CC Packet 2006 04 24AGENDA
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, APRIL 24, 2006
CHANHASSEN MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
5:30 P.M. – EXECUTIVE SESSION, FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
A. Update on Litigation with Kraus Anderson, Library Project.
5:50 P.M. - CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
Note: If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the
remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda.
B. Key Financial Strategy: McCombs Retail Market Study.
C. Update on 2006 Bonding & Financial Position. (This item will most likely be discussed
following the regular meeting.)
D. Update on No Wake Ordinances for Lake Susan & Lotus Lake. (This item will most
likely be discussed following the regular meeting.)
6:30 p.m. - BOARD OF REVIEW & EQUALIZATION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
E. 2006 Board of Review - Receive Comments from the Public Concerning Property
Valuations.
7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance)
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
F. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation and Maple Leaf Awards:
- Marcus Zbinden, Environmental Commission
- Kim Grant, Environmental Commission
- Dave Geving, Senior Commission
- Barbara Headla, Senior Commision
- Uli Sacchet, Recycling Committee, Environmental Commission & Planning
Commission
G. Arbor Day, May 6, 2006:
1. Invitation to Arbor Day Festivities
2. Proclamation Declaring Arbor Day
3. Presentation of Awards to Arbor Day Poster Contest Winners.
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will
be considered as one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is
desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City
council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for
each staff report.
1. a. Approval of Minutes
- City Council Summary Minutes dated April 10, 2006
- City Council Verbatim Minutes dated April 10, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated April 4, 2006.
- Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated April 4, 2006
b. Approve Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, St. Hubert Catholic Community,
August 19 & 20, 2006
c. Approve Amendment to Development Contract for Liberty on Bluff Creek.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE
2a. Sgt. Jim Olson, Carver County Sheriff's Department.
2b. Assistant Chief Sherri Walsh, Chanhassen Fire Department.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
AWARD OF BIDS
3. Banking Services Contract.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4. Liberty at Creekside, 1500 Pioneer Trail, Applicant: Town & Country Homes: Request
for Rezoning of Property from A-2 to PUD-R; Subdivision with Variances of
Approximately 36.01 Acres into 29 Lots, 5 Outlots, and Public Right-of-Way; Site Plan
Approval for 146 Townhouses; and a Conditional Use Permit for Alterations within the
Flood Plain and Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
NEW BUSINESS
5. Pioneer Pass, 1600 Pioneer Trail, Applicant: Sever Peterson:
- Request for a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Amendment from Residential-
Medium Density and Office/Industrial to Residential-Low Density (approximately
43 acres).
- Rezoning from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Residential Low and Medium
Density District (RLM).
- Preliminary Plat of Pioneer Pass creating 82 Lots, 8 Outlots, and Right-of-Way for
Public Streets (approximately 73 acres).
- Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District
with a Variance for Encroachment into the Primary Zone.
- Wetland Alteration Permit for the Grading & Filling of Wetlands at Future
Highway 312.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION
Correspondence Section
ADJOURNMENT
A copy of the staff report and supporting documentation being sent to the city council will be
available after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. Please contact city hall at 952-227-1100 to verify that
your item has not been deleted from the agenda any time after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday.
GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting. In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City
Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. That opportunity is provided
at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations.
1. Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor.
When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the
City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City
Council.
2. If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson
that can summarize the issue.
3. Limit your comments to five minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If
you have written comments, provide a copy to the Council.
4. During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion.
Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough
understanding of your concern, suggestion or request.
5. Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual
either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed to the City
Manager.
Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Houlihan’s Restaurant & Bar, 530 Pond Promenade in Chanhassen immediately
after the meeting for a purely social event. All members of the public are welcome.
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
APRIL 10, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Lundquist, Councilman
Labatt and Councilwoman Tjornhom
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Peterson
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Paul Oehme, Todd
Hoffman, Kate Aanenson and Lori Haak
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Daniel Martin 112001 Warner Circle
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Joey, Eric and Brian Steckling 8040 Hidden Court
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong read an invitation to the Easter Egg Candy
Hunt.
CONSENT AGENDA: Lundquist moved, Tjornhom seconded to approve the following
consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated March 13, 2006
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated March 20, 2006
-City Council Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated March 20, 2006
b. Resolution #2006-23: 2005 MUSA Improvements, Bid Package #2, Project 06-05:
Approve Plans & Specifications, Authorize Ad for Bids.
c. Longacres Stormwater Pond Improvements, Project 06-09 & Lyman Boulevard Sewer
Repairs, Project 06-08: Approve Consultant Contract.
d. Stonefield, 1601 Lyman Boulevard, Applicant Plowshares:
1) Final Plat Approval as amended by staff.
2) Approve Plans & Specifications, Development Contract, Project 06-07 as amended.
City Council Summary – April 10, 2006
2
e. Gateway North, Northwest Intersection of the Future Alignment of Highways 101 and
212, Applicant Sand Companies:
1) Final Plat Approval.
2) Approve Plans & Specifications, Development Contract, Project 06-10.
f. Resolution #2006-24: East Water Treatment Plant, Project 04-08-4: Approve Quote
with CenturyTel for Fiber Optic Installation.
g. Lake Susan Park Playground Poured-in-Place Resilient Surfacing Project: Award of Bid.
h. 2006 Fireworks Contract: Award of Bid.
j. Christensen Subdivision, 6710 Golden Court, Applicant Robert Christensen: Final Plat
Approval.
k. Resolution #2006-25: 2006 Street Improvement Project 06-01: Approve Resolution
Deleting the Koehnen Street Improvements.
l. Resolution #2006-26: Surface Water Management Plan: Approve Budget Modification
No. 2.
m. Resolution #2006-27: Hidden Creek, Project 02-09: Accept Streets & Storm Sewer
Improvements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
1(i). T-MOBILE: APPROVAL OF CELL TOWER LEASE AGREEMENT, MELODY
HILL WATER TOWER.
Gil Kreidberg, 6444 Murray Hill Road, adjacent to this property, requested that T-Mobile be
allowed to build a fence more than 6 feet tall in order to screen the ventilating system on the roof
of the building. Todd Gerhardt stated that staff would recommend the City Council approve the
lease with T-Mobile contingent upon the fence being approved with a variance.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approve the cell tower lease agreement with T-Mobile for the Murray Hill Water Tower
contingent on approval of a variance to the fence height. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: BOYER LAKE MINNEWASHTA, VACATION FILE 06-01:
CONSIDER VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT.
City Council Summary – April 10, 2006
3
Paul Oehme presented the staff report on this item. Mayor Furlong opened the public hearing.
No one spoke and the public hearing was closed.
Resolution #2006-28: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that
the City Council approves a resolution vacating the existing drainage and utility easement
as defined on the attached vacation description. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
SAND COMPANIES HOUSING DISTRICT: PUBLIC HEARING ON TIF PLANS AND
ESTABLISHMENT OF TIF DISTRICT #9, APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AND
PLANS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jamie Thelen Sand Companies, Inc.
Jim Sand Sand Companies, Inc., Waite Park
Jeff King 767 Carver Beach Road
Justin Miller presented the staff report on this item. Mayor Furlong opened the public hearing.
No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Councilman Lundquist asked Jessica Cook
with Ehlers and Associates to explain the soundness of the plan and the district. After council
discussion the following motion was made.
Resolution #2006-29: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that
the City Council approve the resolution adopting a modification to the redevelopment plan
for the downtown Chanhassen Redevelopment Project Area and establishing Tax
Increment District No. 9 therein and adopting a tax increment financing plan therefore.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
LAKE RILEY/RICE MARSH WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT, APPLICANT
RILEY PURGATORY BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT: REQUEST FOR A
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR EXCAVATION AND MAINTENANCE OF 5
STORM WATER PONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING WATER QUALITY
IN RICE MARSH LAKE AND LAKE RILEY WATERSHEDS.
Lori Haak presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Mayor
Furlong asked for clarification on the different easements and any possible interruption in
service. Councilman Labatt asked what will happen to the stuff that’s removed from the pond.
After council discussion the following motion was made.
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approve Wetland Alteration Permit #06-06, subject to the following conditions:
City Council Summary – April 10, 2006
4
1. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420) at a ratio of 2:1.
2. The applicant shall notify nearby property owners of the proposed project at least two
weeks prior to beginning work. The notice shall, at a minimum, provide a summary of
the purpose of the project, the timeline for project completion, and contact information
for someone with RPBCWD who is able to provide more information about the project.
It is recommended that the applicant work with the City to identify property owners
receiving notice and to provide a link to a project website from the City’s website.
3. The applicant shall restore any disturbed areas and restore or replace any damage to
infrastructure on City property.
4. All exposed soils from temporary haul routes, exposed slopes above the normal water
level (NWL) and adjacent areas to the project shall be temporarily stabilized and seeded
within the 7, 14, 21 day time frames depending upon slopes. Any concentrated flow
areas shall receive temporary protection within 24 hours of connection to surface waters.
5. Erosion control blanket shall be used in concentrated flow area and for slopes of 3:1. All
remaining areas shall be mulched and seeded to control erosion.
6. The applicant shall provide information regarding the fate of the excavated/excess
material, as well as the stabilization and/or containment of the material.
7. Temporary energy dissipation shall be installed at existing flared end sections to the
bottom of the basin at the end of each day to protect against erosion. This could include
temporary plastic sheeting or geotextile fabric secured to the soil.
8. All existing outlets/proposed outlet structures shall be temporary riser structures until the
ponds and adjacent areas are stable.
9. Street sweeping and scraping shall be needed daily (potentially more often) during active
haul times. A dedicated site pickup sweeper may be needed.
10. The applicant shall provide details as to how dewatering will be accomplished for the
basins in this project.
11. The applicant shall have a flocculent available on the project to facilitate sediment
removal from sediment laden water.
12. Energy dissipation shall be provided at all discharge points from dewatering pumps.
Waters receiving dewatering discharges should be large enough to handle the volume and
velocity of the water.
13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit),
City Council Summary – April 10, 2006
5
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering, impacts below the OHW of
Rice Marsh Lake), Minnesota Department of Transportation, and comply with their
conditions of approval.
14. All appropriate permissions and easements must be obtained prior to the undertaking of
any construction.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
LIBERTY AT CREEKSIDE, 1500 PIONEER TRAIL, APPLICANT TOWN &
COUNTRY HOMES: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO
PUD-R; SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 36.01 ACRES
INTO 29 LOTS, 5 OUTLOTS, AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE PLAN
APPROVAL FOR 146 TOWNHOUSES; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
ALTERATIONS WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE
BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Shawn Siders Town and Country Homes
Kevin Clark Town and Country Homes
Robert Nordby Town and Country Homes
Bruce Jeurissen 1500 Pioneer Trail
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Mayor
Furlong and Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification on the road circulation patterns and
access points. Councilman Labatt asked for further clarification on the difference in elevation
from this site and adjoining sites. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification of condition 1 under the
preliminary plat regarding noise. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked staff to address if there was
adequate park space provided for this development. Shawn Siders with Town and Country
Homes introduced his team and gave a power point presentation outlining the details of their
development. The council asked for details on how this project differed from the Liberty on
Bluff Creek development. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for clarification on the architectural
detailing of the units and the possible need for a totlot or playground. Mayor Furlong asked the
applicant to further explain their parking plan. Councilman Lundquist asked for staff’s opinion
of the mix of housing types with townhomes and single family homes, access to the park system,
and the lack of a park in this neighborhood. After council discussion the following motion was
made.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council table
Planning Case #05-24, Liberty at Creekside for further clarification and details. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
City Council Summary – April 10, 2006
6
CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK, LOT 2, BLOCK 2 CHANHASSEN WEST
BUSINESS PARK, APPLICANT EDEN TRACE CORPORATION: REQUEST FOR
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR REDUCED PARKING
SETBACK AT THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
AN OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item.
Councilwoman Tjornhom asked staff to comment on any neighborhood reaction to the project.
Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification on the amount of road right-of-way. After council
discussion the following motions were made.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve
Chanhassen West Business Park PUD Amendment for a 20 foot parking setback from
Lyman Boulevard right-of-way for Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Chanhassen West Business Park.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve
Site Plan #06-11 for a 49,105 square foot office/warehouse building, plans prepared by
Schoell and Madson, Inc., dated February 17, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration, landscaping and rain
garden function on Lots 2 and 3, Block 2. Minimum maintenance and inspection shall
include maintaining rain garden vegetation with non-invasive species and ensuring that the
infiltration function of the rain garden does not fail. All rain gardens and associated
infrastructure on Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 shall be maintained by the property
owner/association or property management company.
2. A professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans.
3. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used adjacent to the storm water pond along
the west side of the lot. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will
require an easement from the appropriate property owner.
4. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through
the City’s Building Department.
5. Add the latest revision of City Detail Plate Nos. 1002, 1004, 1006, 2204, 3101, 3102,
3104, 3106, 3107, 3108, 5201, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5217, 5300, 5301, 5302 and
5302A.
6. The site has been previously assessed and each newly created lot will be subject to City
sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time of building permit issuance. The
2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for watermain per
SAC unit, as determined by the Metropolitan Council.
City Council Summary – April 10, 2006
7
7. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not
limited to the MPCA, NPDES, Minnesota Department of Health and Carver County
Water Management Area.
8. On the plans show the stop signs per city detail plate # 5217, the driveway aprons per
detail #5207 and pedestrian ramps must be constructed per detail plate #5215.
9. On the utility plan:
a. Show all the existing utilities sewer type, size and class.
b. Show all existing storm and sanitary structures rim and invert elevations.
c. Add a note to maintain 18-in minimum vertical separation between the watermain and
storm sewer intersection on the western car park.
d. Revise CB5 to CBMH5.
10. On the grading plan:
a. Show all the storm water structures rim elevations.
b. Show the EOF.
c. Show the actual existing elevation contours for the site.
d. Show minimum 75-ft rock construction entrance.
e. Extend the silt fence to close off the northwesterly entrance.
11. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway access must be obtained and recorded
against the Lots 1 and 2.
12. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time
(maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
when area is not actively being worked)
Steeper than 3:1 7 Days
10:1 to 3:1 14 Days
Flatter than 10:1 21 Days
13. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as-needed.
14. Construction site entrances and exits shall be indicated on plans and shall have maintained
rock construction entrances as specified on City of Chanhassen detail plate 5301.
15. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
16. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
City Council Summary – April 10, 2006
8
17. The accessible parking space at the northwest side of the building must be on the shortest
route possible to the northwest entrance.
18. A PIV is required on the building water service.
19. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete plans are
submitted.
20. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
21. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
22. Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs shall be required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
23. Builder must comply with the following Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division policies:
a. #4-1991 Regarding Notes To Be Included On All Site Plans
b. #7-1991 Regarding Pre-fire Drawings
c. #29-1991 Regarding Premise Identification
d. #34-1993 Regarding Water Service Installation
e. #36-1994 Regarding Proper Water Line Sizing
f. #40-1995 Regarding Fire Protection Systems
g. #06-1991 Regarding Fire Lane Signage
h. #52-2005 Regarding Commercial Plan Review Submittal Criteria
24. Lighting shall be high-pressure sodium.
25. The applicant shall revise landscape plan to show 11 landscaped islands or peninsulas
within the parking lot area.
26. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show 15 overstory trees, 37 understory
trees, and 52 shrubs along the south property line.
27. Sidewalk connections to Galpin Court and Lyman Boulevard must be constructed. The
sidewalks shall include pedestrian ramps at all curbs.
28. An architectural articulation shall be incorporated on the northern and southern façades.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
City Council Summary – April 10, 2006
9
APPOINTMENTS TO COMMISSIONS.
Mayor Furlong reviewed the interview process and suggested names for appointment.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council appoint
the following people for commission positions:
Planning Commission: Kurt Papke and Debra Larson for 3 year positions, Kevin Dillon for a 1
year position.
Park and Recreation Commission: Anne Murphy and Jeffrey Daniel for 3 year positions.
Environmental Commission: Ron Olson and James Sommers for 3 year positions.
Senior Commission: Pat McGough, Barbara Nevin and Virginia Prior for 3 year positions.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt presented information on
Chanhassen Recycle Day on April 23rd.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council
meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 10, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Lundquist, Councilman
Labatt and Councilwoman Tjornhom
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Peterson
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Paul Oehme, Todd
Hoffman, Kate Aanenson and Lori Haak
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Daniel Martin 112001 Warner Circle
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Joey, Eric and Brian Steckling 8040 Hidden Court
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening to everybody. We appreciate you coming out on
this nice, warm spring evening and look forward to those watching at home as well enjoying the
meeting this evening. At this time I would ask if there are any modifications to the agenda that
was distributed. If not, we’ll proceed with that agenda without objection. First item on our
agenda this evening, I’d like to extend an invitation to all residents and friends and families to
join the City of Chanhassen with our annual Easter Egg Candy Hunt. The City of Chanhassen in
cooperation with our local business community is proud to announce that this year’s Easter Egg
Candy Hunt will be held on Saturday, March 15th at the Chanhassen Rec Center. The event
begins at 9:00 and it’s available and open to children and their parents from 18 months to 12
years. It’s a lot of fun. It’s a great event. The Splatter Sisters will be performing again this year.
The event begins at 9:00. They play for about 45 minutes to an hour or so. There’s a coloring
contest that children can enter. Those forms can be picked up and dropped at City Hall or the
Chanhassen Rec Center any time this week. There will also be then the candy hunt after the
music entertainment is done. The various children are split up into different age groups and hunt
for prizes. It’s a lot of fun and Todd Hoffman, our Director of Park and Rec has guaranteed that
the weather will be nice and so we appreciate that as always. It’s a lot of fun. It’s a great event
so encourage everybody to come out this coming Saturday, April 15th. 9:00 at the Chanhassen
Rec Center for our annual Easter Egg Candy Hunt. Move on now to our consent agenda.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
2
CONSENT AGENDA:
Mayor Furlong: With that, at this time I would ask if there are any items that wish to be
removed for separate discussion from the consent agenda. Members of the council or those
present.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I’d like to modify item (d).
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: To include the dollar amounts that I handed out. Just a small modification.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: On both the final plat and the development contract to read $22,380.00.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. That number is also an expansion on Friday with item 1(g) which
dealt with the Lake Susan Playground replace after the bids were opened. There was included,
so that would be included as well. If there are no other items for separate discussion, is there a
motion to approve the consent agenda, items 1(a) through (m) as in Mary.
Gil Kreidberg: Is it okay to comment on one of these?
Mayor Furlong: This would be your time, yes sir. Why don’t you come forward. Just tell me
what the item number is.
Gil Kreidberg: It’s item (i).
Mayor Furlong: (i)? Okay.
Gil Kreidberg: My name is Gil Kreidberg. I reside at 6444 Murray Hill Road.
Mayor Furlong: Why don’t you wait just a minute Mr. Kreidberg. Let me deal with the other
ones and then we’ll come back to you. Is it a short question?
Gil Kreidberg: It’s just a real short item that I think we can just clean up in here. It’s not an
objection to the process. It’s just a way to make the process palatable.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, we’ll pick that up probably right after our visitor presentations, if that’s
okay with you.
Gil Kreidberg: What item?
Mayor Furlong: That’s the next item on the agenda, so we’ll pick you up early. Thank you.
With that then is there a motion to approve items 1 (a) through (m), excluding (i)?
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
3
Lundquist moved, Tjornhom seconded to approve the following consent agenda items
pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated March 13, 2006
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated March 20, 2006
-City Council Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated March 20, 2006
b. Resolution #2006-23: 2005 MUSA Improvements, Bid Package #2, Project 06-05:
Approve Plans & Specifications, Authorize Ad for Bids.
c. Longacres Stormwater Pond Improvements, Project 06-09 & Lyman Boulevard Sewer
Repairs, Project 06-08: Approve Consultant Contract.
d. Stonefield, 1601 Lyman Boulevard, Applicant Plowshares:
1) Final Plat Approval as amended by staff.
2) Approve Plans & Specifications, Development Contract, Project 06-07 as amended.
e. Gateway North, Northwest Intersection of the Future Alignment of Highways 101 and
212, Applicant Sand Companies:
1) Final Plat Approval.
2) Approve Plans & Specifications, Development Contract, Project 06-10.
f. Resolution #2006-24: East Water Treatment Plant, Project 04-08-4: Approve Quote
with CenturyTel for Fiber Optic Installation.
g. Lake Susan Park Playground Poured-in-Place Resilient Surfacing Project: Award of Bid.
h. 2006 Fireworks Contract: Award of Bid.
j. Christensen Subdivision, 6710 Golden Court, Applicant Robert Christensen: Final Plat
Approval.
k. Resolution #2006-25: 2006 Street Improvement Project 06-01: Approve Resolution
Deleting the Koehnen Street Improvements.
l. Resolution #2006-26: Surface Water Management Plan: Approve Budget Modification
No. 2.
m. Resolution #2006-27: Hidden Creek, Project 02-09: Accept Streets & Storm Sewer
Improvements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
4
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
1(i). T-MOBILE: APPROVAL OF CELL TOWER LEASE AGREEMENT, MELODY
HILL WATER TOWER.
Gil Kreidberg: Thank you. As I said, my name is Gil Kreidberg. I reside at 6444 Murray Hill
Road, which is the property right in front of the tower.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Gil Kreidberg: I’ve had discussions with both your Assistant City Manager and with the
gentleman representing T-Mobile and the concern I have is that, you know a number of years
ago we had Sprint come in and try to do this and at that time the objection had to do with the
issue of the microwave because there was some uncertainty, and you’ve got a middle school
right behind this property. I’m not here to debate that. So far the science seems to imply that we
probably don’t have a high risk. But the project involves the size of the antennas and stuff on the
tower, the construction of a house to support that process. It’s going to butt up about 4 feet off
my property and in order to achieve what they want, because the tower drains off that side where
this house is going to go, they want the house to be raised about a foot and a half so that when
the tower does jettison, which trust me it’s flooded my property numerous times in the last 19
years. That it will not flood out their property. As a result, because the city has a 6 foot high
ordinance on the fence, the fence they put around it will not actually block out the least attractive
part of this project for the ventilating system on the top of it. I would like the City to allow them
to build a wood fence high enough to just cover that, which would probably be about a foot
above the standard 6 foot ordinance. That would allow them at least, so when I look out I don’t
get to look at their air conditioning system. It’s bad enough it’s there. So if they’re willing to do
that, then I don’t have a problem with going ahead with the project.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you.
Gil Kreidberg: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Staff, or is there a representative from T-Mobile here? Or Mr. Gerhardt,
comments.
Todd Gerhardt: We’ve got another resident.
Steve Edwards: Hello, my name’s Steve Edwards. I’m representing T-Mobile. I live at 501 50th
Street West in Minneapolis. Extending the height of the fence to cover the equipment at the base
would not be a problem for T-Mobile.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, with the fence we’ll probably have to process that as a variance and take
it to the Planning Commission. We’ve just got to follow our own rules when we do things like
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
5
this and so staff would recommend that you approve the lease tonight contingent upon the fence
being approved with a variance.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Can we just defer the whole thing or should we go, is there a reason to
go forward? Or should we just defer the whole thing and deal with it when it comes back to the
Planning Commission?
Todd Gerhardt: Oh I think you can go forward on it, you know contingent upon the fence being
approved by our Planning Commission and City Council.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, is that okay?
Steve Edwards: We’ll deal with it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good. Thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: Did I mis-state the process in that or?
Kate Aanenson: No, that’s correct. The city ordinance is 6 ½ feet. If you want to go higher than
that, I don’t have the cross section.
Steve Edwards: You’re probably looking at going 8 to 12 inches taller… It won’t make a big
difference.
Kate Aanenson: Sure.
Mayor Furlong: Well and then so therefore it might not be an issue going through the process
but I think staff is correct to say we have to follow the process.
Kate Aanenson: Because 6 ½ is the limit.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. With that I guess I would entertain a motion to approve the lease subject
to the variance being approved by the Planning Commission for the fence as stated this evening.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approve the cell tower lease agreement with T-Mobile for the Murray Hill Water Tower
contingent on approval of a variance to the fence height. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: BOYER LAKE MINNEWASHTA, VACATION FILE 06-01:
CONSIDER VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT.
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. Staff is requesting that council hold a
public hearing and consider vacation of drainage and utility easements for the Boyer Lake
Minnewashta development area, Lot 5. The development is located on Dartmouth Drive, just
north of Minnewashta. Lake Minnewashta, shown here. The area in blue, the easement
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
6
requested to be vacated tonight, and the easement just south of Dartmouth Drive and south of
Trunk Highway 5. The easement in question is 20 foot wide and is located on Lot 5. In 19 or
2005 a portion of the development was administratively subdivided from 4 lots to 3 lots in order
to accommodate larger lots. The, in conjunction with that subdivision, 10 foot drainage utility
easements along the new property lines were dedicated with the subdivision. The original
sanitary sewer that is currently, that is located in the easement has been abandoned and has been
moved to the property line between Lots 5 and Lot 6 as shown in this drawing here. No other
private or public utilities are located in this drainage utility easement. At this time I request that
the public hearing be opened and I stand for questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Hearing none, at this time then we’ll open
the public hearing and invite all interested parties to come forward to the podium. Please state
your name and address to address the council on this matter. Last call. Seeing none, without
objection we’ll close the public hearing and bring it back to council. Any follow-up questions
from our public hearing for staff? Any questions?
Councilman Labatt: No sir.
Mayor Furlong: Comments. Seems fairly straight forward. If not, is there a motion to approve?
Councilman Labatt: Move approval.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Resolution #2006-28: Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that
the City Council approves a resolution vacating the existing drainage and utility easement
as defined on the attached vacation description. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
SAND COMPANIES HOUSING DISTRICT: PUBLIC HEARING ON TIF PLANS AND
ESTABLISHMENT OF TIF DISTRICT #9, APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AND
PLANS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jamie Thelen Sand Companies, Inc.
Jim Sand Sand Companies, Inc., Waite Park
Jeff King 767 Carver Beach Road
Justin Miller: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. Before you tonight is the proposed
TIF plan for a new TIF district. It would be TIF District #9, which would create a new
affordable housing TIF district in the City of Chanhassen. When the applicant, the Sand
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
7
Companies applied for tax credits through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, the City
provided a letter stating that the city would investigate the use of TIF as our means of support in
their application. They have since been awarded those tax credits and when that happened, city
staff began working with Ehlers and Associates, our financial consultants in preparing a draft to
the plan. This TIF plan will consist of, or the TIF district will consist of only one parcel, and that
is the 48 unit apartment building that the Sand Company just received final plat approval for
tonight, which is at the corner of Highway 212 and the relocated Highway 101. The proposed
TIF agreement calls for 5 years of the increment being returned to the developer, or 90% of the
increment being returned to the developer for 5 years and then the following 2 years after that,
65% of the increment going to the developer. The total amount that the city would be liable for
would be $300,000 over the life of that 7 years. No matter how much taxes they pay, 90% of
those and 65% in those corresponding years will go back so it’s a pay as you go note. The
amount of taxes that the applicant, or the development pays is the amount that goes back to the
developer. It is estimated that the district, which right now is set up to last 25 years, will produce
$1,465,000 in increment. Right now it is set up, this is the only project in the district. If after the
end of 7 years the city wanted to find, or could find use for the rest of that money in another
affordable housing project in the city, we could continue using the increment from year 7
through 25. If we don’t, then we would need to decertify the district. All 47 of the 48 units will
be reserved for families making 60% or less of the median income. The 48th unit is going to be
intended for caretaker for the building. The city, or staff recommends that the City Council hold
a public hearing on the proposed TIF plan and then when that is completed we would
recommend that you adopt the proposed TIF plan as included in the packet. Be happy to answer
any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? Seeing none then we’ll go
ahead and open the public hearing and invite all interested parties to come forward and address
the council on this matter. Seeing nobody, last call. Without objection then we’ll close the
public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion. Thoughts, comments.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, one quick question first. To Jessica and Bruce, you’ve
looked at this and you’re comfortable with and feel like this is a sound plan, sound district?
Jessica Cook: Mr. Mayor, Councilmember Lundquist. I’m Jessica Cook with Ehlers and we did
prepare the plan. Part of the plan preparation, what we do is, is a form of underwriting where the
developer submits to us the sources and uses for the project, and has to demonstrate that but for
the availability of tax increment, the project would not be feasible. And in this case the project
wouldn’t be feasible in two ways. One is that they would not have gotten the tax credits from
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, so it would have been a no go from the start. But then
getting the tax credits from the Housing Finance Agency, there’s still a funding gap that the tax
increment is helping to fill and making the affordable housing feasible. Also this developer is
experienced in developing affordable tax credit housing and has been around at least 10 years in
this type of development.
