CC Packet 2006 08 28AGENDA
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2006
CHANHASSEN MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
6:00 P.M. - CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE
ROOM Note: If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time
allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda.
A. Discussion of Preliminary 2007 Budget & Levy.
7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance)
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
B. Cancellation of September 11, 2006 City Council Meeting.
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 Work Session Minutes dated August 14, 2006
- City Council Summary Minutes dated August 14, 2006
- City Council Verbatim Minutes dated August 14, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated August 1, 2006
- Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated August 1, 2006
b. Lot 1, Block 1, Chan Haven Plaza 3rd Addition: Approve Release from
Development Contract and Statement Regarding Claims.
c. 2007 Street Improvement Project No. 07-02: Approve Consultant Contract.
d. Approve Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Shorewood for Watermain
Interconnect, PW418.
e. Approval of Conservation Easement for Wetland Mitigation Site OF-5, MnDOT.
f. Set Date for Truth in Taxation Hearing.
g. Thomas Schwartz, 7376 Bent Bow Trail: Approval of a Variance to Allow
Structures within the 40-ft. Wetland Buffer Setback.
h. Gary Carlson, 3891 West 62nd Street: Approval of Variance Request for Relief
from the 30-ft. Front Yard Setback Requirement for the Construction of an
Existing Four-Stall Garage and Relief from the 1,000 sq. ft. Detached Accessory
Structure Restriction for the RSF District.
i. Approve Quote for Recreation Center Hockey Rink Resurfacing.
j. Set Special Meeting Date, September 14, 2006, Joint Meetings with Commissions.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE
2. a. Sgt. Ross Gullickson, Carver County Sheriff's Department
b. Chief Gregg Geske, Chanhassen Fire Department
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS
2.5 Adoption of Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan.
3. BOULDER COVE: Request for Rezoning of property from Residential Single Family
(RSF) to Residential Low & Medium (RLM), Subdivision with Variances and a Site Plan
for a one, two, and three-unit town home community, located on property north of
Highway 7, east of Church Road and south of West 62nd Street. Applicant: Roger
Derrick, Cottage Homesteads at Boulder Cove, LLC.
4. Request for an Interim Use Permit for Off-Site Grading for the Disposal of Dirt from the
Highway 312 Corridor, 1560 Bluff Creek Drive and 1425 Bluff Creek Drive and South of
the Hennepin County Regional Rail Corridor and Bluff Creek Drive. Applicant: Zumbro
River Constructors.
5. Approval/Certification of Maximum Proposed Levy to the Carver County Auditor.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
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.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
CANCELLATION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING
The regular City Council meeting scheduled for Monday, September 11, 2006 has been
cancelled due to the lack of agenda items for the Council to consider. The next meeting will be
on Monday, September 25, 2006 at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. This cancellation
notice will be posted at City Hall and on the City’s website.
1
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
AUGUST 14, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m..
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom,
Councilman Peterson, and Councilman Lundquist
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Laurie Hokkanen, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman,
Paul Oehme, and Greg Sticha
DISCUSS NEXT STEPS FOR 2008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE.
Kate Aanenson reviewed the progress of work that’s been done on the 2008 Comp Plan
update and outlined the next steps to be taken. Mayor Furlong asked about timing for
discussions on Highway 101. Kate Aanenson noted that she hopes to have the comp plan
update wrapped up by the end of 2007. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked staff to explain
the difference between the McComb study and the new “study area” that is being
proposed. Kate Aanenson explained that the new study area is to put the public on notice
of possible options that are being researched, including a lifestyle center, and gaining
public acceptance that Chanhassen is changing from a convenience retail draw to a
regional retail draw. Todd Gerhardt stated the City would like to work with landowners
in the southern part of the city to install signage for public awareness. Councilwoman
Tjornhom asked if a study area is the typical process the City has taken in the past and
how long the process might take. Mayor Furlong stated the proposal makes sense to let
people know what the City is thinking as soon as possible with signage, etc.. Todd
Gerhardt also congratulated the department heads for the work that will be done on the
comp plan update in-house instead of using consultants and saving the City money.
Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for clarification on the proposed budget for the update,
and asked for the time line for public open houses, presentation of charettes and public
hearings.
2007 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.
Paul Oehme presented an overview of the street projects proposed for 2007 for the
Koehnen/Yosemite area, Dogwood Road/Tanadoona Drive and Mill and Overlay
Improvements. Todd Gerhardt explained the agreement the City of Chanhassen has with
the City of Shorewood in the Koehnen/Yosemite area for watermain connections and
how the City will invoice for usage. Councilman Peterson asked when the projected cost
numbers will be updated, asking that those be updated prior to neighborhood meetings.
Mayor Furlong asked for clarification of the storm water management plan along
Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Road. Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification on
the difference in street width and life expectancy with and without curb and gutter. The
City Council Work Session – August 14, 2006
developer for the Bruce Carlson property in the Dogwood/Tanadoona area explained
their concept for development and that they’re just waiting on the City’s decision
regarding street and utility improvements for Dogwood Road. Mayor Furlong asked
staff to bring back options for Tanadoona/Dogwood with and without curb and gutter.
DISCUSSION OF PRELIMINARY 2007 BUDGET & LEVY.
Greg Sticha presented the preliminary numbers in a power point presentations for the
2007 budget and levy. Todd Gerhardt thanked the department heads for following the
goals and guidelines set out by the City Council. Greg Sticha explained that staff is
presenting two different scenarios on the “Tax Levy Comparison” spreadsheet. One
using the assumption of cash reserves to maintain a zero impact on the existing property
owners, and the other assumption is not using any cash reserves to pay down the debt
levy, thus resulting in a 2.2% increase to property owners. Councilman Peterson asked
for clarification on the contractual service numbers. Councilman Lundquist stated he
would like to see more clarification from the sheriff’s department on the request for an
additional ½ person and what the city will be receiving with that ½ person or what the
City is missing out on now. He also asked for clarification on how the percentage
increase in health insurance was arrived at, and the possibility of the City using E-85 or
alternative fuel vehicles in the future. Mayor Furlong asked about the actual versus
projected numbers in the revenue spreadsheet, but not in the expense spreadsheet. Greg
Sticha reviewed the Bond Tax Levy, Revolving Improvement Fund, Tax Levy and Levy
Impacts. Todd Gerhardt stated this item will be the only item on the next work session so
the City Council can discuss it in more detail.
Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session at 7:00 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
AUGUST 14, 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, Councilwoman Tjornhom,
Councilman Peterson, and Councilman Lundquist
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Laurie Hokkanen, Kate Aanenson,
Todd Hoffman, Paul Oehme, and Greg Sticha
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
David Jansen Chanhassen Villager
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Kurt Papke Planning Commission
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA; Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist
seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City
Manager’s recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated July 24, 2006
-City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated July 24, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated July 18, 2006
-Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated July 25,
2006
b. Chanhassen West Business Park, Project 05-15: Approve Addendum B to the
Development Contract.
c. Approve Quote for Lake Ann Ballfield Improvement Project.
