CC Minutes 1998 07 13CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 13, 1998
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at &35 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the
Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn, Councilman Mason,
Councilman Engel, and Councilman Berquist
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Anita Benson, Kate Aanenson, Sharmin Al-Jarl,
and Todd Hoffman
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the
City Council agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Resolution #98-64: Approve Award of'Bid for Lake Lucy Road Project 98-1.
b. Resolution #98-65: Approve Award of Bid for the Coulter Boulevard East of Century Boulevard
Project 97-1B-2, amended to bring this item back to Council on the budget issues.
c. Resolution #98-66: Approval of a Resolution Establishing a No Parking Zone on Coulter
Boulevard East of Century Boulevard, Project 97-1B-2.
d. Resolution #98-67: Approval of a Resolution Establishing a No Parking Zone on Coulter
Boulevard West of Century Boulevard, Project 97-1D.
e. Resolution #98-68: Accept Utility Improvements in Highover, Phase II.
f. Approval of Reassignment of Development Contract for Powers Place and Powers Place 2nd
Addition, Project 95-4.
h. Appointment of Karin Draper to the Youth Commission.
i. Approve Temporary and Permanent Easement Payments, 1998 Trail Project.
j. Approval of Bills.
k. City Council Minutes dated June 22, 1998
City Council Minutes dated July 6, 1998
Planning Commission Minutes dated July 1, 1998
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Resolution #98-69: Award of Bids, Irrigation at Bluff Creek Elementary School/Chanhassen
Recreation Center.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
BRUCE JOHANSON, 6701 MOHAWK DRIVE.
Mayor Mancino: Bruce Johanson, if you're here, would you like to come up and present to Council. And if
you could state your name and address and limit your remarks to 3 or 4 minutes, we'd appreciate it.
Bruce Johanson: Thank you. My name is Bruce Johanson. I live at 6701 Mohawk Drive in Chanhassen.
And I'm here tonight because I have a few concerns and I appreciate being able to do this. The three issues
that I'm kind of appearing on is that, I'm appearing as a neighborhood advocate for not only myself but my
adjoining neighbors and some other neighbors in my immediate area. Also as a concerned homeowner with
regards to the beautiful area that I live in in the older part of Chanhassen around Lotus Lake and the views
and the views of the lake which I once had and also I would like to offer some comments about my
concerns with regards to the future that not only that I'm experiencing but that I think may become more of
an issue as Chanhassen continues to develop and the appreciation for our trees and lakes and so on. In this
regards started this problem for me started about 4 years ago when I bought my current house in
Chanhassen in which my property and two other, three other adjoining neighbors abut a non-dedicated
roadway called Tamarack Road, which in essence for the past 50 some odd years that my neighbor Irma
Degler has lived in the area, said has always been used as a pedestrian walkway down to Lotus Lake and at
the bottom of this Tamarack Road is Chanhassen Park and a public beach. And it's great. We've all used
it. I've used it since I moved in but I have a neighbor in front of me on Lotus Trail, Loren Veltcamp and
continually over the last four years this, his portion of that borders his property has been becoming
narrower and narrower with plantings, fences. He's brought in some truckloads of dirt and essentially it's
made it much more difficult to get down to the beach. We have some older neighbors that, Eldon goes
down and goes fishing. It's a lot harder for him to come up and down. It's just about impassable now with
boats and all kinds of things and kids still use it and it's not being kept up. And so that's been a real issue
and that's why I'm talking in terms of a neighborhood and I have support from the neighbors and the kids
that use it and I would like, if possible, the Council to consider enforcing the ordinances which I believe are
on the books about keeping this an unobstructed public right-of-way. Since I made this appointment to
appear tonight I got a letter in the mail last week that apparently Mr. Veltcamp is looking to have that
property vacated to him and that's another issue but I do think that it goes into his modis operentae of
taking it and using it for his own purposes. Apparently the building code enforcement doesn't really know
how to deal with him so they basically have let it alone and in my inquiries to the city on regular occasions
I basically feel that I've been told that it's just a neighborhood problem and should just forget and I don't
really agree with that position. As far as a homeowner, with regards to a situation with the same neighbor
Mr. Veltcamp.
Mayor Mancino: Bruce, can I stop you for just one second and ask a question?
Bruce Johanson: Sure.
Mayor Mancino: It is a, Tamarack Road, he's asking for a vacation. It is not a trail. It is not a city trail
at this point but it's been used that way, is that what you're saying?
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Bruce Johanson: Correct. Correct.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Bruce Johanson: A pedestrian trail. There's no way you could drive a car on it. The situation that I have
which I believe also addresses a city ordinance, is obstruction of view, lake view and air view and when I
bought my house I had an absolutely gorgeous view of Lotus Lake and over the past 4 years Mr. Veltcamp
has planted, I haven't counted how many but dozens of trees in front of my picture windows and built
fences and he's gone on record to people at the, I don't know if it's the City Council but the Planning
Commission, stating that this is what he would do and you know, it's just, it's frustrating. And I feel it's
affected my property value and I don't know if there's anything that the Council can do except I would like
to make you aware that this is happening and that I feel that, this is an ongoing situation. Not with, as the
city grows, views are very important and they're very valuable and I feel that my value has suffered. My
enjoyment has definitely suffered. I can't even see the lake anymore. And I'm asking for some advice on
that issue. And then as far as this vacating application, I think there's some ramifications that I'm
concerned about and one of them is (a), that the neighborhood and myself, we lose access to the beach.
And then another point that I don't, I don't even know how this is addressed but if this vacation goes
through and the homeowners gain more access, my concern is that it would change the setback, building
code setback requirements. Pushes them out and if he's, if that part of his yard is considered either a side
yard or a front yard, it's been debated with what to call it. That he would then be able to build permanent
structure, remodeling, housing and things that would totally block off my remaining whatever. View. And
I think on the other side of his property, what I've been made aware of is that he has plans for a very large,
four car garage. I was told it's 40 feet long and would raise his driveway 8 feet and the plans that I saw
were pretty large, you know and blocking out the view and my thought is, why does somebody need that.
And if they do need it and if they have the right to have that, I agree with it but can some consideration be
given to adjoining property owners and how that affects their views. So that's what I've got. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions from commissioners to Mr. Johanson?
Councilman Berquist: I've got three. A few years ago there was a dispute over a shed or a.
Bruce Johanson: That was my, it's a summer porch. That's how it was originally built and right. Mr.
Veltcamp, from the first time I ever saw him.
Councilman Berquist: You're the gentleman?
Bruce Johanson: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: Does that Tamarack Lane or is there a homeowners association that provides you
any kind of access to... ?
Bruce Johanson: No. To boats?
Councilman Berquist: To Lotus.
Bruce Johanson: No. It's just that city strip that.
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Councilman Engel: Who owns that?
Councilman Mason: Well the city owns it.
Councilman Senn: Wait, just clarify something here. Everybody has access to the beach through the
normal public accesses. You're just simply talking about a access route here from this neighborhood to the
beach, because I mean it was earlier stated that it closes off access to the beach. I mean it does on this, call
it private or dedicated or whatever trail but there's still the accesses to the beach through the normal means.
Councilman Mason: True. There's also an issue here, and I happen to agree with Mr. Johanson of people
that live next to property that is not theirs that start to usurp it. And possession becomes 9 points of the
law and this, that and the other thing and if in fact that kind of stuff is happening, I think the city needs to
take a position on it.
Councilman Senn: Oh yeah...
Councilman Mason: Right, right. But yeah, there is access there regardless but I think, Bruce I think
you're bringing up an extremely valid point. Quite honestly.
Mayor Mancino: Well that's one point and the other point is the view over the lake and blocking someone
else's view. Correct?
Bruce Johanson: It's a big one to me.
Councilman Senn: Well except we can't tell people they can't plant trees and that sort of thing on their
own property.
Councilman Mason: Well there is obstruction of view. Remember Lake Minnewashta, when that
development went in. We had fairly lengthy and well, they weren't contentious but fairly lengthy debates
about rights of people to existing views.
Mayor Mancino: Was that just in, excuse me in buildings or...
Councilman Senn: That was a new development deal where we were putting restrictions on it. I mean it's
a little hard with an existing property owner to say you can't plant trees where you want or build fences
where you want as long as they stay within the codes to do it.
Mayor Mancino: Well that's what I'm saying. I mean we don't have that right now and if you look at
Salsaulito, California etc, I mean if somebody's going to build a new garage and want to go up four stories
and it's going to block somebody's view, that's something I think to look at. Kate, can the planning
department do an issue paper and tell us what other communities do as far as lake views and blockage and?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. We can do an issue paper. Just to clarify the other issue. We did amend the city
ordinance regarding setbacks because we had the old part of Minnewashta, they were set back 200 feet and
the new subdivision, the regs are 75 feet so we made them average that so we split the difference and that
was on building setback. But this wasn't a building setback. This is a height and obstruction so it can be
taken a little bit further. But we could give you some models, tell you some pros and cons of doing that.
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Bruce Johanson: If it's of any help, I had done some investigation on your city code and a couple that I
thought might pertain were Section 20-482 and Section 20-1176. That "to provide a view of water from
the principle dwelling site" and then in the other one, 20-1176. That to "avoid conditions which could
adversely affect the surrounding area". So that might help.
Councilman Engel: I want to be clear about something. This is a piece of property that the city owns
which we do not maintain, is that true?
Bruce Johanson: It was vacated right-of-way.
Councilman Engel: Who owns it?
Councilman Mason: No, it has not been vacated.
Councilman Senn: It's a right-of-way that's never been developed.
Councilman Mason: So the city owns it.
Councilman Engel: The city does own it?
Councilman Mason: The city owns Tamarack.
Councilman Engel: Okay. That's all I want to make clear.
Councilman Senn: If you can picture it, it's an extension of a street that doesn't extend. To the lake.
Bruce Johanson: Yeah, what it looks like in just real world it looks like, from Mohawk, which is what I
have to cross over it to get into my house so it looks like a driveway and then it's part of my side yard and I
plow it and I mow the lawn. And then it merges into Mr., where Mr. Veltcamp's line comes across and
that's what's become over grown and obstructed and steeper. That's probably one of the main things is
that when he brought in all this dirt a few years ago, it went from about a 10% grade, a pretty gentle walk
to like about a 45 degree angle and you know one solution I was just wondering, I was trying to get
clarified is, you know if we had some steps. You know I mean if there could just be something and it seems
so simple and so easy to me and it's become so complicated that I'm even standing here now. It's like.
Mayor Mancino: Well Bruce, I mean you will be, you'll know when we hear publicly the vacation and
we'll go over all that at that time. Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: I heard an issue raised though over, I mean if there's an issue with the property owner
developing effectively into at least a right-of-way which has not been vacated at this point, I mean that's a
separate issue that I think the city needs to deal with. I mean to me, out of everything else here, that's a
simple issue. Either it's happening or it's not happening. If it's happening, it needs to stop. Okay. If it's
not happening, then it's not an issue. Okay and if he's going ahead with the vacation application he has the
right to do that and we have to consider that in the context of what we're allowed to do or not allowed to do
that relates to vacating that stuff and considering that but you know those are all in my mind separate
issues and the one immediate one that we can address, you know short of the broader issue which I think
would probably receive a great deal of discussion over view sheds is the issue of impacting the, how would
I say, the city owned property at least at this point so that we ought to get on right away.
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Mayor Mancino: Has planning done that? Have you surmised whether the property owner has gone into
Tamarack Road and made adjustments to it?
Kate Aanenson: Right. He was asked to remove some things from the right-of-way but as far as the other
issues that he cited, we didn't believe that we had any area to enforce something on that as far as view
sheds or anything like that. Those two other sections but we have been up there and inspected the property
and talked to the parties involved. If there has been violations of intrusion into the what is still publicly
held property.
Councilman Engel: How many pieces of property border on this trail?
Bruce Johanson: There's three. There is the three immediate ones. There's the Lustidks, the Johansons
and the Veltcamps and then a small little tidbit, Eldon and Irma Degler.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Appreciate your coming forward. Is there anyone else wishing to
address the City Council tonight under visitor presentations? I see somebody else. Wow.
David Obee: My name is David Obee. I live at 2060 Majestic Way and I have a rental property on
Highway 7 at 3530 Highway 7 in Chanhassen. This is Lake Minnewashta. This is my real estate agent
that is listing the property, Jim Gruber. It's been for sale. We've got a buyer. We've got a purchase order
for it. Agreement. And there's one hang-up and that we have to update the sewer system. And the red
outline here shows the MUSA sewer line and I have no problem updating it but it's on the south side of
Highway 7 and the property is on the north side. So I've talked to several people at City Hall, Steve
Kirchman mainly, in regards to lining up and getting city sewer. I guess I'm petitioning to the city to auger
under Highway 7 so that it's on the north side of Highway 7, accessible at the end of my driveway where I
think most of the residences in Chanhassen have access to the city sewer. So I guess for me to bear the cost
of auguring under Highway 7 might be a little bit much for me and the property's for sale. It's sold. I have
no problem paying the cost to the end of my driveway so.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And have you made an application?
David Obee: Steve Kirchman suggested I come here first.
Mayor Mancino: Oh! Okay.
Councilman Senn: Why is that, I'm just curious.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, do you have any idea?
Kate Aanenson: I believe Dave had spoken, Dave Hempel has spoken to somebody on this property
because we've had some issues with it too. There is a process. Petitioning process so.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah. Why don't we have you just, Kate will work with you after the meeting. Give you
a call and tell you exactly how to apply and go through it and it's, it's easy. It just costs a lot.
David Obee: Steve told me this meeting was last Monday night too so I've.
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Councilman Senn: Well I'm just curious. I mean why did Mr. Kirchman tell you you should, I mean we're
having a little hard time here grasping why you're before us. I mean what did he say that you're supposed
to come and do with us?
David Obee: He said come to the visitor presentation on, it was actually July 6th SO I was here last week
and he said put it before the board.
Mayor Mancino: Oh sorry.
Councilman Senn: Was it a good meeting?
David Obee: Real good.
Councilman Senn: Short I bet, right?
David Obee: I had a captive audience here. So I don't know. Steve would be able to answer that better
than I would. I brought this along just to demonstrate that both properties on the north. On the east side of
me and this one here to the west of me, Craig is already hooked into Shorewood Oaks, the subdivision
behind me.
Mayor Mancino: So this really shouldn't be a problem. We should just go forward in the application.
Kate Aanenson: There's more to this story. I don't think, I don't have all the facts in front of me but
there's been discussions on this property and it's unfortunate that we're given to come here.
Councilman Senn: Is that the property that everything around it is served by Shorewood's sewer system?
Kate Aanenson: We've got sewer on the other side of the street.
Councilman Senn: We do on the other side of TH 7.
Kate Aanenson: No, on TH 7, yes.
David Obee: Sewer's on the south side of TH 7. Craig to the east of me in 1987 was approached by the
City of Chanhassen to hook into this subdivision that was just coming in at the time. He's got a 4 inch line
going back to that subdivision, which I just found out last month. I didn't own the property all of 1987. I
bought it in July of '87 and so at the time that he was putting his in, it was the time that I first moved into
the property. It's an old 1960 septic field and to put in a mound system.
Mayor Mancino: Exactly, yeah I understand. Dave, I really think the best thing to do is, we will, staff will
call you tomorrow. We'll get you into the process and get going on this.
David Obee: We had a closing on July l0th, which has been delayed to July 24th. What can Jim tell the
potential buyer?
Mayor Mancino: When's our next City Council meeting?
Roger Knutson: Mayor. This requires a MUSA amendment?
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Kate Aanenson: No. There is sewer on the other side. We're hearing a fragment of the history on this
property. There is a lengthy history on this property. We're missing some big gaps. And I'd like to pull
all those pieces together and give you some more information so we can do that. There is sewer on that
side. There's sewer on Church Street. There is sewer on the other side. I know Dave knows about this.
Has got all the information and we'll pull all that together for you.
Mayor Mancino: Have any idea when it can come back in front of the Council so that.
Kate Aanenson: Well if there's a process, we can inform you but it would go through the normal
subdivision process.
David Obee: I'm not asking for a subdivision. The buyer's an individual buyer.
Jim Gruber: This is not a subdivision...
Kate Aanenson: You're asking them to bring sewer to their property?
Mayor Mancino: That's all. Just to bring sewer to their property.
David Obee: Bring it to the driveway.
Councilman Senn: Which is a petition to.
Kate Aanenson: Petition with a feasibility report. So yeah, we'll take it, we'll explain to them what needs
to be done and we'll inform you what that is about.
Mayor Mancino: They'll let you know and we will do it through our normal process.
Councilman Senn: To answer your question, our normal process wouldn't allow for anything this month,
let alone probably next month. I mean that's a fair statement.
Mayor Mancino: No, no. Kate, how long do you think it will take?
Kate Aanenson: For a feasibility?
Anita Benson: Council would need to authorize preparation of a feasibility study.
Mayor Mancino: Which we could still do this month.
Anita Benson: Yes, the 27th we could.
Mayor Mancino: The 27th and then the feasibility study would have to go forward.
Todd Gerhardt: The earliest, you're looking at the end of August.
Councilman Senn: My statement was true in the first place.
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Jim Gruber: I'm Jim Gruber with Coldwell Banker-Burnet and we have a purchase agreement on the
property. It's just for, it's for a person to go in and live in the home. Not rent it, but go in and homestead
the property. Per a purchase agreement we had a well test and the water was great. We had the septic
tested and it failed. And that started, that brought us here and we've explored with the City of Chanhassen,
the engineering department and planning department as well as Shorewood, the feasibility of what all the
options are and there really is only two options. One.
Mayor Mancino: Is to do a new septic, which is a mound system.
Jim Gruber: A mound system or.
Mayor Mancino: City.
Jim Gruber: The city to bring in and it just makes sense that the city should do that. Now in the interim we
could close on the house. The people could move in. They could use the existing system even though it's
failed because if we hadn't had the sale it'd be being used today. And but we'd have a game plan and we'd
know where we were going so in talking with Steve Kirchman and Dave, we were told to come here this
evening because I guess it's got a history but you know it should be.
Mayor Mancino: You only have two options anyway... I understand that.
Jim Gruber: We've only got two options. We just need to know. And the mound system doesn't seem
like, to spend all that money for a mound system, the best interest of everybody. And it is a unique
property in that it's landlocked so that, just to give you the history as I know it. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, appreciate it. Anyone else for visitor presentation? Okay, we will move forward.
AWARD OF BIDS: COULTER BOULEVARD WEST OF CENTURY BOULEVARD, PROJECT
97-1D.
Anita Benson: Mayor and Council members. The bids were opened for this project which is Coulter
Boulevard West of Century Boulevard on July 10, 1998. A total of seven bids were submitted with the low
bid from Minger Construction with a total bid amount of $434,419.57. We have worked with Minger
Construction on other city projects. He has done very good work. The low bid represents an
approximately 15% decrease in project construction costs based on the final engineer's estimate. The cost
for this portion of Coulter Boulevard are 100% assessable. Therefore staff recommends award of the
Coulter Boulevard West of Century Boulevard, Project No. 97-1D be awarded to Minger Construction in
the amount of $434,419.57.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions from councilmembers? May I have a motion please.
Councilman Berquist: Move approval and award it to Minger for the stated amount.
Councilman Engel: Second.
Resolution #98-70: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the bid for
Coulter Boulevard West of Century Boulevard, Project No. 97-1D be awarded to Minger
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Construction in the amount of $434,419.57. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who
abstained, and the motion carried.
Mayor Mancino: The next item on the agenda is Minnewashta Fire Station Irrigation. Staff report please.
And we will go forward because the staff person isn't here.
REQUEST FOR REZONING OF 16.4 ACRES FROM RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY; PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 16.4 ACRES INTO 17 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES; LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LAKE LUCY
ROAD JUST NORTH OF LAKE LUCY, LAKE LUCY ESTATES; CONTRACTOR PROPERTY
DEVELOPERS COMPANY.
Public Present:
Name Address
Homer Tompkins
Greg Kopischke
Kathryn Fernholz
Jack & Betsy Randall
Nancy Tichy
Joe Morin
CPDC
Westwood Professional Services
Westwood Professional Services
1571 Lake Lucy Road
1471 Lake Lucy Road
1441 Lake Lucy Road
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 16.4 acres into 17 single family lots.
The property is zoned rural residential and the applicant is requesting to rezone it to residential single
family. The average lot size is 31,986 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.04 units per acre. All
the lots meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance as far as lot area depth and width. Access
to this property is provided via public streets, which extends south of Lake Lucy Road to service the
proposed lots as well as internal private streets. This application appeared before the City Council in 1995
under a different applicant. At that time the application reflected 23 homes and after numerous revisions to
the plan the resulting number of dwellings on that application was 18 home sites. Eventually that
application was withdrawn. The overall number of lots in this application has been reduced from 18 to 17.
However, Lot 6, Block 2 has enough area to be further subdivided in the future and we just felt that we
should point that out to the City Council. This could also translate in the lack of additional trees and
additional grading on the site. This is a heavily wooded site and it has a meandering topography. Due to
the topography and tree coverage on the site, staff recommended the applicant utilize private driveways.
Increased number of homes to be served via private driveway from 4 to 5. Reduce the front yard setbacks.
Narrow right-of-way and steeper grades on the street to minimize impact on the site. We believe that all of
those variances are warranted and will reduce the impact on the property. Staff is recommending approval
of this application with conditions outlined in the staff report.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions from councilmembers to staff at this point? Is the applicant here and
would you like to address Council?
10
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Homer Tompkins: Mrs. Mayor, members of the City Council, my name's Homer Tompkins and I
represent Contractor Property Developers Company. Most people find it simpler to remember the initials
CPDC. We are a wholly owned subsidiary of a lumber company called Schere Brothers Lumber whose
been in business for about 71 years. We founded our development arm of this company about 5 years ago.
Since then we've developed 16 subdivisions in 11 different cities around the Twin Cities area. We
currently have five separate preliminary plat applications in process in various cities, including the one
before you tonight. We are forming a joint venture for the development of this property with Dick
Loscheider, Loscheider Custom Homes. Dick is a long standing customer of Schere Brothers Lumber
Company and our firm is in the business of developing residential lots and selling lots to builders who
hopefully reciprocate in buying materials and product from the lumber company. I have with me this
evening Kathryn Fernholz who is the forester with Westwood Engineering who would like to present a
presentation and Greg Kopischke with Westwood Engineering who if the Council would permit would
come forward and present to you our development efforts to date. I'll be available myself and Mr.
Loscheider to answer any questions you might have after their initial presentation. Thank you.
Greg Kopischke: Would it be easier just to set it on the counter?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes.
Greg Kopischke: My name is Greg Kopischke with Westwood Professional Services. When Mr.
Tompkins and Mr. Loscheider approached us a number of months ago to take a look at this property, and
the previous plans that had been submitted to the city, it was with the idea of is it still feasible to do
something here. It obviously met with some resistance the first go around so we wanted to understand what
all the issues were. My approach was to contact the planning staff. Find out from Sharmin what all the
issues were. We got a hold of the Minutes from the Planning Commission and Council activities. The staff
reports so we could really understand what the concerns were at that time and it basically was the site
sensitivity with the forest and the steep topography that we were dealing with. To better understand how
those issues were impacting what we were doing here we brought in Katie Fernholz from our staff, our
forester to try to evaluate what the forest was. What kind of condition it is. How we have to work with it
and the sensitivity that we have to approach the site with. Knowing that there were fairly few options with
what we could do with this site. It's fairly narrow. It's very steep. It's heavily wooded. But we wanted to
know what parameters we had to work with to keep the city's concerns and intent in mind as well as try to
provide our client with a product that's feasible financially and something that's sellable as well. Katie will
go through some presentation in a minute, just in a nutshell though. We were finding that the forest is
probably not the pristine native community that everyone may have thought it was. There was a certain
amount of disease in there. Some dying trees. Some change over from the native wood one to some exotic
invasive species and things coming in. Katie when through a process of evaluating quality of trees and we
then took that along with the previous plans and took a look at how we could refine it. We knew we only
had really one reasonable access point. Knew what the other concerns from the city staff was in terms of
access to adjacent properties. Refined the site as best as we could with adjustments to the right-of-way.
Adjustments to grading. The previous plan had numerous retaining walls. Some that didn't make any
sense because they were going to be losing trees anyway so we did a, working very closely with Katie, a
close evaluation of how do we approach this thing. Where are the important trees to save? What's worth
saving? Where do we maintain certain setbacks from root zones and so forth and how best do we adjust
grading to accommodate that and preserve it. We knew we were going to have to take out trees but what
can we do in our due diligence to minimize that impact to the greatest extent possible. And then working
with the city forester, come up with a forestry management plan to reforest it. To actually make it better
than it is today and better than it would become even if it were left to it's natural destiny if you will. So
11
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
what you're seeing in front of you is a plan that is very similar in terms of general layout to what was here
four years ago, except you can't see the refinements on here. There's been a considerable number of
refinements grade wise and in terms of utility extensions and grading and use of retaining walls. We tried
to minimize retaining walls. Looked very closely again at trees, working with retaining walls only in those
areas that it makes sense. If there's a tree that needs to be taken out, we're biting the bullet if you will and
just say it's going to come out of there. We can't save it under any kind of human, exceptional effort. It's
just not worth that time and expense so I think we've got before you the best possible product that we can
at this particular time. We've gone through an evaluation of tree cover is being removed. The total shaded
area in this particular plan shows the full extent of tree cover and the darker portions in the center show
the extent of the removal that we're expecting during the initial construction. All of the homes are going to
be custom graded in so there's going to be some detailed look see, if you will, at the time that we get into
each particular lot and we've tried to find building pads that minimize tree removal as best as we can until
we actually get exact building plans from each individual buyer, we don't know the full extent but we feel
that we've provided a large enough building pad in a logical location so that no matter what they choose to
build, the extent of the removal isn't going to be any more than what we have. I think with that I'd like to
mm it over to Katie and just have her run through her evaluation of what we've seen here too.
Katie Fernholz: I'm Katie from Westwood and the forester at Westwood. I worked with Jill an awful lot
on this site and many of you here have heard me speak about this site so I'm sorry if it all sounds the same.
You can tell me if I missed something this time, but the thing I wanted to express the most is how much
work has gone into this and how much we did evaluate this site and kind of my philosophy in what I
prioritize on this site. I think the biggest thing is we went out. We had the trees surveyed. We looked at
each individual tree. We looked for disease. We looked for species. Everything from head to toe and
Greg's right. It's not a pristine oak woodland. It's been impacted by recreation, by trails. Plantings in the
past. Everything. You name it, it's been impacted. But the biggest thing on this site is it is forested. It is
a forest community still and so that's a nice aspect of it. And that's what we looked at in our plan is how
can we, let's not change this from a forest to a park setting to a landscaped, open yard plantings. Let's
maintain the forest feel and a forest is not all big trees with blue grass mowed underneath. A forest has
small diameter to big diameter, short to tall. A whole mix of things and so that's what my priority on this
site is. Is maintaining a forest feeling so that in the future it continues to be a forest and it doesn't change
into purely landscaping and lawn plantings. So I think the biggest thing, as we evaluated the site, was first
determining where we were going to be able to save areas. One priority area was down here where there is
a lot of lindens and small diameter oak that are coming in so that's an area we definitely want.., and that's
what we came for. Another ideal was in here there's some big oaks but they've been stressed because oaks
that are established in lowland, wet areas, they never get deep roots. It's too wet. The roots need air. The
deeper they go, too wet. No air. So the roots stay real shallow so when there's a drought, those trees get
very stressed because that water during a drought is way out of reach to their root system because it's not
established very deep. So these trees have been attacked by some root rot...these type of things. So some
of those trees will have to come out. Although snags and dead trees are great for the natural forest, you
don't want them if you're.., and that kind of thing. You know you don't want.., and so those will have to be
removed as the area comes... Areas up here that because it's dry or higher ground or due to better anchors,
they have better root systems and those trees are in much better shape.., upland. That's why one of the big
differences from the previous plan was rather than having a storm water pond here, it's down here. This is
a wet area and.., in that there was one oak way on this area that would have been impacted by that building
pad anyway. So we didn't find anything in there that warranted relocating on this site and by not putting a
pond up here where we don't... So that was, you know that's just a piece of what we looked at. One of the
things that we re-evaluated from before was the amount of replacement that we'll have to do and I'm sure
you've looked through staff report and seen that the required replacement is 63 trees. But again keeping
12
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
with the idea that this is a forested site, we don't want it to turn into a park. We don't want it to turn into
an orchard or you know everything mowed. Putting in big diameter trees will only be suitable in large open
areas like front lawns. Large diameter trees aren't going to, they're not going to survive, do well, flourish
in shady areas.., the only trees that are going to be able to adapt to that amount of shade would be smaller
diameter trees. And that will fit in better with blending those back yards so that you don't have blue grass
right up to brushy woodland but that there's an edge there that maintains that forested feel. So what we're
proposing for the plantings is to do a cost equivalent where we, this, you know the numbers don't mean a
whole lot. We just tried to put some numbers to it. We're just saying that if we would estimate that 63
trees cost something above $17,000.00. Whatever. Something around there, then we would make sure that
whatever we plant would equal that cost. Looking...buying the plant materials, what the costs are. That's
what we would then invest and we would propose to do at least 35 trees that are an average of 2 ½ inches
in diameter. And that's looking at you know their open areas. The front yards and the large back yards
that could support about 35 between the 17 lots. And then doing approximately 130 smaller diameter trees
which would mainly be all widths. You know small diameter. Tall trees that will be able to adjust to the
shade differences. Stretch toward the light and compete well because trees, the rule of thumb is for every
inch of diameter, that's how long that tree sits in the ground and doesn't start growing. That's how many
years so if you put a 2 ½ inch diameter tree in the ground, for 2 ½ years it's just going to sit there. It's not
going to start growing because it's just adjusting to that site change. If you put a smaller diameter tree in
the ground, right away it's going to start going again. It's going to start growing again and that's what
needs to happen on a site that has any type of competition or shade, and that's what the site will have
because there's green ash. There's linden. There's aspen. There's weedy shrubs and buckthom. All these
things create lots of seed every year and any place that's been disturbed, those things are going to want to
seed in right away so if we can get some nice tall trees that will stick up above all those little aspen sprouts
or whatever sprouts, then we'll establish the trees that are more desirable there and that will maintain a
healthy... If there's questions, certainly you know ask everything that comes to mind. I know I've gone
through this so many times, I can't figure out where I leave out blanks so ask plenty of questions. Thank
you.
Mayor Mancino: Do you want them now?
Katie Fernholz: Sure. Certainly.
Mayor Mancino: Your plan is going to be all written up?
Katie Fernholz: Oh it is. It should be. There's a whole big plan that has been written up and it was
submitted before and it includes all the information about oak wilt and buckthom. Which species we'll be
planting. All of that information.
Mayor Mancino: I didn't actually see the numbers on your plan. I mean I did read through the plan and
obviously the big questions are, how do you keep the whip growing when you have deer around. When you
have buckthorn that is invasive, it will do, it will just stifle the growth of the whips. Because I had
certainly tried to plant many on acreage this size and it doesn't work.
Katie Fernholz: Because what we're proposing is that these would go in areas that have been cleared so if
some of that.., vegetation has been removed and that they also would be protected with fencing to help keep
it the deer and the rabbits and the mice from chewing the bark off.
Mayor Mancino: So you will be fencing these areas?
13
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Katie Fernholz: Oh yes. The trees will have protective fencing. I'll submit this to the staff. It was a
memo I had put together and Jill and I had gone through and this explains how we're getting the numbers of
trees that we're going to be planting. It's kind of just an addendum to the management plan so if she had...
Mayor Mancino: And you have it down where the whips will be and where you'll be fencing and the very
specific plan?
Katie Fernholz: We've gone through it preliminary. What Jill and I had gone through was...this plan will
show it well. So what we were going to do is put the 35 large diameter trees in areas like this... Then we
would put clumps or groups in openings like this to start filling in these gaps in the canopy. Openings like
this.., areas down here where the edge is a little bit thin. These would be the areas that would be
emphasized. Along Lake Lucy Road .... areas that are open but we don't want to fill them with just one
big stem. We want to create a forest feel that has layers... Oh, there's a big maple or... stuck in the
ground. We want, you know and it's...not every single tree we put in the tree is going to survive. Just like
every single acorn that drops to the ground in the forest doesn't turn into a majestic oak. You know there's
competition so that way we will need to... fill the gap quickly because they're competing and fighting
and...idea of a forest rather than just a landcape... Did you want a copy of that? I mean Jill has it as well.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. That's it? That's the presentation? Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone here
tonight wishing to address the Council on this site plan that we're reviewing? Could you please come
forward. State your name and address and any concerns you have.
Jack Randall: I'm Jack Randall and we're 1571 Lake Lucy Road. We're the property just on the west
side and we border it all the way down. And we've got a whole number of issues that we've gone through a
bunch of times. We're 12 ½ acres of land. We're really not happy about seeing this divided into small
pieces. We kind of bought into thinking of this being you know more of an estate setting than a housing
development. You know we could come back tomorrow and ask for quarter acre lots for our side but I
don't think I want to do that because we want to keep it like it is. That's what we're after. I understand
the tree studies. We've learned a lot in the last couple of weeks about the trees and how they're diseased
and stuff like that. As we've gone through the storms we've had some problems at our house and the tree
people have come back and said you know, these hollow oaks that are dead, or they look bad, live for
hundreds of years because oaks are hollow so I mean you can't just discount the issue of being, they're
diseased. Well yeah they are but trees are that way and let's keep going. Anyhow, we'd love to argue for
larger lot sizes and all that kind of stuff, and I don't want to belabor that. The couple of issues that I
really want to address tonight, big time, is first of all what you don't see on the plan is our driveway and
our house was built in 1904 so it's been there forever and ever and ever. We share a driveway coming up
the west side. And I'd like to have some sort of a deeded access across that property because I don't want
somebody coming back to me 5 years or 2 years from now saying well you can't do that anymore. You've
got to come in this other side. I mean I've got a right to use my driveway. I realize we're providing for
access which the city has, I think rightfully so, provided. The access needs to be provided for but we want
that stopped and that's part of the proposal as I understand correctly. Prior to our property in some sort of
a cul-de-sac or whatever built there so then later on that's an access for later but we want to make sure that
that's the understanding. That we're going to have some sort of deeded access and we're not going to be
forced out of our driveway. We don't want to come through the intersection. The other piece that we're
concerned about is way down here.
Mayor Mancino: Excuse me. Let's start with that one right away.
14
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Councilman Engel: Point the driveway out.
Mayor Mancino: Your driveway. Jack, your driveway. Your deeded access right now is over.
Jack Randall: It's not a deeded access. It's just been there forever as we've always just used it. I want to
have a deeded access.
Councilman Engel: Can you show where that is?
Jack Randall: We come all along the absolute edge of the property. A part of it goes on the property and
parts on our own property so it's, I mean back in the 1900's.
Councilman Engel: It skirts the two properties, roughly.
Jack Randall: Yes, exactly. Yeah.
Councilman Engel: And runs towards the lake.
Mayor Mancino: No, it actually goes on the other property.
Jack Randall: It comes along to let's say about here and then to our house.
Greg Kopischke: The Randall's home sits right here. Our property line is approximately right there. Lake
Lucy Road swings onto our property and about at this point it swings back...
Councilman Engel: Okay. Got it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so it does go onto.
Jack Randall: It shares. It covers both sides and.
Mayor Mancino: It goes onto the other parcel.
Jack Randall: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And do you have a cross access agreement right now?
Jack Randall: No we do not.
Mayor Mancino: With the property owners.
Jack Randall: ... it's been there for 100 years.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Jack Randall: The other piece that we're concerned about is this house as it's laid out down here has,
whatever. It's a 10 yard side setback. All the rest of them as you come down.
15
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Mayor Mancino: 10 foot.
Jack Randall: Or 10 foot. I meant 10 foot. As you come down I've seen 30 foot. This pushes back so
closely to our property line that whatever's built there will kill the trees on my side of the property because
you're going to take the roots off. I mean you can't help it but to do that. We think that house should be
pulled somewhat in line with the rest of them so we have some sort of a reasonable buffer, or at least not to
destroy our trees. And then finally from the just pure Lake Lucy aspect, the concern we have is somehow
preventing this last lot out at the point being subdivided. I mean we're talking all sorts of hard cover issues
and drainage issues and I don't think it's appropriate for that point, because this is really low land down
there. Whatever runoff is going to go directly into the lake. The lake is already infested with weeds and
stuff and I don't want to see it just turn into a stagnant pond. If there's someway the Council would
provide that that can't be a 10 foot setback, I think would be helpful as part of the overall plan for the rest
of us. And the last thing I want to say that I didn't say to start with is that I really do think these are some
quality people and if somebody's going to develop it sometime, I think they're going to do a good job. I'd
love to have it not be developed but what can I say.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Jack Randall: Yep.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Greg, can you come up and talk a little bit about your Lot 4, Block 2. It's the 10
foot... Is there a way to move the house so it doesn't. Actually you really don't have elevations, final
elevations do you? Or dwelling sites.
Greg Kopischke: We don't have final elevations. We're pretty confident of where those elevations are
going to be. We know just because of the lay of the land and where we need to set elevations to match
grade and minimize tree impact. About where we have to be. So we're probably within a foot or so of
exact final elevations. We have some refinement of some street elevations to do with engineering staff and
so forth but our preliminary grading plan is pretty good at this point.
Mayor Mancino: So is it vegetated there and can it, will it maybe affect some of the Randall's trees 10 feet
away and that is, as I understand a concern.
Greg Kopischke: Yeah again I think we've been attempting to do as much as we can with tree preservation
in the area. Along the back of the homes in through here we've been trying to preserve a lot of that
vegetation. Some of it is maybe not some of the most desirable tree cover that we have. I think a good
portion of it's amber maple and some buckthorn and so forth. These are exotic species that are coming in.
There are certainly some other species up in through here that are probably a little bit more desirable to
save, but still not some maybe of the great oaks that we have on site. I think most of it is, remind me Katie,
it's box elder.
Katie Fernholz: In that are it's mainly green ash and box elder.
Greg Kopischke: And we did do some site studies, working off the topography and aerial photos from the
city to take a look at what the site lines from the Randall's home will be. The home that Mr. Randall is
talking about is this one here. This is the site section through here. Their home sets at about elevation
1012. The proposed home down here, which is this one sets at about elevation 970 so we're about...
16
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Mayor Mancino: Well I mean the question is, he's providing the buffer because it's, they are providing the
buffer because it's their trees so they just don't want those trees impacted that are on their side of the
property.
Greg Kopischke: I think as you start moving up their slope though, we're starting to get into some of the
more desirable species of trees. Down where our building pad is setting, we're into some of the lesser
desirable trees. Again the amber maple and buckthorn type species that are actually invasive. We would
like to actually get some of those cleaned out of there and I think as maybe part of the reforestation plan, it
could be one of those areas that we could look at putting some of those whips in and so forth to try to
compliment that buffer as best as we can. I don't know that another 10 feet is going to really offer major
pluses in this particular situation. We're also trying to look at having a building pad in through there to get
a home that, being on the lake and maintain the kind of value that we'd like to have down there as well.
And maintain the values of the neighborhood. We're not asking for anything more than what the ordinance
really allows us to do.
Jack Randall: This building...
Mayor Mancino: Wait, wait, wait.
Greg Kopischke: And obviously we're concerned about removing trees too and we're going to be going
through every effort that we can to save and protect the tree cover so obviously we can't impact things off
our site, so we'll be doing everything that we can to maintain that preservation. Setting up whatever
fencing and so forth.
Mayor Mancino: The access to the property, can you talk Sharmin a little...
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Staff is recommending that in the future, when the parcel is subdivided, that the.
Mayor Mancino: The Randall's parcel.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. The Randall's. What we're saying is through the Christensen's and Tichy's
property provide a stub street to the Randall's property. If and when the Randall's subdivide, they will
need to abandon their existing driveway and start using the stub street for access into their property.
Mayor Mancino: So right now they can continue using their existing driveway until they subdivide?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Now there is a portion that encroaches onto the Christensen's property and
that's a matter that they would need to resolve with the applicant.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So again, the city is saying at this point that the Randall's can keep their access
on Lake Lucy all the way until they subdivide their property. And the reason when they subdivide their
property that they cannot have access is because it would have to be a city street?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: And the width.
17
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Will have to be. If we gave a variance. If the city decided to allow a variance then it's a
50 foot right-of-way. And you still have 31 foot wide street curb to curb and you cannot fit that off of
Lake Lucy Road. You don't have enough room to provide for a street off of Lake Lucy Road. Another
thing you have two roads off of Lake Lucy Road and if there a chance to minimize the number of streets off
of Lake Lucy Road, then we would like the opportunity to do that and maybe Anita could add any
additional.
Anita Benson: Well Lake Lucy Road is a collector road on our municipal state aid route and we do like to
minimize access points, although you are aware there are several access points on the roadway. However if
we're providing a reasonable alternative with a public street rather than a single access onto the roadway, I
feel that's being reasonable.
Kate Aanenson: Just for clarification. There still is an issue that they would be partially driving on
Christensen's property that they'll have to resolve. They do have another access point...
Mayor Mancino: So they have to resolve that with the new owners?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Betsy Randall: I'm Betsy Randall, 1571 Lake Lucy Road. What we're asking for is so we don't run into
problems with neighbors at this point because our driveway comes into... We don't want to end up with
running into neighbor problems with our existing driveway. I mean it's been there, the house which has
been renovated and added onto was originally built in 1905. And originally all this was one big property
and I understand...the driveway's been there for almost a hundred years and you know. So what we're
asking for is some type of easement, cross access so that we can still maintain our...
Mayor Mancino: I mean we're not going to give it to you. The new property owners are going to give it to
you. Not us.
Betsy Randall: Right. I know through the Planning Commission they had talked about that and that was
put in as one of the recommendations and we've been trying to talk to them...
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so you two have to work that out. Homer, would you like to come up and.
Homer Tompkins: Did you have some more?
Betsy Randall: No, yeah. There was one other thing. As we were talking about the Lakeway Lane and...
multiple use driveway anyway with another house and I mean as we stated, we're not planning on
subdividing. We love our acreage so.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Betsy Randall: The dead end would be great. Okay, Homer.
Mayor Mancino: We don't want negotiations going on here and everything else but I'm hoping something
can be worked out.
18
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Homer Tompkins: We actually agree with the Randalls. We think it's very important for those property
owners to have houses there that if they're going to be using a driveway, that we have an easement that is
recorded so that we can show it on the recorded plat so that there won't be any future concerns about what
happens with that road and what does it do so we have an easement of record that would resolve, if they
ever decided to sell their property so we're actually in concurrence with that.
Mayor Mancino: Great, thank you. Okay. Anyone else wishing to address the City Council? They agreed
so that's good. We'll bring this back to Council. Mr. Knutson.
Roger Knutson: They can't put it on the plat. They can give them a separate paper easement. You can't
put it on the plat.
Councilman Senn: Well even if they give them an easement, it doesn't, they can't resolve the easement
effectively by development of the other property. What you're talking about is a license agreement
basically to let them use the driveway until the property develops. It's not an easement. An easement's
permanent, right?
Mayor Mancino: No.
Roger Knutson: Well they can give them a permanent easement.
Councilman Senn: Well but like I say, they've said two different things. I'm sorry, that's why I'm
pointing it out. Because the gentleman said here that they would want us to resolve with development of
the property so I mean just so everybody understands, it's not an easement. It's a license agreement you're
talking about which is fine but I'm just saying it's not an easement.
Roger Knutson: A temporary easement.
Mayor Mancino: It's a temporary cross access agreement.
Councilman Senn: I just didn't want somebody walking out tonight assuming that we had resolved an
easement issue when there's not a permanent easement put on it.
Roger Knutson: From the city's perspective, whatever property rights the Randall's have on that driveway
area today, will not be taken away by this plat anyway. We can't take away their property .... You
couldn't if you wanted to.
Audience...
Councilman Senn: Well you guys are going to resolve it. It's just you were saying two different things and
I wanted to point that out because you said resolve with the development which an easement goes
effectively. I mean you wouldn't resolve, an easement wouldn't go away simply because you develop the
property next door.
Roger Knutson: I think they want a permanent easement.
19
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Mayor Mancino: Let's see. Comments from council members. Councilman Senn, any questions? Any
comments?
Councilman Senn: No. No real questions at this point. I think as far as staff's recommendations go, it's
fine with me and as far as design of the project goes, I think they've done a pretty good job of planning the
project around what's there.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason.
Councilman Mason: My only concern is with the shared driveway. Is that something that neighbors can
hassle over in the future because it's not city property? I mean it's not a deal breaker or anything like that.
I'm just a little curious as to what future problems that could result in.
Mayor Mancino: Well I mean it can always result in some problems but as long as there's agreement. I've
had one for 15 years with... I think it just depends on how great, you know how nice the people are and are
willing to.
Councilman Mason: Boy I'll say. That's true. Yeah it clearly is a, it appears to be a very well conceived
plan. Yeah.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: It looks good. I think they're almost there and I think they can figure out the easement
licensing issues for themselves. Nothing to add.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Now I know where the Randall's live.., property for storm water. Is the Morin
property the one that's directly to the east of that? ... Okay. From hearing all this, I've gone on this
property four years ago when I was brand new to this job. Now I wished I'd gone back there but I'm not
sure I wanted to fight the deer flies. It's a tough piece of land to develop and I'm a little bit concerned
about Mr. And Mrs. Randall's concern about the impact that Lot 4, Block 2 will have on their... Had you
seen that view, that view line before tonight?
Jack Randall: ...the trees around our house...
Mayor Mancino: So Roger, any suggestions?
Roger Knutson: Mr. Randall is right. They don't have, I think you agree, they don't have the right to kill
trees on your property. That's not an issue. Legally they can't do that.
Betsy Randall: But if they have a clearing line they show on that one map.., our property line. That's our
concem...
Mayor Mancino: Okay Betsy, let Katie come on up.
Katie Fernholz: We're cutting the trees along here. My recollection.., correct me if I'm wrong.., as my
recollection is they're mainly green ash and box elder that are tolerant of disturbance and those trees, unless
20
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
they're over 7 inches you can get within 10 feet of the truck and do excavation because they're small
diameter, disturbance tolerant trees.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and maybe we'll put a condition on that if any of the trees die, you have to replace
them. Okay. Per caliper inch. Same caliper inch or something.
Councilman Berquist: Is there any other method by which they could be indemnified? I'm not certain that
there is.
Jack Randall: Why can't you just pull that house back into the lot...
Mayor Mancino: Well it meets setback.
Councilman Berquist: It meets setback requirements...
Councilman Senn: That doesn't mean that construction.., within 10 feet of the property line anyway.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. A couple comments that I have. Number one, under recommendations. Under
the first paragraph. I would not be in favor of a 10 foot side yard setback for the west side of Lot 6, Block
2. I do feel that this is going to end up being 18 lots, not 17 lots at some point. It will come back for
further division of that lot. I just think that will happen. Number two. I would like to see in condition
number 1, a sentence after the first sentence which says the applicant shall plant 63 trees as replacement/
reforestation plantings. I would like to add the sentence, the number of replacement trees could increase
based upon the level of grading on the site. So once we get final grading plans and elevations, that number
could increase and I just would like to be proactive and let everyone know that. I would like to see, make
sure that we come back with the applicant responding to consideration of the retaining walls that staff has
suggested, which is in 26(b). I would also like to make sure that staff and the applicant, and I'm not sure
which condition it is. Review shortening the cul-de-sac and shifting it easterly 20 feet to save vegetation.
And I would also like to see on that Lot 4, next to Randall's, that the grading not happen within 10 feet and
any trees that are lost on the, as a condition, on the.., property are replaced. And I would say in a two year
period. It will take a year or two for that to happen. And Roger, is that fine having it within a two year
period?
Roger Knutson: Mayor, I'm not an expert on trees but I understand that's about, probably an appropriate
period unless someone knows better. I think that's.., if it dies within two years, you probably can assume
that's because of construction activity.
Mayor Mancino: And it would be per caliper inch. Nothing less. I have a hard time with condition 29, the
last sentence. Two sentences which says the property to the west may continue to utilize the existing
private driveway until such time when the property further subdivides. It will then gain access via
Lakeway Lane only and the existing private driveway shall be abandoned.
Roger Knutson: Mayor... The property to the west is not part of this subdivision. So that's kind of like a
note for future generations because...there's no application in front of you on the property to the west. It's
just something to ring a bell to remind people...
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so Roger you're telling us that if the Randall's, when they do, or if they do decide
to subdivide at some future time, and if they want to bring in a plat that shows us a bridge you know that
21
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
goes over their deep crevice between Lake Lucy and their upland area, they have the ability to have access
on Lake Lucy.
Roger Knutson: They can bring in anything they want to bring in and then you have to review it against the
ordinances as they may exist at that time. I mean if they don't come in for 100 years or 50 years or 10, I
couldn't predict what the ordinances, what the requirements would be then.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So this does not prohibit them at all?
Roger Knutson: It doesn't prohibit them. They're not an applicant here.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. So I don't need to take it out. Those are my comments. A motion please.
Councilman Berquist: I would move approval of the preliminary plat. Rezoning 16.4 acres of property
zoned rural residential to residential single family. Approval of the preliminary plat as detailed in the staff
report striking the 10 foot yard, side yard setback for the west side of Lot 6, Block 2. I also.., regarding the
tree replacement... The number of replacement trees is based upon the final grade. I think that's it.
Mayor Mancino: And then if any of the trees that die.
Councilman Berquist: Oh, and the condition 35 regarding Lot 4. Is it Lot 4, Block 2 specifically with the,
if any trees on the adjoining property to the west are harmed, killed within a two year period of time, that
they be replaced with similar vegetation...
Councilman Engel: That's a lot of ground when you say property to the west.
Mayor Mancino: On their property line.
Councilman Berquist: The property to the west, specifically the property west of Block 2, Lot 4.
Councilman Engel: ... 20 to 40 feet. See what I'm saying?
Councilman Berquist: Oh boy.
Mayor Mancino: 10 feet or 5 feet on their property line.
Councilman Berquist: 10 foot past the property line.
Councilman Engel: That seems reasonable to me.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second?
Councilman Engel: I'll second.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, first of all there's someone here.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, excuse me.
22
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Homer Tompkins: Would it be simpler if we just increased the setback.., because we don't know what
trees might be damaged because.., of wind blown down for the next few years or whatever .... agree to add
20 foot...
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I think that would work. A 20 foot. Instead of a 10 foot setback, a 20 foot
setback. Okay.
Councilman Senn: ... get into a fight every time a tree within 10 feet of the property line dies.
Mayor Mancino: No. No 10 foot variance because it will be subdivided at some point. There's no reason
to give a variance on it. Excuse me, we're right in the middle of the motion so if you want to.
Councilman Berquist: I want to amend the motion to a 20 foot side yard setback on Block 2, Lot 4.
Councilman Engel: I'll second.
Mayor Mancino: All those in favor signify.
Councilman Senn: Now wait now. Now wait now. And dropping then what you made as far as your
motion before.
Councilman Berquist: Dropping the part of the motion that refers to replacement of vegetation on the
property to the west.
Mayor Mancino: There is a 20 foot setback. Side yard setback. Lot 4, Block 2. Okay, and it has been
seconded. All those in favor signify by saying aye?
Councilman Senn: Are we voting on the amendment or are we voting on the motion now?
Mayor Mancino: On the motion with that new amendment.
Councilman Senn: Has the second accepted the amendment?
Councilman Engel: I think he never got a chance to lodge it. We got into a side discussion.
Councilman Senn: Who's the second?
Mayor Mancino: Mark.
Councilman Berquist: Do you want to second?
Mayor Mancino: Do you want to second the amendment?
Councilman Engel: Yes. Second the amendment.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. all those in favor of the amendment.
Councilman Senn: Could we discuss things for a minute?
23
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Councilman Mason: In favor of the amendment or the whole motion now?
Mayor Mancino: First of the amendment.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve an amendment for a 20 foot
side yard setback on Lot 4, Block 2. All voted in favor and the amendment carried.
Mayor Mancino: Now, can we have a motion which includes that new amendment please.
Councilman Berquist: Do you want to restate it? The motion that I previously iterated, including the new
amendment.
Mayor Mancino: And I will second that.
Roger Knutson: Motion's on the floor.
Mayor Mancino: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: Discussion?
Councilman Berquist:...
Councilman Mason: Well no. I understand that. I want to make sure everybody out there. I mean I'm
feeling there's some question or concern about the not granting the 10 foot, the variance on the other lot and
I just want to make sure everyone's aware of what's going on with that before we approve it. Because I
believe the Tichy's are involved.
Councilman Senn: That wasn't discussed at all in our discussion. I mean if we're going to change it I
think let's highlight it. Change it and let's talk about it. What's the purpose for the change?
Mayor Mancino: The 10 foot side yard setback for the west side of Lot 6, Block 2. My question was, and
why I brought it up was why would we grant a side yard variance there? ... if you look at the vegetation,
there doesn't seem to be any vegetation that is saved when I looked at the map, and so my question was,
why would there be... to begin with.
Councilman Mason: Maybe we should ask the applicant or staff that first. Do we know why?
Mayor Mancino: Or Sharmin.
Councilman Mason: Or anybody.
Councilman Senn: We had a 10 foot variance from the other side yard is kind of my point. Why are we
talking about a variance on the other side of 10 foot?
Mayor Mancino: Because this is a riparian and it needs what, a 20 yard side setback?
24
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Sharmin A1-Jaff: On flag lots. It requires a 20 foot side yard setback and as tree preservation we
recommended that the applicant be granted a 10 foot side yard setback to push the home as close as
possible to the side yard. This way you can preserve additional. However, the applicant stated that they do
not wish to provide us with a preservation easement and Madam Mayor contacted staff this morning and
said, they're not providing us with a preservation easement. Why are we granting them a side yard setback
variance, which made perfect sense.
Mayor Mancino: Because the intent of the variance was to save the trees on the eastern side. And put a
conservation easement on Lot 6. What I read in the Planning Commission notes. Correct?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: And the applicant said that they, you know did not want a conservation easement on Lot
6.
Councilman Senn: I understand that but that doesn't change the premise for the variance in the first place
which was to... that situation that saves the most. Why are we throwing that out the window? I mean I
thought you were granting the 10 feet because by doing the 10 feet, that helped save some other stuff you
wanted to save.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: It's no longer the case.
Kate Aanenson: It's no longer the case though.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: The applicant intends to build on the adjoining properties. There will be a future
subdivision. The only thing that will happen is it will enlarge the buildable area.
Councilman Senn: What if there isn't a future subdivision? I mean they don't have to come in and
subdivide. What if they build on that the way it is? Which way do you want it? The way I was reading
your report before, is you wanted the variance.
Kate Aanenson: With the conservation easement.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: We give them, before there was give and take. The city would gain a preservation
easement. In return the city would grant a variance rather than take 10.
Mayor Mancino: So I was trying to figure out the reason for the variance. Joe, would you like to come up
and say something?
Joe Morin: Well yeah, it's on this issue. I'm Joe Morin, 1441 Lake Lucy Road. I own the property to the
east. And it seems that both the conservation easement and the variance are intended to save trees between
the Tichy property and my property. And so I would hope that you would continue and allow them to
move their existing, or their planned home site as far to the west as they can because it is their intent not to
subdivide. In fact they have offered, they have asked me that if I ever decide to sell my property, that they
would like to buy that too and just kind of keep that as a natural area and so, and that's in keeping with my
plans to keep that area natural too. So I would hope that you would allow them to have that variance now
and I think that will meet with both of our plans to try to keep that whole area as natural as possible.
Thanks.
25
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Kate Aanenson: We did get a letter that says they didn't want the conservation easement that's in your
packet.
Joe Morin: Can I say something about that? Now the conservation easement I think would put a limitation
on their property forever. It would impact their heirs, people 50 years from now. And who knows what's
going to happen then but I do know that Brian and Nancy do not intend you know, at least in the
foreseeable future, to subdivide that property. And so I don't want to, I would not advocate placing that
restriction on them. I don't think it's enforceable anyway and it's not something that I think would be fair
to them. Or their children you know if they decide to do it in the future.
Mayor Mancino: Sharmin, how many trees are saved? Can you tell? I can't tell, by doing the 10 foot
variance.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: We don't have an exact plan for it so I really can't answer that question.
Mayor Mancino: So we don't really know if giving, if granting the variance will save vegetation?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: No.
Councilman Senn: Then you're saying there's a fault in the original premise.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Pardon?
Councilman Senn: Then you're saying there's a fault in the original premise.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Well not entirely Mark. Originally, had the city been granted the conservation easement,
there was a canopy that we could have preserved in return...
Councilman Mason: ... let them save some trees. Is that faulty logic or not?
Mayor Mancino: No, that's very good logic only that I couldn't tell, when I looked at it, that there were
going to be trees saved by giving a 10 foot variance. So why give a variance if we don't really see where
the trees are being saved.
Councilman Senn: Given the variance, and allowing construction of the dwelling over to that side closer, it
will naturally save the tree line on the other side of the property unless they choose to simply bulldoze it
down anyway, which we don't allow anyway under this thing. Because we have tree replacement and
everything else already built into this. So I mean it seems to me, I mean we've got our protection. Let's
stick with the original intent and try to save effectively that which we can save over to the side and why not
still give the variance? I mean I don't see the negative in it.
Mayor Mancino: Only because we should go by ordinance unless we're really saving the trees and you still
haven't said to me that we're actually saving trees. That's a very open area on the west side. Joe.
Joe Morin: The area to the east is very heavily wooded. Very large trees. It's a beautiful area.
Mayor Mancino: But the area.
26
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Joe Morin: Where the Tichy's want to locate their building pad is kind of an open meadow area, yeah and
so they want to get as close into that meadow area as possible without impacting some of those big you
know more beautiful trees.
Mayor Mancino: And I'm just saying, there is enough room there to not impact them without the variance,
from what I can see and what I've gone down and walked to see that you could still do it according to
ordinance and not disrupt any of the trees on the east.
Joe Morin: No, right. On the.
Mayor Mancino: You would not disrupt them at all.
Joe Morin: Oh, on the east.
Mayor Mancino: If you went according to what the ordinance asks for in setback. So I'm not, we're not
going to save or destroy any trees from what I've seen, by sticking to ordinance Joe. Because it's so open
there.
Joe Morin: I don't think it's open in the area where they could build without that restriction. In other
words, they want to get it as far to the west as possible and I think no matter where they build in that area,
there will be some tree loss. I think we should just look at the map and look at the trees and maybe study
that a little bit before you make a decision.
Mayor Mancino: That's what I can't tell. Sharmin.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: I have a suggestion. How about we, you allow staff to examine this issue and then at the
time of final plat.
Mayor Mancino: Final plat come on back.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Approval we will bring it back to you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Katie Fernholz: We have the tree.., you can see quite clearly. This was kind of the grading limit line right
here. They shift it over...
Mayor Mancino: Why don't you bring it back. Why don't we bring it back for final plat, because then
we'll get dwelling types and elevations. Councilmembers feel comfortable with that?
Councilman Senn: I mean I don't know how everybody else feels about it. I don't see an issue with, why
don't we just simply grant the variance because at least on the surface it appears it's going to help the
situation and now's the time to do it internally within a project that we're effectively approving the whole
project.
Mayor Mancino: Because we're going to see it final plat anyway. It will say to us whether we really need
to give the variance or not. Why wouldn't you feel as comfortable doing that?
27
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Councilman Senn: I don't see the big issue with it. If it's going to possibly save trees to the east, why
don't we give it?
Councilman Berquist: I'm just going to leave my motion as is. I would just as soon, if we've got to do it,
to do a variance for the betterment of everyone concerned, let's do it at final plat. I'll leave the motion as it
stands.
Councilman Mason: With that little addenda in your motion?
Councilman Senn: That that's going to come back.
Councilman Berquist: That's completely fine by me. Absolutely fine by me.
Mayor Mancino: I'll second the addendum. May I have a vote in favor of the addendum. Signify by
saying aye.
Councilman Berquist moved, Mayor Mancino seconded that the issue of the 10 foot side yard
variance for the west side of Lot 6, Block 2 be further investigated by staff and brought back at the
time of final plat. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Mancino: Now may I have a vote on the motion with that addendum.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council approve rezoning
16.40 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family (95-1 REZ);
Preliminary Plat (95-3 SUB) to subdivide 16.40 acres into 17 single family lots, with variances, (a 20
foot front yard setback for Lots 7 and 10, block 2 and Lot 3, Block 3, a 10 percent street grade and a
50 foot wide right-of-way, and five homes accessing via a private street. The variance regarding 10
foot side yard setback for the west side of Lot 6, Block 2 will be further investigated by staff and
brought back at the time of final plat.) Lake Lucy Estates, as shown on the plans dated April 24,
1998, with the following conditions:
The applicant shall plant 63 trees as replacement/reforestation plantings. The number of
replacement trees could increase based upon the level of grading on the site. Trees shall be selected
from the city's Approved Tree List and meet minimum size requirements. A landscape plan shall
be submitted to the city for approval. Included in the plan shall be location, species and size of
replacements. The applicant and staff work further to present possibly reforestation options to the
City Council.
Tree removal limits shall be established 20 feet from the building pad for all custom graded lots,
once the type of home is designated. Tree protection fencing must be installed at the limits and
maintained throughout construction.
No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. The applicant shall work with
the City in developing a landscaping replacement plan on the site and along Lake Lucy Road right-
of-way. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a
conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit removal of dead or diseased
vegetation. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed.
28
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
11.
12
A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of tree preservation easements prior to grading.
Building Department conditions:
Revise the preliminary grading & erosion control plan to show the proposed dwelling pads
with standard designations and indicate the lowest level floor, entry level floor and garage
floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
b. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property.
Obtain building permits from the Inspections Division for retaining walls over 48" high.
Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of
foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat
approval.
Fire Marshal conditions:
At the east end of Lake Way Court provide an approved turnaround for fire apparatus.
Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code, Section 10.204 (D).
Relocate the existing hydrant that is located on block 8 on the south side of Lake Way
Court to the north side of Lake Way Court on block 2.
With reference to block 2, lot 6, if structure is not visible from the street, additional
address numbers will be required at driveway entrance. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire
Permit Policy Premise Identification No. 29-1992.
Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail
construction.
The buffer on Lot 5, Block 2, shall be adjusted so that there is a smoother transition along the Lot 5
property line.
Lots 4 and 5, Block 2 are encouraged to share a dock to minimize impacts on the wetlands.
The proposed SWMP water quality charge of $800/acre, (or $9,184 for the 11.48 acres) for single-
family residential developments may be waived if the applicant provides water quality treatment
according to the City's SWMP standards. To receive this credit the applicant must provide the City with
plans for a stormwater quality pond designed to retain up to 75% phosphorus according to the Walker
Pondnet model.
The proposed development would then be responsible for 11.48 acres resulting in a water quantity
connection charge of $22,730. This fee will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording.
The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan
requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal
29
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands and Type I erosion
control fence shall be used adjacent the grading limits.
13.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and
disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
14.
All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the
City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and
specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval three weeks prior to
final plat consideration.
15.
The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the
applicant $20 per sign.
16.
The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 1 O-year and 100-year storm
events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's
Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat
approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater
calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in
existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each
catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized.
In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
17.
The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary
financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract.
18.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e.
Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps
of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of
approval.
19.
The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities
and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20
feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. A
40-foot wide drainage and utility easement will be required over the utilities located within
Lakeway Court.
20
The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands or storm water ponds shall be a
minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level.
21.
The proposed stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal
water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The pond shall
be redesigned in an effort to minimize tree loss east of the cul-de-sac. The stormwater pond shall
be designed and constructed with a 75% phosphorus removal efficiently. A landscape plan
providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is
recommended.
30
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
22.
Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to
City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. The existing home (Tichy) on Lot 4,
Block 3 shall be connected to the City's sanitary sewer system within 30 days after the system
becomes operational. Connection to City water is not required unless the well on Lot 4, Block 3
fails.
23.
The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. The
construction plans shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs and gutters on those lots which
are not adjacent to a wetland or storm pond.
24.
All lots shall take direct access to the interior street system and not Lake Lucy Road. Lot 4, Block
3 shall relocate their driveway from Lake Lucy Road to Lakeway Drive. In addition, the street
address for this lot shall be changed accordingly.
25.
Lots 1 through 3, Block 1, Lots 1 through 3, Block 2, and Lots 1 through 3, Block 3 shall be
custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A detailed grading (with two-foot contours),
drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted with the building permit
application for review and approval by the City engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for
the lot.
26.
The grading, drainage, and construction plans shall be revised incorporating the following changes
that conform better with the existing grades and minimize grading and tree loss:
a) Tree protection fencing.
b)
Consider the use of retaining walls along the northeast comer of Lakeway Lane and
Lakeway Drive to reduce grading and minimize tree loss.
c) Shorten and lower cul-de-sac and increase radius to 60 feet.
d) Provide "Y" or "T" temporary turnaround on Lakeway Court.
e) Denote dwelling type on all lots including garage, first and lowest floor elevation.
f) Label height of retaining walls.
g)
Provide drain tile behind the curb for those lots not adjacent to wetlands or stormwater
pond.
h) Design private driveway (Lakeway Drive) to drain partially back to cul-de-sac.
i) Add outlet control structure to pond.
J)
Revise sanitary sewer alignment through Morin's parcel and provide sanitary sewer service
to parcel to the west per staff.
31
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
27.
Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon sanitary sewer service being extended
to the plat from the Coey property (Point Lake Lucy) to this site and the applicant obtaining a
drainage and utility easement from the Morins.
28.
All private streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance to City Ordinance No. 209 and
a turnaround acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal. A private maintenance agreement and access
easement shall be provided for all parcels served by a private street(s). A temporary turnaround
may be permitted on Lot 10, Block 2 or Lot 1, Block 3 until the Morin's parcel further subdivides.
29.
The applicant shall extend utilities to the parcel to the west through a location determined by staff.
Temporary barricades shall be placed at the end of Lakeway Lane. A sign shall be placed on the
barricades indicating "this street shall be extended in the future". A condition will also be placed in
the development contract to inform all property owners in Lake Lucy Estates of this street
extension. The property to the west may continue to utilize the existing private driveway, until such
time when the property further subdivides. It will then gain access via Lakeway Lane only and the
existing private driveway shall be abandoned.
30.
The applicant or their assignee shall submit a haul route and traffic control plan to the City
Engineer for review and approval prior to site grading commencing.
31.
Individual sewer and water services to the lots shall be field verified to determine the path of least
impact to the trees.
32.
The applicant shall be entitled to a refund (up to 90% depending on construction costs) of a portion
of future sewer connection charges collected from Morin's parcel when building permits are issued.
33.
Cross-access and maintenance agreements will need to be prepared for use of the private driveway
including the Morin's parcel."
34.
That there would be a cross access easement agreement prepared for the use of the private
driveway including the Randall parcel.
35.
There will be a 20 foot side yard setback for Lot 4, Block 2.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
RSS GOLF IMPROVEMENT CENTER; LOCATED SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF
GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD AND TH 212 ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE DISTRICT, RSS/PERMA GREEN, INC:
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF A FLOOD PLAIN.
C.
D.
E.
INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A GOLF & DRIVING RANGE.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A GOLF & DRIVING RANGE.
VARIANCES TO SECTION 20-265(2); HOURS OF OPERATION.
CODE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT AND PRO SHOP.
F. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR IMPACT OF .43 ACRES.
Public Present:
32
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Nflme
Address
Jeff Helstrom
Chris Bixler
Eric Johnson
David Albright
Linda Jansen
Wayne Larsen
Jim Sellerud
Roger Anderson
8276 Scandia Road, Waconia
3179 Devon Lane, Mound
1480 Lake Susan Hills Drive
7814 West 131st Street, Apple Valley
240 Eastwood
6801 Brule
730 Vogelsburg Trail
Civil Engineer
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Just to get everybody grounded in where this property is and the surrounding
land uses, I'd like to start with where this property is located. It's 90 acres. It's adjacent to a National
Wildlife Refuge, which is under ownership of the DNR and Fish and Wildlife. DNR... Assumption Creek,
which is immediately to the west of this property which has... Again, Highway 169 and 101 where there's
a new signal. This would be the entire property... There is wetlands on this property. The original
proposal that came in showed impact of over 3 acres of wetland. The applicants have moved the project
further north so they are impacting wetlands. As you can see the wetland line. There's this anomaly which
we felt we would accept alteration of impacts here with replacement 2:1 over here. This line right here is
the flood plain so they do need a flood plain alteration permit, which is the first conditional use permit that
you're asked to look at. The property is zoned A2. It's guided for agricultural uses and/or open space. A
golf course driving range is an interim use in the A2 district. The way our ordinance is currently set up, it
allows for a golf course driving ranges but it has restrictions as far as hours of operation. It is the intent of
the applicant to request variances for that to meet the needs of the type of operation that they want to run.
Also included in this is a site plan review and also code amendments to allow a restaurant and pro shop.
Again it does require the wetland alteration permit which I went through. Some of the issues that the staff
had concern with was the nets and the driving, the lights that are on the subject site. The proposed lights
are located here and the lights is one of the requests that they're asking for the variance. The ordinance
right now allows sunrise to sunset. The applicants are requesting a year round use and therefore they
would like to have lights so they can use that in the wintertime since it's early sunset. The proposed lights,
or originally if you can see on the specs, the heights were 50 feet. Also, this is on page 6. If you want to
look at your lighting plan. The staff had recommended against the lights but Planning Commission did
recommended approval at the last Planning Commission meeting. It went to the Planning Commission
twice. The first time they did table it for additional information and the second time they did recommend
approval with conditions but they did recommend modifications to the lights. You can see the standards
here. The four sets of standards with three lights on each one. You look at the top of page 6, it gives you
specifics on those pole locations A1 through A4 showing 50 foot in height and then the wattage. Three
fixtures at 1,500 watts. Just to give you a comparison, the fixtures on 169/212 are 250 watts so it is quite
a bit brighter. The concern that staff had was that, even though it may not at foot candles shine onto
neighboring property, it will still glow from up above. Hesse Farms and again to be consistent with the
goals of the refuge, we felt it was in conflict but the Planning Commission did recommend approval. At the
last Planning Commission meeting the applicants did agree to lower those light standards down to 30 feet
and reduce the number of fixtures from three down to two, but there are also additional fixtures in the
parking lot as shown here. And then fixtures in the driving range to allow for lighted, so you can see where
the ball lands. So the components of this would be coming in off of 169. A parking lot, up to 150.
Initially there will not be that many parking spaces. A miniature driving, or putting place and then a pitch
and putt where you can have a short course and practice pitching and putting and then there will be the
33
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
driving range which has the nets running along the eastern and western edge and then also adjacent to the
wetland there will be a lower net. The issue that the staff looked at with the two other agencies, DNR and
Fish and Wildlife is impacts of the balls to the wetlands. It'd be really difficult to manage the impacts
without having nets in place. We did talk to both agencies regarding ways to avoid or mitigate the impacts
of the nets and looking at the migratory of the birds, they felt like that because the balls would be held in by
the nets, the birds most likely would not be caught in the nets. There are trees along the eastern side of the
property that they would also help slow down the bird migration but the concern the Planning Commission
had was whether or not that net on the western side was still necessary and the applicants did agree to
lower that net. And the height again was one of the recommendations that they did change in the staff
report. The other issue that was of concern, as I pointed out in the wetlands, this is adjacent to the DNR
Assumption Creek which is a protected, high quality wetland and creek tributary. So one of the concerns
was how would they manage fertilizer applications and one of the agreements was that they propose a
fertilizer/pesticide management plan and that that be reviewed annually and before they do applications,
that they submit to the city staff for review to insure that they're not putting fertilizer on any more than
necessary. The other issue that the Planning Commission discussed was, because this is 90 acres, the
majority is in the flood plain or wetland. That the property that wouldn't be used, the 70 acres of the
remaining 90, that they consider either putting that in a conservation easement or somehow transferring that
to the wildlife refuge and that they work through some issues with that as a condition of the interim use or
the variances. The Planning Commission discussed this at length, for two meetings again, trying to get a
handle on the impacts. Fish and Wildlife has sent a couple of letters. Both agencies, the one impact that
still is hard to measure is the wildlife movement. Not necessarily the birds but the applicants need to have
the nets to the ground in order to maintain the balls on their property and not going onto the adjoining
property. They've come up with a plan with nets that show how you can get the ball, wildlife movement,
and you have this on one of your sheets too. To move through there. Whereas they can still retrieve the
balls. Again the Fish and Wildlife would prefer that the nets be at 4 feet in height so the terrestrial animals
can still migrate through but that's in conflict with what they're trying to accomplish. There are four
motions for your consideration. I'll just go through those with you. Starting on page 15. The first motion
is for the interim use permit and the site plan approval. Again, change the plans dated June 22nd and that
should say the City Council. The changes that the Planning Commission recommended again was the 30
feet high poles with two lights per pole for a total of eight feet. Again, looking at the lighting plan, staff
believes that the parking lots are still, the wattage on that is still over lit. If you look at the amount of
wattage on that, 250, we still think that's still too bright. If you look at what our standard street light is
and that's at 150 so we would still make that an issue. And then number 7. The fence along the western, it
says in bold, staff is recommending that additional study be done on wildlife migration and the impacts of
lights and nets. And the nets shall be as proposed on the site plan dated June 22nd, modified with the
change on the westerly net, instead of 50 feet that it reduced to 20 feet and that would be the most westerly.
Their interior net. The one on the east would be abutting the wildlife refuge so that net be reduced from 50
to 20 and the applicants agreed on that. So that would be the first motion. The second motion is the code
amendment and I apologize but the Planning Commission's modifications didn't get in there. Oops, I
forgot. Number 19 and 20, excuse me. I'm backing up here. Still back on the first motion. In bold,
number 19, 20 and you're missing 21. If you look at the Minutes of the Planning Commission, the last
motion was that the conditional use be reviewed on an annual basis for the following items. This is what
the Planning Commission spent a lot of time discussing is whether or not there was reasonable things that
we could measure. I think there was concurrence that the agricultural practices of the past, probably the
amount of fertilizer and pesticide being applied to this property, this use is probably better in that regard
but they still wanted to make sure that they were able to measure impact to the property, adjoining property
so they put that we do an annual review of that also regarding not only water quality but wildlife. And that
the restoration after floods occur because there is periodic flooding down there for most of the property.
34
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Also, have the ability to perform accurately the fertilizer and pesticide plan. So those are the additional
conditions the Planning Commission put in. As far as the code amendment, that just needs to be changed to
the City Council makes the recommendation. The Planning Commission left that motion the way it was.
The third motion would be on the variance. That staff would recommend the denial for the extended hours.
The Planning Commission did recommend approval of that and they did put some criteria in for that
variance so if you were to recommend approval of the variance, there is some criteria in there that you
would need to adopt because the staff has reasons for denial and the adversarial position so they did
recommend, based on location, that they would approve the lights and those reasons are there in the
Minutes. And they also recommended approval of the office clubhouse variance and size for square
footage. And then the fourth recommendation, I'm sorry.
Councilman Berquist: ... variance regarding the hours.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Berquist: What are the regular hours of operation?
Kate Aanenson: Sunrise to sunset. So what they had recommended is from sunrise to 9:00 p.m. through
October 1st through April 1st and then, yeah. I'll read you the whole motion. A variance for extended hours
of operation from sunrise to 9:00 p.m. to run from October 1st through April 1st for the purpose of teaching,
practicing golf from the interior dugouts and the approval of the square footage of the office/club house to
986 square feet as per the site plan. And the findings in the staff report with the rationale that to allow
lights and extended hours of operation because the use itself does not necessarily allow offensive type of
commercial enterprise and the fact that it's close to two highways that are shedding off some light. And
then also because the applicant is considering the conservation easement or dedication of the land to the
wildlife refuge. They would have sunset for any other time between, that's not October 1st through April
1st, if that makes sense. And then the wetland alteration permit, which is condition number 4. Those
conditions would remain as are in the staff report.
Mayor Mancino: That's it?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Mancino: ... so I can be clear about the lighting. It is staff's position that number 1, the parking
lighting be reduced?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. The Planning Commission didn't address that but we had recommended no
lighting. If you look at the wattage of that there are, I'm sure the applicant would concur. If you look
there's three fixtures in the parking lot, or with two lights on each one and those each have 250 watts which
is more extensive than we have on our city streets so we think that's over lit and could reduce that.
Mayor Mancino: And I have one more question. Anita, on the lighting that we just approved as a Council
on Coulter Boulevard, is that 150 watts?
Anita Benson: Yes. Those are 150 watts spaced at 350 feet.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and then just again that those were at 25 feet in height so they seemed pretty tall.
The parking lot lights.
35
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Mayor Mancino: What are our normal lights on our?
Anita Benson: 25 feet.
Mayor Mancino: 25 feet, okay. And Kate could you then go, so you're suggesting that the parking lot
lights be reduced by wattage?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Correct.
Mayor Mancino: And have two per pole and 150 watt or?
Kate Aanenson: Well we haven't seen, I'd like to see the photometrics on that to see exactly what the spill
is on that. I just believe it's over lit. I'm not sure what we, they could do maybe with half of that. I'd just,
there's no photometrics.
Mayor Mancino: So we would...
Councilman Senn: Well wait, before you leave that part. Are you asking.
Mayor Mancino: Excuse me, I'm not done. On the other lights, A through 4. Those are the lights...
Kate Aanenson: These are the lights that are proposed to allow for the night time or the winter time use so
you'll be in a dugout and this would light where you're hitting the balls in the driving range. So these lights
were higher in order to, so you could see where your ball lands. That's why there's also lights out in the
driving range so you can see where your ball lands. So originally when they looked at this they came in
with 50 feet in height. The three lights on a fixture. At the Planning Commission they did agree that they
could reduce that down and the number of fixtures and the height of the poles.
Mayor Mancino: Okay...recommendation is no lighting Al, A2, A3, A4 and all the G's.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Right.
Mayor Mancino: And then the only lighting that you would recommend here is the parking lot lighting.
Kate Aanenson: That was the staff's recommendation, correct.
Mayor Mancino: And I'm assuming some lighting around the club house.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And do you have a lighting plan for around the club house? Is there one?
Kate Aanenson: No. Just the only lighting plan is what's shown on that Sheet 6 which is on the overhead.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, on item 2 which is effectively the one that addresses your lighting, right? Item 2.
Kate Aanenson: Motion number 2? No?
36
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Councilman Senn: No, no. I mean under recommendation, your list of conditions.
Mayor Mancino: On page 15, recommendation number 2.
Kate Aanenson: Right. That was modified to reflect the Planning Commission's, right.
Councilman Senn: Okay, and the Planning Commission's recommendation at this point is reflected on
Sheet 6 then?
Kate Aanenson: No, it is not.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So tell me what's different on Sheet 6 from the Planning Commission?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. I'd be happy. These poles are shown at 50 feet in height and there's three fixtures.
What they're saying now is that they believe that they can get enough light at 30 feet in height with the
poles and two fixtures per pole.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And that's the only change?
Kate Aanenson: Well there are.
Mayor Mancino: For lighting.
Councilman Senn: For lighting, that's what I'm just saying.
Kate Aanenson: For lighting, correct.
Councilman Senn: I'm just talking about item number 2.
Kate Aanenson: Yep, I'm sorry, yes.
Mayor Mancino: And let me ask one more question on lighting. Have you actually seen the lights?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. They offer an opportunity for the Planning Commission to go out and look at. They
put one light on the house just to get an idea of the brightness. It wasn't the height, the 30, or 50 feet
original height as shown that was on top of the house so, there was one light.
Mayor Mancino: Are they shielded lights?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. They're similar to the lights that would be on the hockey rink or what we have out
here on the hockey rink. That type of light.
Mayor Mancino: And at Bluff Creek.
Kate Aanenson: It's a sporting type light, yeah.
37
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And let me ask a couple more questions for clarity. The denial on the hours.
Staff feels sunrise to sunset would eliminate the need for lights.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. And we felt that it was consistent with, under the various criteria, if you look at
the criteria that we put forward in the surrounding areas. Would it be consistent and compatible with
surrounding areas and that was the reason we felt that the lighting wouldn't be consistent with the
surrounding areas.
Mayor Mancino: So that is in our ordinance.
Kate Aanenson: Right. But again the Planning Commission had the different criteria.
Mayor Mancino: But our ordinance for a driving range is very clear about sunrise to sunset.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: And nets. Would you take one minute...there are going to be how many nets here?
Kate Aanenson: You've got a net along the western and eastern and then one down the middle. And then a
net along the back.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. We'll wait to hear from the applicant. Any other questions?
Councilman Senn: Yeah Kate, would you please go to page 15. I guess I'd just really like to understand in
terms of the recommendations from the Planning Commission, where we sit. Okay. So number 2 is
basically changed to be effectively what's on page 6 with the modification on those, on A1 through A4.
Okay. Then going down to number 7. 7, give me the heights again now on each of those.
Kate Aanenson: From 50 feet.
Councilman Senn: On which one?
Kate Aanenson: This one here.
Councilman Senn: Say east, west, middle and back.
Kate Aanenson: West. West. It should say west.
Councilman Senn: West is 50 feet.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay, east is?
Kate Aanenson: Still 50. No. West is 20 feet. That's the one they wanted to change.
Councilman Senn: West is 20 feet.
38
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Kate Aanenson: They kept the one along the east, which is adjacent to the DNR property because it's right
along that edge and the balls would be going.
Councilman Senn: So that's 50 feet. And the middle's 50?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Senn: And the back is 50.
Kate Aanenson: No.
Councilman Engel: It's probably shorter because it's the end of the range.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: 4 or 6 feet.
Kate Aanenson: 6 feet on the edge.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so 6 feet on the back.
Kate Aanenson: Right, yeah.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So that's their change to 2. That's their change to 7. And what were the other
Planning Commission changes to what are here in conditions 1 through 20?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I apologize that those didn't get transferred. You have conditions 19 and 20.
You're missing 21.
Councilman Senn: Okay, 19 and 20 are that way, okay. And 21.
Kate Aanenson: The conditional use permit shall be reviewed on an annual basis.
Councilman Senn: On an annual basis, okay.
Kate Aanenson: On the following items. Impacts to wildlife and water quality.
Councilman Senn: Water quality, okay.
Kate Aanenson: And restoration after flooding. And the ability, the applicant's ability to perform
accurately on the fertilizer and pesticide plan. And they just put a qualifier on that, as approved by city
staff.
Councilman Senn: Okay, so that takes care of all that. And then under the code amendment, the Planning
Commission did recommend approval of the code amendment?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. As the staff had written. Exactly as it's written.
39
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Councilman Senn: And that was as written there number 5 below there?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Senn: Okay. And then the variance, the Planning Commission.
Kate Aanenson: Recommended approval.
Councilman Senn: Recommended approval of the variance, right?
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Mayor Mancino: Well, from October 1st to April 1st.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: To 9:00 at night.
Councilman Senn: From October 1 to April 1, until 9:00 p.m., right?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Senn: And where, okay so that's the one set now. The other set you're...through there, is
where in terms of these recommendations then does staff's recommendations differ?
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Councilman Senn: Okay. And that is what, you'd want no variance?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Senn: That's the only place?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: Staff would not support the lighting?
Kate Aanenson: Well that's what the hours of operation was addressing the lighting, yeah.
Mayor Mancino: Just wanted to make it clear. Councilman Senn on?
Councilman Senn: Okay, so staff is saying no lighting?
Kate Aanenson: Right. We believe that the variance for the request of hours of operation was to allow the
lighting.
Mayor Mancino: Number 2 would be...
40
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Councilman Senn: I understand. Okay. Sorry, now I understand where everybody's coming from. Okay,
thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Is the applicant here and would you like to address the Council?
JeffHelstrom: We have a model...put together. Would it be okay if we set it up here? Chris put a lot of
work into this. Maybe I can answer a few of the questions that you've had by taking a look at this here.
Basically what we've created here is a year round golf improvement center. I'm Jeff Helstrom. This is
Chris Bixler.
Mayor Mancino: And your addresses please.
JeffHelstrom: 8276 Scandia Road, Waconia.
Chris Bixler: 3179 Devon Lane, Mound.
Jeff Helstrom: And what we've developed here is a year round golf improvement center. Year round
meaning that we're going to retrieve balls and people are going to be able to hit full shots November,
December, January, February. You know when it's cold out and we're going to bring balls back and going
to keep hitting them. What we've done is created a net system that's just up in the winter. So these back
nets that we showed up on the screen before, this net and this net here is up during the winter months. So
we keep hitting the balls this way and then bringing them back down. We felt that it was important to be
able to do that because there isn't anywhere that you can do that in... country. And I'll let Chris talk a little
bit more about a few of the other areas that we've created. The greens and the practice areas and those too.
Chris Bixler: As you look down in here, this is our retrieval system. The nets are going to start in the
front. They slope down towards the dugout. At the front they'll be approximately 2 feet off the ground
and up on the back of the first layer, probably anywhere from 4 to 6 feet. That keeps a good angle on the
nets. It also gives us room to retrieve balls. In the sides of the nets we've got some gates, some wildlife
gates to get the animals and birds that get inside there, we can get in and get them out. Plus we need to
collect balls so we'll have to... Our lighting plan is designed to light, we've got four sets of lights behind
the dugouts that will reflect down onto the tee and driving area. Underneath, down in front of the greens in
the driving range there's some mounds that we'll create traps under, and we're going to put lights in front
of those greens... Also in the summertime this net and this net and all these nets come out... This net over
here is only 20 feet high. The net there... Also a couple golf holes up here and right here next to the pro
shop door there's a large chipping green and sand bunkers around it. Behind the winter dugout is another
putting green... Up in the front area of the property we're putting in a miniature golf course on natural
grass. If you've been Edina... As you can see all these areas are wetlands around the development site.
We've got berms that are going to...
JeffHelstrom: What we did is changed the initial plan to shield off this area as much as possible because
initially the lights were 50 feet up and... Once we got that light up we were able to see that we didn't need
50 feet in height so we lowered these down and then we moved, we're going to move all the, like 5 or 6 pine
trees back behind these dugouts to shield these lights also. And then this big tree line all the way down this
side that shields the site. And then down here we added onto our plan a whole bunch of trees that we're
planting to shield the end of the range so when these trees down here get a little bit bigger, you really
shouldn't be able to see inside at all from TH 101, see the nets. And also the height of the nets steps down
from 50 feet to 40 feet to 30 feet down on the end. We did that just to try to get it as low as possible so
41
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
we could shield it off so you couldn't see anything from TH 101 as quickly as possible. And then this up
here is about a 4 to 5 foot berm that runs along 212 so that you know people really won't be able to see in
there initially either. They're going to have, putting up spruce trees and ornamental trees through here that
will block you know their view of the golf course here. And then we also have a picture of the lighting.
Chris Bixler: We brought a picture of the lights. Did a demonstration out on the site and...
JeffHelstrom: All our lighting has anti-glare equipment on it...
Chris Bixler: All the lighting will have anti-glare on it.
Jeff Helstrom: There's a... shield that really shields the light.., and that's got the glare reduction that keeps
the light directed down a line. It was amazing when we set up that demo, you know Chris walked out of the
light, he was in a white shirt and 15 feet away from you know the edge of the light, I could barely even see
him because I was videotaping him. And then as soon as he walked back about 20 feet farther, he was
clear as day. It really does a good job of you know focusing the lights rather than just like a ballfield where
it just kind of goes all over the place. It really, really does a good job of focusing and we've done
everything we can to you know cut back our plan, our initial lighting plan. Actually the initial lighting plan
had lights all the way down this one side too. We eliminated all those and then lowered down to 30 feet and
when to two lights per pole for a total of eight lights.
Chris Bixler: Lighting to us is essential for this project. During the winter months our busy time during
the winter... During the weekends of course we'll have a lot more business during the... The only thing
that hurts us is the time change and.., keep our business going successful...
JeffHelstrom: The initial code I think didn't take into consideration that this is, it's a unique project. You
know hit balls in the winter outside and that wasn't something that I think people thought up 10 years ago
when that code was initiated. And so that's why we need a change on that code.
Mayor Mancino: ... anyone else? If we have questions throughout, we'll ask you. Thank you very much.
JeffHelstrom: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Very good presentation. Is there anyone here tonight wishing to address the Council on
this issue? Would you please come up and state your name and address and give us your comments.
Eric Johnson: Eric Johnson. My address is 1480 Lake Susan Hills Drive, Chanhassen and I just, I saw
this in the paper and I think it's a great idea. I hope it goes through and I like the idea about the nets
blocking the other golfers because if you've ever played Chaska Par 30, you're taking your life into your
own hands. So I just wanted to comment that I like the project and I think it's good for the community.
Thanks.
David Albright: David Albright and I live at 7814 West 131st Street in Apple Valley, Minnesota and I'm
one of the people that are attempting to sell this property to those folks. And I'd like to just kind of give
you a thumb nail sketch of some of the things that the Planning Commission did in the two meetings that
they had, and they were relatively lengthy meetings. And really why this is really kind of a neat deal for the
city of Chanhassen. Leave aside me. Leave aside the golf course developers. This is a neat deal for the
city of Chanhassen. First of all, I think that the city Planning Commission went to, certainly it's not
42
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
unheard of at least, at least significant additional lengths to make sure that everybody in this town that
could possibly be affected by this was notified. If I'm not mistaken, the original or the codes or the
ordinances of the city require that in a project such as this where you're seeking a conditional use or an
interim use or some type of a variance, you have to notify by mail anybody that lives within 500 feet of the
boundary or anybody that owns property within 500 feet of the boundary and I think that has a built in
presumption that those would be the people most affected. It's a pretty sparsely populated area so nobody
showed up. So the Chairman of the Planning Commission thought well, why don't we give, mail the notice
to some of the people more than 500 feet away and just to give them a chance to know what's coming or to
know what we're considering and to voice some concerns either for or against it. So they mailed a letter to
everybody up on Hesse Farm Road and some other people laterally but they certainly went far beyond the
500 feet. Two people showed up from Hesse Farm Road as it turned out. One was Betty O'Shaughnessy
who sat very quietly and soaked things in and at the conclusion said that she thought that this was a good
project and is probably the best use that that land could be put to. And then there were, and I feel badly
that I don't remember their first names but there was a Mr. and Mrs. Smith who I believe live next to the
O'Shaughnessy's who basically didn't think that the project should be done at all under really any
circumstances and they kind of thought that it should be left as a governmentally imposed, private aviary.
Or wildlife area. And of course everybody disagreed with that. At least anybody that owns part of it. But
here's what the concerns were. The concerns from the Planning Commission. It was a 6 to 1 vote by the
way. This is not a 4-3, 5-2. This is a 6 to 1 vote after two hearings. And what they decided was that, as
I'm telling you now, the net benefit to the city is really significant. First of all, and I've read your
ordinances and your zoning rules and things like that and I've read your plan. Your planning documents
and everywhere I look I see that the city of Chanhassen is concerned not as much for oh maybe soccer
fields or softball fields or touch football fields for the younger kids or for the kids younger than me anyway,
but they're more concerned with either recreational or athletic activities for the, god I hate to say the word
the aging population but certainly those approaching middle age and beyond. What I would call non-
impact recreation such as wildlife, scenery, walking, golf. That type of thing. I know that the city of
Chanhassen and a number of other constituencies around here have a significant, and a well thought out
affinity for ecology and environment and saving wildlife where possible or where you know practical and to
encourage things that will co-exist with wildlife. And I've also known that the city of Chanhassen has
expressed in writing and orally from time to time, but it's in your plan somewhere and I can't remember
exactly where I read it, that someday this is on your wish list of things to acquire. At least the back part of
it where it's more wildlife watering. And what this does is one, prevent or at least significantly reduce any
type of negative or ecological impact that's already there. This farm has been farmed for a good number of
years with atrazine and atrazine has found it's way into the creek. The proposal in this situation is that
they use nothing except organic fertilizers. No atrazine. No nitrogen type fertilizers. No nothing. All
natural. Nothing except natural with some spot spraying of either a herbicide or a pesticide but certainly
nothing of a broadcast situation like you'd get in a farming application, and there was, I'm not sure if it
made it's way to your packets but in the packets, and I think it was very influential to the Planning
Commission, the packets indicated that a study done by I believe Hennepin County Parks and Recreation
on the impact of golf type activities into the natural resources, like water runoff and things like that and is
virtually nil and for a couple of reasons. One, it is not used as heavily or as in as large of amounts but
mostly because it is well groomed and it's aerated and things like that and anything of that nature generally
tends to sink in rather than flow away. It cannot go unnoticed that this proposal is giving you folks, or the
city, about 70 acres of property that you've kind of been coveting for a number of years. And right now
it's private property. I know that DNR has made noises in the past about wanting to buy it and turn it into
a nature preserve but they've never had the money to do it. The City of Chanhassen's never had the money
to do it. Now the City of Chanhassen has the opportunity by allowing a reasonable use on about 25 acres
to use almost three times that much and kind of devote it the public good. Make it remain part of the
43
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
wilderness for lack of a better word for perpetuity. And that's not an opportunity that I think this, it
certainly doesn't come along very often. I certainly don't think that it's an opportunity that should be
denied by the Council without serious, serious consideration. With respect to the wildlife situation, I'm not
sure that anybody really totally did a real good job on the wildlife gates. There is a situation where
apparently unnamed by real animals apparently, at nighttime, walk across this property and there was some
concerns made by the DNR folks and the wildlife people, that well what would happen if you had nets all
the way to the ground and these nocturnal animals would not be able to traverse the property as part of
their sleep ritual or migration patterns or whatever. And the answer to that is putting in a significant
number, and it seems to me that the plan had at least 5 or 6 and possibly more wildlife gates. So by having
kind of a, instead of having a straight fence or net that went like this, every once in a while there'd be one in
like that with an opening. So the balls coming from this way would not be able to get out but the animals
would so I think that's a pretty good compromise but I think again, what the city has is a chance to approve
the best possible use of this property from the city of Chanhassen's point of view. Maybe not necessarily
from our point of view as the owners but from the city's point of view. One that will produce significant
taxes. Two, it will do something back for the community and allow the community to have a significant
advantage of preserving a wildlife area so I guess I'm here to ask you to vote for it but the final caveat that
I have is to make this thing work, in order for the city to save 75 acres in a pristine state, and to improve
the water quality in the stream, they need to allow these folks to do what they're doing and that is
imperative that they have these minimal lights. It doesn't work without the lights. And it's not going to be
every night either. It's going to be a situation where I mean in 20 below zero or 10 below zero, or even
zero, I don't think they're going to get much business hitting golf balls outside, I don't care if the dugouts
are heated or not. So I'm thinking like October-November, in the fall area. I think that would be a natural
and there's going to be some lighting but it's only going to be until 9:00 and you know the city sky lights of
Shakopee are right behind this so it's not like it's not a lighted area as it is. There's lots and lots of traffic
on 212. But that's the trade-off I guess that's before you. One, allow them to do something that will allow
them to use this property, a little part of it, and in return the city of Chanhassen gets a significant boon to
their efforts to make the city livable for everyone and that includes recreation for the middle age to aging
set so. If anybody has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them to the best I can. If not, I'll sit down
and let someone else take over.
Councilman Berquist: I have one question.
David Albright: Certainly.
Councilman Berquist: You talked about when it's 20 below or 10 below or zero that you don't think
anybody will be going outside to hit balls... Finish that.
David Albright: And I'm not, I'm basing that on two things. One, I wouldn't. I mean my interest in golf
goes down dramatically in the cold weather. But from what they told the Planning Commission is that they
understand that there's going to be a bunch of nights in the winter where they're not going to be open at all.
And I'm thinking, and you can ask them to be sure but my recollection is they said about 10 degrees above
zero would be about the cutoff. So maybe you might have some people hitting, maybe you won't. I mean
it's going to be a market driven thing and if people will come at 10 degrees above zero and hit balls for a
little while, maybe they'll only do it from 6:00 until 8:00. Maybe they'll want to do it from 6:00 until 9:00.
But it's a self limiting factor and their profession to the planning commission that they understand that
there's going to be significant number of nights in the winter where it's just going to be dumb to try to run
a driving range no matter how well heated the pits are. So that's what I based it upon.
44
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Councilman Berquist: So practically it would, do you suppose it would work to be open rather than
Monday through Friday from whenever to 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. it would work Monday through Friday if it's
above 10 above? I mean is that?
David Albright: To me it is but he's the guy that knows so I would defer to him. I'll sit down if you
people are done looking for a.
Councilman Berquist: I'm looking for a golfers opinion.
David Albright: And he's more of a golfer than I am.
JeffHelstrom: What we plan on doing is, we'd like to be open you know every day. Or every night you
know during the winter. But if it's snowing like crazy and it's 10 below, no one's going to come out there.
We'll just close down. We would hope that wouldn't be more than 15 days during the winter so you know
like I said, it's market driven but we'd like to be open as much as we can up until 9:00.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, we understand. Thanks.
Chris Bixler: Can I add one thing?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Chris Bixler: As far as statistics... Minnesota is number two... If you look at what the Bunker in
Minnetonka did last year, that's an indoor simulator type facility and it was very successful. Not real and
that's what we're trying to give people... If you go to a golf dome, you can hit your ball 75 yards at the
most in any dome in the Midwest. As far as teaching a person not to hook or not to slice, if you guys know
what that is, you can't do that...
Councilman Senn: I don't know what a hook is but a slice I'm great at.
Chris Bixler: Basically what this does is help people to learn more about their game. We're constantly
going to have golf pros on hand, available to give lessons. Video analysis equipment. That can all remain
inside the dugout in the wintertime. But the key is a full shot. To be able to hit a driver in this and see
your ball flight... You can't learn in a dome. You can learn so much but your ball will only go 75 yards
and hit the wall and you don't know how... A slice, to give whoever doesn't golf here, a slice is when you
hit it and it goes way to the right. A fade is when it goes out and just. I mean 90% of the golfers. You
can't see your whole ball flight... I have no question in my mind that this is going to be very successful.
Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the City Council tonight? There was another person at
that meeting.
Linda Jansen: There was. Mayor, Councilmen, city staff. I'm Linda Jansen, 240 Eastwood Court and
yes, I did go to the last Planning Commission meeting to familiarize myself with the project. Curiosity as a
businesswoman, an entrepreneur. It just seems so exciting. I mean the whole concept and these guys, their
whole plan just seems really exciting. My husband's a golfer. He thinks it's wonderful but he's not the
type that's going to go out at 20 below. But having attended that meeting, I did walk away with several
questions and concerns that I just placed a few phone calls around and got a little bit more input again, of
45
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
course on the whole environmental, the wildlife, the birds. This is a wildlife refuge so it does seem natural
to try to get as much input as we can and staff did a beautiful job of you know meeting with the DNR.
Meeting with Fish and Wildlife and answering a lot of questions. But let me just share with you just a few
of the comments that I gathered from some of these other sources. And what I'll start with is the whole
wetland and water quality issue. I think we all went into the project really questioning what this impact
was going to be on that environment. With all of the changes that have been made to the plan, following
the proposal. The report put together by John Barton as to how they can actually manage the property and
have the environmental impacts be less than our typical homeowners are impacting is really impressive. I
found that report to give a lot of substantiation to maybe why this should be this type of facility, or at least
those management practices should be applied to this type of property. The concern that was voiced to me
in my conversation with John Barton's assistant, was that three out of the four courses in that study. Three
out of the four golf courses are part of the Audubon Sanctuary Program. In other words, they are very
environmentally sensitive already. They didn't know that until after they had started the whole
environmental study on the courses. They knew that one of the courses was definitely an Audubon
Sanctuary course. They later found out that two of the others had applied. So they already knew how to
treat the pesticides, the fungicides. All the applications were already environmentally sensitive. So if we're
looking at that report and saying, all golf courses are limited as far as the runoff and the impacts on the
environment, it may not be necessarily true and that is part of what the report is speaking to. Is that if they
were to go back and do another study they would make sure that they had courses that aren't all within this
Audubon Sanctuary Program. So I guess one of the suggestions that was posed by the Planning
Commission is that if this course does go in this location, it should become part of, or they should apply to
be part of that Audubon Sanctuary program. It gives them the guidelines of exactly what to do. It keeps
them be a state of the art on how to treat the course. Even though we're already starting out more
environmentally friendly. Let's get it into part of that program. And just as a side bar, it would be a
perfect implementation for the Bluff Creek watershed overlay district. If it is that environmentally correct
and it's giving us the guidelines on how to treat our properties, I mean what a wonderful expansion to that.
To help the watershed. The floodplain came up in numerous of my conversations with these organizations
and one of the points of the nets, and going back to the Fish and Wildlife proposing that they need to be the
4 feet off the ground, is that as the lower part of the property is flooding, the mammals that are ground
based, the terrestrials, have to have some place to go. They're going to head for high ground. They're
going to head towards this course. Now if they're hitting these nets, it's of course stopping the flow and
we're not just talking about you know the raccoons and the deer and the big guys can take care of
themselves most of the time, but the concern was raised and this was speaking with Larry Gillette, the
Wildlife Specialists with Hennepin Parks. He raised the concern of some of the smaller creatures because
they're not going to find their way to... and oh, where was the opening the last time. So not to discredit the
fact that the gates are at least something, he spoke to, and if anything expanded upon the whole concept of
why the Fish and Wildlife definitely asks that if this was going to go into this location, that we raise the
nets. So of course Planning Commission and myself, the same question was raised that night. What about
the golf balls. If it's up four feet, we're now zinging golf balls out into the wild area and part of why the
Planning Commission seemed to favor putting the net on the ground was protecting that natural area. Well,
Larry Gillette's proposal, and of course they've got the Baker National Golf Course that Hennepin Parks
operates. His proposal, so he's familiar with some of these concept themselves, is on that outer side of
where the net is stopping at the 4 feet. Either create a berm. He said swale, and I don't know that we
necessarily want to be excavating any more but he did say berm or swale. So that as the ball is, if the balls
are traveling underneath, which is mainly going to be my dandelion cutters. You know I tend to send those
zinging. It's actually going to then end up caught by the berm or the swale. If they can leave the
vegetation a little longer, it's going to stop the flight of the ball so it's not going any farther into the wet
area. And then what is the distance, and this I couldn't answer. The distance between where the net is and
46
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
the actual property line or the beginning of the wetland or that area that they need to then collect those golf
balls. But that was one at least solution that we hadn't come up with as we were doing either wildlife gates
or nets to the ground. So I thought that was at least one thing to consider. With the lighting, again the
comments being the compatibility with this project with the surrounding property. Having the wildlife
refuges on either side to now light this property is completely against the Fish and Wildlife's
comprehensive plan and heaven knows we all can appreciate the comp plan. And their goals for this area.
As we keep saying, well there's already lights on the highway. There's lights coming over from Shakopee.
There's lights from the cars. Well, the whole big issue that's being spoken to now nationally is light
pollution and I know you as a council have addressed the whole light pollution issue. Well we're talking
about adding a whole system within a wildlife refuge. No, it's not part of it but it's boundaried on both
sides and I had posed the question to Fish and Wildlife. You know have you ever considered, have you
ever gone in for the funding to add this piece of property? Well the initial legislation didn't allow for them
to go after any of the upland properties. They ended up tabling, I gather, a plan two years ago that would
have included their requesting funding for some of these upland areas with the priority being given that to
now have the lower area as the refuge, if they can add the upland areas, they've now created that refuge
area for the wildlife to retreat to. When they need to. If we develop the whole thing, and I realize this isn't
talking about developing the entire area. They don't have a place to retreat and they need the different
ecosystems in order to survive. As it was explained to me, and I don't understand either the concept of
these animals walking back and forth across this property, but as they need different ecosystems, yes.
There is going to be movement. They have a pattern for where they know where they can find either their
correct nesting sites, and I don't know where a turtle nests but you know Larry Gillette is telling me, no.
The turtles are going to move from the wet area into the upland area and all these wildlife issues were
addressed in key points that both the DNR and the Fish and Wildlife gave to staff in their memos and both
of them are concerned with the lighting. One of the conditions that they each gave was no lighting, and I do
think that that's substantial that they stepped forward on that particular issue. A question that was posed
to me was mosquito control. When we all know what the mosquitoes are like once you get down there by
the river. Right now no mosquito treating is allowed within the refuge areas which is where the breeding
area is going to be for the mosquitoes that are then going to be coming over onto the upland area. It was
mentioned apparently in the conversation with the applicant that they would not approve any kind of
spraying for mosquitoes for the adults. It's a harsher chemical than treating for the actual larvae. There's
chemical drift from the spraying that would then affect the refuge areas so one of the things that apparently
they had hoped would be a condition for the approval, and I would like to maybe see you include it is
making sure that there are no chemical treatments for mosquitoes on this property. Again, out of if
anything consideration for the refuges on other side there that are working with us on this to try to make
sure that we're doing the best for all the properties involved. And I guess lastly, it is very impressive that
they would consider the conservation easement. I mean realizing that that's no small issue. That they
would consider proposing that the city would be receiving the other 70 or 75 acres is indeed impressive that
would provide that buffer be it to the other refuge areas so if that does happen, at least that would be one
plus. But if you were to place this in this location. I mean the project's wonderful. It's like, I don't think
anyone has a problem with the project. It's fitting it in this location. It just seems like there's more
compatible environments for this type of a facility and I realize that there's good reasons for them to want
to put it here but with all of the variances that you need to consider, they're there for a reason and this
particular area, if anything warrants the consideration on the conservation piece of it. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Very good. Anyone else wishing to address the Council?
Wayne Larson: Hi. Wayne Larson. I live at 6801 Brule. I enjoy the game of golf. You won't find me
out there hitting balls when he's 10 degrees below zero. Maybe they'll have other customers but I won't be
47
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
one of them. And a big wind blowing in from one direction or another in the winter will have an affect on
my being able to be out there, especially in the evening. No matter how warm it is in those bunkers. But I
think that this is an area, as I've driven by, that it made sense to me that something be done in there at some
point and this seems to be, as a golfer I think the golf courses and so on are a wonderful spot for the
environment, if you use reasonable techniques of taking care of it. So I'd ask you to find a way to make it
happen.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Appreciate it. Anyone else?
Jim Sellerud: Hi. I'm Jim Sellerud and I live 730 Vogelsberg Trail, just up the hill. I didn't get one of
those notices but that's alright. A lot going on in this city. I think the City Council is faced with, well and
the Planning Commission as well, with developing a vision for that whole area of town and it's been, that's
been stated and restated for the past 20 years and there have been many visions and many ideas but nothing
seems to be very enduring. Nothing's caught either the imagination or dollars of investors to make things
happen and unfortunately I think the mechanism that we treat this with then is this interim zoning technique
which, it's led to just a whole range of miscellaneous kinds of developments thinking that well we always
have the out. That it won't be there forever. Just wait until sewer and water comes in. Then something
real good will happen and so it also means that the City Council I think feels it would be too onerous to
place unreasonable expectations on people because they don't want to see them put too much money in
because it's time limited. Somewhere out there there's a horizon that everybody will have to face. You
give into the land owners because sure, they should be able to develop their property but we're in this
interim. So I think that makes for some uncomfortable compromises and in some ways I think it gets you
off the hook because it's just time limited. My particular interest in that whole area would be that we find
uses that are as compatible with what existed there some time ago and I think the transportation's always
been there. The open space has been there. And I think outdoor recreation fits that just real well and golf
is about as non-invasive as a development pattern in an area as maybe we in the neighborhood or we in the
city could find. I still don't know, I think we're backing into this one like we backed into many in terms of
what's the vision for the city for that major entrance but I think golf works real well. Especially seasonal
golf and maybe non lit golf. My concern with lighting is not so much the, sure there's the wildlife and so
forth but even people who fly in on that pattern over the city, now they'll be, some of that area will be filled
in with lights. People who have the 20 mile vistas that look down through the valley, some of that will now
be filled in with lights and I think that's, maybe it's a compromise you have to accept to make this a viable
project but I'd rather see it seasonal. Have snow cover that area in the wintertime as it does now. Two
other points. I'd like to see the council have interim zoning that was time limited, not just when sewer and
water becomes available because there's the possibility that sewer and water might never serve a particular
area in that region. And so I think a time horizon of 15 years is beyond the plans, the current plans but if
the current plans don't happen, then the investor knows what their horizon is. The last one I think hasn't
been talked about at all tonight but I would, while I wholeheartedly welcome the golf and I think the
animals will do pretty well down there anyway, I'd be interested that there is never a beer or liquor license
provided at that location. I don't think, I think golf is a fine destination. An activity in that area. A
recreational activity but I think it becomes something other than what has been talked about if there is
beverage service there that becomes a place to go to for that, even though I know many golfers would say
well I want a brew rather than just a coke. I think that limitation in this interim time period could be
imposed and it would, that would be an upfront way of saying this is what this is intended for is golf, not
something else. That's all. Thanks.
Mayor Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Council?
48
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
David Albright: ... 20 seconds to clear up... One is, and I would believe anything Kate told me but my
impression from talking with Kate in the Planning Commission is, that with respect to the issue of sewer
and water, at least on that side of 212, the answer is never. Or at least never in our lifetime. Two. It's a
conditional use in that particular zoning area. A golf course with or without driving range. Now a driving
range is interim use and my understanding of the trade-offs that kind of went on between the developers and
the planning staff and the planning commission is that they actually preferred an interim permit so they felt
they could have a little bit tighter control over things like ecological issues and runoff and this, that and the
other thing. But you know I appreciate the gentleman's comments but it really, it's a conditional use by
your own ordinances. It's not an interim use by ordinance. An interim use by request and compromise.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Kate Aanenson: I can address. It is an interim use.
Mayor Mancino: It is an interim use?
Kate Aanenson: The conditional use is for the alteration of a flood plain. This use is an interim use in the
A2. The way this was originally set up in the A2 district is to allow those pieces of property in the city that
did not have urban services, to give them some other use of their property so it is an interim use and it was
intended to provide until such time that higher and better use was available. That sewer, that there may be
a higher and better uses, a subdivision or something else would come into play so really it was intended for
a holding use of that piece of property. Something besides agricultural, similar to what we did on Swings.
Ultimately we knew that Highway 5 would be going through there and that that use would change but we
felt that was an appropriate interim use to that property because more than likely the farming practices
wasn't happening there.
Mayor Mancino:...
Kate Aanenson: The interim use does require a time frame but because it was never the city's goal to serve
sewer south of 212, which is a correct statement, we just said we would do an annual inspection.
Ultimately it's my opinion that this would a more permanent type of use with the investments they've put in
there but we would be viewing it annually. I mean we don't see it becoming anything else. This probably
is the highest use for that piece of property. A golf type operation. We don't see providing sewer south of,
it's not our goal to provide sewer south of 212/169 so if it stayed this way, as long as it was meeting the
conditions, we certainly have the right to review it annually to make sure it's in compliance but that's, and
that's a condition we put on just annual review. That would be the time frame. That's what the Planning
Commission was struggling with. To making sure that there were conditions that were measurable and
achievable on both sides. That they were reasonable. That we could measure those and reasonable for
them to make that sort of investment. That they had reasonable expectations of what we were measuring.
But the interim use as a general does have a time frame. Until such time sewer and water is available or, so
if you want to make it 20, 30 years. 99 years or something.
Mayor Mancino: And staff did not address a time horizon in here.
Kate Aanenson: No. Roger may have a comment that we should put some in there on it.
Mayor Mancino: Roger, you commented that we should put a time.
49
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Roger Knutson: I haven't said a thing.
Mayor Mancino: Do you feel we should?
Roger Knutson: Yes. By the nature of the beast. I mean it doesn't have to be 99 years. It can be when
sewer and water is available. Plus 99 years. Something's supposed to trigger it to come to an end.
Whether that event ever happens or not. If you say sewer, I never say. I'm trying to say never except when
I say that but if you want to say when sewer and water is available to the site.
Mayor Mancino: When will sewer and water be available to the northern side of 2127
Kate Aanenson: That's the last area we'd be bringing in.
Mayor Mancino: Is that 2020?
Roger Knutson: Which says, just so we're clear, that doesn't necessarily mean the use has to go away
when the interim use permit would come to an end. Someone could still come in and say, well how will it
be zoned then. No one can even speculate but however it would be zoned then, you could ask for that to be
a conditional use at that point in that zoning district. Whenever that happens.
Mayor Mancino: Because someone might apply and want sewer and water south of 212 and at that point
we may want to change it or.
Kate Aanenson: Right. I guess what we're saying is the comprehensive plan, ultimately this is consistent
with the ultimate use of the comprehensive plan. And in the fact that we never intended to provide sewer
and water and the land use is still correct with the ultimate land use...
Mayor Mancino: Well the ultimate land use is parks and open space and large lot residential.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. The zoning A2. The large lot resident, correct.
Mayor Mancino: Large lot residential is what the land use plan calls for.
Roger Knutson: You can do that as soon as there's no sewer and water and obviously you might think
differently about it if the sewer and water was available.
Mayor Mancino: Now we'll bring it back to Council. Do you have, you have one last comment and then
we close it to the public and no talking from the floor please once we bring it back to Council. And if we
have questions, Council will direct them to me and I will direct them to any, Chris or Jeff but no talking
from the floor. Yes.
Roger Anderson: Mayor and Council, my name is Roger Anderson and I was the civil engineer on the
project. It's a fairly involved project. Lots of things that we've discussed here tonight. A lot of technical
issues and the only thing I wanted to bring up was the requirement for some kind of a conservation
easement or a dedication of the remainder of the property. We've got a 90 acre piece. We're using
approximately a third, a little bit more than that. There's approximately 60 acres left. The purchasers of
the property are discussing with the Fish and Wildlife or DNR or whichever agency may get involved, how
that property is handled. There are substantial restrictions on that property already. It's primarily wetland.
50
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Much of it is already controlled by DNR, Corps of Engineers and they are negotiating with the Fish and
Wildlife. It's their intent to leave that as a natural land. They understand that there are restrictions on it
but it seems that just placing a blanket easement on that for conservation purposes may not be the way to
go. They're willing to work with the Fish and Wildlife and it seems to me that they should be allowed to do
that. They agree to do it but not with placing an easement on it that may or may not get the job done that's
expected here. That's all I have, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: And Kate, is that...
Kate Aanenson: Can I clarify that? That would be condition 19. Clearly the intent was the first sentence
on page 17, condition 19. No additional development occur outside the current proposal. If you just left
that as the sentence, that's fine. There was a lot of discussion of ways that they could achieve that but
that's really the intent of that and I think this makes sense as part of a condition of the interim use permit
where we attached it. And that is no development occur outside the current proposal. You can just leave it
at that. The rest of that sentence talks about ways that it could be conveyed but that's something that they
could work out but we're saying as a condition for us and I think that's a good condition.
Roger Knutson: I recommend that and the interim use, at least theoretically may come to an end someday.
Then that restriction theoretically could come to... sewer and water, which won't occur does occur.
Mayor Mancino: Comments. Steve.
Councilman Berquist: Well I wasn't here to hear the first part of your question but... I like the project .... I
like the pitch and putt. I like the driving range... One big question I've got... I'll address my question to
you. Because you're going to address it to them, right?
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Councilman Berquist: I need to have convincing.., lights besides extending the hours. The lighting is really
only going to extend the hours on that driving range for.., and I have a very difficult time conceiving that
the expenditure to, for him to buy, install and operate the lights in the wintertime is worth while and I have
a real problem. The problem with the project that I have is with the lights and I have heard no compelling
reason, aside from extending the hours of a range operation, that is worthwhile.
Mayor Mancino: Have you ever done a business plan for... ?
Councilman Berquist: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: ... what your revenue is going to be and what your expenses are?
Councilman Berquist: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Does it ever hold up when you're doing something... Jeff, if you could come up and
respond to that.
JeffHelstrom: Let's just say we had half of our stalls full, and let's just assume that a lot of people want
to golf in the evening, because they're working during the day. And let's assume that we have only half of
the stalls full. It's going to be roughly $18.00 to $20.00 an hour for each stall. That's kind of what the
51
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
domes are at now. So that's $306.00 per hour times 4 hours a night is $1,224.00 a day. $8,568.00 a
week and roughly $34,000.00 a month in lost revenue.
Councilman Berquist: Sorry Jeff, I perhaps didn't state the question properly. Is there any compelling
reason besides extending the range hours during the wintertime for the lights?
JeffHelstrom: It's just a winter use. I mean the fact that people, that's the time when they're going to
want to come and hit balls. A lot of people and we're just going to lose a lot of business because of that
and it's money that, lost money that we can't put back into the project. I mean we really want it to be a
great project and something that works for everybody and it's those lost revenues that we don't have to, I
mean we want to keep building on it and we really need that revenue.
Councilman Berquist: I understand that. I'm looking at projects, thinking about projects for instance
there's one at 55 and 101 that's not open in the winter. It doesn't have any lights. It seems to be
reasonably successful from what little I know about it. I agree with a lot of the things that the various
people that have come before us have said. The Audubon Sanctuary Program. I like the idea ofberming
the nets rather than trying to have wildlife gates. I'm not a expert on wildlife in any shape of the
imagination but I'm sure the other people are. Treatment for mosquitoes, I dislike those little devils so I'd
like to see them all erased. Mr. Larson spoke in favor of the facility however he didn't specifically mention
anything about the lights. I think to a person, everyone here is in favor of some use. Your use is a very
good use. I agree with Mr. Sellerud regarding the liquor. I'd also like to see some sunset on the interim
aspect. However, knowing that this thing will never get sewer and water lends a permanency to it that I'd
like us to consider as well. I'm talking circles. I looked through the, just to make a summation here. I
looked through the conditional use permit for a flood plain. I'm okay with that. Interim use permit for a
golf and driving range. I'm okay with that. Site plan review for a golf and driving range. I'm okay with
that. Variance to the hours of operation. That means lights. I'm not okay with that. Code amendment to
allow restaurant and pro shop. I think I'm fine with that but I would have a hard time accepting liquor.
Wetland alteration permit. I'm okay with that. I'll pass it on.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Mark.
Councilman Engel: When I drive over that bluff line I see hundreds of acres of swampland, and I'm talking
about when I come down 101 over to 212/169. And I'm not talking about just this land. I mean the whole
valley down there. It's unusable land except for looking at it as far as I can tell. There's very few uses of
the private land in that corridor. It's strictly I think for looking at, as far as I can envision it. There's no
way you could build a development or a commercial enterprise in there that I think can last. This is one of
them. It's one of the very few. I think the applicant is willing to dedicate a portion of the land or call it
what you want. Undevelopable status can give a sizeable buffer area from what I can tell in this drawing.
As far as I'm concerned, you can carpet bomb the mosquitoes out of there. I can't stand them myself. The
lighting issue I think has been dealt with in a sensitive manner. It's been trimmed back in terms of height
and the shielding. I think they've addressed it. They're talking about the trees. I'd be willing to give a
pass on that one as well. I didn't like the 50 foot standards before and I wasn't aware of this shielding so
I'm okay with the lights too. It's a unique project. I think we can see more of them in the Midwest. I think
it's ago.
Councilman Mason: Well I'll be honest. I don't golf. I don't understand the game. I don't understand
how anybody could conceivably enjoy it but.
52
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Councilman Engel: You're right about that.
Councilman Mason: I think it's a great project. I will be, I'll try to cut to the quick here too. I have
problems with the lights. I have problems with the restaurant. Pre-packaged food, I guess I don't care
about. I'm assuming you would have lots of hot chocolate available. I have a real tough time believing
that people are going to come out at 8:00 February 13th with the wind chill of 70 below. I just, I can't, ifI
could fit those two together, I'd say okay. I don't like lights. I've been on light pollution before it was
popular. I can't go along with the lights as it stands right now. I could even maybe deal with the lights
until the end of November and starting up in March or something like that but having lights on 7 days a
week, 365 days. Yeah, it wouldn't be that long. Whatever daylight savings is. The light issue I have
trouble with and the restaurant issue I have trouble with. Other than that, I think it's really an interesting
idea.
Councilman Senn: I don't know, I was just going through and writing down different notes here. One that
I haven't heard mentioned I guess that I really like is I like the aspect associated with the tax base. I love
the idea of the preservation aspect as far as the no added development on the 60 acres and some type of an
arrangement coming through on that. I like this as a land use in that area, which is one of the reasons I
guess I'd like not to see a sunset because ultimately this may be the best land use for the area. Versus it's
current guiding. In addition to the use I like the intensity of this use for that area. Looking at it at least in
my mind, seeing in the future a potential higher, more intense use. I like the maximum use and some of the
inherent problems of the site. You go forward with these things, you always like to you know at least pull
out the alter negatives and we all know this is all going to potentially flood once in a while and you know
this seems like a use that's not going to be you know necessarily severely impacted by that. One of the, I'm
going to say the thing that I like about it the most and I guess I'm going to throw on another hat of mine
and I'm going to say that I really like the year round full shot aspect of it and I will give you my compelling
reason for lighting. Okay. Being a former golf team member. Being a former Evan Scholar. Being very
active in supporting golf and scholarships as it relates to golf, one of the serious problems that this state
has is we have no methodology for really good practice and training to occur year round in this state. And
I don't know whether this is the magic answer or not but it's sure in my mind will offer that as an
alternative which is one we don't have now and I think that's compelling. Because I see high school golf
teams down here practicing you know during the times that they normally can't practice in Minnesota. You
know they can't all jump on a plane and you know go play somewhere else in the country, you know in the
off season or whatever. You know we used it competitively and even from a college team standpoint, we
lose a lot of good golfers in this state for that reason and just, I think that is a compelling reason to see this
type of a concept tried and gone ahead with and that's why I would support the lighting concept in it's, how
would I say, altered mode. I think there is some little tweaks that could still happen to this but I don't see
those tweaks as being insurmountable. I would like to see at least some additional options looked at in
terms of the gate issue versus the berm, swale issue or maybe even a system of double netting, first one
high. You know second one low or something to you know allow for better migration or something you
know with an opening in-between or, I don't know. I mean to me that issue I think could use a little
tweaking yet and I think there are some reasons there for it but no. But essentially based on that and those
comments, I'm not going to get carried away but I would support this.
Mayor Mancino: I'll make my comments kind...too. First of all I like the, it's a good interim use.., it's a
fine use. I'm respective on the lighting. I mean I don't think the State loses potential golfers because we
don't have lighting at night. No other state does... And my premise is that, I have a problem with the
outside lighting during the winter time, etc. Is that this is in the middle of the wildlife refuge and the DNR
Department of Interior and things stated very clearly that they do not like lights and they don't think it is a
53
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
good idea. And it is something very special to our city to have a wildlife refuge and so much of it on the
southern part of our city and I would like to keep that intact and follow the direction of the DNR and the
Department of the Interior .... outdoor driving range go somewhere else in the city? Yes... it could go. I
think that this is a very special area and I would like to see it not have the outdoor lighting year round. So I
would not support the planning recommendation for... The nets at first I was concerned with. Came to the
Planning Commission meeting and listened and understand them. I would like to revise the condition.., nets
4 ½ feet high. Maybe a berm on the side. And not the gates. You can go to any wildlife area for predators
that stand right by the gate.., come through it. So I think that that can be refined and I'm sure that the
applicant wouldn't mind doing that. I thought that a couple of the statements were very applicable and
good tonight about the Audubon Sanctuary of course. Obviously the chemicals used for.., should be added.
But I would like to see a horizon date of 2020 for us to look at it. And if this is the best use at that point...
I think we'll know by that point. So I don't see anything wrong with going with the interim use and putting
some time out there and relooking at it at that point. The retail pro shop is permitted and I agree with no
alcoholic beverages that are sold and the food is pre-packaged. No commercial cooking appliances
allowed. The 986 square feet variance is fine with me. The hours of operation would be what's in our
ordinance, sunrise to sunset. So that is, those are my comments.
Councilman Senn: Well I'm going to try a motion then. I'm going to move for a recommendation, or I'm
going to move to approve the conditional use permit for alteration of a flood plain, approval of an interim
use permit for a golf and driving range, approval of a site plan review for a golf and driving range,
approval to variances to Section 20-265 regarding the hours of operation, code amendment to allow a
restaurant and pro shop and wetland alteration permit for impact of .43 acres based upon the
recommendations as listed on pages 15, 16 and 17 with the following changes. One is that as per item 2,
the lighting would be confined to the lighting plan as submitted on page 6 of the plans and the modification
to that of lights Al-A4 being reduced to 30 feet in height and two fixtures per post. Item number 7 being
changed to.
Mayor Mancino: Ah excuse, may I? Well I'll wait until you're done.
Councilman Senn: Item number 7 to be changed to the recommendation as it exists now however with
some tweaking or re-thought essentially of a way to effectively go under the netting and establish some type
of a clear zone. And I think that would be per staff working it out with the applicant and staff's ultimate
approval of that with the concept being that the higher netting is fine but there should be some sort of
clearance at the bottom and some way to deal with that so the ground mammals and stuff can get through.
And then let's see, item 19. I would leave no additional development outside the current proposal period
and drop the rest of it. Let's see here. Item, let's see here. I'd like a condition 21 added. That I would
like term management practices shall be reviewed on an annual basis as to impacts on wildlife, water
quality, restoration after flooding, and fertilization practices. And let's see here. That the condition to the
approval of the restaurant and pro shop to be that there would be no alcoholic beverages and that's it. I
think that's it. And don't ask me to repeat it.
Mayor Mancino: So you're saying there can be commercial cooking appliances?
Councilman Senn: I thought 5 said that it would be pre-packaged.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, but you just said on 5.
Councilman Senn: I just said 5...
54
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Councilman Senn:
Councilman Engel:
amendment?
Mayor Mancino: ... would stay the same.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, right. I thought the main issue there was the alcoholic beverages.
Mayor Mancino: Well, there's also.., pre-packaged or either commercial cooking.
Councilman Engel: Do you want to address that specifically or not?
Councilman Senn: I guess I didn't really hear that addressed one way or another so I'm assuming it's a
non-issue. I don't know.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, if I could.
Mayor Mancino: Yes.
Roger Knutson: Excuse me. It's not proper for me to say anything because it hasn't been seconded at all.
Just two things. First so you know. One item requires a 4/5 vote. That's the code amendment. The others
are a simple majority. Second, the code amendment requires two readings. This would be the first reading
of the code amendment unless.
So you're talking about item number 5?
Code amendment to allow a restaurant and pro shop? That's the only code
Roger Knutson: Correct.
Kate Aanenson: Could they waive their second reading?
Roger Knutson: You can waive the second. Second, the code amendment you can attach conditions to the
code amendment which is no alcoholic beverages. It's either amended or isn't amended. You could attach
that for example to...
Councilman Senn: Okay, well you know.
Mayor Mancino: So let's go ahead and do the code amendment.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I would say take the code amendment out as a separate. I'll withdraw that from
my motion and deal with that as a separate motion and that means I'd also withdraw my part of my motion
on suggesting number 5 which relates to alcohol and food, correct? Because that's where you attach it?
Roger Knutson: You could attach it, no to B. I'm looking at your agenda as printed. The interim use. I
think that'd be the logical place.
Councilman Senn: Oh, okay. So leave that attached.
Roger Knutson: To B. Not as a part of the code amendment but it'd be a condition to B.
55
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Councilman Senn: Okay. And a caveat to the whole motion would be that Roger makes sure that these
conditions are all attached in the proper places under the approvals.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, let's go through this one by one. Let's vote on conditional use permit for
alteration of a flood plain...
Councilman Engel: Well wait a minute. I think he's made one that takes care of all of them except the
code.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, but I want to go through it again and the interim use permit for golf and driving
range.
Councilman Engel: He said that already.
Councilman Senn: Right now the motion was for conditional use permit, interim use, site plan review,
variance and wetland alteration. No code amendment. Okay. And all the conditions as were stated are
attached as conditions and Roger will put them in the right place.
Mayor Mancino: And the interim use, how long? What's the horizon line?
Councilman Senn: 2020. Oh no, I said I move to approve the variance.
Mayor Mancino: So the variance is also to remove the variance.., sunrise to 9:00 October 1st through April
lSt?
Kate Aanenson: That's the Planning Commission's, right.
Councilman Senn: I'm going with the revised Planning Commission recommendation approving a variance
from October 1st through April 1st until 9:00 p.m.., yes.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, great. Is there a second?
Councilman Engel: I'll second it.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Site Plan #98-8 for a golf
improvement center, including Interim Use Permit #98-2 which expires in the year 2020, to allow golf
and driving range in the A2 District, and a Conditional Use Permit #98-2 for alteration of a flood
plain as shown on the plans dated June 22, 1998, subject to the following conditions:
1. The building shall be painted brown.
2. The lighting would be confined to the lighting plan as submitted on page 6 of the plans and the
modification to that of lights Al-A4 being reduced to 30 feet in height and two fixtures per post.
Landscaping should be placed on the eastern side of the parking lot to screen the lot.
3. Signage shall be as per City Code section 20 Article XXVI.
56
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
11.
12.
13.
14.
The applicant will be required to plant 45 trees as replacement plantings within the proposed
development. A landscape plan must be submitted to the city for approval.
Landscape plan shall be revised to include 3 landscaped islands or peninsulas and 6 overstory trees
for the parking lot.
The applicant will be responsible for applying for and obtaining changes to the FEMA flood plain maps
to reflect developed conditions. The applicant shall further define, graphically, the proposed flood
plain boundary and provide justification for the changes.
Staff is recommending that additional study be done on wildlife migration to establish the nets
offering enough of a clear zone to accommodate the migration of animals. The most westerly net
shall be modified to change from 50 feet to 20 feet.
The chemicals to be applied should be consistent with the program submitted by the applicant.
Storage of all maintenance equipment and chemicals shall be out of the flood plain.
MnDOT is recommending that the driveway be widened. A permit from MnDOT is required.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-
mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
The applicant shall provide detailed storm drainage calculations for the ponds and ditch during 1 O-year
and 100-year, 24-hour storm events in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for
the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall also provide normal water level and high
water level elevations of the created ponds and/or ditches.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and
Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
No bermmg, drainage improvements or landscaping will be allowed within Trunk Highway 212 right-of-
way.
The plans shall be modified as follows:
a. The existing well shall be located and shown on the plans.
b. Relocate rock construction entrance south at a point where the existing driveway will be
altered/reconstructed.
c. Demonstrate where and how much filling and excavating will occur within the flood plain, i.e.
quantities of each activity.
d. Show normal and high water elevation of each pond.
57
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
e. Add silt fence downstream of proposed berms and practice green No. 1 in the northwest comer of
the site.
f. Provide temporary and/or permanent erosion control measures around sediment pond in northeast
comer of the site.
g. Incorporate MnDOT's comments regarding widening of the driveway at Trunk Highway 212 and
right-of-way identification per letter dated May 21, 1998.
h. Locate alternative mound site and preserve from construction activities.
i. Add landscape islands in parking lot.
j. Add curbs along north side of parking lot to direct runoff to sediment pond.
18.
The applicant shall be responsible for maintenance of the storm drainage improvements (ponds and
ditches). Failure to properly maintain the storm drainage improvement shall give the City the right to hire
out the work and bill the applicant and/or revoke the interim use permit."
19. No additional development outside the current proposal.
20.
The applicant should have a fertilizer and pesticide management plan, approved by the City staff and
reviewed by Fish and Wildlife and DNR to ensure minimal chemical impacts to the surrounding
property. In addition the applicant shall provide annual soil samples before chemical are applied to
demonstrate there is a need."
21.
The conditional use permit shall be reviewed annually on the following basis: impacts to the wildlife,
the water quality, restoration after flooding and implementing a fertilizer/pesticide plan as approved
by the City staff.
Councilman Senn and Councilman Engel voted in favor of the motion. Mayor Mancino, Councilman
Mason and Councilman Berquist voted in opposition to the motion. The motion failed with a vote of
2to3.
Also Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Wetland Alteration Permit
#98-1 per the site plan and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide a buffer zone between wetlands the limits of the pitch and putt golf course.
Wetland Conservation Act and the City of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan
requirements.
The applicant receive permits from the jurisdiction agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers
and the DNR.
The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook. Type III erosion control fencing will be required around the
existing wetlands.
58
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
City will provide wetland buffer edge signs and charge the applicant $20 per sign. The applicant shall
vehfy the location of these signs with the City's Water Resources Coordinator and shall install these
signs before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20
per sign.
Councilman Senn and Councilman Engel voted in favor of the motion. Mayor Mancino, Councilman
Mason and Councilman Berquist voted in opposition to the motion. The motion failed with a vote of
2to3.
And Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve Variance #98-1 for extended
hours of operation from sunrise to 9:00 p.m. to run from October 1st through April 1st for the
purposes of teaching and practicing golf from interior dugouts, and approval of the square footage of
the office/clubhouse to 986 square feet as per the site plan and the findings in the staff report based on
the rationale to allow lights and extended hours of operation is because the use itself does not
necessarily allow offensive type of commercial enterprise. The fact that it is surrounded by pretty
closely by two highways that have already a great deal of light pollution. Because the applicant is
considering and should actually do, restrict through either a conservation easement or a dedication of
the land not being used, to the wildlife refuge as a reason to grant this. And because it is really not an
interim use permit as typically seen but a longer range permit. Councilman Senn and Councilman
Engel voted in favor of the motion. Mayor Mancino, Councilman Mason and Councilman Berquist
voted in opposition to the motion. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Mayor Mancino: Can I hear another motion?
Councilman Berquist: I'll try it individually. I hate to restate, but I suppose I should. We'll take item 1.
Conditional use permit for alteration of a flood plain. It's on page.., straight forward and I need to amend.
On page 15. I don't need to do anything for alteration of a flood plain. I'll amend this to that. That's a
straight motion, is it not?
Kate Aanenson: Well there was some modifications on it.
Mayor Mancino: And where is that?
Kate Aanenson: Number 7. We had modified it to work out the fence issue.
Councilman Berquist: Okay. So I move approval of conditional use permit for alteration of a flood plain
and condition number 7. What I'd like to amend it to is in keeping with DNR recommendations.., be it 4 1/2
feet and I think the berm is a good idea. There's one other thing. It's lighting. I'll get to that I guess.
That's...
Roger Knutson: Mayor, if I could just point out. The recommendation as amended, but sitting on page 15
is not just, these are, they wrap several items together. And so these conditions apply not just to the flood
plain alteration. They apply collectively to site plan, flood plain and interim use.
59
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Councilman Berquist: So what's the best way to word this Roger?
Roger Knutson: Either you make...
Councilman Berquist: All conditions that are applicable to the.
Roger Knutson: You could move to approve all three of those items collectively. Or you could sort of,
which I would not recommend, which apply to which.
Councilman Senn: And that's what I was trying to do what I did in the first place. You can't sort them
out.
Councilman Mason: Well you could do A, B and C together.
Councilman Berquist: 1, 2 and 3?
Councilman Mason: Well, 5A, 5B and 5C, right?
Roger Knutson: Yeah.
Councilman Mason: You need to do 5A, 5B and 5C together. I mean clearly the sticking point is D so I
mean let's just.
Roger Knutson: And F for that matter. Wetland Alteration permit.
Councilman Berquist: Alright... alteration of flood plain, move interim use permit for a golf and driving
range, interim sunset date, interim use sunset date of the year 2020, and I want to assign no liquor permit to
that interim use permit. And included the site plan review for the golf and driving range with conditions as
detailed in the staff report, specifically with the changes to lighting. A 30 foot pole lights. 150 watt
parking fixtures. Parking lot fixtures.
Roger Knutson: You're excluding the, it wasn't clear. I'm sorry but you're excluding the lighting of the
driving range?
Councilman Senn: See, I told you I get confused.
Mayor Mancino: There's parking lot lighting and there's driving range.
Councilman Berquist: Scratch all reference to lighting. The rest of the conditions as detailed in the staff
report.
Mayor Mancino: Except for 7 you wanted to change.
Councilman Berquist: Except for 7 which I wish to change and modify to the DNR recommendations for
wildlife migration and impacts. Adding condition 21.
Roger Knutson: You wanted to amend condition 19.
60
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Councilman Berquist: I will .... 21. The conditional use be reviewed on an annual basis.., fertilizers and
land uses, water quality and... Condition number 19 1 want to read simply no additional development
outside the current proposal period. That should do.
Councilman Senn: I have a question. In your netting then are you saying that the nets should be 4 ½ feet
high or should be 4 ½ feet off the ground?
Councilman Berquist: The DNR, it is 4 ½ feet off the ground. Good question.
Councilman Senn: You didn't stipulate.
Councilman Berquist: Does that make any sense at all to anybody?
Mayor Mancino: And do you, may I just ask the question.., parking lot lights?
Councilman Berquist: No. Within the context of the motion that I have made there is no lighting...
Councilman Mason: Inclusive of parking lot lighting?
Councilman Berquist: Inclusive of parking lot lighting.
Councilman Senn: I have a question ifI could for Roger then. If this passes, this motion passes, and the
applicants choose not to proceed because effectively it's not going to be a year round thing, then effectively
somebody else can still come in and implement this without it being the applicant or whatever? More or
less this approval is there and it's on he site.
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Councilman Berquist: Is parking lot lighting something that we, I would assume have to...
Kate Aanenson: Well what we said is that we felt it was overlit and they did provide photometrics so that's
why we'd like to see it meet ordinance. We felt that the wattage was too high and there wasn't enough...
Parking lot could have some low level lighting. That would be... but we haven't seen the design that's
acceptable yet.
Councilman Berquist: ...
Kate Aanenson: Well yeah again. Seeing the photometrics and what the spillover is.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, people often want security lighting around the buildings.
Councilman Berquist: Yeah, if you're sitting there hitting balls until 9:00. You know if you're hitting the
balls and you're walking out to your car when it's dark, you want lights. That's true.
Mayor Mancino: Would...
61
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Councilman Berquist: I thank you for putting words in my mouth. I appreciate it. Yes. Enough lighting
for the parking lot and for the security surrounding the office and business areas of the facility.
Mayor Mancino: That meets city ordinance.
Councilman Berquist: That meets ordinance.
Mayor Mancino: And then we'll, that's one motion and you want to do a second motion with variances
later?
Roger Knutson: ... 3 and 4. The wetland alteration permit.
Councilman Engel: 6 is the bottom. You might as well pull that one in too.
Councilman Mason: Mark, he's going off of this.
Councilman Engel: Okay, he's using A and we're using 6.
Councilman Mason: Steve, A, B, C and F.
Councilman Berquist: A, B, C and F?
Councilman Mason: Yeah.
Councilman Berquist: I'll move approval.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: I will second that. I seconded the motion as stated to include A, B, C and F according
to our agenda.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded seconded to approve Site Plan #98-8 for a
golf improvement center, including Interim Use Permit #98-2 which expires in the year 2020, to allow
golf and driving range in the A2 District, and a Conditional Use Permit #98-2 for alteration of a flood
plain as shown on the plans dated June 22, 1998, subject to the following conditions:
1. The building shall be painted brown.
2. Lighting of the site will be limited to security lighting and parking lot lighting per city ordinance.
Landscaping should be placed on the eastern side of the parking lot to screen the lot.
3. Signage shall be as per City Code section 20 Article XXVI.
4. The applicant will be required to plant 45 trees as replacement plantings within the proposed
development. A landscape plan must be submitted to the city for approval.
62
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
11.
12.
13.
14.
Landscape plan shall be revised to include 3 landscaped islands or peninsulas and 6 overstory trees
for the parking lot.
The applicant will be responsible for applying for and obtaining changes to the FEMA flood plain maps
to reflect developed conditions. The applicant shall further define, graphically, the proposed flood
plain boundary and provide justification for the changes.
The nets shall comply with the recommendation of the DNR, including the condition that the nets
be 4 ½ feet off the ground. The most westerly net shall be modified to change from 50 feet to 20
feet.
The chemicals to be applied should be consistent with the program submitted by the applicant.
Storage of all maintenance equipment and chemicals shall be out of the flood plain.
MnDOT is recommending that the driveway be widened. A permit from MnDOT is required.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-
mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
The applicant shall provide detailed storm drainage calculations for the ponds and ditch during 1 O-year
and 100-year, 24-hour storm events in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for
the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall also provide normal water level and high
water level elevations of the created ponds and/or ditches.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and
Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
No bermmg, drainage improvements or landscaping will be allowed within Trunk Highway 212 right-of-
way.
The plans shall be modified as follows:
a. The existing well shall be located and shown on the plans.
b. Relocate rock construction entrance south at a point where the existing driveway will be
altered/reconstructed.
c. Demonstrate where and how much filling and excavating will occur within the flood plain, i.e.
quantities of each activity.
d. Show normal and high water elevation of each pond.
e. Add silt fence downstream of proposed berms and practice green No. 1 in the northwest comer of
the site.
63
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
f. Provide temporary and/or permanent erosion control measures around sediment pond in northeast
comer of the site.
g. Incorporate MnDOT's comments regarding widening of the driveway at Trunk Highway 212 and
right-of-way identification per letter dated May 21, 1998.
h. Locate alternative mound site and preserve from construction activities.
i. Add landscape islands in parking lot.
j. Add curbs along north side of parking lot to direct runoff to sediment pond.
18.
The applicant shall be responsible for maintenance of the storm drainage improvements (ponds and
ditches). Failure to properly maintain the storm drainage improvement shall give the City the right to hire
out the work and bill the applicant and/or revoke the interim use permit."
19. No additional development outside the current proposal.
20.
The applicant should have a fertilizer and pesticide management plan, approved by the City staff and
reviewed by Fish and Wildlife and DNR to ensure minimal chemical impacts to the surrounding
property. In addition the applicant shall provide annual soil samples before chemical are applied to
demonstrate there is a need."
21.
The conditional use permit shall be reviewed annually on the following basis: impacts to the wildlife,
the water quality, restoration after flooding and implementing a fertilizer/pesticide plan as approved
by the City staff.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Wetland Alteration Permit
#98-1 per the site plan and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide a buffer zone between wetlands the limits of the pitch and putt golf course.
Wetland Conservation Act and the City of Chanhassen Surface Water Management Plan
requirements.
The applicant receive permits from the jurisdiction agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers
and the DNR.
The applicant shall develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook. Type III erosion control fencing will be required around the
existing wetlands.
Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
City will provide wetland buffer edge signs and charge the applicant $20 per sign. The applicant shall
vehfy the location of these signs with the City's Water Resources Coordinator and shall install these
signs before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
64
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
6. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20
per sign.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Berquist: Okay now I will do item, you're talking about A,B, C, D and F.
Councilman Senn: If you look at your agenda it says.
Councilman Mason: In terms of the code amendment, I would like the, and I'm fine with waiving second
reading. I will go with the staff report for a code amendment to allow restaurant and pro shop as stated in
staff report which is a retail pro shop is permitted if no alcoholic beverages are sold and food is pre-
packaged. There is no commercial cooking appliance allowed. Retail sales is limited to golf related items
and the pro shop.
Mayor Mancino: I'll second that.
Kate Aanenson: He said allow for a retail pro shop.
Roger Knutson: The code amendment does.
Kate Aanenson: No, that's what I'm recommending.
Councilman Mason: And that's what I just moved, right?
Kate Aanenson: But you said we shouldn't put the alcohol in there.
Roger Knutson: Whatever the text, you're moving to approve the text amendment. Whatever the text
amendment says that's in front of you, that's you move to approve.
Councilman Mason: That's what I just moved to approve.
Mayor Mancino: I'll second that.
Councilman Mason moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to approve the first reading of Code
Amendment #98-1 to amend Section 20-265, Standards for Golf Driving Ranges as follows:
5. A retail pro shop is permitted if no alcoholic beverages are sold and food is prepacl~aged. There
is no commercial cooMng appliance allowed. Retail sales is limited to golf related items and the
pro shop.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Roger Knutson: ... waive the second reading and adopt the ordinance.
Councilman Mason: I will also move to waive second reading and adopt the ordinance.
65
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Councilman Berquist: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to waive the second reading of the code
amendment and to adopt the ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, do we have anything else to do?
Councilman Engel: D.
Councilman Berquist: Now we have D to do.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, we have D to do which is the variance to Section 20-265, hours of operation.
Councilman Berquist: I'm going to move denial on the hours of operation.
Roger Knutson: Mayor? You also want to at the same time state the reason for your denial based upon the
Findings of Fact as set forth in your planning report and to adopt them by reference?
Councilman Berquist: Yes. I'll move denial of...hours of operation.
Councilman Mason: And approval of square footage?
Councilman Berquist: And approval of square footage.
Councilman Mason: I will second that.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded on Variance #98-1 to deny the request for
extended hours of operation based on the Findings of Fact as set forth in the planning report and
adopted by reference, and to approve the square footage of the office/club house to 986 square feet as
per the site plan and the findings in the staff report. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn and
Councilman Engel who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: MEALS ON WHEELS PROJECT, SHARMIN AL-
JAFF.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you. Just briefly. The Chanhassen congregate dining program has been in
operation since October 31st of 1997. As of the end of June of this year we've served 1,898 meals. The
program is definitely serving a much needed need in the community. It's always been the ultimate goal of
this program to provide meals on wheels and serve those that are home bound. We initially presented this
item to you and said let us get the congregate dining portion of it up and running and then when we're in a
position to implement the second phase, we would come back to you. At this point the Senior Commission
has evaluated the program. We are in a position to move forward with the second phase. The Lions Club
has donated funds specifically to move this program forward and the Senior Commission recommended that
on August 31st of this year that we would have the program available. Volunteers are available to start
delivering meals and basically everything is in place.
66
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Kate Aanenson: When you last looked at this item your concern was whether or not South Shore could
service this. You asked us again to request that. Sharmin did follow up on that. That need cannot be met
through South Shore. We have residents that are requesting this service and the Senior Commission feels
strongly as part of their goals that they want to meet that need of people that cannot come out and Meals on
Wheels. Again, there's a service gap there. There was a request to check with the County. See what other
services they do and if you have questions on that, Sharmin can give you a report on social services that the
county provides but there is a gap for people to receive meals that are home bound and that's why we're
coming back. There isn't a budget increase. It's being met internally. No budgetary increase but just to
let you know that we want to go forward with what the Senior Commission's desires are and that's to meet
that need.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: We have received about 7 phone calls and once the word is out that the service is not
available to you basically, they stop calling. Soon we would like to let them know that this is available to
them and again we're assuming that there will be maybe 7. 4 to 7 individuals that will be requesting the
service.
Kate Aanenson: Immediately.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Immediately, yes.
Mayor Mancino: And there is no...
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Basically what's happening is the size of the tray is going to be a little bit larger. The
person.., will be heating the meal and then you've got volunteers that will be dishing the portions and
packaging them. And then volunteers will pick up the meal and actually deliver so there won't be any
added costs there. We've got the money for it. We haven't ordered them yet but yes. They were donated.
Councilman Senn: What funds did the Lions donate?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: The trays for Meals on Wheels.
Councilman Senn: The amount to purchase the trays?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: $1,290.00. Somewhere around there and I'm speaking from memory.
Kate Aanenson: That was last year. We apprised you of that last year.
Councilman Senn: The cost of what you're looking at for the trays? On an ongoing basis or how often do
those have to be?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: They're, you just bring them back and wash them.
Councilman Senn: Okay, but their contribution is a one time contribution then?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: ...
67
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Councilman Senn: No, my point is is they are not agreeing to fund the program. They're agreeing to fund
the one time purchase of it.
Kate Aanenson: But they are re-useable.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions?
Councilman Mason: You're looking for a motion?
Mayor Mancino: Well I was going to see if anyone wanted to speak to this. I saw two people here. It's
kind of late.
Councilman Mason: They just want to see it approved. I don't know that they want to speak to it...
Sherol Howard: I really thought this was a part of the original package so it's just a question of when we
were ready to implement it. I wanted you to know we have a very good.., system. Kara Wickenhauser who
is...and we have drivers lined up. We had a young person out in the hall who's been a Deephaven... She
had several telephone calls she had to make before 10:30 so we recruited her as a driver and...
Mayor Mancino: Okay, any other questions?
Councilman Berquist: I have a question. You talked about the South Shore. Taking over the
Chanhassen... what affect that would have because a lot of the volunteer drivers were driving for South
Shore. Are we going to...
Sharmin A1-Jaff: We promised, the concern came from St. Hubert's mainly and we promised St. Hubert's
that we would not go and recruit any volunteers from St. Hubert's. If they would like to drive for the
senior center, that's fine but the city would not go out and specifically seek out St. Hubert's and say, don't
volunteer for that program and just volunteer for Chanhassen. And A10lson needs to promise not to tell
St. Hubert's parishioners that the program is up and running.
Councilman Engel: We'd better have that one in writing.
Councilman Berquist: So as it stands we won't be, it hopefully will have no effect and those programs will
continue to function...
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. And actually St. Hubert's has said, the two people that are served in the north
portion of Chanhassen, they said it's perfectly fine with them that we serve that area as well.
Councilman Senn: One other question just to kind of get it on the table. At what point, okay if this is
starting out with 4 to 7 people, and there's no added cost for it. At what point is this program going to
necessitate you coming back in and asking for more city dollars?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Right now we have budgeted for approximately 3 ½ hours per day for Joyce. The
number of meals would have to go up to probably 25 or so.
Councilman Senn: In this program?
68
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Meals served per day.
Councilman Senn: So 25 plus per day.
Kate Aanenson: But ultimately, that includes congregate dining too. I mean ultimately we see that
program expanding somewhat too. The numbers.., could handle down there so if those numbers would
increase which we expect over time. Someday down the road it will increase and will it be next year? No.
Will it be within two years? Possibly.
Councilman Senn: And we're funding her totally?
Kate Aanenson: For salary. CAP does all the administration training, correct.
Councilman Senn: So we're funding her salary.
Kate Aanenson: That we're not proposing to increase at all and we're staying within budget on that.
Mayor Mancino: Are there any more questions Councilman Senn? May I have a motion?
Councilman Mason: The motion would be, let's go. Full steam ahead with Meals on Wheels or keep the
wheels moving. Okay, let's keep the wheels moving with Meals on Wheels. I like that. Thank you Mr.
Gerhardt. I would move that we keep the wheels moving with Meals on Wheels south of Highway 5.
Mayor Mancino: Is there a second?
Councilman Engel: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve implementing the Meals on
Wheels program south of Highway 5. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
AWARD OF BIDS: MINNEWASHTA FIRE STATION IRRIGATION.
Todd Gerhardt: Honorable Mayor, Council members. Over the years staff has received several phone
calls from residents in the area, the west fire station regarding how the city maintains the weed problem
with the lawn at that fire station. Our park maintenance department has gone out there every year and tried
to keep up with the weeds and spraying and reseeding bare spots. However, we feel that the best solution
to this problem in the long term is to put in a lawn irrigation system. Staff would recommend using the
interest earnings from your contingency fund of $4,800.00 to pay for that system and staff is ready to
answer any questions you may have.
Councilman Berquist: How much land is that?
Todd Gerhardt: Oh, I'd say it's probably 3/4 of an acre.
Councilman Berquist: Boy, that seems like a lot of money...
69
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Councilman Senn: I don't know, we can talk about it all night but I'm just going to move disapproval
because I think that with where contingency sits right now and the other things that have hit us and what
we've got left, I just don't see this as a high priority item.
Mayor Mancino: ...
Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Mancino seconded to deny the request for the Minnewashta Fire
Station irrigation system. All voted in favor, except Councilman Mason who opposed the motion and
the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
I(G): APPROVAL OF REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, DOUGLAS HANSEN
PROPERTY.
Mayor Mancino: Mr. Senn, you had a question. You had that pulled.
Councilman Senn: As far as purchase of the Douglas Hansen property. I pulled this for a reason. My
reason is, and maybe nobody else is concerned about it and I guess that's fine if that's the way it is but I
just have, I'm having a real hard time looking at this from a cost benefit standpoint and saying that we
should effectively spend this amount of our, excuse me, precious money towards acquisition of open space
to the extent that we are to simply acquire you know, the area to house two more ballfields. And when the
two ballfields aren't being used, one soccer field. I mean essentially when you look at this, we're paying
$141,570.00 per acre. We're paying $195,000.00 per ballfield. We're paying $388,000.00 for one soccer
field. Now this is just the land cost. This has nothing to do with the development costs. And you know I
try to put it in perspective and I put it in perspective by saying we could go buy 5 acres at the Arboretum
Business Park and complete those fields on it for the same amount of money. And that's what kind of
brings me back to the fact that I end up with a, I just, I don't.
Councilman Engel: Have they considered that as an option?
Councilman Senn: Well I'm assuming they have but I mean I'm just saying, to me if we're going to spend
this high dollar amount, we ought to be getting more for it or more land area for it, which we can get to
develop more facilities rather than simply.., what we're getting. We're paying top buck for a very small
area and again, this utilizes what was it? But I mean it was like 25% of our whole you know open space
acquisition budget and I don't think that's really in keeping with you know I'm going to say the general
person's understanding of what we were going to take that money and do with it. To spend 25% of it on
the acquisition of two fields. I just find that contrary to the spirit of what was done as far as the
referendum and like I say, it's just like I say. It's my problem. Maybe nobody, obviously nobody else
shares it because everybody else is ready to go ahead on it so go ahead and I'll vote no.
Mayor Mancino: ... more densely populated area of the city because... And secondly, or thirdly I think it
lends to our central area. Talking about strategically to... I think adds to the synergy that's going...
Councilman Mason: I will move approval of real estate purchase agreement, Douglas Hansen property.
Councilman Berquist: I'll second.
70
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the Real Estate Purchase
Agreement with Douglas Hansen. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the
motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION.
Mayor Mancino: Admin Section. Any questions?
Councilman Senn: I had a couple questions if I could...
Mayor Mancino: Sure. Shoot.
Councilman Senn: And since Todd's here, he's probably the one that could answer it but the, what's with
the corn hut this year? Is that now on our property?
Todd Gerhardt: No, it's on Mason's property.
Councilman Mason: Not mine.
Todd Gerhardt: Chan Realty I guess. No, Herb's not around anymore. I forgot, he died.
Councilman Senn: So they're leasing from Mason or whatever and there's a permit to put it there or what?
Todd Gerhardt: Yes.
Councilman Senn: Why was this long discussion we've had over the last few years of where that could be
and phasing it out and what's allowed and not allowed and all that?
Todd Gerhardt: It's more of a Kate question but he has an interim use to be in that location. Well, deemed
on a location that staff approves. You know that's a better location than him going down here on the dirt,
gravel area of Charlie James so I know that Cindy was meeting with him. Talking about potential locations
and that one fits you know the safety, was the safest spot for it.
Councilman Senn: I don't know what the good spot is or the bad spot is but I just remember we had a big
discussion about it the last couple of years and I thought there was supposedly some resolution.
Todd Gerhardt: Well it's just like Target with their outside display of flowers and things like that is where
he falls under. And so with that permitting process he came in. Made application. Cindy reviewed it and
approved it.
Councilman Berquist: So where is he now?
Todd Gerhardt: In front of.
Councilman Senn: He's out in front of the little shopping center across from old St. Hubert's. Across
from, what did you call it? The old Kenny's site.
Mayor Mancino: And it does meet our conditions?
71
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Councilman Berquist: If I might add one other question. For some reason.., few weeks ago we were going
through the tax.., and a guy said my property's not worth this. My neighbor's got 7 illegal aliens in there
or something.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, on 101 there's a house that basically came in and said we wanted our taxes
reduced because it's so hard, especially with our 8 tenants in the 8 separate units was in the house, to keep
up and we asked you to investigate that and find out what's going on.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, Kate investigated that and I thought she put a letter in an administrative.
Councilman Senn: Not that I've seen.
Mayor Mancino: Do you remember what it said at all?
Councilman Senn: No. I don't think there was. I think I would have seen it.
Todd Gerhardt: I think the person's just renting their house out.
Councilman Senn: The property owner stated they had 8 separate tenants.
Todd Gerhardt: No.
Councilman Senn: Well I'm just telling you what the property owner stated in their tax appeal.
Todd Gerhardt: But from our research I think I remember Kate saying that it's just the house is being
rented. Because we went out there and drove by and looked at it. but I'll see if we can resurrect the memo
that she wrote.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'd like to get a copy. The other thing I'd like, even if it is the house is being
rented, I'd like you to see what additional investigation too. To ask for copies of the lease or leases or
whatever covering the property so we can truly investigate and find out whether it is a non-conforming use
or it is. It is or isn't.
Councilman Berquist: That whole Kurvers Point area is just going down the tubes.
Councilman Senn: No, but there are people that are concerned about it, including the ones that live next
door to it.
Councilman Berquist: I'm sure there are.
Councilman Senn: So it's not an issue that's going to simply go away and stuff so I mean Roger, what's
our. I mean essentially if you have a single family house in a single family area being rented out effectively
as a rooming house to 8 separate parties, effectively and that's what the owner stated in their tax appeal.
Okay.
Councilman Berquist: No, no. That's what the adjoining neighbor.
72
City Council Meeting - July 13, 1998
Roger Knutson: Next door neighbor stated that.
Councilman Berquist: She's still got that thing running.
Todd Gerhardt: Adjourn.
Councilman Mason: Move adjournment.
Councilman Mason moved to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
73