address that problem? '
Hoffman: Well I've approached some of the land owners and they're willing to sell. ,
Lash: Yeah but take those two specific sites. Do we put that then on the referendum so that
we've got the money in pocket in case they do come open? Because otherwise then if they '
come open, say they come open in 3 years and then we don't have the money.
Hoffman: It's a tough sell to put something on a contingency. It's a really tough sell in a ,
referendum. People like, when they vote, at least and history tejls you they like to see it
happen and continue to see...
Andrews: It will go somewhere else. I think the position we would have to perhaps be in is ,
to have some money available where we could convince the owner to hold it and then you
scramble. Emergency referendum. If that peninsula at Lake Ann came up and we scrambled '
out and said this is our one shot. One time to do it, I think you could get support for it.
Hoffman: ...Eden Prairie in 6 weeks. I
Andrews: Yeah, I think for us to say we need to hold $3 million in the bank in case
someday that comes, that ain't going to go. People aren't going to vote for it... '
Lash: So if we get site specific, we need to identify a site for a community park too? I
know the last one was, it was general. It was community park in southern Chanhassen. '
Hoffman: We don't have that any longer. I'll take a look at some of those and offer up some
recommendations... '
Meger: Can you give us more information too. It seemed like Mayor Chmiel had quite a bit ,
of concern about our Chanhassen tax, was it ... I mean I don't understand it that well so I
would like some more information just to be able to.
23 1
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994
' Lash: Well they're going to say, would never authorize something that's going to jeopardize
our bond rating so I don't think we have to worry about that.
' Hoffman: Typically when Moody's comes out and says you ... does not hurt your bond rating.
' Andrews: I don't have any concern at all about our bond rating. With the amount of
construction going on out here, the tax capacity here is growing far faster than what's been
proj ected.
' Hoffman: ...$6 million dollar, that doesn't even touch our coverage.
L
Andrews: Then if you look at what it is you just bought with that $6 million, I mean if the
city ever did go in the tank, they could put one of those pieces of property on the market and
sell it for a profit.
Lash: So how far down our wish list, just ballpark, do you think we're going to be able to go
with a $6 million figure? If that were the figure we went with.
Hoffman: I don't have a priority yet so I can't tell you how far it would get down there.
You'd be able to choose ... Bandimere is over a million dollars to develop so there's a ... but we
shouldn't be disappointed in what we can accomplish for that amount of money and obviously
we need items which are—community which we're serving right now ... We need to be able to
market those as...
Andrews: We've got to move fast because District 276 is talking about another school bond
referendum. If that comes out before this comes out, there's no chance that will go in
Minnetonka. They're already starting to do it. There are a lot of disgruntled property owners
that said, why couldn't you talk about this a year ago.
Lash: We would have had a different referendum a year ago.
Andrews: Well, they knew it was coming. I mean it's just how to politically solve something
in pieces.
Berg: 112 has another one coming too.
Hoffman: ...the Council will hear your comments on December 10th and what you'd like to
receive, so if you have anything else on that.
Andrews: So our project, on the 10th is going to be.
24
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994
Lash: Is that our last meeting?
Andrews: Yeah, this is it for this month. '
Lash: I guess I figured we'd have on in two weeks. That'd be the 29th. '
Manders: That's Thanksgiving week.
Lash: No, it would be the week after Thanksgiving. '
Manders: No, it's the third week which is Thanksgiving week. ,
Andrews: So the 10th would be focusing on the referendum primarily or other tasks that
we've kind of let slide too or. ,
Hoffman: There'd be any subdivision proposals which come forward, year end type of...
our Christmas celebration so we aren't going to want the meeting
'
Lash: That's supposed to be g g g
to go. ,
Berg: Do you want to start a little earlier?
Hoffman: Yeah, we can meet on the referendum at 6:30 to 7:30... ,
Lash: Dave took on that, the job of planning that and he mentioned to me that he was going '
to, he's thinking of Frankie's so I did voice my concern about their limited menu after
following our meetings here. We had a little trouble there. I think he knows Frankie
personally. ,
Andrews: Oh there's Byerly's now too and that's another place we haven't tried yet.
Hoffman: Another short thing under Administrative Presentations. If you notice the Green ,
Sense. The publication. There are a lot of tie in's into our proposal for a referendum. It
covers... they're also starting a west metro chapter which ... out of the Eden Prairie referendum '
effort. They're having a meeting tomorrow night in City Hall of Chanhassen, up in the
courtyard conference room. I will be at the school. Our planning staff will be at Planning
Commission meeting and thus we don't know who is going to represent the city of ,
Chanhassen... If any of you are interested at 7:00, and what they talk about is other ways of
preserving open space, which is private, as really public open space as a professional
presentation. They do a lot with easements. Special easements over the property and they're ,
25 1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994
very active and this does mention I believe the Eden Prairie effort ... In regards to tomorrow
night's Planning Commission meeting, the item of Heritage Development which is the east of
the Timberwood Estates is on the agenda. Typically that is my responsibility to represent the
Parks Department and the Commission at that meeting. However I do have to attend school
tomorrow evening. I missed last week due to the other meeting so I can't miss a second
week. I will have somebody there from the staff level to represent us. Any park
commissioner who would like to represent the commission there, you're more than willing to
do that and you know how effective that can be.
Andrews: That's back at Planning you said?
' Hoffman: Planning Commission and their contention is that they don't want to cough off the
open space for the park. The little corner of trees and so they've submitted a proposal
without that and we will be defending that as a position that we want that as park.
Lash: Is this the one with the boulevard and we asked them to move it east so that it was
more along the creek?
Hoffman: And they did not do that and our final position was we'll continue to have a trail at
the back side of the homes and what we want is to preserve those ... and they're still showing 3
or 4 lots in that area...
Lash: And this is the Planning Commission, right?
Hoffman: Correct.
Manders: What argument do they bring forth?
Hoffman: Well they're meeting their land dedication through the dedication of easement and
trail.
Andrews: Hooey. What a bunch of hooey. I want that on the record, hooey.
Lash: Could you spell that?
Hoffman: Does anybody want to go to that meeting?
Andrews: Tomorrow night?
26
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994 '
Lash: Personally I don't want to go to the meeting if I don't have to but can you have the
staff person who represents Park and Rec, again say that there's a consensus with the
'
commission that this is a bunch of hooey and if they go along with that, you know then we'll
have to bring it up when it goes to City Council and make a major stink at that level so why
not just nit it in the bud at the Planning Commission level and be done with it.
'
Andrews: It's inconsistent.
'
Lash: You know I really think the commissions seriously need to respect each others
recommendations and back each other up when it's in the planning stage rather than have to
wait until it goes to City Council so I would respectfully request that they respect our
'
recommendation in this situation.
Andrews: You don't have a copy of the agenda do you for that meeting?
'
Hoffman: No, but I could call you tomorrow night.
'
Andrews: Give me a call. I may be able to make it.
An d y
Hoffman: Okay. And lastly, you will have a year end date, up to date update on the revenue
,
charges for the park and trail acquisition and development but it was just dropped on my desk
today so I thought I'd spread the good news. Collected year to date is $432,526.31. So we
have budgeted revenue of $170,000.00 this year so we're obviously able to bankroll that
,
money but we also have been very aggressive in setting aside reserves so where we're at
now ... we're able to meet our ... which we had set aside so you can be happy about that
situation... but we don't have that big old nest egg set aside just yet for something such as the
,
Lake Ann ... spend everything that we make. Although we do get a lot of pressure from
neighborhoods to continue to develop the neighborhood parks. We...
,
Lash: I have a question regarding the applicants for the commission. Did Jane and I need to
do anything with the information we gathered tonight?
,
Hoffman: Yeah, you should update the rest of the commission as to your thoughts and if you
feel that we should forward this, if you want to make a recommendation ... City Council.
'
Lash: Well I guess what I want to know is what we're supposed to do. Generally we
prioritize the candidates or something.
'
Hoffman: You can do that as well. I'll handle this one. Obviously we have applicants who...
we had one application coming in thus far and that person is ... a Planning Commission
'
27 1
I Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994
' applicant with a park and rec as an alternate. And Jane and Jan interviewed... and I have a
feeling that the City Council—will probably choose to interview Mr. Stubic regardless of any
' recommendation here so and then they can make their choice.
Andrews: At this point, both Fred and Jim have re- applied?
Hoffman: Correct.
' Andrews: Okay. We commend you. And we wonder why but.
Lash: So you want us to tell you now how we're feeling or do you want us to write it down
' or what do you want us to do?
Hoffman: If you want to make a motion to the City Council, you can do that. And the
' commission has done that in the past where they've prioritized people or recommended
people. The policy for reappointment is not ... to that specifics. It says you shall interview on
' this date City Council shall interview on this date but the process between there is somewhat
gray. And we are entering into a political realm there so if you want to make
recommendations, let's say you push for your two candidates right now, they might say well
' why are they pushing their two candidates now...
Lash: Although part of our criteria here is membership should consider reappointment of
' current outstanding members wishing to be reappointed. So I mean we'd be following criteria
if we recommended Fred and Jim.
' Todd Hoffman made some statements that were not heard on the tape.
Andrews: I'd like to see us, personally I'd like to see us make a motion to support
' reappointment of those reapplying.