City Council Summary - August 14, 2006
2
e. Resolution #2006-51: Bighorn Drive Emergency Sewer Repairs, PW 419:
Approve Quote.
f. Resolution #2006-52: Approval of Resolution Appointing Election Judges for
the Primary/General Election and Setting Rates of Pay.
h. Resolution #2006-53: TH101 Gap Project 04-06: Approve Resolution
Dispensing with Statutory Requirements Authorizing Conveyance of City Owned
Property to the State of Minnesota.
i. Resolution #2006-54: Water Treatment Plant, Project 04-08: Approve Change
Order No. 2 for Wells 2, 5 and 6.
j. Resolution #2006-55: Water Treatment Plant, Project 04-08-5: Approve Quotes
for Security Contract.
k. Resolution #2006-56: Approve Resolution Creating a Land Use Study Area at
the Southwest Corner of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard.
l. Accept Resignation of Councilman Steve Labatt.
m. Resolution #2006-57: TH 212 Project 03-09: Approve Change Order for Turn
Lane on Powers Boulevard.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: WAYTEK, INC., 2440 GALPIN COURT (CHANHASSEN
WEST BUSINESS PARK), APPLICANT, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION:
A. CONSIDER VACATION OF DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT.
B. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 100,000
SQUARE FOOT ONE-STORY OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING (NOT
A PUBLIC HEARING).
Public Present:
Name Address
Kelly Morlock 2325 Boulder Road
Joel Lehrke 2329 Boulder Road
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item.
Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on the building lighting and berming. Councilman
Lundquist asked about usage of the building related to traffic flow. Mayor Furlong
City Council Summary - August 14, 2006
3
opened the public hearing on the vacation of easements. No one spoke regarding the
vacation of drainage and utility easements. Mayor Furlong invited anyone from the
public who wished to speak on the site plan to come forward. Kelly Morlock, 2325
Boulder Road in the Stone Creek Addition, expressed concern with the developer's
influence on the Planning Commission, the buffer yard distance, impervious surface
coverage, traffic, pedestrian safety, access, and the size of the building. To summarize
he suggested that the City Council not approve the application for the vacation of
easements and suggested the City Council not approve the design of Building 6. He
would like to see more understory and overstory trees added to the east, north and
northwest side of the building, that Building 6 be made of brick, not block, like the
surrounding neighborhoods, an updated traffic study which includes the effects of the 2
schools, possible development south of Lyman and employees of the business park and
the installation of a stop light. Joel Lehrke, 2329 Boulder Road expressed concern with
the materials, namely the tilt up concrete being proposed for the building. Mayor Furlong
closed the public hearing. Roger Knutson clarified the council's discretion in decision
making on site plan approval and lot line adjustments. After council discussion and
comments the following motions were made.
Resolution #2006-58: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom
seconded that the City Council approves a resolution vacating the drainage and
utility easements within Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Chanhassen West Business Park.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City
Council approves Planning Case Site Plan #06-27 for a two story, approximately
110,000 square foot office-warehouse building, plans prepared by Houwman
Architects, dated 6-16-06, subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. The developer shall extend the sidewalk from the building to the sidewalk on Galpin
Court and include pedestrian ramps at all curbs.
3. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
4. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State
of Minnesota.
5. The developer shall heighten the retaining wall on the south side of the northerly
drive-in overhead door to create a wing wall that is a least 10 feet above the grade of
the loading dock area. This wall shall extend from the building westerly at least 15
feet then may be stepped downward as it continues west.
City Council Summary - August 14, 2006
4
6. A temporary cover of seed and mulch shall be established on all areas of exposed
soils not actively worked within a 14-day time period and within 14 days of achieving
final grade.
7. The plans shall show temporary inlet control details for all proposed catch basins,
including beehive catch basins. Existing catch basins immediately adjacent to the
project shall be protected as well. Plans shall indicate that inlet protection shall be
installed within 24 hours of inlet installation.
8. All sediment tracked upon paved surfaces shall be scraped and swept within 24 hours.
Plans shall include a designated concrete washout area and/or plans on how the
development will handle the concrete wash water.
9. An NPDES Construction Site Permit shall be applied for and received from the
MPCA by the owner/operator of the site.
10. The area in which the rain garden is proposed shall be part of a project sequencing
plan that will protect the rain garden site from compaction. The rain garden shall not
be built until at least 70% of the contributing area is stabilized. The applicant shall
submit a planting plan for the garden.
11. Architectural detailing shall be added on the northern building elevation between the
smooth bands.
12. Overstory trees shall be added every 40 feet along the north building elevation.
13. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a total of 39 overstory trees
within the vehicular use area. Trees may be added to the west side within Outlot C if
their installation does not damage root systems of existing trees within that area.
14. A row of four conifer trees shall be added north of the parking spaces in the northwest
corner of the loading dock area.
15. Tree preservation fencing is required to be installed prior to any construction around
existing trees along Galpin Boulevard, Outlot C and any trees preserved along the
north property line.
16. All landscape plantings along Galpin Boulevard shall be field located as to not
damage existing plantings.
17. The bufferyard plantings along the north property line shall be spread out between the
property line and the building to provide screening in depth.
18. Areas proposed for the preservation of existing trees shall not be sodded.
19. The developer must install a storm sewer stub south of CBMH 6.
City Council Summary - August 14, 2006
5
20. The storm sewer downstream of CBMH 6 will not be owned or maintained by the
City since it will not convey runoff from a public right-of-way.
21. The developers of Parcels A and B must enter into a maintenance agreement for this
segment of storm sewer.
22. The outstanding balance of the Park Dedication Fees for Parcels A and B must be
paid with the building permit. The amounts are $82,600.14 for Parcel A and
$29,579.78 for Parcel B.
23. The height of the berm shall be increased and extended to the west to provide
additional screening for the existing single-family homes to the north.
24. A revised grading plan must be submitted with the building permit application.
25. Retaining walls four feet high or higher require a building permit and must be
designed by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
26. Eight-inch watermain must be looped around the building. This watermain shall be
privately owned and maintained.
27. Sanitary sewer and water hookup are due for this site. The 2006 trunk hookup charge
is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for watermain. These fees may be specially
assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. Builder must comply with Fire Prevention policies numbers 4, 6, 7, 29, 84, 36, 40, 49
and 52.
31. Drive aisle widths shall be a minimum of 26 feet.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER VACATION OF ROADWAY EASEMENT
WITHIN LOTS 29-31, BLOCK 1, RED CEDAR POINT, LAKE MINNEWASHTA.
City Council Summary - August 14, 2006
6
Public Present:
Name Address
Gary A. Peterson 3632 Hickory
Greg & Peg Bohrer 3706 Hickory Lane
Alfred W. Smith 3714 Hickory Road
Richard Comer 3800 Red Cedar Point Drive, Excelsior
Paul Oehme presented the staff report on this item. Mayor Furlong and Councilman
Lundquist asked for clarification on the road right-of-way vacation and drainage and
utility easement. Mayor Furlong opened the public hearing. Richard Comer asked for
clarification on how much square footage the property has increased due to the vacation.
Gary Peterson asked for clarification on the drainage and utility easement, setback
requirements and why the City doesn't vacate the entire road instead of one little chunk.
Greg Bohrer questioned the surveys that were done in the area and asked for clarification
on the easement.
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
After council discussion the following motion was made.
Resolution #2006-59: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist
seconded that the City Council approves a resolution vacating fifteen (15) feet of
Hancock Place right-of-way located along the southwest property line of Lots 29
through 31, Block 1, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER VACATION OF DRAINAGE & UTILITY
EASEMENTS, 6541 & 6561 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, KEVIN FARRELL.
Public Present:
Name Address
Kevin & Maureen Farrell 6541 Minnewashta Parkway
Ken Rennick 32670 195th Avenue, New Prague
Dean Simpson 2590 Arrowhead Lane
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 #2006-60: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist
seconded that the City Council approves the vacation of drainage and utility
easements for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Washta Bay Court, contingent upon
City Council Summary - August 14, 2006
7
simultaneous recording of the lot line adjustment, easement vacation and easement
dedication. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3
to 0. (Councilwoman Tjornhom was not present during the vote.)
AWARD OF BID: CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT PUMPER.
First Assistant Fire Chief, Sherri Walsh speaking on behalf of the fire department,
reviewed the bidding process and asked for City Council approval of the bid from
Crimson Fire and Waterous Company for the engine and pump system. Councilman
Lundquist asked about any catch with purchasing a demo pump system. Councilwoman
Tjornhom asked about the pump being warrantied. Mayor Furlong extended thanks to
the members of the truck committee and staff for all their hard work on the purchase.
Todd Gerhardt also thanked the truck committee for the extra work they did on the bid
specifications.
Resolution #2006-61: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson
seconded that the City Council approve the purchase of the replacement engine
from Crimson Fire in the amount of $339,990 and from Waterous Company for the
pump system and accessories in the amount of $29,567 for a total bid of $369,557.05.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
MODIFY HIGHCREST MEADOWS STORM WATER POND DESIGN,
GRADING AND LANDSCAPING IN THE AREA.
Todd Gerhardt asked City Council to table this item to give staff, the developer and
members of the Longacres Association additional time and asked for 2 council members
to volunteer to attend a work session along with members from the Longacres
Association and the Highcrest Meadow developer to work through the details of the
proposal.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to table action on
the Highcrest Meadows storm water pond design, grading and landscaping. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM (d). LIBERY ON BLUFF CREEK 2ND ADDITION:
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND APPROVAL OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS
AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT.
Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive after noting the city's web site was unavailable on
Saturday and the staff report incomplete, asked why the Lyman Boulevard, Audubon
Road intersection was eliminated from this project and when it is planned to be upgraded.
She also questioned the cul-de-sac length and private street.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City
Council approve Liberty on Bluff Creek 2nd Addition:
City Council Summary - August 14, 2006
8
1) Final Plat Approval.
2) Resolution #2006-62: Approval of Plans & Specifications and
Development Contract.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
(The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
LOREN VELTKAMP, 6724 LOTUS TRAIL, PLANNING CASE 06-25:
VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE SECOND LEVEL
OF A HOME WITH NON-CONFORMING SETBACKS. TWO SETBACK
VARIANCES WILL BE REQUIRED BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS A CORNER
LOT ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jeff King 767 Carver Beach Road
Pat & Keith Gunderson 6661 Mohawk Drive
Bruce Johansson 6711 Mohawk Drive
Matt & Liz Tibbetts 6699 Mohawk Drive
Don & Sig Sennes 6680 Mohawk Drive
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item.
The applicant, Loren Veltkamp outlined his request for the council, clarifying the setback
and rental situation. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification of the effect of the applicant
meeting the definition of a rental dwelling and clarification on the setback requirements.
After council comments and discussion the following motions were made.
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City
Council concurs with the Planning Commission and planning staff's interpretation
that the owner of the property at 6724 Lotus Trail, Loren Veltkamp has been
renting the property as defined in the City Code Article VIII, Rental Dwelling
Licenses, Section 10-217, Rental Dwelling. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City
Council denies the variance for 22 foot and 15 foot front yard setback variances for
the expansion of the second level of a home with non-conforming setbacks in the
Single Family Residential (RSF) District at 6724 Lotus Trail, based on the Findings
of Fact contained in this staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has reasonable use of the property.
2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
City Council Summary - August 14, 2006
9
3. There is an alternative process to secure a rental license.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong recognized and thanked members of
staff, the fire department and the Carver County Sheriff's Department, particularly the
posse who serve on a volunteer basis, who came out in force to meet with the residents
and various neighborhood parties.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt outlined the options for
filling the council vacancy and recommended the council appoint the largest vote getter
from the November election. He thanked members of the Rotary for the volunteers who
helped paint old Village Hall on August 4th and 5th, provided an update on the Barkus
parade that was held on August 12th and introduced new Assistant City Manager, Laurie
Hokkanen who provided background information on her education and work in city
government.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom 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 9:45 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 14, 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, Councilwoman Tjornhom,
Councilman Peterson, and Councilman Lundquist
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Laurie Hokkanen, Kate Aanenson,
Todd Hoffman, Paul Oehme, and Greg Sticha
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
David Jansen Chanhassen Villager
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Kurt Papke Planning Commission
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening to everybody and we're glad that those of
you that joined here in the council chambers came and those that are watching at home as
well. We're glad that all of you joined us. At this point I would ask if there are any
modifications or changes to the agenda? If not, we'll proceed with that agenda that was
published with the council packet. Hearing none we'll move forward.
CONSENT AGENDA;
Mayor Furlong: At this point I would ask if any members of the council or others would
like to have any of the items on the consent agenda removed for separate discussion.
Debbie Lloyd: Good evening. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I'd like, I don't want
to…
Mayor Furlong: What purpose, yeah. And how long is it going to be or what's your
question?
Debbie Lloyd: 5 minutes.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
2
Mayor Furlong: What's your question regarding? Have you directed it to staff yet or
not?
Debbie Lloyd: No, it wasn't because the web site was not accessible on Saturday…and
Liberty PDF was also short of some pages.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Why don't we pick that up, if that's okay Mrs. Lloyd, under
unfinished business, since that's a return. Is that okay? And if I miss it when we get
there, please someone remind me. Are there any other items to be removed? Okay. If
not, then is there a motion to approve items 1(a) through (m), excluding item (d) as
David.
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the
following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated July 24, 2006
-City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated July 24, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated July 18, 2006
-Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated July 25,
2006
b. Chanhassen West Business Park, Project 05-15: Approve Addendum B to the
Development Contract.
c. Approve Quote for Lake Ann Ballfield Improvement Project.
e. Resolution #2006-51: Bighorn Drive Emergency Sewer Repairs, PW 419:
Approve Quote.
f. Resolution #2006-52: Approval of Resolution Appointing Election Judges for
the Primary/General Election and Setting Rates of Pay.
h. Resolution #2006-53: TH101 Gap Project 04-06: Approve Resolution
Dispensing with Statutory Requirements Authorizing Conveyance of City Owned
Property to the State of Minnesota.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
3
i. Resolution #2006-54: Water Treatment Plant, Project 04-08: Approve Change
Order No. 2 for Wells 2, 5 and 6.
j. Resolution #2006-55: Water Treatment Plant, Project 04-08-5: Approve Quotes
for Security Contract.
k. Resolution #2006-56: Approve Resolution Creating a Land Use Study Area at
the Southwest Corner of Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard.
l. Accept Resignation of Councilman Steve Labatt.
m. Resolution #2006-57: TH 212 Project 03-09: Approve Change Order for Turn
Lane on Powers Boulevard.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: WAYTEK, INC., 2440 GALPIN COURT (CHANHASSEN
WEST BUSINESS PARK), APPLICANT, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION:
A. CONSIDER VACATION OF DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT.
B. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 100,000
SQUARE FOOT ONE-STORY OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING (NOT
A PUBLIC HEARING).
Public Present:
Name Address
Kelly Morlock 2325 Boulder Road
Joel Lehrke 2329 Boulder Road
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor. …related to the next item. This is the vacation of
the utility easement and precipitated by the request for the subdivision… The subject site
for Chan West Business Park is requesting a larger lot than was originally anticipated for
the development. Subject site located off of Galpin Boulevard, just north of Lyman. It's
this lot. This one here, so the current utilities, this was the original configuration of the
lot, Lot 1… The current utilities and drainage easement runs through the middle of Lot 1.
So with the reconfiguration of the subdivision, which can be done administratively,
because you're not creating a new lot, you're just rearranging lot lines, will put…so this
request before you is just to vacate the existing utility and drainage easement. The
appropriate documentation is attached in the staff report and the staff is recommending
approval.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
4
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Now, I guess the question here is there may be some public
comment or there are a lot of other issues we're going to talk about with regard to the site
plan approval. Right now do you want us to address the vacation?
Kate Aanenson: Whatever you're comfortable…if you want to hold that off, or whatever
you're comfortable with.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: I can go right into the site plan.
Mayor Furlong: Why don't we go into the overall project and then we'll be sure, just
remind me that we don't miss the public hearing on the vacation of the easements.
Kate Aanenson: I'll rely on the City Engineer to help me remember.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And part of the reason for doing that is you said the moving
of the lot lines is administrative. That's just an administrative function.
Kate Aanenson: As I mentioned before, there are 2 or 3 lots that could be…in this
existing area. The applicant proposed a larger lot so the subdivision itself… So what the
applicant's asking for is 110,000 square foot building. It says 2 stories but that's actually
been…on 7.4 acres of property. The history of this is the property is guided office
industrial for a number of years and the applicant…development but staff is
recommending doing a PUD so… Another thing we did when we put together the PUD is
increase the standards for the design…that would be in place for the office industrial.
Specifically there was concern from the resident on the Trotters Ridge… The overall
square footage for the entire industrial park hasn't changed… So the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on this specific site plan on July 18th. They did
recommend approval… One of the conditions that was added by the staff and the
neighbors on that north side, they asked us to evaluate, would be condition number 11.
We talked about breaks in windows based on the height, and they didn’t want that as…so
we're actually going to ask the applicant to do something architecturally… That is not
reflected in your conditions of approval, so if you were to turn to your staff report on
page 9 of 12, condition 11. We had added based on the Planning Commission…that high
overhead windows be added on that northern elevation. We'd like that changed to
architectural…be added on that northern elevation so… So again there's loading docks
on this side…One of the other issues that was addressed at the Planning Commission in
this site plan…the trees that we saved in that one outlot, there was some concern about
the canopy…so that actually, if you look on the other side of the plan has been removed
so those trees will be preserved. That is a parking, there's proof of parking, if they ever
need they can go back and at this point it doesn't look like that will be necessary. So with
that and architectural standards…look of the building itself. A lot of architectural relief.
This does meet the standards that was put in place for that industrial park. This is…
There will be the concrete. There will also be the copper window elements and then the
burnish block…so again, giving architectural relief on the building. So in your staff
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
5
report we went through the architectural detailing of the building itself, and that's…
standards. And as the Planning Commission did concur with that. The building has
downcast lighting, and that was one of the issues that we talked about regarding lighting,
and…security lighting and then… So with that, the one condition that number 11 is
worded to modify the…staff and the Planning Commission did recommend approval…
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Great.
Kate Aanenson: Any questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions for staff? Couple. With regard to lighting, you
mentioned that. Will there be the down lighting for security purposes around the entire
perimeter of the building?
Kate Aanenson: The majority of the lighting, there are entrances on both sides. There
will be lighting. There is a change in grade but I think with that.
Mayor Furlong: Where the road is higher than the.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. I don't think there should be a lot of spill going that way, and
based on the photometrics…that shouldn't be an issue.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I guess the question, I know this was an issue for residents
on the north side of the building. Will there be lighting there?
Kate Aanenson: No. There…on the back. And the other issue that was addressed too is
they're increasing the wing wall for that…
Mayor Furlong: Okay, and for security purposes, is the lack of lighting there even
minimum lighting, is that?
Kate Aanenson: Well you've got lighting on this side here, so I think that, and then with
the entrance…I think if you recall when we went through the PUD standards there was a
question that was raised on whether we'd look at any lighting at all here…and we felt it
was appropriate that that would be, appropriate lighting…at the Planning Commission the
applicant talked about…the use of the building. Hours of operation. It seemed pretty
typical. Not much…with the higher cost and…
Mayor Furlong: Well and clearly wherever there's entrances, it sounds like there's
security lighting. I'm not advocating lighting that's going to negatively affect the
neighbors to the north. I guess the only question I raise, even though there are no
windows there now, it looks like that's coming out, is whether or not some sort of lighting
to avoid kids loitering in dark areas or something like that. If there's anything that will be
there to.
Kate Aanenson: Right, and that's why we keep…
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
6
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then the berming I know is also an issue. You commented a
little bit about that but, has that been.
Kate Aanenson: Yes, at the Planning Commission we asked that that issue be resolved
before it came before you. Make sure that a definitive, what the expectation was. The
applicant has met with them and to satisfaction of…
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time?
Councilman Lundquist: Kate on this proposed usage here, what's the primary traffic flow
in generated? Is it a retail outlet in and out kind of thing?
Kate Aanenson: No, it's office. It'd be pretty typical what we have for the office
showroom. Kind of office warehouse. Pretty typical…
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Anything else at this point? If not, the applicant's here. Is there
anything you'd like to address to the council or comments to make?
Ben Merriman: I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have and also I have the
owners of Waytek here and they'd be happy to answer any questions for the council.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions at all for the applicant or for the owners of
the property? Or the business. Okay. Good. What I'd like to do then at this point is,
officially open the public hearing with regard to the vacation of the easements, because of
the lot line change and invite any interested parties on that particular issue to come
forward and comment. And if there are others that would like to comment on something
because of the change between the Planning Commission and now, we'll take up in a few
minutes so at this point I'd like to just limit discussion to the official public hearing which
we have to have by law with regard to the vacation of the drainage and utility easements.
Any interested parties, please come forward at this time. State your name and address.
Kelly Morlock: Just I may have two things.
Mayor Furlong: This is only on item 2.
Kelly Morlock: Yes sir.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Because we have some other ones so this is only on item
2(a) at this point, thank you. If not then we'll close the public hearing on item number
2(a) and now would invite, and the public hearing for this project, as with all projects, did
occur at the Planning Commission. That's where it's appropriate for that but sometimes
there are changes between Planning Commission and the council meeting, which did
occur here because of the comments made at the Planning Commission, and that's part of
the process, but if there is a desire by anybody to make public comment to the council
based upon those changes, I would certainly invite you to come forward now. We have
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
7
all received copies of the Planning Commission minutes and had a chance to read those
so there's no need to repeat that information, but if there's other information that you need
us to be aware of, we'd certainly like to hear it at this time. Sir.
Kelly Morlock: My name's Kelly Morlock. I live at 2325 Boulder Road in the Stone
Creek Addition. I've got a number of different issues regarding this project, dating back
to the beginning if I could. A lot of people are really pleased with this project, they're
really happy about this project. Most of them don't live in Trotters Ridge and most of
them don't live in Stone Creek. The developer is on the Planning Commission and yes,
he does remove himself from the meetings but there's still an underlying influence there
that I think that there is. Even though it appears that during the Planning Commission
meeting, even though Kurt Papke thought that there was 150 foot barrier from the north,
there was only 100 foot. The original plan was only approved on a 3 to 2 vote. It was
tabled at council and then it was questionably passed back in August of 2005.
…Planning Commission meetings minutes and the council meeting minutes. Recently a
homeowner came to the city for a permit for a patio. They were told they didn't need a
permit. They hired a contractor to build a patio and they went in for a permit and the
contractor was told he didn't need a permit, so they built the patio. Well the patio
changed in our impervious surface percentage. They asked for a variance of less than
5%. They were denied and they had to remove the patio, or about 25% of their… They
never asked if they would need to be in compliance with the hard surface percentage or
25%. The homeowner didn't know but his contractor should have known the zoning.
Mayor Furlong: Sir. Sir. I'm sorry, this is relating to this site plan approval?
Kelly Morlock: Yes. I'll get back to it.
Mayor Furlong: As quickly as you can then please.
Kelly Morlock: Okay. I just need a few minutes. 5-10 minutes. I have…
Mayor Furlong: 5 would be fine, thank you.
Kelly Morlock: There's another story about a sport court. There's too much hard surface
percentage and they must comply as well. Once again the contractor should have known.
This is at the expense of the owners. And then there's another story going on right now
about a gazebo and a fire pit up against the wetland conservation easement, but right now
they haven't come to the end of that story. The developer knew a lot of things and it was
stated at the commission or the council meeting that we as homeowners ask questions to
get the results we want to hear. Do we need a permit for a patio? Well yeah, how much
is my impervious surface percentage? We should know better or a contractor should
know better. The developer…to get results that they want. They know better. We have
a number of issues and concerns with this project. We all know…I'm not saying it's
going to go away. We accept that and it does have a direct impact on us. But we just
don't want this to be rubber stamped. It's going between two neighborhoods and once
again they should know. Let me give you a little history on what we have seen and
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
8
experienced. One of our biggest concerns at the beginning and it was brought up at
council and at planning and by every one of the people at Stone Creek and Trotters was
traffic and safety. We asked many times to pursue an access out of Lyman. You're
probably all familiar with that. We were told by the developer and then the Planning
Commission and City Council that the County said no. There were traffic studies and
conversations and meetings and requests and they just won't change. We should have
known better. Here's what happened. At the July 19, 2005, the planning meeting last
July, Dan Keefe asked about the access to Lyman. Staff said they had conversations with
Bill Weckman, who was I believe the Carver County Public Works Director. Mr.
Weckman said…the County prefers the access to be at Galpin. Staff said another reason
was the standards where access… The access to Lyman didn't meet the standards. Asked
if Galpin met the standard, the question, the answer was no but it's a lesser of two evils.
Staff used the SRF 2020 comp plan, I don't know what that is… Staff also said they
would ask the County Engineer what his thoughts are regarding a signal at Lyman and
Galpin. Planning Commission didn't think trucks mixing with residential seemed very
logical. At the same planning commission the developer said they looked at two access
points and the County requested Galpin. Both were considered, but the developers said
they knew what was going to happen. At the City Council meeting on August 8th of
2005, it was asked if the design was presented to the county staff or just a verbal
conversation. The developer said it was just a verbal conversation. There was no maps.
There was no plans. He should have known. The developer didn't want any access off
Lyman because they would have had to move a pond they had. They used trees as a
hostage by moving them to Outlot C if we didn't have that access. Council requested
staff to revisit the access to Lyman with the County. Lyman and Carver are both county
jurisdictions. It was tabled until August 22nd. When staff approached the county on the
issue, the County requested a traffic study. The applicant or the developer is the one who
hired the traffic study to look at this particular development and right-in/right-out issue of
Lyman. We should have known. They did another vehicle count in August. The
numbers might be a little high because of postal activity we were told. So this study was
done in August, not during the school year so there's no mention of traffic due to the
Bluff Creek school, the proposed high school, Lifetime Fitness, school bus traffic for the
neighborhoods and other schools, parents, teachers, students driving, ball games,
activities before and after school, pedestrians, bikes, the proposed use of the business
park. There was no mention of a possible traffic light to connect the property south of
Galpin, which could be developed. The stop light will eliminate the need for an
acceleration lane that would interrupt the right-in/right-out. The apartments at 41 and
Hazeltine Boulevard have a stop light, and they have two access points, so it can be done
with the County. Based on the study provided, the County was not supportive but if the
council was to choose to pursue it, they would have significant impacts. The right
questions weren't asked. We believe that the developer should have known. Now about
the building we're dealing with…the PUD was to have 8 lots with mid sized buildings in
the 40 to 50,000 square foot range. Lifetime is considered a large building in an
industrial area. At the July 19th, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the commission
wanted Building 6 to be smaller than originally proposed to transition with the
neighborhoods, Stone Creek and Trotters Ridge. Well now, at 110,000 square feet, this
building is…the original PUD lot size. It's like putting a Wal-Mart between two
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
9
neighborhoods, and even Wal-Mart doesn't do that. It's twice the size of the Byerly's. It's
9,000 square feet. Less than Costco, Cub store. Lifetime is 109,000 square feet on two
floors. Over half the size of the new, this is over half the size of the new Wal-Mart
superstores. The building itself is not to exceed 30 feet. It's at 30 feet 2 inches. They
should have known. You were talking about a sight line from Trotters. You can kind of
see it here. This bottom line is from the edge of the lot I believe…I believe it's from the
edge of the lot looking up to the top of the building. If you go to the side of the house
where the walkout is, this red line here, a 6 foot person, that's their sight line. Then if
you're standing on the deck over on the main floor, which is where their quality of life is,
that's their sight line. It's a little different. Now is their quality of life… I don't know. Is
this an undue hardship? I don't know. There's not a lot of similar buildings within 100
feet. From this, the same people up north, this is what they'll look like. The neighbors up
north in Trotters Ridge are going to look like. There's no brick like the rest of the
neighbors to the north, or to the east or to the west. There's no brick at all. These are tilt
up concrete panels. Not in the original spirit of the PUD. They should have known that
too. Tilt up concrete with exposed aggregate that's ribbed and smooth is not an urban
style design. The proposed site plan for this building is 322,447 square feet. With the
building at 110,000 square feet, getting back to my patio story, the green surface is 28%.
The hard surface is 72%. That's not in compliance. But like Building 2 that's already
been built, the impervious surface percentage to comply will come out of Outlot C. So
now that leaves one of the remaining lots doesn't have a 200 minimum depth included in
the PUD. There's lots combined. They should have known that, or we should have
known that. At the April 4th Planning Commission meeting the commission said the
PUD standards for impervious surface is 70% between the 8 developable lots. Building 2
is about 80% right now. More than the patio. Outlot C is a permanent conservation
easement. Therefore it is not developable and shouldn't be included in the impervious
surface percentage like the 8 developable lots as stated. Getting to this berm issue, I'm
just about through, thank you. The original berm was to be 12 feet and the setback was
told at 100 feet. Now the building is higher and the berm is lower at 9 feet. The
developer says it gets much higher with trees on top. Well there are plenty of high berms
in the area with big trees. There's a large berm west…over by the Temple of Eck.
There's a large berm between the ball parks at Lake Ann. There's a large berm west of
Bluff Creek on the corner of Galpin. And there's also a large berm west of 41 by
Hundtermark. The applicant should know, if he irrigates trees they probably won't die.
And if they're not planning on irrigating trees, or maintain the trees in the setback, should
that setback be included in the impervious surface percentage? The Planning
Commission and City Council stated the applicant should preserve all trees shown on
plans dated June 17, 2005. The developer has done some quality projects in Chaska and
Chanhassen regarding this issue. They should have known. They should have known, so
finishing off I suggest, one more page. I've got one more. Back to the traffic issue. This
could be between 7:00 and 9:00 in the morning. This could be between 3:00 and 6:00 in
the afternoon. This is 3 trucks going into the development. I mean here's 2 school buses
planning on getting onto Galpin. We have a lot of school buses going back and forth.
There's a lot of schools around there. The buses go back and forth. I'd much rather have
the school buses on Galpin than with trucks on Lyman. So to finish off, I would suggest
the City Council does not approve the application for a vacation of easements. I suggest
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
10
the City Council does not approve the design of Building 6. I would like more
understory and overstory trees added to the east side and the north and the northwest side.
On the east side all the way down to Lyman. I'd like Building 6 to be made of brick. No
block, like the surrounding neighborhoods. I'd also like an updated traffic study to
include the effects of the 2 schools, development, possible development south of Lyman.
Employees of the business park and stop light. I know I took a little bit more time than I
should have but I appreciate your time. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Ms. Aanenson, any comments on those items or questions.
Kate Aanenson: Regarding the traffic study, I believe we did our due diligence as far as
submitting a finalized site plan to Carver County that worked out. I think what you also
have to look at is the background on traffic in this area. Just to the south of this area is a
million square feet of industrial park in Chaska that also exits out onto Lyman Boulevard.
We're also cognizant of working with the new high school site. That there will be
additional signals and that's something that the county's looking at, the spacing. Not just
of this property but the other traffic on Lyman Boulevard, including that industrial park
that's also dumping a lot of traffic. As far as the additional standards of the PUD, it
meets the standards of the PUD. I do believe I spoke that the applicant has raised the
back of that berm to 14 feet on the back as far as the setbacks. As far as it being all brick,
I don't think we have too many all, unless for office industrial, I can't think of a pure
brick building. As soon as I say that there might be one that we have in town that's a
brick office warehouse that's pretty, not typical. So, if it's an office maybe but not this
type office industrial so.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess to your point, design standards that are in the PUD.
Kate Aanenson: It meets the design standards, right.
Mayor Furlong: On all sides.
Kate Aanenson: Exactly. Exactly, and I did mention also condition number 11 that one
of the things that we thought the neighbors wanted was the windows in the back, but they
wanted instead of windows, they wanted architectural details so that was the condition I
recommended you modify number 11.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. On the impervious surface, that was an issue and a comment was
made whether or not or, the opinion was made whether or not Outlot C should be
included.
Kate Aanenson: Of course, we always do that. That's exactly how we set up the Target
PUD. Target's way over the impervious. We have green space that balances out. That's
typical in a PUD where, I also want to comment on the comparison of Costco and the
parking. This has office industrial parking standards. If this was a retail building of that
size, it would take all that parking would be pretty much absorbed by the rest of the site.
This has only 159 parking stalls. Significantly less than if you had retail. It would be
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
11
you know 2 or 3 times that for parking so the trips would be a lot different. The amount
of traffic and the number of cars being parked and the trips being generated would be
significantly different. If it was retail as opposed to office industrial.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then the other issue raised was whether the, with the
movement of the lot line, whether the, not this particular lot but the smaller lots now
would be buildable under the standards of the PUD.
Kate Aanenson: I don't have that in front of me to verify to check on. I'm assuming that
someone on staff did but I could try to verify that quickly. While you're taking other
questions.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. If possible.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I'd just like to add. The point of eliminating a lot line. If you
have 2 lots, you know the amount of square footage of building space is not going to
change on the subdivision. We're not adding building space square footage. Overall I
think we're at the same amount of building square footage that was originally approved
with the subdivision. Just because the applicant is bringing one 100,000 square foot
building in, he could have put two 50,000 square foot buildings in, which probably would
have had the same parking requirements that the 100,000 square foot building had.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, are there any other public comments compared to the
changes in the plan?
Joel Lehrke: Joel Lehrke, 2329 Boulder Road, Chanhassen. Likewise with the building,
I'm going to refer more to the tilt up concrete. When this came before the City Council,
Brian, Mr. Lundquist you were actually one of those people that a big problem with tilt
up concrete and the developer asked that it be added for a certain additive that could
happen of some sort in the future. You guys all kind of nodded your head that you didn't
really like tilt up concrete but you'd leave it here and you'd take a look at it when a
project came before you. At this time it is finally coming before you. I can think of a
handful of buildings that we think that will look pretty nice as I stated in my letter. You
know the building there has got the Burnelle block and brick there, and that's located
right along Highway 5. It's the Star Tribune building. And also I'd like to comment to
you, as you're looking along a major roadway on one side and industrial park on still the
other side, before it gets to the residential area in that area, and that area you deemed well
enough with…conditions that it should look really nice to the people driving on a
highway with that look of brick. But right now you're telling residential people that they
should look at tilt up concrete. As I also stated in my letter, due to the fact of the way
this building's going to look, that there needs to be more type of roof articulation to hide
the air conditioning units. Yes, I know they're going to use low profile. Yes, I know
they're going to use the color of sort that's the blue or the gray or whatever that blends
into the sky, but anyway you look at it, most of what's going to happen even from
Trotters, but also from Stone Creek, the people on that side are even at a higher elevation
looking down, that they're going to see nothing but the roof top. Once again this is the
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
12
Ridgeview building that I referred to with my letter that I sent to you. This has to do with
the way a roof, brick and also some tilt up cast concrete there, but I think that has a much
better break up look to it. Another thing for you to remember is that I'm...is I had been
told the fire is tilt up concrete. But with a brick interface. We do have a building that's
pretty large. I think that has brick on the side of it. Also more pictures of the Star
Tribune building heading south, even though one of you would say that for now, for
brick, this has a much better look to it than something like this that I found, and I believe
this is what I could find closest in the city that was going to look something like that.
The biggest thing I have with tilt up concrete is the seam factor. That anyway you put up
a tilt up concrete, unless you do that brick like a Byerly's has or something like that,
you're still going to have that seam effect. Also once again, you're going to have a lot of
people driving by this. This is your back entrance to Chanhassen. You've got this big
new school that's going up that everybody wanted to be the marquee of Chanhassen.
They want it to represent so the city would have a representation of a high school that
represents Chanhassen. If you've ever driven down Pioneer during the morning when
kids are being dropped out at school or all the parents are coming by. Yes, I know there's
a ninth grade center so there's more traffic than there will be with others, but guess what?
That place is just loaded with traffic and there's going to be a ton of people coming by
this area, and this is what you're going to have people looking at as they go to the new
high school.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Thoughts or comments? Anybody else who would
like to make a comment this evening? Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the comments
made. Sir?
Joel Lehrke: I'll be more than happy to let you guys have these.
Mayor Furlong: What is it?
Joel Lehrke: These are all pictures.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay, thank you sir.
Roger Knutson: Mayor? Just a brief comment. Just so we're clear. We're here tonight,
we're looking at a site plan review. A site plan review is essentially a check list to make
sure there is compliance with all our ordinances. This is not a conditional use permit
application.
Mayor Furlong: And by the ordinances, that includes the standards set in the PUD.
Roger Knutson: That's correct. So the question is, do they meet the standards in the
PUD? Do they meet the other standards in the zoning ordinance?
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. At this point then I would ask if there's any other comments
or questions specifically here, I'm going to, unless somebody stands up now, I'm going to
close the public hearing with regard to the vacation for the utility easements, since that is
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
13
something that we do have to take public comment on at the council meeting. Seeing
nobody then without objection we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to council
for additional questions or thoughts and comments. Any additional questions at this point
for staff?
Councilman Lundquist: So to Roger's question Kate, does it meet all the standards of the
PUD and the conditional use?
Kate Aanenson: No, just the site plan.
Councilman Lundquist: Or the site plan.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. It meets all the conditions of a site plan.
Mayor Furlong: Which is the architectural standards and.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: And all the issues there.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. And there is the opportunity to, as we have in other PUD's, to
balance the impervious. And it also meets that standard, correct.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. And I guess the question, and again if you don't have the
information you know with regard to the smaller lots, there's no relief being requested at
this time for anything on those lots.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: So the existing PUD standards would be required for any future site plan
approval on those lots.
Kate Aanenson: That is correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Lundquist: Do you have any idea Kate, just the fact the envelope gets, it
doesn't do us any good to create a lot that can't be built on…
Kate Aanenson: I know that, Bob Generous who worked on this did ask for a footprint to
be shown on that additional lot to show that…
Mayor Furlong: And I guess point of clarification. Before us this evening is not a
question of whether that lot line's changed.
Ben Merriman: It's 185 feet.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
14
Mayor Furlong: So maybe that's a question for the applicant.
Roger Knutson: A comment on lot line adjustments. By state law a lot line adjustment,
that's when you're not creating any additional lots. You're just moving an existing lot line
so you're making a lot smaller or bigger, is not a subdivision by definition and we are not
authorized to regulate that lot line adjustment. We basically sign off saying it's not a
subdivision and if you're not creating a new lot, you're just moving a lot line, it's not. So
we really lack discretion. And if, and not reference to this but to any such situation, if as
a result of what you're doing you create a non-conformity, that's a self created hardship
and you've created yourself a real big problem. You may not get building permits for that
unbuilt lot if you aren't careful.
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, and so then what will happen is we'll be back in here
talking about an amendment to the PUD and all kinds of other stuff when they come back
to build it so, that's…
Roger Knutson: They certainly could ask for that, and then it would be your decision as
to whether it's appropriate or not to grant it.
Mayor Furlong: And I would expect some of the residents have an opinion on that matter
as well.
Councilman Lundquist: As they should.
Mayor Furlong: Indeed. Fully agree. Fully agree. So the question here then, and you
stated it but the question is, does this site plan.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, typically when they do a, yeah I'm not sure where that 130's, or
the 200's coming from. Typically when you do a PUD, once you've created the PUD,
you have to have, there's a 1 acre minimum to create the zoning but after that it's, I wasn't
aware of a minimum but I don't have that in front of me at this point.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Thank you. Any other questions or comments and thoughts?
Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: Well I guess I'm a little troubled by the potential that we might
be creating a non-conforming lot or something. I can't remember the specifics of that
from a year ago and I don't remember where we were at or where all that came from. I
didn't study that ahead of time so that troubles me a little bit that I'd like to have an
answer to that I guess. As we heard Bobber say, I guess they're kind of in a bind to bit or
maybe personally I'm in a bind to bit about the tilt up concrete piece that's, there isn't
anything we can do about that tonight. It meets the standards so our hands are tied there.
We can't deny the building for that anyway. The higher berm and some of the other stuff
I think are good pieces and overall it's good I believe to take a business that's in town
right now and allow them the opportunity to expand in town. It's a wonderful thing.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
15
Keep those jobs here in town and that so I'm in favor of that. I guess really the only
sticking point for me now is the rest of those issues I think that were raised this evening
are issues that we talked in length about a year ago. And I do feel like we did do our due
diligence on some of the traffic and things there. There's no doubt that all of our roads
will have more traffic as the area grows and things happen so, but there's no doubt that
you know that's going to happen all over that area and it's not just a burden of this single
development but of all the development that's going on in the area, and as well with the
high school I suspect that we're going to have to look at when that gets built some
improvements and upgrades and all kinds of stuff is going to happen around Galpin and
Lyman and Audubon and all kinds of stuff is going to happen around there when that
goes on, and we've got, you know we'll deal with that at that time. So I guess I'm in favor
of the development and in favor of going through with this but I'm, I don't know whether
it even matters I guess or not about the possible creation of a mess to deal with down the
line. I guess I'd like to have an answer on that before I would decide one way or the
other.
Roger Knutson: I'm a little hesitant to jump in but as I read page 7 and 8 of your
planning report, it appears that you'll end up with two lots. They refer to as parcels A and
B. One being 7.40 acres and one being 2.65 acres. Am I reading that right Kate?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Lundquist: What page is that Roger?
Roger Knutson: That's pages, at the bottom of page 7 and top of page 8. It says you're
going to end up with two parcels.
Councilman Lundquist: That's in the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Top of 8, 8 of 12. Electronic 305.
Roger Knutson: Oh I'm sorry.
Mayor Furlong: Top of page 8.
Councilman Peterson: Certainly means they're buildable.
Mayor Furlong: Yep.
Councilman Lundquist: Then we had the question of the 200 foot and 185 foot that the.
Kate Aanenson: I don't know the context of that. I'm not, you know we just have a
setback but there's no generally, I'm not sure where that's coming from. I don't have the
entire PUD.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
16
Mayor Furlong: I guess part of it, does this meet the standard of the PUD? I think there
was an issue on the parking and they're we're allowing proof of parking in order to.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Have less impervious surface or less.
Kate Aanenson: Just less parking. Not the whole park based on the use. They could put
the additional 55 in if necessary. I think we always review that when we do projects, not
to over park.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I guess the other comment with regard to sight lines and
views, the building setback would be allowed to be 50 feet from Galpin, if I'm looking at
this correctly and it's 120. The parking is up there so there's.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct, and move the building back further.
Mayor Furlong: And moving the building back further than where it was. Okay. Other
council comments. Thoughts.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know I think this has probably been through the
Planning Commission twice, if I'm correct. Once last year and now this year, and so I'm
not prepared to have a Planning Commission meeting here tonight and try to redesign a
building and undo…Planning Commission did very well at the last meeting. My job
tonight is to make sure that it does meet the standards of the PUD and we've been told
that it does and so I'm willing to and ready to move forward with this project.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I feel the same way as my peers and I think there isn't
much for us to decide tonight…You always want to leave a meeting with everybody
being happy, and it sounds like the majority of the neighbors are. You know you'd like to
have 100% and Councilperson Lundquist thoughts on the tilt up concrete, again I think
what we can do here tonight is to you know at least at a minimum send a signal to the
developer and the building owner to continue to work with your neighbors because
they're going to be neighbors a long time, and if they can do anything, whether it's
increasing the berm higher than 14 feet and/or do something that's more articulated in
back is, as staff is recommending, that they do what they're already going to do, maybe
there's something more that they can do. That they would voluntarily do to be good
neighbors, and I guess that's what I would send them off with, with the concept of look
harder for better ways to integrate the building. It's a big building you know, and there
are some neighbors are going to say I'd rather look at a big building than 3 small ones,
and there's going to be some that say the exact opposite so again you can't necessarily
meet the needs of everybody but I think that making the big building the best it can be is
what I'd like to close my comments to the developer and the building owner.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
17
Mayor Furlong: Thank you, and I think that's well put. Since the Planning Commission,
I know the developer has worked with residents in the neighborhood to the north to try to
change the plans to accommodate. If there are some other accommodations that can be
done, I think that's a reasonable request that we can make of the developer. And I think
too, looking down the road, this is the second building in this development and you know
continuing to look to find ways to meet and/or exceed the standards in the PUD, which I
think is the desire of everyone here as well as the neighbors to the east and to the north
so, other than that I think the other comments made by fellow council members with
regard to the question before us is pertinent. Some of the issues raised this evening were
issues that were well vented when the PUD went through and I agree with Councilman
Lundquist in terms of the efforts taken both through the Planning Commission and again
here at the council chambers to try to accommodate as many requests as possible when
we considered the PUD and I know we made changes since then, and we asked questions
that had already been asked again to try to see if we can get a different answer so, with
that I think it makes sense for us to go forward with the comments with the request of the
developer that was made here this evening and this summer as well to try to see if we can
accommodate some of the lingering requests of the neighbors to the best of their ability.
So with that, I believe our motion starts. Is there any additional comments, questions at
all? If not, I think the motions start on page, bottom of page 8. And there was one
request with regard to amending condition 11 to the architectural detail be added and
striking the first words but with that is there a motion?
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I would move that the City Council approve Planning
Site Plan #06-27 for two story, approximately 110,000 square foot office/warehouse
prepared by Houwman Architects, subject to conditions 1 through 31 with the addition of
the one noted.
Mayor Furlong: Before I ask for a second, do you want to incorporate the motion for
item 1(a) too with regard to the vacation?
Councilman Peterson: I would love to do that.
Mayor Furlong: So we don't forget that part as well, I believe, is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: What page is that on?
Kate Aanenson: That's a separate report. 2(a).
Mayor Furlong: 380 in our electronic.
Kate Aanenson: The motion on that was recommend approve the resolution vacating the
drainage and utility easements, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Chanhassen West Business
Park.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
18
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is that the motion you made?
Councilman Peterson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: As stated in the staff report, thank you. And do those two motions cover
what's being requested of us this evening?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? Combined motion.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Motion's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the
combined motions of item 2(a) and 2(b)?
Resolution #2006-58: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom
seconded that the City Council approves a resolution vacating the drainage and
utility easements within Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Chanhassen West Business Park.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City
Council approves Planning Case Site Plan #06-27 for a two story, approximately
110,000 square foot office-warehouse building, plans prepared by Houwman
Architects, dated 6-16-06, subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. The developer shall extend the sidewalk from the building to the sidewalk on Galpin
Court and include pedestrian ramps at all curbs.
3. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
4. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State
of Minnesota.
5. The developer shall heighten the retaining wall on the south side of the northerly
drive-in overhead door to create a wing wall that is a least 10 feet above the grade of
the loading dock area. This wall shall extend from the building westerly at least 15
feet then may be stepped downward as it continues west.
6. A temporary cover of seed and mulch shall be established on all areas of exposed
soils not actively worked within a 14-day time period and within 14 days of achieving
final grade.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
19
7. The plans shall show temporary inlet control details for all proposed catch basins,
including beehive catch basins. Existing catch basins immediately adjacent to the
project shall be protected as well. Plans shall indicate that inlet protection shall be
installed within 24 hours of inlet installation.
8. All sediment tracked upon paved surfaces shall be scraped and swept within 24 hours.
Plans shall include a designated concrete washout area and/or plans on how the
development will handle the concrete wash water.
9. An NPDES Construction Site Permit shall be applied for and received from the
MPCA by the owner/operator of the site.
10. The area in which the rain garden is proposed shall be part of a project sequencing
plan that will protect the rain garden site from compaction. The rain garden shall not
be built until at least 70% of the contributing area is stabilized. The applicant shall
submit a planting plan for the garden.
11. Architectural detailing shall be added on the northern building elevation between the
smooth bands.
12. Overstory trees shall be added every 40 feet along the north building elevation.
13. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a total of 39 overstory trees
within the vehicular use area. