CC Packet 2007 01 22AGENDA
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2007
CHANHASSEN MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
5:30 P.M. - CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
Note: If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the
remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda.
A. TH 101 Corridor Scoping Study, PW067F4: Council Update.
B. Discussion of Amendment to City Code, Chapters 1, 7. 13, 18, 19 & 20 as a Result of
Adoption of the Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan.
C. Review City Center Park Improvements—Veteran’s Monument and Performance Stage.
D. Key Financial Strategies:
1. Annual Goals
2. Legislative Priorities
7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance)
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
E. Invitation to February Festival on February 3.
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will
be considered as one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is
desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City
council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for
each staff report.
1. a. Approval of Minutes:
- City Coucnil Work Session Minutes dated January 8, 2007
- City Council Summary Minutes dated January 8, 2007
- City Council Verbatim Minutes dated January 8, 2007
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated January 2, 2007
- Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated January 2, 2007
- Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated January 16, 2007
- Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated January 16, 2007
b. Sewer & Water Comprehensive Plan Updates, PW412A & B & Wellhead
Protection Plan Update, PW379A: Approve Consultant Contracts.
c. Koehnen Area/Yosemite Reconstruction Project No. 07-01: Approve No Parking
Resolution for the West Side of Yosemite Avenue.
d. TH 101 North Watermain Project No. 07-07: Authorize Preparation of Plans &
Specifications.
e. ITEM DELETED (Approval of Amendment to City Code, Chapter 1, Definitions,
Woody Material.)
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
2. Presentation and Acceptance of $750 Donation for Usage of Chanhassen Park Facilities;
David Dines, Minnetonka Youth Lacrosse Association.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE
3. a. Sgt. Ross Gullickson, Carver County Sheriff's Department
b. Chief Gregg Geske, Chanhassen Fire Department
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. 2007 Street Improvement Project No. 07-02: Public Hearing & Authorize Preparation of
Plans and Specifications.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS
5. THE ARBORS; Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm 1st Addition (7537 and 7570
Dogwood Road); Applicant: Carlson Custom Homes, Inc.; Planning Case 07-02:
Request for Rezoning from RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Single Family Residential;
Comprehensive Land Use Map Amendment from Residential-Large Lot to Residential-
Low Density; Subdivision of 20 acres into 22 lots and 3 Outlots.
6. FOX HILL, 6570 Chanhassen Road, Applicant: 10 Spring Homes, Inc - Request for
Subdivision of Property into Three (3) Single-Family Lots with Variances.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
CORRESPONDENCE PACKET
ADJOURNMENT
A copy of the staff report and supporting documentation being sent to the city council will be
available after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. Please contact city hall at 952-227-1100 to verify that
your item has not been deleted from the agenda any time after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday.
GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting. In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City
Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. That opportunity is provided
at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations.
1. Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor.
When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the
City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City
Council.
2. If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson
that can summarize the issue.
3. Limit your comments to five minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If
you have written comments, provide a copy to the Council.
4. During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion.
Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough
understanding of your concern, suggestion or request.
5. Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual
either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed to the City
Manager.
Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Houlihan’s Restaurant & Bar, 530 Pond Promenade in Chanhassen immediately
after the meeting for a purely social event. All members of the public are welcome.
Chanhassen City Center Park - 2007 Improvements 06-164
06-165
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
BCDEFGHIJ
Chanhassen City Center Park 2006 Improvements
DescriptionUnitUnit CostBaseBase
QuanCost
Performance Stage
Site Prep and Demolition
Demolish and salvage existing Modular Block Wall LS650.00$ 1650$
Strip existing sod (dispose of off site)SY2.00$ 350700$
Excavate to 9" depth, salvage topsoil (dispose of off site)SY 4.00$ 180720$
Subtotal A 2,070$
Paving and Walls
Concrete Interlocking pavers w/ base (to match existing)SF9.50$ 1,60015,200$
Wall: Modular Block (26 lf x 2.5 hgt)FF25.00$ 651,625$
Subtotal B16,825$
Landscaping
Irrigation system modification LS650.00$ 1650$
Mulch: 4" Hardwood Chips with barrier (4" depth)SY5.00$ 48240$
Planting soil (Shrub)EA35.00$ 8280$
Shrub: Deciduous EA35.00$ 481,680$
Sod, includes respread topsoil to 6" depth SY3.50$ 130455$
Poly edger LF4.25$ 50213$
Subtotal C3,518$
Miscellaneous
Earthwork LS650$ 1650.00
Subtotal D650$
Consultant Fee
Damon Farber Associates LS6,800$ 16,800.00
Site Survey LS900$ 1900.00
Subtotal E7,700$
Subtotal Performance Stage A-E 30,763$
Veterans Monument
Site Prep and Demolition
Strip existing sod (dispose of off site)SY2.00$ 210420$
Demolish existing freestanding modular block walls and remove plants (dispose off of site)LS1,650.00$ 11,650$
Demolish existing paver path and base material (salvage pavers)LS1,550.00$ 11,550$
Excavate to 9" depth, salvage topsoil (dispose of remaining off site)SY 4.00$ 100400$
Subtotal F4,020$
Paving and Walls
Concrete Interlocking pavers w/ base SF10.50$ 2552,678$
Wall: Modular Block (75 lf x 1.25 hgt.)FF25.00$ 1553,875$
Wall: 36" HGT. Limestone w/Engraving (includes footing)LS60,000.00$ 160,000$
Re-install paver path w/base (use salvaged pavers)SF6.50$ 150975$
Subtotal G67,528$
Landscaping
Irrigation system modification LS2,000.00$ 12,000$
Mulch: 4" Hardwood Chips with barrier (4" depth)SY7.00$ 72504$
Planting soil / tree - shrubs EA35.00$ 15525$
Shrub: Deciduous EA35.00$ 14490$
Shrub: Coniferous EA76.00$ 584,408$
Poly edger LF4.25$ 25106$
Sod, includes respread topsoil to 6" depth SY3.50$ 135473$
Tree: Clump Deciduous Ornamental (12' hgt.)EA550.00$ 63,300$
Subtotal H11,806$
Site Amenities
Small stone monuments (includes footing)LS13,375.00$ 114,625$
Services plaque EA350.00$ 51,750$
Dedication plaque EA1,000.00$ 11,000$
Flagpoles (flags by Owner)EA1,500.00$ 34,500$
Subtotal I21,875$
Utilities
Lighting and electrification: Ornamental (low voltage at trees, 6 ea)LS1,250.00$ 11,250$
Lighting and electrification: Ornamental (low voltage at flags, 3 ea)LS1,000.00$ 11,000$
Subtotal J2,250$
Miscellaneous
Earthwork LS950$ 1950.00
Subtotal K950$
Consultant Fee
Damon Farber Associates LS6,500$ 16,500.00
Site Survey LS900$ 1900.00
Damon Farber Associates G:\PARK\TH\CityCenterPark\Veterans Monument\Costs.xls
Chanhassen City Center Park - 2007 Improvements 06-164
06-165
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
BCDEFGHIJ
Subtotal L7,400$
Subtotal Veterans Monument F-L 115,828$
Park Replacement Plantings
Landscaping
Removals: Plantings and mulch at SW Library corner LS550.00$ 1550$
Mulch: Rock (to match existing) with barrier (4" depth) SY9.00$ 85765$
Mulch: 4" Hardwood Chips with barrier (4" depth)SY5.00$ 118590$
Shrub: Deciduous EA35.00$ 1184,130$
Poly edger LF4.25$ 50213$
Subtotal M6,248$
Subtotal Park Replacement Plantings M 6,248$
ESTIMATED COMBINED TOTAL 152,838$
G:\PARK\TH\CityCenterPark\Veterans Monument\[Costs.xls]Sheet1
Damon Farber Associates G:\PARK\TH\CityCenterPark\Veterans Monument\Costs.xls
Invitation to February Festival
The City of Chanhassen is once again, proud to announce our winter special event, the 14th
Annual “February Festival.” This special event, out of a series of year long special events, is
being sponsored by the City of Chanhassen and the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce in
cooperation with our local business community. February Festival will be held on Saturday,
February 3rd. At this time, I invite all area residents, their families and friends, to join me on
Lake Ann. The event will begin at 12 noon including activities like skating, sledding and a
bonfire to warm you. Hot food, concessions, and s’mores kits will be sold by Boy Scout Troop
#330 on the ice. The Ice Fishing contest will run from 1:00-3:00PM including $2500 in fish
prizes and $4500 in door prizes. You can also play bingo on the ice offered by the Friends of the
Library who also sponsor a medallion hunt in the city starting on January 29th. The person who
finds the medallion receives a $1500 prize. Ice fishing and raffle tickets for the event are $5 for
adults and children. You may purchase as many tickets as you like. Tickets are available at City
Hall, the Chanhassen Recreation Center, and local businesses. More information is available on
the city’s website. I look forward to seeing everyone there.
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
JANUARY 8, 2007
The City Council held an executive session prior to the work session to discuss litigation
concerning the Halla Nursery Sign.
Mayor Furlong called the work session meeting to order at 6:10 p.m..
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Peterson, Councilwoman
Tjornhom, Councilwoman Ernst, and Councilman Litsey
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Laurie Hokkanen, Paul Oehme, Kate Aanenson and Todd
Hoffman
DISCUSS PROCESS FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE.
Kate Aanenson reviewed the issues and schedule for the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update and
staff's recommendation for SRF as the consultant for project, citing their strong background in
traffic engineering. The issues that will be covered in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update are
land use, housing, natural resources, park and open space, transportation, sewer and water,
capital improvements, optional elements and public facilities. She explained staff's desire to
implement a design layout interaction vs. flat for the 2008 comprehensive plan update and
discussed the planning commission's involvement in meetings and forums. Mayor Furlong asked
about the council's involvement in the update process. Councilwoman Ernst asked for
clarification on how the community survey will be conducted. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked
if development will be slowed by the timeline for approval of the MUSA expansion. Todd
Hoffman explained Hoisington-Koegler's role as consultant for the park component of the
comprehensive plan update. Councilman Litsey asked for further clarification on why staff is
recommending SRF as the consultant for the update.
KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGIES.
Todd Gerhardt thanked the council members and staff for their participation in the orientation
session for new City Council members and developing the 2007 goals. He reviewed the list of
initiatives and asked for additional comments or ideas under the headings of competitiveness,
strengthening the city's financial position, planning of city's infrastructure, and enhancing the
local tax base. Mayor Furlong asked about the role of the City Council in the various principles.
Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for an additional initiative to implement a call log or customer
service system to track calls from the public and what was said by staff. Todd Gerhardt
explained how the city is currently implementing a complaint tracking system.
Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session at 7:00 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2007
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Peterson, Councilwoman
Tjornhom, Councilwoman Ernst and Councilman Litsey
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Laurie Hokkanen, Roger Knutson, Todd Hoffman, Paul
Oehme, Lori Haak and Kate Aanenson
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Teri Kelsh Chanhassen Villager
Shirley & Willard Johnson Chanhassen
Jeff Daniel Park and Recreation Commission
Mike Olson Chanhassen
Billy Bergner Chanhassen
Lindsay Nestande Chaska
Catie Evans Chaska
Lynne & Elizabeth Wyre Chaska
Lindsey Stone Chaska
Zac Huber Chanhassen
Deb Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Wes Van Epson 639 Carver Bluffs Parkway
Steven Atkinson Chanhassen
Mandy Chollgren Chaska
Courtney Hanousek Chanhassen
OATH OF OFFICE: Roger Knutson administered the oaths of office to Mayor Tom Furlong,
Councilwoman Vicki Ernst and Councilman Bryan Litsey.
Mayor Furlong amended the agenda to include an executive session prior to adjournment to
discuss the pending litigation with the Fox and Fox Family assessment regarding the 2005
MUSA assessments.
ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS:
DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER. Councilman Litsey moved,
Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to appoint the Chanhassen Villager as the official
newspaper for the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
City Council Summary - January 8, 2007
2
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING MAYOR. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman
Ernst seconded to appoint Councilwoman Tjornhom as Acting Mayor. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded
to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated December 11, 2006
-City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated December 11, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated December 5, 2006
-Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated December 12,
2006
b. Accept $1,050 Donation from Klein Bank for the Senior Life-Long Learning Project.
c. Resolution #2007-01: Koehnen Area/Yosemite Area Street Reconstruction Project 07-
01: Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize Ad for Bids.
d. Resolution #2007-02: 2007 Rehabilitation Project 07-02: Accept Feasibility Study;
Call Public Hearing.
e. Resolution #2007-03: 2007 Sealcoating Project 07-04: Authorize Preparation of Plans
& Specifications.
f. Lakeside 2nd Addition:
1) Approval Final Plat.
2) Approve Development Contract
g. Approve Consultant Contract for Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Use Element.
h. Accept Donation from Minnesota Valley Electric Co-op for Veteran's Monument.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: MUSA EXPANSION PROJECT 06-05: HOLD ASSESSMENT
HEARING.
Paul Oehme presented the staff report on this item and introduced Jon Horn with Kimley-Horn
and Associates who reviewed the Bluff Creek Boulevard project and assessments. Mayor
Furlong clarified that there was one formal letter of objection to the assessments. Mayor Furlong
City Council Summary - January 8, 2007
3
opened the public hearing. Jeff Fox, speaking on behalf of the Fox Family properties and Jeff
and Terry Fox, clarified that the objection letter received by the City was from their attorney.
Todd Gerhardt stated that was correct.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Litsey seconded to close the public hearing. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The public
hearing was closed.
Resolution #2007-04: Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to
adopt the resolution adopting the assessment roll for Project 06-05 as presented in the staff
report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
OLD VILLAGE HALL:
A. CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO LAND USE MAP AND REZONING.
B. APPROVAL OF LEASE WITH SEATTLE SUTTON.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item.
Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for clarification on the zoning for the Chapel Hills Academy
site. Laurie Hokkanen reviewed the terms of the lease agreement with Seattle Sutton. Mayor
Furlong clarified that the lease was for the rental of the old village hall building only, and not the
plaza which would continue to be public. He also asked for clarification on the issue of a
security deposit.
Resolution #2007-05: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the
City Council approves the land use amendment from Public/Semi-Public to commercial for
Outlot B and the easterly 66 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Old Village Hall subject to Metropolitan
Council review, and approves the rezoning from Office and Institutional District, OI, to
Central Business District, CBD, for Outlot B and the easterly 66 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Old
Village Hall and adopt the findings of fact as presented. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council approve
the attached lease agreement with Distinctive Ventures LLC for the Old Village Hall
property subject to the inclusion of a security deposit of one month's rent in the lease. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, CHAPTERS 1, 7, 13, 18, 19 & 20 AS A RESULT
OF THE ADOPTION OF THE SECOND GENERATRION SURFACE WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN.
Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item and Planning Commission update, highlighting
two issues that had been brought to staff's attention since the Planning Commission meeting.
Those two issues were the definition of impervious surface as proposed, as well as wetland
classifications for the buffers and setbacks. Councilwoman Ernst asked staff to clarify the
problems with installation of pervious surfaces.
City Council Summary - January 8, 2007
4
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
table action on the amendments to city code Chapters 1, 7, 13, 18, 19 and 20 as a result of
the adoption of the Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Peterson provided an update on issues being
discussed with Southwest Metro Transit Commission and TAB, the Transit Advisory Board
regarding expanding transit opportunities to Carver, Victoria and Waconia. Councilman Litsey
thanked staff and council for the orientation session for new council members and recommended
that it continue to be done in the future. Mayor Furlong provided an update on the breakfast that
was held with Senator Norm Coleman and a number of mayors from the surrounding area.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt announced that Paul Oehme has
been nominated as 1of 3 nominees for Public Works Director of the year by the Minnesota
Association of Public Works Directors and that the new water treatment plant has been
nominated as 1 of 8 projects of the year from the same association. He also presented an update
on the progress of the water treatment plant.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None.
Mayor Furlong recessed the City Council meeting at 8:00 p.m.. The City Council then
reconvened in executive session.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 8, 2007
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Peterson, Councilwoman
Tjornhom, Councilwoman Ernst and Councilman Litsey
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Laurie Hokkanen, Roger Knutson, Todd Hoffman, Paul
Oehme, Lori Haak and Kate Aanenson
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Teri Kelsh Chanhassen Villager
Shirley & Willard Johnson Chanhassen
Jeff Daniel Park and Recreation Commission
Mike Olson Chanhassen
Billy Bergner Chanhassen
Lindsay Nestande Chaska
Catie Evans Chaska
Lynne & Elizabeth Wyre Chaska
Lindsey Stone Chaska
Zac Huber Chanhassen
Deb Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Wes Van Epson 639 Carver Bluffs Parkway
Steven Atkinson Chanhassen
Mandy Chollgren Chaska
Courtney Hanousek Chanhassen
Mayor Furlong: First order of business this evening are the oaths of office for myself and Vicki
Ernst and Bryan Litsey so we'll gather down there.
OATH OF OFFICE: Roger Knutson administered the oath of office to Mayor Tom Furlong,
Councilwoman Vicki Ernst and Councilman Bryan Litsey.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Litsey, did you want to, any comments?
Councilman Litsey: I just appreciate the opportunity to serve. I should have that oath down
better than that having been on the court stand a number of times. In the role of police officer,
not as a defendant. But I really hope to make a difference for the next 4 years. I'm looking
forward to working with fellow council members. Already I've had a very good experience. We
had a nice orientation session and some work sessions and everyone's made me feel very
welcome and I appreciate that. Both staff and the currently seated members of the council, so I
look forward to that. Thank you.
City Council Meeting - January 8, 2007
2
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: I just want to say that I'm very excited. Staff members and current City
Council members have been just great in the transition and answering all my questions. They've
been very helpful and I'm ready to start work.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you and on my part I want to take a few minutes and express
what a daily privilege and pleasure it is to serve as mayor of Chanhassen. To be involved in this
organization. I'm deeply honored to be able to continue in this role. I want to say publicly that
I'm especially grateful for the love and support of my wife Ann and all my children. They have
and will continue to give up a few family dinners and some books at bedtime so that I can
perform my mayoral duties. As my daughter Katherine describes my role as mayor, I just always
go to meetings. And I think that captures it pretty well. They've been very supportive and
accommodating to my schedule and I know, knowing that they're behind me makes all the
difference in the world. I also want to take a moment to welcome our new council members,
Vicki Ernst and Bryan Litsey. Tonight you've joined forces with Councilmembers Craig
Peterson and Bethany Tjornhom and me, but you've also joined with many residents who
voluntarily serve on our commissions and task force, the entire city staff, all of whom are
dedicated to making Chanhassen the best place it can be. They all do a great job and I know
both of you will be contributing assets to this organization as well and we look forward to
working with you. And rest assured, now that you've taken the oath to faithfully, justly and
impartially perform your duties as a member of the City Council, no one is ever going to second
guess or disagree with you. At least not publicly. We have been successful and have
accomplished a great number of goals these last 4 years and it's because of everyone's effort and
desire to work together for the good of the city. We focused our efforts on planning for and
managing our growth, upgrading and improving our roads and infrastructure, providing core
government services in an efficient and effective manner, and all the while securing our city's
financial position through sound management practices, limiting spending growth and lowering
taxes. We've gotten a lot done, but there's much more to do. As Councilman Litsey just
mentioned, this last Saturday we began the new year at city hall with a joint City Council and
staff strategic planning meeting. We gathered to discuss our common vision and goals for the
city and to organize our objectives and strategic initiatives. We recognize that Chanhassen is a
community for life and that our responsibility is to provide for today's needs while planning for
tomorrow's. That will be our common theme as we move forward throughout the coming years.
Chanhassen's future is bright. Civic pride is alive and well. Opportunities abound for us. Our
challenge is to wisely take actions today that will ensure Chanhassen is a great place for
everyone to live, work and play many years from now. To build upon the high quality of life
that we enjoy and not rest on our laurels, and to continue to create a city in which residents and
businesses hopes and dreams come true every day. It is, to be a part of this is something special
and personally, and I know I speak for others up here and the commissions and city staff, we
thank you very sincerely for letting us serve you. We are extremely grateful. Thank you. And
now as Councilman Ernst said, we've got some business to do so enough of the pomp and
circumstance. At this time I would like to add one item to the agenda, which will be, occur just
prior to adjournment and that would be for the City Council to go into an executive session to
discuss the pending litigation with the Fox and the Fox Family assessment regarding the 2005
City Council Meeting - January 8, 2007
3
MUSA assessments. Are there any other modifications or additions to the agenda? If not, oh I'm
sorry. If not we'll proceed with it as published.
ORGANIZATIONAL ITEMS:
DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER.
Mayor Furlong: Staff's report provided information with regard to the official newspaper. Is
there any questions for staff or is, I don't know that we need a staff report.
Todd Gerhardt: Staff is recommending the Chanhassen Villager. It's the only paper that meets
the criteria so our recommendation is the Chanhassen Villager.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? If not, is there a motion to adopt
Chanhassen Villager as the official newspaper for the city.
Councilman Litsey: I'll make the motion to adopt the Chanhassen Villager as the official
newspaper for the city.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to appoint the Chanhassen
Villager as the official newspaper for the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING MAYOR.
Todd Gerhardt: In the absence of the mayor, we usually appoint an acting mayor in your
absence. So it can be any city council member.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff? If not I'll open up the floor for
nominations.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I'd nominate Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Ernst: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any other nominations?
City Council Meeting - January 8, 2007
4
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to appoint Councilwoman
Tjornhom as Acting Mayor. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a
vote of 5 to 0.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded
to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated December 11, 2006
-City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated December 11, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated December 5, 2006
-Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated December 12,
2006
b. Accept $1,050 Donation from Klein Bank for the Senior Life-Long Learning Project.
c. Resolution #2007-01: Koehnen Area/Yosemite Area Street Reconstruction Project 07-
01: Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize Ad for Bids.
d. Resolution #2007-02: 2007 Rehabilitation Project 07-02: Accept Feasibility Study;
Call Public Hearing.
e. Resolution #2007-03: 2007 Sealcoating Project 07-04: Authorize Preparation of Plans
& Specifications.
f. Lakeside 2nd Addition:
1) Approval Final Plat.
2) Approve Development Contract
g. Approve Consultant Contract for Comprehensive Plan Update, Land Use Element.
h. Accept Donation from Minnesota Valley Electric Co-op for Veteran's Monument.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: MUSA EXPANSION PROJECT 06-05: HOLD ASSESSMENT
HEARING.
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. Tonight staff is requesting that the
council hold an assessment hearing and consider adoption of assessment roll for the Bluff Creek
Boulevard Improvement Project. This project completes the city's initiated trunk improvements
City Council Meeting - January 8, 2007
5
for the 2005 development area, or we call it the MUSA, Municipal Urban Service Area. The
improvements were constructed in general conformity to the Alternative Urban Areawide
Review document or AUAR that was completed in 2003. The project to date is 90% complete.
Only minor work is left to do this spring. This work includes traffic signal, street lights, wear
course paving and restoration. These items have been identified or included in the final project
costs. Staff feels comfortable holding an assessment hearing at this time. Work left on the
project are known quantities and should not vary from the contract amounts. For the assessment
hearing tonight, 168 notices were mailed to the benefiting property owners. To date no
assessment appeals have been filed. Staff has received one letter, or comment letter I think that
the council has seen. Staff will tonight provide a brief explanation of the work along with the
proposed assessment amounts. Any issues that the City Council wishes to discuss regarding the
project's financing is appropriate before or during the public hearing portion of the project for
tonight. Public testimony should be received for the project. The property owners should be
reminded that they must file a written objection with the City either prior to during the actual
public hearing. Objections after the public hearing are not valid. The assessment objective is the
request by the property owners for the council to review the assessment amount. Staff may have
immediate response to individual comments, or in some circumstances the objection should be
received and referred to staff for investigation. If the council feels that the objections cannot be
addressed initially, a report will be presented to the council on the objection in a future council
meeting. Otherwise if the council feels that the assessment roll is appropriate, the council should
adopt the assessment roll. At this time I'd like to invite Jon Horn with Kimley-Horn and
Associates, the engineer for the project, to give a brief overview of the project and the costs
associated with it, and including the assessment amounts.
Jon Horn: Good evening Mayor and members of the City Council. As Mr. Oehme mentioned,
my name's Jon Horn. I'm with Kimley-Horn and Associates. We've been assisting city staff for
about 2 years now with the initial planning, design and construction of the MUSA improvements
and as Paul mentioned, I just want to do a brief overview of the proposed improvements and talk
a little bit about the specifics of the proposed assessments tonight. In terms of the components of
the project, it really consisted of roadway and the utility improvements and briefly just to run
through that. In terms of the proposed improvements, the project included the construction of
Bluff Creek Boulevard. Just to orientate you, north is facing up. This is Audubon Road.
Pioneer Trail's right down here. Lyman is up in this area. It's the construction of Bluff Creek
Boulevard with the east of Audubon Road. It includes improvements at the Audubon Road,
Bluff Creek Boulevard intersection including the traffic signal. It includes the extension of
sanitary sewer and watermain along Bluff Creek Boulevard, as well as storm sewer and
construction of storm water treatment pond to treat storm water generated from the area. So
that's really the specifics of the proposed improvements. I guess in addition I wanted to mention
there's also street lighting and landscaping that was done as a part of the roadway improvements.
Specific to the special assessments. Majority of the project costs are proposed to be funded
through assessments to benefiting property owners. The assessment hearing was called on
December 11, 2006. Notice of the assessment hearing was published in the Chanhassen Villager
on December 21st. In terms of the specifics of the assessments, as I said a majority of the costs
are being assessed to befitting property owners. There's some over sizing that the City's paying
for. The roadway was constructed beyond the typical residential street. The property owners are
assessed the equivalent cost for residential street. The City's paying for the over sizing cost with
City Council Meeting - January 8, 2007
6
City state aid funds. Trunk watermain, the watermain was installed…was larger than a typical 8
inch…as a part of a residential street. Again property owners paid for the average size. City
paid for the over sizing with water utility funds. Sanitary sewer, very similar to the watermain.
8 inch size is assessed and the over sizing is paid for through city funds. Specifically sanitary
sewer utility funds. Specifics of the assessments here is being assessed for the proposed roadway
improvements is a little over 215 acres. Trunk, water and sanitary sewer, the assessment area is
a little larger. We developed some assessment rates on an area basis. A little under $17,000 an
acre for the roadway and storm sewer. $862, plus or minus, for the trunk watermain and a little
over $2,000 for the trunk sanitary sewer. There are two specific properties that are assessed only
for the cost of water and sewer extension to serve their property, and I'll get into those in a
minute. It's proposed that the assessments be levied over a 7 year term at a 6% interest rate and
the property owners do have the opportunity to pay off the assessments within 60 days without
having to pay any interest charges. In terms of the specifics, who's being assessed for the
proposed project. There's 6 properties. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 in yellow that are not shaded. They're
being assessed on an area basis for sanitary sewer and watermain and streets. There is one parcel
down here that does derive benefit from the proposed street so it's only being assessed for sewer
and water and not street improvements. There's two properties, the Fox properties here and here
that are shaded. They're not being assessed on an area basis because as a part of the project,
sanitary sewer and watermain was extended beyond what was necessary to service these parcels
with the specific intent of providing service for the two Fox parcels so there is an assessment to
the Fox parcels only for the cost to extend those sewer and water services to their property. And
again that's based upon an 8 inch size and over sizing will be paid for through city funds. And
just to give you some sense of how the project compared to the original cost at the time of the
feasibility report, at the time of the feasibility report we did put together cost estimates. Total
project cost was a little under $6.2 million dollars, and you can see it's broken out on a spread
sheet through special assessments, city state aid funds for the roadway and then water and utility
funds for the utility improvements. In all cases the final amounts for each of those funding
sources went down. Total project costs went down to a $5.7 million dollars so there was plus or
minus a $500,000 savings in the total project cost, as well as savings on the assessments. The
City sewer and water fund as well as the state aid funds. I guess with that I'd open it up to any
questions from the council.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions for staff. I guess one from a point of clarification
in terms of objections. Did we not receive one objection?
Todd Gerhardt: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Or two objections.
Paul Oehme: That email?
Mayor Furlong: Well there was an email received today but I think it was, was it last week that
an email was actually.
Todd Gerhardt: I got a formal letter.
City Council Meeting - January 8, 2007
7
Paul Oehme: Oh you did? I wasn't aware of that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Any other questions at this point of staff? Okay. The one item I'll
mention, we're going to open up the public hearing here in a second, as mentioned by staff. Any
written, any objections need to be written, and it doesn't have to be elaborate. You can work
with our attorney but we need to have those in prior to us closing the public hearing, so if, we'll
just remind you one more time about that. At this point if there are no questions, I guess what I'll
do is go ahead and open up the public hearing and invite interested parties to come up and speak
at the podium. Depending on your comments, we'll probably have staff try to address your
questions or concerns or provide an answer as well, or solicit additional questions from council.
So good evening Mr. Fox.
Jeff Fox: Council members, my name is Jeff Fox on behalf of the Fox Properties, Fox Family
and Jeff and Terry Fox. That objection, Todd was that our attorney's letter written on behalf of
the Fox.
Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. Both for the family and for you and Terry.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak at the public hearing
or submit an objection? Okay. Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman Litsey: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Second. Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none we'll proceed with the
vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Litsey seconded to close the public hearing. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The public
hearing was closed.
Mayor Furlong: Bring it back to council now. Any questions or discussion on this matter?
Okay, if not, is there a motion to proceed.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: …with the motion that we accept the feasibility study for 2007 street
improvement project and call the public hearing for January 22, 2007.
Mayor Furlong: Is that the right one?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Is that the right one?
Mayor Furlong: No.
City Council Meeting - January 8, 2007
8
Councilwoman Tjornhom: No? Did I get ahead of myself?
Paul Oehme: Adopt the assessment roll.
Mayor Furlong: What's the page number on the packet? I think it's page 4. 186 is the
electronic.
Roger Knutson: Mayor if I can just suggest some language.
Mayor Furlong: Certainly.
Roger Knutson: Mostly it would be in order to adopt the resolution which adopts the assessment
roll.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, I make a motion to what he just said.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there a second to what she moved that he just said.
Councilwoman Ernst: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Second, okay. And that motion is to adopt the resolution adopting the
assessment roll that was distributed in the council packet.
Todd Gerhardt: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Any questions or discussion on the motion? Hearing none we'll
proceed with the vote.
Resolution #2007-04: Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to
adopt the resolution adopting the assessment roll for Project 06-05 as presented in the staff
report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
OLD VILLAGE HALL:
A. CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO LAND USE MAP AND REZONING.
B. APPROVAL OF LEASE WITH SEATTLE SUTTON.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Mayor, members of the council. This item did appear before the
Planning Commission on their January 2nd meeting. It was approved on a 7-no vote to approve
the rezoning and the land use amendment. The subject site is the old city hall located on West
78th. As stated in the staff report you can see Great Plains Boulevard used to go through the
middle of this property and since then we have.
Mayor Furlong: Can you move that up please?
Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry. Thank you. The West 78th, or Great Plains Boulevard used to tie
down across the railroad tracks and the old city hall is actually sitting in that vacated right-of-
City Council Meeting - January 8, 2007
9
way, which is this piece right here. The rezoning actually includes an additional parcel which is
tied to the daycare center there, and to clean up both those properties. The rezoning itself is just
over a half acre and again, I'm not going to go through all the history of the rezoning because it's
a lengthy kind of cleaning up this area. The most recent changes of the Schlenk property which
is, make sure I'm on the camera. This larger area here. Purchased by St. Hubert's for additional
cemetery space, which you see in the additional improvements to that site. And then the pink
area is the actual old St. Hubert's itself, and then the cemetery behind that. The subject site we
were talking again there is the… The piece behind it is actually part of the daycare…so there's a
cross access agreement between the two for parking. Some of the questions that the Planning
Commission had is, if it's office institutional, does that provide enough land use and what would,
if we change it to commercial business, how does that affect the rebuilding or the concerns about
limited parking. Again the building itself is only 500 square feet. It has 4 parking stalls, so
whatever use it ends up…must meet the parking standards. So as it turns out the City was able to
find a use that matched that up very well regarding limited traffic and a reasonable use for that
property. So with that, cleaning up the parcel, that also ties back to the…use itself. Staff and the
Planning Commission did recommend approval of the rezoning and the land use amendment.
Those conditions are found on page 4 of your staff report so with that I'd be happy to answer any
questions that you'd have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I just have one question of why the school across the street doesn't
have a public/semi-public zoning instead of it is office industrial?
Kate Aanenson: The Chapel Hills?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: It does have. This piece here.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And that's, I thought in the packet that it was office industrial.
Kate Aanenson: It's OI. It's office institutional that should say. Institutional.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Which is what we have all of the schools. I believe the new school site will
also be guided and zoned.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So it's just churches and.
Kate Aanenson: And schools.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And schools.
Kate Aanenson: Institutional type uses, correct.
City Council Meeting - January 8, 2007
10
Todd Gerhardt: And that's second you have to give it a secondary guiding.
Kate Aanenson: Typically we like to give it a secondary guiding. In this instance we didn't have
that situation, and again there's two difference land uses on there already. The Goddard School,
which again that's that little piece…and again holding that old right-of-way line. And if you look
at the history of that, we had changed it from, because of the Schlenk's were using it as a
residential from most recently we changed from residential zoning to actual, providing for a
cemetery use. It will be more a park use. So there has been some rezonings, changes in the area
in the public properties that were being used.
Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson, the color coded chart here with the subject property, it's in light
pink now. The dark pink, that is a central business district?
Kate Aanenson: Correct, and this is the office institutional and then the rest is actually the
central business district.
Mayor Furlong: And so the proposal here is to make it part of the red.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: And so it's consistent with, okay.
Kate Aanenson: And again at the bottom, the site that…house is on is actually this little portion
right here and that…is actually being used by the Goddard School so it makes their zoning
consistent with the PID. Their entire parcel. And again part of that is shared parking, which we
have a cross access agreement so it really makes both uses in the same district compatible with
sharing the parking. Again the Planning Commission thought that was a…
Councilman Litsey: So in essence this is just extending the central business district slightly
more?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Yeah, and that's really how it's being used. It does allow for a
little bit more flexibility of the use itself. Of the site itself as opposed to just an institutional type
use.
Councilman Litsey: Are there any plans to go beyond that then?
Kate Aanenson: No, really they can't. You know we're looking at doing a historic zone for
downtown. At this time there's no proposed renovation or public improvements regarding
parking, sewer, water so there's no improvements planned with this site itself. The exterior
building is all, it's just strictly…
Councilman Litsey: Very good, thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Is it appropriate to take action on this item before we consider the lease?
City Council Meeting - January 8, 2007
11
Roger Knutson: You can do them separately or together.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, is there any preference on council? Alright. Let move to the
least at this time. …or maybe we want to go to staff report quickly on the proposed lease.
Laurie Hokkanen: Mayor, the consideration of the lease is for a one year term with Distinctive
Ventures, LLC. They operate a franchise of Seattle Sutton's Healthy Eating, and the way that the
tenant proposes to use the building is that he is open twice a week, currently envisions that'd be
Monday's and Thursdays from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.. His clients come to the location to pick up
pre-packaged, prepared healthy meals and they do that twice a week. And we see the benefits of
the lease really as three main benefits to the city. First we'll be taking in the revenue. It's the
lease is set at $450 a month, $5,400 a year. Secondly the city is currently responsible for the
utilities and snow removal for the building, and the tenant will be taking over those costs. We
anticipate that those savings are around $5,000 a year, in addition to the revenue. And then
thirdly as we talked about in the past, it is a benefit to have a tenant in this building. Someone
other than the city keeping a watchful eye over it and making sure that it stays in good condition
so we do recommend approval of this lease.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? One question Mr. Knutson. The lease
speaks to leasing the building commonly known as Old Village Hall so one of the questions I
wanted to make sure is that it is for the building. It's not for the plaza, so the plaza would still
continue to be public.
Roger Knutson: That is correct.
Mayor Furlong: Public space and use.
Laurie Hokkanen: And we have gone over that with the tenant.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, good. The only other question I had, I didn't see any security
deposit in the lease. Did that come up in your discussions at all?
Todd Gerhardt: We did not negotiate a security deposit but we didn't get the opportunity to call
the tenant today to see if that would be a sticking point. I would recommend adding a one month
security deposit. I don't think that is going to be a sticking point with the tenant, but just wanted
to let you know that we did not discuss that with them.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other questions or comments? If not, is there, if there's
any discussion overall on either of these two items. Moving forward with the rezoning or
adopting or approving the lease to be signed. No discussion? If not, is there a motion to approve
the recommended motions in items 3(a) and 3(b) subject to the inclusion of a security deposit of
one month's rent in the lease.
Councilman Peterson: And subject to the findings of fact as recommended.
City Council Meeting - January 8, 2007
12
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: Getting better.
Roger Knutson: I have nothing left to say though.
Councilman Litsey: I hope to be there some day.
Mayor Furlong: The motion has been made. Is there a second?
Councilman Litsey: I'll make a second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Does everybody
understand the motion? Adopting items 3(a) and 3(b) with the changes and adoption of the
findings of fact.
Resolution #2007-05: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the
City Council approves the land use amendment from Public/Semi-Public to commercial for
Outlot B and the easterly 66 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Old Village Hall subject to Metropolitan
Council review, and approves the rezoning from Office and Institutional District, OI, to
Central Business District, CBD, for Outlot B and the easterly 66 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Old
Village Hall and adopt the findings of fact as presented. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council approve
the attached lease agreement with Distinctive Ventures LLC for the Old Village Hall
property subject to the inclusion of a security deposit of one month's rent in the lease. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, CHAPTERS 1, 7, 13, 18, 19 & 20 AS A RESULT
OF THE ADOPTION OF THE SECOND GENERATRION SURFACE WATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN.
Lori Haak: Good evening Mayor Furlong and council members. Over the past 2 years the City
of Chanhassen has been working to update it's 1994 Surface Water Management Plan. The
second generation plan was adopted, was recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission on August 15, 2006 and was adopted by the City Council on August 28, 2006. The
Surface Water Management Plan as revised recommends a number of changes to the standards
that are currently employed by the City and the areas of erosion and sediment control, storm
water management and wetland protection. The recommended revisions to the city code will
really help staff to implement the plan and achieve the goals that are set forth in that plan. The
Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 5, 2006 to review the code revisions
and ordinances and to receive public comment. The minutes of that public hearing are included
in item 1(a) of your packet. No one was present to make comments during that public hearing.
City Council Meeting - January 8, 2007
13
At the meeting the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend adoption of the ordinances
adopting, or I'm sorry, amending Chapters 1, 7, 13, 18, 19 and 20 in the city code. Since the
Planning Commission meeting two major issues have been, I'll say sticking points and brought
up into question. Discussions with staff. Those two issues are the definition of impervious
surface as proposed, as well as wetland classifications for the buffers and setbacks. In the
interest of time I'd like to focus on those two items. I can certainly provide council with a
summary of the other changes if you'd like but I'd like to focus…
Mayor Furlong: Please do.
Lori Haak: Okay. I'm trying to present, it's a lot of information and trying to get it in a way that
makes sense. Logical so if I lose you at any point… This first table I handed out to the council
ahead of the council meeting and it's basically aligns the existing wetland classification system.
Currently there are three classes of wetlands under the system. Those are pristine, natural and
agricultural/urban, and those each have different setback and buffer requirements. There is a
fourth classification of water body but it really only applies to non-wetland systems so I left it off
of this chart. The predominant number of wetlands within the city, 69% are currently
agricultural/urban wetlands. They are required to have a 16.5 foot buffer or basically an area of
vegetation that stands between the wetland and the upland area. A lawn or a parking lot or
whatever, that would provide some water quality and habitat benefit for that wetland. In addition
there's a 40 foot required setback from these wetlands. Under the proposed classifications
system there are four different classifications, including preserve, manage 1, manage 2, manage
3. And this classifications, I'm sorry. I need to back up just a little bit. The first classification
system was developed actually by the city's consultants in conjunction with it's 1994 Surface
Water Management Plan, so now the state reviewed, pure reviewed classification method. It was
something that we developed because we were on kind of the cutting edge of wetland
classification at that time. Since then the State of Minnesota and several other states have
developed classification systems and that's what these classifications are based on. It's a suite of
about 100 or 150 clusters per wetland that the trained representatives, …consultants go out and
answer those questions for wetlands, so this is a much more defensible way to classify those
wetlands. But as you can see a majority of the wetlands in Chanhassen fall into the manage 2
category. That's just over half of 55%. The buffer that is currently being recommended by staff
is 25 feet, and keeping all of the setbacks the same. That's 40 feet for the manage 1, 2 and 3 and
50 for those high quality preserve wetlands. Now, in comparing the highest quality wetland
there's a fairly significant increase of those wetlands which would have the highest level of
protection. 1% here to 8% proposed. Just wanted to give the council an idea of where those
wetlands are located, and the colors are difficult to pick up. In the first classification system the
Assumption Creek Seminary Fen wetland complex down in the southern part of Chanhassen,
which is basically divided by 212 and bordered on the north side roughly by the Hennepin Light
Rail Trail Corridor was the only preserve, or pristine wetland. Now to that number has been
added a number of lakeshore type wetlands or shoreland wetlands so there's several around Lake
Minnewashta. Several around Lotus Lake, and those are the additions to that highest and best
wetland classification. So just by way of an additional example. This is how staff reviews the
setbacks with regard to proposed houses and structures. The area I'm shading in here currently is
the primary structure with an attached deck, and under current ordinance and proposed ordinance
those structures would be required to be out, at least 40 feet from the edge of the wetland buffer,
City Council Meeting - January 8, 2007
14
and for a manage 3 wetland, that buffer would be 20 feet in width. So you're net setback from
the wetland would be 60 feet. I should also note at this time that this would only apply to lots
newly created after this ordinance is codified. It would not be retroactive to existing homes.
Those would be allowed to maintain the setbacks that were approved with those subdivisions.
To give the council an idea of where that fits with respect to other communities, we've got 13
communities here. I've listed the setback that's required. The low end of the buffer requirement.
The high end of the buffer requirements, and then the total distance from the edge of the wetland
to structure. The most common value for setback is actually 0. I was surprised to see that
because we found that setback actually does provide a function in providing people with useable
area outside of that buffer zone, and the setback does provide some limited water quality benefits
as well, which is shy staff is recommending we remain with our current 40 foot setback. The
most common width for the low end of the buffer is 20 with most communities implementing
that, and the high end, the most common value is 50 feet. And the range goes from 50 to 100.
So I think we're close in there. So the setback undoubtedly is higher than any of the other
communities but that's how Chanhassen has been implementing for a number of years and I
believe that it provides the residents with a good useable space in their rear yard… With that I'd
also like to discuss a little bit about the proposed impervious surface definition. We did receive a
comment letter from Matt Goldstein with Lenard Corporation and he did raise this issue to the
staff's attention. I've spoken with Mr. Goldstein on previous occasions regarding the impervious
surface definition and whether or not that could be modified to include some additional
technologies that are now available, including pervious asphalt. Pervious pavers. Pervious paver
blocks, and those sorts of technologies. And we discussed this among city staff and really there
are a large number of unknowns with those technologies. The installation can vary widely from
one firm to another and the efficiency in all those surfaces as actually pervious surfaces can vary
based on installation and the actual technology that's proposed, so that's why the impervious
surface definition is currently in place right now. It's something that has been implemented by
staff in that manner in the past, and that's why that is proposed as it was written in the second
plan.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I'm sorry Lori, the problem Lori with installation…?
Lori Haak: Yes. It's installation. It is, I think that goes with that.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Sorry.
Lori Haak: Oh, also the other one is the replacement of those surfaces with other surfaces. For
example if I owned a property in Chanhassen and put in a pervious paver system and then
decided, sold my house and the next owner decided they wanted to replace that with a driveway.
They would not be required to obtain a permit for that, and that put them over that 25%
impervious surface limit, so that's, there's really no check and no control there so that's why that
is an issue. And then again association of some sort of credit. Giving them merit quantities or
something like that is difficult and we didn't find any examples of communities that have been
successful in that so we might, it might just be that we're a little before time. Certainly staff will
continue to look for that because it is something that comes up on a regular basis, but at this time
we just can't think of a good way to do it. So with that staff recommends that the City Council
adopt the following motions that are stated in your staff report. The first would be adopting the
City Council Meeting - January 8, 2007
15
ordinance amending those chapters, and the second would be approving the summary ordinances
for Chapters 1, 18, 19 and 20, and I will advise the council that that does require a 4/5 vote. And
at this time I'd be happy to address any questions you may have.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions for staff. Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: One question. Can you tell me what the problem with installation was
specifically that you were referring to?
Lori Haak: Sure. We haven't had a large number of those installed but compaction under those
surfaces and getting the correct soil mixtures. It's the same problem that we had, that other
communities experienced with things like rain gardens. Just getting those soils too compacted so
it's actually as an impervious surface underneath.
Councilwoman Ernst: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions?
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I've got a lot of questions. More philosophical and more
specific. That may not be appropriate for tonight. My thought is I'd like to potentially table it
and bring it back to a work session to have some dialogue between all of us and staff. At least
my humble perspective.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other thoughts, comments or questions.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I think this is a big step in selecting because if people need more time
to kind of jump into it and feel comfortable with what's being said and…feel comfortable also
tabling it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So bring it to a work session and get some questions back to staff and
get some questions answered. Okay. Alright, any other thoughts or discussions? I mean I'm
comfortable with that. We're making a lot of changes and they're important changes to consider.
It's the extension of our storm water management plan but at the same time there are effects and
taking a little bit of time to make sure we walk, that we understand it. There's no question that
what staff is proposing, that there's any questions of the quality of work that staff is doing but I
want to make sure that we understand it as well, so I'd certainly be open to that. What I would
like to do, if we can, is have the discussion as quickly as possible while it's fresh in our minds. I
don't know if there's time at next, Mr. Gerhardt maybe you and I can look at the schedule for
work session items. See if we can get it back as quickly as possible while it's fresh, and then
move forward since we do want to move forward with our storm water management plan.
Councilman Peterson: Motion to table.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
City Council Meeting - January 8, 2007
16
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
table action on the amendments to city code Chapters 1, 7, 13, 18, 19 and 20 as a result of
the adoption of the Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. We'll get that back as soon as we can. That completes our
items of new business.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, a couple things. With regard to two of my ancillary
meetings, Southwest Metro is in the middle of kind of the beginning of discussions with TAB,
Transportation Advisory Board, which I'm also a member of, talking about transit moving
outside of the transit taxing district which Chanhassen, Chaska and Eden Prairie are a part of and
that will be discussed over the next month and that really means that we're going to figure out
how to, try to figure out how to address potentially bringing in Carver, Victoria, and potentially
Waconia into our service. And then similar counties and similar jurisdictions of ourselves are
addressing that issue as the demand for transit expands so that will be something I'll be updating
you on over the next 30 to 60 days so, and I think everybody else is aware of where we're at with
the 101 site with Southwest Metro and where we're at with the Dinner Theater site too, so there's
a lot going on right now with that, you know and I'll do my best to update you as the need arises.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other council presentations or comments?
Councilman Litsey: I just wanted to thank again, there's a letter of mine in the packet about the
orientation session for new council members and it was really well done. I want to thank City
Manager Todd Gerhardt and staff for putting that together and it was very informative and I hope
that we continue to do that in the future. I think that was the first time that had been done in that
manner anyway and I found extremely helpful as a new council member, so thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Had an opportunity, received a phone call a couple days
before Christmas from Senator Norm Coleman's office to host a breakfast here in Chanhassen for
him and some of my peers from around the area and it was a quick turn around. They suggested
January 3 from 8:00 to 9:00. I asked what the flexibility was. They said none and we made it
work so. Wanted to thank Todd and Laurie too for working with us, but on that Wednesday
morning, January 3rd we met over at Millie's Deli for breakfast and coffee with the Senator.
Talked about some local and national and international issues. We had about, a number of
mayors from Carver and Hennepin County joined us as well so. Last year Senator Coleman
visited each of the 87 counties in the state of Minnesota and his goal is to do the same thing this
year and he wanted to start out in Chanhassen and in Carver County so that was an honor for us
to do that and enjoyed the breakfast.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
City Council Meeting - January 8, 2007
17
Todd Gerhardt: I had two items. First, I'd like to announce that Paul Oehme, our Public Works
Director has been nominated as Public Works Director, one of three nominees for Public Works
Director of the year by the Minnesota Association of Public Works Directors so that's a great
honor and he's well deserving if he should happen to win, but being nominated is a good thing.
And then also our new water treatment plant has been nominated as one of eight projects as
projects of the year from that same association, so that's good news.
Councilwoman Ernst: Wasn't that one of the eyesores in our town last year?
Councilman Litsey: If you read the paper. There was an article, yes.
Todd Gerhardt: It's turning out to be a beautiful building and just to update you on that. They're
in the process of calibrating the new water treatment plant and hopefully in the next couple of
months we'll be up and running to full capacity so look forward to that. That's all I have.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt? No? If not, then at this
time, oh correspondence packet.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None.
Mayor Furlong: At this time then I'll, without objection we will recess and reconvene right here
in the council chambers in just a few minutes. So at this point we are recessed.
Mayor Furlong recessed the City Council meeting at 8:00 p.m.. The City Council then
reconvened in executive session.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
JANUARY 2, 2007
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Dan
Keefe, Kevin Dillon and Mark Undestad
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
OLD VILLAGE HALL: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP
AMENDMENT FROM PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC TO COMMERCIAL; AND REZONING
FROM OI, OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT TO CBD, CENTRAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 391 WEST 78TH STREET,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS OUTLET B AND THE EASTERLY 66 FEET OF LOT 1,
BLOCK 1, OLD VILLAGE HALL. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO MAKE
THE ZONING AND LAND USE CONSISTENT WITH THE BALANCE OF THE PLAT
FOR OLD VILLAGE HALL. APPLICANT, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, PLANNING
CASE 07-01.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Dillon asked about changes
that might occur if the property is rezoned. Chairman McDonald opened the public hearing. No
one spoke and the public hearing was closed. After commission comments, the following
motions were made.
Larson moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve the land use amendment from Public/Semi-Public to
commercial for Outlot B and the easterly 66 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Old Village Hall, subject
to Metropolitan Council review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously
with a vote of 7 to 0.
Larson moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve the rezoning from Office and Institutional District, OI, to
Central Business District, CBD for Outlot B and the easterly 66 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Old
Village Hall. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM
Planning Commission Summary - January 2, 2007
2
RESIDENTIAL-LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY; SUBDIVISION OF
20 ACRES INTO 22 LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS; VARIANCES AND VACATION OF
EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 7537 AND 7570
DOGWOOD ROAD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1,
ZIMMERMAN FARM 1ST ADDITION. APPLICANT, CARLSON CUSTOM HOMES,
INC., PLANNING CASE 07-02.
Public Present:
Name Address
Peter Olin U of M Arboretum, 3675 Arboretum Drive
Peter Moe 7161 Minnewashta Parkway, Excelsior
Bruce Carlson 1440 Bavarian Shores Drive
Donald Peterson 15272 15th Place No, Plymouth
Darlene & Dick Hanson 7750 Crimson Bay Road
Janet M. Quist 7331 Dogwood Road
Marjorie Getsch 7530 Dogwood Road
John Getsch 5404 Glengarry Road, Edina
Gretchen Starks 3301 Tanadoona Drive
Dan Getsch 1069 Dorland Road, So, Maplewood
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked for
clarification on the time table for the utilities project, the status of the road connection with
Crimson Bay Road, tree replacement, and pesticide drift from the Arboretum property.
Commissioner Larson asked about the impact of this development on the lake and traffic.
Commissioner Dillon asked for clarification on the traffic circulation and abandonment
regulations for the septic systems. Chairman McDonald asked for clarification on the status of
Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 3. The applicant, Donald Peterson addressed the issues of Lots 1, 2, 3,
Block 3, the applicant's portion for the road and sewer assessments, the number and size of the
lots and changes they anticipate making on their plans. Chairman McDonald opened the public
hearing. Peter Olin, Director of the Arboretum expressed their concern with runoff from the
road and retention ponds, and being a farming operation, their use of pesticides and electric
fences. Peter Moe, Director of Operations at the Arboretum explained their spraying operation
procedures. Peter Olin, understanding the connection to Crimson Bay Road is not going to
happen right now, stated the Arboretum would have concerns if that connection does happen
with traffic at the intersection on Highway 5. After discussion among the commission whether
to table the item, Chairman McDonald opened the public hearing. Darlene Hanson, 7750
Crimson Bay Road asked for clarification on the abandonment of their septic systems, and the
possibility and timing of the road connection with Crimson Bay Road and Dogwood Road. Dick
Hanson, 7750 Crimson Bay Road expressed concern with abandoning their septic system within
a year or two and who will reimburse the $15,000 he spent to install it. He also had concern with
access from Crimson Bay Road onto Highway 5. Chairman McDonald closed the public
hearing.
Planning Commission Summary - January 2, 2007
3
Papke moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission table Planning Case 07-02
for The Arbors. All voted in favor, except Keefe, Undestad and Larson who opposed and
the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3.
PUBLIC HEARING:
FOX HILL: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO THREE (3)
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6570
CHANHASSEN ROAD AND ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. APPLICANT,
10 SPRING HOMES, INC., PLANNING CASE 07-03.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jeff & Ronda Seiler 6511 Gray Fox Curve
Richard Herr 120 Fox Hollow Drive
Debralynn Geary 19180 Duck Lake Trail, Eden Prairie
Steve Brachman 19180 Duck Lake Trail, Eden Prairie
Steven Petrie 6503 Gray Fox Curve
Mary & Charles R. Klingelhutz 7146 Utica Lane
Sheryl Deppa 4920 Sparrow Road, Minnetonka
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Alyson Fauske addressed concerns
raised by the public about the need for additional right-of-way for Highway 101 and runoff.
Commissioner Papke asked staff to explain the rationale for their recommendation of a private
street. Commissioner Keefe asked for clarification on the side yard setback requirements. The
applicant, Scott Rosenlund, President of Ten Spring Homes, Inc. presented photographs of the
homes proposed to be built on this property. Commissioner Dillon asked the applicant how he
felt about the possibility of Highway 101 being widened in the future and the effect on this
development. Chairman McDonald opened the public hearing. Jeff Seiler, 6511 Gray Fox
Curve expressed concern with the drainage that currently runs through his back yard, concern
with state taxpayers having to purchase these homes in the future if 101 is upgraded and sight
lines from Fox Hollow Drive entering onto 101. Steve Petrie, 6503 Gray Fox Curve asked for
clarification on the tree plan, setbacks, and grading. Chairman McDonald closed the public
hearing. After comments by the commission, the following motion was made.
Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
preliminary plat for Planning Case 07-03 for Fox Hill Subdivision for 3 lots with variances to
allow a private street as shown on the plans dated received December 1, 2006, subject to the
following conditions:
1. A minimum of two 2½-inch deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of
each lot.
2. No more than one-third of the required trees may be from any one species.
Planning Commission Summary - January 2, 2007
4
3. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits around all trees
proposed to be preserved prior to any grading.
4. Any trees proposed for preservation that are lost due to grading and construction activities
will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches.
5. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the City so it can
be reviewed by the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District.
6. The plans shall be revised to incorporate Chanhassen’s standard details for erosion and
sediment control, including 5300, 5301, 5302A and 5302D.
7. In order to ensure that the proposed infiltration area functions properly, the contractor shall
minimize the number of equipment trips across this part of the site. Additionally, the lightest
equipment appropriate for the job shall be used. Once the infiltration area is graded, the
easement area shall be fenced off so no further compaction occurs. The applicant may want
to consider planting native shrubs, grasses and wildflowers within the infiltration area instead
of sod to promote volume reduction through infiltration and evapotranspiration.
8. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the infiltration area shall be provided. The EOF
could consist of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf re-enforcement mat (a permanent
erosion control blanket). A typical detail shall be included in the plan.
9. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
10. The plans shall be revised to show a rock construction entrance (minimum 75 feet in length) off
Fox Hollow Drive. The rock construction entrance shall be constructed in accordance with
Chanhassen’s Standard Detail 5301. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall
include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed.
11. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $8,450.
Planning Commission Summary - January 2, 2007
5
12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES
Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for
dewatering), Carver County, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department
of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval.
13. Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected in full at
the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval.
14. Building Official Conditions:
a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
c. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and
a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
d. Separate sewer and water services must be provided to each lot.
e. Any existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems on the site must be abandoned
in accordance with State Law and City Code.
15. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Add an additional fire hydrant at the intersection of Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Hollow
Court.
b. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
c. Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota fire Code Section
501.4.
d. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
e. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either
be removed from site or chipped.
Planning Commission Summary - January 2, 2007
6
16. All existing buildings, driveways and accessory structures must be removed before grading
commences.
17. Submit calculations of storm sewer and NURP showing that the development meets the
requirements of the City and the MPCA. Determine the new HWL for the existing pond and
show it on the plan along with the NWL.
18. The swales on the eastern side of Lot 2, between Lots 2 and 3, and the swale west of Lot 3
must have a 2% minimum slope. Also, the swales in the northwest corner of the house of Lot
1, back yard of Lot 2, and side yard of Lot 3 should be moved away from the foundations of
the structures. Plantings shall be placed outside the swales to promote drainage. Add spot
elevations at the building corners of Lot 1.
19. A valley gutter shall be installed at the intersection of Fox Hollow Drive and the private
street to convey water through the intersection. Also, provide spot elevations on the curb to
ensure curb line has a minimum slope of 0.5%.
20. The proposed storm line connecting to the existing storm sewer shows a bend without a
structure. A structure will be required at all bends of storm sewer. Maintain 18 inches of
separation between the sanitary sewer and drain tile.
21. On the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, show:
a) Private street and driveway grades shall not exceed 10%.
b) Ground (i.e. non-paved) surface grades shall not be less than 2%.
c) Emergency overflow locations and elevations must be shown on the plan.
d) Add bottom elevations to the retaining walls.
22. An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading.
23. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
24. Building permits are required for all retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be
designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
25. All sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer within this site shall be publicly owned and
maintained.
26. The watermain extension from Fox Hollow Drive must be wet-tapped. Due to the alignment
of the watermain in Fox Hollow Drive, it appears that this connection cannot be done under
traffic. The sanitary sewer connection on Fox Hollow Drive connecting to an existing stub
shall also be completed under traffic.
Planning Commission Summary - January 2, 2007
7
27. Utility plans shall show both plan view and profiles of all utilities (sanitary sewer, water, and
storm sewer lines. The actual elevations of existing utilities shall be determined.
28. Install cleanout for the sewer service for Lot 2 due to length.
29. Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2006 trunk
hookup charge is $1,669 for sanitary sewer and $4,485 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and
watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building
permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the
Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance.
30. The utilities will need to be adjusted to allow a minimum of 10 feet horizontal separation
between the easement and the proposed utilities.
31. A 10-foot drainage and utility easement will be required for the front of Lots 2 and 3.
32. The private street entrance must connect to Fox Hollow drive at a 90-degree angle.
33. Lot 3, Block 1, must maintain a 20-foot side yard setback along the westerly property line.”
All voted in favor, except for Dillon who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to
1.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 5, 2006 as presented.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:33 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 2, 2007
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Dan
Keefe, Kevin Dillon and Mark Undestad
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
OLD VILLAGE HALL: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP
AMENDMENT FROM PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC TO COMMERCIAL; AND REZONING
FROM OI, OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT TO CBD, CENTRAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 391 WEST 78TH STREET,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS OUTLET B AND THE EASTERLY 66 FEET OF LOT 1,
BLOCK 1, OLD VILLAGE HALL. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO MAKE
THE ZONING AND LAND USE CONSISTENT WITH THE BALANCE OF THE PLAT
FOR OLD VILLAGE HALL. APPLICANT, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, PLANNING
CASE 07-01.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Mark, why don't we start down with you.
Undestad: No questions.
Dillon: Is there anything that's different? Nothing new is going to go into the spot if it's
rezoned?
Generous: Well there is a personal service use that will go into the property but there'll be no
changes. The use of the site is limited by the parking agreement that we recorded with the plat.
There are 4 parking stalls that are reserved for this use. This site, and that would permit, it could
be a retail use. It could be office use but anything within the CBD, however it's very limited to
building size. It's 500 square feet approximately. We don't see any change. The City's still
going to maintain ownership of it and so we'll control who we lease this to. However it would
permit the lease agreement to go forward that the City is negotiating right now.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
2
Dillon: So what will this change in zoning do once, if it changes hands and the City doesn't own
it anymore and some private party owns it? I take it, it will be tax value that the City could earn
would go up a lot?
Generous: Well yes, it would go onto the tax rolls but again the site is, it doesn't comply with
the minimum standards so that's why it's an outlot. They can't change anything unless they come
back and get a variance to the standards for a CBD lot. It doesn't meet the frontage requirements
and it doesn't meet the area requirements. So it is very restrictive as to what the use, what
someone could do on the property. Plus they have the limitation on the amount of parking.
Dillon: And there's no other improvements or changes to infrastructure that are being
contemplated?
Generous: Nothing. Internally there'll be some modifications to the building but that's it.
Dillon: That's all the questions I had.
McDonald: Okay.
Keefe: Does the City have a plan to convey the property though?
Generous: No.
Keefe: No. Okay.
McDonald: Debbie.
Larson: Don't have any.
Thomas: No.
McDonald: No? I have no questions or comments either. Is the, well I guess the City is the
applicant, or is there someone else?
Aanenson: No, we're the applicant.
McDonald: Okay. Then in that case, what I would do is open it to the public. Anyone wishing
to make comment on this, if you would please step to the podium and state your name and
address. Okay, seeing no one come forward I will close the public meeting and bring it back up
for the commission for comments. Kurt, we'll start with you.
Papke: I have no concerns with this. It would seem to increase the City's flexibility with what
they want to do with the property and that's kind of the bottom line. We know we still have
control over what we do with it so I think it just increases the options the City has to work with.
Thomas: I don't have any questions.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
3
McDonald: Okay. Debbie.
Larson: Ditto.
Keefe: No problem.
Dillon: I'm fine with it.
McDonald: Okay, I'm fine with it too. I guess Kurt said it quite eloquently for all of us. Does
anyone wish to make a motion?
Larson: I'll make a motion. Is it this one? Okay, the Planning Commission, the Chanhassen
Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the land use amendment from
Public/Semi-Public to commercial Outlot B for the easterly 66 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Old
Village Hall subject to Metropolitan Council review. And the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that City Council approve rezoning from Office and Industrial District, OI, to
Central Business District, CBD for Outlot B and the easterly 66 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Old
Village Hall.
McDonald: Thank you. Do I have a second?
Thomas: Second.
Larson moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve the land use amendment from Public/Semi-Public to
commercial for Outlot B and the easterly 66 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Old Village Hall, subject
to Metropolitan Council review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously
with a vote of 7 to 0.
Larson moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve the rezoning from Office and Institutional District, OI, to
Central Business District, CBD for Outlot B and the easterly 66 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Old
Village Hall. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM
RESIDENTIAL-LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY; SUBDIVISION OF
20 ACRES INTO 22 LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS; VARIANCES AND VACATION OF
EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 7537 AND 7570
DOGWOOD ROAD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1,
ZIMMERMAN FARM 1ST ADDITION. APPLICANT, CARLSON CUSTOM HOMES,
INC., PLANNING CASE 07-02.
Public Present:
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
4
Name Address
Peter Olin U of M Arboretum, 3675 Arboretum Drive
Peter Moe 7161 Minnewashta Parkway, Excelsior
Bruce Carlson 1440 Bavarian Shores Drive
Donald Peterson 15272 15th Place No, Plymouth
Darlene & Dick Hanson 7750 Crimson Bay Road
Janet M. Quist 7331 Dogwood Road
Marjorie Getsch 7530 Dogwood Road
John Getsch 5404 Glengarry Road, Edina
Gretchen Starks 3301 Tanadoona Drive
Dan Getsch 1069 Dorland Road, So, Maplewood
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Kurt, would you want to start us out?
Papke: Sure. I've got a couple here. What's the proposed time table on the city utilities? You
know in the staff report here it states without the city utilities the project is premature. What's
our time table on that?
Fauske: Commissioner Papke, right now staff is still meeting with the Westwood Church in the
area and Camp Tanadoona to try to pin down the design specifics. To answer your question,
we're looking at holding a public hearing and authorizing the preparation, pardon me, to accept
the feasibility study and order the public hearing probably in February. If everything keeps
going smoothly.
Papke; So from a process perspective we're okay with that? This is not considered premature
then?
Fauske: We're on a parallel track.
Papke: Okay. As part of putting in those utilities, I assume that the two existing properties that
are currently large lot will be converted from septic to sewer.
Fauske: That's correct. The city code requires that any existing lot that is currently served by
septic system connect within one year. As far as their well, they could keep using their well until
there is an issue, until they decided to connect to city water.
Papke: Are those the only two that would convert or are there any more along that would.
Fauske: There certainly would be some more along Dogwood Road that are not part of this plat.
But we would be addressing those separately.
Papke: What do you mean by addressing them separately? How would that.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
5
Fauske: Well they would still be required to connect to the sanitary sewer within the year,
consistent with the two lots on this, within this development.
Papke: Okay. The plans are a little unclear as to, will Dogwood connect with Crimson Bay
Road to the south or what's the intention with that? You didn't discuss that particular connection.
Generous: That's ultimately what the city would like to have done is connect it. At a minimum
we would get this right-of-way and they would extend the road to their property line, as well as
the sewer and water services which could be further extended. We need additional right-of-way
south of this property. There's only 25 feet now so we'd have to pick up at least another 25 feet
of right-of-way and get the Crimson Bay people involved. But this would facilitate that.
Papke: Facilitate it but it doesn't get us there.
Generous: Not all the way.
Papke: Okay. The trees to be added for the difference in canopy coverage, there's a condition
that says, condition 5(b) says there'll be a 2 to 1 diameter inch compensation as opposed to the
1.2 multiplier used on page 10 of the staff report. Is that all consistent?
Generous: The original calculations only counted the difference but because they removed trees
that could have been used to meet the target, they got penalized 1.2 times so that's why their
initial number is different. And then once they say they're going to preserve a tree, if they later
take it out, then that's when we tell them to do a 2 to 1 caliper inch replacement.
Papke: Okay. Okay. Let's see I had one other question on the conditions that I can't find it now
at the moment. With the Arboretum to the south there, perhaps this is best left until the
representatives from the Arboretum can speak to this but, if I recall it's apple trees and so on to
the south of there. Any issues with pesticide drift during spraying?
Aanenson: That's one of their concerns.
Papke: That is one of their concerns? Okay. That would be one of my concerns as well. Okay,
that's all. Thanks.
McDonald: Okay. Kathleen.
Thomas: I'm going to, I have actually some questions for the Arboretum so I will wait.
Larson: I had some questions kind of regarding the impact on the lake. Adding another
development here, is runoff or anything going to be an issue? I know that when we were looking
at some other changes to, just further up the road to that launch, there was some environmental
issues on this end of the lake so is this near to where that spot was or, do you know what I'm
talking about?
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
6
Generous: I remember when they were doing the launch and that but, when Lori reviewed this,
our Water Resources Coordinator, that didn't come up as an issue. They are doing all the pre-
treatment in their storm water ponds so we have that requirement is met and then it will
discharge onto one of the lots, future lots west of Dogwood. And then sheet drain eventually
into the lake and through the wetland but we will have the pretreatment.
Larson: Okay. And then the other question I had is, the extension of whatever the road is called
going through Westwood and then through there. Is that going to be the main road to this
development most used?
Generous: Yes. That will be because it will be to the 31 foot city design. The Dogwood upgrade
I believe is 26 feet or 28.
Fauske: The final width of Dogwood Road has not been determined. We're looking at two
alternatives for that design.
Larson: Is there any traffic issues with the church services and all that that goes on? I know that
it gets pretty congested.
Generous: This wouldn't create significant traffic for their peak hour.
Larson: Well no but what I, okay. I just want to make sure there's no safety issues for the new
people coming in because of all the traffic.
Generous: We believe that it would, ultimately that West 78th and 41 will be signalized.
Larson: Okay. That's all I have.
Keefe: A quick follow up on one of the questions Kurt brought up which is, when the utilities go
in there, are we also going to be improving Dogwood Road at the same time? Do they go
together or are they separate?
Fauske: It's one project which includes sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer and street.
Keefe: Okay.
Fauske: And there will also be a lift station upgrade and forcemain also with the project.
Keefe: Okay, so it's one project and not a separate decision?
Fauske: No. That's correct. One project.
Keefe: Thanks.
Dillon: Right now is 78th Street west of 41, is that a private street now just for the church?
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
7
Generous: No, it's a public street.
Dillon: So then, how about Tanadoona Road? Will that have access to Dogwood or is that
going to go, I mean because it does now.
Generous: Yes, they would maintain that. And actually I believe there's some improvements
proposed as part of the overall project.
Dillon: Right, because that's, that's not a very wide road.
Generous: No.
Dillon: Okay. And then also, so one of the conditions in here is that the people that have the
septic systems have to quit using them, right? But if those are closed off, are there ever latent
problems or anything like that if they're not used and they're not maintained and they're just kind
of like sitting there?
Generous: As a part of abandonment of those septic, they do have to pump them and fill them
and there's Minnesota Health Code requirements for all that so they have to comply with that and
they'll get a permit for all that.
Dillon: Okay. That's all I have.
McDonald: Mark.
Undestad: Just for analysis. You made a point about the church and.
Aanenson: The camp?
Undestad: To the north of, as far as utilities going in or out there. Are there some issues yet on
whether or not that's?
Fauske: We've been, mostly it's the discussion with Westwood Church, as far as their long range
plans adjacent to Dogwood Road and looking at, you know the accessible areas through there, so
we're in discussion with them. With Camp Tanadoona we're looking at the discussion is more if
we can get a storm water pond easement.
McDonald: Okay. The only question I've got is, I believe it's Block 3 but Lots 1, 2, and 3. The
ones that are right now on the lake. As I understand this, and those would have to come back
before us for any future development.
Generous: No, they'd go to City Council. They're not, the intention to plat them all as one lot is
part of the first phase of development. But if they want to separate them into the 3 lots as shown
on the preliminary plat, they would have to final plat them and extend the road and utilities to the
south property line there. To Crimson Bay if you will.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
8
McDonald: Okay. Would that have to come back through the Planning Commission or, if we
approve this, at that point it's just a final?
Generous: Yeah, it would go to City Council for final plat approval.
McDonald: Okay. That was the only clarification I really needed. Is the applicant here tonight?
If you would like to address the commission.
Donald Peterson: My name is Donald Peterson and I'll be the project manager for Carlson
Custom Homes who is the developer of the new single family lot portion, and we're working
with the Brandt's who own Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 3. They're going to retain ownership of those
3 lots. And then they will choose to come back at a future time to do the final plat on those 3 lots
when they're ready to go. We have reviewed the staff report. We've been working with the staff
for almost a year on this project. The engineering staff primarily trying to coordinate our
development with the upgrading of Dogwood. Dogwood, as we had several meetings with the
homeowners there and there are some of the people that you know want sewer because of the
septic system situation. This will enable that to happen, and we will be participating in the
assessment for the Dogwood Road portion, which will reduce the cost to the homeowners there.
So we think they're a benefit for the existing homeowners. We originally, I came to you with 3
more lots but in reviewing the plat we decided to reduce the number of lots to make them larger
because this is very desirable locations, sitting high on the hill with good views in all directions
and so we made our lots larger. So we reduced the lots to 22, including the 3 that Brandt's would
maintain would come in later on. The staff, they made some recommendations in the staff report
which we received on Friday. We don't see any problem with complying with the
recommendations that the staff, that they made. I have a drawing on the table here which shows
how we would comply with those staff recommendations if you choose, if you want to see that.
If not we will work with the staff to make the changes before the final plat is brought before the
City Council. In fact we can probably have that done before this plat goes to the, or the
preliminary plat goes to the City Council. So if you would like to see what we proposed to
comply with those things I'd be happy to show it to you. Other than that we, I'd just be open for
any questions you might have.
McDonald: If you could show us then.
Donald Peterson: There was one concern, there's a wetland right in this area and in dark green
we're showing the actual wetland. And the buffer has to be determined yet but we show the 25
foot buffer around here which we anticipate being the right amount. We had on a previous
platting when we had a long, narrow house in this area. It was quite deep but narrower. Because
of the wetlands and the buffer required from the wetland, earlier drawings showed that it
impacted the buffer area for the wetland. We're going to make a change in the lot area of that lot
so we can use a wider…deep house in this area. We're moving the lot line over 20 feet to the
south here and then we'll move this lot line 20 feet and move this lot line 20 feet. All of these are
very large lots. This lot is over an acre so moving it over 20 feet's not really going to hurt
anything. That way we'll angle the lot line here a little bit more. That will enable us to build a
very you know sizeable…without impacting the wetland buffer. There was another
recommendation in the staff report that said Lot 5 would need a walkout rather than a full lot.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
9
We talked that even before the staff report and that will be changed to a walkout. Another
recommendation that the staff made was to increase the tree conservation area. We proposed,
because this is a very natural, deep old woods, the original layouts for this area showed a creek
running right through over to Dogwood. In order to accomplish that we would have to tear down
the whole woods. There wouldn't be anything left so we modified our plans to bring the street
over into this area. We have grading issues over here. We have another retaining wall to do that,
but by doing that we can save all of this woods and we're going to use, we propose to put in a
conservation, tree conservation easement in there. The City has now asked us to increase the
size of this tree conservation area on Lots 7, 8 and 9 I believe. 5, 7, 8 and 9. No, 5, 8 and 9.
And what we showed here is increasing this 40 feet along here. What we have in light green,
and in 30 feet in this area, but we'll work with the staff on that to find out exactly what they
want. We think that'd make a nice increase in the conservation area. It won't impact the lots
really. Another change was, I believe that was Lot 12. The back yard. The grade was flatter
than recommended so staff recommended, we increased the back yard grade in that. We're going
to do that by taking the cul-de-sac up. We're going to have some excess dirt anyway. We're
going to raise the cul-de-sac from 5, I think it was 5.2 center down to 6%. That will raise this all
about a foot and that will give us the right kind of back yard for this lot. At that same time that
will benefit the property but we'll be able to make this flat lot into a lookout, which is a very, a
benefit. And this lot will become a front walkout. We'll raise that up and that will allow us then
to get a better grade in these back yards. So that's all the changes that we have anticipated. Our
original landscape plan just showed the bare minimum landscaping because we plan to do quite a
bit of landscaping in this house out here. In the outlot, in the center of the cul-de-sac. Those
plans are not done yet. The city staff came back and said to increase our tree count from 60 to 72
and we agree with that. And in fact we'll be planting more than that so that's all the changes that
we anticipate and we'll work with the staff to, if there's anything else that they need but that is
what we propose to do at this point in time. So I'd be happy to answer any questions you might
have.
McDonald: Mark, why don't you start.
Undestad: No. No questions at this time.
McDonald: Kevin.
Dillon: What is going to be the price range for the lot and home?
Donald Peterson: These are going to be fairly expensive homes. Our assessment on this project
is horrendous. I mean improvements of Dogwood Road. Normally we would anticipate
somewhere in the $20,000 range for sewer and water trunk assessment and maybe another
$15,000 for, or another $5,000 for water, storm sewer. Our assessments are going to be well
over $50,000 a lot here for doing Dogwood. On top of that we'll be having to do all of our own
grading so our lot costs are going to be well over $200,000 a lot. I can't tell you right now what
our sale prices will be but our costs are going to be well over $200,000 a lot so they're going to
be expensive lots. That's one of the reasons we dropped 3 lots to make the lots larger than the
lots in the surrounding areas so we have very good views. Roomy lots. Natural trees and some
amenities that we think that a lot of other projects don't have.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
10
Dillon: So that's for the lots. So then what would the homes be?
Donald Peterson: They'll be over a million dollars.
McDonald: Debbie.
Larson: Nothing.
McDonald: Kathleen.
Thomas: No, thank you.
McDonald: Kurt. No? The only question I guess I have for you. You state that you've seen
staff's new recommendations for the project and if I'm hearing you, you don't have any problems
with these the way they're stated and most of what you've shown us I think addresses the issue
that the city has recently brought up, is that correct?
Donald Peterson: That's correct, yeah. What the staff, we received the staff report on Friday and
reviewed it over the weekend and we don't see anything there we can't work out there so we're
going to try to have that worked out by the time we go to City Council and to go through here
tonight, we're on the City Council on the 22nd of January. We will have something back to the
staff before that time. And I don't anticipate any problems with that but who knows.
McDonald: Okay. Well I have no further questions. I guess unless there's something else you
want to add, I'll open it up for public comment.
Donald Peterson: I have no other questions other than there's a representative of the Arboretum
here and if he has any, that person has any questions I'd be happy to answer those.
McDonald: Okay, we'll see what he has to say and we'll take it from there. At this point then I
would open this up for public comment and again, I would ask you to come up to the podium.
State your name and address and address your comments of the commissioners. Everybody's
waiting for the Arboretum so why don't you go ahead and go first.
Peter Olin: Thank you. My name is, excuse me. I'm getting over a cold. Peter Olin…I've also
brought with me Peter Moe…because if there's perhaps some technical questions here. We have
some concern for the development and it started back with our concerns with putting the
roadway in along our property line. Mainly that had to do with excess runoff, salt and so on
running down into our research area, and as, even though there's retention ponds for the church,
they overflow. It does flood the lower section of that, what was very good land for our Azalea
research, so it's becoming unuseful at this point. And we don't know what the runoff situation
will be with the additional roads but that goes out behind our apple research and is the best piece
of land we have for the apple research. Our concerns with the lots backing up to the boundary,
our boundary has to do with several things. One is, this is a farming operation and we use sprays.
Nothing unusual. Nothing experimental. We use whatever the orchards use to control diseases
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
11
and pests. We do those, when we do spray, we spray on quiet mornings. Sometimes before
everyone, the light is out and everyone is up to cut down on any kind of drift because it does
happen. We also have an electric fence along the edge which we use to keep the deer out. So
there's two problems that we see when we start getting families right up next to it, or when the
spray, and we've seen this across the country where people come in and they say oh yes, we
know it's a farm and then they say, well you're spraying with these chemicals and ruining our
lives and killing our kids and it ends up we have to abandon the whole area. And the other of
course is the electric fence. If you grew up in the country you know electric fences give you a
little shock, but when you move into a subdivision and your kids go out and get a shock, they
call the police and we've done, having to take that out. So those are the main concerns we have
and again, the runoff. We're not quite sure. On this scan I think it's Outlot C. Is that the one
that's going to have a retention pond here? Off here. And maybe that will take care of that but
it's, and runoff also then as well as salt, which is not good for our… So those are the main
concerns. I talked with Mr. Generous this afternoon and he suggested some of that be mitigated
and perhaps…fencing and so on but we wanted to express that concern. So I guess that's my.
Keefe: I have a quick question for you. Is there an alternative use for the land? You know
should it not be tillable for apple orchard or.
Peter Olin: Well you know again, that's part of our mission is part of the University of
Minnesota Horticulture Department is the apple research. We've been doing that since 1908 so
that's a long term project and those trees go in, they can be in there for up to 20 to 25 years
before they decide whether that's a good apple or not, so some of that is in there right now. It's
slated to be here for… Really we don't need a lot of extra land, you know a lot of land so there's
no particular use for that.
McDonald: Can I ask you a question about the deer fence, because that seems to be an issue. Is
there an alternative there for keeping the deer out besides an electrified fence?
Peter Olin: Taller fence, yes. We've got, I think it's an 8 foot fence around…with barbed wire
on top. Yes, that's possible.
McDonald: Okay. So it would appear that the issue really comes down to the sprays and the salt
become the biggest concerns that you're not sure can be mitigated.
Peter Olin: I don't know if they can. I'll let Peter… We do minimal spraying. We follow…test
management so we do as little as.
Peter Moe: My name is Peter Moe. I live on 7161 Minnewashta Parkway but also the Director
of Operations at the Arboretum. In regards to the deer fence, that fence was built in the mid
1980's and that was the standard DNR design. It's high tencel steel. High voltage, electric fence.
It's not, you won't injure a healthy person but if someone has a heart condition, it could be a
problem. The DNR now is recommending a high tencel steel woven wire fence that Peter
mentioned. It's 8 feet high and that could even be extended with additional wire on top. We'd
like to do that but it's a significant capital expense. It's not in our budget right now so.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
12
McDonald: Does anyone have any particular questions about any of this or?
Aanenson: I'm not sure if we can really answer all their questions today regarding mitigation
strategies. Also there's probably some legal issues here so I would suggest that the staff make
sure we understand exactly what the issues are with the Arboretum. Work through the attorney's
office and then back to the developer to see what we can do to mitigate. Obviously there's
disclosure issues. If you look at the plat, there appears to be 2 lots that directly abut the
Arboretum. The forested area. There's other lots that abut the part of Crimson Bay subdivision.
Then Outlot C, so 2 lots that would directly abut that. Certainly the city ordinance prohibits
electrical fences too. Obviously we don't have jurisdiction over the University of Minnesota, for
whether they do that or not but there's some other legal issues that we'd want to look at too so, I
think what we'd like to do is if for a condition, that you would direct staff to, if before this goes
to City Council, have some clear direction of mitigation. Working with the parties involved to
see what's a reasonable compromise and disclosure so we would be concerned too, people
concerned about spraying so.
McDonald: Because you've got a couple things running in parallel with all of this, is this
something that we should maybe table and come back until you've got a suggestion going
forward and we'll work with the developer or can this go forward and you think be resolved by
the time it gets to City Council?
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, whatever you're comfortable with on that. I think there's a clear
understanding that if we can do some fencing, we'd be willing to work that. Obviously they have
an issue, who's going to pay for that fence. There may not be an agreement of how, the length of
the fence. There's a lot of things that I think you know, someone's going to have to mediate,
whether it's the Planning Commission or the, making a recommendation but ultimately it would
be the City Council.
Keefe: I've got a question for you on the pesticides that you spray there. How far away is the
spraying from the existing homes over on Crimson Bay? I mean are we substantially closer? Or
is there any sort of buffer, because those homes have been there you know for some time.
Peter Moe: I know there are some Crimson Bay residents here today to address that thought, and
I think they're about the same. I'm not sure exactly where the…on these new lots. Those are big
lots too on Crimson Bay so it'd be somewhat similar. We never want spray to drift. It's actually
against state law to allow pesticide drift so we do all kinds of different things using anti-foaming
agents and adjusting the pressure and adjusting the sprayer nozzles, depending on the size of the
trees and things but sometimes, as Peter mentioned, you're out there at 6:00 in the morning when
you start. You get to the top of the hill, well it's the highest spot in the whole research center and
a gust of wind comes up and it can carry a small amount of chemical. Also some of the
chemicals have a carrier that has an odor. It's not actually the pesticide itself but it's a carrier as a
part of the chemical formulation and that you know can be very disturbing to people when you
smell that and it's not necessarily the toxic but it would definitely raise concerns with people.
Keefe: Does the Arboretum experience any issues with some of the neighbors associated with
chemical spraying in that area or?
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
13
Peter Moe: We haven't in that area. It's only 4 or 5 homes there now. As I said, we do
everything we can to avoid that. We have had some problems though on the Farm 1 as we call it,
on Rolling Acres Road. The main part of the research area in Victoria. We also use some of the,
Peter did mention it and I had forgot until recently. We do some, deer are, we love, or excuse
me. Well deer are a big problem but also birds. We love birds at the Arboretum except during
apple season because they sit on top of our Honeycrisp and Zestar trees. In fact…occasionally
we'll use things like recording machines with loud speakers that broadcast hawk calls and rabbit
distress calls and all kinds of things that, they're supposed to scare blackbirds away. They're
somewhat effective but it also can disturb neighbors.
Keefe: All in the name of research.
McDonald: I guess Kate, getting back to the whole thing. If we vote on this and it goes forward
and it sounds as though there's a number of unresolved issues that could impact the project, what
happens? At that point the developer has the option to just pull it or to say that.
Aanenson: That's correct. Right, it's too onerous. It may be, and again the issues are a little bit
more complex because of jurisdiction over the University of Minnesota as, we really don't have
jurisdiction so, but there's also some safety, legal issues so we need to get a clear understanding
of that. And then if, we recommend some mitigation. Whether that's acceptable to both parties.
And clearly it seems right now that fencing is the greatest one, and then just assuring of
disclosure of that there's use of chemicals on the property and that's typical in subdivisions that
we put disclosure statements on the surrounding uses so that I think we can address pretty
straight forward.
Peter Olin: The fence, again should cover those outlots because I understand those will be…
Aanenson: Correct. Yeah, I understand the issue. That people just go around the area that's
fenced, and the deer would also so.
McDonald: I guess at that point I turn it back to the commissioners because one of the problems
I guess I have with going forward is, we're going forward with something that deals with
evidently some public safety issues that we don't have anything coming forward for us to
recommend and we're going to recommend this go forward and then it can be worked by city
staff before it gets to City Council, which is okay and I'm just wondering do the commissioners
feel alright with doing that based upon we're going to have to do something with a trust me
approach to this.
Keefe: Well I think you put in you know, the issue, particularly the safety issue gets resolved
you know and approved at City Council. Satisfactory to all parties.
McDonald: Okay. Everybody okay then, let's go ahead and proceed then. Is that all you have to
tell us about? That you need to say.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
14
Peter Olin: We understand the connection to Crimson Bay is not going to come up at this point
but we would be concerned about that connection as well. Mainly because when the church gets
out, people who live to the west, they're not going to go through 2 stop lights. They're going to
go down that road and come right out across from the Arboretum and that could be a pretty
messy situation right now. We have the turn lane in there. They don't want to put a stop light in,
which of course is what we've asked for. That can also create quite a traffic mess at that point so
if, even though that's not happening now, that we'd be concerned.
McDonald: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward then and address?
Dillon: What are we going to do now? I mean what.
McDonald: We're going to go ahead and go forward on this, and this whole issue between the
Arboretum, yeah.
Aanenson: Well until you vote.
McDonald: Yeah, I mean we're going to vote on it. We may vote it down. I'm just saying that
whatever we do, it goes forward from here to City Council with part of a hole in it as far as this
interface to the Arboretum and what's going to happen is that staff is going to have to talk to the
Arboretum. Gain some control over what the issues are and then they're going to have to go
back and approach City Council for a final decision. Plus at that point they're also going to talk
to the developer because if they come up with things that may impact him, he may decide to pull
this, and that would be his option at that point. Or we could table it.
Dillon: And have some discussion between the various parties and then come back to us.
McDonald: And then come back to us.
Dillon: So what's wrong with doing that?
McDonald: There's nothing wrong with doing that. That's why, what I'm asking. How
comfortable everybody feels going forward saying okay, what staff, Arboretum and the
developer will do is work out the unknown, which is basically the interface to the Arboretum.
That they will approach City Council with that and they will make the final decision based upon
what they come up with.
Dillon: Well I don't feel as though I'm going to have enough information tonight to make a vote
one way or another. And I would like to see, personally, would like to see a little more definition
as to you know what might be solutions here. And then, at least til now, I'll have a better feel
that I could you know defend my vote one way or another if we're asked to do so.
McDonald: Okay. That's why I'm asking is how comfortable you guys feel about that. In a
second, I'll get to you.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
15
Undestad: Has anybody had discussions? I mean the developer and the Arboretum, did they
have any discussions on any of this stuff yet?
Aanenson: Not to my knowledge. This is the first we've heard of it.
McDonald: I think this is a relatively new issue, isn't it?
Aanenson: Correct.
McDonald: Any other comments? How do the rest of the commissioners feel about this?
Thomas: Well I kind of agree. That I don't know that I have enough information and I want to
see it resolved with the Arboretum, especially with the fence because I do understand the
fencing. It is electric and I mean, …concerns me but I understand the cost benefit. I mean if
they're going to have to put a fence in, I just…something.
McDonald: Okay. …before I call for a vote on this.
Donald Peterson: I would just like to mention, we really haven't been aware of any real issues
with the Arboretum until now. One thing I want to point out, we love having the Arboretum as a
neighbor. We're sitting high on the hill looking down on an apple orchard and as far as our
homeowners, I think it's going to be a very attractive thing for them. We've looked at this, we're
locating an outlot right along our south property line as you enter into the project and we
considered on the landscaping that would be done on this outlot, and we've already talked about
the idea of possibly providing a wrought iron fence or something along the south property line in
there just to keep them away from that electric fence. We could do that. We haven't talked
about fencing the back yards on all except two of the yards, there's a big storm water pond so
there's really not much danger of the kids walking over and touching the fence because it's across
a big pond. Two of the lots would. As far as the spring goes, we're aware of the spring being
down near, Bruce has owned this property for 8 years. He has no problems with it. We're sitting
30 or 40 feet above the Arboretum where the apple trees are so, for the spray to go uphill into our
area, we don't think is much of an issue. So I don't know how this gets resolved. However we
do have the one issue that we're working with the city on. We have about 20 homeowners
involved in the Dogwood Road project and that has to proceed to be able to go to bids to get that
done this year so we would like to have this move through as fast as possible because we're
trying to keep the two projects running together. If Dogwood Road doesn't go, we don't go. And
so there are a lot of issues that the City Council has to resolve or which might be this Arboretum
thing but there's a lot of issues that the council has to address. And we have to address. We have
to react to the council and that's a negotiating thing between the council and us as far as what
these charges are going to be to us. We don't have any problem with any of the physical
improvements that are going to be done. Just a matter of how is it going to be paid for. So I
guess we would request that you consider moving it through and work on the, we'll be able to
work these issues out with the, before the council takes action.
McDonald: I guess, if I could interrupt. I understand, it looks as though we've got enough time
because you tell me it's February. We meet again in 2 weeks and that would be enough time to
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
16
take care of everything so that you stay on track with Dogwood. One of our charters of this is to
pass forward recommendations to the City Council and to do a lot of this type of work for the
City Council. And that's where I feel a little uncomfortable is yeah, we're just passing the buck.
It may not be a big deal but I have to tell you, you're making the case for me that we ought to
look at this a little bit longer and give this thing. I'm going to ask everybody to vote. It's not just
my choice but I feel that yes, we are somewhat passing the buck. This is kind of a late issue but
it does have some importance and some impact upon the community and I think maybe it does
need to be looked at a little bit more and kind of looked at because of the impact it has, both on
the Arboretum, on you and on the community and on future homeowners. They probably will
get upset with electrified fences and something needs to be looked at. I mean you brought up
some issues about putting in some additional fencing to keep them out. I think that's a good idea
but that needs to be looked at. Arboretum's got to say yeah, that will do it. I think staff needs to
look and also look at these issues and then come back to us and say, this is what the plan is, and
now I think we can vote and make a good recommendation to the council. But again that's just
my feeling. What I would do is I would accept a motion from the commissioners, if someone
wishes to table this?
Papke: Mr. Chair.
Dick Hanson: Can we have some more public statements?
Aanenson: Yeah, I was going to say we didn't hold the public hearing yet.
Papke: Before you move to the public, I have one question for city staff. Just a point of
clarification of the last issue being debated here. If we, if this gets tabled or if whatever reason
this, you know the developer does not get approval for this, because the developer is making a
large financial contribution to this, to the water and sewer being brought through, would that on
necessity delay that public works project? What are the consequences from a funding
perspective and the progress of that engineering project?
Fauske: Very good question. We would have to go back to the neighborhood and re-calculate
what their assessment would be and find out their comfort level. If that would be an assessment.
In the past they've been through this process 2 or 3 times before and the costs to do it, just with
the neighborhood, mind you it was quite an aggressive plan, were cost prohibitive for the
residents.
Keefe: One more final question. This is scheduled for City Council on the 22nd, it says in our
packet. Would this come back prior to that? Two weeks from.
Aanenson: Yes. It could come back on the 16th.
Keefe: So it could come back on the 16th so it could still make the same City Council date that
it's currently scheduled for.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
17
Aanenson: Typically we like to break inbetween. Right now, as of today, the project was
scheduled for the 22nd. The call for the hearing. There might be some, as Alyson indicated,
they're working through some of those changes that are being requested, so it may move back.
Keefe: But not necessarily because of this issue. It could be because of.
Aanenson: The sewer and water design issue, but I think we'd still be on track. And if you're
more comfortable tabling it to try to get those resolved, we can, that's fine. We have time I think.
We won't throw the project off.
Undestad: You still can get it on City Council?
Aanenson: It depends on the length of the discussion. I'm not sure we're all going to agree.
We're going to give you some recommendations but all parties might not agree and we haven't
heard all the issues yet.
McDonald: And that's fine. I think that's the problem. We don't know what the issues are. So
again, I would accept a motion from the commissioners to table this to allow city staff, the
developer and the Arboretum to talk.
Papke: Mr. Chair, I'd recommend we continue with the public hearing just because I'd hate to
come back and then get the rest of the public input the next time around only to find out we've
got another issue that we've got to go back around again on.
McDonald: Okay. We'll put it off. Okay, at this point it is anyone from the public wishing to
come forward and address this issue, please do so. Come up to the podium. State your name and
address and address the commission.
Darlene Hanson: I'm Darlene Hanson on Crimson Bay Road. Some things have been brought
up this evening that I'd like to clarify. Someone talked about drying up the septic systems that
we have on Crimson Bay. Is that, at who's expense does this happen?
Fauske: We currently do not have any plans to extend the sewer and water down to Crimson
Bay Road. What we are looking at doing is having the opportunity, by getting the right-of-way
to the southern property line, then we have that corridor saved to get the sewer and water down
through there. If the sewer and water project does go through at a later date, then it would be the
homeowner's through a, would pay for it through assessments.
Darlene Hanson: I see. And at that time is city water an option, since we already have our own
well?
Fauske: What we would do is, if there was an interest from the Crimson Bay residents to get
sewer and water through the project, we would start to have a neighborhood meeting informally
to see what comfort level. If we do sewer, we'd do water because to go ahead and dig up a street
to just put in sewer is not cost effective.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
18
Darlene Hanson: Right, okay. So again, just to be clear on this. There are no plans at this point
in time, nothing definite anyway with regard to connecting Dogwood and Crimson Bay.
Fauske: For street or utilities, we do not have any plans in place, no.
Darlene Hanson: Okay.
Aanenson: Can I just clarify that, just to be clear. The goal with this plat that's going forward
tonight is provide the opportunity in the future, because we see as a planning objective that over
time it's going to be more and more difficult to get out of Crimson Bay. Right now MnDot's
looking at an upgrade of Highway 5, studying that corridor, and we believe it's in the interest of
the city to make sure that access, continued safe access can be provided 5 years, 10 years, 15
years down the road for Crimson Bay. And so what we're doing now is giving an opportunity for
another option to provide access or sewer and water for those 4 or 5 homes. So that's all we're
doing right now is giving you an option, and when that happens it will be a discussion with the
neighborhood of how that comes about.
Darlene Hanson: Okay. And then in closing, I live in, we've live on Crimson Bay for about 8
years with the electric fence is right next to us. Just a stone's throw away and the apple trees and
so forth. So these are things that the Arboretum, it just isn't a problem. Thank you.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Next.
Dick Hanson: I'm Dick Hanson. I'm the better half of the lady who just spoke up here. We've
been up in Crimson Bay Road now for 5 or 6 years. She said 8 years. Maybe it seems that long,
but since we've been there of course the talk is it come through. Now if you've been on Crimson
Bay Road, that road is wide enough to land a 747 and we expect that the addition, if you ever go
into Dogwood, would be as wide as, and as spacious as our road. I mean that was a
requirement… The other thing is the sewer and water conditions. I spent over $15,000 on that
septic system and if it's a year away, somebody's going to pay for it. We'll go through all kinds
of legal ramifications here. If it's 15-20 years from now, then I won't be up here talking to you.
But if it's only a year or two away, then we've got some serious legal problems. The other thing
is of course Highway 5 access. We have been told by MnDot, until it kills more people down
there, that we'll never get stop lights. So just in concurrence, if they let that come all the way
around the church traffic, we're going to have some real problems unless we've got an agreement
with MnDot.
McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment? Okay
seeing no one else come forward, close the public meeting. Bring it back to the council and
again I'll ask the question, do you want to go forward or do we want to put together a motion and
table this and then discuss it again in 2 weeks?
Papke: I recommend we table at this point. I think there's just, the problems with proceeding at
this point with so many unanswered questions I think are too high and the consequences of not
tabling are also too high.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
19
McDonald: Okay, I'm going to take that as a motion. Do I have a second?
Dillon: Second.
Papke moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission table Planning Case 07-02
for The Arbors. All voted in favor, except Keefe, Undestad and Larson who opposed and
the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, just for those in the audience. This will be on in 2 weeks from tonight.
We don't re-notice on a table so if you want to check with the City but it's intended right now to
be on 2 weeks from tonight and they'd be the first item on the agenda.
McDonald: I stand corrected. It was 4 to 3. And what will happen, if I understand this correctly
is when it comes back, we will again open it up public comment on those issues that we bring
forward at that time.
Aanenson: That's up to you Mr. Chair, if you want to re-open the public hearing.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. That's all I wanted to clarify. Okay, then at this point where this
is at is that city staff, the developer and the Arboretum I think need to talk and flush out the
issues with the two properties and any possible solutions and then come back to us with that.
PUBLIC HEARING:
FOX HILL: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO THREE (3)
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6570
CHANHASSEN ROAD AND ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. APPLICANT,
10 SPRING HOMES, INC., PLANNING CASE 07-03.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jeff & Ronda Seiler 6511 Gray Fox Curve
Richard Herr 120 Fox Hollow Drive
Debralynn Geary 19180 Duck Lake Trail, Eden Prairie
Steve Brachman 19180 Duck Lake Trail, Eden Prairie
Steven Petrie 6503 Gray Fox Curve
Mary & Charles R. Klingelhutz 7146 Utica Lane
Sheryl Deppa 4920 Sparrow Road, Minnetonka
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Fauske: Good evening Chairman McDonald and commissioners. We'll be real brief here.
Couple questions, couple concerns that came up after the public notice was issued for this
project. First was with respect to state aid, county state aid Highway 101. The question came up
about securing right-of-way, additional right-of-way along 101. Currently plans show that, and I
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
20
apologize because this one's hard to see but it's 40 feet that this developer would be dedicating.
The center line of Highway 101 being shown at approximately this location. We consulted with
the city attorney regarding this issue and the city does not have the authority to require additional
right-of-way. This is MnDot's jurisdiction. We did receive comments from MnDot. They do
not have official mapping done within this corridor, therefore they have not requested additional
right-of-way for this roadway. So that was the first issue that came up that we wanted to bring to
the commission's attention. The second one, just real quick is, as we all know runoff becomes an
issue more and more with development. What you see here is…that currently exists over here, a
garage and accessory structure here. What this yellow line indicates is approximately the high
point of the property. So from here to the north it drains, it sheet drains towards Fox Hollow
Drive and from here south it drains to the south, essentially sheet draining all across through
here, through these 3 homes, the back yard here. Under the proposed scenario, we keep a fairly
similar runoff pattern. Again this yellow line indicating where the drainage area is. This part
north. Again going to Fox Hollow Drive. We've ensured that the developer is keeping the post
development discharge rate to this pond consistent so that we're not flooding that pond. What we
looked at with this, this proposal here is in the southeast corner to provide some rate control. So
that basically the area encompassed by the yellow line here will flow over land to this area here.
We've been working with MnDot because MnDot right-of-way drainage permit is required for
this project. The developer's engineer has been in discussion with them and they have verbally
agreed to a design that shows a piped outlet. That will go to the southeast and discharge to the
101 right-of-way. Again keeping with, so that flows to the discharge rate…existing discharge
rates. There's been some concerns of some properties to the south here with runoff. Under this
scenario we're basically taking this whole area, which a majority of it currently drains to the
south. Putting it in the southeastern area and discharging to MnDot right-of-way. So with that I
would be happy to answer any questions regarding any of the rest of it…that came up.
Keefe: What is the plans for 101? When is it scheduled to be widened?
Fauske: MnDot currently does not have any plans.
Keefe: No plans for it, okay.
Undestad: The 40 foot that they're dedicating now provides an 80 foot total so that's.
Fauske: Correct. Well since there's no plans to upgrade the road, we don't know what the right-
of-way, ultimate right-of-way requirement will be. That's why we can't jurisdictionally require
additional right-of-way.
Keefe: When the water sheet drains, runs off into the right-of-way essentially, where does it go
from there? Is there a storm sewer in line?
Fauske: It's flows to the…wetland complex to the south and that would ultimately discharge.
Keefe: So is there a channel to get there? It doesn't flow over the adjacent properties or?
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
21
Fauske: It depends. 101 is fairly inconsistent. Some points there is a definite ditch. Other times
it does flatten out a little bit.
Keefe: Okay.
Fauske: Certainly with any upgrade, they would be looking at improving that but again without
having a plan to upgrade 101.
Larson: Wasn't there plans to upgrade it at one point?
Fauske: There were discussions to upgrade 101. The City took a look at it. The city had a
traffic consultant take a look at it from a very broad standpoint, looking at traffic volumes and
what type of roadway would be required to handle those roadway volumes and it never
proceeded from that point.
Larson: But that's going to change though with all the, everybody else heading south… going
south, being you know, just based on what I'm seeing you know 3 miles north of there on 101.
Aanenson: Let me just add to that. There was a turn back proposal…two counties, Carver,
Hennepin. Two cities. Eden Prairie, Chanhassen. There was no concurrence so that turn back
did not occur. Since that time the city went forward and placed the trail…
Larson: Did Eden Prairie deal with it?
Aanenson: No.
McDonald: Okay. I guess there's no further questions from us. Sharmeen, if you want to finish
up.
Al-Jaff: I left this with, staff is recommending the approval of this subdivision with a variance to
allow a private street to serve these 3 homes and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
McDonald: Okay, any questions concerning the design at this point.
Papke: Sharmeen, could you briefly summarize for us what the down sides are of having a
private street in general? What liabilities. What, you know, why would we not want to do this?
Obviously you're recommending that we do it but there's always trade-off's involved and what
are we giving up in order to achieve this?
Al-Jaff: The way we look at it is, what are we gaining if we allow the private street versus a
public street? We're going to minimize drainage. The amount of hard surface coverage. We are
minimizing the number of trees that we remove there. There are a number of trees on this site.
Those will remain. If you have a street that's not going to go anywhere, then that's not, it does
not need to be extended in the future to serve other property, then you can opt to go with a
private street. And in this case this street would go nowhere. It would just be a large bubble.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
22
Papke: But in terms of maintenance or having.
Al-Jaff: It would be the responsibility of the homeowners.
Papke: Because you know every time a proposal comes up for a private street, there's normally
always some issues saying you know, sometimes we decide to do it. Sometimes we don't. But
it's not a slam dunk. There's always, you always give up something. So one of them is
maintenance. In this case we're entrusting that the property owners maintain the street, so that's,
so there's some risk there. Perhaps small that they won't keep it up well enough or.
Al-Jaff: And there are guidelines to how this street should be maintained. How wide it has to
be. For instance it has to be 20 feet wide. It has to be located within a minimum of 30 feet of an
easement. Has to be built up to a 7 ton design. So there are criteria for private streets, and we do
expect homeowners to maintain it.
Aanenson: …the other one that we discovered over time is, sometimes you back into other
people's driveways. There's not enough parking and this street doesn't have that problem.
Originally, Sharmeen is recommending that there be a public street…and we actually modeled
this one after the one just recently off of Minnewashta Parkway. So there is adequate back up on
all of these so that is the most common negative of a private street. That you maybe use
somebody else's property…
Papke: Or garbage pick-up, something like that.
Aanenson: Exactly. And sometimes all of the garbage has to go out to the public street so those
are things that we look at. But typically if you have a service delivery…this situation where
there's adequate back up and that we're really careful on because that's the biggest problem…
That big cul-de-sac. The visual for the neighbors and this provided, pushed the houses where it's
actually…
McDonald: Could you explain what you mean by a back-up? Is that as cars pull in, they've got a
way to back out? Or to head back out to the street instead of backing onto the street?
Al-Jaff: Basically when a car comes in and they need to come out, at some point they need to
come, get out. What you will do with this one, I'm hoping that this will show. This is the shared
portion of the private street so basically they will be able to back up in this turn around and then
be able to get out again and onto the street.
Aanenson: So that's not the private part of someone's driveway. It also provides additional guest
parking that is sometimes…
Al-Jaff: If we didn't have this portion as a shared portion, the…would have to back out in
someone's driveway.
McDonald: Okay. Anyone else have any questions?
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
23
Keefe: Just one question. The setback, I'm just going to…for the houses. Setback, I think it's,
would be the southern most. What is the, this would be a side setback on that one right? With
the corner.
Al-Jaff: What staff is recommending or?
Keefe: Well I'm just seeing where the placement is of that house and how close it appears to be
to the property line.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Keefe: That's to the west of it.
Al-Jaff: Currently it's shown at 10 feet. Staff is recommending a 20 foot side yard setback.
Keefe: Okay, so it would be, and then was there something else about berming along that side?
I thought I read something about berming. Or was that along 101?
Al-Jaff: The majority of the berm is along 101.
Keefe: It is, okay. So really the separation for the new house to the existing homes, and it seems
like that one would be the one of most concern. Appears to be the closest, at least from this plan,
would be really through landscaping.
Al-Jaff: There is existing landscaping on the other end. There is a fence but it's…with this plan,
with the landscaping that they are adding, an improved buffer.
Keefe: And it will also be a little bit further than what this is indicating because this is only
showing 10 feet and you're saying it would need to go.
Al-Jaff: Correct, it will be increased.
Keefe: Okay.
Aanenson: I just want to follow up on that too. Because they're asking for a variance, that was
one of the mitigations that we asked for is that…private street for setback…
Keefe: Yeah, okay. Good.
McDonald: Any other questions? I guess we're done so thank you very much for that
presentation. Is the applicant here?
Scott Rosenlund: Yes, good evening.
McDonald: Good afternoon.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
24
Scott Rosenlund: Scott Rosenlund. I'm the President of Ten Spring Homes, Inc., the applicant.
And address any questions you have. I think staff pretty well covered most of the technical
issues. One thing I think I'd just like to add, there is an opportunity for this property…to the
neighbors here, and the drainage will increase…before we put trees back in there so that would
increase any of the runoff, the water problems they may be having.
McDonald: Okay. Any questions for the applicant?
Keefe: I just have a quick. Are the homes that you propose to build here similar to the ones
north of Fox Hollow or would they be different? Okay, same.
Scott Rosenlund: Yeah, I have some pictures if you want to see some homes. You've probably
seen.
Dillon: I mean do you have any concerns about the 101 at some point being widened and you're
building homes on these lots? I mean, and what might possibly happen to the back yards?
Whatever, how do you feel about that?
Scott Rosenlund: Well I have a little background with that. I live right on Highway 5 before
they widened that. When I bought that property they had been under discussion for 20 years.
We lived there for 8 years before that happened so, I don't know. I wouldn't have an opinion or
concern.
McDonald: Okay. At that point I guess we have nothing else, unless you have something you
want to add that we should, okay. Well thank you very much for coming up. At this point then I
would open it up for a public comment. I would ask that you come to the podium. Address,
state your name and address and then address the commissioners with your comments.
Jeff Seiler: Hi. I'm Jeff Seiler. I live at 6511 Gray Fox Curve in Chanhassen. I'm here because
I have one of the properties that drainage goes through the back yard. I'm like 2 properties away
from the property. I did have some concerns about the drainage that you kind of addressed. I
did talk to Joe on the city staff. He's been the project, he's a project engineer on it and he, I just
wanted to comment that he's very helpful. He answered a lot of the questions and stuff. There is
a lot of drainage that runs off, ends up going through our back yard and he, the way he explained
it to me is that with the holding pond…at least some of that so I just wanted to comment that I
appreciated that. The next one is a question. There was…in regards to the expansion of 101.
Back in '99 or so there was public hearings and there was talk of a lot of different scenarios and
there was plans drawn up for all of them and one of which was the 4 lane road, so you all
touched upon this before. The worst case scenario was making it a 4 lane road so, I guess my
comment or question is, it seems like there was already plans drawn up so you kind of know
what the worst case scenario would be. And you might ask, well what do I care if homes built
that close to 101 or not? My only comment is, you're talking about putting an 800, 900 or a
million dollar home and it ends up being too close to the road and you have to buy that home.
Well, who pays for that? All the state taxpayers do so that would be my concern. And I guess it
just seems to me it'd be a shame that if, since there have been plans already drawn up, you know
the worst case scenarios. You could look at that and say, well would there be enough room or
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
25
not, but that's just me as a citizen. It just seems like a shame to waste all that… The next
question I had was just, as regards to, with the trail that was added you know a few years ago.
When that was originally put in there was a guardrail that was put in and that affected the sight
lines when you're going from Fox Hollow Drive trying to, out on the road and we ended up
having to take the guardrail out so my question is, is there anything in the development that
would affect sight lines as far as leaving Fox Hollow? Trying to get out onto 101 when you're
turning north. Because sometimes that is kind of hard, if anything does affect sight lines. It was
a safety issue when the guardrail was put in and they had to take it out. So I know when that was
put in, because I pulled out in front of a few cars that I never would have. From, by looking at it
I don't see that there's anything there but I just want to raise that as a concern.
Aanenson: We can check with the landscaping firm to make sure…
Jeff Seiler: That's my only comments, thank you.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward and comment.
Steve Petrie: Steve Petrie, 6503 Gray Fox Curve. This is the first time I've seen the preliminary
plat drawings and just had a few questions based on this presentation. Needs to be back up there
or not but I noticed the trees that are sketched in as landscaping between the private drive and the
existing lots that back up to this development and I'm curious, in looking at new trees that will be
planted in that location or are some of those representative of existing foliage?
Al-Jaff: It will be, the majority of them will be planted and outlot…the planting schedule with
you.
Steve Petrie: Another glance, what is the separation? Is that similar to the 20 feet that we're
talking about with the southern most house? Would it be 20 feet of separation between the
existing lots and the private drive?
Al-Jaff: Actually it will, approximately 20 feet. And then it varies and then it goes up to 50 feet.
Steve Petrie: Okay. I just had one more question. It was mentioned that there was talk about the
grade of the current lot, and from my lot in the back yard, the existing grade, I'm at about where
the peak is of the lot in question so it actually obstructs our view from Chanhassen Road. So if
you're sitting on our deck you don't necessarily see the…on Chanhassen Road. I'm curious what
the plans are for the overall grade of the lots? It sounds like it'd be maintained fairly
consistently. Will the lot be taken up overall? Left about where it is? Flatten to a greater
degree? I guess I'm just wondering what it will impact the view from the back yard for the
existing residents of Chanhassen.
Fauske: Mr. Chair, if I could answer that question. Generally speaking, just taking a quick look
at the grading plan. Actually they're proposing to bring the house pad up, so the actual elevation
of the garage floor will be higher than the existing grade. And if you'd like I'd be more than
happy to go over, to find out which lot you're at and give you an idea of how much higher it
would be at that specific location.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
26
Steve Petrie: Great, thank you.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment?
Seeing no one else get up and address the podium, close the public meeting. I'll bring it back
before the commissioners for comment. Kurt, start with you.
Papke: No questions.
McDonald: Kathleen.
Thomas: No.
McDonald: Debbie.
Larson: It looks pretty good actually.
Keefe: I'm fine with it.
McDonald: Kevin.
Dillon: I think here, I am of the opinion that it's inevitable that Highway 101 is going to get
widened to a much larger width than it is today. And I think that the, you know if any, I mean a
homeowner that's going to be looking at a home, I don't know what the exact price range, but
nice homes and they're going to be doing their due diligence here and they're going to kind of
like you know come to that conclusion, and why would they want to be so close to such a busy
road, unless there's going to be like a huge berm or something that's part of the deal here, which I
didn't see, I think they're going to have a hard time marketing this project to anyone that is wise.
I mean not that I don't, you know I mean that might be like their issue but it's, you know the
point was made in the very facetious letter that one of the people wrote here about you know, the
State taxpayers. You know we buy those homes back at some day and I don't think we should
set ourselves up to be in a position to have to do that. We need to either think about bigger
setbacks now, or berm or something like that to make the problem take care of it now.
McDonald: Okay. Mark.
Undestad: Well no, I don't have anything. I mean I think just on Kevin's side here, if you try to
predict the future, and I think what they're providing is a 40 foot right-of-way from the center
line now. The house isn't on that 40 foot setback so there's still more room to give in there. But
you really can't predict what they're going to do anyway so again, not…I'm fine with it.
McDonald: I guess Kevin, since you brought it up I will address it. I've lived there for 21 years.
I've been through this 101 fiasco for 20 years. Went through the Town Line Road fiasco. I
attended meetings at Minnetonka and Eden Prairie. It took them 25 years to decide what to do.
It will take them a good 25 years or better to decide what to do with 101. When the 4 lane
project came up, there was so much opposition between homeowners and Eden Prairie, that's
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
27
why this did not go forward. And any time you get two municipalities together, we don't know
what's going to happen and that's the problem here is we cannot anticipate something that is out
of our control. The City does not control this. That road at the center line, half of that belongs to
Eden Prairie. We're only getting 40 feet. Right now you're going to have to condemn more than
2 or 3 houses to build a 4 lane road down through there, and that's going to upset a lot of people,
both in Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. I think it's short sighted of us to try to stop all
development until the State and two municipalities plus everybody can make up their mind as to
what they want to do so, and again we've got a legal opinion about this. The City cannot take
land in anticipation of what might happen. That is not within the statute for the City to do. Only
the State can do a taking, and only for certain reasons. If they decide a 4 lane road is the best
approach, then a 4 lane road will get put in. Whether it is 10 years from now or 20 years from
now, it will get put in. But only after it's been through a lot of grinding because Town Line Road
was a problem and there were homes on that street that also thought they were buying something
with a lot more front yard than what they ended up with. So I think it is short sighted at this
point to try to say that the City needs to anticipate something that we have no control over and
that we cannot do anything about. But that's my opinion. Based upon that I'd be willing to
accept a motion.
Keefe: I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary
plat for Planning Case 07-03 for Fox Hills Subdivision for 3 lots with variances to allow a
private street as shown on the plans dated Received December 1, 2006, subject to the conditions,
1 through 33.
Papke: Second.
Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
preliminary plat for Planning Case 07-03 for Fox Hill Subdivision for 3 lots with variances to
allow a private street as shown on the plans dated received December 1, 2006, subject to the
following conditions:
1. A minimum of two 2½-inch deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of
each lot.
2. No more than one-third of the required trees may be from any one species.
3. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits around all trees
proposed to be preserved prior to any grading.
4. Any trees proposed for preservation that are lost due to grading and construction activities
will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches.
5. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the City so it can
be reviewed by the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District.
6. The plans shall be revised to incorporate Chanhassen’s standard details for erosion and
sediment control, including 5300, 5301, 5302A and 5302D.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
28
7. In order to ensure that the proposed infiltration area functions properly, the contractor shall
minimize the number of equipment trips across this part of the site. Additionally, the lightest
equipment appropriate for the job shall be used. Once the infiltration area is graded, the
easement area shall be fenced off so no further compaction occurs. The applicant may want
to consider planting native shrubs, grasses and wildflowers within the infiltration area instead
of sod to promote volume reduction through infiltration and evapotranspiration.
8. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the infiltration area shall be provided. The EOF
could consist of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf re-enforcement mat (a permanent
erosion control blanket). A typical detail shall be included in the plan.
9. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
10. The plans shall be revised to show a rock construction entrance (minimum 75 feet in length) off
Fox Hollow Drive. The rock construction entrance shall be constructed in accordance with
Chanhassen’s Standard Detail 5301. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall
include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed.
11. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $8,450.
12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES
Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for
dewatering), Carver County, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department
of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval.
13. Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected in full at
the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval.
14. Building Official Conditions:
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
29
a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
c. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and
a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
d. Separate sewer and water services must be provided to each lot.
e. Any existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems on the site must be abandoned
in accordance with State Law and City Code.
15. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Add an additional fire hydrant at the intersection of Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Hollow
Court.
b. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
c. Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota fire Code Section
501.4.
d. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
e. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either
be removed from site or chipped.
16. All existing buildings, driveways and accessory structures must be removed before grading
commences.
17. Submit calculations of storm sewer and NURP showing that the development meets the
requirements of the City and the MPCA. Determine the new HWL for the existing pond and
show it on the plan along with the NWL.
18. The swales on the eastern side of Lot 2, between Lots 2 and 3, and the swale west of Lot 3
must have a 2% minimum slope. Also, the swales in the northwest corner of the house of Lot
1, back yard of Lot 2, and side yard of Lot 3 should be moved away from the foundations of
the structures. Plantings shall be placed outside the swales to promote drainage. Add spot
elevations at the building corners of Lot 1.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
30
19. A valley gutter shall be installed at the intersection of Fox Hollow Drive and the private
street to convey water through the intersection. Also, provide spot elevations on the curb to
ensure curb line has a minimum slope of 0.5%.
20. The proposed storm line connecting to the existing storm sewer shows a bend without a
structure. A structure will be required at all bends of storm sewer. Maintain 18 inches of
separation between the sanitary sewer and drain tile.
21. On the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, show:
a) Private street and driveway grades shall not exceed 10%.
b) Ground (i.e. non-paved) surface grades shall not be less than 2%.
c) Emergency overflow locations and elevations must be shown on the plan.
d) Add bottom elevations to the retaining walls.
22. An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading.
23. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
24. Building permits are required for all retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be
designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
25. All sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer within this site shall be publicly owned and
maintained.
26. The watermain extension from Fox Hollow Drive must be wet-tapped. Due to the alignment
of the watermain in Fox Hollow Drive, it appears that this connection cannot be done under
traffic. The sanitary sewer connection on Fox Hollow Drive connecting to an existing stub
shall also be completed under traffic.
27. Utility plans shall show both plan view and profiles of all utilities (sanitary sewer, water, and
storm sewer lines. The actual elevations of existing utilities shall be determined.
28. Install cleanout for the sewer service for Lot 2 due to length.
29. Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2006 trunk
hookup charge is $1,669 for sanitary sewer and $4,485 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and
watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building
permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the
Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance.
30. The utilities will need to be adjusted to allow a minimum of 10 feet horizontal separation
between the easement and the proposed utilities.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007
31
31. A 10-foot drainage and utility easement will be required for the front of Lots 2 and 3.
32. The private street entrance must connect to Fox Hollow drive at a 90-degree angle.
33. Lot 3, Block 1, must maintain a 20-foot side yard setback along the westerly property line.”
All voted in favor, except for Dillon who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to
1.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 5, 2006 as presented.
Aanenson: Just for the public record, we have set up a meeting with School District 112. I just
wanted to make this notice for those that may be watching. District 112, they're having a
meeting at the Rec Center, January 18th. 7:00 p.m. to discuss the high school site. We want
them to meet with the community before, they have not submitted to be on the Planning
Commission yet but we want to give an opportunity for the public to get their comments,
concerns addressed prior to a submittal to you so that is set again for Thursday, January 18th at
the Chanhassen Rec Center at 7:00 p.m..
McDonald: Okay, will that be a showing of the design for the high school?
Aanenson: Yes, the layout. Any questions that you have regarding that. So we'll be there.
Representatives of the city staff to answer questions and also the school district.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:33 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
JANUARY 16, 2007
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kathleen Thomas, Mark Undestad, Kurt Papke and
Dan Keefe
MEMBERS ABSENT: Debbie Larson and Kevin Dillon
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City
Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
THE ARBORS: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO
RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP
AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW
DENSITY; SUBDIVISION OF 20 ACRES INTO 22 LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS; AND
VACATION OF EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT
7537 AND 7570 DOGWOOD ROAD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 2,
BLOCK 1, ZIMMERMAN FARM 2ST ADDITION, APPLICANT: CARLSON CUSTOM
HOMES, INC., PLANNING CASE 07-02.
Public Present:
Name Address
Donald Peterson 15272 15th Place, North, Plymouth
Bruce Carlson 7537 Dogwood Road
John Getsch 5404 Glengarry Parkway, Edina
Peter Olin 3675 Arboretum Drive
Bob Generous presented the staff report and addressed the issues brought up at the last meeting
by the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum. Chairman McDonald continued the public hearing.
John Getsch, representing three Getsch family lots, 7500, 7510 and 7530 Dogwood Road, spoke
in support of the project. Peter Olin, Director of the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum stated he
was glad to hear the developer will give full disclosure of the Arboretum's electric fence and
spraying activities, but still expressed concern with the lots abutting the Arboretum's property.
Don Peterson, speaking on behalf of the developer stated they will provide full disclosure of the
Arboretum's activities and install signage. Chairman McDonald asked staff to comment on the
email regarding the Gretchen Starks property at 3301 Tanadoona Drive. Alyson Fauske stated
the comments were related more to the street improvement project than this development.
Chairman McDonald closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission Summary - January 16, 2007
2
Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council approve Comprehensive Land Use Map Amendment from Residential-Large Lot to
Residential-Low Density for Lots 1 through 3, Block 3, of the preliminary plat of The Arbors
contingent on Metropolitan Council review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously
with a vote of 5 to 0.
Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council approve the Rezoning from RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Single Family
Residential for the land within the plat of The Arbors subject to final plat approval for The Arbors.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council approve the preliminary plat for the Arbors creating 22 lots, 3 outlots and
public right-of-way , plans prepared by Otto Associates, dated October 31, 2006, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The house designs, locations and driveway configurations for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, must be
revised to maintain the required wetland setback.
2. Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a
condition of approval for The Arbors. The park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force
upon final plat submission and approval.
3. Fire Marshal’s Conditions:
a. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
b. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
c. Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section
501.4.
d. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load
of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
e. Submit proposed cul-de-sac name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
Planning Commission Summary - January 16, 2007
3
f. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either
be removed from site or chipped.
4. Building Official Conditions:
a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
c. Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems on the site must be abandoned in
accordance with State Law and City Code.
d. The developer must submit a list of proposed street names for review and approval prior
to final plat of the property.
e. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and
a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
f. Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot.
5. City Forester’s Conditions:
a. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction. Fencing shall be in place and maintained until all construction is
completed.
b. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans, dated 10/31/06, will be
replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches.
c. A minimum of two trees shall be planted on each lot.
d. Tree conservation easements on Lots 5, 8, and 9, Block 1 shall be enlarged beyond what
is shown on plans dated 10/31/06.
e. Tree conservation easements shall be located on Lots 1-3, 5, 8-9, Block 1.
f. The applicant shall replace Colorado spruce shown on landscape plan with concolor fir or
Norway spruce.
6. City Engineer’s Conditions:
a. In order to meet the 10% maximum allowable driveway grade on Lots 1 through 3, Block
1, the builder may have to put steps in the garage to accommodate the grade change.
Planning Commission Summary - January 16, 2007
4
b. The dead pool volume of the pond needs to be increased by 360 cubic feet to meet the
MPCA Phase II requirements.
c. The proposed 1036 foot contour on Lots 12 and 14, Block 1 must be shifted so that the
backyard grade is minimum 2%.
d. The proposed major contours must be a different line weight or type.
e. Based on the grading plan, the home on Lot 5, Block 1 will be a walkout, not a full
basement.
f. The top and bottom of wall elevations of the wall must be shown on the grading plan.
g. Preliminary plat approval shall be contingent upon the approval and construction of
Project 06-06.
h. Watermain must be minimum 18 inches above or below the sanitary sewer.
i. Access for Lots 2 and 3, Block 3 will be addressed and constructed when those lots are
final platted.
j. An encroachment agreement is required for the gravel drive and turnaround within the
Dogwood Road right of way south of West 78th Street.
7. Water Resources Coordinator’s Conditions:
a. The applicant shall classify Wetland 2 using the results from the Minnesota Routine
Assessment Method for Evaluating Wetland Functions (MnRAM Version 3.0). An
electronic version of the completed MnRAM evaluation shall be submitted to and
approved by the city to establish the classification of Wetland 2 so the appropriate
wetland buffer and setback requirements can be determined.
b. A wetland buffer 50 in width and a 50 foot setback from the wetland buffer must be
maintained around Wetland 1. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and
staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant must install
wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins
and must pay the City $20 per sign. Wetland buffer and setback requirements for
Wetland 2 are contingent upon review and approval of the MnRAM for that wetland.
c. The proposed driveways and structures on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 appear to be within the
wetland setback for Wetland 2. The applicant shall submit house plans that will meet the
required setbacks on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1.
d. The proposed conservation easement shall be revised to envelop Wetland 2 and the
required wetland buffer.
Planning Commission Summary - January 16, 2007
5
e. A NPDES Phase II Construction Site Storm Water Permit will be required from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for this site. A Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required in conjunction with this application. The
SWPPP shall be provided to the City so it can be reviewed by the Carver Soil and Water
Conservation District prior to the preconstruction meeting for the project.
f. The proposed storm water pond shall be constructed prior to disturbing upgradient areas
and used as a temporary sediment basin during mass grading. Diversion berms/ditches
may be needed to divert water to the pond and a temporary pond outlet shall be provided.
The outlet could be a temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. The plans shall be
revised to include a detail for the temporary pond outlet.
g. It shall be noted on the SWPPP that all areas that will not be permanently stabilized
within the timeframe required by the NPDES permit shall be temporary mulched and
seeded. A note shall be included in the dewatering section of the SWPPP that states: “If
construction of the proposed temporary/permanent sediment pond is not completed prior
to dewatering, the City’s on-site construction observer must approve proposed
dewatering methods prior to beginning dewatering.”
h. The plans shall be revised to incorporate Chanhassen’s standard details for erosion and
sediment control, including 5302A and 5302D. Proposed erosion and sediment controls
for individual lots shall include perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street
sweeping, inlet control and temporary mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the
Certificate of Occupancy.
i. The applicant shall provide erosion and sediment control along the south and east
property lines to prevent discharge of sediment onto adjacent properties.
j. All silt fence that is not laid parallel to the contours shall have J Hooks installed every 50
-75 feet. This shall be noted on the plans and discussed at the preconstruction meeting.
k. Energy dissipation shall be provided at the inlet to the proposed pond and at the end of
the discharge pipe that outlets to the wetland within 24 hours of pipe installation. The
discharge location for the outlet of the proposed pond shall be evaluated to ensure that
the proposed discharge will not cause erosion issues. Reinforced erosion control matting
may be required.
l. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the stormwater pond shall be provided. The
EOF could consist of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf reinforcement mat (a
permanent erosion control blanket). A typical detail shall be included in the plan. The
overland route from the EOF to Lake Minnewashta shall be shown on the plans and shall
be encumbered by a drainage and utility easement.
m. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Planning Commission Summary - January 16, 2007
6
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
n. These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a
curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or
other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
o. Inlet protection may be needed prior to installation of the castings for the curbside catch
basins. In that case, all storm sewer inlets shall be protected by at least fabric draped
over the manhole with a steel plate holding the fabric in place.
p. The plans shall be revised to show a rock construction entrance (minimum 75 feet in
length) wherever construction traffic will access the site. The rock construction entrance
shall be constructed in accordance with Chanhassen’s Standard Detail 5301. Street
cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
q. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording, is $74,570.50.
r. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval.
8. The developer shall provide in both their sales material and within the association
covenants full disclosure about the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum location, use of
electric fence, research operations, and agricultural operations including the spraying
of trees.
9. The developer shall install signage on Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, and Outlots B and C
warning of the electrical fence on the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum property.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Undestad noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 2, 2007 as presented.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:18 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 16, 2007
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kathleen Thomas, Mark Undestad, Kurt Papke and
Dan Keefe
MEMBERS ABSENT: Debbie Larson and Kevin Dillon
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City
Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
THE ARBORS: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO
RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP
AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW
DENSITY; SUBDIVISION OF 20 ACRES INTO 22 LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS; AND
VACATION OF EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT
7537 AND 7570 DOGWOOD ROAD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 2,
BLOCK 1, ZIMMERMAN FARM 2ST ADDITION, APPLICANT: CARLSON CUSTOM
HOMES, INC., PLANNING CASE 07-02.
Public Present:
Name Address
Donald Peterson 15272 15th Place, North, Plymouth
Bruce Carlson 7537 Dogwood Road
John Getsch 5404 Glengarry Parkway, Edina
Peter Olin 3675 Arboretum Drive
McDonald: With this first issue which is the Arbors, I think where we left off, we tabled the
issue because of some information that came to light at the hearing concerning the Arboretum
and their spraying activities and also an electric fence. Staff was supposed to look into this and
come back to us with their recommendations. Bob.
Bob Generous presented the staff report and addressed the issues brought up by the
Minnesota Landscape Arboretum.
McDonald: Okay, what I'd like to do at this time, we broke the public meeting up to address this
issue so I'd like to give the commissioners a chance to address these issues that we asked to be
put on hold because there was a significant amount of information here that we felt would impact
our decisions. Then at that point I will open it back up to the public and you're free to come back
up and speak on anything at that point, but I would like to go ahead and gather this information
Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2007
2
so that the commissioners can make a decision. With that I'll start down to my right with, do you
have any questions of Bob on this?
Papke: No, works for me.
Thomas: Nothing.
Keefe: I'm fine with it.
Undestad: Good.
McDonald: I'm okay with it too so at this point we will open it back up the public meeting. I
believe that's what we were in the middle of so anyone that wishes to come forward and address
this development, please do so.
John Getsch: My name is John Getsch and I represent the property, the first 3 lots of the
Getsch's Addition. 7500, 7510, 7530 Dogwood Road. I just want to go down record of being a
strong support of the subdivision. This has been looked at and bounced around for years and the
job that's been done to put together a very good solution of the problem of accessing on
Dogwood Road. Extension of West 78th Street. Drainage problems. Tree preservation. Road
easements is you know, it's tremendous and I think all the parties involved should be, feel good
about what's been done. I'm glad that it's going forward because it seemed like it was going to be
the next ice age before it happened so just wanted to go on record saying that.
McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come up and make comment? Please feel
free sir.
Peter Olin: Peter Olin, Director of the Arboretum. We're glad to know that they'll give full
disclosure in everything, and I assume that's in their advertising as well since they're advertising
that these are great places to buy because they look at the Arboretum. The idea with the fence of
course is that the electric fence, there is no problem now. The problem comes when you start
bringing a lot of people in there, and once they have paid their money and left, then we in the
city and living there have problems that are left and that will be kids going up, grabbing electric
fence. Getting shocks. Calling the police and saying, you've got to get rid of that fence. My
kid's getting shocks because there is no barrier inbetween the Arboretum research and the
subdivision. There's 2 lots there and 2 public parcels and that's where we think the problem is.
Obviously if we replaced that electric fence, there has to be a connection because to keep the
deer out, you have to have a continuous fence all the way around so it's not where 800 feet will
be fenced and then the rest will be open, so that's, would not be the case. We either have to then
put more money in to make the rest of it a high, an 8 foot chain link or a high tencel steel fence
or we have to somehow connect up to the electric fencing. So it's still a problem for us.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward?
Don Peterson: I'm Don Peterson and I'm speaking on behalf of the developer. We have
reviewed this with the staff and the staff recommendations and we're perfectly agreeable to them.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2007
3
We will, we want to have a full disclosure of exactly what's happening in the area. That will be
done. We will have a permanent homeowners association document will be filed, along with
every lot so any future buyer will know what's happening, or what is the present situation. And
we have no objection if the Arboretum wants to build a fence, whatever they want, but we will
comply with the staff recommendation.
McDonald: Okay, thank you sir. Does anyone else wish to come up and make comment?
Before I close the public meeting, I have a question of staff. We did receive an email from
someone that evidently felt they weren't given an opportunity last time to speak. Have you heard
anything as to why they have not come forward tonight? Or have their issues been resolved?
Generous: I'll let Alyson address that.
Fauske: Mr. Chair, staff's been working with that particular person. That property owner and
her legal counsel and the comments were more directed towards the street improvement project
which is not tied directly to this development. Certainly this development approval is contingent
upon that project proceeding. They will have an opportunity to comment and bring their
concerns to the City Council when the public hearing is held for that particular street
improvement project.
McDonald: Okay, so be it. At that point the public meeting is closed and I bring the issue back
before the commissioners for discussion. Mark, start with you.
Undestad: I really don't have a lot to add here. I mean I think they've resolved the issues on
there. I think the remaining issue of the electric fence, it's the Arboretum's fence. It's on their
side. It's not on the property line. I think putting your signage down there is probably going to
do as much as the developer should probably have to do on there. I think they've covered
everything. I'm alright with it.
McDonald: Okay.
Keefe: I'm fine with it.
McDonald: Okay.
Thomas: I'm fine with it as well.
Papke: Nothing to add.
McDonald: In that case then I think everything's been said that I could possibly say. I have no
problems with it either. At that I'm open to a motion.
Undestad: Alright, I'll recommend the Planning Commission adopt's 3 motions here. The
Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Comprehensive
Land Use Map Amendment Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density Lots 1 through 3,
Block 3 of the preliminary plat of the Arbors contingent on Metropolitan Council review. B, the
Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2007
4
Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve rezoning from RR, Rural
Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential for the land within the plat of the Arbors, subject
to the final plat approval for the Arbors. And C, the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approve preliminary plat for the Arbors creating 22 lots, 3
outlots and public right-of-way, plans prepared by Otto Associates dated October 31, 2006,
subject to conditions 1 through 9.
McDonald: Okay.
Thomas: Second.
McDonald: Before I do that, you also want to roll in their latest recommendations on the orange
sheet too don't you?
Undestad: I think she's got them on 8 and 9.
McDonald: That's 8, okay. Then second?
Thomas: Second.
Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council approve Comprehensive Land Use Map Amendment from Residential-Large Lot to
Residential-Low Density for Lots 1 through 3, Block 3, of the preliminary plat of The Arbors
contingent on Metropolitan Council review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously
with a vote of 5 to 0.
Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council approve the Rezoning from RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Single Family
Residential for the land within the plat of The Arbors subject to final plat approval for The Arbors.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Undestad moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
City Council approve the preliminary plat for the Arbors creating 22 lots, 3 outlots and
public right-of-way , plans prepared by Otto Associates, dated October 31, 2006, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The house designs, locations and driveway configurations for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, must be
revised to maintain the required wetland setback.
2. Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a
condition of approval for The Arbors. The park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force
upon final plat submission and approval.
3. Fire Marshal’s Conditions:
Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2007
5
a. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
b. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
c. Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section
501.4.
d. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load
of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
e. Submit proposed cul-de-sac name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
f. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either
be removed from site or chipped.
4. Building Official Conditions:
a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
c. Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems on the site must be abandoned in
accordance with State Law and City Code.
d. The developer must submit a list of proposed street names for review and approval prior
to final plat of the property.
e. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and
a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
f. Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot.
5. City Forester’s Conditions:
a. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction. Fencing shall be in place and maintained until all construction is
completed.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2007
6
b. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans, dated 10/31/06, will be
replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches.
c. A minimum of two trees shall be planted on each lot.
d. Tree conservation easements on Lots 5, 8, and 9, Block 1 shall be enlarged beyond what
is shown on plans dated 10/31/06.
e. Tree conservation easements shall be located on Lots 1-3, 5, 8-9, Block 1.
f. The applicant shall replace Colorado spruce shown on landscape plan with concolor fir or
Norway spruce.
6. City Engineer’s Conditions:
a. In order to meet the 10% maximum allowable driveway grade on Lots 1 through 3, Block
1, the builder may have to put steps in the garage to accommodate the grade change.
b. The dead pool volume of the pond needs to be increased by 360 cubic feet to meet the
MPCA Phase II requirements.
c. The proposed 1036 foot contour on Lots 12 and 14, Block 1 must be shifted so that the
backyard grade is minimum 2%.
d. The proposed major contours must be a different line weight or type.
e. Based on the grading plan, the home on Lot 5, Block 1 will be a walkout, not a full
basement.
f. The top and bottom of wall elevations of the wall must be shown on the grading plan.
g. Preliminary plat approval shall be contingent upon the approval and construction of
Project 06-06.
h. Watermain must be minimum 18 inches above or below the sanitary sewer.
i. Access for Lots 2 and 3, Block 3 will be addressed and constructed when those lots are
final platted.
j. An encroachment agreement is required for the gravel drive and turnaround within the
Dogwood Road right of way south of West 78th Street.
7. Water Resources Coordinator’s Conditions:
Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2007
7
a. The applicant shall classify Wetland 2 using the results from the Minnesota Routine
Assessment Method for Evaluating Wetland Functions (MnRAM Version 3.0). An
electronic version of the completed MnRAM evaluation shall be submitted to and
approved by the city to establish the classification of Wetland 2 so the appropriate
wetland buffer and setback requirements can be determined.
b. A wetland buffer 50 in width and a 50 foot setback from the wetland buffer must be
maintained around Wetland 1. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and
staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant must install
wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins
and must pay the City $20 per sign. Wetland buffer and setback requirements for
Wetland 2 are contingent upon review and approval of the MnRAM for that wetland.
c. The proposed driveways and structures on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 appear to be within the
wetland setback for Wetland 2. The applicant shall submit house plans that will meet the
required setbacks on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1.
d. The proposed conservation easement shall be revised to envelop Wetland 2 and the
required wetland buffer.
e. A NPDES Phase II Construction Site Storm Water Permit will be required from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for this site. A Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required in conjunction with this application. The
SWPPP shall be provided to the City so it can be reviewed by the Carver Soil and Water
Conservation District prior to the preconstruction meeting for the project.
f. The proposed storm water pond shall be constructed prior to disturbing upgradient areas
and used as a temporary sediment basin during mass grading. Diversion berms/ditches
may be needed to divert water to the pond and a temporary pond outlet shall be provided.
The outlet could be a temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. The plans shall be
revised to include a detail for the temporary pond outlet.
g. It shall be noted on the SWPPP that all areas that will not be permanently stabilized
within the timeframe required by the NPDES permit shall be temporary mulched and
seeded. A note shall be included in the dewatering section of the SWPPP that states: “If
construction of the proposed temporary/permanent sediment pond is not completed prior
to dewatering, the City’s on-site construction observer must approve proposed
dewatering methods prior to beginning dewatering.”
h. The plans shall be revised to incorporate Chanhassen’s standard details for erosion and
sediment control, including 5302A and 5302D. Proposed erosion and sediment controls
for individual lots shall include perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street
sweeping, inlet control and temporary mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the
Certificate of Occupancy.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2007
8
i. The applicant shall provide erosion and sediment control along the south and east
property lines to prevent discharge of sediment onto adjacent properties.
j. All silt fence that is not laid parallel to the contours shall have J Hooks installed every 50
-75 feet. This shall be noted on the plans and discussed at the preconstruction meeting.
k. Energy dissipation shall be provided at the inlet to the proposed pond and at the end of
the discharge pipe that outlets to the wetland within 24 hours of pipe installation. The
discharge location for the outlet of the proposed pond shall be evaluated to ensure that
the proposed discharge will not cause erosion issues. Reinforced erosion control matting
may be required.
l. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the stormwater pond shall be provided. The
EOF could consist of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf reinforcement mat (a
permanent erosion control blanket). A typical detail shall be included in the plan. The
overland route from the EOF to Lake Minnewashta shall be shown on the plans and shall
be encumbered by a drainage and utility easement.
m. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
n. These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a
curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or
other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
o. Inlet protection may be needed prior to installation of the castings for the curbside catch
basins. In that case, all storm sewer inlets shall be protected by at least fabric draped
over the manhole with a steel plate holding the fabric in place.
p. The plans shall be revised to show a rock construction entrance (minimum 75 feet in
length) wherever construction traffic will access the site. The rock construction entrance
shall be constructed in accordance with Chanhassen’s Standard Detail 5301. Street
cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
q. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording, is $74,570.50.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 16, 2007
9
r. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval.
8. The developer shall provide in both their sales material and within the association
covenants full disclosure about the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum location, use of
electric fence, research operations, and agricultural operations including the spraying
of trees.
9. The developer shall install signage on Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, and Outlots B and C
warning of the electrical fence on the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum property.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Undestad noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 2, 2007 as presented.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:18 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works
FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: January 22, 2007
SUBJECT: Koehnen/Yosemite Reconstruction, Project No. 07-01:
Approve No Parking Resolution for the West Side of Yosemite
Avenue
BACKGROUND
On January 8, 2007, City Council approved the plans and specifications and
ordered the ad for bid.
DISCUSSION
The plans and specifications for this project have been submitted to MnDOT State
Aid office for review of the Yosemite Avenue portion of the project since State
Aid funds will be used for this project. The State Aid office requires that parking
be restricted along one side of Yosemite Avenue in order to meet their design
requirements. This issue was discussed with the property owners. The west side
of Yosemite has been chosen for no parking. Parking will still be allowed on the
east side of Yosemite. This resolution needs to be approved for MnDot to sign off
on the plans and before project bids are opened.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve the no parking resolution for the
west side of Yosemite Avenue.
Attachment: Resolution
c: Marcus Thomas, Bolton & Menk
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
DATE: January 22, 2007 RESOLUTION NO: 2007-
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A NO ON-STREET PARKING ZONE ON THE
WEST SIDE OF YOSEMITE AVENUE FROM LAKE LUCY ROAD TO CITY LIMITS
MSA NO. 126/PROJECT NO. 07-01
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2007, the City Council approved the plans and specifications
for the Koehnen Area/Yosemite Avenue Street Reconstruction Project No. 07-02; and
WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen has previously designated, with MnDOT approval,
that Yosemite Avenue be classified as a Municipal State-Aid street; and
WHEREAS, Municipal State-Aid funding is desired for the Koehnen Area/Yosemite
Avenue Street Reconstruction Project No. 07-02; and
WHEREAS, MnDOT plan approval for this project requires that no on-street parking be
allowed on the west side of Yosemite Avenue.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Chanhassen City Council that no on-
street parking will be allowed on the west side of Yosemite Avenue from Lake Lucy Road to city
limits.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 22nd day of January, 2007.
ATTEST:
_______________________________ _____________________________
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
YES NO ABSENT
O
O
OOO
O
W 63RD ST
C
R
E
E
K
R
U
N
T
R
AIL
K NOB HILL LANE
BLUE JAY CIR
AUDUBON CIR
R
I
N
G
N
E
C
K
D
R
PARTRIDGE CIR
W O O D DUCK LN
Wood D u c k C i r
P H E A SANT CIR
TEALCIR
PINTAIL CIR
WHITE DOVE CIR
RI
NGNECK D R
Y
O
S
E
M
IT
E AVE
YOSEMITE AVE
YOSEMITE AVE
KOEHNEN CIR
W 63RD ST
W O O D D U C K L N
KNOB HILL LANE
W OOD DUCK LN
YOSEMITE AVE
CARDINAL AVE
PH E A S A N T D R
WO
O
D
DUCK LN
KOEHNEN CIR
WHITE DOVE DR
Ê
G:\ENG\Public\07-01\Maps\Koenen Planimetrics.mxd
2007 Street Reconstruction
September 19, 2006Proposed Retaining Wall
Existing Right of Way
Proposed Ponds
Wetlands
Proposed Streets to be Reconstructed
O Existing Street Lights
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director
FROM: Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent
DATE: January 17, 2007
SUBJ: Minnetonka Lacrosse Donation
David Dines from the Minnetonka Lacrosse Youth Association contacted staff
about making a donation to the city in appreciation for their use of city facilities.
The Association would like to donate $750 toward field maintenance.
Mr. Dines will be present at Monday night’s meeting to present the check to the
Mayor and City Council. Staff will prepare a letter of thanks to Association for
their donation.
G:\PARK\JERRY\mtka lacrosse donation.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Gregg Geske- Fire Chief
Roger Smallbeck – 1st Assistant Chief
Randy Wahl - 2nd Assistant Chief
Mark Littfin- Fire Marshal
Joe Berg – Training Officer
DATE: January 12, 2007
SUBJ: Monthly City Council update
Fire Department Overview:
Staffing is at 44 active firefighters as of January 12, 2007, allocation is 45 PTE’s. We had one
member retire. Roger Smallbeck replaced Sherri Walsh as 1st Assistant Chief as a result of our
December election. Roger will be attending the January council meeting for an introduction.
The Fire Department finished 2006 with 523 calls down 66 from the 589 calls we had in 2005. We
had no structure fires since our last council update.
Fire Training:
During the month of December we refreshed our skills in ice rescue, incident command/on-deck
(protocol and procedures for fireground command) use, SCBA (self contained breathing apparatus)
and general maintenance. January through March we will continue with medical skills refresher as
all Emergency Medical Technicians and First Responders will need to complete State required
training.
Fire Marshal:
The only fires we responded to were a car fire on Highway 5 and Dakota Avenue and a small
centerpiece with very minimal damage that caught fire during the holidays.
Todd Gerhardt
January 12, 2007
Page 2
Fire Inspections:
The new building projects which are at different stages of construction are Abra Auto Body on Lake
Drive East, the Eden Trace building at 2431 Galpin Court, Gateway Apartments at 721 Lake Susan
Drive, Golf Zone at 825 Flying Cloud Drive, Halla Greens clubhouse at 495 Pioneer Trail, Lifetime
Fitness Office on Corporate Way, the Water Treatment Plant on West 79th Street, and Waytech at
2440 Galpin Court. We also have the multi-dwelling units built by Town and Country and several
small office remodeling projects.
We will begin annual inspections of hotels/motels in the near future.
Fire Prevention:
Nothing new to report at this time.
g:\safety\fire\councilupdatejan