Lash: Yes, I would second that.
' Andrews moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend that
the City Council reappoint Fred Berg and Am Mandeis to the Park and Recreation
' Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Meger: I would just suggest that, seeing as Bob does obviously have a great interest and he's
' applied for the two commissions, that should we get to the point where we have a task force
for a referendum, that we strongly consider him as a viable candidate.
28
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994
Lash: And if there needs to be any back up support as to the recommendation, it would be
based on a criteria of current members of the commission being reappointed, and I think also
on the face of the referendum, or possible upcoming referendum, that it would be in our best
interest to have experienced commissioners here who are already knowledgeable in the
process.
Andrews: Agreed. Any other business?
Manders: I had a couple questions. One, I just wanted to recognize the Cub Scouts on the
tree thing. My question there was, did they come to you with this option and is there similar
things out there that they just don't know enough to come into the city and ask about trees
and plantings and whatever else?
Hoffman: Sure, to kind of align yourself with Fred's comments on the Friends for the Parks
and that type of an organizational effort and our response being that we need to go down that
road but typically where ... in districts which have matured somewhat. You don't have to take
that. We have a growing ... this person went out and made some contacts. You can't
develop—so they go out and make some contacts and ... benefits for the Boy Scouts or Girl
Scouts as well.
Manders: Well it was great.
Hoffman: And we try to encourage that through our contact. If Public Safety doesn't get
them first, we pick right up on it.
Manders: Second comment was on the Lake Ann irrigation. Have you gotten a response
back on that?
Hoffman: No, I have given him his last notification. Sent the contract over to the City
Attorney. The City Attorney said you, if you want to close this contract you need to get
them certified mail notification that they have 10 days to complete their contract.
And ... basically we will do it at our own expense and we will retain that money from their
contract retainage by $5,200.00...
Manders: And my last question is on the status of the playground equipment.
Hoffman: At Pheasant Hills? Pheasant Hills playground equipment was delivered 2 1/2 -3
weeks late so it really came in more than what Earl F. Anderson would have expected for
delivery so it did not meet the promised date to be delivered. I've always... satisfaction with
them. In fact...
29
n
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994
Manders: So is it installed then or what's the?
Hoffman: Yeah, the equipment is in about the 75% finished stage, 80% installed. We're
installing it. They did not deliver a couple of posts. That counts up for about 2 days on the
installation. That came a week ago last Friday and then the slides, which were delivered to
the, I'll call them Jet Slide, our installer Dean Schmieg is very quick to catch these type of
things and when he installed it before ... basin holds water. The runout of the slide... shallow
enough so after a night of rain and they slide down, the person is going to get soaked pants
so this is not a good thing. So then he thought, well a couple of things ... our installer drilled
homes into the slide and let the water drain out of it and my response was, direct response
was that, I'm not going to bring my Park Commission out here and say I just bought
$20,000.00 worth of play equipment and now we have to bring... drilling holes in the slide to
let the water drain ... so we'll go back to the fact where we ask them how we can solve this
and I asked them to create a change order in that regard that they can solve this with
factory ... they'll redo those slides for you but they're coming out with brand new slides which
are slightly different. A quicker runoff and then level off after that and these slides will be
available in January or February. Would you like those so I said, well typically when a
company manufactures something new and improved, it's new and improved for a reason so
unless you tell me otherwise we'll take the new slide so we'll be getting a change out on those
slides to get the new slides.
Andrews: No extra cost?
Hoffman: No extra cost.
Lash: So how does it look?
Hoffman: It looks great.
Lash: Good. Any comments from the residents about it?
Hoffman: ...again, it's not that we don't get the service. We have to twist arms ... to make
things happen.
Lash: That's a tough one because, and we were all in full agreement that we were getting
more equipment for the money and we want to do that but yet on the other hand, the trade off
for us should not be arm twisting to get service. I'd like to continue to get the most
equipment for the money I can but sometimes the headaches just are not worth it.
30
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - November 15, 1994
Andrews: I guess I'd like to see a letter go from you Todd, basically expressing just that.
That we saw their bid as providing a greater value of equipment and that in the future if they
wish to have favorable consideration, we'd appreciate the service to be.
Berg: Yeah, and he stood 15 feet away from us when we told him that face to face and then
he still comes back and says well we don't consider 2 weeks to be a problem. We told him 2
weeks was a problem. We told him the date, we needed it on the date that he specified.
Lash: Yeah, I think I was pretty.
Hoffman: You were specific.
Lash: Very.
Berg: And you didn't change your mind 4 times.
Andrews: Any other comments? Motion to adjourn.
Berg moved, Lash seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carved. The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Recreation Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
31