CC Minutes 1999 09 27CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 27, 1999
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to
the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilwoman Jansen, Councilman Labatt, and
Councilman Engel. Councilman Senn left the meeting after item 4(a).
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Bob Zydowsky, Mark Littfin, Elliot Knetsch, Sharmin A1-Jaff and
Anita Benson
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the
agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Engel moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
Resolution #99-79: Resolution Establishing No Parking along Audubon Road Adjacent to
Pillsbury.
Resolution #99-80: Resolution Approving Use of the Southwest Regional Light Rail Transit Route
as a Snowmobile Trail amended to change the curfew to 10:00 p.m.
f. Declination of Offer to Purchase Tax Forfeited Property.
g. Approval of Bills.
Approval of Council Minutes:
-Work Session Minutes dated September 13, 1999
- City Council Minutes dated September 13, 1999
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Minutes dated September 1, 1999
- Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated August 24, 1999
Resolution #99-81: Approve Resolution Regarding School District 112 Levy/Operating Budget.
(Mayor Mancino read this Resolution to the audience).
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Mancino: And next on the agenda, we'll go to visitor presentations and we'll come back with that
one consent agenda after the next two items on the agenda.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Leah Hawke: My name is Leah Hawke and I live at 7444 Moccasin Trail and I was here tonight to talk to
you or to give public opinion on an item that's actually been withdrawn from the agenda. So I thought
would use visitor presentation to give you my thoughts. Specifically I'm talking about the Gateway 2000
project. We recently became aware of the Gateway 2000 home out on Highway 5. Kate Aanenson was
nice enough to schedule a meeting with Chuck Gabrielson and the neighbors just to find out a little bit more
about the home and for us to express our concerns. What we learned is that the Gateway Home is a home
for troubled boys who have been in trouble with the law. Chuck was very direct in his responses and we
appreciated that. We learned that some of the children that are there have assaulted others and some may
actually have sexually molested other children. In looking at the conditional permit granted to the Gateway
2000 project, when the home was established Chanhassen was a very different place. We didn't have Bluff
Creek less than a quarter of a mile from this home and we didn't have residential areas being developed
around it. I'm not here tonight to ask the Council to pull the permit or to consider pulling the permit, but I
would like the council to consider forming a small task force of people from the neighborhood, people from
the home and law enforcement officials to ensure that we have our ducks in a row. I will tell you that I
pulled a police report from Carver County Sheriffs Department looking at the times they've been called to
the home this year and it's been 24 times. And it has ranged from indecent exposure to assault. Another
male threatening to stab another male. And there are many times when juveniles from the home have
actually gone missing and have been found on Galpin, which we all know is very close to the school and
again is very close to residential areas. I'd like to make sure we have an appropriate plan in place to
address this now that Chanhassen has changed so much. I also have a second request, and that is as we
develop properties around the home, we learned that Lundgren did not believe it had an obligation to
homeowners to disclose the existence of the home. And we believe that as a city we have an ethical, if not
moral responsibility to people moving in to let them know what is adjacent or near to them. And we would
like the City to require developers that are going to develop adjacent to this property to include disclosure
to potential home buyers. I think it is an important issue that people would like to know about prior to
purchasing a home. Thanks.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Leah can I ask you just a couple questions on the 24 calls this year. Is that
between you know January and the end of September? I mean what are the dates of that?
Leah Hawke: This would be through August. The end of August.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so it's approximately eight months. And does it say who initiated the calls? I
mean was it.
Leah Hawke: I wasn't able to, actually I should clarify. These are just times that the Sheriff has been
called to the home itself because there are problems at the home. We weren't able to get a hold of any
records showing where juveniles from the home have perhaps been at another residence. There's been a
problem there and they were found to have been the source of the problem.
Mayor Mancino: So there's probably some more detail work that we need to do to find out what that
means.
Councilman Engel: ... Steiner vandalism we're getting reports about?
Leah Hawke: I mean we're aware of that. I think, here's the problem. There was an incident outside our
home last night with some vandalism and I think as a family we immediately wanted to know if all the
Gateway children were where they were supposed to be. Very biased. It's not how I want to live my life
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
but unfortunately that's where we're going unless we address this problem and get the right people in the
right room to feel comfortable about what we've got.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. And I think that we will ask staff for some
recommendation and we should probably talk about it at our work session about a task force or what we do
for developing it around there. How we want to handle that. And we'll get those Minutes printed and talk
about it with our city manager. How we want to go about looking at it. Any other questions? We will
certainly follow up with you Leah on this and understand that you're concerned and it's timely because of
the development that's going on. They've been there, I don't know, 18 or 20 years already so, and they
were there when it was all farms and nobody was on Galpin and obviously there wasn't an elementary
school or anything around there. Maybe we need to look at the conditional use and what the conditions are
and kind of bring it up to date. Review that.
Councilman Senn: What's the annual cycle on CUP's?
Mayor Mancino: I think is it an annual review? I was just talking to Kate. If you don't mind, just asking
our staff.
Kate Aanenson: Well there are legal implications with a conditional use. As long as they're fulfilling the
conditions of the conditional use permit, that's what you're reviewing. The conditions of the conditional
use permit.
Mayor Mancino: And that's what we want to know. We want to see what those conditions are. We want
to know legally what we can and can't do as a city and just get all that together first because there are some
obviously legal, legislative implications to group homes and we don't have all that in front of us right now
obviously because this just came up tonight but we want to look at that so we can give you an answer and
know what we can and can't do. So we'll review that. Have staff do that in the next month.
UPDATE FROM BOB ZYDOWSKY~ CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND MARK
LITTFIN~ FIRE MARSHAL.
Bob Zydowsky: In addition to the insert in your packet about crime prevention safety, I just have three
other things. One of those being, tomorrow we start our six week citizen police academy. We've got about
a dozen or so people signed up for that. We're looking forward to that. Also working with Mark and Fire
Ed Week. We've got a couple officers helping for that. And I just received part of our Safe and Sober
Grant that we get each year. We always do a seat belt survey and I just got this from the State and it tells
us seat belt surveys, percentage of use. County wide we were the highest city for seat belt use. We were at
86.7%, which is very good. County wide we're at 79.3% so I think those stats are pretty high.
Mayor Mancino: Now if we can just get them on school buses. Excuse me. Little editorializing there.
Bob Zydowsky: Any other questions for myself?
Mayor Mancino: No, any questions for Bob? I trust you, we all got e-mails from our City Manager on the
meeting on Friday with Steiner Development.
Bob Zydowsky: Which I thought went real well.
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Yep. And corrective actions are being taken.
Bob Zydowsky: We had officers there all weekend. No incidents.
Mayor Mancino: No incidents, wonderful. Good.
Councilman Engel: What does it cost to put a camera there temporarily?
Bob Zydowsky: The Sheriff's office has offered to do that free of charge. The problem being on the back
side of the building there's not a lot of window area and what they'd like to do ideally is have someone in
the building and have the camera set up. There is one spot and they're working with Steiner on that but we
had officers strategically placed throughout the property over the weekend and there was no incidents so.
Mayor Mancino: Mark.
Mark Littfin: We're kind of gearing up in the fire department for Fire Ed Week which is next week and
we'll have, when all is said and done we'll have probably gotten access to about 1,800 students from first
grade through fifth grade with all the Bluff Creek, Chanhassen Elementary, Chapel Hill and St. Hubert's
schools so all those students we do bring to the station and we're there for about a week. Along with the
Sheriff's office and Chan Public Safety is there also. Our Open House is coming up on Sunday, October
l0th and we've got a little bigger and better than last year planned. We usually get access to about 1,000
people show up for that event. One of the things that I'm extremely proud of with our department is when
we do Fire Ed Week with the schools, we have a sign-up sheet and a number of our fire fighters sign up to
participate. They take vacation time, comp time, whatever from their jobs. When I discussed this with
other fire marshals from suburbs east of us, it's usually the fire marshal and one or two fire fighters that
they get to do all the work in their cities. We have about 28 people that signed up for that week. We've
got a couple that will take a whole week's worth of vacation just to help out with that week's activities so
the response from our fire fighters are tremendous as far as I'm concerned. They just outstanding with the
time they put into that. Counts for the year, we're at about 527 this year to date. Last year at 556. And
the year before that was about 502 so we haven't pulled hose offa fire truck to put a fire out in quite a
while. Fire alarms were, we get fire alarms regularly. I follow up the next day to make sure we don't get
repeat offenders on those. Try to minimize those and medicals, mostly minor in nature so all is well.
Mayor Mancino: Good. Very good. Well I hope the weather is as good as it was last year for the open
house.
Mark Littfin: If it isn't, we just move inside. Improvise.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions from council members for Mark?
Councilwoman Jansen: No.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you both very much. Thanks for coming.
D. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A SCHOOL SPEED ZONE ALONG COULTER
BOULEVARD ADJACENT TO BLUFF CREEK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Now we're going back to a resolution establishing a school speed zone along Coulter
Boulevard adjacent to Bluff Creek Elementary School, and I think Councilman Senn you pulled it. Why
don't we, well we really don't need to have a staff report but why don't you say why you pulled it and then
maybe we'll take some public input and talk about it because I'm sure some people are here for that.
Councilman Senn: Okay. I wanted to pull it to make a motion contrary to the recommendation in the
report and that is that we should establish a speed zone and sign it appropriately so that there is 20 mph
speed limit when children are present just as is the case with our other elementary school.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. We'll take some public input and then Anita you may respond. I'd
like to probably build upon what you said too so let's get some public input on this. Anyone wishing to
address the council on this issue may do so, and please come up and state your name and your address.
Deb Kind: My name is Deb Kind. I live at 2351 Lukewood Drive, which is a half mile south of Bluff
Creek School and I'm in the walk zone. I accompany my daughter and six of her close friends to school
most every day. There's three mothers that alternate doing that and we bike along Galpin to the school.
And cross at, where's the intersection? ... I agree with what Councilman Senn is proposing. I think it's,
I'm glad to hear it. My question is, are you proposing the school zone be just on Coulter or Galpin as well?
Councilman Senn: On both.
Deb Kind: Okay, I'm a happy camper. Do you have any questions of me?
Mayor Mancino: Anybody have any questions for Debra Kind? No. Anyone else wishing to get up in
front of the Council on this issue? Okay. Comments from, I think we should go ahead and give our
comments and then you kind of can give yours.
Councilman Labatt: Want me to fire away? Sure. I read this and frankly I had a hard time agreeing with
what staff came up with. I'm completely in favor of Councilman Senn's motion. How do we go about
posting a county road though? That's the only question I have, or do we need to ask the County to post
that?
Anita Benson: I can answer that at this point. We would need to request that Carver County do a school
speed zone analysis. I can tell you right now based upon the analysis that we did, that it's very unlikely
that it would warrant a zone on Galpin Boulevard. However, we would have to formally request that,
which we can do.
Councilman Labatt: And I drove through Chanhassen today and I noticed that St. Hubert's over in
Villages has a 15 mph speed zone on the little north/south street. And after I saw that and I was.., no
brainer why this shouldn't be posted. Keep it short and to the point, let's post it and keep the kids safe.
Mayor Mancino: I'll go ahead and give my two cents. I took some time on Sunday and drove around quite
a bit, and I just would like to add to what Councilman Senn has said. I went and drove by Chan
Elementary School. I went down Kerber first because when I come over to City Hall I go Lake Lucy to
Powers to Kerber and go south on Kerber. And there are five signs about the school, Chanhassen
Elementary School which is east of Kerber. The first sign says School Speed Zone Ahead, and you're
going 40 mph at this point until you get to this sign that says School Speed Zone Ahead. The second sign,
which is another 100 feet has the two kids, the icon of the two kids and then it has the word School
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
underneath them. And then in another 100 feet it says, this is the third sign, it says School, Speed Limit 20
When Children Are Present. Then the fourth sign has the two kids within the lane that says School Xing.
Then the fifth sign says In School Speed Zone and that is again on Kerber west of Chan Elementary
School. On the east side of Chan Elementary School, on Laredo there are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 signs on
Laredo going north past the school. And there the speed limit, on Kerber it starts at 40. The speed limit on
Laredo starts at 30. Then it goes down to 15 so on one side of Chan it's 15 and the other side of Chan
Elementary School it's 20. And it has a School Crossing sign and it says School 15 When Children are
Present. So what I'd like to do in Chanhassen is to make sure that we use the same sort of signage for
Chan Elementary and duplicate that around Bluff Creek Elementary. Why would we do it any differently?
Just doesn't make sense. My last comment is somebody who lives on Galpin, which is 50 mph, and you
pass Highway 5, I mean you don't even realize the school is there. I mean to have 45 mph next to a school
really doesn't make sense and I don't know, I want to find out what we can do if Carver County, if they say
no. What options we have. So I'd also like to know that too. So I would like to see the same signage that
we have around Chan Elementary around Bluff Creek Elementary. I also talked to Kathy Gallagher, one of
the principals at Bluff Creek and she has a lot of concerns and I know would like to talk to us about it. So
I think we should also entertain going ahead with this but also getting Kathy in and talking to us.
Councilman Engel: Alright, I owe a little apology. Who was the woman that called me around 4:00 when
my little 5 year old boy gave me the phone. I had two conversations going on at the same time? Was that
you?
Deb Kind: No. It was...
Councilman Engel: Okay, is she here?
Deb Kind: No. She's at a school referendum meeting tonight.
Councilman Engel: Alright, well you can carry my apology back to her, okay.
Mayor Mancino: What did you say?
Councilman Engel: I sounded very rude but I've got one call going and my little boy, dad, dad, phony. He
won't stop...and she gives me this thing about this speed limit. I said yep, I agree with you but here's what
they're going to tell us. And what she heard was the result of my frustration over the same issue, if any of
you were here on Pleasant View Road. We had this same problem with Pleasant View Road and we
wanted to lower the speed limit and were told we couldn't because it was Class, a State Aid road, right?
Well I don't buy that. I don't buy it by a school. I didn't buy it up there. So for the same reason, I'm not
only in favor of it here, what Mark is saying, and I know it's not on the agenda, but I don't care. I'm going
to talk about it anyway. Pleasant View Road deserves the same treatment. I'm doing it. It deserves the
same treatment because it may not have a school up there but the restrictions and the severity of that road
make it every bit as dangerous for the little kids who live up there for the same reason that high speed
makes it dangerous around the school. And we brushed it over because it was a State Aid road and we
have differences of opinion on it, but I'm telling you, if any of you, you believe in this concept for the
school like I do, and I'm sure you do, the same thing applies to Pleasant View Road, and I'm just upset that
that reason for State Aid can be used as a blocking tactic. I don't agree. So I'm for it and you can tell her
I'm, she heard the frustration because I had to put up with what I heard on Pleasant View Road. Thank
you.
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilwoman Jansen.
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess first I want to acknowledge that I realize that staff is under very strict
guidelines as an engineering professional to make the recommendations that are made, and I certainly
appreciate them. And having spoke so firmly in favor of going with those recommendations when we were
talking about sporadic stop signs and whether or not we would implement those on Pleasant View, I feel
like I'm contradicting myself by now saying this does make sense. And so I want to give a little bit of, just
brief explanation as to why this maybe makes more sense to me than Pleasant View. But in reading the
guidelines that are put to city staff on traffic controls and what they have to analyze is that if we do it too
inconsistently, we, if anything, make it to where drivers just blow through them and don't pay attention.
And in a school zone I think we're also trained to assuming we're going to see the speed limit signs. That
it's the type of a thing that you don't just blow it off. That you do realize, once you see the signs, if you're
day dreaming or drinking your coffee or on your cell phone or distracted for whatever reason, you hit that
school zone. You see those speed limit reduction signs and you do slow down. And I acknowledge the
engineer's presented with traffic numbers that don't justify it, but I guess I'm going with the child factor
and in this instance seeing where we really are serving our public well by putting these speed limit signs up
so Anita, I certainly appreciate the position that you needed to take and the numbers but I too feel strongly
about going ahead with the speed limit signs and like your recommendation where you were already adding
signage along Coulter Boulevard and making sure that we are maybe more consistent with the other school
zones.
Mayor Mancino: Okay Councilman Senn, you've given yours. Anita. Now I know we can't.
Anita Benson: I see which direction this is going. I'll keep it brief but I'd like to add some comments.
First off I'll answer some of the questions that were brought up specifically, number one regarding St.
Hubert's. The streets in St. Hubert's that you're referring to that the signage is placed along are private.
We have no jurisdiction as far as signage on those streets. Regarding inconsistencies with the other
schools, I don't know the specific years the other schools were built. However it was I believe Bluff Creek
Elementary was built in 1995. It was very well designed as far as handling drop off and bus and loading
zones and that's one of the reasons that the signage that's being requested is unwarranted. Is because it
was designed very well to eliminate conflicts with dropping children off on the street with parked cars,
going in between parked cars which statistics show the majority of accidents occur. During the drop off
time. Regarding Galpin Boulevard and what we can do if the County says no. The same thing the County
could say, there's really nothing we can do. It's their jurisdiction. Just like ifMnDOT says no. MnDOT
says no. It's their road. They have the right...but if the council direction is to request them to perform the
study, we will certainly request it and they have said they would do it. Keeping it brief. The definition of a
school speed zone is a section of street or roadway which abuts the ground of the school where children
have access to the street or highway from the school property or where the children use an established
school crossing as provided by the school crossing signs. The purpose is to reroute or direct school
pedestrian traffic to use a single or common route and crossing point which will enable the use of crossing
guards and/or added traffic control signs to effectively, safely direct school pedestrian traffic. And without
going into the numbers of the report, there was minimal pedestrian traffic observed but all pedestrians that
were observed did use the designated crossing points with the crossing guards in place. And I guess I
would just add that in this instance this school was designed very well to accommodate the bus unloading
and not unloading on Coulter Boulevard which is the main street where the speed limit is 30 mph. And I
would conclude with the recommendation that we install the signage as recommended in the staff report and
not install a school speed zone.
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you Anita. Appreciate it. Having all of us given our remarks, can I have a
motion please.
Councilman Labatt: Can I ask Deb? Deb, how big is the walk zone? How far does it go down? It goes
down past you.
Deb Kind: It goes to our neighborhood, and then Timberwood and.
Councilman Labatt: How about the Stone Creek Park?
Deb Kind: Some of those kids might be, but not all of Stone Creek. Many of them bike anyway, even
though they're in a busing area.
Councilman Labatt: I'm thinking of the Stone Creek where you get access off of Coulter. Those new
homes that are just going in there.
Deb Kind: Right, and a lot of those kids are biking also.
Councilman Labatt: Is that a walk zone there though?
Deb Kind: I'm not positive. I'm not positive.
Councilman Engel: You've got an undercut though underneath Coulter there. There's a tunnel.
Underneath Coulter, are you talking about that one?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah. On Coulter east of Galpin.
Deb Kind: I don't think they use the tunnel to get to the school though.
Mayor Mancino: There's a crosswalk there.
Deb Kind: But when the weather's nice, kids from Stone Creek do bike and I know of Melinda who called
Councilman Senn, or Labatt. Goll, name them all... She lives in Trotters Ridge and would like to be able
to have her kids bike to school, and they cannot. They're in a bus zone and have to. There's no crosswalks
patrols. There's a crosswalk painted, it's actually kind of fading. It probably needs to be repainted but
there is a crosswalk across Galpin but there's no school patrol and they've been told no walking, no biking.
Mayor Mancino: The school won't let them?
Deb Kind: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: I mean they will not let them cross Galpin.
Deb Kind: ... and same with Autumn Ridge which is literally across the street from the school.
Considered, boy I wish I had the original letter.
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Well I think it's six lanes or five lanes there, yeah.
Deb Kind: I think it's five lanes at that point.
Councilman Senn: Considered hazardous to their health.
Mayor Mancino: Well and the drivers aren't stopping for the flagging also.
Deb Kind: Lighting?
Mayor Mancino: Flag. So yeah.
Councilman Senn: ... I'd like to make a motion that we designate and install school speed zones on both
Coulter and Galpin with signage consistent with that which we've used at the other elementary school, and
that the speed zones be lowered to 20 mph on both of those roads when kids are present during the school
year and during school session dates.
Mayor Mancino: And may I add a friendly amendment to that? That I agree completely with that but also
that staff communicate with the principal of Bluff Creek Elementary and see if she has anything to add to
that.
Councilman Senn: That's fine.
Mayor Mancino: And come back and let us know because I think they should take that into account too. If
that's okay.
Councilman Labatt: Can I add one more maybe friendly one. Double friendly.
Mayor Mancino: It's got to be friendlier, friendlier.
Councilman Labatt: ... east of the Stone Creek Road, walkers or bikers. Along the field there.
Incorporate that into the whole length of the street.
Councilman Engel: I'll second it then.
Mayor Mancino: Anita, do you have any questions on that?
Anita Benson: Could you clearly define for me how far east you would like to see it occur.
Councilman Labatt: To Stone Creek.
Anita Benson: To Stone Creek Drive.
Councilman Senn: Yep.
Mayor Mancino: Do you need any other geographical locations? Okay. Thank you.
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Councilman Senn: Okay and I want to make, again I just want to make my motion very clear that it is to
designate and install, and so if the County or somebody else wants to tell us if we can't, then leave it up to
them to tell us that we can't but we are taking the action to designate it and install it.
Councilman Labatt: Both roads.
Councilman Senn: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. The motion has been made and seconded with a couple friendly amendments. All
those in favor, any other discussion? Any other friendly amendments?
Resolution #99-82: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded that the City Council
designate and install signage for a School Speed Zone along Coulter Drive, east to Stone Creek Drive,
and Galpin Boulevard, posting it at 20 mph when children are present. Also directing staff to ask for
any additional input from the principal from Bluff Creek Elementary School and report that input
back to the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF BUSINESS SUBSIDY GUIDELINES; JOHN
DEAN, KENNEDY & GRAVEN.
Mayor Mancino: Is Dan here? Would you like to introduce yourself'?
Dan Greensweig: My name is Dan Greensweig. I'm a lawyer with Kennedy and Graven. Our office
prepared the draft Business Subsidy Criteria that you see before you. Ron Batty wasn't able to be here
tonight. The draft subsidy criteria you see was based on legislation that was adopted during a last
legislative session. And essentially what that legislation did was establish a series of requirements that all
local government and state government agencies that grant business subsidies must go through in order to
grant those subsidies and one of the things they have to go through is adopting a set of criteria. The criteria
that this legislation sets out are really pretty vague and all it really says is that among other things it must
include some discussion of the job and wage goals that the city or the EDA or the HRA hopes to
accomplish through the granting of business subsidies in a general sense. The legislation is much more
specific however in that any specific business subsidy agreement, a development contract and the TIF
contracts revolving loan fund, if the city's going to operate one, does need to contain certain things. And
the statute I think does a pretty good job of laying those out but they include things like specific job and
wage goals. A commitment to remain in operation at the site for a minimum of five years. Penalty
provisions if the goals aren't met. Repayment requirements. Those sorts of things. But those are really
generally handled on a case by case business and that's why what you have before you today is much more
general in nature. I do want to make clear that the subsidy criteria that we presented to you tonight are
minimums. They comply with the statute but certainly the council has within it's authority to adopt more
restrictive criteria. They just can't be less restrictive than what state law has said, and that's really a policy
question for you and it would be the same for your EDA and your HRA. Along with that I do want to
emphasize however from talking to Mr. Gerhardt before he left last week, that the City cannot grant any
further subsidies which would include approval of a tax increment development contract until these criteria
have been adopted. I'm not saying that means you need to adopt it tonight, but it just means you can't
enter into any other development agreements or provide any other sorts of below market loans or anything
like that until these criteria have been handled.
Mayor Mancino: But it doesn't pertain to affordable housing.
10
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Dan Greensweig: That's correct Ms. Mayor. The legislature specifically exempted from the definition of
business subsidy, housing subsidies. There are some other exemptions that they provided. Some pollution
remediation. Subsidies of less than $25,000. That sort of thing.
Mayor Mancino: Any questions for Dan at this point? I just have one real quick one. There are two forms
now that we need to fill out, and this being I mean obviously one is with OSA. The August 1st date. This
is a second form that we now have to fill out on an annual basis. If there legislatively can we charge the
applicant for the annual, putting together of these forms and the time that it takes us, etc, out?
Dan Greensweig: Well I think that would normally be something that would go into, come out of the
administrative expense in a tax increment district, and the 10% that you would keep.
Mayor Mancino: Over and above property taxes is what I'm saying. A cost of doing business.
Dan Greensweig: It's within the city's authority certainly to ask for that up front. To say it's going to cost
us X amount and we'd like that as part of the application process.
Mayor Mancino: So the legislature didn't nix that from doing?
Dan Greensweig: No.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Dan Greensweig: That's correct. And there has been some talk, I should let you know also that the
legislation will be amended somewhat during the next session. There is some language in it that's a little
unclear I think to some of the people who practice in this area. I'm not saying the legislation is going to go
away but I think it may, you may see it change over the next 6 months to a year. Try and make it a little
easier for everyone to work with.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions for Dan? Discussion. Any
questions? Councilman Labatt?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel?
Councilman Engel: Nothing to add.
Mayor Mancino: Councilwoman Jansen?
Councilwoman Jansen: No.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn?
Councilman Senn: I don't have any questions but I'd like to make a motion that the council table this for
council action and refer to the EDA for discussion to come back to the council. I think this is in fact
11
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
minimal and I think we need to spend more time looking at it in relationship to bringing it in line with our
TIF policy and so they're in sync and then not just create a minimal, do anything type...
Mayor Mancino: I agree with that. I would just like to add that we do it next month in October. Our next
meeting. I'll second that motion. All those in favor. Dan, excuse me.
Dan Greensweig: Ms. Mayor, ifI could point out that the law does require that a public hearing be held so
if you're going to take that over to next month, you'll need to renotice the public hearing.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. We'll do that for our EDA meeting then. Great. Let's see, what have we
done? We've made a motion. We've seconded it to table it.
Councilman Senn moved, Mayor Mancino seconded that the City Council table action on the
Business Subsidy Guidelines and refer the item to the next EDA meeting for consideration. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, next on the agenda. Also under public, excuse me. That was a public hearing and
I didn't allow anybody to talk. Is there anyone that would like to come up in front of the Council now that
we've already passed that. But seriously, you're welcome to come up and make any comments to the
council. And we'll also have it again next month at our EDA meeting so seeing none, nobody wants to say
anything. Thank you. Sorry about that.
PUBLIC HEARING: RUBY TUESDAY RESTAURANT, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, VILLAGES ON
THE POND 2N~ ADDITION, ALLIANT ENGINEERING, INC:
CONSIDERATION OF AN ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE.
CONSIDER SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 5,223 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Guerrino Ruta, Jr.
Scott Nelson
Vernelle Clayton
8391 West Lake Drive
212 Second Street S.E., Minneapolis
422 Santa Fe Circle
Mayor Mancino: We should probably do 4(a) first. And go ahead and approve that. I mean just a brief
overview, thank you.
Kate Aanenson: Ruby Tuesdays is requesting a liquor license. We have included as a part of this, just to
be clear, that as a part of the approval of the restaurant, their expectation is to get a liquor license. It's the
City's policy to put that at the same time as when the City Council is receiving site plan approval. Staff is
recommending approval with the conditions outlined in the staff report, and I believe there was one
modification and that is clarification of clearance by the managing property owner.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the
Council on consideration of an on-sale intoxicating liquor license for Ruby Tuesdays Restaurant. Seeing
12
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
no one, let me bring this back to council. Any questions or discussion on councilmembers? If not, may I
please have a motion.
Councilman Senn: I move approval of on-sale intoxicating liquor license adding the condition that it is
contingent upon favorable background check of the, whoever the manager is to be designated as is required
under the ordinance.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, is there a second to that motion?
Councilwoman Jansen: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council approve the on-sale
intoxicating liquor license for RT Minneapolis Franchise, LLC dba Ruby Tuesday contingent upon
the following conditions:
Submittal of liquor liability insurance effective until May 1, 2000.
Payment of the license fee.
Completion of favorable background check on the operating manager.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Mancino: The next one is to consider site plan approval for the 5,223 square foot restaurant. Staff
report please.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you. The applicant... 5,223 square foot building for a restaurant for Ruby
Tuesdays. We've been working with the applicant for several months now and we've gone through several
revisions as far as the exterior elevations for the site. When we initially met with the applicant, due to
multiple frontages on this building, there's Pond Promenade, Highway 5 and Great Plains Boulevard. It
was essential that none of the elevations give the rear of a building or service area. The east and north
elevations are well designed and would meet that requirement. The south and west elevations give the
appearance of a service area or actually the back of a building. They've got long stretches of blank walls
and staff is recommending some changes such as windows to add to the architectural integrity of the
building. As far as materials used on this building, the main building material is brick and that will be used
on all four elevations of the site. There are columns that will be on all four sides of the building again.
And here is the color combination. The main material on the columns is EFIS. There are rosettes at the
base of these columns. These are made of wood and they will be painted. And awnings, and this is the
color combination of the awnings. We requested that the applicant provide these materials and they did.
One of the things that we should point out on the site plan is the number of light fixtures on the building.
Staff counted 45 goose neck light fixtures and 33 down cast lights for a total of 78 light fixtures. We did
visit one of their establishments in Edina in Southdale. Those lights don't have glare. They are shielded
light fixtures so there are 78 light fixtures and we wanted to bring that to your attention. The last thing that
we wanted to point out deals with signage. The applicant is requesting three signs. One facing the pond.
The ordinance specifically states signage has to either face parking or public right-of-way. Staff is
recommending that they be limited to two signs only at this time. The Planning Commission's direction
was to forward a variance for the sign that's facing the pond and that's what we intend to do and that will
be scheduled for the second meeting in October for Planning Commission. Staff is recommending approval
with conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you.
13
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Any questions for staff at this point? I have one. Staff, what is
your knowledge, or your assumption when it shows future patio? What discussions have you had with the
applicant about that future patio?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: The original plans didn't show any outdoor seating area. We encouraged them that they
take that into consideration when they look at their plan.
Mayor Mancino: So you don't have it as a condition of approval that there be a patio, correct?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: No. We would encourage them to put it in as soon as possible.
Kate Aanenson: If it's less than 10% we administratively approve it. We wanted to show how it would
orient with the building. Where it would be located so if they came in later, just for your edification. But
less than a 10% gross square footage change to the building, then administratively we would approve it.
Making sure materials matched and everything but we want to see where it would be in location, and that
they provide that opportunity in the lay of the building. The footprint. That they could do it in the future
and we didn't have to put it, make it an appendix somewhere else that didn't make sense. So we asked
them to look at that now just to consider.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. One other question that I noted. That someone had during the Planning
Commission minutes and that was about sound. Are there, and obviously I can ask the applicant this, but
are there any outside speakers on the building at all for sound outside, because don't, I think you hear it at
Houlihan's. Is there outdoor music?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: I don't know.
Kate Aanenson: It did come up as far as when they're outside, their hours. Based on where this would be,
the neighbor felt comfortable that it wouldn't be as loud and the Planning Commission concurred as far as
the, it's the patio area.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, but I mean right now without a patio, are there any speakers outside?
Kate Aanenson: I don't believe so. The applicant can.., but I don't believe so.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I just wondered what you had thought as staff, okay. Any other questions? From
council members. Is the applicant here and would you like to address the council please?
Gerry Ruta: Good evening. My name is Gerry Ruta. I'm President and CEO our RT Minneapolis. I'm
the franchisee for Ruby Tuesday restaurants in the Twin Cities. I am also a proud resident in the city of
Chanhassen and I'm the owner operator as well of those three restaurants that are in existence. Our
restaurant has, in the Village of the Ponds, the planning has been going on for about five months. We've
worked with staff and tried to design a building that took into consideration a number of points. One being
the requirements of the PUD of the Villages on the Ponds. Secondly, is our franchiser, Ruby Tuesday
Incorporated had some restrictions and requirements and of course finally, the financial parameters of the
financial model. We think we've presented to you a building that will meet all of the criteria and we've
designed one that is aesthetically pleasing and one that we feel will be successful in the city. Ruby Tuesday
Restaurant is a casual dining restaurant. It has an average check of about $10.00. It's an affordable
family restaurant. We have several significant differences. One being a salad bar. Our bar typically
14
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
generates 10% to 12% of sales, so it's not a belly up to bar type of situation, in case some of you had that
question. Most of the alcoholic beverages consumed are consumed at the table. Our architect, Scott
Nelson is here and he can address any architectural questions that you may have. As far as operational
issues or questions, I'll be happy to entertain any of those.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any operational questions?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Councilwoman Jansen: No.
Mayor Mancino: Don't have any, thank you.
Gerry Ruta: Thank you. Scott.
Scott Nelson: Good evening. I'm Scott Nelson from DG Architecture. We're the project architects for the
building, and I just wanted to add to a couple of things that Gerry said. After following the Planning
Commission meeting on September 1st, several items were brought up relating to the 20 conditions of
approval that were discussed between ourselves and the Planning Commission. Since that time we have
resubmitted to the city plans that incorporate a number of those suggestions, including some of the elements
toward the exterior design which really has been the crux of the issues that we've been doing. We added a
couple of additional pilasters. Added a couple of canopies. Added a window to the south elevation, which
was of concern to both the staff and a couple of the residents that spoke. And I think we're, we've been
prepared to work with the staff throughout the process and I think we finally got to a point where we're
very, very close and look forward to hearing any additional questions that you might have.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Scott. Any questions? Okay, thank you Scott. This is a public hearing.
Opening this for public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the council on this? Okay. Seeing none, we'll
bring it back to council. We have a smaller council right now, while we're waiting. We have a dry council
right now. Dry throated council. You know you've got to get them for everybody. Not just us.
Councilman Engel: You know they were sitting back there by the door so I just stole them.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, we do have a couple up here if anyone wants one. We've got two more if anyone
would like one. Okay. Let's start with Councilwoman Jansen. Would you like to, any discussion points
that you would like to talk about with the recommendations, etc? Any questions that you need answered?
Councilwoman Jansen: Actually going through the Planning Commission meeting minutes, they certainly
hammered things out real well I thought. Prior to it getting to us and thank you to staff and the applicant
for so patiently working through what I know are pretty demanding guidelines that we put on the buildings
that come into Chanhassen, but you've come up with a wonderful facility for the community, so thank you.
I know that one of the concerns of course that was raised by staff on the lighting and how many fixtures, I
guess I'm less concerned with the number of fixtures as I am what the photo metrics end up being. You
know if the building's going to be over illuminated and standing out on the property, then I see where we're
maybe creating something that right now we don't realize is going to look a certain way. So I realize
within condition number 19, the request has been added by the Planning Commission that it not only be
photo metrics for the parking lot but also for the building lighting, and I'm certainly comfortable with that
having been put into that condition to cover the lighting question. And I'm hearing staff wanting to maybe
15
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
do a little bit more even possibly on the one side of the building as far as the architectural, maybe adding
another fake window. I'm fine with the resubmission that was given to us. Putting more the columns on
that side of the building but I'm not an architectural guru as far as what is right for this building. That's
not necessarily my expertise so I would go with any guidance that wants to be shared there. I do not want
to make it a difficult project to be built and I certainly can appreciate that the columns add the definition
that I see that we were trying to reach. And then conversation on parking spaces as we go along. If we can
discuss this area. I know the concern has been raised as to the overall parking situation within Villages and
whether it's adequate so however we want to address that as we're going through this would be
appreciated.
Mayor Mancino: Sharmin, could you talk about that a little bit. About the parking and we know we have
a lot of shared parking in the Villages, which is great that we have shared parking. The problem is if you
have shared parking and you don't have parking lots to share the parking, then how does it work?
Councilman Engel: It don't.
Mayor Mancino: So can we talk a little bit about that and the building to the east of this, which is a retail
building. Has been approved and is coming in and they're going to start their project, correct?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: And so we just want to make sure that when Ruby Tuesdays is open, that there is a
parking lot, whether it's shared. Whether it's just for Ruby Tuesdays, that there is parking for the people
who come to dine there or else Ruby Tuesdays is going to have a lot of people mad because there's no
place to park.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: This is Building 4 which is mainly a retail building. Just to orient you. Here is Highway
5 and this is Great Plains Boulevard. The building permit for this building is in and that includes this
segment of Pond Promenade. There is parking in this area. This is also parking. All of this is parking.
Ruby Tuesday, and by the way staff has signed off on this building permit and our understanding is the
developer is just waiting for Ruby Tuesday to be approved by council for them to proceed with... Here is
Ruby Tuesday. A question was raised in regards to number of parking spaces for an establishment would
require. Because of your liquor licenses, 1 space per 50 square feet. So that would translate to a little over
100 parking spaces. As far as the retail element, it's 1 per 200 square feet. That's approximately 70
parking spaces.
Mayor Mancino: So we need that whole parking lot done.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Mancino: And how can we make sure they're sync'd up and it's all going to happen at the same
time?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Well again, this segment is in for a building permit. Including this parking lot and as
soon as Ruby Tuesday is approved, the remainder of this parking lot would be built.
Councilwoman Jansen: Do you know how many parking spaces that represents?
16
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Sharmin A1-Jaff: I counted 120.
Councilman Labatt: 120 in just the west portion or the whole combined?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: In this entire area.
Councilwoman Jansen: That whole block.
Councilman Labatt: That's at 120.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Vernelle Clayton: ... parking. If Ruby Tuesday is approved, we're going to be putting in the rest of Pond
Promenade. Oh I could see it better this way.
Mayor Mancino: You can see it Vernelle but nobody else can. That was off the screen. Move that finger
please. Okay, excuse me. Would you say that one more time.
Vernelle Clayton: She explained that we'd be doing this part. We're also doing this part.
Councilman Engel: When both are approved, that was my question. Is the red dotted line.
Vernelle Clayton: Right. And there is, they're in for permit for that too because we're bringing...that
street in as well. I can tell you if Ruby Tuesday isn't approved, it will be narrower than if it's approved.
But if it's approved, we're going to put parking on both sides...
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. And you're on public record for that. And a video. We've got you all
down. Thank you. Thank you very much on that one. And thank you Sharmin. Does that answer
Councilwoman Jansen your question on that?
Councilwoman Jansen: Sure. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, you feel comfortable. Let's see, Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: Not much to add. I like the building. I think it's going to be a nice use. It will be a
good addition. I only have a small and maybe a nit and that is, if you look at Houlihan's and the way it
was built, you'll notice it's very difficult to find a back or a side anywhere on that building and I think it's
because of the use of the fake windows all the way around it. And my only concern is if you look on the
south side, and especially the west, there's a large expanse of brick on the west side and it could be
construed as sort of a dead area. I would like to see the extension of the fake windows roll around the sides
on the south and the west. If for no other reason, we held Houlihan's to that standard and they have a
really nice building as a result. And I as well am no architectural designer but the building doesn't look
like it has a back or a front to me and I think it's because of the windows. That's the only thing, the
parking we've already resolved. The road issues so that was the only thing I had left on my, that I could
think about.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. I'll just piggy back on that and say that I also agree with Councilman Engel. I
spent two years working on the design standards for this. We were very proactive and put them out so that
17
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
when people were going to come here and move, they knew exactly what was expected of them and we have
asked, all the buildings that have come in, that all the sides be finished, etc. So I'll just say the same thing
as Councilman Engel. That I would like to see the fake windows added to the west side, and that would be
not where the door is, but under the other three.
Councilman Engel: Yeah, it's on the southern portion of the west side as you extend south of the doorway.
Mayor Mancino: And add fake windows to underneath those awnings. And also on the south side, two
more windows for those two other plain areas and awnings. So that again you carry that same look all the
way around the building. Other than that, the only, I think it's a great building. It's wonderful to have
another restaurant so we're pleased, very pleased to have you here. And from all the other restaurants in
the city, it seems like they're always full so we hope you have much success. The other little detail I'd like
to add is on 13, about the sidewalks. That we put a due date for the sidewalks for next year. If we have
inclement weather, and it can't be done till next year, we just have an agreed upon due date where they're
done, whether it's June 30th of 2000 or what. That we actually do know when that date is.
Councilman Labatt: What... ?
Mayor Mancino: It's condition number 13. That we just add a due date that the applicant and staff can
come up with. To make sure those sidewalks are in. But again, a great plan. Thanks for spending so
much time with the Planning Commission. And I think you'll probably have a room full of people there
that are here tonight waiting for you to open up. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: You know I'll just ditto the same questions on the fake windows. The expansion of
brick without... The lighting issue, look at all the lights on the north side...
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion.
Councilman Engel: I'll make a motion. To approve the Site Plan #97-12 per staff's recommendations
with the one change on condition number 8. To strike the wording or other architectural details and just
simply leave it at the west and south building elevations shall be revised by adding fake windows.
Mayor Mancino: Can you take a friendly amendment and just say on the south side, a fake window under
the awning. On the exterior there be awnings and fake windows. That's not making it any plainer.
Councilman Labatt: On the west?
Councilman Engel: Awnings and fake windows.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, on the south side. And then on the west side, that it be three fake windows under
the awning.
Councilman Engel: Yeah, I will accept that.
Mayor Mancino: That's three panels. And staff do you understand?
18
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Councilman Engel: They may in fact want to do windows on the fourth panel as well. Look at this west
side and this very southern tip of the west side. There's actually four expanses of windows... Because all
the other comers have them running right up to it. I'll accept.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. And the other friendly amendment on 13. That we just ask the applicant and staff
to put a due date.
Councilman Labatt: Is it, I've got one question. Does adding the fake windows here, it's going to
obviously...
Councilman Engel: I'm fine with that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, is there a second to the motion?
Councilman Labatt: I'll second it.
Councilman Engel moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approves Site Plan
/t97-12 for a 5,223 square foot building (Ruby Tuesday's) on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2"d
Addition, dated received August 16, 1999, subject to the following conditions:
1. Landscape islands will need to be increased to ten feet wide or aeration tubing will be required to be
installed.
2. The applicant shall vary the locations and species of plants to create a more interesting landscape
design around the building and pond.
3. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide the necessary security required by
the agreement.
4. Add planter boxes to west side of building.
5. All rooftop equipment shall be screened from views.
6. The Famous Dave's site plan shall be officially withdrawn.
7. The west and south elevations shall be revised to include fake windows underneath the awnings as
detailed by the City Council.
8. The proposed commercial development of 2.13 net developable acres is responsible for a water
quantity fee of $9,287. This fee is due payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat.
9. The wall mounted sign along the west elevation shall not be permitted.
10. Building Official conditions:
a) The building is required to have fire sprinklers.
b) The utility plan was not reviewed at this time.
c) The floor plan was reviewed for exit separation only.
19
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
d) I recommend that the building owner and/or their representatives meet with the Inspections
Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
11.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and
disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All storm sewer inlets shall be
protected with erosion control measures until all disturbed areas have been revegetated. A rock
construction entrance shall be maintained until the parking lots and driveways have been paved with
a bituminous surface out to Great Plains Boulevard.
12.
The sidewalk on the site shall be constructed in conjunction with the overall site improvements and
prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy unless inclement weather conditions prohibit. If
inclement weather prohibits the installation of the sidewalk, the applicant and staff shall set a due
date for the completion next year. The applicant shall coordinate installation of the proposed
trail/walkway along the west side of Lot 1 through Outlot B, Villages on the Ponds with the
developer of Villages on the Ponds.
13.
The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on the site will be privately owned and
maintained by the property owner and not the City. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining
the appropriate sewer, water and plumbing permits from the City's Building Department. Cross-
access easements for the utilities and driveways shall be dedicated over the lot.
14. Mylar as-built construction plans of the utility improvements will be required by the City upon
completion of the site improvements.
15.
A building permit shall not be issued until the access driveway meets fire code requirements. The
driveway may be constructed with a bituminous and/or Class 5 gravel section, 20 feet wide which
meets a 7 ton per axle design.
16. Staff recommends the applicant consider raising the curb elevation/parking lot grade in the northwest
comer of the site a minimum of one foot.
17.
Construction plans for utility extension to the lot from Main Street and Grandview Road shall be
submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. All utilities shall be
constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates.
18. The applicant shall provide parking lot and building lighting plan, i.e., light fixture design and height,
location, photometrics, etc. for review and approval.
19. Shrub sizes shall be increased in order to create more of a visual impact around the building.
Minimum size for container shall be no less than 24-36 inches.
All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Jansen who opposed, and the motion carried 3 to 1.
(Councilman Senn had left the meeting at this point.)
Kate Aanenson: Can we get clarity on each what you want to do, because we can't see where you're
pointing. Exactly.
2O
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Councilman Engel: If you go around the blocks where the bricks are, and they're...
Mayor Mancino: Why don't you get up and just show them.
Councilman Engel: Right, two sides without awnings...
(The council clarified for staff and the applicant their request for revising the south and west elevations by
adding awnings and fake windows.)
Gerry Ruta: ...the window on the south elevation... I'm concerned about the image that it projects.
Councilman Engel: How did Houlihan's pull it off'?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: They painted it black behind it.
Mayor Mancino: And it's fine. I mean it looks fine. It looks good from the outside.
Gerry Ruta: How many do they have?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Three.
Councilwoman Jansen: Are they all on one side or are they spread around the building?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: There... on one side and one on another side. The hotel has six on the same side.
Mayor Mancino: Again, it add to the architectural interest, etc. So that's how we feel and that's how we
voted so, thank you. That you very much.
Councilwoman Jansen: ... but I am voting no. It's just adding all the additional windows seems a little bit
extreme.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So you have three yeahs and one no.
CONCEPTUAL PUD REQUEST FOR A MIXED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (414)
CONSISTING OF MANOR HOMES~ COURT HOMES~ VILLAGE HOMES AND
TOWNHOMES ON 82.8 ACRES AND 3.7 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USES; LOCATED ON
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAYS 5 AND 41~ ARBORETUM VILLAGE~ PULTE
HOMES.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Cheryl & Bob Ayotte
Anne & Michael Ryan
Jim Speight
Connie Moore
Kurt Oddsen
Cascade Pass
2595 Southern Court
7361 Moccasin Trail
7330 Moccasin Trail
7325 Moccasin Trail
21
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Michael Maeser 2584
Kristin Spangrud 7487
Mark A. Pletts 7517
Susan Cohoon 7525
Lisa Cobert 7454
Mark Guenther 1355
Dennis P. Griswold 1355
Leah Hawke 7444
Southern Court
Bent Bow Trail
Bent Bow Trail
Bent Bow Trail
Bent Bow Trail
Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Heights
Mendota Heights Road, Mendota Heights
Moccasin Trail
Mayor Mancino: Staff report please, and if people could please stay quiet so we can hear the presentation
because obviously you're here and you want to hear it too. We just got the second part of the presentation
to us tonight that Puke will be giving to us. Kate, are there extra of these at all so that people can follow?
Kate Aanenson: I did pass out some of the extra maps I had...
Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry, are there extras?
Kate Aanenson: It's revised.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, these are revised for us tonight?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: Is everybody ready and I know you don't have much to look at. You'll just have to listen
and try to follow along with things as best you can. And if you could hold your questions at different
points, we'll certainly give you time to speak and ask questions or ask for clarification, etc.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. While we've had complicated issues like this project tonight, it's been a while
since we've done one of this scale. Probably the last one of this scale was probably Villages on the Pond.
I'd like to go and break this presentation into three components. One, would be the background first. The
second is break down the request, and the third component is the detail of the proposal and I'll leave the
details of the proposal up to the applicant to let them go through their project and talk about their product.
But the first component then would be the background itself. We'll start by framing up where this property
is. This property is at the comer, the northwest comer of Highway 5, excuse me. Northeast comer of
Highway 5 and 41. This property is currently outside of the MUSA. It was left outside the MUSA in the
1991 comprehensive plan. It was left unguided. At that time the property owners were looking at some
commercial zoning. The City wasn't sure exactly what they wanted to have happen to that piece of
property and they wanted some time to reconsider that. In 1995 the City undertook the Highway 5 corridor
study. And the purpose of this study was two fold. One is to look at the frontage road alignment.
Continuity of the local street to provide for local trips east and west through the community. The Highway
5 corridor study also examined land uses along Highway 5, specifically this comer because it was left
unguided. And then in addition, it examined some of the design standards and we did develop a Highway 5
overlay district, which I've included in your packet. The design standards. So the Highway 5 corridor
study locked in the alignment and an environmental assessment document was done on that. MnDOT right
now is pretty much close to the final design. Right now they're in the process of acquiring the right-of-
way. City Engineer, Anita Benson gave you tonight an update on where they are with the alignment. That
date has slipped back. Originally we were looking at bid, going out to bid this fall but that's been moved
back to next summer so the applicant is trying to tie this project and the timing of this project and
22
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
dedication of right-of-way with the construction of Highway 5. The alignment, Highway 5 was put on and
off the table. It did get moved back because it was tied into the Highway 41 project. At one time MnDOT
felt like they could not upgrade Highway 5 without the complete upgrading of Highway 41. The City's
lobbied to break the two projects out because it became so cost prohibitive, we were competing in a
different category. We were successful in that but they did leave off a segment of the frontage road, which
is West 78th, which for discussion purposes tonight, we'll call West 78th. This request would provide for
the dedication of that and the continuity of that frontage road, West 78th for the construction of Highway 5,
so it is important. The project also does provide some modifications to Highway 41 as it, like a free right
to get into the access off of West 78th. So the Highway 5 corridor study again, besides looking at the
frontage road and the EAW, also gave some land use recommendations which were adopted and put into
the comprehensive plan and to date have been carried forward in the current comprehensive plan. We
looked at a northern and a southern alignment. As this road came through it was pushed to the north for
concerns, one is stacking on Highway 5. The Environment Assessment document that we did on the south
side showed it even with that industrial property there, that the intersection of 5 and 41 is going to be at
Level F, even with the continuation. And that was one of the recommendations when we looked at on the
north side, there's the continuity of residential, pretty much predominantly on this piece of property on the
north side is all residential. There isn't much industrial or office. The City, again looking at the land use
we felt it was an important intersection of the community. It is our gateway. We've got the Arboretum on
the one side and I'll talk more specifically about some of the surrounding land uses but did look specifically
at an institutional type use. Something that would give some prominence to that intersection, so that was
looked at with that. So I'll talk more specifically about the land uses in a minute but I wanted to just kind
of give you some background on the documents that are guiding this. The next document was the Bluff
Creek overlay district, and in 1996 the City undertook a study of the Bluff Creek, which this is the head
waters. The wetland that's on this property, going all the way down to the Minnesota River. The purpose
of this study was to ensure development along the corridor. We had some developments that were in the
area that we felt were not respective of the creek itself and we wanted to add some extra protection. So this
study undertook land uses along the corridor. Again, the southern area of the city south of Lyman was not
guided. This gave us a dropping off point to go examine those land uses south of Lyman and make some
sense. Again, the southern end of the city is much different than the northern area as far as topography.
More wetlands. Larger wetlands and more rolling topography and steeper bluffs. So this document
provided for the land use recommendations. In addition it created an overlay district. Part of this property
is in that overlay district and what that district allows is for density transfer to provide for better setback
and a different type of development pattern. We have used this on two other projects. The density transfer,
and I'll spend a little bit more time talking about that in a minute. The other background on this is the
Livable Communities Act, which the City is a member of. The Livable Communities Act. We talk about
diversity and different housing types. I included in your packet the City's resolution regarding diversity in
housing. In this project there is four or five different types of products and different price ranges. Again,
something that we've talked about as far as the Livable Communities Act, providing different housing
styles and types for different lifestyles. Then the other thing I wanted to talk about is the PUD itself and
what we're here tonight to try to come to some conclusion. The goal of the developer is in acquiring this
piece of property is to find out exactly, he would like, his desire is to develop it residential. We do have
other guiding on the property but this is the proposal that's before you tonight is looking at the residential
development. And again it would require a land use recommendation, the fact that he is moving, not
increasing the density but shifting the density around. Similar to what we've done on other projects. What
the council will be reviewing is this the right type of development under the PUD application and would
you consider doing the density transfer land use recommendation. And then also try to give direction for
the next level, and I think it's fair that we all operate in good faith and give the applicant the direction that
he needs to go forward because at the next level there is substantially more cost involved as far as putting
23
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
the design together. And I'd just like to remind you, it's in the staff report, what we're trying to resolve as
far as the PUD. The concept has no legal standing. It does have a public hearing requirement. Again at
this point we're trying to flush out a lot of the issues and give clear direction. But the PUD itself is what
we're trying to do is identify the overall net and gross density. The general location of major streets and
pedestrian ways. Identification of lot width and size. Identification of public and common open space.
Identification of land use and intensities. And then the staging. The staging for this development is
obviously contingent upon the road improvement because the road, West 78th is going to be driving some of
the grading and the timing for this development. So again the applicant is working to try to put this project
in at the same time frame as that. So that's the background. I'd like next to talk a little bit about the
request itself and the zoning in the surrounding areas. Again, this area is staged to be brought in the
MUSA in our comprehensive plan that was most recently adopted, we indicated this area would be served
by municipal services in the year 2000, but that doesn't mean automatically the services are magically
there. They have to be petitioned to be brought across the property. Currently they're at Galpin
Boulevard. On the east side of Galpin at Walnut Grove. That's where they terminate. And they would be
coming across, the water would be coming across with the improvement of West 78th and we'll have to
petition for the sewer which would follow the low area, which would be on the south side of the large
wetland complex. The surrounding land uses. The Minnesota Landscape Arboretum has property on the
northwest comer. Experimental. Westwood Church has bought this property, the old Kordonowy property
up there. Approximately 67 acres. This is the Gateway 2000 group home property. This property right
here is Outlot K of the Lundgren Meadows at Longacres. Lundgren does have an option on this property,
although Mr. Dolejsi still owns it. This is Mr. Savaryn's property. And this is the Mills property. The
two had been tried to come in separately. It was always the staffs opinion that the best utility yield of the
property was to put the two pieces together because there's large wetland complexes that drive the layout
of the project. The Markert's own this property here which is approximately 6 acres, and then there's some
other properties that are not included in this. And also not part of the Longacres. Mr. Savaryn also owns
this property over here. That property is primarily in the overlay district of the primary zone. Part of this
proposal, staff is recommending that we do a density transfer to preserve the natural features of that. There
is a wetland on there. Some of that property is farmed and it does have some utility as far as density, but it
would be our recommendation that that density, because it is in the primary zone, the headwaters of the
Bluff Creek, that that density be transferred. There is also, Bluff Creek, excuse me, the Highway 5
corridor study and the comprehensive plan recommended some support commercial to this area. That
support commercial was shown in this area. With this proposal and MnDOT's proposal, they are looking
at a wetland on that property so they have moved it over to this side. With this piece right here that is
owned by Mr. Dolejsi and again Lundgren has an option on. We looked at how you get access to this
piece. There's an existing home on the property. It drops off significantly and there is a restricted access
to this parcel so it's staff recommendation that somehow we look at tying these two properties together and
we worked with the developer, or the owners to make sense of how that would work. Otherwise you're
really limiting this piece of property here as far as future uses. Again as I indicated, there is a large
wetland on this property and that is the headwater of the Bluff Creek, and then there's also another large
wetland here. The original proposal had shown a street connection. This is heavily wooded through that
area. It was staffs recommendation that that street not connect through. It would just destroy a lot of the
trees. Most of the homes in this area, from the edge of their project, across the wetland. I mean to the
property lines is maybe 300-400 feet to the back of the homes it's 600 feet approximately from the edge of
this as you're looking across this area here. This is all again Mr. Dolejsi's property. The sewer line, as
indicated, would have to be petitioned for to go across. It would follow the edge of the wetland. That is the
low area. That's similar to what we did on the other side. We put the trail once that's been removed from
the vegetation, that's where the trail. We would want the continuity of that trail. There's also a trail
proposed on the north side. The cross section that's already in between Powers and Lake Ann, it's the
24
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
exact same cross section that would follow the rest of West 78th to this road. Trees on the site. There's
two significant stands of trees in this area here. That was identified to be preserved. That plan also
respects that and behind the Market's home, this area of trees where there's a slope dropping down, we
plan also to preserve those trees. There is a piece that's owned by Mr. Savaryn that's on the other side of
the wetland. Topographically separated. Land locked without getting across the wetland at this point.
That would be left as an open space and cannot be developed just because of the inability to get access to
it. So some of the other options as far as zoning that are available on the property are the industrial
commercial, which staff did provide just looking at how the densities would lay out. If this was to come
forward as a straight subdivision, they were to come in with the zoning or land use recommendation that
was placed as far as the R, up to R-8 on the south of the frontage road. This is the actual MnDOT design.
And it came in with the low density on the north side of the road. It would be in the similar range that
they're proposing here. The 400 units. So the intent is not to increase the number of units, but to raise
what is on the low density, on the north side of the road, raise that...and West 78th. And let me explain
what the intent of that. We had the visual component. We could put, we could stack, the way to get the
higher density along that segment is to stack the units because that's the only way you can achieve the
density. Again that's in this area and the frontage road is Highway 5 to achieve the density that's allocated
there would be more vertical, which is an option. And then the lower, on the north side of the road. What
this proposal again tends to do is lower all that and trying to come up with a nice visual at that intersection
so whereby lowering it, the front parcel, you need to raise it on the other end for what they're looking at for
the value that they have paid for the property. And again, come out with the same number of units. So the
other recommendation as far as land use was the institutional or office or industrial and that would be in
this segment here. A concern that the staff had.
Councilman Engel: Point at that again Kate.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. That was identified, this is the frontage road here. It's this area in here. Staff did
provide some, just kind of a cursory look at the traffic trip generation and it's significantly higher, office
industrial. Assuming that if you had office industrial and you had warehouse space, if it was pure office it
would be substantially higher. So we were concerned about that, and again what the visual impact would
be and the grading impact. We haven't taken it to that level but we just wanted to... as far as consideration
as far as what the visual impacts would be. Of course we have the Highway 5 corridor standards as far as
materials and offer visually... Highway 5 as we spent a lot of time, because we wanted to maintain some of
that topography and it took us three years to resolve a lot of those issues in order to get the industrial
zoning. You have to compromise a little bit on the amount of grading and to make it work, because you
have a bigger footprint of the buildings. So that was something we wanted to make sure we kept in
consideration. And also to keep in that we didn't have much industrial or office on this site. Again, I think
our vision was to see the institutional. Unfortunately based on price, the institutional chose another
location a little bit further back. Just for your edification we did look at that where Westwood Church was.
There was a preliminary layout of that at one time. It was approximately 120 homes that could have been
built on that so those obviously homes will not, no longer be in place. Relocated. There was a meeting
held with the Planning Commission on September 1st. They spent a lot of time discussing the design itself.
Concerns that they had was that the layout itself was a little bit too predictable. In my experience though
with some of the other projects, it takes a year as we move through the process before we come back. A lot
of different designs. The applicant, we're probably on our fifth or sixth, is more than willing to keep
working on that and pushing up. We haven't even talked about materials, but they certainly know our
expectations. I think right now what we're trying to figure out is the density and the use, and if that's going
to work. But the Planning Commission was a little concerned about the predictability and the stamping of
the looks of the building. And also is there enough open space. Kind of what we did on Walnut Grove.
25
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Some of the more larger spanses and the other concern that they had was the street layout itself on that
comer. In the comer it seemed a little bit mismatched so they have revised that and then I'll go through
that tonight. The applicant will just to make sure it has a little bit better sense of flow. So conditions 32
through 36 were conditions that the Planning Commission added, and they wanted more detail on the
commercial. Obviously the commercial on that will come back under the next level is more specific,
limiting the uses under the PUD. We would give them a short list of accepted uses in that area, and then
again design that would tie into the design of the project itself. When I say design, I'm talking about scale
and materials so it would be compatible with that. And the other thing I wanted to bring up is there was a
neighborhood meeting September 1st. That was the first day of school. It was difficult for the adjoining
property owners to attend the meeting. An informational meeting was held September 15th. A sign-up. I
did put just some small notations in there. I tried not to characterize exactly what happened because no
matter what I say, it's not going to be exactly what was said so I tried to just give some summary points.
I'm certain the neighbors will share with you their concerns. But we did try to provide information, not
only on this project itself but where we are with Highway 5 and.., are changing and also as was indicated
earlier, an informational meeting on the Gateway 2000 group home and any concerns that they had there.
There is a wetland on the site, as I mentioned, a large one. There are smaller ones that are closer to
Highway 5. MnDOT already examined those as part of their project itself. Those are exempt based on
past farming practices. Some of the issues that we had concerns with as this moves through is we want to
make sure we maintain the topography. There's a 40 foot change throughout the site and again we are
preserving the trees. With that, I'd like to let the applicant go through the project itself and talk about the
products and the design and if you have any questions. Otherwise the staff did put recommendations in
staff report recommending approval. Again under the concept it has to come back with much more detail
at the next level which I'm assuming is going to take a substantial amount of work to get to the next level
of detail. So with that I'd like to mm it over to the applicant to go through their project.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, that's fine. Kate, I just, can I just ask a couple basic questions? A simple one.
According to our zoning map right now, what is north of the frontage road of West 78th?
Kate Aanenson: Low density.
Mayor Mancino: So that's 2 to 4. 2 to 4 units per acre, and is that gross or net density?
Kate Aanenson: That's gross. What I calculated based on a low and a high range is somewhere, if we took
all these based on that, you have 300 to 450 units in that project. Using a low and using a high of medium
and low. If that makes sense. If they came in on that low side and did the lowest density, a straight
subdivision. If they came in on the other end, maybe came in at 6 units an acre instead of 8, 300. Closer to
300.
Mayor Mancino: Making two different zoning areas and putting them together.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Part of the traffic element, I broke it down by area and how many units
approximately by area under the low using the low. And at maybe 1.8 and then again that's closer to the 4,
if that makes sense.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, and then south of the West 78th, that western side it is 4 to 8 or office or
institutional, so those are the three. The overall density right now on all of it is 5.4 units per gross density
again?
26
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Again when they did their original calculations, they kept leaving this piece off.
Those 12 acres. I think it was their objective to sell it. It was the staff's position that it's under one
ownership. It's part of the PUD and it has the overlay, the Bluff Creek overlay district on it. If you were
to segment that off, there's nowhere to transfer that density so you'd be forced to give a variance. We're
saying as part of the PUD is that zoning you're requesting, it's part of the same tax parcel. Our
recommendation we include it in the PUD.
Mayor Mancino: And how many units are you transferring? Are they going again to the entire land on the
other side or how many units?
Kate Aanenson: They can only transfer what they can legitimately get on the site. Mr. Deanovic who
owns that property is laying something out and he's given me a 30 number. I'm not sure that that's a valid
number or not.
Mayor Mancino: On 12 acres. 30 units.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. But he's got a different product that's not allowed under our low density so I'm not
sure that that's a valid number. So I'd have to look at it.
Mayor Mancino: So that's something you still have to look at to decide how much you can really transfer
to the other side.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Because you can't count the wetland. You can't count the slope that's
unbuildable. But in looking in the staff's review of it, we calculated at the low assuming the 2 units an acre
and included that in the density. So actually our overall density, because we include those 12 acres, went
down than theirs.
Mayor Mancino: So it's a different number.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Theirs was a little higher overall because they weren't including that. We put the
12 back in.
Councilwoman Jansen: Mayor, I have a question that's right in line with your line of questioning, if I may.
When you're talking about north of the frontage road and south of the frontage road, do you have those
acreage numbers as to what you calculated that off of? I used the Highway 5 map and I didn't know if that
was correct.
Kate Aanenson: I apologize but the attachments got towards the back. I think it's right before the Planning
Commission minutes. We did a matrix. It's right before the Planning Commission. Also, there was a
letter from Lundgren Bros who had the option on the Dolejsi's on the back of that.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, I got it.
Kate Aanenson: Okay. So what we did is we used a multiplier and broke that down by acreage. I tried to
go through that but.
Mayor Mancino: So we're looking at the traffic analysis?
27
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, but it also gives you density allocation too.
Councilwoman Jansen: So where you have medium density 30 acres, I can assume that that's north of the
frontage road?
Kate Aanenson: No, that's south of the frontage road.
Councilwoman Jansen: Oh, I'm sorry.
Kate Aanenson: Medium density is south in this area.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: And low density would be on the west side of 41 and everything north of the frontage
road.
Councilwoman Jansen: So 56.9.
Kate Aanenson: Right. So what we did is we took a high and a low just to give you that range so that's
what I'm saying. It came up to 300 or 450.
Councilwoman Jansen: I guess I was looking at the Highway 5 corridor map and on here, and I don't know
if it was then just eliminating the topography that you couldn't build into. Buildable space then, is that
what I'm looking at is 15.5 to the south? Is that what this number would be?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Mayor Mancino: Which attachment please?
Councilwoman Jansen: I pulled it out. It's the Highway 5 corridor study map. Site analysis.
Councilman Labatt: Is there a page number on that?
Councilwoman Jansen: 4.7.
Mayor Mancino: That's the one I've got too. Okay, 4.7.
Kate Aanenson: ... as far as if it went to the north and the south. Those were just generalities as part of the
land use recommendations.
Councilwoman Jansen: It's just such a big difference. I guess between the 30 and the 15.5 so.
Mayor Mancino: You know what Councilwoman Jansen, it might have been, and I'm just, just having been
on the Highway 5 corridor and I don't remember it and don't deal with it half as much as Kate does, but the
15.5 might have been if you used alternative 2. That frontage road.
Kate Aanenson: Exactly. This was a representation of how much possible development on... after the road
went in place or what's buildable. Then from that we said what objectives would you want to get there?
28
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
We want to preserve the trees like they have done with this. I think if we went and took some of that out,
for example the wetland on this is 12 acres. If we calculated the areas of trees that are not, it may shrink
that down. So again it's compressing some of the density. Preserving some of that.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: But it's just a representation.
Councilwoman Jansen: I was making an assumption that because it had done the heavy line around what
looked more like buildable space, that that's what that was referring to. Okay. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions at this point from councilmembers?
Councilman Labatt: I've got one. What's the southeast comer of 5 and 417 That's guided for, directly
across the highway from this property?
Kate Aanenson: Arboretum Business Park? It's PUD Industrial.
Councilman Labatt: And what's the long term goal for that comer piece right here?
Kate Aanenson: Office. We left that out as, yeah. A regional office. Upscale.
Councilman Labatt: Upscale.
Kate Aanenson: Well I guess you know we talked about corporate headquarters. We talked about even
hospital. Something of that, a medical facility.
Councilman Engel: Trying to woo Microsoft to take that as a campus.
Mayor Mancino: On right across on the south side of Highway 5, just south of 5, there are three lots.
Lots 9, 10 and 11. Lot 9 is that western lot south and it's 23.2 acres and that's office, research,
institutional, major corporate headquarters. Then on the west side of Century, which goes up to 5 is Lot 10
and that can be a hotel, restaurant, daycare, nursing home, bank, offices, clinics, health club. And Lot 11,
which is on the east side of Century be hotel, restaurant, daycare, nursing home, bank, offices, so that's
what across south of TH 5 in the Arboretum Business Park. These three lots. What they can be. Their
USES.
Kate Aanenson: ... as far as transportation issues I neglected to point that out. Century Boulevard, which
does run north and south, there will be signal at TH 5 and so there is a way into this property...
Mayor Mancino: Good. Any other questions?
Councilwoman Jansen: Can I take my question one step further? And tell me if I'm jumping ahead but
taken what they're projecting onto this southern comer compared to what you've said, the 30 acres. It's
248 units that they're showing. So that's at 8 units an acre. That's the high for the medium and I thought I
heard you say that we were transferring some of this density and trying to spread it to the north.
29
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Kate Aanenson: Well again, we took some of that was on the west side also too. I don't think it's over
that. Maybe we can recheck our calculations but it shouldn't be over that 8.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. I was just curious if we'd gone back then and compared what we were
thinking we were accomplishing to how this actually diagramed out. Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is the applicant here? Are we at that point? Hi. Do you want to give your
name and address.
Dennis Griswold: My name is Dennis Griswold... When we met with.., and then Planning Commission we
had a little different layout. I'm not sure if you have copies of those with you but this is actually a series of
overlays if you will. Getting to this point we had several iterations to get to this site plan as it is and I'll
just peel this back if I may show you where we were at with Planning Commission. And then show you
how we reacted to their comments to get to this point. Our overall plan at Planning Commission was again
the four unit types. We have the club homes on the north part along the marsh. We have the manor homes
and three unit and four unit buildings in the central area. We have the rental townhomes on the east central
portion of the site. We had court homes through this area south of the new MnDOT road and then we had
the village homes out on the comer of 5 and 41. I think the consensus or the direction that we received
from Planning Commission and also parks was that all and all they were pretty happy or satisfied with
what was going on north of the MnDOT road or the frontage road, with the trail system that we were
providing. The green space through the townhomes. The trail along the marsh. They did recommend that
this trail that would be along the marsh be moved up along the street through the east side of the property.
And they recommended that we have a cul-de-sac up in the northeast comer here so that we would not be
continuing on or creating a street continuation through some treed areas. So with that layout we were able
to save the existing trees up by the Markert property, along the marsh. And we were able to create an
overall green space system that worked well from one product to another. From that then we came south of
the frontage road and their conclusion, as we perceived it at least, was that the, this is an all private drive
scenario through the court homes and the village homes. And with this concept we had the private drive
that somewhat looped through in this configuration and we had the village homes paired so that the patio
areas of each of the village homes were out within a common green space on a paired basis. And their
feeling was that that was a little too predictable. It was too repetitious and didn't really meet what they
were looking for there. On that particular layout also we were providing a fence that would continue
generally around the southwest comer of the property to tie from the existing tree mass here over to more
landscaping at the midway point of the west side. The feature that we were proposing was to have a pond
with a fountain at that comer along with screening and landscaping along the sides. As well as the pond
over in this area by the commercial which would be our other access into the general property. So we
would have two ponds in that scenario and this configuration. Upon their direction then to prepare for
tonight we did this overlay which is what you have on your reduced plan and the general theme there is to
meet a more organized public road system through to loop through in this area. And as you recall the
previous layout was just the private drive. Not quite as well defined. This would be a very well defined
circulation through that area. The other consideration was that we rearrange the village homes. Still the L
shaped building but we configured those differently so that they backed up to tree masses. They backed up
to larger open spaces that would also yield larger areas for berming along Highway 5 and along 41. So
that was the main difference in configuration of that particular product. What that also yielded was a
larger common green space within that area that was common not only to the village homes but also the
court homes through here. So we were able to achieve that common recreation area that they were looking
for. Within that area we show a totlot and then a large open space that could be used for any number of
different activities. But those were the points that we did change to meet their desires and their comments.
3O
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
And we do appreciate the ability to come before you at concept level so that we can work on some of those
types of site details. Some of the building aspects. At this level where it's easy to change to work with
you. When it gets into too hard of a hard line mode, it's very costly to make even minor changes because
there are a number of plans that go with it so I appreciate this level of review. If you have any questions,
oh the other point just adding to that pedestrian aspect is we're providing the walkway that would loop
through that southwesterly area that would tie with the pathways along the new MnDOT road. It's also the
path that goes along 41 and 5 so there's really a series of paths that interconnect through this overall
community. And we feel that that's one of the, especially with the older buyers that we do have on some of
the product, essentially the club homes through here and some of the manor homes, that is a very important
part of their recreational activity. So with that I'd like to introduce Mark Guenther, also with Puke...
quickly go through the different housing types that we are offering. And then if you have any questions or
if you'd like to talk about site plan aspects now, whichever way you'd like to do it but.., mind we would go
through the product. Give you a better feel for the types of buyers we have and the demographics for each
type of product that we're offering.., and then answer any questions you might have.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you very much Mr. Griswold .... go ahead Mr. Guenther.
Mark Guenther: Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity.., consists of four products presented to
you tonight and the first one is the village homes down in the southern part area and into this common area.
Mayor Mancino: And do we have a picture of it in here? In the packet that we just received.
Mark Guenther: You should have a package of, yeah a picture of all four products. If not, I do have these
renderings.
Mayor Mancino: So this is a village home. I just want to make sure that. Pull it out so I can.
Mark Guenther: ... initially when the packet was submitted we just had the plans...
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so this is a village home.
Mark Guenther: This is the village home. The square footage of these homes are 900... price range of
about $100,000 to $110,000. There are four floor plans within 12 homes. We have the floor plan on the
end. There is the center home floor plan. On the comer there are two single level stacked homes. From
here we market this, this product was marketed for the first time buyer. Typically young professionals
wanting to get a start. They don't want to rent. They want to be able to earn equity and gain some equity
in a home. It's an affordable home... These young professionals typically... The village homes is 156
homes. In that size community we see about 39 children. Half of those are school aged. Buyer profile...
The next product is our court homes which is located in the orange on this section there. We have a
rendering of as well. This product also markets to the same buyer... There are two elevations... The
square footage of this is about 1,100 to 1,350 square feet. The price range is $112,00 to about $130,00.
There are three floor plans in this product. We offer them in this community there are buildings that are
four homes per building, six homes per building and eight homes per building. Once again this is marketed
to the first time buyer. We also... The next product is the space to the northeast is the manor homes. The
manor homes are marketed.., association. All the snow removal and ground maintenance... This product
here...ranging from about 1,200 to 1,600 square feet. The price between $145,000 to $160,000. The
buyer profile on this... The last product is our single level club homes and that is located up here on the
northern part along the marsh. This product is...the price range would be $145,000 to $220,000... so the
31
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
topography of this site allows these, the reason why the square footage range is because... This is
marketed towards active adults. Typically it's their last home .... average age is around 55. Very few
children in here... In our single level townhomes we have two elevations that we offer there... There's one,
that was the four products that we are offering. There's the fifth product is the rental townhomes which we
are not building. That is up to the Mr. Deanovic and he would also, has stated that would copy the...
Mayor Mancino: And which one? And on the rental townhomes, which one would they mirror?
Mark Guenther: Well the exteriors would, the finishes would copy what...
Mayor Mancino: And would it be a club home? A manor home or what would the exterior look like? Of
the rental.
Mark Guenther: ... speak to what the exterior will look like and the elevation. That's up to Mr.
Deanovic. I'm just talking specifically to colors.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So we haven't seen anything specific on the rental?
Kate Aanenson: As far as design, no. I've looked at a couple of other of his projects. In Eden Prairie to
get an idea of the types. Similar to Puke Homes. Looked at some of their other projects to get an idea. I
just want to make one other comment while we're talking about the density, and Commissioner Jansen
brought up a good point. As this thing evolves, we haven't measured setbacks. You know there's a
question that came up on the, when this first came in we had all the same product. We're working really
hard to get some diversity. We're concerned about the look from Highway 5. I think Puke's been really
responsive to try and be creative. Coming back. It's going to evolve a lot more. One of the concerns we
had with the Planning Commission brought up with the village home, while it's a unique product, and it has
a single car garage. Our ordinance, and you guys put some additional parking, they're going to have to
lose some units. So while it seems high right now it's going to, it can't go up anymore. It will bounce
down just to get the setbacks and everything that we need to, so it will come under. It's close to the 8 but it
will come under because it has to meet the setbacks and get some of the other visitor parking and some of
that. So just to be clear on that. We're not saying this is going to be the final density because we haven't
given that level yet. So that was a good question that you raised.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Aren't there locations where we can look at some of these products?
Mark Guenther: Yes we do.
Mayor Mancino: Or if you could give those to Kate and she could get them to us, that would be great. So
that we could actually go and see the product that's out there. Okay. Any questions?
Councilman Labatt: Your study group of people here. Is this from previously...
Mark Guenther: ...
Councilman Labatt: What is the closest one to Chanhassen?
32
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Mark Guenther: Shakopee.
Councilman Labatt: The ones right along 1697 On the north side of 169.
Mark Guenther: ... one off of Marshall. Club homes are down by... The demographics come from our
buyers survey that purchase with us... information our buyers have given to us.
Councilman Labatt: Have you done any comparison to the typical buyer in Chanhassen? According to
what Chanhassen buyers?
Mark Guenther: Product type, we have compared to those around...
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions?
Councilman Engel: What did you say was the anticipated value of those court homes?
Mark Guenther: The court homes...
Mayor Mancino: And is Mr. Deanovic here?
Kate Aanenson: He's in another meeting.
Dennis Griswold: We apologize for that, but I would like to just make one comment relative to his product
and also the property on the west side of 41. We would like to have our unit counts reflect only the land
within this area that we're showing for development. We are not looking, Puke Homes is not looking for
any density transfer or any... With that, we would hope and we understand what Kate has indicated that
our density.., happen in other planned developments. We're really using this as a plan development for the
units next and working with the amenities on the site. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Why don't we open this up for a few comments and then we'll bring it back to council
for discussion on how we want to go about a decision tonight. Tabling it. Having some time or asking for
more information. So anyone wishing to address the council on this may come forward. State your name
and address. But if you've already spoken tonight, you can't come up a second time.
Leah Hawke: ... Mayor, council members. Thank you for the opportunity to present to you tonight. My
name is Leah Hawke and I live at 7444 Moccasin Trail. I'm here tonight speaking, not necessarily on
behalf of everyone sitting behind me but certainly several residents of the Longacres development. Anne
Ryan, who's property is a little closer and who did receive notification of this development, unfortunately
had to leave but she did want me to make special mention of her name and let you know that she left
messages for everybody and would like to talk to you individually. And Mr. Engel, you may want to...
As a neighborhood we'd first like to take this opportunity to thank Kate Aanenson and Puke Homes for
meeting with us to discuss Arboretum Village. The meeting was certainly very informative. We also have
to admit that we've not been able to visit with many of our neighbors on this development. We've basically
just gone down one street and I'm sure that we would like an opportunity to get more people notified of
what's going on there we think there will be more interest in this. Just to be clear, we're not necessarily
opposed to Highway 41 and 5 being residential. At least that's, the people I have spoken to. Some of these
people in this room I haven't spoken to directly so they may get up and say differently. But we do believe
the current plan raises many concerns that need to be addressed prior to approving tonight's Puke's PUD.
33
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
These concerns include, number one. Does the proposed development really reflect how Chanhassen wants
to be viewed? As I'm sure members of this council are aware, the primarily factor for many of us in
deciding to make Chanhassen our homes were the beautiful neighborhoods. The open spaces, the fields and
the greenery. Selfishly we moved here hoping we could keep it the same forever. Realistically we know the
city will have to grow and with that growth will come change. We understand this council faces a hard
challenge every time it considers a new development. Trying to balance the preservation of Chanhassen's
look and feel while promoting it's continued growth. However, we hope that you will take a careful look at
this project, it's density, the number of low income and affordable housing units and it's location on a
Chanhassen thoroughfare and question whether or not this project will indeed enhance our city and preserve
what we all came here to enjoy. My hope is you will review whether or not all options have been
thoroughly explored and critically assessed whether or not this particular proposal aligns with our
comprehensive plan and reflects how we want Chanhassen to be perceived in the years to come. Secondly,
does the proposed development meet our goal of promoting public safety? We have two public safety
concerns when it comes to this development. One of them has been mentioned here already tonight. This
development, it will be close to the Gateway 2000 home. In choosing the type of development for this land
we urge this council to consider it's public safety responsibility. Do we or should we, as a city, have to
take any precautionary public safety measures when locating residential areas or extending public walking
trails close to this home? Do we have the appropriate public safety concerns addressed? We simply don't
know, and I'm not sure anyone in this room has enough information to answer that question. We believe
we should before we proceed any further. Second. We remain very concerned about traffic flow. Many
already perceive Highway 5 as a difficult, if not outright dangerous drive. We understand the proposed
widening of Highway 5 may help the situation. However, residents of Longacres still have Highway 41 to
deal with, and that's a road that's become increasingly busy and congested. Many of us no longer take, let
me get my bearings here, the right onto Longacres. We'll go right around and come through Galpin to get
to our homes just because we're getting nervous about being rear ended on that entryway with traffic
coming so quickly around that bend. Being conservative, if you assume 1 ½ cars for every housing unit
contemplated by this proposal, we will be adding approximately 600 cars to our traffic system. Our hope
is that the council will carefully consider the impact to our existing infrastructure of this additional traffic.
Number three. Does the proposed development add additional challenges to our school district? Many of
us are painfully aware that our school district is in desperate need of two new schools. The statistics are
frightening. Our school district grows by one classroom a month. We need the District 112 referendum to
pass. Realistically those of us working on that cause are unsure it will happen. Let me be clear, it is our
opinion based on reviewing district projections that adding any new school aged child will only serve to
exacerbate our problem. While we understand we are but one of many cities in District 112, we would
respectfully request this council consider becoming a leader on this issue by saying the city will partner
with the school district to ensure our growth decisions carefully consider the impact to our education
system. Just as an aside, I understand a staff member informed a concerned resident that Longacres and
it's children have contributed to the problem we're currently facing. On this point, I'd just like to say that
we weren't here when Longacres was developed and it appears that when our, we had a chance when our
development was going in to look at this particular issue and address it then. We're sorry it didn't happen
but we as a neighborhood are saying that we should be looking at it with respect to any new development.
Will the proposal impact property values? We're all very aware of the mandates from the Met Council for
low income housing. Certainly we all respect the need to accommodate this type of housing. It's a very
important issue that every city has to address. That being said, we are concerned that developing properties
around ours that could be considered low income or affordable could ultimately reduce our property values.
We also believe it could have significant long term impact on how our city is perceived. We understand
part of our strategic plan is to bring more affordable housing into Chanhassen. However, I for one remain
confused by exactly how much of this type housing we need. I also question why we've not planned ahead
34
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
and identified those properties that might best be suited for this type of housing. We would respectfully
request this council consider those of us already living here and the potential impact on our properties prior
to making any decision on the Puke Homes proposal. To conclude. In our opinion, how we will develop
this property poses many issues and challenges that must be resolved prior to even approving Puke's PUD.
We would urge the council to avoid making any decision tonight that would bind the city. Instead we
would respectfully request the whole project be sent back to the Planning Commission and city staff for
additional review and analysis so we can ensure that whatever goes in on 41 and 5 meets the expectations
of all residents. Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Anybody else wishing to speak in front of the council? Other concerns. Other issues
that you have.
Councilman Engel: Oh don't leave her out as the point person all the time.
Councilwoman Jansen: You said it all Leah.
Kurt Oddsen: My name is Kurt Oddsen. I live at 7325 Moccasin Trail. I don't have as eloquent of a
speech as Leah did but some of my points are the same issue and I guess it's important for a couple people
to get up here and just at least express some concerns so that you know it's not just an individual or a small
group that is saying we have a problem because of whatever, but it's a larger concern that I think a lot of
us share. The points I'd like to make are some of the same ones. If you look at the traffic count, we have
two entrances and exits coming out of the development. Leah made a point, I think did you say 1.8 cars
per household. If you did an estimate on number of trips that are coming in and out of that development, I
think you'd find that they would far exceed the number of cars that are per household. I'm sure the study
has been done to look at this and there may be numbers and estimates and that sort of thing but I'll bring
back to the point earlier tonight, we talked about the school speed limits. And the comment was made that
when school was developed there was not a feeling for need some of those signs. Now we're sitting here
how many years later and we're having that discussion. I don't want to have that happen with this
development for traffic. I don't want to have to come back here 5 years from now and say here's the
problem we have. Now what do we do? And have a state highway person tell me there's not enough
traffic. There's not enough this. There's not enough that. So I'd like us to consider that before we make a
decision to move ahead with the project. Personal note. I'm a little disappointed that we're looking at this
project for that site. I think there are better uses for that piece of property that would fit in better with the
community and be more aesthetically pleasing for that piece of property. That's a personal opinion. I
know the studies have been done, the Highway 5 corridor. The frontage road. I'm still just concerned
about where we're going with this. We keep saying we want to move all the retail downtown to
Chanhassen so we don't want any retail out here. I understand that point but I'm not sure again this is the
best use of the property. I was happy to hear about the density transfer not being an issue. I think that is,
for lack of a better word, a bogus way of trying to put too many homes in one area by taking a piece of
property and moving it outside and saying hey, aren't we good people. So I'd just... The taxes are a
concern to me. We're looking at, what did they say, 5.19 units per acre. Somewhere in there. I would like
to see an estimated revenue in terms of tax generation that this development is going to provide for the city.
I know what I pay. It's public record. Anybody who goes to what I and my neighbors pay for taxes. And
it's substantial. And we're going to be asked here pretty soon to increase that again and I would like to see
what this is going to generate for the city because I think we have to take care of our city but I think
everybody has to do their fair share. I would also propose that maybe the developer take a look at how
they can help the city, I don't know how these things work. These variances and these sort of things but is
there a contribution that can be made to the school system for doing this type of a development? I'm not
35
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
saying that being the reason to let them do it, but I'm saying we look at businesses in the city and we give
them incremental tax financing. Can we do something in return to have them help our system, and the
answer may be no. I see you shaking your head.
Mayor Mancino: That's a legislative impact fees, but that is being talked about in the legislature so.
Kurt Oddsen: ... showing some of my naivet~ I guess on some of these issues. That's why I felt a need to
stand up here was to tell you that I'm concerned, and I don't know all the ramifications but I do know I
have some concerns in my area. I think for the other points Leah made, I would agree with some of those.
I don't want to be redundant and keep us here all hours here tonight so I made a couple of my points and I
appreciate you listening to me.
Mayor Mancino: Good. Thank you for giving them to us. Anyone else? You don't have to sound
eloquent. All you have to do is tell us what you think.
Susan Cohoon: My name is Susan Cohoon and I live at 7525 Bent Bow Trail and I just want to point out,
I remember reading a few years ago in the Villager before Walnut Grove was put in and a couple of the
council members were quoted as saying, they had no problem with that development as long as we ended
up not looking like Dell Road. And tonight we're calling the intersection of 5 and 41 as the gateway to
Chanhassen, and if you start at that comer and go to Dell Road, we've got tract housing on every single
comer just about. I don't think this is the image we want our city to portray.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Councilwoman Jansen: Thank you.
Kristin Spangrud: My name is Kristin Spangrud and I'm at 7487 Bent Bow Trail. And I know since they
have a stop, this is a proposed stop light at this intersection. With all of this increased housing, my concern
is we are almost going to have to put a stop light at 41 for our development to get out onto 41. You can
barely mm south and go south on 41. Many times you wait, I've waited probably 5 minutes sitting there
and I just cannot imagine adding this many homes when all those additional people going north. I don't
know that we could get even out of that development on 41 without a stop light there. So that's another big
consideration I think. Thanks.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. We'll bring this back to council. A couple things that
I'd just like to say. That I think most of the council members just so Mark and Dennis know, we got your
part of the packet at our meeting tonight so really haven't had a chance to digest it visually and look
through all the products, etc so I wanted you to know that. And just for other council members to know, it
may take me a good week or two to come back with, it's just things that I'd like to digest. Maybe I'll give
a few opinions tonight but I'd really like to have some time to digest what we were presented tonight, but I
can speak to a few things that I'd like to get back from staff. A few questions that I have before our next
meeting. I will do that after other council members have given their input. Councilmember Jansen.
Councilwoman Jansen: Wow. First of all thanks for all the great pictures and all the great information
and everything that we did have to go through. This was quite the project .... commission because I could
see that it was this huge project coming at us. So I've been really trying to address this and stay out of the
detail. The more I've gotten into the detail and maybe looking at the individual homes, I think the farther
I'm getting from what staff has tried to keep us focused on and that is the conceptual part of what are we
36
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
trying to accomplish as Chanhassen on this comer. So I'm trying to put that hat on and that concept hat on
and I've driven this area. Even though I drive it all the time, I drove it specifically with that in mind. And
I guess some of the questions that really did come to mind were how we were presenting Chanhassen on
this comer because the direction that we have in all of our major plans and primarily the Highway 5
corridor, is that this is our gateway. This is how people will get their first impressions of Chanhassen, and
I have driven other communities entries or tried to figure out what their entries are, and it seems like we
could make it a really significant impact on this comer. Visually. And that's as far as I'm going to go
visually because I wouldn't even want to begin to try to say what we should do on this comer. But from a
policy perspective and from trying to do what is in the best interest of the community. I went back, I went
back so far as to the '97 survey. What's important to our community members? Our residents. What are
they saying to us? What are the characteristics they're looking for in a development like this? This is the
first neighborhood that we're being asked as this council to pull together and give a look and a feel. And
the characteristics that they gave were small town ambience. The rural nature of our community. The
parks and the open spaces. Some of the serious issues that were raised in the course of that survey were
our high taxes and we're forever hearing gee, our taxes are so high, and that would be okay if we were
getting the right services and we saw the value in the community. So that's a catch all. Not necessarily
lower them but let's just see some value coming for them. The traffic conditions. Constantly hearing about
the traffic conditions. And quality schools. And the one housing issue besides affordable housing that has
really been brought to our attention is our need for the senior housing. So those are the points that I then
tried to bring back to this project, and the taxes stuck out in my mind, and I'll warn you. I've got realms of
notes and I've tried to take it down to just nine points. Which seems like a lot but I'll try to be fast. So I
started with the most important. The tax capacity on this piece of property. We have a very small
percentage of our community that's actually planned for commercial or office or industrial. So I went back
to a form that we were given, it was actually by Mr. Johnson with Lotus Realty so I would love to have
staff work out a tax capacity for us on the 30 acres that could conceivably be office. Because when I
worked that through, in comparison to what multi-family would bring into this city tax wise, office is 40%
more in dollars. And I'm not necessarily hearing from the residents, you know we want more office or we
need more commercial, but if we are hearing high taxes and we can maybe impact this comer a little less
severely with an office complex, there's the catch-22 because now we're complicating the traffic formula.
And that's where we get into those, you know hopefully the public debates. You know which way are we
going? Here were the options. But I'm real hung up on the fact that we don't have a lot of properties
where we will be designating them as office. This is right across the street from one of our significant
complexes where we're hoping to have a headquarters office on the other side. And it just seems to
compliment. So I did come at it wondering if we would be doing the right thing to walk away from office
from a tax capacity standpoint. Wanting to see those numbers that are formulated by a rookie like me.
The single family homes to the north just seems so much more compatible with the existing land uses that
are there, and I'm going to you know, looking at the Lundgren letter where they're concerned about their
future development being bordered up against the rental townhomes. It seems like we're putting a little bit
of a conflict of land uses by intensifying the piece to the north. And when I then start looking at the
densities and trying to do this calculation, I appreciate Kate noting that we still have to do all the setbacks
and work through those numbers because I get different numbers. And so rather than trying to work
through the north and the south, if I just, what I did Kate was I took the 86.9 in acres, and you have given
us in our housing goals. In the housing goals agreement you reflected a density goal overall average of 3.3,
and I realize that would be really low in comparison.
Kate Aanenson: That's the minimum the Met Council will accept.
37
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Councilwoman Jansen: So minimum from Met Council would suggest on this entire 86.9 acres 210 units.
Right? No, 286 units. So 286 compared to the 400 and plus, it's a huge difference and what I'm hearing
Pulte Homes saying is that they're not as concerned about the density transfer. I'm not seeing density
getting transferred even yet off of this front piece. If we stay residential, it seems there's an opportunity to
make it less intense on that comer without intensifying it to the north. Leave it single family. If we do go
for residential, I would say leave it single family. Let's look a little closer at that comer.
Mayor Mancino: And you realize leaving it from single family would be, could be 4 units per acre. It's 1
to 4 so it'd be higher than the 3.3.
Councilwoman Jansen: And what I heard said was that the onus is on the builder to show the number of
units that could actually be built on the property. So I would be curious. You know we're using
minimums and maximums and it leaves a lot of room to work with. And it looks like we're at the
maximum. We're closer to the maximum than we are even the goal that we have to reach of the 3.3. When
we worked with Lundgren Bros, which was the other housing development that had the Bluff Creek
standards applied to it. That was much lower than this, and we've preserved like 43% of the property for
open space. And I'm going to pop the number off of my head because I have it here in all my paperwork.
It was like 2.4 was the density that was left on that property after we preserved 43% of the property, so it's
just seeming high. It's seeming, the density seems high for the natural features that we're trying to
maintain. 12 acres of wetland. Whatever we do decide we need to do with that, with the other 12 acres on
the other side, that's still not, it's like 14% of the total that we're trying to preserve. Yet we've got this 5.1
in density for the whole project. It just, it's out of whack. It just seems to be higher density than we need
to be building to on this project. My fourth point were the whole housing goals, and I guess having been
presented with the petition for the senior assisted living, hearing that we have a 30 person waiting list for
our current senior housing, I look at this as an opportunity to maybe be addressing that other housing goal.
The one that the community is actually ribbing us, or driving us to try to do something about. So I don't,
though I see that this has units in it that are tailored to what could be that lifestyle, what we're seeing
happening in other metropolitan cities is that they are building senior housing complexes and creating an
environment for the seniors and I guess that's what I'm hearing.
Kate Aanenson: Are you talking about rental units? Is that what you're saying?
Councilwoman Jansen: And I don't know specifically if it's rental Kate. You know when we do the whole
senior housing study, I guess I would again throw that back to staff and your expertise as to what that is.
Senior assisted of course is what they petitioned for but that can mean.
Kate Aanenson: That requires an institutional zoning and if it's the other, it's going to be rental. Just to be
clear on that. That's generally what it is.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay, and you did say this does have an institutional on part of it?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Could be. Could be, okay. My fifth concern was it just didn't seem to
have enough green space or recreational space for the residents. It's like putting them out in this island and
not giving them a park, though I see the totlots and the Planning Commission spoke to that concern. I went
over to Walnut Grove, and of course they have the community park right across the street. That seems like
more the type of facility I was thinking this one should have access to and I don't know, I have no concept
38
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
as to what a totlot would look like in comparison to that city park. So without going into any more detail
than that. Looking through the demographics of the people that we were saying might live in these kind of
units. I fit those demographics at one point and so you know just thinking back to what was then important
to me when I was in that group, the first thing that struck me was public transportation. When I was in
that bracket I needed the bus. You know we're suggesting that we can go with a single car garage because
there won't be two vehicles in a household. Well yep, I was in that demographics and I was that second
individual who didn't have the car but I needed a bus route. And I'm not sure how well set up we are in
that part of our community for someone to be able to access the transit system, and just to get that piece
figured out as to where we're going with that. But then the other need that arose from needing the public
transportation was having the convenience stores nearby because then once you did manage to get yourself
back to your home, it's your two feet in order to be able to go grocery shopping or any sort of necessity.
So in driving around this area and I even clocked it. It's 3 miles from downtown, so a 3 mile walk if
they're going to shop in downtown. It's 2 ½ miles if they go up to the crossings at 7 and 41, and it's about
the same equivalent if they head down to Chaska with Rainbow and Jonathan Center so it just, when I did
that it just seemed a little isolated for what we're trying to accomplish in having it be more of a set entity.
And I know that we have that one piece with the 3.5 acres that we're saying could have some services on it.
So I really want to focus on what those could or would be, and is it enough to really service what we're
saying these lifestyles are going to need. And then lastly I put down the buffer. Looking at the residential
sitting at that comer with two major highways and the amount of traffic noise, they look like they're sitting
right on the right-of-way. And I do see that they do have the trees. Okay, I'm being sarcastic. Sorry
Mayor. They're not in the right-of-way. The tree buffer is there but they don't appear to be as set back as
I would anticipate and Kate you said that we haven't done setbacks yet. I'm assuming that maybe this
doesn't, okay.
Kate Aanenson: We're not to that level yet.
Councilwoman Jansen: So there again it would reduce the amount ofbuildable space on the comer, and
maybe also free it up for a better visual treatment as an entry point to the city. So just a few points.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, food for thought. Thank you.
Councilman Engel: I think I've got it boiled down to three. You know as a professional that takes pride in
his work, it's hard for me to look another professional in the eye and comment on their work sometimes.
But that's, when I look at the plan I've got, and I know it's already different than the one I got in my
packet. It's not the entry visual that I had envisioned for that comer of Chanhassen coming in from the
west. It really does remind me of the barracks style homes I see in Eden Prairie as I come down Dell Road
and there's a crack, I think we've had one for staff for a while, with the barracks. Some of those
townhomes, they're very repetitive. You know I don't want to call the baby ugly but the baby needs a face
lift if that's what it's going to be. On first blush it doesn't do it for me the way Walnut Grove does. If you
looked at Walnut Grove, and I know we went through a lot of iterations on that thing. There was much
more sensitivity to the transfer of the homes and the mirroring of the community that was to the north. In
other words we had homes of like value, not exactly but slightly lower value as you move to the south.
And although there's a much bigger buffer zone here to the north than there was with Walnut Grove, I still
look at this overall parcel, 87 acres, and I see all the buildings on it. It just seems really intense. And I'm
not really comfortable with that right now. I just didn't envision that for that parcel. If it's going to be all
homes, I think it needs to make a little bit of a U mm toward the model we put in place at Walnut Grove.
You need to have fewer homes, a little bit of transfer, moving to the south, but I think higher value homes
on the north.
39
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Kate Aanenson: Are you talking about, excuse me. I just want to get clarification. As far as density or,
because Walnut Grove is 6 units an acre so I'm.
Councilman Engel: I'm talking about the big problem up from was when you cross the drainage ditch to
the south, we put in homes that were very similar to the ones right across that ditch to the north. Right?
Kate Aanenson: Okay. Because there wasn't a buffer, yeah.
Councilman Engel: Right, there wasn't a buffer there. There wasn't that wratching down in value.
Kate Aanenson: The wetland.
Councilman Engel: As you went towards the highway. And that to be a better, it's a better marriage and I
think it produces less parcels and less intensity on the development as a whole. But all that being said, I
was only half joking when I say to Councilman Labatt that we want to see a corporate campus on the
north, excuse me. The south comer of 41 and 5. And I really would like to see a mirroring, I think the
highest and best use of that property is a mirroring of the zoning you currently see on the parcel just to it's
south. And I'm very serious about seeing a soft or a technology type company come and turn that into a
campus. Extremely high paying jobs. Very attractive businesses. Good for the community. I think that's
the highest and best use. Can you go out and just grab one by the neck and drag them in here? No. Might
be a field for a while. But that's what I envisioned. I think it's less impact on the city. It's less impact on
the services and it's a better return on the tax dollar. But if it's going to be homes, it's got to look better
than this. I'm going to stop there.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. You may have to wait for a few years on that one.
Councilman Engel: You know sometimes I'm patient. Not much but sometimes.
Mayor Mancino: Steve.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, well I can get out of here real quick by just saying ditto and ditto. Just so
everybody knows who's in this room and I'm a resident of the Longacres neighborhood so if anyone from
Puke Brothers, I live in the neighborhood. Just so you guys know.
Mayor Mancino: We have a lot of pressure on him.
Councilman Labatt: No I don't because one of the residents sent me an e-mail this seek and it talked about
the fact that I was wavering, you know I said boy this is tough because I live in the neighborhood and some
people are going to say it's in your back yard. That's why you're only opposed to it and this individual
said no. Take a look at it as though you're elected by a ward and the area you live in happens to be your
ward that encompasses this property. So I looked at that way and to that person, thanks. For opening my
eye to that avenue. So with that said, what are we trying to accomplish here at this comer? Small town
ambience. Rural nature. Open spaces and parks. What Linda said were important to people. I am not
comfortable at all with the concept that's been proposed. I've said it once, this is a gateway on the west
side of the city. The south side is going to be the corporate headquarters or that's the plan or the vision. It
will be wonderful to see a mirror on the north side. Low density housing on the north side of the road, 1 to
4 units per acre. Single family. That'd be wonderful. I think Lundgren Bros made a point with their letter.
4O
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
About being the abutting property owner and they have concerns too. We need to look at that. Also, you
know we need to take a look at the Gateway group home. So I lost my notes here. Traffic on 41. It is a
nightmare to head out and turn south onto 41 from our development, and it's only going to get worse with
western exit here of West 78th onto 41. I realize with office coming in there, if it were to come in there, it
wouldn't create still another problem, yes. But maybe signalizing both intersections or working on
widening, I don't know. I have a strong concern about the impact on the schools that this would entail. I
just don't know if the demographics from Shakopee or Eden Prairie are the same with people who would
buy in Chanhassen. I look at the concept of the color drawing here, there is a significant lack of open space
and parkland. But there are other developments that come in there that have neighborhood basketball
courts and tennis courts, I don't see any of that here for 414 units. And the last thing I want is a corridor
of multi-family, high density housing along Highway 5 and that's what could be planned if this were to go
through between 41 and Audubon. On both sides of Highway 5. Gosh, did I go through it that quick?
Where are my other notes? The tax capacity that Linda brought up. I think we need as a city need to take
a very serious look at that and what we can do to lower the taxes in our city. We as a council do, I think
we do a fantastic job and are looking at the 2000 budget of... every penny and we're doing our duty at that
point but we also need to look at how can we, what can we do to generate more higher paying, or higher tax
paying businesses and commercial developments into this, to alleviate our tax burden. That was one of my
campaign slogans. What I wanted to do and this gives us a strong time right now to take a serious look at
doing that on the south side of the frontage road with putting in office there. So, I've said everything I'm
going to say.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, good. Thank you. I'll finish up here. The tax capacity was my number one too.
I'd love to see staff come back and show us a comparison of the multi-family, you know the 4 to 8 units on
that southern part versus office. What would also be office in that area. That was something that was also
brought up at the Planning Commission and I've had other Planning Commissioners since that Planning
Commission meeting call and say that they think their meeting and say that they're, they firmly want to
look at office too so I know that that is a Planning Commission concern. I'm not going to repeat what
everyone said. There are couple things that I'd also like staff to look at. One is, there is a neighborhood
park that is in the Highway 5 corridor that's planned for this area as far as.
Kate Aanenson: Yes, I'm aware of that. I talked to Todd Hoffman about that, as far as the demographics
and that was prior to our acquiring the O'Shaughnessy piece on the south, the 100 acres. And Todd felt
that based on that, that and the proximity of this area to be able to catch the trails and go up to the park
that Councilwoman Jansen was talking about, that they had that park as their neighborhood park and so he
would not propose at this time an additional park in this area. But you're right, he did appear and I did
question that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So the neighborhood park that's really here wouldn't go there.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. That was prior to the other two parks, yeah.
Mayor Mancino: So have they taken formal action on that?
Kate Aanenson: That was part of their recommendation, yes. When it went to Park Commission. They
just wanted the totlots increased.
Mayor Mancino: One of the things that is a concern of mine that wasn't brought up too much, but mine is
the commercial, the 3.7 acres on the east side. Only because one of the things I'm concerned about is every
41
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
time we stop by the stop light on Highway 5, we're going to have some little commercial node. We have it
sure, on 41 and 7, which isn't very far from this, but we're going to have it on Galpin and Highway 5. And
then we're going to have some commercial in the Arboretum Business Park, in that area. So I'm concerned
about getting too many of these little service nodes or strip commercial on Highway 5 in that whole area,
because that was one of the things that we didn't want to do. So I'd like to see, according to, from what I
can tell from the Highway 5 study, that what we had designated as commercial, will really be some of the
ponding for Highway 5, or West 78th Street. And that eastern node, the 3.7 acres would be office or
institutional, and not commercial. So I would also like to look at that as the office or institutional. And
again see some tax capacity rates on that. How that would go. As far as the life cycle housing, just
conceptually, there is no question that we not only need to do senior housing but we need to do all different
kinds of life cycle housing, whether it's affordable or not. And when we do, and I'm not sure because Mr.
Deanovic wasn't here talking about the rental in this area, I would like, I mean we need a lot more detail
about that. There's no question for me, if we do some low income housing, that it's scattered throughout a
project. That it's just not lined up one house after the other on one side of a project. That it is throughout
a project and that the subsidy is in upping the quality of the home so that it looks like the rest of the
neighborhood. And I think that the council has previously always taken that position. Again, it'd be
scattered and not just in one area, and that the quality of the housing looks like the rest of the housing in
that development. And since we haven't heard from Mr. Deanovic I can't really speak to that. I also feel,
being on the Highway 5 corridor study that we were looking... I want to say it was kind of wow that
reflected the values of a community. I have a hard time thinking that people will want to live in that
southern part on 41 and 5. I mean traffic and the noise and everything is just going to be unbelievable. So
I still don't yet, you still have to convince me how that would work on that comer with housing. As I see it,
you know long term I get concerned about the housing there. I think everybody else really got to my other
points on it and I certainly do want to see a comprehensive trail system through the area. No question
about it and I put, the group home is not part of this development so that's a side issue, but there's no
question there needs to be good pedestrian circulation, trails, etc in this development. The other thing that's
missing for me I think the most is kind of a narrative character of the development, and I think Kate kind of
talked about it in the report. I don't have a feel, a character feel for the different neighborhoods yet. You
haven't, certainly I can't tell it visually here yet and I can't, I haven't read it verbally. So I'd like to have
more of a feel and that's why I'm probably going to need to go to some of your other developments and
look at them. But I don't have a character feel for what these neighborhoods are going to be like. And I
know we're just at conceptual but I need to have more of a feeling at this point. I think that's it. Kate, on
the northern half of 78th Street, which is single family. 1 to 4. Now in that 1 to 4 that is homes that are not
only are single family homes but they can be attached housing also, correct?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. There's three zoning options in there.
Mayor Mancino: Can you go over the zoning options for what's zoned?
Kate Aanenson: PUD. Smallest lot 11, averaging 15. That's what Longacres is. The other is twin homes
which allows for 10,000 square foot lots. And the other is a traditional subdivision which is a 15,000
square foot lot. Those are the three zoning options.
Mayor Mancino: And so the twin homes are much like the club homes? Is it the court homes? Are those
twin homes?
Kate Aanenson: ... right here. Actually if you go to a 10,000 lot you could probably put...
42
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: That's what's permitted within that zoning district.
Mayor Mancino: Anita, do you want to add anything on traffic? Any of your concerns about 41 and 5 and
things that we should be looking at? Do you feel comfortable with the frontage road and Highway 5 and 41
and what's going in. From an engineering.
Anita Benson: From an engineering viewpoint and from a personal viewpoint, obviously transportation
funding has been a big issue in getting state highway improvement project in this region. The Highway 5
project is one that's been worked on for years and now we see it getting delayed a little bit. Hopefully still
to be constructed in 2000 and 2001. A big advantage of the Highway 5 project is the north frontage road.
It will provide the access for residents located within the city to not have to drive on Highway 5 to get to
downtown. That was part of the overall plan. Is to allow for a lower speed, local access street to take the
traffic to the downtown. So that's a big positive with the frontage road and also with Highway 5 being
upgraded to a four lane divided facility. However there still is work to be done on 41. We do see that
Chaska is working with MnDOT to initiate some improvements for shoulder widening and some turn lanes
on Highway 41 south of Highway 5. I'm not aware of any improvement other than those proposed with the
Highway 5 project north of 41. On 41 between Highway 7 and Highway 5. With the Highway 5 project
there will be some turn lanes added at the connection with West 78th Street with 41.
Mayor Mancino: Well maybe we should review that too. That would probably be a good idea to show the
turn lanes that will be added to the Highway 5 project on 41.
Anita Benson: Okay. I can certainly bring that back to you and probably with this council maybe an
overall overview of the Highway 5 project at some point in the near future when we get a feel for where
that's progressing and what the delay does to the construction schedule. Will we continue to work with
MnDOT to have the transportation improvements occur within the city? Certainly, and Highway 41 north
of TH 5 is an important project along with many others in the city.
Mayor Mancino: As it refers to the school district, I'm assuming. I mean Kate you've been working with
the school districts and giving them our projections and everything. I know you did for the comprehensive
plan and I have the Lukerman Report that was told included Chanhassen in the projections. Is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: That we've been giving the school district 112 the numbers and what our projections are
and you've been going, I mean you take that information from the, just a second. Take that information
from the zoning map that we approved for the comprehensive plan and have given them those numbers.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. And just, we didn't include it in the report but as far as numbers generated by
different housing types as the applicant indicated, different ratios based on housing types and achieve a
document that based on her projections based on vacant properties.
Mayor Mancino: So tell me, when you give the school district numbers, so do you take the southern part,
which could be institutional office or multi family. Do you give them the multi-family numbers? You give
them office. You give them both?
43
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Kate Aanenson: ... in the comp plan you have to give a two way swing.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So they've got all those numbers to look at. Now obviously they're still going to
need to build new schools and they're still going to need to pass referendums. That's not going to stop.
It's not going to stop with this referendum. It's going to continue going. There's no question. With
Chanhassen and Victoria and Chaska growing that that will continue, continue, continue. So that we know
that. But I know that we have been working with the school district on those numbers. And we're losing
57 or you put in your report where the church is going to go, and excuse me. I'm starting to lose my voice.
Where Westwood is going to go, it's not going to be single family so those are 57 homes, single family
homes coming.
Kate Aanenson: Acres, so it was over that. It was over 100 and some units. 120, yes.
Mayor Mancino: About 120, so we'll lose that in the mix. Okay. And who knows, if the referendum
passes and we have another school in Chanhassen, that might have been zoned single family and that won't
be single family anymore so less children. Okay, so that's going to be. Tell us where that's going to be.
Councilman Labatt: ... but we'd rather have the school.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, but they don't have it yet. You know I think there are a few things more that we
would like to see. I mean I think that the, to give Pulte a real firm direction. I mean you've heard us say
we'd like to see the tax capacity rates on that comer so we can be real firm with you about multi-family
versus office and where we want to go with that. So if we can come back in a couple weeks with that
information and maybe some information from Anita on traffic and talk a little bit about Highway 5 and
what's going to be, the upgrade there. A little bit about the frontage and about 41. And then as I said, I
think that the, at that point we'll also talk more about density because I think what we do in that southern
part has a lot to do with the overall density here. I'd just like to say, because I don't think anybody else
brought it up, that, sorry for losing my voice but on that western piece and the trees there and being in the
primary zone, wow. I sure would like to be able to keep that open space and those trees are just absolutely
wonderful old growth trees. So if we could in between now and then, see some numbers about really what
the density transfer would be, and what it means, that would be very helpful to have pretty good numbers.
So that we understand that a little better. Anything else that I forgot?
Councilman Engel: Said my piece.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. So may I have a motion to table until our next meeting and come back with some
more added information and some time to kind of think through the presentation from tonight?
Councilwoman Jansen: Motion to table.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Councilwoman Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to table the Conceptual PUD request for
a mixed housing development on 82.8 acres and 3.7 acres of commercial uses located on the northeast
corner of Highways 5 and 41. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you all for coming and for adding to the, your comments for us to hear tonight.
Appreciate it. We'll see you in a couple weeks.
44
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Mancino: Okay, the next item on the agenda is the individual sewer treatment system, Mandan
Circle.
Councilman Engel: Wait a minute, we didn't do council presentations.
Mayor Mancino: We don't have any council presentations.
Councilman Engel: I have one council presentation. One.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Councilman Engel: A short one. I want to request that that Pleasant View Road project be placed back on
the next agenda for the same consideration that Coulter Boulevard received. And I'd like to see it brought
up again and redebated.
Councilman Labatt: Does that include the stop sign?
Councilman Engel: The whole issue. Just like we did with Coulter today. I'd like to see it get 15 minutes.
Next council meeting.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. We will talk about that. But they wanted a school speed zone.
Councilman Engel: Right. They wanted a safer road. You can call it whatever you want. I mean there's
always a mascot group whenever someone has a request. In this case the school kids are the mascot group.
Up there the mascot group is old people and people with children.
Mayor Mancino: You know you might want to, my suggestion is to wait. That would be fine, we can talk
about it. I know that the two neighbors that are heading it up, Steve and Patty, are putting together an
action plan and have met with our City Manager so prior, if you don't mind to putting it on an agenda.
Why don't we have our City Manager give us a memo as to where we are in that action.
Councilman Engel: I'd like that. In lieu of not having that on the agenda, I would like an update of what
progress they're making, if any. And if there isn't any, then I want to see it get a second chance. I will
accept that.
Councilwoman Jansen: Do you remember if you voted on the prevailing side?
Councilman Engel: No I do not. I believe it failed.
Mayor Mancino: I don't know. We'll go back, but I understand your intent. Mark, so I understand your
intent and when Mr. Botcher comes back, our City Manager from Wisconsin, I think he'll give you an
update because I think that's what you want to know. That there's being some action taken on it.
Councilman Engel: Yes.
45
City Council Meeting - September 27, 1999
Mayor Mancino: Got it. Thanks.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM,
MANDAN CIRCLE.
Kate Aanenson: This is for your edification. We brought to you earlier a problem that we see may be
happening in other parts of the city where we've got older large lot septic. In this circumstance it's the
small neighborhood, in a bluff area. Alternative sites are difficult. In this case it would have to be in a
bluff which is against the city ordinance so we brought the problem to you and said we'd like to explore the
opportunity of doing a collective system. Based on our research, it probably is cost prohibitive so what
we're, we just wanted to let you know is that he's going to go forward with an experimental system.
Again, this is the last area that will be brought into the city. It's close to the Bluff Creek, and we said that
would be our area 2020 so if you look back on that, it seems to make more sense in doing that .... is what I
mentioned before, it's a built up, kind of a mound. A raised mound. It is state approved. When we say
experimental, it's a different type but it is state approved if that answers your question but we just wanted
to let you know before we get back to the neighborhood that we did do our due diligence to try to explore
opportunities and see if there was a better way to solve a bigger problem if this circumstance just doesn't
seem to work so we're going to let kind of each individual try to solve their own problem. And I think the
only, the good side of this is that it will be the last area brought in. Even though we say 2020, it may never
be based on that those landforms stay the way they are, and the golf course doesn't develop so the payback
will probably work out on this.
Mayor Mancino: Do we need to take any action?
Kate Aanenson: No. I just wanted to let you know before we go back to the neighbors in case you got
calls on it. You'd kind of know what staff's position was on that.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thanks Kate. Any council member have a concern or?
Councilwoman Jansen: No, thanks Kate.
Mayor Mancino: With that, there's nothing more on the agenda. Any questions on administrative section?
Councilwoman Jansen: Is anyone else intending to go to the policy adoption conference?
Mayor Mancino: I may. Yeah, I may. I'm going to look at my schedule.
Councilwoman Jansen: I thought it sounded interesting. Just at some point.
Mayor Mancino: And I need to read the TIF tax rate compression information. I just haven't had time to
do that but hope to do that. So with that the meeting is adjourned.
Mayor Mancino adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Submitted by Scott Botcher
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
46