Councilman Lundquist: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Comments. Discussion.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
8
Councilman Lundquist: I think it’s a good, as we’ve gone through this for well pretty close to a
year now, that it’s been a learning experience but it’s been a good project thus far and I like the
fact that they’re, have done this in the past and they’re experienced with it and given some of the
issues we’ve had in the city with TIF, I was a little cautious on that but it seems like through the
analysis that’s been done and other things that this is about, we’re committed to providing some
types of affordable housing and at $200,000 an acre for land, that’s a challenge in other things so
I feel comfortable that this is a good effort by the city and by the developer to fill a portion of
that gap there and comfortable with, I also like the fact that we have the cap on there and it’s a
pay as you go so we don’t, we’re not, we don’t have a huge liability out there that we’re not sure
that we’re going to be able to fill so, I think I’ve learned some things that we could have done
better in the past and so I’m comfortable moving forward.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other thoughts or comments, and I guess not to exclude
the applicant here. I know they’re here. Didn’t want to exclude you with not calling on you. If
there’s something that you’d like to present to the council. Okay. Alright, if we have questions
we’ll bring you up. Other thoughts. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well I don’t think, it’s important to realize that affordable housing is
needed in our city and this is a good day. We’re finding developments who have the means and
we’ll have quality developments for affordable housing, and I think a good example of how
cities and developers can work together for the good of the city.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Well I agree with Bethany. I think we’ve been talking about this
opportunity for a while and here we have an applicant come forward and work with us and work
with them to get this project going. Came from an idea and asked us to help out and we looked
at it as a council and the EDA and we’ll have a project here breaking ground this fall for our
citizens and the future residents.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. My comments are similar. I think in evaluating this
project and the city’s role in this project, some of the factors that I think we all considered that
were important to us, Councilman Lundquist mentioned the developer’s experience both in terms
of developing the projects. Can they get it done? And second, from an operating standpoint. Is
it going to, are they going to be able to operate it well and I think we’ve gained some comfort
over this last year that indeed that’s the case. The other factors in terms of the number of units in
this building that are going to be affordable, all but for the caretakers unit will have affordable
based upon rent standards set by the Metropolitan Council, but also from an income testing
standpoint so that we’re sure that the units are available based upon their needs from an income
standpoint, as well as making sure that we’re not creating or subsidizing some of the units to
compete against our existing market rent. Apartments and future apartments so those are factors
that we looked at as a council. Councilman Lundquist mentioned the lower risk, pay as you go
plan. I think that that is important. I agree with you that we’ve learned as a city and that
eliminates the risk and yet still provides the incentive or part of the incentive needed to get this
project done. The other thing that was important to this council when we first started talking
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
9
about it was the understanding that we weren’t the only source that they were coming to to try to
get this project done and indeed they are receiving support from a variety of sources. The Met
Council just a few meetings ago presented a $300,000 grant for this project to the City so I think
that’s important too that it takes a lot of people to get these things done and a lot of
organizations. A year or so ago when we were asked to support the group and the development
in the form of a letter for the application, it was kind of a trust us and I think we looked at it as an
opportunity. As a city we’ve always looked at these more as opportunity driven then using a
broad brush to meet these goals. And I think we’re comfortable then saying that we do and I
haven’t seen anything over the last year with the site plan approval, especially in other things
that we made a mistake then and I think this is just something, I’m glad to hear that this is
something that we can support as a council. So with that we look forward to the ground breaking
this fall and a nice new apartment building coming up in our city and also expanding some of the
affordable units within our housing so. Appreciate everybody’s effort on this from staff. Mr.
Miller I know has spent a lot of time and Mr. Gerhardt and others and Ehlers and Associates and
Sand Company as well. We appreciate all the effort that you put in to get us to this point so
thank you very much for that. Any other comments? Questions. If not, is there a motion to
approve?
Roger Knutson: Recommended resolution.
Councilman Lundquist: I would move approval of the attached resolution in the staff report to
create Tax Increment Financing District #9.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there any discussion on that motion?
Resolution #2006-29: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that
the City Council approve the resolution adopting a modification to the redevelopment plan
for the downtown Chanhassen Redevelopment Project Area and establishing Tax
Increment District No. 9 therein and adopting a tax increment financing plan therefore.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
LAKE RILEY/RICE MARSH WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT, APPLICANT
RILEY PURGATORY BLUFF CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT: REQUEST FOR A
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR EXCAVATION AND MAINTENANCE OF 5
STORM WATER PONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING WATER QUALITY
IN RICE MARSH LAKE AND LAKE RILEY WATERSHEDS.
Lori Haak: Thank you Mayor Furlong and council members. The applicant, who is the Riley-
Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District is proposing the excavation and maintenance of 5
storm water ponds in the City of Chanhassen for the purposes of improving water quality in Rice
Marsh Lake and Lake Riley, downstream. The wetland alteration permit is necessary because
the applicant proposes the excavation and fill of existing wetlands to the order of 3.28 acres total
in five locations. The applicant is proposing mitigation through the State Wetland Bank at a
ratio of 2 to 1. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 21, 2006 to review the
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
10
proposed wetland alteration. Several residents with property near the wetlands, adjacent to Rice
Marsh Lake appeared to obtain additional information about the project. One property owner in
particular, the owner of 8131 Dakota Lane expressed concern that the project proposed
excavation on his property but that he had not received prior notification from the watershed
district that the project would impact his property. His 8131 Dakota is located, it’s the furthest
left property that’s outlined in red on the area photo here. That’s correct, yes. During the
Planning Commission meeting, the plat from the Hidden Valley subdivision was reviewed by
staff and it was found that a drainage and utility easement covers the rear portion of the yard.
Actually if you want to flip it over. Again the property at 8131 Dakota is the furthest to the left
on your screen the utility easement, which contains the city’s sanitary sewer, is located in the
easement that is highlighted in orange and the drainage and utility easement is highlighted in
pink on that drawing. So because there are existing drainage and utility easements in that
location, the project does not propose impacts to property for which additional easements or land
acquisition would be necessary. In response to the lack of communication with affected
residents, the Planning Commission recommended adding a condition to the conditions of
approval that would require the applicant to obtain all appropriate easements and permissions
from affected property owners. Since that meeting city staff has spoken with the applicant
regarding the concerns of the condition and the affected resident. The applicant has agreed to
communicate with those 3 affected property owners prior to construction beginning. So even
though we have the right to, or the applicant, or the public has the right to construct these ponds
and in fact just expand an existing pond, they will be working, the applicant will be working with
the residents in that area. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the
proposed project subject to the conditions in the staff report, plus an additional condition 14
which reads, all appropriate easements and permissions must be obtained prior to commencing
work. And with that staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the motion as
printed in the staff report, conditions 1 through 14. With that I’d be more than happy to take any
questions you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Just one and that corresponds to the last
picture that was up on the table there with regard to the different easements. Seeing that now
with the orange portion that delineates the utility, the sanitary sewer is there, is there any
anticipation that there’s going to be interruption in the service?
Lori Haak: Not at all. Actually the existing trail, if we go back to the previous exhibit, is within
the drainage and utility easement and all work would be done south of that trail. So, and actually
in looking at the grading plans, staff has found that actually a good portion of that slope right
along the trail will remain undisturbed, so.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess that’s in addition to not planning any interruptions, we’re going to
make sure we avoid them.
Lori Haak: Absolutely.
Mayor Furlong: Accidental ones.
Lori Haak: Yes.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
11
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? On this.
Councilman Labatt: Lori, what is the plan with the stuff that’s removed from the ponds?
Lori Haak: At this time the applicant has not selected a contractor and until that contractor is
selected, they’re not certain what the fate of that material will be, but one of the conditions in the
staff report is that the city be made aware of that, not only the haul routes but also the final
destination of that material.
Mayor Furlong: This work is being done entirely by the watershed district, correct? And funded
out of the watershed district.
Lori Haak: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: It’s an expansion of existing ponds…improve water quality downstream as
well?
Lori Haak: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Lori Haak: And condition 6, Councilman Labatt is the condition that speaks to that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Is there any other questions or discussion? Any discussion
on the matter?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Furlong: I think it’s a good project.
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, just the communication piece I think is a good thing. I mean it
never hurts to over communicate, especially when you haul in back hoes and bulldozers into
somebody’s back yard. It’s usually good to let them know what’s going on so.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Any other discussion or items? If not, is there a motion to
approve?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Motion to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit #06-06 subject to
the following conditions, 1 through 14.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion?
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
12
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approve Wetland Alteration Permit #06-06, subject to the following conditions:
1. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420) at a ratio of 2:1.
2. The applicant shall notify nearby property owners of the proposed project at least two
weeks prior to beginning work. The notice shall, at a minimum, provide a summary of
the purpose of the project, the timeline for project completion, and contact information
for someone with RPBCWD who is able to provide more information about the project.
It is recommended that the applicant work with the City to identify property owners
receiving notice and to provide a link to a project website from the City’s website.
3. The applicant shall restore any disturbed areas and restore or replace any damage to
infrastructure on City property.
4. All exposed soils from temporary haul routes, exposed slopes above the normal water
level (NWL) and adjacent areas to the project shall be temporarily stabilized and seeded
within the 7, 14, 21 day time frames depending upon slopes. Any concentrated flow
areas shall receive temporary protection within 24 hours of connection to surface waters.
5. Erosion control blanket shall be used in concentrated flow area and for slopes of 3:1. All
remaining areas shall be mulched and seeded to control erosion.
6. The applicant shall provide information regarding the fate of the excavated/excess
material, as well as the stabilization and/or containment of the material.
7. Temporary energy dissipation shall be installed at existing flared end sections to the
bottom of the basin at the end of each day to protect against erosion. This could include
temporary plastic sheeting or geotextile fabric secured to the soil.
8. All existing outlets/proposed outlet structures shall be temporary riser structures until the
ponds and adjacent areas are stable.
9. Street sweeping and scraping shall be needed daily (potentially more often) during active
haul times. A dedicated site pickup sweeper may be needed.
10. The applicant shall provide details as to how dewatering will be accomplished for the
basins in this project.
11. The applicant shall have a flocculent available on the project to facilitate sediment
removal from sediment laden water.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
13
12. Energy dissipation shall be provided at all discharge points from dewatering pumps.
Waters receiving dewatering discharges should be large enough to handle the volume and
velocity of the water.
13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit),
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering, impacts below the OHW of
Rice Marsh Lake), Minnesota Department of Transportation, and comply with their
conditions of approval.
14. All appropriate permissions and easements must be obtained prior to the undertaking of
any construction.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
LIBERTY AT CREEKSIDE, 1500 PIONEER TRAIL, APPLICANT TOWN &
COUNTRY HOMES: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO
PUD-R; SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 36.01 ACRES
INTO 29 LOTS, 5 OUTLOTS, AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE PLAN
APPROVAL FOR 146 TOWNHOUSES; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
ALTERATIONS WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE
BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Shawn Siders Town and Country Homes
Kevin Clark Town and Country Homes
Robert Nordby Town and Country Homes
Bruce Jeurissen 1500 Pioneer Trail
Kate Aanenson: The subject site located north of Pioneer Trail. West of the future Powers
Boulevard. Oh, I need to use this so, if you don’t mind. And Town and Country Homes is the
applicant. This request is for 146 town home units and this item did appear before the Planning
Commission on March 21st. Actually it appeared numerous months before that but there was a
lot of work that needed to be done before we actually, were able to process the application. At
the Planning Commission meeting, while they did vote 5-0 there were two main issues that they
discussed. One was the access to the site. The two way access points, and the architecture.
Existing site conditions, if you look at the property, the Jeurissen property has an existing
driveway to the site that serves the homestead and that driveway shows up in this area, and that
driveway is part of the MnDot agreement. It’s allowed to maintain the use as a single driveway
is typical. Once the use has changed and higher use is developed, it is the intent of that driveway
to go away. The Planning Commission, this is the subject site again right here, and the issue that
has come up on this property, it’s providing a two way access and I want to spend a little bit of
time on that issue in itself and go back and tie it back into the AUAR before we start talking
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
14
about the project itself. And that would be, when we looked at the AUAR, this is a couple years
old already. We spent a lot of time talking about this area’s unique development and how the
roads will be put in place. …this again is the 2005 MUSA area which would be Lyman
Boulevard on the north, the future Powers Boulevard, 212 on the south, Pioneer Trail and then
the terminus on the west would be Audubon Road. So in looking at the…and applying the Bluff
Creek Overlay District, the goal was to minimize the creek crossing. I don’t know if you, if you
look at the trail that comes through there, that will also go unimpeded, the trail that follows the
creek itself. But we looked at the main collector road, which you are based on approval to
tonight, and then how these other roads would be development driven as they come in. This road
right here has shift the location a little bit. You’ll be seeing that shortly with the Pioneer Pass
project. That went to the Planning Commission last week. And then the rest of those are
development driven. There is a significant portion of this, these two cul-de-sacs, I’m sorry. I’m
zipping back and forth. These two cul-de-sacs right here, when we originally did the plan I think
MnDot saw it desirous to connect those two roads and we argued that because of the significant
wetland impacts here and crossing of the creek. Again to go over the plan to minimize the
environmental impacts so and listen to the AUAR comments, they agreed that it didn’t make
sense to cross the creek. So how does that tie into the subject site here? We believe there’s an
alternative site location to provide two way access out onto the subject site. And that is,
currently there’s access coming from the west and then to the MnDot portion. There is a
condition of approval in the staff report that we have to work through that. Do we have it all
resolved? No. So we’re working in good faith with MnDot, the applicant and the City as a
partner to resolve that, and that’s addressed in a condition which I handed to you that’s been
modified in the staff report. Subject to meeting the plat’s, their attorney this morning talking
about some of the issues that they may have regarding that. But there was, the staff looked at a
lot of different alterations or alternatives is the word I want to use for providing two access. So
if you look at this site itself and the challenging topography, this site that Town and Country has,
the Jeurissen piece I showed you that originally is very challenging, both from the topography.
The changing grades. On the bottom portion we’re recreating some natural features there with
the Liberty project that Town and Country has. The two projects are tied together. The Town
and Country will be replaced and enhancing wetlands on this bottom portion. We also located the
trail along here to give nice visibility and then unimpeded that trail will go underneath 212.
Again the road that’s, the existing driveway that is there is used as a driveway. For that to
become a road the bridge is going over that portion of the road because of the poor soils. We do
not think it makes sense for the environmental impact and just for the poor soils that it’s not the
prudent way to go. And the impacts on the north side is, right now MnDot is putting some
wetland replacement. We can find an alternative site for that wetland replacement and still make
the project, so they’re not impacting wetlands. We’re putting replaced wetlands, a portion of
those somewhere else. We did look at, there was a suggestion of moving this project back. This
area is steep and also taking it to portions of the Fox family parcel where there’s significant trees
and also some grade challenges, so we believe the location as identified here, with the condition
of approval that they have to work that out, and I’ve given you that modified language. That as
that road comes through that the elevation as it terminates towards the Fox family parcel, that
elevation itself, the right-of-way would be fixed. Would work to their advantage so that they can
tie into that road wherever they see fit on their development pattern. Certainly understand that
this is a concern for them, that they don’t want the road connected but it’s the staff’s opinion that
environmentally and for good planning purposes connecting that, it makes the most sense. So
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
15
what are the two issues that the Planning Commission spent some time with, and I’ll go now and
talk a little bit about the site itself and the architecture. If you have any questions on that part.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, maybe we can, since that was an important issue that came up at the
public hearing at the Planning Commission. Some quick questions, I guess with regard to the
proposed condition number 48 here, requiring the developer to contact the Fox family to
coordinate the elevation. Are we requiring an agreement on that or is it let’s, you know let’s not
forget them? Let’s work with them and to try to find the best.
Kate Aanenson: Try to find the best.
Mayor Furlong: The best that works for all.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. And again, the idea of this road, I know there were options
brought up at the Planning Commission as far as a loop system, but my sense is that was a single,
single point. Basically what you’re saying is, if we want more than one access to this
neighborhood, this is the one that really is a viable alternative.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: And I know there’s opinions to the contrary of what you know, maybe what
MnDot may have said in misunderstandings but in our conversation with them, again in good
faith we’re all going in the same direction to resolve this, and there’s, if it doesn’t get resolved, if
it can’t be worked this way, which we believe it can, but if it can’t, then it would have to come
back before you because that’s all set in place. Again just to be clear, there’s wetland impacts on
the south. There is no wetland impacts on the north. Okay. They want to replace some wetlands
and we’re saying you can replace them somewhere else in the city and we’re working with
MnDot to accomplish that.
Mayor Furlong: And then this would be mitigated then within the City of Chanhassen then?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, and we’ve identified a site, and they’re working on, the
applicant is.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Kate Aanenson: So that’s in progress, and that’s the part I’m talking about in good faith.
Everybody’s probably in that direction. And we’ve had conversations with the MnDot folks, not
only Jon Chiglo but the people that are working with the wetland replacement.
Mayor Furlong: And they’re working with the city and looking at possibilities there as well?
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
16
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay, let’s move on. We may have other, or do you have a
question?
Councilman Lundquist: On that road, road piece as long as we’re on that. Kate, can you put up
that AUAR road layout or whatever, that one. So I mean granted this is just a major collector
road and all of that on there, but as, when we looked at this piece, what was the vision for where
this particular piece of property we’re talking about tonight would tie into, I mean as I looked at
that piece, obviously one of them can go to that road that was approved last week, or that we’re
getting ready, that east/west collector. Then that’s the one to the west. Then if you take that
other one to the north or the east or wherever, where would that tie into?
Kate Aanenson: It would come across here and then it would, wherever it works best on the Fox
family parcel, whether that road swung to the east, to the west. However reflects well with that.
However their development pattern works out. That’s why we’re saying we’ll work with the
elevation. They want to stop it short until they get that figured out. That we would work with
them to provide.
Councilman Lundquist: But then it would tie back into the, excuse me, back into the east/west
collector somewhere? Or tie directly into Powers or?
Kate Aanenson: No. It would more than likely, they’ve got a development plans and different
access that there would probably be some other road system in place that would tie that, tie into
some other road system here. Provide access to all these parcels. There’ll be another local
street, somewhere in that area that would tie into.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members, if I may add. This map shows where the major
collector roads are and whenever you develop an area, you want secondary access points on
either developments internally and that’s what Ms. Aanenson’s talking about here is a secondary
access to the Town and Country development in this area.
Councilman Lundquist: And the other thing we’d be fighting is with 212 coming through there,
it’s pretty tough to get across.
Kate Aanenson: We just don’t think it’s really not.
Councilman Lundquist: You’ll have to build a bridge across 212.
Kate Aanenson: The soils are really poor, that’s why 212’s being bridged across that whole
section.
Councilman Lundquist: Right so.
Kate Aanenson: And then there’s wetland impacts.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
17
Councilman Lundquist: Right.
Kate Aanenson: The other way the impacts are just finding other places that segment of right-of-
way to replace a wetland, and that’s not there yet. We’re not impacting wetlands just to put it
somewhere else in the city that we’ve identified.
Councilman Lundquist: Regardless of the soil and the wetland impact on that piece, I’m just
trying to get my hands around when 212 is, I mean it might as well be the Great Wall of China
because you’re not going to go, I mean you’re not going to take a local collector street and build
a bridge over it.
Todd Gerhardt: You’re not going to go over it and you’re not going to go under it.
Councilman Lundquist: So I mean that pretty much forces you to go west and north.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Todd Gerhardt: Gotta go north.
Kate Aanenson: From my understanding the ambiguity came in place is that there was a
requirement to keep the driveway in place as long as the home was there. Which is a standard
requirement for MnDot, yeah. So, but this change, correct. They have to maintain access, yep.
Councilman Lundquist: Understand.
Kate Aanenson: So some things on this, you know for example this one has changed a little bit,
the location of it but those are still identified as the main connection points. The rest of them are
all feeders internally. As you’ve seen, there’s other streets that would be on Pioneer Pass, as
they will on the preserve, as they are on Town and Country, the looping streets that you looked
at.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: But again to Councilman Lundquist’s point, if south and east isn’t possible
because of the 212, north and west are the options, but west is more wetland. That’s where the
creek goes in that area correct?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: So it’s really…
Kate Aanenson: Right, and just going straight south, I mean it’s challenging even to get the trail
in there and that’s where we’re re-establishing, it was just a nice vista looking across that open
space so.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
18
Kate Aanenson: So now we’ll talk about the project itself. So as I mentioned this project came
in actually quite a few months ago and we spent some time working on it. I know the concern
was duplicating a similar product and we actually had them work on several iterations of
different types of product. Different, single family. Zero lot line. They went through a lot of
different iterations and I’ll let them go through how they ended up landing on this particular
design itself. But there is again some topography challenges which led to the form of those
projects itself, and one as you can see there’s a significant retaining wall along the back.
Another retaining wall here…and try to loop that street back. And there’s some other retaining
walls through the site itself, so that was on the first part of the challenge is trying to get a
footprint without excessive grading. Working with that. …and what products worked on that
itself so they have the product that is the biggest problem and it’s not even close to what’s on the
picture but they’ll show that…power point that the colors are a little different, but that’s their
biggest product. And then the other one is the one that’s the single loaded. Again opportunities
to catch the views. And this one the Planning Commission spent some time on. Let me back up
a little bit what we’re talking about. The topography, we’re starting at 940. Dropping down to
860 and then you’re back on the bottom of the creek and then back up so you can see the
challenge with the topography and the grading and putting a footprint on there. So this product
also affords some interesting views looking across that perspective. So one of the things that we
worked on is trying to reorient some of the units to get some different view perspectives, so the
Planning Commission had a discussion of how similar is this to the other product, and again I’ll
let them go through. They’ve attached a letter and go through that and that will be some of their
presentation. But they also worked at providing some different coloring on the backs of the, this
is the larger unit. Not the ones with the garage in the back. The ones with the garage are,
garages in the back are the highly articulated. They have the windows and the shed roof over the
garage door. The windows on the garage doors itself so they’re highly articulated. Just as we
approved on the other product. So they introduced another color and again I’ll let them go
through that, unless there’s anything. It’s again 134 units. It is guided medium density. When
we looked at this overall AUAR area, this area kind of has the, it’s kind of a different
combination. It’s back behind the trees. While it does have visibility from 212, you’ve got the
significant amount of trees blocking that. It has to cut across another property which has to get
access via the Pioneer Pass subdivision to get access to that, and then that would tie into the
collector road, so it’s somewhat isolated in it’s location. So again we’ve got the color palettes
here similar again with the addition of one of the colors to what you had seen before. Unless
there’s specific questions on the design itself, or the land use, architecture, I’ll be happy to
answer those. Otherwise the Planning Commission did recommend approval with the change.
Again I did hand out to you the modification to number 48. We are recommending approval
with the findings of fact that are attached in the staff report. I’d be happy to answer any
questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff at this time?
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, what’s the density of this site?
Kate Aanenson: The net density is under 5. It’s 4.78 and actually it’s guided for 8. So the
challenge was.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
19
Councilman Lundquist: 4 to 8 is what the medium density?
Kate Aanenson: Well actually 8. Actually it’s the only piece that’s really, that’s only guided
pure medium out there, and…medium was it’s location. Kind of topographically isolated.
Right, so the underneath, it is 4 to 8 but it’s still on the lower end of that so.
Councilman Lundquist: So then that’s that site and then approximately how much of the total
site versus what the piece they’re developing, minus the trees and wetland?
Kate Aanenson: Well the gross density, or the gross acreage, there’s only 6 acres that would be
taken out. For not developing.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And what’s the total site?
Kate Aanenson: 36. So they’re developing on 30.
Councilman Lundquist: 36, okay.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions for staff? Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Kate on 48. How far apart are the two properties as far as elevation? Are
we talking a couple feet? What do we have to worry about here forecasting a problem with.
Kate Aanenson: I’ll let maybe the City Engineer answer that question.
Councilman Labatt: The elevation of the street.
Paul Oehme: Well to minimize cost you typically try to maintain elevations at their current you
know topography so when we looked at the cross section, looked at the profiles through this area,
I think Town and Country did put a plan together showing how it could tie into the existing
topography that’s out there right now. You know it’s, I don’t think it’s a matter of maybe a
couple feel, if that. It all depends upon how potentially if the Fox development comes in, if it
comes in, how that could potentially tie in in the future. We’re just trying to give the Fox
property an opportunity to comment on how that elevation potentially could tie into the
development. That’s all we were after there.
Councilman Labatt: So is it safe to say that we’re only looking at, well I shouldn’t say only but I
mean approximately 2 feet or so.
Paul Oehme: You know based on preliminary analysis I would venture to say it’s only a couple
feet.
Kate Aanenson: Again part of the challenge on this is, they would like to consider another land
use so we’re making a decision based on what we know today. As the City Engineer’s indicated,
if it’s a big box, it may require more grading and so we’re trying not to let something out. Give
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
20
them the flexibility if they’ve got some idea of a benchmark that we’d be willing to have this
applicant to work with them. And stopping short or something like that.
Mayor Furlong: I guess to follow up on Councilman Labatt’s question. The grades to the north,
the topography to the north of this site on the Fox family property. How steep or shallow are
those grades? Is it shallow enough that with typical grading that a city street would be able to
get put in within our ordinance requirements?
Paul Oehme: Yes. When we looked at a plan profile I believe the profile showed about a 5%
grade. It wasn’t anything too significant. As you move farther to the west of this property and
the tree line, those are the grades that we try to avoid. Those are 20% grades. 3 to 1 slopes in
most of that area so we’re trying to avoid that by pushing the road farther to the east.
Mayor Furlong: So by pushing it to the east we avoid the situation where we’re putting in a
future connection that’s going to hit a too steep of a grade.
Paul Oehme: …retaining walls and all the infrastructure and costs associated with that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the balance is how east you have to go before you reach those
proper grades on the north side?
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Question with regard to condition number 1 under the preliminary plat.
Ms. Aanenson, it speaks to noise being generated from new Highway 212.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess my question there is, the statement says the analysis will identify
appropriate noise mitigation measures to meet noise standards for residential homes. I guess two
questions. One is, is by who standards? I’m wondering if we qualify to include MnDot
standards, since I believe that is what the standards are along current corridor for existing homes.
Maybe their standards at the time of final plat in case that comes up and does this require that
mitigation to take place on the part of the applicant would be the second question.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. If they do, if there’s noise there and the AUAR identified those properties
that are closer to the 212 that would have noise, similar to we did that on Arboretum Village on
Pulte Homes as mitigated by putting in air conditioning units so you don’t have to have windows
open. Some of those sort of things and type of construction, so they would give us the noise
study and based on that would provide mitigation measures for that.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess that’s the second part. This condition says it’s to identify
appropriate noise measures to meet the standard for residential homes. First question is who’s
standards? Second is, where’s the second part that says.
Kate Aanenson: Identify and comply with.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
21
Mayor Furlong: Comply or city requirement I guess. Maybe it’s a question of some wording so
that the condition is not just to identify what needs to be done but the condition requires it to be
done. Let’s implement it yet.
Paul Oehme: This item referred MnDot that they used on 212 was a federal highway standard so
that potentially could be implemented in this situation.
Mayor Furlong: So whatever that standard is, because that is a standard that existing residents
are receiving and one that I think we should require new developers to provide as well.
Kate Aanenson: Can I ask if that’s adequate then, implementation for the highway centers?
Mayor Furlong: The analysis will identify proper mitigation measures.
Kate Aanenson: And implementation of those measures.
Mayor Furlong: And implementation of those measures and the standards would be federal Mr.
Oehme, Federal Highway.
Paul Oehme: Federal Highway Administration.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, there’s PCA standards.
Roger Knutson: There’s a State Noise Standard as well.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So you’ll get all that in there and make sure we’ve got it in the right
order by the time we get to that. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: This is going the other direction I guess but in looking at this
development, it’s 147 units. Kind of sandwiched inbetween busy road. I’m surprised that the
Planning Commissioners, someone didn’t bring up, and I know, I’m not one that likes to force
parks on developers. There is no like even totlot or anything like that.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, there is a couple of open spaces in there and I’ll let them go through that
when they make their presentation and talk about that. There is a couple of open spaces, and the
trail that gets you over to the park on Pioneer Pass. We do have a 8 acre park on the Pioneer
Pass, but there are some open area spaces. Some gathering places and I’ll let them talk about
that and how they located those.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: …if I’m a young mom and I’ve got to get my child, I’m not going to
take them across 212 in my stroller.
Kate Aanenson: Good question.
Todd Gerhardt: You can always take the creek.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
22
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Boat… Any other questions for staff at this time? Sounds like we have some
for the applicant or we’re waiting for their presentation. So at this point I would invite the
applicant to come forward.
Shawn Siders: Good evening Mayor Furlong and council members. My name is Shawn Siders
with Town and Country Homes. We’re a K. Hovnanian Company. With me this evening is
Kevin Clark, our Vice President of Land Development, as well as Robert Nordby, one of our
project managers. We’re pleased to be here this evening seeking approval of the Liberty at
Creekside preliminary plat. The plans that you have in front of you this evening represent a
collaborative effort that represent the hard effort, hard work efforts of the Planning Commission,
city staff and the parks board. Their hard work and shared vision have helped us to refine these
plans to what you have in front of you this evening. With that, I would like to discuss the unique
features of this site and I’ve identified 8 of those features within the development that I would
like to review with you in greater detail this evening. Those are how the site design takes
advantage of the nature features. The expanded homesite offering. The very building layout.
Open space within the private street D. Additional site parking. Retaining walls minimized.
The trail alignment…preliminary plat plan that we have just kind of evolved over the last few
months based on our discussions with staff and Planning Commission and the parks board. As
you can see the units are situated to take advantage of the natural grades as Ms. Aanenson
pointed out. We have preserved the southern open space and that will be enhanced with the
wetland mitigation area as well as the revegetation plan for the farmed area. If you recall Liberty
on Bluff Creek, we were able to preserve the open space on the north and south ends of the
development with the housing units tucked in between those two open spaces. With this
development we’ve actually been able to incorporate the home sites within the natural features of
the site which will enhance the views to each of the homeowners. We have tiered the
neighborhood, as Ms. Aanenson showed on that illustration from north to south so that each
home will have a view of the open space. And the community is tucked into the natural setting
and is surrounded on 3 sides by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. When we originally presented
this plan to the Planning Commission in August we proposed the development of a homogenous
community with a single home product. Since that time we have introduced a second housing
unit which is actually within the middle of the development along public street A. The home
sites around the perimeter of the development which are larger units which are the Premiere units
have been strategically located actually so we can take better advantage of the natural grades
while trying to minimize retaining walls and overall disturbance within the site. We’ve also
varied the building layout. We have situated the home sites to offer views of the open space.
We have varied the layout of the buildings so that we can enhance the views of the streetscape
and a good example of that is actually right here in the middle of public street A where we have
rotated those Concord units 90 degrees to offer enhanced views to those particular homeowners,
but also to break up the monotony of the street design of the street. We’ve also created
additional parking on the site. In total we’re providing 661 parking spaces, 292 of those will be
contained within the garages. 292 will be driveway spaces. There are 21 visitor spaces with 11
parking spaces and I apologize it’s hard to see. Right here within public street, private street D,
and then there’s also an additional 10 visitor parking spaces within private street C. There’s
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
23
room within the public street there to accommodate 56 on street parking spaces, and the city
code requires that we provide 292 parking spaces, so we have a surplus actually of 369 parking
spaces on the site. We’ve also worked awfully diligently to reduce the, to minimize to the extent
possible the height of the retaining walls on the site. Since we first presented these plans to the
Planning Commission in August we’ve actually we’ve been able to reduce the height of the
retaining walls by a third. Of course we do understand that retaining walls that are over 4 feet in
height do need to be designed by a structural engineer and approved by the building official and
we have no problem complying with that. The trail configuration is another, was another
collaborative effort with ourselves, the park board, as well as Mr. Hoffman, Director of Parks
and Recreation. We worked hard to identify this trail configuration through the south of the
development, overlooking the natural features which we are enhancing. We understand that the
trail was a major component of the Bluff Creek trail network and you will note as well that the
trail does not propose any creek crossings, which as Ms. Aanenson pointed out is a major
consideration of the AUAR. We also worked with the city to identify the preferred location for
site access. Of course the primary site access will be off of Bluff Creek Boulevard, which is the
proposed east/west collector road. We’re working with the city to obtain the necessary right-of-
way through the Degler and Peterson parcels. We also, we have to thank Ms. Haak and Ms.
Aanenson for their diligence in helping us find the secondary, the appropriate secondary access
point through the MnDot property and we are prepared to work with MnDot as well as the City
to proceed with those plans to construct the secondary access through the MnDot parcel and of
course we have no problems with complying with condition 48 which is to keep, to work with
the Fox property and to keep them informed as we evolve through the planning process and
through the permitting process with MnDot. During our discussion with the Planning
Commission we were challenged by them to create a unique identity for Liberty at Creekside
through the use of colors and an iteration of the color scheme that we proposed for Liberty on
Bluff Creek. With that challenge we actually went back and have added a sixth color scheme to
the Liberty at Creekside collection but the sixth color scheme will be unique to Liberty at
Creekside, and because the number of units of course is certainly smaller, or there’s not as many,
we would propose that we dedicate 3 color schemes to the Premiere units, which are around the
perimeter of the development, and 3 color schemes will be dedicated to the Concord units so we
really feel that we have met that challenge that the Planning Commission, we’re proud that we
could work with the city to enhance the site. Each color scheme also has a unique brick or stone
with it, and I apologize. I don’t have the stone with me this evening. We have to get revised
boards and we’ll provide to the city once we get to the building permit process, but the brick and
stone as well as the applications of the color treatments throughout each building really creates a
sense of place and insures that there’s no monotonous feel to the community. Next I’d like to
talk a little bit about our housing collection that we are proposing on this site. The first is a
Premiere unit which is our traditional townhome. We are proposing 98 units to be located
around the perimeter of the development to take advantage of the natural grades that are offered
to us. These homes do offer 3 levels of living space. There is an option for a master suite within
these units as well which of course do offer an additional life cycle housing opportunity to the
current and future residents. These range in square footage from 1,500 to 2,400 finished square
feet. As you can see there’s a 2 car front loaded garage and the price point is $275,000 to
$300,000. As you can see we have introduced a secondary color to the rear of the Premiere units
so that, to address the concerns that were previously discussed by the Planning Commission as
well as the City Council for going forward through the planning process of Liberty on Bluff
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
24
Creek. The second collection was the Concord collection which is our urban row home. We
propose development of 48 of these units within the interior of the development. These also
offer 3 levels of living space. These range in square footage from 1,700 to 2,400 square feet.
These have a 2 car rear loaded tuck under garage. There’s a raised deck overlooking the
common areas and these will range in price from $230,000 to $250,000. We would enhance the
architectural features of the Concord units as well by implementing additional stone and brick
veneer. Also offering shakes to really enhance the overall architecture of what is typical of these
types of units in other communities. And then that’s the end of my presentation, if we can switch
to the display here. Okay, there were some questions regarding the views of the Liberty
Creekside community from the Peterson parcel once it’s fully developed, and this view actually
is taken as a snapshot at the closest location between the two developments. This area here
represents approximately 600 feet of distance between the two developments. As you can see it
will be heavily landscaped so that there would not be much of a view between the two
communities. We really feel that this is a nice transition between the single family residential
neighborhood, planned for the Peterson parcel, and our more dense townhome development on
the Jeurissen parcel. Finally with respect to during the review process we met with city
management and city staff and we discussed the need to upgrade Lyman Avenue. Based on the
plans presented to you tonight we understand that the city needs to upgrade Lyman Avenue and
we’re prepared to share in the costs to upgrade Lyman Avenue and with that we support that and
we look forward to partnering with the city, just like we did on the collector road as well as the
other improvements like the trail…to make the improvements for the area. With that I’d like to
thank city staff for their strong support during the evolution of these plans. Without them,
without their assistance we certainly wouldn’t have been here this evening. I’d like to thank you
for your previous support on Liberty on Bluff Creek, as well as hope for your support this
evening for the approval at Creekside plans and I’d be happy to take any questions you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for the applicant, Mr. Siders.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Siders, the two types of, or titles of units that you have in there, as
I’m going back to the previous Liberty at Bluff Creek. Are those two types of units included in
that development?
Shawn Siders: Yes sir they are. Actually the Premiere units, which are these right here, are what
we’re proposing… Those are actually the least used in the Liberty on Bluff Creek because we
were actually only proposing to develop 62 of those on Liberty on Bluff Creek, so the reason we
selected these two units is they are more of, two of our more popular units so we would like to
hold out with you know Liberty on Bluff Creek going into Liberty at Creekside, so from a
business perspective, because the Premiere units specifically, we don’t have as many units on
Liberty on Bluff Creek and they are our more popular units. We would like to go into Creekside
so that they will really support one another and not…to the home buyers.
Councilman Lundquist: And then the other one, the Concord, is that right?
Shawn Siders: Yes sir.
Councilman Lundquist: Is that one, do we have that in the other one as well?
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
25
Shawn Siders: Yes sir. We have 146 units.
Councilman Lundquist: Then, so what you’re proposing with these two, are these the, well I
guess I’ll call them the Chanhassen version of these two with the upgraded architecture and we
worked really hard on that other one to kind of minimize that barracks and hotel look to them.
Shawn Siders: Well we certainly have upgraded our architecture that we do not have in other
communities, yes.
Councilman Lundquist: And it’s identical to or same concept.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, actually there’s just one more differentiation and that would be the color
on the back.
Shawn Siders: Yes, that’s correct.
Kate Aanenson: And then again on the back of the, I’m not sure what, is that, remember I talked
about the back. Yeah, they’re very articulated in the back with the shed roof over the garage.
Other shutters and that I think was a big change from what we saw in other communities. We
need to have a color drawing on the back. I have a reduction here but, to us we felt that was
equally important. I think the Planning Commission wanted to make sure that the perspectives
were equal on all sides and that’s what they spent some time discussing too.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess just to clarify Councilman Lundquist if I understand your question.
You’re saying that the architectural and color schemes are the, at the same level as Liberty at
Bluff Creek or changed with the.
Kate Aanenson: Plus one, yeah.
Shawn Siders: They are certainly elevated and use differently, if I may interrupt. I apologize.
So they’d be, introduce the additional color as well as we have, because there’s fewer numbers of
units we would propose that we designate certain color schemes to those specific units just to
create a different sense, you know in addition to the other overall site characteristics that we’ve
tried to integrate within the development.
Mayor Furlong: Wasn’t that done as well, the color schemes were assigned to certain units in the
Liberty on Bluff Creek as well, or no?
Kate Aanenson: They’re just taking a little bit different design of that. When it comes back for
final plat you’ll see that it’s like a story book with a color palette picked out for each unit so
there’s no similar colors next to each other. But what he’s calling out is, with the product to be
certain colors limited.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
26
Shawn Siders: To the Premiere and to the Concord, yes.
Kate Aanenson: 3 and 3, plus a different veneers, brick, stone and then the shutters and some of
the additional articulation.
Mayor Furlong: And are those changes from Liberty at Bluff Creek?
Shawn Siders: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: I was going to say no but.
Kevin Clark: Kevin Clark, Town and Country Homes. I think Mayor to answer your question, I
think what we were going to do and how we’ve laid out Liberty at Bluff Creek is that we would
alter, alternate the colors throughout the different home styles using all the palettes as opposed to
what we think would be appropriate here would be to designate 3 of each of the palettes to a
specific home style, and then have the differentiation along those home styles. So we’re at more
of a quilt kind of scenario at Bluff Creek. Here we’ll designate or what we’re proposing to do is
designate a specific.
Councilman Lundquist: More like stripes instead of a quilt.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Kevin Clark: Well, okay. We just throw out a little differentiation that way rather than having
it, because it’s smaller, rather than having it go jump from building to building, to alternate it by
product.
Kate Aanenson: Right, and not quite as busy maybe. It’s a little bit smaller, little bit quainter.
Kevin Clark: Because the other site is, understand it’s much larger and it has more, it has four
unique areas to it. Rather than having a larger sampling of colors in those seemed appropriate.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other questions. Please, Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Alright, to start out, what is the…brick and stone that’s being used?
Shawn Siders: Excuse me, can you repeat the question?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Percentage of brick and stone being used in the front. Do you have a
formula for that?
Shawn Siders: It varies but it’s at a minimum of 25% by city code. But in some, for instance
like on this particular unit if we can go to the overhead. Okay, this actually has an expansion of
the brick or stone veneer up to you know three-fourths of the unit and I apologize, it’s not very
distinguishable here but, there is brick and stone there that…
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
27
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So you say veneer, so it’s not real brick or stone.
Kevin Clark: No, it’s real brick. It’s not thin brick. It’s real brick. It’s just that…
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: There’s a framed wall behind it.
Kevin Clark: Correct.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: The price points of this compared to Bluff Creek, are they the same?
Shawn Siders: Very similar.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Higher? Lower?
Shawn Siders: Depending on the homes, they’re probably a little slightly higher than Liberty at
Bluff Creek.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay, and that’s just because of the location?
Shawn Siders: Just location. The cost of the development. This is…as Kate pointed out…cost
in development is in addition to that building. It is a fairly unique view within this whole AUAR
area just because of what we’ve been able to accomplish with on the site.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And then getting back to the architecture. I’m struggling with the
back of these units. Kind of monotonous feel to it. What did we do, and I don’t see copies of the
back of what happened at Bluff Creek with the architecture.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, some of those had, actually had patios or decks off the back, depending
on.
Shawn Siders: This is depending on the deck. Some of them are walkouts. Some of them are
look outs so it depends on how the specific unit is treated and how we can take advantage of
grades or not take advantage of grades certainly has an affect on how the backs of the units were
created.
Kate Aanenson: And I was going to say, it’s not a smooth back. It is, it’s hard to see in the
drawing but it’s articulated so there’s movement in the back so there’s shadowing.
Mayor Furlong: The roof line is probably your best way to see that with the interior, the two
interior units seem to be, I assume they’re recessed as opposed to just stopping the roof shorter.
Straight wall. Try not to assume up here.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. And you can see on the end units there’s shutters on the backs of those,
and those are the little things that add the additional articulation so.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
28
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess just to clarify then to Councilwoman Tjornhom’s question, how is
this different because this was an issue that we brought up at Bluff Creek as well. The view of
the back and how is this different from what we did there? Or is it the same?
Kate Aanenson: I think it’s the same. It ended up the same but what we did is we got the
articulation, we put the shutters on. We did those little things so you don’t look at the bland and
I kind of compared it to a lot of other you know houses where they put brick on the front and
kind of the back tends to be maybe not as spiced up, if I can use that word.
Mayor Furlong: Forgotten.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. So I think we did, and again some of those on Liberty had decks off the
back so, depending on the grade, so they’re not all the same.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And will these have decks off the back?
Shawn Siders: Some will where the opportunity exists you know from the certain grades…
Kate Aanenson: Probably be an option.
Shawn Siders: …patios and here again you can’t see it very well but there is a patio coming out
of the screened door on those units.
Kevin Clark: The area that…for walkouts, that whole perimeter to the east, those will all have 3
story back with decks.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. And Bluff Creek, as I recall, I thought we had a little bit of
discussion about affordable housing in there in that. Will this have any of that?
Shawn Siders: …good time to bring the discussion up. We understand the need for affordable
housing, although because…high development costs, I mean we do not have a partnership with
NHFA nor the Met Council with which can support that so we certainly understand the need for
affordable housing, but it will not have a component of that in that, by our own doing I guess. If
somebody wanted to you know work with NHFA as a first time home buyer with…so if they’re
able to work through their letters and put that together, you know we’re not going to not allow
this to happen I guess.
Kate Aanenson: Excuse me, what was that price point on the Concord?
Shawn Siders: 230 to 250.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, so we’re close. I mean it’s, for what the Met Council standard is now
and that’s the goal we’re setting so there might be something depending on, at a first time buyer.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
29
They may come in just at market rate, depending on the ad that they put in. The additional
features. You might just get some that come in at market rate and that’s how we looked at
Liberty at Bluff Creek. If someone would come in, some of those interior units, the smaller ones
would come in at that price point for market rate so.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: And if I could follow up on that a little further. With regard to those price
points, is it, is that the range in which all the units will be sold or is that the, you drive by and
you say as low as and you see a number on the sign for some development so I guess my
question is, with the different options. You had A, B, C, D for some of the units, and others, in
all those options, they would sell within those price ranges or would there be more?
Shawn Siders: Some of them would certainly take the prices a little bit higher depending on the
types of upgrades but that, the units we presented this evening certainly represents a very well
collective use of features. You know if somebody would want to add…but I can’t stand here
and tell you for sure that if we added every single unit to a home that, you know to the Premiere
home overlooking the creek, that may not escalate above the 300 price point.
Mayor Furlong: And as you operate, how do you determine which features go into a home? Is
that the choice of the first buyer or is that, do you pre-determine features that will be in which
unit?
Shawn Siders: It’s depending on how the homes are built. If we’re specifying…then the
features will be pre-determined. However if there’s some…where a buyer gets in previous to us
actually coming out of the ground with it, then they’ll be able to designate which features they
will and won’t want.
Mayor Furlong: How do you anticipate this development developing with those two options?
Shawn Siders: I would say that this feeding into Liberty at Bluff Creek, buyers will probably
have more options on this because we do have Liberty at Bluff Creek that we can model
obviously, and certainly have them…or a whole set of units that we would need models on just
because the sales operation will actually have…Liberty at Bluff Creek and we’re proposing to
put in an excess of a million dollar sales center in addition to all the modes so that this will feed
right from that.
Mayor Furlong: So you have, I’m sorry Mr. Clark.
Kevin Clark: I was just going to expand on your earlier questions. These really are the...for the
different square footages but the Premiere with that…maxing it out with options you’ll be
upwards of 4, close to 5 on some sections considering it will be a year, year and a half down.
Mayor Furlong: But that would be at the home buyer’s desire.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
30
Kevin Clark: It’s probably more, it will be less, or it will be less specifying the townhome units
than they will be others, just from the nature of construction style. There’s more flexibility…
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Go ahead, jump in.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have a couple more questions and just to clarify. You probably said
it Kate and I, or it was in my packet. The open space, is that dedicated?
Kate Aanenson: No, it’s private.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So that can be developed at some point in time?
Kate Aanenson: No. When we approved the PUD, one of the conditions is we approved the site
plan as shown. They’d have to come back because you’re approving the number of units. They
can’t add additional units unless they came back and rezoned the property because what you’re
approving is that specific plan.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Go ahead.
Shawn Siders: I was going to say, and I apologize…this is the open space that we’re proposing
to dedicate and you can see the trail configuration going through there. It will be, we plan on
keeping that open and installing you know a small shelter…just to give it additional.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, that brings me back to like I said, I really, I’m not one to make
a developer, or request a developer to put in a totlot or something but the uniqueness of this
location and the fact that I think this will house some growing families, and you know let’s bring
us a totlot or something like that. Is there a spot for that?
Shawn Siders: This spot would certainly be tied with the trail configuration going through it.
But we’re estimating that the… The reason I guess we all collectively selected to configure that
trail there is because we are right next to the Peterson development which they will have a large
park incorporated into their site. So I would look, say it would be difficult to incorporate a totlot
into this community. You know we do have the park dedication fee that of course we are paying
into per unit so I guess that was our rationale with city staff and parks board. We would pay
those fees to support the park on the Peterson parcel, and then to do some minor things as the
grades allow to enhance the open space on the site.
Kate Aanenson: We can look at that between now and final plat because one of the other things
that we talked about is, there’s an opportunity as that trail comes up and touches the road, maybe
you can point to that Shawn. On the trail. Further over. That trail as it comes up. In here.
There’s opportunities to do some benches and some of those sort of things just to overtake the
view and some of those and so we’d be happy to look at that between now and final plat.
Incorporation of some of those.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I think I’m done for now.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
31
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other questions? I guess we’ve gone through them. Just
some questions to follow up to some of the issues that were important while we were looking at
Liberty at Bluff Creek, and that was parking. You made mention of that with a number of sites.
I guess if you could help explain, how dispersed are those extra parking sites? And the ones on
the private road, those are actually parking spaces off the road. Now the other issue, I’ll just lay
a bunch of things out there and you guys can reply. Ms. Aanenson, when we were looking at
Liberty at Bluff Creek we talked about the depth of the driveway to ensure that.
Kate Aanenson: That’s now their standard for depth. We’ve given them a new standard.
Mayor Furlong: We’ve got a new standard so…
Kate Aanenson: We’ve got a much better project, and certainly with the larger units there’s,
you’ve got that larger driveway as opposed to a single and with their garage in the back, those
tend to be the ones that need the most guest parking. There is guest parking on the north side,
and then down, as Shawn indicated, in the park area there. And I think that’s.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s pretty typical city street, the public street that starts, runs all the way
through and up? So it’d be part of the on street parking along there?
Kate Aanenson: The public street, correct.
Mayor Furlong: It’s subject to everyone else’s limitation, right? I guess are we counting those
parking stalls so the public street is.
Kate Aanenson: No, no. That’s different than what we did on Liberty. That would be different.
When we provided, let them do on street parking because there was again a different product mix
in there and trying to get that parking closer to those products that, you wouldn’t want to maybe
park in the back. You’d want to go park in the front and ring the doorbell so.
Mayor Furlong: So we’re not counting any of the public streets available parking?
Kate Aanenson: No we’re not.
Mayor Furlong: In the parking count. Okay. Alright. Thank you. And I guess that’s all the
questions I had. Any other questions for the applicant then? Okay. Very good, thank you.
Appreciate it. I guess at this time I would ask if there are any other questions or follow up
questions for staff.
Councilman Lundquist: Kate can you put up that map of the whole area? The aerial.
Kate Aanenson: This colored one?
Councilman Lundquist: There you go. So you know what, that AUAR, the black and white one
might be, there you go. That one right on top. Yeah. So the existing Liberty at Bluff Creek is
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
32
right there along Audubon and then the Peterson property is inbetween. And Peterson property,
the proposal is to put single family homes.
Kate Aanenson: Right…
Councilman Lundquist: Homes in there. Then we go back to townhouses.
Kate Aanenson: Right, and this looks…
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And then there’s Dorsey and Fox’s right there. Okay. Okay. So
do you like that flow of townhouses, single family back to townhouse?
Kate Aanenson: …so this would be, this is the subject site right here… This is the subject site
that we’re talking about. So this is the piece, sorry. This is the Fox family parcel piece. This is
the trees we’re talking about. So tying in, so this is the Peterson and I think Mr. Siders indicated
there’s a separation between those two projects. And that’s where we’re working with the
topography. Providing those natural separations. Enhancing the wetland down here. And then
we’ve got the wetland, the creek corridor through here. There’s a physical separation between
those projects. This shows the park on this side right here. Another transition between the
medium density to more low density, and the road provides that transition. And then this project,
the Preserve which is going to Planning Commission is coming in a little bit smaller single
family lot. More a Ryland Homes is proposing that project. Averaging about 8,000 square foot
on the lots there so, so the goal was to provide a variety of housing types based on what’s
happening in the neighborhood. We’ve got that.
Councilman Lundquist: So where’s the nearest accessible park from Creekside?
Kate Aanenson: From this one?
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: This is the park that’s serving the majority of the area.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Could there be another park somewhere else on the site?
Councilman Lundquist: So how do they get there? Do they have to go up to the street and down
and back?
Kate Aanenson: Well there’s a, they would get through this trail that we just talked about. This
trail that tied back down to this trail going through.
Councilman Lundquist: So is there a trail across the creek then?
Kate Aanenson: Well to get onto this one. To get up and then over, right. Or come back down.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
33
Councilman Lundquist: Right, so you’ve got to go up to the street and then over and back down
again.
Kate Aanenson: Yep, yep. Yep.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: And this project will also come in with a small park in there for that
development too, but for the neighborhood park, this is the site.
Councilman Labatt: Brian, can I piggy back on a question? Kate, help me through this, on
Brian’s point. How do we connect Longacres to Vasserman Ridge? Where we cross Bluff
Creek there. Was there just a culvert there? Was the creek not as wide? You know where the
trail goes out to the end of Bent Bow Trail.
Kate Aanenson: I don’t think there’s a culvert.
Todd Hoffman: There’s a culvert crossing there. An old farm crossing.
Councilman Labatt: And nothing like that is doable down here to make it easier where you have
the trail going along the perimeter here and then connecting the two with a path similar to.
Todd Hoffman: Councilman Labatt, when staff has been anticipating these pedestrian routes for
some time and the challenge going from this site to this site is really the grades and the extent of
the wetlands that are down here. It’s a steep valley to get down and come back up the other side.
And so we planned the crossing at the street to allow the two neighborhoods to connect. And
then you could go south as well out of the development, and then cross under and come back up
this direction if you’d like. So both access to public spaces such as the park, but then also how
do people go for walks or a run from that particular development? Their neighborhood and then
get around and back into their neighborhood. So we did look at that. In fact we looked at taking
the trail that is a part of this, the subdivision you’re looking at tonight and taking it across the
creek into the natural area to take advantage of those natural spaces other than crossing it again
but those creek crossings get very difficult and difficult to manage. The one in Longacres was
there in place as a field road and we just took advantage of it and put the trail across and the
grades are much lower there.
Councilman Lundquist: So if I’m in the middle of, if I’m in the middle of Creekside and I take
the trail either way, north or south, how far do I have to walk to get to the park?
Todd Hoffman: Approximately half a mile.
Todd Gerhardt: Would future owners of these properties have a relationship in using the
recreational facilities at Liberty at Bluff Creek development?
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
34
Shawn Siders: Excuse me, thank you Mr. Gerhardt. We had not anticipated that simply because
to have a single homeowners association to manage two communities that are physically
separated, it’s not impossible but it certainly adds a level of complexity that the homeowners
aren’t traditionally, homeowners and lenders aren’t traditionally interested in involving
themselves with you know, to say if somebody’s a friend of you know there’s 2 kids that are
friends within each perspective development and you know the Creekside resident goes and
takes a swim at Bluff Creek, I don’t think that we’re going to be checking identification cards
that closely to throw them out. At least I won’t be.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions here? You want to start with comments?
Thoughts.
Councilman Labatt: Well I think Brian and I have both have concerns here. Maybe Bethany
too. With the lack of a park or the lack of a creek crossing. Todd Hoffman. That park over on
the Peterson property, the city park there. What amenities is that going to have at it?
Todd Hoffman: It’s a 4 acre site. It will have a playground, parking lot, half court basketball
and an open green field. And then trail connection.
Mayor Furlong: This is a neighborhood park. How does our comprehensive plan dictate what
area a neighborhood park should serve? I guess that’s part of what we’re looking at here.
What’s the service area?
Todd Hoffman: Half mile reach.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So in this case it’s an up and back down but it’s the same as someone
being further north and coming straight down. Or with out other neighborhood parks around the
city, same type of reach.
Todd Gerhardt: …comparison would be the North Lotus Park. I don’t believe there’s a totlot in
the Near Mountain development. Any individual in that one has got to be pushing 300 units that
would be in that development. Everybody’s got to come down to Pleasant View to get on the
trail and go to the North Lotus Park. Same thing with Fox Hollow.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But I think the difference is, is this is a townhouse development so, I
mean you’re talking about a neighborhood and a park and I bet every other person has a swing
set in their back yard or something like that and I don’t think, you know these people aren’t
going to have the liberty to just put up a Rainbow set in their back yard.
Councilman Lundquist: No pun intended.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: No pun intended. So I think that’s probably the difference that I feel
they’re a little bit different.
Todd Hoffman: I’ve not studied with the applicant or without the applicant the area that is in
that little green space, and perhaps they can revisit that. That’s probably the best opportunity.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
35
Neighborhood visits, park visits, there are going to be days when people would take that walk
but the majority of park visits are much shorter than that and they could just walk down to the
end of their block and even on a small playground, socialize with some of their neighbors. Take
their children down there. That would be a highly attractive amenity within the neighborhood,
so perhaps we should just ask the applicant to relook at that one more time.
Councilman Labatt: Kate, how big is that area in that turn around? How big an area are we
talking?
Kate Aanenson: I don’t know if I have that off the top of my head.
Shawn Siders: Quarter, maybe a third of an acre.
Kate Aanenson: A typical lot size. A standard, a little bit bigger than a standard lot.
Kevin Clark: I think just going back to what we’ve looked at, progressing through the planning
of this, we looked at this as a more passive setting with the elevations Kate referred to the
opportunity along. One of the things we talked about when we were working with Todd and the
parks commission was the trail location. We talked quite a bit about the trail crossings and
feasibility of that and I don’t really think the graphic is exaggerating but the flood plain down
there, the width from bank to bank or how that tributary runs, this would make crossing it very
challenging as far as maintenance and also access because of how quickly it drops down and then
back up. So this area here, as a retaining wall all along this street, in order to facilitate certainly
the street construction, but also to protect this area and this bluff. I guess from a developer’s
standpoint, the things that we’re conscious of and Rob here, our project manager is going to be
even more conscious of is just the whole stormwater management piece. I mean it’s really
concentrated on, if you go back 3 years, how much we’ve focused on protecting the bluff. How
much time we’ve taken to have setbacks and prime area and secondary, that we’ve really focused
a lot of energy on that, so working through this trail piece was also a compliment to how we saw
the site which was more from a viewpoint shed and we talked about benches up on this area here
and creating an area, kind of a rest area I guess when you come up off the trail with what we
envision was you know a lean-to or gazebo, some kind of effect like that where you come
through this kind of a back to setting place where you come and have a picnic or rest in the
shade. Things like that. But if the goal to provide a play area in each of these separate kind of
communities, I wouldn’t say it’s something we couldn’t look at it commissioner, councilmen.
But it was our initial objective to have this be more of a passive area. And maybe if it’s an offset
between having that be passive and convert that to a small play facility, that’s possible too but
we’re also conscious that we have a full public right-of-way coming into this with circulation
around it, and then parking there so while it’s I think sufficient size to accommodate some, it’s
probably not going to be a big grand totlot area but there certainly could be some provisions for
that so I think that there’s places where we can meet on that. It depends on which side you want
to land on heavier. Most passive setting or more an active play space. So it certainly is open.
Councilman Labatt: Another question for Todd Hoffman. Todd, the small little park on Stone
Creek Circle East, you know up in Stone Creek off of Galpin. Where the little playground is
there off the little circle and we’ve got a Circle East and Circle West.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
36
Todd Hoffman: Stone Creek, yep.
Councilman Labatt: How big is that?
Todd Hoffman: How big is that park?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah. The little totlot play area.
Todd Hoffman: Very small. The actual park size with all the creek is about 9 acres, but the
totlot area is just.
Councilman Labatt: I was just talking the you know as you’re coming down the road and take
the right hand to go into the cul-de-sac there’s a little park right there that seems to adequately
service that area of Stone Creek.
Todd Hoffman: All of that would fit in here.
Councilman Labatt: Thank you. Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions or thoughts? We seem to be focusing on park
issues.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m sorry.
Mayor Furlong: Well, that’s why we raise questions so. Councilman Labatt, thoughts.
Comments.
Councilman Labatt: Well I’m going to take the park issue instead of the site real quick. I want
to go back to number 48. And like the addition of the wording, but I think prior to final approval
the developer must contact the Fox family to coordinate the elevation of the northern street
connection at their property line. I can see this dancing back and forth like a ping pong match
here. And I think that we need to word it differently where you know who has the final say? If
it’s Town and Country goes to the Fox’s and say well our elevation is 978.4 for example, and
Fox says well that ain’t going to work for me. I need 981. You know I don’t want to get into
this match back and forth about who has the final say so somebody’s got to have the final say.
Whether it’s the city or whether it’s Town and Country. But I don’t think that the Fox should
have a veto power or be able to hold Town and Country, hold up their projects so I think we need
to fix that verbiage in there.
Kate Aanenson: Can I ask the City Attorney if he has some alternate.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, I certainly…no one has, no private citizen can have a veto power over
someone else’s decisions on how they’re developing their property. That’s reserved for the
council. That’s certainly your prerogative. I think the intention here is that they’re supposed to
coordinate, discuss with the Fox’s and try to work something out. Not that they necessarily will
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
37
but they should try in good faith to do that. If they can’t reach an agreement, then it comes back
for you to make a decision.
Todd Gerhardt: I think you could add language to this number here. This recommendation to
include that a decision be made prior to final plat and if the decision isn’t made by final plat
between the two parties, then you know as Roger has said, City Council has the ultimate decision
in deciding where exactly that elevation should be.
Councilman Lundquist: Well that’s the way it’s worded right now though. Essentially.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah.
Councilman Lundquist: That condition does not connotate or require that an approval has to be
made by the Fox property. All it says if they have to contact them.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Lundquist: I think we understand the intentions but right now the way it’s worded
is, I mean you know, if they can’t come back with an agreement, it’s up to us anyway.
Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct.
Kate Aanenson: And I just want to make clear for the record, this got put in there based on our
meeting, the City Engineer and myself today and we want to have good faith that we’re trying to
work together on this so that’s why it was put in there. That we’re trying to work to get the best
location, if it can be resolved. Anticipating what the future development plans would be.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay? Let’s keep it moving. In terms of overall thoughts for the
development. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: I guess a couple of concerns that I have. One is the park. The problem
is, what I struggle with is I don’t think I have a good solution because I’m not a fan of private
totlots. Try to avoid them like the plague, but I think it’s not the greatest set up. If I’m a young
family trying to get into Chanhassen and I want to come in and buy a $230,000 townhome, I
don’t know that I want to send my kids up a trail to a major collector street, across the creek
there, and then back across somewhere. I mean I understand, absolutely understand that crossing
that creek and all the slopes and that stuff is not practical and wouldn’t encourage that so I guess
that’s what I struggle with. It’s a long ways to that park and so that’s a problem. But I, you
know there’s an issue there that I think we need to figure out and we need to solve because
we’ve got to provide an amenity somehow because there’s going to be kids in that neighborhood
and I think it’s just, in my opinion, too far to go to send them over to that proposed park. The
route that it has to go. So that’s a concern. Other concern is that, I guess I never envisioned
when we looked at this that we’re going to have, I mean we’re talking about, what have we got?
600 units. How many units do we got in the Liberty at Bluff Creek Kate? 400?
Kate Aanenson: 444.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
38
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, so we’ve got you know 600 townhouses located right there. It’s a
lot of townhouses in an area. Understand land prices are what they are. We’ve got a major
highway going through there. Nobody’s going to want to build a million and a half dollar house
on that, and you couldn’t afford to anyway with the price of land, so understand there’s some
challenges there. I’m just trying to get my arms around having 600 townhouses in that area.
And then the other thing with the road connection to the Fox property is, I guess I would like to
see, I know that Mr. Fox and Mr. Dorsey have some proposals and other things. I guess I would
just like to see if there’s a way to look at some of the preliminaries and see if it even matches up
at all. I understand their’s may be a long ways off and not suggesting that we hold Town and
Country hostage for another person’s development but I would like to see just some you know,
are we even in the ballpark for elevations. For locations. For I mean if they have a proposal that
says it’s here and these guys are over here, and we’re a quarter mile apart, I mean that’s
something that maybe we can look at. I’m not saying that that means that we’re going to say no
to Town and Country or whatever. You know he who gets there first I guess wins ultimately
generally, but I’d just like to see that and take a look at it and see if we’re even in the ballpark
there. On that, and I guess so those are the biggest things I have now. You know overall I’m
glad that the developer kind of learned from the previous grueling process on Liberty at Bluff
Creek to incorporate that architecture and those things. I mean that makes the process a lot
smoother and that so I’m glad to see that. I think that’s definitely a positive. Another, I don’t
want to start from scratch on this thing necessarily but I guess I’d like, I would have liked to
have seen something other than the four types of units that we had over there just again as a mix.
I understand we’re doing some things with the architecture and colors and things but, and you
know creating something from scratch obviously is not in their portfolios as a challenge but you
know whether or not that ultimately makes a difference to me, I guess I haven’t decided yet. But
overall I think there’s enough things to be done here with some things I’d like to look at that I’m
not sure I’m ready to proceed tonight and might suggest that we wait a couple of weeks to look
at some of the alternatives. Check out some of the things with where it meets up and see if
there’s any other suggestions and things that we can look at with the park access or something
like that, that would go that way so that’s just my thoughts.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well for once I’m not opposed to it. Primarily because we don’t
have to change the rezoning. I think for me that was, that’s a big deal. That we’re not you know
having to find a new replacement for industrial, office industrial somewhere else. This was kind
of you know planned as always to be medium density, am I correct?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Good, good. So I’m not off on that. But I think I was hoping for
more variety. I’m not against townhouses. I’m not against the development at all. I just would
like to see development that doesn’t mirror the last development. You know it’s, I don’t know if
I drive into one development, then I go to the next one, I think I’d kind of feel like well, where
am I? Am I at Creekside or am I at Bluff Creek? I can’t tell the difference, and so I just think
we probably need to push a little bit more on the architecture and the variety of the design of this
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
39
development. And I also feel with the road issue, I really want to be fair to the Fox’s on all of
this because even though Town and Country is there first, you know they still have a lot at stake
also so I want to make sure that we really look through everything with a fine tooth comb. Go
over all the options and make sure we can come up with something that is okay with the city,
with the Fox’s and with Town and Country so we all feel good about it, if it’s possible. I think
you need to at least keep trying with that. And so I too am not ready to approve it but that’s not
saying that I’m going to not approve it in the future once some of these details get ironed out.
And the park I guess since I’m the one that brought it up. But I just feel that we should probably
investigate that a little bit more.
Mayor Furlong: Thanks. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: How far are we on our time Kate?
Mayor Furlong: May something I thought I saw.
Roger Knutson: May 8th.
Councilman Labatt: So do we have one more meeting or two?
Councilman Lundquist: One more.
Councilman Labatt: Well I guess that you know, the first thing we’ve got to look at is, it was
talked about earlier. I don’t disagree with either one of you two on your comments and barring a
little bit more time here trying to work a couple of these things out and that’s the way we’re all
leaning here tonight. I think it’s a good project. Number one I think that you look at the net
density of 4.7 units per acre when it’s guided for 8, and we have open space and bluffs to worry
about and they’ve protected them. I think they heard our comments about the park and we need
to investigate putting some sort of park on that island in the cul-de-sac at the end. You know I
had private parks in my neighborhoods in Chanhassen here and in city parks so I go back and
forth. I’m not going to write off a private park there. The architecture on the back of the
buildings was talked about. How do you break it up a little bit? I’m not sure. I know we talked
about it earlier Bethany and where you incorporate different siding or the colors in the recessed
areas are nice but somehow we’ve just kind of got to break that up so, I hope in the next 2 weeks
here, or 4 weeks or whatever it’s going to come back to the developable, look at our suggestions
tonight and make some tweaks if they can. Overall I think it’s a good project for our future
residents.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. You know my thoughts are similar to those expressed I guess in
terms of starting general. I think overall this process has been easier because of the work that
we’ve done mutually over the last few months and years, especially starting with Liberty at Bluff
Creek. To that end I think that while there’s some expression here of things that have been
desired, I also appreciate that generally the opinions have been there. It’s a good project and it
sounds like we’re close but we need to do a little bit more and that’s what I’m hearing tonight
and I think, I appreciate the comments Mr. Siders and Mr. Clark made that suggested that they’re
willing to look at some of these things so I appreciate their willingness to do that. The park
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
40
amenities, you know understand the issues there that have been expressed tonight. Let’s see
what you can come back with because we’re not looking for a second neighborhood park on this
site. I don’t think anybody’s, so it’s not that we’re looking for there, and I know that there might
be some things to do and still provide perhaps a combination of the passive and the small
recreation, at least for small children which I think was expressed earlier this evening. The
number of units, I think Councilman Labatt raised up the density issue and it’s a lot of units
across this area but I think in part, at least in this case, a lot of the units, you know from a density
standpoint, but we’re also working with and maintaining in terms of the density and the
proximity of the units is the Bluff Creek corridor that runs through the middle of this entire
AUAR area and because of that, while the units are there, they’re being pushed together if you
will from a density standpoint. The, so I think it’s something that we’re getting our arms around.
I agree with you on that. I think a little more time to just make sure we’re comfortable with that.
Wouldn’t hurt since it looks like there’s some other things to look at as well. The street
connection, we talked a little bit about that. That was addressed well I think at the Planning
Commission. Those issues were raised during the public hearing and the first question we have
to ask ourselves as a city is, do we want one or more access points to a neighborhood and I think
clearly the answer is more than one is what we want from a safety standpoint. For flow of traffic
that’s necessary so then what are the viable alternatives? I think the options raised…make it the
best alternative. I’m pleased to see the expansion of condition number 48 to include the property
owners to the north. I think that’s important. That was mentioned tonight a few times on other
items and we need to do that and look for ways that we can accommodate their needs. At the
same time we have tried and I know it’s been mentioned before but we’ve tried to allow property
owners to set the pace of development in this area rather than forcing development, so I wouldn’t
want this street connection to force the timing of the development, nor would I, so that there’s
agreement there on the property to the north. Nor would I want this development to be held up
until the other property owners are ready but working together in good faith to try to find a
solution I think is something that is important. That, as I understand it does not have to be
completed in the next two weeks…
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. That’s the plans because that’s why we put in the motion at the
time of final plat because that may be a month, 2 months, 3 months, 4 months out and.
Mayor Furlong: Whatever that timing is. That’s not something that we’re expecting them to
meet in the next 2 weeks to come up with…
Kate Aanenson: That was going to be the concern I would raise.
Councilman Lundquist: To clarify I would like to see how the concepts match up. I’m not
saying it has to be set in stone in 2 weeks when it comes back. Understand. I’m just, right now I
don’t have a clue what this stuff to the north looks like and if we’re even within a half a mile of
each other of, you know understand there’s a lot of things and so just show me a picture.
Mayor Furlong: And I think that’s fair and I appreciate you clarifying because we want to make
sure that we’ve got something that’s manageable within the timeframe here so, but it is an
important part. I think we need multiple connections to this neighborhood. The north is the
obvious, best solution to meet that need and what we want to do is give consideration to the
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
41
property owner to the north and what their desires are so, so getting more information on that is
appropriate. And with regard to the architectural standards, I think we didn’t have a lot of talk
on that tonight. Councilwoman Tjornhom, you brought that up in large part because of the effort
we put in on Liberty at Bluff Creek and so, you know we view these that the last was the
minimum standard. The last project was the minimum standards so how can we do better at
things that I think this council and even I can see with this applicant have been working towards
so we can look at that. So I guess at this point, given those comments, it’s clear to me that taking
a few more weeks to work together to try to address some of these issues to see what we can
makes some sense. I want to make sure that the staff and the applicant have everything we’re
looking for given the timeframe and out of fairness to them so is there anything that somebody
hasn’t mentioned that they’re interested in commenting on? Whether it’s the wording of some of
the conditions. You know there’s a lot of things that we could go back and try to fix and tweak
but as well as spend some time on these particular 4 or 5 areas that we talked about.
Councilman Lundquist: Do you feel like you have some…
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Sufficient direction. Mr. Clark, you had a question or comment?
Kevin Clark: Certainly want to have the opportunity to go and look at these things. I just want
to shape the discussion moving forward in regards to the connection, and I think by default what
we’ve already talked about is in regards to creek crossings or north, south, east, west. We’ve
kind of shaped the location so while I know it wasn’t facetious, there’s certainly not…and I
guess what I want to do is show just to shape the argument coming forward is, the area where the
street is going through is, we’re coming off of this high area down to this low area so already this
road is maintaining a grade that’s existing and we’re working to stay away from the Bluff Creek
wooded area so, the area we’re talking about, well I’m not quite sure because we haven’t had this
discussion with the Fox’s or their representative. I’m not sure, there isn’t a lot of wiggle room
one way or the other because we either go into the area that MnDot’s trying to preserve in
additional wetland for the road construction, or if we go the other direction we’re into the trees
and into the grading the street up into the grade so I think it’s more of just an elevation place, and
some of those things are more predicated on just what’s the right storm water layout and that’s
really where we would let our engineers talk through that. And I don’t know from our timing,
certainly we’re working through this, we’d be prepared you know moving forward to have our
engineering done. I’m not sure that’s really where the Fox’s would be with their plans as far as
any, I mean they don’t even have a, they’re not, and that’s nothing against them but from a
concept, you know what the use is and how that might work, I think what we would be doing is
we would certainly communicate to them where we, from an engineering standpoint, where it
makes sense to put that road and then maybe it’s a matter of a half a foot.
Councilman Lundquist: Well and I don’t, I don’t disagree Mr. Clark with anything you said but
the key point for me in what you just did say is we haven’t had that discussion yet, and that’s the
key point for me is, is I mean you know I agree that there isn’t probably a lot of options there.
You know you’re working with the highway on one side, the bluff and trees on one side and you
know monster wetland that we’re going to try to skirt the edge of or something, so I wouldn’t be
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
42
shocked if it came back in exactly the same location. But the, I wouldn’t be shocked if it was
somewhere else either I guess but, I think the key point for me is that, when you said we haven’t
had that discussion yet. That’s the piece that I want to see to occur before we come back in a
couple weeks.
Kevin Clark: Understood, and not to be argumentative but I’m not sure they have an engineering
plan for me to match up to…
Councilman Lundquist: And it may be just a concept plan, that’s fine. So we’ll work with the
information that we have and we’ll go from there. That’s all we can do. And another key point,
clarification again is, it’s not my intention to hold back your project based on whether or not they
have engineering level drawings yet or not. It’s you know, I just want to see, I want to see how
the color pens match up on the paper is all at this point.
Kevin Clark: Understood.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Anything else at this point or questions or clarification or.
Kate Aanenson: I’ve got it.
Mayor Furlong: You’ve got it?
Kate Aanenson: I’ve got it. Direction.
Mayor Furlong: I’m glad somebody has it. Very good. Is there any other discussion? If not, is
there a motion to table?
Councilman Lundquist: I would move that we table item 5 for further clarification and some
more details.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you, is there a second?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Motion’s been made to table and seconded.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council table
Planning Case #05-24, Liberty at Creekside for further clarification and details. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK, LOT 2, BLOCK 2 CHANHASSEN WEST
BUSINESS PARK, APPLICANT EDEN TRACE CORPORATION: REQUEST FOR
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR REDUCED PARKING
SETBACK AT THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
AN OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
43
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The applicant informed us that they were unable to be here tonight
so, but we still want to present the item. There wasn’t a significant amount of issues at the
Planning Commission. Can you hear me?
Mayor Furlong: It’s softer than usual so that’s, but as long as people in the audience can hear
and if it’s broadcasting correctly, which it sounds like it is.
Kate Aanenson: This item was recently approved. The site plan you’re looking at, or will be
looking at was recently approved as a part of a PUD back on August 25th. The reason it was
given the PUD is to preserve the trees on that larger open space. This is the subject site itself.
And that is the location of Lyman and then there’s the pond over to the, Easter colors. So with
this site plan it’s…46,000 square foot building. Office warehouse building. The issue that came
up on this project was, when the development was originally approved there were setbacks that
were put in place that showed two different standards. There was some discussion at the
Planning Commission. If you look at this drawing closely, if you can zoom in on that. The
drawing itself showed on this side, actually it’s hard to see but there was parking shown in the
front so there was a question as far as the setback so with this application was also an
amendment to the PUD to allow parking in the front of the building. Again the goal with this
building, if you look at how it’s sitting on the site is that the loading docks be located internally
which we try to do so you’re screening those so they don’t have the appearance as you drive
down the street. So the staff did recommend approval of that amendment. There’s some
ambiguity in the letter that came from the County talking and the Planning Commission did
discuss this about, is there enough width? There’s 120 feet on there. We believe adequate lane
width based on future plans of Lyman Boulevard so we don’t think the parking, any additional
right-of-way should impact that at all. The building itself is highly articulated. The one issue
that we did have is two of the sides. So there was the one issue, there’s two walls. Actually
…south side that don’t, there’s about 58 feet that there’s not enough articulation on the building
itself, on the north and south side, and the developer did agree to make those changes. So with
the split face block face and the articulation over the doors, we went through in the staff report,
went through all the design standards that are in place for the PUD. It does meet all those
requirements. The Planning Commission did hold a public hearing to review this project and did
recommend approval of the site plan and the amendment, and those are identified in your staff
report. So with that, the staff is recommending approval of the site plan with conditions outlined
in the staff report and I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I just had one real quick one Kate. Has there been any other
correspondence or reactions from the neighborhood?
Kate Aanenson: We just had one ongoing issue and that’s regarding storage of one of the users
up there in the treed area and the developer has I believe resolved that at the end of last week.
Just trying to keep the site cleaned up. Some of those existing uses as we’re building new
buildings. Put in some storage in areas that we’re trying to preserve. I think we’ve got that
resolved.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
44
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff.
Councilman Lundquist: Kate the, I’m okay with the project as a whole and the parking along
Lyman’s not an issue for me. I mean you know, the only one’s who are going to see it is
Holasek’s anyway so.
Mayor Furlong: Not that you don’t care about what they see.
Councilman Lundquist: But they’re not going to get cars parked along Lyman you know. If it
was on the north side of the development where the homes would see it, I’d have a problem.
Kate Aanenson: Right, it is industrial across the street.
Councilman Lundquist: Right. So that doesn’t concern me. The thing, I just want to make sure
that we’re comfortable with the issue of potentially expanding Lyman Boulevard and having
enough room. I don’t want to get into a situation where we’re wiping out trees and shrubs and
curbs and parking spaces so that the County can expand Lyman Boulevard 8 years down the road
or 4 or whatever it comes to be and we get into a match back and forth of you know, what’s
going on or that so just to assure me that everybody’s good there and I’m fine with it.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist wants a guarantee. Assurance though. He wants
assurance.
Paul Oehme: Well I can only say that the section of roadway that the County is building in
conjunction or MnDot’s building in conjunction with the 212 project is 52 feet wide. That’s by
Powers Boulevard on Lyman Boulevard so, and we are anticipating a similar section to that in
this area just based upon traffic volumes and such so if it’s a 52, 54 foot roadway, we’ve got 120
foot right-of-way out there right now. It’s in our estimation that there should be significant,
enough right-of-way to support whatever improvements.
Councilman Lundquist: You’ve got about 25 feet on each side of that roadway.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, and we’re looking at a trail on the north side of the roadway at this time. No
other amenities on the south side. Potentially a signal at Galpin so.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Paul Oehme: That’s in our estimation. Nothing’s been finalized yet but that’s where it seems to
be heading.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And we’ve already had the discussion with the County about
putting in access off of there that they already ixnayed so we don’t ever have to worry about
them trying to squeeze a road in between Lot 2 and the holding pond or anything like that right?
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
45
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Can you zoom in so they can see that. I’m just going to show
the overall layout. Can you zoom in on this?
Councilman Lundquist: …I remember having a conversation when we were looking at that and
we said no way we’re coming off of Lyman so we don’t have to worry about the turn lane and
anything like that.
Kate Aanenson: Based on the project itself, this is a storm water pond. It would be difficult to
get a road through there at this point, yeah.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, I’m good.
Kate Aanenson: So with that again the Planning Commission and the staff felt it was a very well
designed building based on the proposed use so.
Councilman Lundquist: Let the record reflect I’ve been assured.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other questions for staff on this.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know I just had one quick one about the rain garden. Is that
something new that we’re doing in Chanhassen?
Kate Aanenson: There’s a few places that we’re trying to implement them where we’re trying to
rectify some storm water capacity issues. Existing situations. That’s typically where we try to
do them but there are other applications for them.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But we have a history of them being successful? No?
Kate Aanenson: No, they’re just.
Mayor Furlong: Wasn’t there a pond there? To the west.
Kate Aanenson: Yes, there’s a pond here, correct.
Mayor Furlong: Help me understand. Are there rain gardens here as well?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Isn’t there a rain garden? Maybe not. Never mind.
Kate Aanenson: I’m not aware of that. It might be in the overall PUD and I’m not sure specific
on this site. That might be in the overall PUD.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: The Arboretum has rain gardens currently in the community and we’re looking
at some applications out at Lake Ann as a part of the parking lot improvements out there. Just
another way of filtering storm water prior to going into a creek or reservoir.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
46
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Okay. Very good, thank you. Any other discussion or
comments? Seems like a reasonable proposal. Consistent with the PUD. Again I think the
request for the variance on the setback off Galpin for additional parking is a very reasonable
request and will include additional landscaping as well that was not part of the original PUD.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. I didn’t show that but that was kind of a trade off to provide
additional so you wouldn’t see the cars and the lights.
Mayor Furlong: And the 20 foot setback is actually less than what could be allowed under
ordinance, as I read the staff report.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: But again, the landscaping would still be there regardless so. Is there any other
discussion on this? If not, is there a motion?
Councilman Lundquist: I would move City Council approves Chanhassen West Business Park
PUD amendment for 20 foot parking setback from Lyman Boulevard right-of-way for Lots 1 and
2, Block 2 for Chanhassen West Business Park and that the City Council approve Site Plan 06-11
with the conditions in the staff report.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve
Chanhassen West Business Park PUD Amendment for a 20 foot parking setback from
Lyman Boulevard right-of-way for Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Chanhassen West Business Park.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve
Site Plan #06-11 for a 49,105 square foot office/warehouse building, plans prepared by
Schoell and Madson, Inc., dated February 17, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration, landscaping and rain
garden function on Lots 2 and 3, Block 2. Minimum maintenance and inspection shall
include maintaining rain garden vegetation with non-invasive species and ensuring that the
infiltration function of the rain garden does not fail. All rain gardens and associated
infrastructure on Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 shall be maintained by the property
owner/association or property management company.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
47
2. A professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans.
3. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used adjacent to the storm water pond along
the west side of the lot. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will
require an easement from the appropriate property owner.
4. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through
the City’s Building Department.
5. Add the latest revision of City Detail Plate Nos. 1002, 1004, 1006, 2204, 3101, 3102,
3104, 3106, 3107, 3108, 5201, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5217, 5300, 5301, 5302 and
5302A.
6. The site has been previously assessed and each newly created lot will be subject to City
sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time of building permit issuance. The
2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for watermain per
SAC unit, as determined by the Metropolitan Council.
7. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not
limited to the MPCA, NPDES, Minnesota Department of Health and Carver County
Water Management Area.
8. On the plans show the stop signs per city detail plate # 5217, the driveway aprons per
detail #5207 and pedestrian ramps must be constructed per detail plate #5215.
9. On the utility plan:
a. Show all the existing utilities sewer type, size and class.
b. Show all existing storm and sanitary structures rim and invert elevations.
c. Add a note to maintain 18-in minimum vertical separation between the watermain and
storm sewer intersection on the western car park.
d. Revise CB5 to CBMH5.
10. On the grading plan:
a. Show all the storm water structures rim elevations.
b. Show the EOF.
c. Show the actual existing elevation contours for the site.
d. Show minimum 75-ft rock construction entrance.
e. Extend the silt fence to close off the northwesterly entrance.
11. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway access must be obtained and recorded
against the Lots 1 and 2.
12. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
48
Type of Slope Time
(maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
when area is not actively being worked)
Steeper than 3:1 7 Days
10:1 to 3:1 14 Days
Flatter than 10:1 21 Days
13. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as-needed.
14. Construction site entrances and exits shall be indicated on plans and shall have maintained
rock construction entrances as specified on City of Chanhassen detail plate 5301.
15. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
16. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
17. The accessible parking space at the northwest side of the building must be on the shortest
route possible to the northwest entrance.
18. A PIV is required on the building water service.
19. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete plans are
submitted.
20. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
21. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
22. Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs shall be required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
23. Builder must comply with the following Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division policies:
a. #4-1991 Regarding Notes To Be Included On All Site Plans
b. #7-1991 Regarding Pre-fire Drawings
c. #29-1991 Regarding Premise Identification
d. #34-1993 Regarding Water Service Installation
e. #36-1994 Regarding Proper Water Line Sizing
f. #40-1995 Regarding Fire Protection Systems
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
49
g. #06-1991 Regarding Fire Lane Signage
h. #52-2005 Regarding Commercial Plan Review Submittal Criteria
24. Lighting shall be high-pressure sodium.
25. The applicant shall revise landscape plan to show 11 landscaped islands or peninsulas
within the parking lot area.
26. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show 15 overstory trees, 37 understory
trees, and 52 shrubs along the south property line.
27. Sidewalk connections to Galpin Court and Lyman Boulevard must be constructed. The
sidewalks shall include pedestrian ramps at all curbs.
28. An architectural articulation shall be incorporated on the northern and southern façades.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you everyone.
APPOINTMENTS TO COMMISSIONS.
Mayor Furlong: City of Chanhassen has four commissions on which our residents volunteer
their service and time to serve. Those commissions are the Planning Commission, Park and
Recreation Commission, Environmental Commission and Senior Commission. The service by
our residents on all these commissions is greatly appreciated, past and current and the
willingness for all the applicants that submitted applications to volunteer their time is also very
much appreciated. Their time which is a significant commitment on their part for up to 3 year
terms here this evening will benefit all of us in the city and as a council, and I know I speak for
staff too and everyone involved, we greatly appreciate everyone’s involvement. With regard to
this current round of appointments at our meeting on March 20th I believe it was and again this
evening, the City Council interviewed most of the applicants, for those that were able to attend
the meetings and based upon those interviews and discussion, the following appointments are
being proposed which we will pass with a motion of a majority of the council, assuming the
council agrees. With regard to the Planning Commission we had two 3 year positions and 1 year
remaining on an open term. Kurt Papke and Debra Larson will be appointed to the 3 year
positions. Kevin Dillon will be appointed to the Planning Commission for the 1 year remaining
term. The Park and Recreation Commission, we had two 3 year positions available. Ann
Murphy and Jeffrey Daniel will be appointed to those two positions. On the Environmental
Commission, this evening we will appoint Ron Olson and James Sommers to the Environmental
Commission. And on the Senior Commission, we had three 3 year positions available. Pat
McGough, Barbara Nevin and Victoria Prior will be appointed to those. So again we appreciate
all the applicants and all those that serve on our commissions and at this point I would ask for a
motion to approve those appointments.
Councilman Labatt: Can I ask a question real quickly?
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
50
Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Did I miss something?
Councilman Labatt: Ah no.
Mayor Furlong: So is there a motion to approve?
Councilman Labatt: I would move to approve.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the appointments. Or on the process,
thank you.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council appoint
the following people for commission positions:
Planning Commission: Kurt Papke and Debra Larson for 3 year positions, Kevin Dillon for a 1
year position.
Park and Recreation Commission: Anne Murphy and Jeffrey Daniel for 3 year positions.
Environmental Commission: Ron Olson and James Sommers for 3 year positions.
Senior Commission: Pat McGough, Barbara Nevin and Virginia Prior for 3 year positions.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: One item Mayor and City Council members. We have Chanhassen Recycle Day
on April 23rd. That’s where any resident from Chanhassen can take their recyclables to the
Carver County Environmental Center at 116 Peavey Circle in Chaska and the City of
Chanhassen will pick up the first $20 of your recyclables. So that would include used tires,
brush, appliances and electronics so again, that’s Sunday, April 23rd at the Carver County
Environmental Center, right off of 41 so I wanted to share that with you and the public.
Mayor Furlong: Great. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt or staff? Very good.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None.
City Council Meeting – April 10, 2006
51
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council
meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 4, 2006
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Kurt Papke, Jerry McDonald, Debbie Larson, Mark
Undestad, and Deborah Zorn
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I; Alyson Fauske,
Assistant City Engineer; and Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Thomas Schwartz 7376 Bent Bow Trail
PUBLIC HEARING:
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: PUBLIC HEARING ON UPDATED
PLAN.
Public Present:
Name Address
Frank Mendez 7361 Kurvers Point Road
Steve Donen 7341 Frontier Trail
Greg Fletcher 7616 South Shore Drive
Erin Krueger SEH
Ron Leaf SEH
Lori Haak introduced Ron Leaf with SEH, the consultants who prepared the draft of the Surface
Water Management Plan update, who presented information on what has been done to update the
plan since it was established in 1994. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. Gary
Carlson, 3891 West 62nd Street suggested looking at Minnewashta Creek which controls the
outflow of water from Lake Minnewashta. Steve Donen, 7341 Frontier Trail mentioned that the
outflow for Lotus Lake was not flowing well and the need for it’s continued monitoring. He also
mentioned that he was representing the Lotus Lake Clean Water Organization, an organization
that is just getting started, and they would be willing to assist in any way possible. He
questioned the secchi disk readings on Lotus Lake and suggesting setting measurable goals in the
plan. After asking if anyone else wished to speak, the following motion was made.
Larson moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission table the public hearing for
the Surface Water Management Plan Update to the May 2, 2006 Planning Commission
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Planning Commission Summary – April 4, 2006
2
PUBLIC HEARING:
LOT 2, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK: REQUEST FOR
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR REDUCED PARKING
SETBACK AT SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING, APPLICANT, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION,
PLANNING CASE NO. 06-11.
Commissioner Mark Undestad removed himself from the commission for this item due to a
conflict of interest. Josh Metzer presented the staff report. Commissioner Papke asked for
clarification of the landscaping, screening, buffer yard and hard surface coverage requirements
and an explanation of the rain garden. Commissioner Larson asked for clarification of the
vehicular use landscape area. Commissioner Zorn asked for further clarification on the rain
garden. Commissioner McDonald asked if the County’s plans to upgrade Lyman Boulevard
impacts this property. Chairman Sacchet asked for clarification of the statement in the staff
report noting that Carver County had registered concerns and what those concerns were. The
applicant, Ben Merriman with Center Companies and Eden Trace noted he was present to answer
questions. Commissioner Papke asked about the staff’s request for additional façade treatment
on the building, additional landscaping and parking. Chairman Sacchet opened the public
hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed.
Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
Chanhassen West Business Park PUD Amendment for a 20 foot parking setback from
Lyman Boulevard right-of-way for Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Chanhassen West Business Park.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site
Plan #06-11 for a 49,105 square foot office/warehouse building, plans prepared by Schoell
and Madson, Inc., dated February 17, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration, landscaping and rain
garden function on Lots 2 and 3, Block 2. Minimum maintenance and inspection shall
include maintaining rain garden vegetation with non-invasive species and ensuring that the
infiltration function of the rain garden does not fail. All rain gardens and associated
infrastructure on Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 shall be maintained by the property
owner/association or property management company.
2. A professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans.
3. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used adjacent to the storm water pond along
the west side of the lot. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will
require an easement from the appropriate property owner.
4. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through
the City’s Building Department.
Planning Commission Summary – April 4, 2006
3
5. Add the latest revision of City Detail Plate Nos. 1002, 1004, 1006, 2204, 3101, 3102,
3104, 3106, 3107, 3108, 5201, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5217, 5300, 5301, 5302 and
5302A.
6. The site has been previously assessed and each newly created lot will be subject to City
sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time of building permit issuance. The
2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for watermain per
SAC unit, as determined by the Metropolitan Council.
7. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not
limited to the MPCA, NPDES, Minnesota Department of Health and Carver County
Water Management Area.
8. On the plans show the stop signs per city detail plate # 5217, the driveway aprons per
detail #5207 and pedestrian ramps must be constructed per detail plate #5215.
9. On the utility plan:
a. Show all the existing utilities sewer type, size and class.
b. Show all existing storm and sanitary structures rim and invert elevations.
c. Add a note to maintain 18-in minimum vertical separation between the watermain and
storm sewer intersection on the western car park.
d. Revise CB5 to CBMH5.
10. On the grading plan:
a. Show all the storm water structures rim elevations.
b. Show the EOF.
c. Show the actual existing elevation contours for the site.
d. Show minimum 75-ft rock construction entrance.
e. Extend the silt fence to close off the northwesterly entrance.
11. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway access must be obtained and recorded
against the Lots 1 and 2.
12. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time
(maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
when area is not actively being worked)
Steeper than 3:1 7 Days
10:1 to 3:1 14 Days
Flatter than 10:1 21 Days
Planning Commission Summary – April 4, 2006
4
13. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as-needed.
14. Construction site entrances and exits shall be indicated on plans and shall have maintained
rock construction entrances as specified on City of Chanhassen detail plate 5301.
15. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
16. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
17. The accessible parking space at the northwest side of the building must be on the shortest
route possible to the northwest entrance.
18. A PIV is required on the building water service.
19. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete plans are
submitted.
20. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
21. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
22. Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs shall be required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
23. Builder must comply with the following Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division policies:
a. #4-1991 Regarding Notes To Be Included On All Site Plans
b. #7-1991 Regarding Pre-fire Drawings
c. #29-1991 Regarding Premise Identification
d. #34-1993 Regarding Water Service Installation
e. #36-1994 Regarding Proper Water Line Sizing
f. #40-1995 Regarding Fire Protection Systems
g. #06-1991 Regarding Fire Lane Signage
h. #52-2005 Regarding Commercial Plan Review Submittal Criteria
24. Lighting shall be high-pressure sodium.
25. The applicant shall revise landscape plan to show 11 landscaped islands or peninsulas
within the parking lot area.
Planning Commission Summary – April 4, 2006
5
26. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show 15 overstory trees, 37 understory
trees, and 52 shrubs along the south property line.
27. Sidewalk connections to Galpin Court and Lyman Boulevard must be constructed. The
sidewalks shall include pedestrian ramps at all curbs.
28. An architectural articulation shall be incorporated on the northern and southern
façades.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
GARY CARLSON: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR AN EXISTING FOUR STALL GARAGE AND
RELIEF FROM THE 1,000 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
RESTRICTION FOR THE RSF DISTRICT. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT AT 3991 WEST 62ND STREET, PLANNING
CASE NO. 06-12.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gary Carlson 3891 West 62nd Street
Maureen & Molly Carlson 3891 West 62nd Street
Megan J. Moore 3891 West 62nd Street
Mara Carlson 3891 West 62nd Street
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner McDonald asked for
clarification on the status of the accessory structures on the property. The applicant Megan
Moore, who lives on the property with her husband and 2 children, submitted a letter from their
neighbors the Keel’s, for the record and explained the need for the variances. Commissioner
Larson asked for clarification on the driveway circulation. Chairman Sacchet opened the public
hearing. Mara Carlson, 3891 West 62nd Street cleared up the question of the driveway traffic
patterns on the property and clarified what agricultural activities are associated with the property.
Molly Carlson, 3891 West 62nd Street explained why the garages need to be where they’re
proposed. Gary Carlson, 3891 West 62nd Street gave background information on the property
and spoke to each of the variance requests. Commissioner McDonald asked the applicant to
explain why he did not pull building permits to build the accessory structures. Chairman Sacchet
closed the public hearing and reviewed the items that need to be addressed with this request.
The commission discussed whether or not to table the item.
McDonald moved, Undestad seconded to table Variance Request #06-12 for a 22 foot front
yard setback for an existing four stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached
accessory structure restriction in a single family residential (RSF) district at 3891 West
Planning Commission Summary – April 4, 2006
6
62nd Street. McDonald and Undestad voted in favor. Sacchet, Papke, Larson and Zorn
voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 4.
Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22
foot front yard setback for an existing four stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square
foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single Family Residential (RSF)
District at 3891 West 62nd Street, based upon the findings of fact in the staff report and the
following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property.
3. The applicant will be able to continue the non-conforming agricultural use without the
three storage buildings.
The Planning Commission orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove the three
storage buildings.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PIONEER PASS: REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE
AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY AND OFFICE/
INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY (APPROXIMATELY 43 ACRES);
REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, A2 TO RESIDENTIAL
LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT, RLM (APPROXIMATELY 43 ACRES);
PRELIMINARY PLAT (PIONEER PASS) CREATING 82 LOTS, 8 OUTLOTS AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PUBLIC STREETS (APPROXIMATELY 73 ACRES);
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK
OVERLAY DISTRICT WITH A VARIANCE FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO THE
PRIMARY ZONE; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE GRADING
AND FILLING OF WETLANDS ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF PIONEER
TRAIL (1600 PIONEER TRAIL) AT FUTURE HIGHWAY 312, PLANNING CASE NO.
06-09, APPLICANT D.R. HORTON.
Public Present:
Name Address
Joel Cooper SEH
Paul Bilotta 1641 Chatham Avenue, St. Paul 55112
John Chadwick 11430 Zion Circle
John and Joe Knoblauch 1450 Knob Hill Lane, Excelsior
Sever Peterson Eden Prairie
Planning Commission Summary – April 4, 2006
7
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item noting that D.R. Horton has withdrawn and
assigned the application to the property owner, Sever Peterson. Commissioners Undestad and
Papke asked for clarification of the road circulation and access. Chairman Sacchet asked if this
comprehensive plan amendment request was deviating from the original idea of the
comprehensive plan, clarification of the location of the storm water ponds, the relevance of the
950 contour line and wetland replacement plan. The applicant’s representative, John Chadwick
stated their agreement with the staff’s recommendation and introduced the applicant Sever
Peterson, planning consultant Paul Bilotta and Joel Cooper from the Hill Engineering Firm who
were present to answer any questions. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. No one
spoke and the public hearing was closed. After commission discussion and comments the
following motions were made.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
Planning Commission recommends approval of the comprehensive plan Land Use
Amendment from Residential – Medium Density and Office/Industrial to Residential - Low
Density of the land within the Plat of Pioneer Pass except for Outlots A, B, C, D and G
contingent on Metropolitan Council review. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
Planning Commission recommends approval of the Rezoning of the land within the Plat for
Pioneer Pass except for Outlots A, B, C, D and G, Pioneer Pass, from Agricultural Estate
District, A2, to Residential Low and Medium Density District, RLM. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
Planning Commission recommends approval of Preliminary Plat for “Pioneer Pass” creating
81 lots, 9 outlots and right-of-way for public streets, plans prepared by James R. Hill, Inc.,
dated 2/3/06, subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall prepare a noise analysis for noise that will be generated by traffic on
Highway 312 and Pioneer Trail. The analysis shall identify appropriate noise mitigation
measures to meet noise standards for residential homes.
2. The developer shall pay $21,547.00 as their portion of the 2005 AUAR.
3. The applicant shall plant 369 trees within the development, 98 overstory and required buffer
yard plantings trees along Collector Road D and buffer yard plantings for lots along the
south property line.
4. Each lot shall have a minimum of two overstory deciduous trees planted in the front yard.
5. The applicant shall install the total required buffer yard along Collector Road D or show
proof of berm height of 3 feet or higher along the length of the street and adjust the
quantities of understory and shrubs accordingly.
Planning Commission Summary – April 4, 2006
8
6. The applicant shall development a restoration plan including native plants for the Bluff
Creek Overlay district north of Block 1. The plant species shall be selected from the Bluff
Creek Management Plan Appendix C. The final plan must be reviewed and approved by the
city before installation.
7. Signage for the Bluff Creek Overlay District must be posted on every other property corner
where residential yards meet the primary zone.
8. The 950 contour shall be extended over lots 5 and 6, block 3 to provide more coverage from
headlights for those homes.
9. Dedication of Outlots A and G shall be made to the city or a conservation easement shall be
established over said outlots.
10. The developer shall designate a 4.72 acre neighborhood park site, Outlot H. This
property shall be transferred to the city by warranty deed with 3.79 acres of the site being
dedicated/ donated by the applicant/owner and the remaining 0.93 acres being purchased
by the City of Chanhassen. The city shall compensate the owner/applicant $218,550 in
total compensation for said 0.93 acres.
11. The developer shall rough grade and cover seed the park site and construct a 20 stall parking
lot for an additional not to exceed payment of $50,000 from the city. The parking lot shall
include insurmountable curb. Construction plans for all improvements within the borders of
the park shall be submitted to the Park & Recreation Director for approval prior to initiating
construction of these improvements. All material and labor costs are reimbursable. Design,
engineering, and testing services associated with these improvements shall be provided by
the applicant.
12. The applicant shall submit a complete wetland replacement plan and must receive
approval of the replacement plan prior to alteration of wetlands. Wetland replacement
shall occur in a manner consistent with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
13. Wetland mitigation shall not be proposed for the northeast corner of the site in order to
ensure adequate area for a road connection to the property to the east of the site.
14. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around all Ag/Urban wetlands. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved,
surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall
install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction
begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall be set back 40 feet from the
edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback shall be shown on the plans.
15. Any areas on the property that meet the City’s criteria for bluffs (i.e., slope greater than
or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe) shall be preserved. In
addition, all structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading
Planning Commission Summary – April 4, 2006
9
may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet
from the top of a bluff). The plans shall be revised to show any areas meeting the City’s
bluff criteria.
16. No alterations shall be permitted within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of
the setback from the primary corridor without a variance. All structures must meet the
40-foot setback from the primary corridor.
17. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm water management along the southwest
property line of Lots 25-31, Block 2 is adequate to prevent drainage issues for future
homeowners.
18. The outlet for Pond 2 shall be moved westward to increase the flow distance between the
inlet and outlet structures.
19. Drainage and utility easements with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be provided over
all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as public value credit
and storm water infrastructure.
20. Energy dissipation shall be provided at the flared-end section inlet to Pond 2 within 24
hours of installation. Additional blanket shall be provided for storm sewer installation
area for inlet infrastructure to Pond 2. The access area shall be protected with erosion
control blanket upon the establishment of final grade. Erosion control blanket shall be
used on the slopes within Lots 31-24, Block 2. Mulch shall be substituted for the blanket
proposed for the berm area of Block 3 along Street D.
21. Temporary sediment basins shall be provided in existing watersheds 1 and 3 during mass
grading activities. Where 10 acres or more of exposed area come to a discernable point
of discharge to a wetland or waterway, a temporary basin shall be provided. The
proposed storm water basins in proposed drainage areas 2, 6 and 7 shall be temporary
sediment basins until the contributing areas are stabilized. The temporary outlets could
be installed in place of the permanent outlets.
22. Perimeter control (silt fence) shall be installed prior to grading along the south side of the
Street D and CSAH 14 (Pioneer Trail) intersection. All silt fences near flared-end
sections shall be installed up and around flared-end sections so water is not discharged
against the silt fence, causing it to fail.
23. An outlet area shall be defined for the two areas labeled as temporary sedimentation
basins during the rough grading/subcut street phase of development. Any shredded wood
material from tree removal shall be saved for temporary mulch berms/vehicle exit pads as
needed. Typical silt fence shall be installed prior to initial rough grading activities along
the west side of Outlot H to the proposed “street by others.”
Planning Commission Summary – April 4, 2006
10
24. The total SWMP fee shall be paid to the City at the time of final plat recording. The
estimated total SWMP fee at this time is $165,600.
25. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction Permit), Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (dewatering permit), Army Corps of Engineers) and
comply with their conditions of approval.
26. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
27. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
28. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new
roadways allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4.
29. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of
fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
30. Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
31. Fire hydrant spacing is unacceptable. Locate fire hydrants at intersections and in cul-de-sacs
and at 300 foot spacing. Most spacing is in excess of 400 to 500 feet at this time. Submit
revised fire plans to Fire Marshal for review and approval.
32. Before site grading commences, the existing building and driveway access off Pioneer Trail
onto the property must be removed.
33. On the grading plan, add a note to remove any existing house and driveway access.
34. The developer’s engineer must work with Liberty on Bluff Creek’s engineer to ensure that
the proposed grading on each property matches at the property line.
35. Ground slopes shall not exceed 3:1.
36. A minimum 75-foot long rock construction entrance must be shown on the plans.
37. Retaining walls must be designed by a structural engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota and require a building permit if greater than 4 feet in height.
Planning Commission Summary – April 4, 2006
11
38. The developer shall work with MnDOT to move the access at Pioneer Trail so that it aligns
with the MnDOT’s street on the south side. The access to Pioneer Trail shall be constructed
in conjunction with the first phase of the development.
39. The property is also subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for all of the lots.
The 2006 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,575 per unit for sanitary sewer and $4,078 per
unit for water. The 2006 SAC charge is $1,625 per unit.
40. The Arterial Collector Roadway Fee of $2,400/developable acre will need to be paid at the
time of final plat recording.
41. All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and 10:1 benches at the NWL. Revise accordingly.
42. All of the proposed housepads must have a rear yard elevation of at least three feet above
the HWL of the adjacent ponds.
43. Storm sewer calculations and drainage map must be submitted with the final plat
application. The storm sewer must be designed to accommodate a 10-year, 24-hour storm
event.
44. The last public stormwater structure that is road-accessible prior to discharging to a water
body must have a 3-foot sump pump.
45. Future utility service and access to Outlot B needs to be determined prior to final plat.
46. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump
discharge from homes.
47. Add catch basins in the back yards of Lots 1-15, Block 3 connecting to Street C storm
sewer. Also add a catch basin along Street A in front of Lots 25-28 and between Lots 15 &
16 and 4 & 5, Block 1.
48. All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
49. The catch basin between Lots 6 & 7 must be built with two inlet openings.
50. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal.
51. An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading.
52. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
Planning Commission Summary – April 4, 2006
12
53. Utility services for the buildings must be shown on the final utility plan. Sanitary services
must be 6-inch PVC and water service must be 1-inch copper, Type K and will require a
City Building Department inspection.
54. Extend the silt fence along the south to the back yard of Lot 25, Block 1.
55. No retaining wall is allowed within any drainage and utility easement. Revise the retaining
wall between Lots 22, 23 and 24, Block 2, accordingly.
56. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security
in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements
and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility
improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance.
57. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required prior to construction,
including but not limited to MPCA, NPDES, MnDOT, Department of Health, Carver
County and Watershed District.
58. Reroute the sanitary sewer from Street A and the north-south corridor intersection to
minimize the sewer depth. Relocate the southern sanitary sewer out of the stormwater pond
easement at Outlot E.
59. Add a pressure relief valve to the watermain along Street D between Outlots E and F. This
will be a City improvement cost but installed by at the time of development.
60. In-home pressure reducing water valves may be required on all lots with a lowest floor
elevation of 930 or less. Final determination for the need of in-home pressure reducing
valves will be made by the City at time of building permit.
61. The applicant shall coordinate with the developer of the adjacent properties in the northeast
corner of the site the dedication of public street right-of-way to provide access from the
parcel to the north to the parcel to the east and revise the plans accordingly.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit for the grading
and filling of wetlands on property subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit a complete wetland replacement plan and must receive
approval of the replacement plan prior to alteration of wetlands. Wetland replacement
shall occur in a manner consistent with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
Planning Commission Summary – April 4, 2006
13
2. Wetland mitigation shall not be proposed for the northeast corner of the site in order to
ensure adequate area for a road connection to the property to the east of the site.
3. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around all Ag/Urban wetlands. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved,
surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall
install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction
begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall be set back 40 feet from the
edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback shall be shown on the plans.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
Planning Commission recommends approval of Condition Use Permit to permit development
within the Bluff Creek Overlay District with a variance for encroachment in to the primary
zone to construct a storm water pond as shown on the plans prepared by James R. Hill, Inc.,
dated 2/3/06, subject to the following conditions:
1. Dedication of Outlots A and G shall be made to the city or a conservation easement shall
be established over said outlots.
2. Any areas on the property that meet the City’s criteria for bluffs (i.e., slope greater than
or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe) shall be preserved. In
addition, all structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading
may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet
from the top of a bluff). The plans shall be revised to show any areas meeting the City’s
bluff criteria.
3. No alterations shall be permitted within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of
the setback from the primary corridor without a variance. All structures must meet the
40-foot setback from the primary corridor.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: McDonald noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated March 21, 2006 as presented.
Being Chairman Sacchet’s last meeting, he thanked the commissioners and adjourned the
Planning Commission meeting at 9:25 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 4, 2006
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Kurt Papke, Jerry McDonald, Debbie Larson, Mark
Undestad, and Deborah Zorn
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I; Alyson Fauske,
Assistant City Engineer; and Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Thomas Schwartz 7376 Bent Bow Trail
PUBLIC HEARING:
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: PUBLIC HEARING ON UPDATED
PLAN.
Public Present:
Name Address
Frank Mendez 7361 Kurvers Point Road
Steve Donen 7341 Frontier Trail
Greg Fletcher 7616 South Shore Drive
Erin Krueger SEH
Ron Leaf SEH
Sacchet: Lori, you giving us the staff report for that please.
Haak: I will be introducing yes. Chairman Sacchet and Planning Commissioners, as you’re
aware the city staff has been working with SEH to develop a draft surface water management
plan. This plan is intended to update our inventory of all of our infrastructure as well as really
guide surface water management in Chanhassen through the next 10 years or so. A draft plan is
available on the city’s web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. It’s under the what’s new heading
and if members of the public would like copies of this, it’s available either on CD Rom or copies
are available during business hours at Chanhassen City Hall and the Chanhassen Library. City
staff is going to, tonight the purpose of tonight’s public hearing is to receive comment on the
draft plan and following the receipt of that comment, we will be developing responses to those
comments. Staff is asking that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and then
continue that public hearing to your May 2nd meeting so that we can receive any additional
public comment that comes in in that time. So that’s the recommendation from staff. At this
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
2
time I’d like to introduce and invite Ron Leaf from SEH to come up. Ron is going to share a
little bit about the background of the plan and following that we’d be happy to take questions
from the Planning Commission and we ask you at that time to open public hearing and then
continue it to the May 2nd meeting.
Sacchet: Thank you Lori. Ron, do you want to jump in?
Ron Leaf: Thank you Lori. Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I’m pleased to be here tonight to
give you an overview of the draft surface water plan. I want to emphasize that this is a draft
plan, as Lori did, and Lori mentioned we’ve been working with city staff to develop this draft but
ultimately it becomes your plan and I think that’s a key point in this public hearing process is
that the public has a chance to comment. Staff then provides some comments and continue to do
that. It really becomes a plan that the city will use in the years to come and it becomes your
plan. Having said that, I am going to use the overhead camera here, if I’m on the right spot.
We’re going to talk about the surface water management plan and give you some background.
Some insight into some of the information that’s in the plan, and then what the plan intends to do
as the city moves forward. Lori mentioned the plans and update to a plan that was first
established in 1994. Really two main things that the plan has attempted to do. Achieve
compliance with some regulatory programs. There’s a state program. The Metropolitan Surface
Water Management program, and a federal program which is the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System program. The plan really addresses the first item but because the items are
so related, it incorporates many of the requirements of the NPDES program as well. Tries to
achieve some efficiencies in that process. The second main item is really just to coordinate an
overall surface water management plan by updating the goals and policies. These things change,
surface water management programs have changed over time, and since 1994 really the state of
the art and storm water management and some of the things that are being done and required are
changing literally on the fly these days, so need to continually update these goals and policies.
As part of that then, the next step is to update the goals. The development standards to support
those goals and policies and in part to develop and create some new management tools, as Lori
mentioned. An inventory of some of the infrastructure and the wetlands throughout the city.
We’ll touch on those briefly. Some of the new and refined tools that the plan, the planning
process has developed include an inventory of the storm system, including ponds, storm sewer
structures, and a number of treatment systems throughout the city. A hydrologic model update
that will be used by city staff to review developments and evaluate the system response to
proposed developments in the future. A wetland inventory and assessment which really covers a
lot of ground. Field work that looked at nearly 400 wetlands throughout the city and evaluated
the functions, the values, the type of wetland it was so that staff then can use that in the decision
making process for projects again that come before the city. And finally, an update on the status
of the city’s lakes and surface water bodies was completed. I’m going to take just a minute to
highlight some of the data that was collected to develop these tools. This is just a screen shot of
the tool that city staff will have available. It’s hard to see the specific storm points but what’s
important here is staff will have at their fingertips the ability to click on a storm structure for
example and pull up some information that was collected. The type of structure and be able to
use that in development reviews. This also was a key component in addressing the NPDES
permit program because the city was required to inspect each of these structures on an annual
basis and on a 5 year basis as required in different parts of the permit. Another one of the tools,
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
3
that’s just the data behind the inventory. Another one of the tools, I mentioned the hydrologic
model update. I don’t intend to get into detail here but really breaking the city down into
drainage areas and detention areas, treatment areas throughout the city in a comprehensive city
wide hydrologic model. Also conducted a MnRAM assessment. Minnesota Routine Assessment
Method for wetlands throughout the city and identified the type and locations and approximate
boundaries of each of those nearly 400 wetlands. And again that will be available to the city in a
data format that can be taken into account as developments come before the city. Another one of
the tools is really just a process by which city staff can help make decisions on the priority basis
of given projects. I won’t go through this table in detail but it’s both ES-2 in the Executive
Summary of the plan. What it intends to do is identify some of the priority resources from a
preserve level, which includes the crown jewels as the task force members identified. Seminary
Fen and Assumption Creek. To improve one, improve two and improve three categories related
to the status of those water bodies and the need to improve those and sets the bar for future
treatment needs, both for city projects in order to set the example, and for development projects
that come before the city. We also looked at the status of the surface waters throughout the city.
I mentioned briefly that Assumption Creek and Seminary Fen, the crown jewels that as part of
the evaluation, looking at the water quality trends, in general the trends are that the water bodies
are improving, or at least steady. There are some impaired waters, and as more waters are
assessed by the MPCA, it’s very possible that additional waters would be classified as impaired.
But a couple of those key water bodies are Riley and Lotus Lakes. There is some work to be
done in those watersheds and the plan addresses many projects that are potential improvements
in water quality for those watersheds. And then at the bottom here, Bluff and Riley Creeks are
also listed for turbidity which is another indicator of sediment loading to a stream section. I
think with that, I just wanted to give you an idea of what the lake trend analysis and just a snap
shot looks like. What this looks at here is the water clarity of the given lake. In this case we’re
looking at Lotus Lake, and you can see that the data generally shows that the clarity, the secchi
disk reading is increasing. It’s going from roughly 2 feet in 1979-1980 to somewhere in the
neighborhood of 5 feet. 4 to 5 feet in current years, so that trend is good. Is it there yet? Not
quite. It still needs some improvement but this is the type of trend that we looked at to identify
where a given lake fit within that priority system in the previous table. So with that analysis that
was completed, look at what are the outcomes and program implementation activities of the plan.
We mentioned NPDES permit compliance. Some of that’s done. Some of that will be done on
an ongoing basis. The staff continues to inspect the system. Maintain the system. Make
improvements into the storm system. It also identifies a prioritization of work plan items.
Within the appendix is a detailed list of potential storm water ponding, treatment area projects
that fit within each of the priority water bodies, and so staff can use that to develop a plan of
attack. For a given project or for the city’s own projects. There’s a couple of ordinance updates
that are required by the NPDES permit, but also that would be needed to fully implement the
plan, including recommendations for wetland management and for storm water development
standards. And finally one of the final items of the plan is really to establish some budgeting
expectation. What is the capital improvements program look like to support the needs of the
plan? In order to get there, there’s some public input and technical review, which is continuing
today and through the next couple of months. Task force meetings. There were 7 meetings that
took place with a number of task force members. A technical committee meetings which made
up of the watershed district staff that have responsibility and authority over portions of
Chanhassen. And then this public hearing which is opening today and ending on May 2nd.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
4
Again just to highlight the plan as drafted is available on the city’s web site under what’s new. I
also want to recognize the task force members. I won’t mention them all by name but you see
one of your very own here on the Planning Commission was a member of this task force and
provided great input into the process, and look forward to additional comments from that group
as we move into the final stages of this plan. Quickly look at the expected time line for
completion of the plan. There was initial draft that was sent internally to staff and the task force
members in January. That resulted in some fairly substantial revisions and production of this
agency review draft. What is this agency review draft mean? It means now it has also been
submitted to the watershed districts, Riley-Purgatory Watershed District, Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District, the Carver and Hennepin County Watershed Agencies and the Metropolitan
Council. Did I miss one? Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, thank you Lori. Since
submitted to them they have 60 days to review the plan and provide comments to the city. That
process then would officially close for those comments on May 30th. Staff and SEH would then
respond to those comments and gain approvals from the watershed districts ideally in June and
then come back to Planning Commission public meeting in June for recommendation from this
group to the council to adopt the plan and again the plan at this point is to have that occur in
June. Production and delivery of a final draft late June, possibly early July. So let’s take a look
at some of the, you know the meat and potatoes here of the work plan and what does the plan
recommend. I’ve broken this down into the goals and policies section if you will, and just
highlighted a few of the key recommendations. From a water quantity, of flooding, you know
perspective, there’s two key things and the first would be to continue to look at options for
addressing the high water levels that occurred on Lotus Lake. Understand there is some
information that was reviewed many years ago and we intend to take a closer look at that and see
what’s already been reviewed but something that still needs to be addressed. Also to review
easements and emergency overflows on city ponds and drainage systems. You go back to
October of last year, we had some storms in early October and again in mid October that were
fairly substantial in many areas of the metropolitan area experienced some localized flooding as
a result of these storms that were anywhere from 4 inches to 6 inches in some cases. Really
highlighted the needs to review these easement coverages that is city drainage and utility
easements and the need for emergency overflows so that properties surrounding these detention
areas aren’t inundated if an outlet pipe gets plugged or debris gets in the pipe and it’s not
functioning properly. So that’s a key thing for city staff to look at as well. Water quality issues.
Really to continue to protect those crown jewels, Seminary Fen and Assumption Creek and strive
to improve Lotus, Riley Lakes, Bluff and Riley Creeks and I mentioned the table in the back of
the appendix that identifies the priority basis and lists the number of pond projects that are
available for staff to pick and choose from as opportunities arise. And then to maintain the other
water bodies as, to continue those steady trends. Obviously you’d like to address everything
now but funding is limited. You can’t take everything off at once so, looked to further prioritize
the plan as we move forward in the next couple of months. Additional items in the work plan.
Wetlands. We talked about the MnRAM data system. That will be used on an ongoing basis to
guide future decisions and I mentioned an update to the wetland ordinance. Erosion and
sediment control had a fair amount of discussion with task force on this item. Really just to try
and get our hands more on the need to really put a much more focused effort on this. The city
now works with some county staff to do this but really to understand where some other
improvements could be made as some of these larger projects, Trunk Highway 12 come through,
in addition to city led projects throughout the area. And then to identify some opportunities to
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
5
restore and stabilize scours at system outlets. Again as part of the drainage system inspection
process, we didn’t identify a lot of those but there are a few throughout the city that could use
some attention. And again, the final thing here is the finance and regulatory responsibilities.
The city wants to maintain adequate funding and you need to both to comply with your goals and
achieve your goals but also to comply with the NPDES permit program. To continue to inspect
and maintain your system. One thing that’s not listed here, it was a late but very good addition
to the plan, goals and policies was the public involvement and participation process. It really
relates to all of these goal areas. That has to be a key part of everything and the city has some
good activities and will continue to move ahead with educating the public, educating developers
and educating internal staff and commission members like yourselves, so we all are on the same
page with what needs to happen and what’s feasible to happen in the field. As far as the
implementation plan summary, I’m not sure if you can see that. Yeah, if you zoom in a little bit
here. This is really just a summary of a larger table that’s in the plans. Break it down into some
groupings to give an order of magnitude as far as an annual need to maintain, to program and to
achieve some of the goals for water quality. It’s broken down into 3 categories, planning costs,
capital construction costs and then ongoing operation and maintenance. It’s not a full list. City
staff has other costs that are putting other funding programs but what this is really intended to do
is kind of identify on an annual basis what’s needed to support the ongoing construction, capital
costs and planning costs as far as studies, reviewing easements, system upgrades for data
management systems, that type of thing. In the final analysis that we came up with, it’s
somewhere in the neighborhood of $400,000 a year in total. About $350 of that would be for
capital construction costs for pond projects. So the city could pick ponds off the list and on a
prioritized basis and do about $350,000 of pond projects per year and complete the list in the
plan within, the timeframe that we looked at was about 15 years so, that’s the time horizon. So
that’s a quick snapshot at what’s in the plan and kind of the details of the implementation plan,
and that’s really all I want to do is just a quick 15 minute overview of the plan and from there I’ll
leave it back to Lori or to the commission.
Sacchet: Thank you. So our role tonight, to clarify with staff is to hold the public hearing. Not
so much to give comments ourselves because the public hearing is going to stay open and then at
the end we make comment, is that more the idea?
Haak: That’s right. At this time staff would just like to get that first flush of public comment.
Then we can take some time to review those comments and respond to those in writing. Those
will be included in your next packet and then at that next Planning Commission meeting, if the
commission has questions, we’d like to answer those at that time.
Sacchet: With that I’d like to open the public hearing on this topic. Is there anybody here who’d
like to comment on the watershed plan for the city of Chanhassen? Yes. If you would state your
name and address for the record please. You may want to pull the microphone towards you
please.
Gary Carlson: Thank you very much. Gary Carlson, 3891 West 62nd Street. We’re here on
another matter but you’re mentioning your jewels. Our end of the city really appreciates Lake
Minnewashta and you didn’t mention that, and you didn’t mention Minnewashta Creek that
controls the level of Lake Minnewashta. It’s the only outflow of Lake Minnewashta. All of the
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
6
Arboretum, University of Minnesota Arboretum, great part of the city, drains into Lake
Minnewashta and it’s outflow right now is just, it’s outflow is determined only by whatever that
beached level sand was left at last fall. And the river, whatever that, there could be some study
there and I just wanted that to be as part of the emphasis because we’re at the corner of the city.
We don’t get much attention and I know everyone up in our area would be really, really
concerned about that. Thank you very much.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Do you want to say something to that Lori?
Haak: Yeah, I can actually speak to that real briefly. The city has looked at that outlet in the
past and that is something that we’ve considered doing. Really it’s true, right now the outlet is
controlled by a sandy area so we were looking, we actually had the DNR permit for it but
weren’t able to get that going, but we do intend to continue to look at that outlet.
Sacchet: Excellent. Anybody else would like to address this item? Please come forward. State
your name and address for the record please and let us know what you have to say.
Steve Donen: Yes, my name is Steve Donen and I live at 7341 Frontier Trail and I live basically
on Lotus Lake and I guess first of all I was glad to see that you mentioned the outflow on Lotus
Lake. I actually walked over it to it today and was disappointed in seeing how much flow was
going out. The lake is, it’s relatively high. I don’t know the numbers. Obviously the ice is just
starting to come off but it is high. It is not flowing well. I don’t know whether it’s plugged in
there or what’s going on, but it isn’t flowing well. I didn’t have a chance to call Lori today and
let her know. She usually gets a call from me a couple times a year anyways but just doesn’t
look like, it doesn’t look like any of the fish things are plugged up or, you know it looks like it’s
purely the hole that leaves isn’t big enough to manage the water flow. It does cause high waters
and it does, and we haven’t had a real wet season and the water is high this year again, as last
year was, so I’m glad to see that and if there’s anything we can do. I do represent a few of us as
Lotus Lake Clean Water Organization that we’re just starting so we would like to be as much as
we can involved in this whole process. We are glad to see you working on the process. I think
as a community the 11 lakes in Chanhassen and all the wetlands and everything else are our
crown jewels for everybody. For me especially Lotus Lake. I guess I have a couple things to
mention in this whole plan. I’ve only been able to see the plan since what Monday or Tuesday of
last week and I’ve been traveling so I haven’t had a chance to read it in great detail, but I will.
Okay. I had a few comments. First of all on the secchi disk reading, I’m not sure when they take
those readings. I like, you know I’ve been on lakes where I can see my feet most the time and in
Lotus Lake I, unless you are there right before the lake turns over in early spring, I can’t see my
belly button. So it’s not very good. I’m not sure where we get 5 feet secchi disk from. It’s just
timing on the data but I think the data is a little bit suspect personally. I spend about 250 hours a
year on that lake. So I just think that we make sure our data’s good because something seems to
be not matching what I see. Secondly I guess as a big thing for me with working in the public.
Not in public but in the private sector as an engineer, I get goals in my life. Every year I have
goals. Every 3 to 5 years objectives and goals and all that kind of stuff and I see goals and what
are kind of goals but I’ve been taught over the years that goals need to be smart goals so they’re
measurable. How are we doing against the goals? Since ’92, as I read some of the introductions
in this package, it’s been flat. Slight increases. I don’t know what the goal was. Did we do
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
7
good against the goals that we set back then? Did we not? So I guess I’d like to see as a part of
your plan, kind of set yourselves some goals. How we doing? Okay, and maybe have some kind
of reporting mechanism that we report it every year how we’re doing against the goals. So
measurable things that we can try to hit. The other thing is, there are some action plans. They
tend to be, I thought they were pretty general and left a lot open for discussion and again I’m
going to volunteer myself and members of my group to, organization to maybe help with some
of that work. On how to turn these things into actual plans that we go do, and if we need the help
with funding or something else that we can help with, we’d obviously be willing to help. So I
guess that’s kind of the comments. We would just like to be involved and set goals and let’s
measure against them. Okay? And you guys are the Planning Commission. You have a real
challenge in trying to match the plans and the ordinances and make sure we stick with those
things as they go forward and as developers come in and try to do things. We need to make sure
we stick with our standards and maintain those so, up to you guys and all of us to make sure it
happens so thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Excellent comments. Anybody else who would like to address
our surface water management plan and update? This is your chance. If there’s nobody getting
up, I’ll bring it back here. We are leaving this hearing open, and as a matter of fact I’d like to
ask if somebody would want to make a motion formally leave this hearing open so that we
anchor that in.
Larson: I can do that. You want to do it?
Zorn: Go ahead.
Larson: The Planning Commission continues the public hearing for surface water management
plan update to the May 2, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
Sacchet: So that’s the motion that Debbie makes. Do we have a second?
Zorn: Second.
Larson moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission table the public hearing for
the Surface Water Management Plan Update to the May 2, 2006 Planning Commission
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Sacchet: So this hearing stays open and I would expect that commissioners will have a chance to
make comment on the May 2nd when this is addressed again as well.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LOT 2, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK: REQUEST FOR
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR REDUCED PARKING
SETBACK AT SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING, APPLICANT, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION,
PLANNING CASE NO. 06-11.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
8
Commissioner Mark Undestad removed himself from the commission for this item due to a
conflict of interest. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you. Do we have questions for staff here? Kurt, go ahead.
Papke: I’ll start out. On page 5 of the staff report it delineates that we can reduce the public
right-of-way to a minimum 10 feet if the applicant can demonstrate that we get 100% screening
at least 5 feet above the adjacent parking lot. It wasn’t quite clear to me from staff report that we
demonstrate where that’s been achieved. Could you clarify that?
Metzer: That’s what the code says in the industrial office park district.
Papke: Right.
Metzer: Allows for setbacks as little as 10 feet with.
Papke: Correct, so what I’m getting to is, if the code says we can reduce it to as little as 10 feet,
and it’s on the, kind of a trade off here is that we get 100% screening up to a height of 5 feet, so
how did we achieve that in this plan? I didn’t see where.
Metzer: It was given an example that this request for a 20 foot parking setback is less than what
you know, sometimes permitted by public…as an example.
Papke: Correct, but that permit stipulates that you, it’s a give and take. Okay you give them a
little bit less setback and in return we get 100% screening at a 5 foot level. So how did we
achieve the 100% screening at 5 feet?
Metzer: We have, the code lays out a specific buffer yard plantings for in setbacks and one of
the conditions is that additional landscaping be planted because the proposal doesn’t meet the
requirements.
Papke: So in the table we have here, is the required planting that we have on page 8 of staff
report, which the proposal does not achieve by the way, is the required planting column, will that
achieve the 100% screening at the 5 foot level? Without any berming, because unless I, you
know I didn’t, the grading plans weren’t real detailed. Do I take it there is no berm?
Metzer: There’s on the south property line there is no berming.
Papke: Okay, so therefore it’s strictly through the landscaping that we’re going to achieve that,
and does this required amount here achieve the 100%? Is there additional plantings in here
above the normal for a 50 foot setback that achieves that 100%?
Metzer: No. This is.
Papke: This is the minimum.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
9
Metzer: …requirement for the setback that we have proposed for the 20 foot.
Papke: So, am I the only one that’s confused here?
Sacchet: I follow you.
Papke: I’m not getting it. If the whole idea is we achieve 100% screening at 5 feet by additional
plantings, where’s the additional plantings?
Generous: The required plantings would almost double the amount of plantings required in that
buffer yard.
Papke: Okay, so that’s what I was getting to. What I was trying to find out was.
Generous: If you look at it you go from 20 shrubs to 52 and if you, initially…
Papke: So that’s what I’m saying. So on page 8, the required plantings columns in the two
tables does achieve the 100%?
Generous: The only place that’s open is with the rain gardens are proposed to go in.
Papke: Okay.
Generous: It’s that column requirement. So then the rest of the stuff gets…
Papke: Okay so, just to finalize this, just to make sure I’m not confused. On page 8, the middle
column under required, that is double the typical. Double the amount typically required by code
and achieves 100%.
Generous: What they have is.
Papke: It’s double what they have.
Generous: What they proposed but…believe that meets the intent. What meets the requirements
of the screening.
Papke: Okay.
Generous: If you look at the third column they have 28 shrubs. They’re going up to 52 shrubs…
23 understory that can be evergreens or ornamentals. You put those in, you’ll get your
screening.
Papke: Okay. Alright, it just wasn’t clear from reading the staff report how we had achieved the
thing that we said we would on, in the, on page 5. Okay. Next comment. Page 7, the hard
surface. The PUD standards is 70% average between the 8 developable lots and this one is
almost 80% which we make up for how?
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
10
Generous: Through Outlot C, which is the common open space within the development. This
lot will be allocated a portion of that green area.
Papke: Okay. Okay, so that’s, it’s the outlot.
Generous: Most the time what we do is.
Papke: It’s the outlot that compensates for it?
Generous: Exactly, and that’s how we got that in the first place.
Papke: Okay, good. Good, good. Last question. Page 9, the rain garden. To my recollection I
think this is the first time since I’ve been on the Planning Commission that I’ve seen a rain
garden, so this is a bit new for me. It’s great. I think it’s great that we’re doing rain gardens. I
mean that’s certainly goodness. But some of these stipulations are a little bit new. Could you
explain about this site plan agreement with the city to ensure the rain garden continues to
function, keeping it, you know how, is this more work for the city? What, can you color
inbetween the lines a little bit on this?
Generous: Basically it requires that the developer have some type of maintenance agreement in
place to maintain the function of that garden. We could take security to do it. That’s something
we’ll have to work out as we go. It’s actually Carver County was the one that put that, asked us
to put that condition in. So it will be through both jurisdictions that we will enforce that. But the
agreement goes with the property so they’ll have to keep, comply with that. It’s like the security
for other landscaping.
Papke: Okay, thanks.
Sacchet: Okay, any other questions?
Larson: Yeah I have a question. On page 8, what says vehicular use landscape area, and the
required is 5,311 square feet. Proposed is 28,935. Can you explain to me what that means?
What the huge difference is? Does that mean hard surface area? I’m a little confused on that.
Generous: What it means that yeah, basically you’re looking at all the driveways and parking
areas. We take that total area and there’s a formula that we use to determine how many islands
they need to have and how much, it’s 8% in your vehicular use area has to be in landscaping. So
they have, if you look all around their parking lot, they may have more green area but it’s not
broken up. And that’s why the commission is to add additional islands because our ordinance
doesn’t want all the landscaping in one spot. It wants it scattered so that we get canopy coverage
over the parking area and eventually you have cooling. Shade on the parking lot cools it.
Larson: Sure. Okay, thank you for clarifying that.
Sacchet: Thank you. Any other questions? Deborah.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
11
Zorn: Just had a quick question. Could you clarify what a rain garden is exactly, for those
maybe listening and don’t really know and educate myself.
Metzer: Basically it’s a way to treat storm water runoff immediately on site I believe.
Generous: The closest thing I know is it’s like a swale with vegetation that’s conducive to being
in more wet soils and it will take out some of the pollutants, but it’s an infiltration area that
allows the water to percolate into the ground rather than run off into your storm water pond.
Provides some holding. But it’s not as big as duration holding as a storm water pond.
Larson: It’s like a filter.
Generous: Exactly. A natural filter. It’s the buffer yard that we require all the time that you put
the natural grasses in. That will slow the water down and allow it to percolate in and evaporate
and, which will help us with the storm water.
Zorn: Thanks.
Sacchet: Jerry, did you have a question too?
McDonald: Yeah, I had a question on page 5 where you’re talking about the setback and you
talk about Lyman Boulevard and I guess the County may be looking at extending that to 4 lanes.
What wasn’t clear to me was that if they do that, does that encroach into any of this area or is
that already accounted for?
Fauske: Chair McDonald, the current right-of-way in 120 feet will allow for, typically for a 4
lane roadway of 12 foot lanes… Even with a center median, with constructing a trail, 120 feet is
sufficient to accommodate a 4 lane divided roadway. At the time that this was going through the
planning process, Carver County did not indicate…
McDonald: Okay, so it’s not going to encroach into this area where all of a sudden we’ve got a
problem with the parking lot being too close and the berm area or anything.
Fauske: We don’t anticipate…
McDonald: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Before I open the, there is a comment in here that Carver County registered some
concerns. Why would they be concerned if there’s no issue?
Fauske: At this point in time Carver County has no plans…for Lyman Boulevard. They
anticipate a 4 lane divided roadway at this location. It has, they haven’t identified the exact
roadway site, therefore we don’t know the exactly right-of-way needed at this point. And staff
again looking at the…it doesn’t say anything above and beyond the…120 feet of right-of-way.
That future right-of-way…
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
12
Sacchet: Do they since they have concerns?
Fauske: Pardon me?
Sacchet: Does Carver County think they need more? Why do they have concerns?
Fauske: I think they just put it out there, it’s not…just to put it out there that we know Lyman
Boulevard needs to be widened. We don’t what it’s time will be. We don’t know when the
right-of-way needs to be…staff went back and looked at that and come up with a
recommendation we looked at…
Sacchet: So it’s really more a trigger for staff to be more careful. It’s not that they have
concerns. They just want to make sure you look at it carefully, is that a fair interpretation?
Fauske: Correct. They want to make sure staff was cognizant…
Sacchet: Okay. Then I have one more question, which is kind of at the heart of this whole
matter. And you pointed that out Josh. This was always a 20 foot setback in the plan, however it
was a mistake that it was worded to be 50?
Metzer: Yeah, it was overlooked I believe during the subdivision process.
Sacchet: Because that’s significant because I wasn’t quite sure from reading the staff report
whether it was actually, the…was 50 and we overlooked that they drew 20. So it’s clearly the
other way around? That it was always 20 and it was a mistake at somewhere?
Generous: No one picked up that we wrote 50 in that because when the PUD was coming
forward, all the concern was on Galpin Boulevard with the residential across to the east and no
one really looked at that. We made the same for both arterial roadways but their concept plan
and the, all the plans were looking at a smaller parking setback for Lyman which is an arterial
road. To the south it would be additional industrial development.
Sacchet: Because that’s an important distinction. I mean it’s one thing if staff made a mistake,
what they were done versus the applicant agreeing to something and all of sudden deciding they
want it different.
Generous: Right, and it was never picked up on because the whole issue at the time was
installed on Galpin Boulevard.
Sacchet: Okay. Alright. That’s all the questions I have. Any other questions? No? With that
I’d like to invite the applicant to come forward, if we have an applicant here. Yep, we do. If you
want to add anything to what staff presented or.
Ben Merriman: No, I’m happy to answer any questions.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
13
Sacchet: If you want to see whether we have any questions for you. Do we have any questions
for the applicant? Kurt?
Papke: Yeah, staff has suggested this additional condition for the architectural articulation to
break up, is it the 40 foot span over there? What’s your, what’s your plan to follow through on
that or is this news to you or?
Ben Merriman: For the 40 foot, excuse me? Which?
Papke: There’s a limitation of the 40 foot façade without any articulation.
Ben Merriman: Ah, yeah.
Sacchet: Also you may want to introduce yourself. Sorry, I didn’t let you introduce yourself.
Ben Merriman: Okay, I’m sorry. My name is Ben Merriman and I’m with Center Companies
and also Eden Trace and I’m the developer of the property. What we’ll probably end up doing
here is, is adding a bump out so it will be similar to what you see in the front of the building.
We’ll have to add a parapet and then drop. For instance we take this feature here and drop it into
this area here. I think that will probably do it. That will break the ridge. What we don’t want is
a long line because then it really starts to look well more industrial than our buildings generally
do look. We try to keep them in more of an office tech type of a building, and that’s what this is
designed for. It’s not designed for a heavy manufacturing use. It’s designed for more office tech
warehouse type of a use. And so I think that will work quite well.
Papke: And so you don’t have any issues with doing that?
Ben Merriman: None.
Papke: Okay. In regards to the increased landscape planting, particularly on the south side
there, do you have any issues with the increased requirements?
Ben Merriman: Not at all. We can add those shrubberies and we’ll be careful in selecting what
type of shrubberies will do the best there. We’ll have to take a hard look at that because of the
salt issues maybe from the roads and things but we’ll select some shrubberies that will offer the
blocking of the view on, and hopefully we’ll try to get some evergreens and those types of things
that block all seasons.
Papke: Could you add a little color to the rain garden design if possible.
Ben Merriman: I can although it’s very new to me, I must say. So this is going to be a bit of an
experiment to, I think for all of us. Again as staff pointed out, it came from Carver County and
the purpose of the rain garden so to speak is, I think it was fairly well articulated. Instead of all
the water running on a hard surface into a pipe and straight into a pond, which is typically how
we’ve done it, and then the pond acts as a sediment feature and takes out some of the pollutants
and allow some of the, well what a holding pond does, it allows some of the petrol products to
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
14
evaporate. In this system it will run into these rain gardens or ditches and it allows for one,
filtration and allows two, for some of the water, instead of to just go straight in the pond, it
allows it to seep into the soils. And supposedly it’s better for ground water, and it does make
some sense. So we’re interested in trying to see how this goes. We don’t know exactly. We’ve
never done it before but we’re anxious to try to see how it works out. As far as maintenance,
it’s going to be kind of a wait and see. We’ve never, I’ve never dealt with any of these types of
vegetations and it’s a different type of vegetation that you plant in there and so we’ll have to
maintain it and watch it and we may have to change some of the vegetation as years go on.
Papke: One last quick one. If I’m reading some of the drawings correctly, it looked like, since
some changes were made in the design of the parking for this building, that, am I correct in
assuming that more parking along the south side was added and there was at one point just a
drive along the south side? And if so, what was the rationale behind that?
Ben Merriman: Yeah, you’re exactly correct. We did not have any parking on that side of it,
and as I pointed out, these buildings are less of a warehouse component and more of an office
and tech component. So they’re more of a office building than they are a pure warehouse as
most people perceive warehouses to be. And we needed more parking. It’s just that simple.
We have to run a higher ratio of parking in other words, the number of square feet to the number
of people has to increase and so we had to add a substantial amount of parking in order to satisfy
the tenants that are going to be in here, and tenants or owners so the, of the building. So we
increased the parking on that side. Actually we increased it on all sides.
Sacchet: Alright. Any other questions for the applicant? No? Anything you’d like to add from
your end?
Ben Merriman: No thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much.
Ben Merriman: Thank you.
Sacchet: Appreciate it. Now this is a public hearing. I’d like to invite anybody who wants to
address this item to come forward. Seeing nobody get up, I’ll close the public hearing. Bring it
back to the commission for comments and discussion. Any comments? Discussion. If not I’ll
take a motion. Actually multiple motions. Double motions.
Larson: What page?
Sacchet: Page 11.
Papke: Okay, I recommend that we adopt, I recommend that we approve the Chanhassen West
Business Park PUD amendment for a 20 foot parking setback from Lyman Boulevard right-of-
way for Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Chanhassen West Business Park and B. I recommend approval of
Site Plan number 06-11 for a 49,105 square foot office/warehouse building, plans prepared by
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
15
Schoell and Madsen, Inc. dated February 17 ’06 subject to conditions 1 through 28 as distributed
by staff, with the addition in condition 6. Per SAC unit as determined by Met Council.
Sacchet: Alright, we have a motion. Is there a second?
Zorn: I second.
Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
Chanhassen West Business Park PUD Amendment for a 20 foot parking setback from
Lyman Boulevard right-of-way for Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Chanhassen West Business Park.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site
Plan #06-11 for a 49,105 square foot office/warehouse building, plans prepared by Schoell
and Madson, Inc., dated February 17, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration, landscaping and rain
garden function on Lots 2 and 3, Block 2. Minimum maintenance and inspection shall
include maintaining rain garden vegetation with non-invasive species and ensuring that the
infiltration function of the rain garden does not fail. All rain gardens and associated
infrastructure on Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 shall be maintained by the property
owner/association or property management company.
2. A professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans.
3. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used adjacent to the storm water pond along
the west side of the lot. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will
require an easement from the appropriate property owner.
4. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through
the City’s Building Department.
5. Add the latest revision of City Detail Plate Nos. 1002, 1004, 1006, 2204, 3101, 3102,
3104, 3106, 3107, 3108, 5201, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5217, 5300, 5301, 5302 and
5302A.
6. The site has been previously assessed and each newly created lot will be subject to City
sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time of building permit issuance. The
2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for watermain per
SAC unit, as determined by the Metropolitan Council.
7. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not
limited to the MPCA, NPDES, Minnesota Department of Health and Carver County
Water Management Area.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
16
8. On the plans show the stop signs per city detail plate # 5217, the driveway aprons per
detail #5207 and pedestrian ramps must be constructed per detail plate #5215.
9. On the utility plan:
a. Show all the existing utilities sewer type, size and class.
b. Show all existing storm and sanitary structures rim and invert elevations.
c. Add a note to maintain 18-in minimum vertical separation between the watermain and
storm sewer intersection on the western car park.
d. Revise CB5 to CBMH5.
10. On the grading plan:
a. Show all the storm water structures rim elevations.
b. Show the EOF.
c. Show the actual existing elevation contours for the site.
d. Show minimum 75-ft rock construction entrance.
e. Extend the silt fence to close off the northwesterly entrance.
11. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway access must be obtained and recorded
against the Lots 1 and 2.
12. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time
(maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
when area is not actively being worked)
Steeper than 3:1 7 Days
10:1 to 3:1 14 Days
Flatter than 10:1 21 Days
13. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as-needed.
14. Construction site entrances and exits shall be indicated on plans and shall have maintained
rock construction entrances as specified on City of Chanhassen detail plate 5301.
15. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
16. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
17. The accessible parking space at the northwest side of the building must be on the shortest
route possible to the northwest entrance.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
17
18. A PIV is required on the building water service.
19. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete plans are
submitted.
20. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
21. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
22. Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs shall be required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
23. Builder must comply with the following Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division policies:
a. #4-1991 Regarding Notes To Be Included On All Site Plans
b. #7-1991 Regarding Pre-fire Drawings
c. #29-1991 Regarding Premise Identification
d. #34-1993 Regarding Water Service Installation
e. #36-1994 Regarding Proper Water Line Sizing
f. #40-1995 Regarding Fire Protection Systems
g. #06-1991 Regarding Fire Lane Signage
h. #52-2005 Regarding Commercial Plan Review Submittal Criteria
24. Lighting shall be high-pressure sodium.
25. The applicant shall revise landscape plan to show 11 landscaped islands or peninsulas
within the parking lot area.
26. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show 15 overstory trees, 37 understory
trees, and 52 shrubs along the south property line.
27. Sidewalk connections to Galpin Court and Lyman Boulevard must be constructed. The
sidewalks shall include pedestrian ramps at all curbs.
28. An architectural articulation shall be incorporated on the northern and southern
façades.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
18
PUBLIC HEARING:
GARY CARLSON: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR AN EXISTING FOUR STALL GARAGE AND
RELIEF FROM THE 1,000 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
RESTRICTION FOR THE RSF DISTRICT. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT AT 3991 WEST 62ND STREET, PLANNING
CASE NO. 06-12.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gary Carlson 3891 West 62nd Street
Maureen & Molly Carlson 3891 West 62nd Street
Megan J. Moore 3891 West 62nd Street
Mara Carlson 3891 West 62nd Street
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you. Do we have questions from staff? Jerry, any questions?
McDonald: Yeah, I have a couple. First of all, do we know when these structures were put in
place? When they were built.
Metzer: I believe the first one was built in ’96 or ’97 and I don’t know the exact dates of the
other two but within…
McDonald: Okay, and then on the drawing, it looks as though we did some trading for 5
structures to create the barn structure. Have the other structures been removed yet or are they in
the process of doing that?
Metzer: We’re going to, we have a date set in the signed agreement with the applicant that those
will be removed by a certain date. …off the top of my head but the agreement is signed that the
structures will be removed by a certain date. If not the city will use it’s…escrow to hook up.
McDonald: Okay. And then when we look at the amount of space that these other buildings
take place, and the 5 buildings are pretty much a wash with the barn. You just consolidated all
those into kind of one area. But aren’t we still over with structures A, B and C? Don’t they also
create a problem that’s there also as far as the amount of square footage detached that’s allowed?
Metzer: Well from what records we have, minus the three that were built without permits, those
are grandfathered structures basically because they’ve been in existence before current
ordinances.
McDonald: Right.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
19
Metzer: So by adding the 3 without permits he intensified the non-conformance which the code
does not allow.
McDonald: Okay. So if we deny his permits for say Building C and B and A, what’s the
alternative? Does he have to tear them down in order to be in compliance?
Metzer: Correct.
McDonald: Okay. Thanks.
Sacchet: Any other questions? No questions at this point? Alright, with that I’d like to invite
the applicant to come forward and tell us if you have anything to add to what staff is presenting.
What’s in the staff report and so forth. If you want to start with your name and address for the
record please. Appreciate that. You might want to pull the microphone a little towards you, yes.
Thank you.
Megan Moore: My name is Megan Moore. I resides at 3891 West 62nd Street, Chanhassen,
Minnesota. I live there with my family. My husband and my 2 children. I would like to submit
a letter from our neighbors the Keel’s who live directly to the east of us. Just in support of the
variances.
Sacchet: Okay.
Megan Moore: The Keel’s house is.
Sacchet: Right there, okay.
Megan Moore: So this property represents a legacy which I look forward to passing on to my
children. That is to say that the agricultural nature of 3891 requires adequate housing for
livestock, feed, implement and machinery. Which one’s are A, B and C? I don’t really know
Josh.
Sacchet: It’s the green ones.
Metzer: Yeah, A, B, and C.
Megan Moore: So B and C are machinery and loafing sheds. The residential nature of 3891
requires that safety and aesthetics retain high priority. For me the safety of my children and my
sister, Molly Carlson, are paramount. These variances when granted provide the safe
environment that Chanhassen, I think Chanhassen has always striven for. At the same time
respecting the diversity that my family represents. As Executor I respectfully request that the
Board approve the variances as the storage facilities benefit our corner of Chanhassen. Thank
you for your time. Your hard work. Appreciate the time, I spend a lot of time on boards myself
and I’ll be available for any questions.
Sacchet: Thank you. Do we have questions from the applicant?
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
20
McDonald: Yeah, I’ve got some questions following up on all this. When were the structures
built?
Megan Moore: I think that my dad knows the answer to those questions so he’ll be speaking in a
second.
McDonald: Okay. The issue of safety on Building A. If that were to be moved the number of
feet that it’s talking about, how does that impact safety?
Megan Moore: On this corner of the building and sort of along the front by the building, that’s
where my kids play. This is my daughter’s playhouse. Their bikes and there’s a giant tree right
here. All that space isn’t, it’s not all driveway space. Do you know what I’m saying? And so
while I understand that my kids could play in the driveway, I prefer that they don’t. Especially
when I know that at any time virtually during the day a UPS truck needs to back in there or
whatever, but it’s just, knowing that my kids have that extra buffer of safety when there are big
vehicles and it’s difficult to see behind when I have a 5 and a 3 year old. I think those, to me
those are the vital safety points that I’m really protective of. So does that answer your question?
Jerry, right?
McDonald: Yes. Well I guess what I’m not sure of is, the number of feet you’ve got to move to
come into compliance is not all that much. You’re at, I think you’re at 22 feet and you need to
go to, is it 30 Josh?
Metzer: Right.
McDonald: So we’re talking about 8 feet and in order to come into compliance at least with
where that’s at, I don’t see where giving up 8 feet you’ve lost anything.
Megan Moore: I see your argument but between the sort of area between the front of the house
and the front corner of that garage, which is like this area right here. I don’t think, I think the 8
feet would be significant. I don’t think the vehicles can safety even pull out of the garage if that
were removed. Especially right where the tree is. So it’s hard for me to point it out on this
picture but the tree is sort of sticking out, you can see the shadow of it on this picture, but I think
8 feet would be fairly significant to be honest.
McDonald: Okay. And then the other question I had was, why wasn’t the city consulted as far
as building permits?
Megan Moore: I didn’t build it so again my dad can address that.
McDonald: Because yeah, I’d like an answer to that question and also when these were actually
built so I guess when your dad comes back, I do have some ongoing questions that I would like
some answers to there.
Megan Moore: Sure.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
21
Sacchet: Any other questions for her?
Larson: Just a quick one.
Megan Moore: Sure.
Larson: Is the driveway from the main road leading to the house right there?
Megan Moore: The driveway leading from the, I’m sorry.
Larson: Yeah, look at this one. Where’s the driveway that leads to the front of the house?
Because it’s hard to tell from this.
Megan Moore: It comes along the trees here. Comes around.
Larson: Oh that way? Here I was thinking it was the other way.
Megan Moore: It’s like underneath the shadows of the trees.
Larson: Okay. So that’s where the driveway is. I know you’re saying that the kids, it would
impact the area where your kids play. I thought it was more behind the house so I’m confused.
Megan Moore: Well my kids.
Larson: I know kids play everywhere. I have 4, I know.
Megan Moore: Okay. Well they definitely don’t play right here where they first come in from
the, unless we’re like taking the bikes and going out onto the trail or something. The trail leads
right along our property right there. But they do, this is all their play area. This is more like
parking and drop off areas so I can’t really use that for play area. My concern is here, between
the house and the garage. They play there. Their bikes are stored in that area. Their tric’s.
Their little mini type car things. Oh my god, everything.
Larson: Okay now, so but what you’re saying is.
Megan Moore: Well but the cars do come through here. There’s this place to park extra vehicles
here if we have somebody visiting.
Larson: On a regular basis?
Megan Moore: And UPS guys, which are frequent visitors.
Larson: Now why would they go that way when there’s more room the other direction?
Obvious to me looking at this.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
22
Megan Moore: Because they like to drop it off at this most northern door, which is my door. I
think because mainly they know that I’m home all the time and so they ring my bell because I’ll
come and answer the door.
Larson: So the one letter that was attached regarding having a van be able to turn around.
Where does that, show me the route that that van takes.
Megan Moore: The van pulls in and pulls right past this, pulls in the driveway. Pulls right here
and has to get up to the ramp which you can actually see the ramp on the picture. It comes out
right here. It has to be able to get in and face this way so that the, when the door comes out on
the.
Larson: Actually the photograph I have is more clear than what I’m seeing there but I can see
where you’re pointing now.
Megan Moore: But anyways like in blizzard weather like we had this March, Molly’s literally
coming down this ramp and able to get right from the ramp onto the, I mean it’s, and really it’s
better that way because her wheelchair for some reason doesn’t make it through snow all that
well.
Larson: Yeah I can imagine.
Megan Moore: So it’s handy and it’s handy for her to not be in the cold for too long or the rain.
I mean her machine is really sensitive to getting wet. Her power wheelchair.
Larson: Well that aside, because just looking at this, it appears that like Jerry McDonald said, if
you were to move the building this way, that’s not impacting where the van is coming and the
UPS guys, you can put a sign up or something, you can’t go this way. You know what I mean?
Megan Moore: Right.
Larson: So to me moving the garage, and I know it’s going to be a pain in the neck to do that but
the 8 feet, I don’t see how it’s going to really impact that big driveway area very much you
know, other than the fact that I know it’s a hassle to do that. But I kind of tend to agree with
Jerry on this.
Megan Moore: Okay. I just would like to reiterate that I think it’s not safe. That’s pretty much
my stance on that. Mainly because I’ve seen them try and pull it in and out.
Sacchet: So it’s not safe when there are vehicles going through there. But I think what, where
Jerry and Debbie are coming from is that, the vehicles don’t really have to go through there.
There’s no requirement. I mean the van pulls up on the other side of the house. There’s plenty
of space in the area. I mean there’s no need for the vehicles to go there, is there?
Megan Moore: But I think that they do. They do, my sister loads off of this end of the building
out of her van. Her van parks in this garage.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
23
Sacchet: Okay. Do we have any other questions?
Papke: Could the requirement be met, since the infringement is really on the northwest corner at
about a 45 degree angle, has the city planners looked if they chopped off the fourth stall, would
they be in compliance?
Metzer: The diagonal, the 45 degree line is actually considered the side property line, so the
setback there is only 10 feet. It’s from the short, it’s the area up here. From this, the setback in
here is 22 feet.
Papke: Okay, so there’s no way by eliminating a stall that we could get within, the whole
building would have to physically be moved. Okay.
Sacchet: Okay? Is that it for questions? Thank you very much.
Megan Moore: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Now this is a public hearing and we know your dad is going to say something too so
I’d like to open the public hearing and anybody who wants to address this item, please come
forward at this time. And if you want to state your name and address for the record, appreciate
that.
Mara Carlson: Good evening. Pardon me. Good evening, my name is Mara Carlson. I also live
at 3891 West 62nd Street and there’s a couple things that I myself can clear up for you. Number
one, the driveway issue does not end here. This is not the end of our driveway. Cars move
continuously past this. This is our access area for all the rest of our agricultural needs, which I’ll
be addressing shortly. So there is a constant need for vehicles, and large vehicles that carry feed
and materials for our barn to get through here, so it’s not just a regular small driveway that a
compact car or family van passes through but it’s a large piece of machinery that needs to pass
through there. Second of all the, I believe it’s Building, this building here which is Building C
was built approximately 12 years ago. Okay, so as I stated my name is Mara Carlson and I am
the person responsible for the horse activities that have taken place on this hobby farm for the
last 24 years, and I would also like to address the issue of hardship concerning these two
buildings, the 23 by 24 loafing shed and the 21 by 22 machine storage shed. Our horses need
these two buildings for their safe and proper care. That’s the facts. Our horses need the loafing
shed for shelter when they are confined to that section of the pasture, either for nutritional
reasons or health reasons. And they need the, excuse me I need the machine shed for storage of
my tractor mower and for other horse related care equipment. Again for the safe and proper
management of their pasture environment. I need to be able to mow weeds. I need to be able to
keep pollutants from their environment so that they don’t contract issues and health issues that
can be related to non-proper management. It would be an extreme hardship and certainly a
safety risk for me to try and manage our horses without these buildings. I very much want to
continue having a safe and healthy horse operation and therefore I support the granting of the
variance and the relief. Finally I would like to just ask, request that you keep in mind that by
building these two pieces of shelter, that the intention was not to increase the value of the
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
24
property. Of course a new shed is going to be more valuable than an old shed. That’s just the
facts of life. But it was built with the intention of preserving a portion of the original intent and
use of this property, which was agriculture and was established, as was mentioned, back in 1913.
112 years ago. That’s all I have to say. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else would like to address this item. Please come forward at this
time. Looks like we meet the whole family this time.
Molly Carlson: Hello. My name is Molly Carlson. I live at 3891 West 62nd Street in the
handicap addition that you granted the variance for last year. I again I want to thank you for that.
It was…allow to keep my garages where my dad built them. By moving them from our front
door… The garages need to be where they are so that I can get easily from my… If the garage is
on the back side of that, I am not able to…so I’m requesting that you grant the variance. Thank
you.
Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else? Public hearing is still open. Now we get to dad. Alright.
Please state your name and address for the record.
Gary Carlson: You’ll have to please excuse me because we’re getting into a grandfathered frame
of mind here where we’ve all had to change occupations coming, we probably took care of our
families before we came down tonight to make sure the kids were all safe and supper was over.
And likewise I’ve been privileged to be in the city of Chanhassen for many, many, many years.
My name is Gary Carlson and I’m the third generation in this area and we’ve maintained this
hobby farm pretty much the way it was intended. Way we received it from the original
developers, I mean original owners. I just want to give a quick overview tonight and then talk
about a little bit on each of the variances and then I’ll sit down and be glad to answer any further
questions. It’s just going to take a little bit to get up to speed. To get up to where we can be on
the same page over this property has been there and pretty much it’s evolving state for 112 years.
I had to refer back to the county records. I thought it was 1896, but it was actually 1894 so we
got a couple years older. Now the first question I always get when I get on my farm outfit and
when I’m out in public is, what is that on your hat? And those in the ag business kind of know
what it is. Iwamec is a bull enhancer, similar to Viagra which I might need some of after tonight.
Now the property overview to begin with has been covered quite well by Josh from the City of
Chanhassen and so we know where it is. It’s up in the very corner of the city and it’s been
operating as a unique piece of agricultural property for many, many years. And what we have
tonight is we’re here to settle the zoning. To bring these 2 variances up to par. We were in here
last year and got a variance for Molly’s addition and this year we’re bringing some variances on
line to cover the I guess the accessory structures and also the setback variance. And they kind of
came about originally with Molly’s addition and then wanting to bring in a pole barn to replace
our old barn. I became aware that there was a couple sheds and one garage that had some
questions on, and so we’re here to clear those up. And why we are operating in this unique
fashion is in a grandfathered position on one side. We have nothing in the city that we can,
there’s no pile of rules and regulations on grandfathering. There’s not a lot of help given in the
city’s guidance. Let’s take a quick look at what Carver County, how they govern their initial
look at this. The mission statement from Carver County, it’s a very short paragraph. It’s on
their web page. We will plan the county’s growth to preserve it’s uniqueness and we will
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
25
encourage rural and urban compatibility. We will further endeavor to protect our historical past.
So Carver County is trying right at the onset to get urban and a rural working together and living
together. But as far as the laying, you come with to the City of Chanhassen and they have
mention of it. Let’s see how positively they mention it and whether rural and urban can
compatible with together. I guess our terms are that we referred to is non-conforming. That
doesn’t sound good right there. To be non-conforming. Pre-existing. I mean that sounds like
prehistorical so we have a little hill to climb there. The city staff has, which I have to commend
them. They’re very knowledgeable. They’re very helpful. They get back to you. I’ve got
properties in other states and in other counties and I find our city staff to be number one.
They’re very, very good. Very helpful, but they only have the zoning laws to work with. They
only have the zoning rules and regulations to work with, and when they go to work on something
they have to say well is it within that or is it without that? And so their recommendations show
that they have to stay within that zoning and they’ve made findings that our property is a little bit
unique. So where are we going to get relief and where are we going to get help because there’s
no set of rules and regulations for us. Being a non-conforming property. Well, our balance of
power comes from you folks. It’d be nice if you had hobby farms or if you lived in a business
that you had to run independent of what was maybe the norm in the area but you’re still
independent thinking people and you know what’s right and you know what’s the best thing to
do. And so you can interpret grandfathering. You can interpret non-conforming use. If it’s
unique. If it’s something that should be carried forward into the future, you can support that and
you can come up with whatever motion you wish. You don’t have to follow the city’s
permission. As I say, they must stay within their zoning and they’re going to recommend things
along the zoning line. I watched other Planning Commission meetings and I know that you do
support diversity. You very much tried to get the non-conforming, I mean some uniqueness and
different buildings that are going on in the city. And so we feel that maybe we’re possibly
climbing out of that hole a little bit and, with being before you tonight. Now Mr. Carlson, where
are you with city zoning? Do you support city zoning? Or are you this maverick way out here
on the edge and we want to just be sure that you don’t get expanded. You don’t change and if
you do anything to change anything, and it’s not occurring within a year, then you can’t do it
anymore. You’re phased out. Well, on the contrary, Megan I need, or Josh… Will that come up
on the overhead? Okay, Gary Carlson and Maureen Carlson, my wife is here tonight. We
developed Minnewashta Meadows, right here. A 16 lot development. We came on board. We
had no variances whatsoever in that development. We have, it’s developed into a very unique
and very neat neighborhood. Those folks sell their homes on a regular basis and they’re happy to
have that development. We developed that and my wife named the streets and it was completed
with all your zoning and laid out and a perfect neighborhood. I, myself built the home, a second
home that we still own. It adds to our acreage. I guess you can see on the survey, it’s this down
here. You see all our buildings that we’re talking about are up here. It’s this home right there
and that again was all built within the city’s zoning and setback no variances needed on that
home. So we support the zoning. And Mr. and Mrs. Carlson and the Carlson family have
always supported the new development following these plans but we’re pre-existing on this ag
site and we don’t mean to say that we’re above the zoning but we very much recognize what our
grandfathered property has done for us, and that we’re hoping to show you what’s it done
tonight. So you can see that I do support the variances and I can certainly work within them and
I have. The, what has Mr. Carlson done for the City of Chanhassen? Well I’ve done a couple…
that I won’t mention right now but the one thing I have done, there’s a new development going
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
26
into the south of us. That’s been going through the Planning Commission. I think it’s pretty
well all approved and running. Hidden Creek Addition. I’ve entered into an agreement with that
developer to completely come onto my property by 200 or 300 feet. Landscape my property
down to meet him in a proper fashion and the city’s approved all that. That grading but it’s
giving up my land to let them do it, and what’s better for the city is to have a proper grading
from me to the new road, and I’ve allowed that to come on board. What that’s going to allow for
those neighbors down there, which there’s some very expensive homes going in there…more
homes, you’ll be looking out into what will be a very positive thing for them. A nice horse
pasture with the property split rail fence and properly graded down to their development. Now
I’m asking the city to do some things for me, and that is to look at these variances very carefully
and see if they’re, you’re not opening the flood gates. You’re not saying well we’re going to
have every resident in here wanting 5,000 accessory structures. 5,000 feet of accessory roof and
we want to change our setbacks all along the front. We’re not going to do that if you grant these
variances. In fact you’ll be setting the standard quite high because there’s no other property like
our’s. To get a little understanding of the property, we have 4 residences within that home. Four
completely separate residences. Separate entrances. Separate washer. Clothes washing
facilities. Separate exits and entrances. Besides the ag operation, you know we operate the other
businesses. I’ve been fortunate to be my own, I haven’t worked for anyone since I was 41 years
old. You couldn’t say I’ve been retired but I’ve been self sufficient. This property has helped
with that. And so it’s, we’ve had one of the best realtors in the area try to find us another
property because the developer that did this property to the south did want our property to
develop, and we looked for 6 months. There’s nothing comparable to this property. It’s not just
the land. It’s what’s the investment in the structures. And we certainly don’t care about price.
Our intent is not to gain further value. I suppose in 112 years we could have sold it several
times. Now I just want to speak carefully or quickly to each of the variances. Thank you for
listening to my overview. I’m sure it might have generated a few more questions. The variance
for setback on West 62nd Street would be an additional 8 feet. Well the building is built, but we
can, if we moved it back 8 feet it would block the front of the house from having proper fire
equipment being able to get around it. I mean I have to really be responsible for the other people
that live in this property. We have other tenants that aren’t all family members. I have my
daughter who lives in the handicap addition, but the other 2 apartments are complete, I mean
they’re just folks that are looking for affordable housing and we provided it. We provided it for
years. When it was divided into, I mean I didn’t need 15 bedrooms when I bought the house so it
was divided and it’s been maintained. You wouldn’t know that it was built in 1896 if you
walked into it. It has 10 foot high ceilings. Has a saloon. It has 3 whirlpools. Has garage.
Heated garage. Attached. My garage. Has a sunroom. Has a couple porches. Now it’s a little
bit confusing whereas on the survey, which the city has to work off of. When we do a certified
survey, anything that isn’t enclosed they don’t show. So they don’t show on this, of the original
building, the space between it. They don’t know the entrance back here. It’s a covered entrance
but it’s not enclosed entrance. They don’t show Molly’s handicap ramp that comes down here
and out into the driveway. Her driveway comes out in the driveway. And I guess there’s a
carport actually on this end here. They don’t show it because it’s just a free standing carport. So
those aren’t ever shown on a registered survey because they’re not enclosed, but they actually
show my daughter, my grand daughter’s playhouse I built for her. It’s just a little playhouse
because it’s enclosed, so that’s on this survey. Let’s stay with the variances here Carlson. Okay,
I’m trying to. So the setback. Now we’re trying to work on the variance for the setback. As you
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
27
go down West 62nd, the next property to us has a structure within 10 feet of West 62nd. You go
to the next property to the east of this and they have a structure that’s within 15 feet of West
62nd. We’re 22 feet back from West 62nd. The additional safety feature of that is that these
people come screaming down Cathcart and they used to come zipping and they missed the curve
a lot of the times with the new kids that learn to drive, especially towards spring. We a lot of
times get them running right up into that curb. And since we built that garage, the full white,
because remember it’s white. When they’re coming down the street, you see something, your
headlights reflect off it and even in snowstorms, it looks something different. You’re not
looking like an open road. You’re seeing a white. Even it’s 22 feet back. We have not had one
accident on that curve since we built that garage, so by taking the garage down or moving it, it
would cause, will let some more kids, usually it’s kids, up into that. But when you see, roaming
around the Dakotas and you see a T intersection, you always see those big white barriers making
the T and that’s exactly what that garage does for that corner, so we actually added tremendously
to the safety of that corner. And as I said with the responsibility of having other folks living in
the property, I am concerned that we can get fire equipment around the front of the building. The
side of the building. All sides of the building if needed, so by moving that 8 feet it would just
squeeze this area and you’re going to see 8 feet. And remember these are structures come out
here. Trees and so forth. And then you have to have places to stack the snow. So the garage, I
don’t know if you’ve been out there and looked, it’s exactly in the right place. Yes, it’s not back
30 feet but none of the other structures along West 62nd are back 30 feet either so we’re hoping
you grant that variance. As far as the variance for the excessive structure, what is that called
Josh?
Metzer: Accessory structure.
Gary Carlson: Accessory structure, over 1,000 square feet. We have always been over the 1,000
square feet. Ever since that’s been there so granting a variance…always been added since day
one. We’ve been over the 1,000 square foot and you’re not going to, by granting it us you’re not
going to have other people coming up, well I want 1,000. You know I want 3,000 square foot. I
think the variance, in retro it was a complete surprise when we got the packet. Sorry that that
variance request was in there but I did tell the city staff, I said now if there’s any other things that
are going to need a variance, let’s do it this year. Again because I was just here last year. And I
guess it’s kind of resulting because we’re doing some things. The neighbors are doing some
things and it’s just a chance to look at our property and say let’s get the variances that we need in
place and Josh was very intelligent. Very smart now. If you approve that variance, he has a
condition there of no, do you want to read that Josh. You know what that is.
Metzer: Which one?
Gary Carlson: The condition that they approve the variance, you’re recommending a condition
of, it’s very intelligent. It does say to the Carlson’s, you know fine. You have these buildings.
Metzer: Building permits must be obtained?
Gary Carlson: No.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
28
Metzer: No new accessory structure or additions to existing accessory structures shall be
permitted.
Gary Carlson: There you go. So it does say to the Carlson farm operation that, I don’t agree
with it. I really don’t want that in there. I mean I don’t know what’s going to happen in the
future. When I started in sweet corn, it was sold in Mike’s stand. In fact we got calls a year
after, when are you going to have some more. Well Mike Wanous quit selling sweet corn but we
used to grow it on our property. Then we went to hay and we did hay for some years. Then we
had cattle there for a while. Then we had back to hay and now into horses. We had an apple
orchard and we sold apples to Lund’s store at one time. So we don’t know in the ag, when
you’re ag and you have ag things going on there, you don’t know whether it’s going to be soy
beans next year or corn or maybe hogs. I mean I’m not going to be quite into those things but
you see what I’m saying is, I have to make sure of that land. I can just sit there and watch it.
And the other things if you grant the variances, going forward. …these buildings are going to sit
there forever. If I develop, all these buildings are gone and even if the city is contemplating a
road to connect into the new addition coming through this property and if that road goes in, this
house, it’s going to be facing east. So this becomes a side setback. In the beginning I told Josh,
well we face east anyway. Let’s consider this our front and this our side. He said no, I’m sorry.
We can’t consider that your front because your front is where your driveway comes in from, but
if we get developed and the road goes between you and the neighbor, that will become a
viewpoint because it will be our side setback. So I hope I’ve kind of explained on it. Being a
surprise and getting the variance for the number of buildings, square foot of accessory structures
just as a surprise to us. If the commission is not feeling positive about these two variances we’re
requesting, I mean I was just surprised Saturday with this last request. You know I would like to
have it tabled and maybe possible…maybe I can take down one of these other accessory
structures. Maybe this one will have migrant workers in it at one time. When we bought the
property it had a 10 inch casing on the well. I would have supplied water for that end of the city.
It’s gone through some changes and we’re certainly willing to listen to whatever comments and
questions you might have.
Sacchet: Thank you very much Mr. Carlson.
Gary Carlson: I hope that’s not taking too much time. It’s over 112 years of.
Sacchet: Putting 112 years in 20 minutes.
Gary Carlson: …need some help because, thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you sir.
Gary Carlson: Thank you.
Sacchet: Well public.
McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Yeah, if you can tell me when these structures
were built. I think A was built in 1996. C was probably 1994. When was B built?
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
29
Gary Carlson: B is the garage? The four stall garage?
McDonald: No B is the loafing shed I believe.
Gary Carlson: The loafing shed. That was about, now through this process with building, let’s
cover that. I just a little bit give you an understanding on it. City of Chanhassen has a wonderful
lady, Carol Dunsmore. She also does the horse inspecting and works in the building department,
but she’s the horse inspector. She might do some other cities around the area. Very wonderful
lady. She said in one of her notes, because she makes a note each year. You know whether this
horse looks a little, needs something or hooves need, you know whatever she notices. And she
wanted more shelter for the horses so she came back the next year and there was a shelter. Well
Mr. Carlson, I see you have a nice shelter for the horses. That’s very good and that’s the last I
heard of it, so I mean, and that’s from the building. I mean she was very kind. I mean she could
have run back and said hey, Mr. Carlson built a horse shelter. Now when I say build a horse
shelter, it’s, these buildings are all fairly small. They’re 21 by 22. They’re set way back from
the property line. They look like they belong there. They look like they’ve been there. They
have been there for quite a while. I had a list of each size of all these buildings. There they are.
The loafing shed was 22 by 24. I mean that’s just, it looks, nice little building and it fits right
there. The machine shed is 21 by 22. And even a garage is only 20 feet deep. It’s not like it’s a
20, nobody wants a 20 foot garage. You won’t build them that way but I did to keep that strip
there for the safety of the building. Keep back from our home. Try to keep certain distance
back from the road. The garage was built in stages and all during that time, from Mr. Reed at the
time was our building inspector but I think I’m on my about my fifth or sixth building inspector
in the time I’ve been there but, he came out several times that year. Several times the next year.
Several times the next year. He never said where’s your building permit for that garage. I don’t
know whether he was, he felt sorry, felt that we were doing the right thing but at the wrong time.
Or the wrong time and the right thing. I’m not sure but first, that was always parking area
anyway. First I had a slab. The next year it had a carport. The roof trusses went on. The next
year we enclosed it. Then the next year put the side next to it. Put a carport over that the next
year and the third year we roughed in and closed that, so that garage took 3 to 4 years to build. I
didn’t just okay, let’s sneak that in there. No. We took our time. We said okay. If anybody has
any objection, you have not gotten one complaint from any of our neighbors in all the time that
we’ve been there in the 112 years. The neighbors recognize the uniqueness. They enjoy us
being there. They have a wonderful sight of horses. They all feed our horses carrots…enjoy the
area too. And that’s kind of the year the garage was built. The machinery shed has been there
for a long time. That’s tucked into the other buildings, and as you know, and as you’ve kind of
read through here, we’re tearing down 5 structures. Gone. We’re tearing out 5. We’re moving
in a new, well it’s only 8 years old. A pole barn from the neighbor when he developed. They
were going to tear that pole barn down and we’ve been working to move the pole barn in. But
even with the pole barn we still need when you have horses, you can’t have them all together a
lot of times. They have a pecking order and the last one will not get a thing to eat so we have to
have separate areas for them and separate shelters. We’re going to take down all these old
buildings that are kind of really, we knew that was coming. It was really dilapidated. It’s the
only building I never really maintained on the site is this barn, and all those are coming down.
Any other questions?
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
30
McDonald: Yeah, I have one more for you.
Gary Carlson: Sure.
McDonald: Why didn’t you seek a building permit?
Gary Carlson: That’s a very good question and I’ll be glad to answer that very carefully, but that
again might take some time. Being in the city and doing things not only within the city’s zoning
and I know the rigamaroll. I’m always up against some. I knew from the get go, because I’ve
seen these things through the years. I knew I was over the 1,000 square foot from the get go so
they wouldn’t approve one stick over what was there. And yet I’m an operating ag farm. You
go out and I’ve just driven by them. You count 13, 17, 6, 9 out buildings. And they’re coming
and going. They’re using them and not using them. You don’t see them setting them out on the
edge of the road for safety. They’re sitting around the person’s house and they need them for
their ag business, and I’m not different. As I need these buildings, I put them up. Okay, you’re
in the city. Wants you to get a building permits. The one 13 years ago. Another one 4-5 years
ago and one over a 6 year period while Molly’s handicap addition was going on. I did not want
to deal with the hassle factor. I’m not that, I haven’t been treated that fairly. You want me to go
into some of those? I can. When I did my development over there, Gary and Maureen Carlson,
we want a strip of land 40 feet wide by 120 feet long. What do you want that for? The City said
well we have to have access to the neighboring property in case they ever develop. So I did my
part of the bargain. I did everything I was supposed to do. I turned certain responsibilities over
to the City of Chanhassen and they were to check all plans as they were submitted by the
different builders, and somehow the city allowed one of the homes to sit on that easement. So
now…
Sacchet: Mr. Carlson, excuse me for interrupting. Let’s stick with the issue at hand please.
Gary Carlson: Well, I didn’t get a very fair shake there. I mean so, I have tried to do the right
thing when I have to go out and do a proper development. On my property, on the ag property,
you do what the farm needs to be done around the farm. Around the property to make it survive
and make it viable and that’s where these buildings come in and I guess you’ve heard the other
testimony of where and why they’re needed.
Sacchet: Thank you. I think you did answer the question.
Gary Carlson: I mean the City is being protected. In these permits, these building permits that
are raised, I’ve applied for them. A way to see if they will be inspected and looked at just as if
they haven’t been built yet. I mean they have to meet state building codes.
Sacchet: Thank you. Appreciate it.
Gary Carlson: You’re welcome.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
31
Sacchet: Public hearing is still open. If anybody else wants to address this item, please come
forward at this time. Seeing nobody get up, I’ll close the public hearing and bring it back to the
commission for comments and discussion. And in this, since it’s kind of a unique case who’d
like to go first? And make a few comments specifically to some of the statements from Mr.
Carlson that I personally feel are important to make. To recognize the aspect of this being a
grandfathered use with the agriculture and that’s certainly very honorable. We want to help
preserve that. However, you made a statement of if we don’t feel positive. This has nothing to
do with how we feel. We’re not up here to be, we have guidance for what we do are the
ordinances and the code of the city. This is not supposed to have anything to do with how we
feel. And as such, you also made a statement we can do whatever we wish. Well we can’t.
That’s not our role to do whatever we wish. I make that very clear in my opening remarks when
we start this evening that our role is to review planning matters that are brought before the city in
view of our city ordinances. Our zoning. And determine how do they fly. Okay. We’re not at
liberty to do what we wish. And then I’ll have some other comments but I wanted just to take
that up front. Now I saw Jerry you wanted to jump in. Go ahead please.
McDonald: Well the one thing I wanted to jump in about was, Mr. Carlson brought up was the
possibility of tabling this. There is a number of issues within this that maybe there may be
another way to work this out, but you know as you said, based upon the statutes of where we’re
at now, I think it’s pretty clear what our choices are. But if we could gain something by tabling
this and coming to a resolution that would be beneficial to all, I would be more than happy to
propose that. Mr. Carlson’s already agreed that that would be okay with him so that waives the
time line.
Sacchet: So what would you expect from tabling between now and when it comes back Jerry?
McDonald: I would expect a work out because I’m looking for something to be given up here.
You know Mr. Carlson seems to hint that there may be some possibilities of looking at some
things. I would expect some give and take. This is not just an opportunity to give him more time
to continue. What it would actually be is a negotiation with the city to again meet the
requirements of a non-conforming structure because as the ordinance says, you can’t intensify it
and I think that’s what’s happened, so you know if he’s willing to consider some things, let the
city look at it and see if we can’t come back with something that would be a little bit more
agreeable to everyone.
Undestad: I agree with Jerry. I mean it looks like what they’ve worked out with Josh already,
they’ve made some, they can put the barn in. Tear some of these down. Maybe the issues of
these other buildings weren’t discussed at the time that the rest of this was going through but you
know if it makes sense now to jump back and look at that and see if there’s some alternatives for
you in there to bring it back.
Sacchet: There was one aspect that I thought would deserve some research and maybe staff has
the answer to that. Mr. Carlson made a statement that, actually said none of the other structures
along 62nd Street have as much setback as his garage, and another statement he made is that there
are others that are only 10 feet away from the road. What’s, do we know what the status is of
these other?
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
32
Metzer: Well due to the age of the subdivisions up in that neighborhood, there are structures that
have non-conforming setbacks and there are others that do meet setback. But many of these
don’t have surveys so it’s hard to determine exactly a specific linear number of feet that they’re
within the front property line. Or the front property line even lies, in fact that’s something we
could look into more definitely.
Sacchet: But then on the other hand, it’s my understanding that that doesn’t give somebody
rights to build something new that doesn’t conform.
Metzer: No, that it show that there’s a pre-existing condition in the neighborhood standards.
Sacchet: Debbie, want to add something?
Larson: No, I just.
Metzer: And it’s also worth noting that directly north and opposite of West 62nd is the City of
Shorewood so.
Undestad: There was also a comment made about the city looking at changing the street through
there. Was that?
Metzer: I believe the Pipewood Curve from Hidden Creek is going to be, it’s intended to be
connected to West 62nd.
Larson: Can you show us?
Undestad: Is that going to change the setbacks on any of that?
Metzer: Well I think that the only way that it would be connected is if the subject property here
were sold and subdivided.
Gary Carlson: And houses were built.
Sacchet: Now I hear where you’re coming from Jerry and Mark. I kind of feel differently. I
think that this is really not the role of the Planning Commission to get into this give and take part
to the extent that Mr. Carlson’s asking for. To some extent yes. I mean we do have, we have
some…but I think to the extent that Mr. Carlson is asking for, this is a matter of City Council.
And on that basis I think actually in the interest of expediting this, moving this along, I would
think that from our role in terms of the ordinances, our role is really not that usually different
from staff, and the primary question for us is, does this conform or is staff applying the rules in a
way that is not right? Well, if you look at the rules by themselves, there it is. However, you
were pointing out that your circumstances are different, and I think you make a pretty strong
point that the rules don’t apply to you. I think that we’re out of our league to deal with that. I
think that’s a City Council thing and by us accepting the staff’s motion, that would give Mr.
Carlson a chance to go to council with it and I think that would be the right place for this to be
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
33
debated and decided upon. Because frankly if we look at the frameworks that are given to the
Planning Commission, we’re not supposed to grant variances if it is an intensification of non-
conformance. We are pretty strongly bound by that. Now aspect is it self created? Well it is self
created. I think that cannot be debated. I mean I can certainly sympathize with the idea that you
didn’t want more hassle and you just did it because you’re agriculture and you feel that’s right
like that. But on the other hand that just underlines that it’s self created. So with the criteria that
we’re given based on the code, city code, I think it’s hard to juggle it. I’m not sure what we
would gain by tabling it other than maybe get a little more context to what it is with enabling
structures that are closer to the road, but then you could argue that those are grandfathered in.
They haven’t been built in the last 10 years, so I have a little problem. By what would we gain
by tabling? We would just prolong the pain. I think we’re doing them a better favor by going at
it once here and then they can go up to City Council where the City Council has actually the
authority to do something about it to the extent that they see fit.
Undestad: Yeah I guess you know okay, when does it go to the council?
Metzer: That would be April 24th.
Undestad: 24th so that would give them almost 3 weeks to do whatever they could do even if we
tabled it and come back to us, so you would have your 3 weeks to work with Josh before you get
to the council then so.
Sacchet: Kurt, do you want to add something?
Papke: Yeah, I have a question for staff. Mr. Carlson stated that in fact there are four
independent residences here, and this is zoned residential single family. Is there an issue here?
Metzer: No. These were grandfathered in and they also about exactly a year ago from now were
granted a variance for use of a single family home as a two family home.
Sacchet: Yeah, that was a discussion that we went through not too long ago. Well comments.
Discussion. Where do you want to go with this? Or we could venture a motion. I mean at this
point.
McDonald: I guess Mr. Chairman, if you don’t mind I’d like to make a motion to table it, since I
did bring it up. And I guess I do feel that there may be something productive to come out of this,
or at least to reduce the problem the City Council may have to look at. I probably don’t
completely feel that we’re going to get 100% compliance but I think anything to reduce the issue
would be beneficial so I would make a motion that we table this.
Sacchet: Alright. We have a motion to table it. Is there somebody second that?
Undestad: Second.
McDonald moved, Undestad seconded to table Variance Request #06-12 for a 22 foot front
yard setback for an existing four stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
34
accessory structure restriction in a single family residential (RSF) district at 3891 West
62nd Street. McDonald and Undestad voted in favor. Sacchet, Papke, Larson and Zorn
voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 4.
Sacchet: We have 4 nays and 2 ayes so the motion fails. So do we keep going, right?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: We keep going, alright. Somebody else want to make a different motion?
Papke: I’ll just make some comments here. This is the best case I have ever seen for building
inspections. I mean this is why we have building permits so that we don’t get into this kind of a
pickle. If there were permits for this, this would be a completely different deal. And I guess I do
disagree with Mr. Carlson that we don’t deal with grandfathering. We deal with this all the time.
In particular, how many times have we had people grandfathered in with legal non-conforming
lots along Lake Riley with setbacks of various kinds? This is something we deal with routinely
and I think we’ve been pretty consistent about that and pretty consistent about not setting
precedence and to some extent Mr. Carlson contradicted himself. In one breath he said well, you
know if you grant me a variance here, you know no one else is going to ask for more. And then
a few sentences later he stated that there’s these other houses up the street that are closer to the
street than he is, so you know very inconsistent there so I, this one I agree with Commissioner
Sacchet. This is very clear cut.
Zorn: I would have to agree along the same lines. The applicant seems very familiar with the
development process and a lot of the hoops to jump through and checks and balances and for
reasons that he expressed this evening he didn’t feel as though he should go through those.
Checks and balances and that building permit would have brought all of those to light and we
likely wouldn’t be sitting here today having to make a difficult decision, or at least what has been
brought forth. The family has a difficult decision but it really seems like a black and white case
to myself. So I would not, I would be in support to deny the request.
Sacchet: Any other comments or points of discussion? Thank you Deborah and Kurt.
Undestad: I guess, I mean again, I mean it goes to the council. It gives them time to try to do
something in the next 3 weeks and.
Sacchet: Yeah, and the council has more maneuvering space than we have in terms of what our
charter is. It’s very simple. So do we want to venture another motion?
Papke: I’ll make a motion that the Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22 foot yard
setback from existing four stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached accessory
structure restriction in the single family residential RSF district at 3891 West 62nd Street based
on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following, 1 through 3. And I order the
applicant to demolish and permanently remove the 3 storage buildings and.
Sacchet: That’s it.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
35
Papke: And that’s it.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Zorn: I second.
Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22
foot front yard setback for an existing four stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square
foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single Family Residential (RSF)
District at 3891 West 62nd Street, based upon the findings of fact in the staff report and the
following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property.
3. The applicant will be able to continue the non-conforming agricultural use without the
three storage buildings.
The Planning Commission orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove the three
storage buildings.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Sacchet: We have 6 voting for this. Nobody voting against it so we are, that would move it
forward to City Council. I think that’s where it needs to go.
Metzer: We need to get a letter from the applicant stating that they would like to appeal the
decision to City Council.
Sacchet: Right. You want to express in writing is that Josh?
Metzer: Correct.
Sacchet: That you want to appeal this decision to City Council and I think that City Council are
actually the right people. I also want to point out that you will not need to repeat your whole
story. City Council does review our minutes and the public hearings that we have here are to a
large extent for City Council to get input so they will hear your story. Not just your’s but also
the other family members to understand what it is so that you will not have to repeat everything
there. Okay? So we wish you luck with this. Thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
36
PUBLIC HEARING:
PIONEER PASS: REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE
AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY AND OFFICE/
INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY (APPROXIMATELY 43 ACRES);
REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, A2 TO RESIDENTIAL
LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT, RLM (APPROXIMATELY 43 ACRES);
PRELIMINARY PLAT (PIONEER PASS) CREATING 82 LOTS, 8 OUTLOTS AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PUBLIC STREETS (APPROXIMATELY 73 ACRES);
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK
OVERLAY DISTRICT WITH A VARIANCE FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO THE
PRIMARY ZONE; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE GRADING
AND FILLING OF WETLANDS ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF PIONEER
TRAIL (1600 PIONEER TRAIL) AT FUTURE HIGHWAY 312, PLANNING CASE NO.
06-09, APPLICANT D.R. HORTON.
Public Present:
Name Address
Joel Cooper SEH
Paul Bilotta 1641 Chatham Avenue, St. Paul 55112
John Chadwick 11430 Zion Circle
John and Joe Knoblauch 1450 Knob Hill Lane, Excelsior
Sever Peterson Eden Prairie
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item noting that D.R. Horton has
withdrawn and assigned the application to the property owner, Sever Peterson.
Sacchet: Thank you Bob. Questions from staff. Mark, go ahead.
Undestad: One quick one Bob. Can you show on that plan again, you said that the road will cut
Outlot A, it will split Outlot A when that goes in. Where is that?
Generous: It’s approximately here. It comes down and then.
Undestad: And that’s Liberty at Creekside?
Generous: Liberty at Creekside here. So between their property and the Degler property there’s
a small piece of right-of-way that would need to be dedicated. The developer would only
provide the right-of-way and any necessary easements for it’s construction. Town and Country
Home would be responsible for it’s construction.
Undestad: Thank you.
Sacchet: Kurt.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
37
Papke: The access to Pioneer Trail, so there’s an overpass that would have to be constructed to
get there? How do you get to Pioneer Trail? I’m a little bit confused.
Generous: It will be at grade that come down because the freeway will actually be south of
Pioneer here. …will go to the north.
Papke: Okay, it crosses over there.
Generous: The excess right-of-way is, none of that area is for potential river crossing also, so
there could be additional ramping. That has to be resolved with MnDot yet. They’re doing the
Environmental Impact Statement now and it’s going through that process. They have this six
corridors I believe and they’re trying to get that down to one and then adopt that so that the local
communities can do the official mapping.
Sacchet: In terms of the comprehensive plan…requiring a comprehensive plan amendment. So
are we actually deviating from the original idea of the comprehensive plan? Can you clarify that
please.
Generous: Well the comprehensive plan currently guides the property for medium density
residential or office industrial uses, neither of which would be consistent with single family
detached housing. So to do this development, and based on the original, the concept approval
that was given for the planned development a year ago, this is one, a way that we saw that they
could do it through this zoning with the land use amendment.
Sacchet: And then the other question with storm water pond. It seems like there were two
options given. One in the primary zone and one not.
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: If you could elaborate a little more because I think it’s staff’s finding that they were not
in the primary zone would be more hazardous or less ideal than the one in the primary zone. Is
that something for you Alyson?
Fauske: Staff worked with the developer…preliminary plat submittal, we went around and
around on this issue. Basically what it came down to planning commissioners that when we
looked at…erosion, the erosion potential of that pond outletting within that primary zone… we
felt that it was a better place than that pond…
Sacchet: Overall a better solution. And then I have a detail question. Condition 8 of the
preliminary plat approval for recommendation. Talks about the 950 contour. Is that the border of
the primary zone or why is 950 essential?
Generous: It’s for, to provide screening from the road at the round about I believe.
Sacchet: I didn’t understand that one.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
38
Generous: Yeah, so that they can get some berming.
Sacchet: It’s a berming situation?
Generous: Yeah.
Sacchet: Okay. And so we, I didn’t see much detail about the wetland replacement plan. That’s
something that still needs to be worked out?
Generous: Yes. They submitted the initial stuff in that and that has a dual tracking process. It’s
going through the technical committee reviews.
Sacchet: Okay. So that’s still being worked?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. Alright, if there’s no more questions for staff, I’d like to invite the applicant. If
you want to come forward and tell us who you are and what you want to add to what staff
presented to us. Maybe we’ll have some questions for you. We’ll see.
John Chadwick: Thank you. My name is John Chadwick. I reside at 11430 Zion Circle,
Consultant on behalf of the Peterson Family. Sever Peterson is here. Our planning consultant
Paul Bilotta is with us and also Joel Cooper from the Hill Engineering Firm. Here to answer
questions. Certainly thank you for all your consideration to date. Enjoy being here again. If you
didn’t remember me I was here in August so that’s who I am. Thank you. Good to be back.
Sacchet: So you don’t have any particular issues? Everything’s cool for you.
John Chadwick: No, and Joel’s been through all the engineering comments and, well all the
comments. We’ve been working on this for quite some time.
Sacchet: Okay. Do we have questions? Yes Jerry, you have a question for the applicant.
McDonald: For the applicant. I’m confused as to who’s doing the development. D.R. Horton
was part of this and they’re no longer in it. Who’s the, you know the general contractor doing all
the work and everything. Are you all doing that yourself or?
John Chadwick: Weird question. The Horton folks and our folks parted company today at about
5:30 and so I don’t have a specific answer for that. Certainly who the general contractor would
be, even in their case they wouldn’t be getting into who’s going to do the grading, etc until they
put it out for bid so, I’m sure with lot prices that will be there, we’ll have a number of quality
builders. As a matter of fact there’s one here in the audience now. So I’m sure there’s going to
be some wonderful people stepping forward.
McDonald: Okay.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
39
Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. Now this is a public hearing. If anybody wants to
address this item, please come forward and let us know if you have something to say. Seeing
nobody get up, I’ll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for discussion
and comments. Discussion. Comments. Anybody?
McDonald: Well I guess I’ve got a question. And maybe this is nothing but, we’ve got a very
detailed plan here that was put together based upon two applicants getting together. If it now
comes back to somebody else, can the plan change? If we do a PUD and they want to do
something different with the number of lots or how, you know once we do this, is this it?
Generous: Unless they come back with a whole new plan and start the process over. But it’s
like property owners all the time bringing a subdivision request. It’s reviewed and then they’ll
sell it off to builders or developers in the future. In this instance they had D.R. Horton that
started the process. They’re withdrawing as the applicant. However they’ve assigned their
rights if you will to this development plan to the property owner and he’s going, wants to take it
forward.
Sacchet: So it’s simple.
Generous: Nothing changes as far as the plans are concerned.
Sacchet: And if they would change it...
Generous: They would have to come back, yeah.
McDonald: Okay. I have no other comments or questions.
Sacchet: Alright. If there’s no questions, comments, we’ve just got to make some motions.
Motions with lots of conditions. Page 16 I think is where it starts.
Generous: 16 through 22.
Larson: A, B and C?
Generous: And D.
Sacchet: A, B, C, D and E.
Larson: Alright, I’ll make a motion. I’ll make an attempt anyway. The Planning Commission
recommends approval of the comprehensive plan land use amendment for residential medium
density and office/industrial to residential low density of the land within the plat of Pioneer Pass
except for Outlots A, B, C, D and G, contingent on the Metropolitan Council review. And B.
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of the land within the plat for
Pioneer Pass except for Outlots A, B, C, D and G, Pioneer Pass from Agricultural Estate District
A2 to residential low and medium density district, RLM. And C. The Planning Commission
recommends approval of preliminary plat for Pioneer Pass creating 81 lots, 9 outlots and right-
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
40
of-way for public streets, plans prepared by James J. Hill Incorporated dated February 3, 2006
subject to the following conditions 1 through.
Sacchet: 61.
Larson: 61. And then is that it? D. The Planning Commission recommends approval of
wetland alteration permit for the grading and filling of wetlands on property subject to the
following conditions 1 through 3. And E. The Planning Commission recommends approval of
conditional use permit to permit development within Bluff Creek Overlay District with a
variance for encroachment into the primary zone to construct a storm water pond subject to the
following conditions, 1 through 3.
Sacchet: Got a motion. Is there a second?
Undestad: Second.
Papke: I have a friendly amendment.
Sacchet: First a second. We’ve got a second? Yeah, actually I may have a friendly amendment
too. Go ahead Kurt.
Papke: I’d like to make a friendly amendment that condition, or motion C. The plans are
prepared not by the robber baron of the north, but rather by James R. Hill.
Sacchet: Is that acceptable Debbie?
Larson: Yes.
Sacchet: I had a friendly amendment too. To the part E. I would like to specify encroachment
to the primary zone to construct a storm water pond, as shown in the plans and specified the date
whatever so we know it’s in the plan. I mean be specific what we’re actually giving the variance
for. Even though it’s implied, I want to spell it out so we’re clear, okay?
Generous: Plans prepared by James.
Sacchet: By whoever it was and when it was, okay? Is that acceptable?
Larson: Yes.
Sacchet: Alright. We have a motion. We have two friendly amendments.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
Planning Commission recommends approval of the comprehensive plan Land Use
Amendment from Residential – Medium Density and Office/Industrial to Residential - Low
Density of the land within the Plat of Pioneer Pass except for Outlots A, B, C, D and G
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
41
contingent on Metropolitan Council review. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
Planning Commission recommends approval of the Rezoning of the land within the Plat for
Pioneer Pass except for Outlots A, B, C, D and G, Pioneer Pass, from Agricultural Estate
District, A2, to Residential Low and Medium Density District, RLM. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
Planning Commission recommends approval of Preliminary Plat for “Pioneer Pass” creating
81 lots, 9 outlots and right-of-way for public streets, plans prepared by James R. Hill, Inc.,
dated 2/3/06, subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall prepare a noise analysis for noise that will be generated by traffic on
Highway 312 and Pioneer Trail. The analysis shall identify appropriate noise mitigation
measures to meet noise standards for residential homes.
2. The developer shall pay $21,547.00 as their portion of the 2005 AUAR.
3. The applicant shall plant 369 trees within the development, 98 overstory and required buffer
yard plantings trees along Collector Road D and buffer yard plantings for lots along the
south property line.
4. Each lot shall have a minimum of two overstory deciduous trees planted in the front yard.
5. The applicant shall install the total required buffer yard along Collector Road D or show
proof of berm height of 3 feet or higher along the length of the street and adjust the
quantities of understory and shrubs accordingly.
6. The applicant shall development a restoration plan including native plants for the Bluff
Creek Overlay district north of Block 1. The plant species shall be selected from the Bluff
Creek Management Plan Appendix C. The final plan must be reviewed and approved by the
city before installation.
7. Signage for the Bluff Creek Overlay District must be posted on every other property corner
where residential yards meet the primary zone.
8. The 950 contour shall be extended over lots 5 and 6, block 3 to provide more coverage from
headlights for those homes.
9. Dedication of Outlots A and G shall be made to the city or a conservation easement shall be
established over said outlots.
10. The developer shall designate a 4.72 acre neighborhood park site, Outlot H. This
property shall be transferred to the city by warranty deed with 3.79 acres of the site being
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
42
dedicated/ donated by the applicant/owner and the remaining 0.93 acres being purchased
by the City of Chanhassen. The city shall compensate the owner/applicant $218,550 in
total compensation for said 0.93 acres.
11. The developer shall rough grade and cover seed the park site and construct a 20 stall parking
lot for an additional not to exceed payment of $50,000 from the city. The parking lot shall
include insurmountable curb. Construction plans for all improvements within the borders of
the park shall be submitted to the Park & Recreation Director for approval prior to initiating
construction of these improvements. All material and labor costs are reimbursable. Design,
engineering, and testing services associated with these improvements shall be provided by
the applicant.
12. The applicant shall submit a complete wetland replacement plan and must receive
approval of the replacement plan prior to alteration of wetlands. Wetland replacement
shall occur in a manner consistent with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
13. Wetland mitigation shall not be proposed for the northeast corner of the site in order to
ensure adequate area for a road connection to the property to the east of the site.
14. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around all Ag/Urban wetlands. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved,
surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall
install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction
begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall be set back 40 feet from the
edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback shall be shown on the plans.
15. Any areas on the property that meet the City’s criteria for bluffs (i.e., slope greater than
or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe) shall be preserved. In
addition, all structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading
may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet
from the top of a bluff). The plans shall be revised to show any areas meeting the City’s
bluff criteria.
16. No alterations shall be permitted within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of
the setback from the primary corridor without a variance. All structures must meet the
40-foot setback from the primary corridor.
17. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm water management along the southwest
property line of Lots 25-31, Block 2 is adequate to prevent drainage issues for future
homeowners.
18. The outlet for Pond 2 shall be moved westward to increase the flow distance between the
inlet and outlet structures.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
43
19. Drainage and utility easements with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be provided over
all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as public value credit
and storm water infrastructure.
20. Energy dissipation shall be provided at the flared-end section inlet to Pond 2 within 24
hours of installation. Additional blanket shall be provided for storm sewer installation
area for inlet infrastructure to Pond 2. The access area shall be protected with erosion
control blanket upon the establishment of final grade. Erosion control blanket shall be
used on the slopes within Lots 31-24, Block 2. Mulch shall be substituted for the blanket
proposed for the berm area of Block 3 along Street D.
21. Temporary sediment basins shall be provided in existing watersheds 1 and 3 during mass
grading activities. Where 10 acres or more of exposed area come to a discernable point
of discharge to a wetland or waterway, a temporary basin shall be provided. The
proposed storm water basins in proposed drainage areas 2, 6 and 7 shall be temporary
sediment basins until the contributing areas are stabilized. The temporary outlets could
be installed in place of the permanent outlets.
22. Perimeter control (silt fence) shall be installed prior to grading along the south side of the
Street D and CSAH 14 (Pioneer Trail) intersection. All silt fences near flared-end
sections shall be installed up and around flared-end sections so water is not discharged
against the silt fence, causing it to fail.
23. An outlet area shall be defined for the two areas labeled as temporary sedimentation
basins during the rough grading/subcut street phase of development. Any shredded wood
material from tree removal shall be saved for temporary mulch berms/vehicle exit pads as
needed. Typical silt fence shall be installed prior to initial rough grading activities along
the west side of Outlot H to the proposed “street by others.”
24. The total SWMP fee shall be paid to the City at the time of final plat recording. The
estimated total SWMP fee at this time is $165,600.
25. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction Permit), Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (dewatering permit), Army Corps of Engineers) and
comply with their conditions of approval.
26. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
27. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
44
28. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new
roadways allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4.
29. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of
fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
30. Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
31. Fire hydrant spacing is unacceptable. Locate fire hydrants at intersections and in cul-de-sacs
and at 300 foot spacing. Most spacing is in excess of 400 to 500 feet at this time. Submit
revised fire plans to Fire Marshal for review and approval.
32. Before site grading commences, the existing building and driveway access off Pioneer Trail
onto the property must be removed.
33. On the grading plan, add a note to remove any existing house and driveway access.
34. The developer’s engineer must work with Liberty on Bluff Creek’s engineer to ensure that
the proposed grading on each property matches at the property line.
35. Ground slopes shall not exceed 3:1.
36. A minimum 75-foot long rock construction entrance must be shown on the plans.
37. Retaining walls must be designed by a structural engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota and require a building permit if greater than 4 feet in height.
38. The developer shall work with MnDOT to move the access at Pioneer Trail so that it aligns
with the MnDOT’s street on the south side. The access to Pioneer Trail shall be constructed
in conjunction with the first phase of the development.
39. The property is also subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for all of the lots.
The 2006 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,575 per unit for sanitary sewer and $4,078 per
unit for water. The 2006 SAC charge is $1,625 per unit.
40. The Arterial Collector Roadway Fee of $2,400/developable acre will need to be paid at the
time of final plat recording.
41. All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and 10:1 benches at the NWL. Revise accordingly.
42. All of the proposed housepads must have a rear yard elevation of at least three feet above
the HWL of the adjacent ponds.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
45
43. Storm sewer calculations and drainage map must be submitted with the final plat
application. The storm sewer must be designed to accommodate a 10-year, 24-hour storm
event.
44. The last public stormwater structure that is road-accessible prior to discharging to a water
body must have a 3-foot sump pump.
45. Future utility service and access to Outlot B needs to be determined prior to final plat.
46. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump
discharge from homes.
47. Add catch basins in the back yards of Lots 1-15, Block 3 connecting to Street C storm
sewer. Also add a catch basin along Street A in front of Lots 25-28 and between Lots 15 &
16 and 4 & 5, Block 1.
48. All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
49. The catch basin between Lots 6 & 7 must be built with two inlet openings.
50. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal.
51. An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading.
52. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
53. Utility services for the buildings must be shown on the final utility plan. Sanitary services
must be 6-inch PVC and water service must be 1-inch copper, Type K and will require a
City Building Department inspection.
54. Extend the silt fence along the south to the back yard of Lot 25, Block 1.
55. No retaining wall is allowed within any drainage and utility easement. Revise the retaining
wall between Lots 22, 23 and 24, Block 2, accordingly.
56. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security
in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements
and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility
improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
46
57. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required prior to construction,
including but not limited to MPCA, NPDES, MnDOT, Department of Health, Carver
County and Watershed District.
58. Reroute the sanitary sewer from Street A and the north-south corridor intersection to
minimize the sewer depth. Relocate the southern sanitary sewer out of the stormwater pond
easement at Outlot E.
59. Add a pressure relief valve to the watermain along Street D between Outlots E and F. This
will be a City improvement cost but installed by at the time of development.
60. In-home pressure reducing water valves may be required on all lots with a lowest floor
elevation of 930 or less. Final determination for the need of in-home pressure reducing
valves will be made by the City at time of building permit.
61. The applicant shall coordinate with the developer of the adjacent properties in the northeast
corner of the site the dedication of public street right-of-way to provide access from the
parcel to the north to the parcel to the east and revise the plans accordingly.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit for the grading
and filling of wetlands on property subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit a complete wetland replacement plan and must receive
approval of the replacement plan prior to alteration of wetlands. Wetland replacement
shall occur in a manner consistent with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
2. Wetland mitigation shall not be proposed for the northeast corner of the site in order to
ensure adequate area for a road connection to the property to the east of the site.
3. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around all Ag/Urban wetlands. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved,
surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall
install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction
begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall be set back 40 feet from the
edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback shall be shown on the plans.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
Planning Commission recommends approval of Condition Use Permit to permit development
within the Bluff Creek Overlay District with a variance for encroachment in to the primary
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
47
zone to construct a storm water pond as shown on the plans prepared by James R. Hill, Inc.,
dated 2/3/06, subject to the following conditions:
1. Dedication of Outlots A and G shall be made to the city or a conservation easement shall
be established over said outlots.
2. Any areas on the property that meet the City’s criteria for bluffs (i.e., slope greater than
or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe) shall be preserved. In
addition, all structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading
may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet
from the top of a bluff). The plans shall be revised to show any areas meeting the City’s
bluff criteria.
3. No alterations shall be permitted within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of
the setback from the primary corridor without a variance. All structures must meet the
40-foot setback from the primary corridor.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: McDonald noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated March 21, 2006 as presented.
Sacchet: Before I bang this hammer the last time I want to thank you all for having been part of
this motley crew. Thank you.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:25 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim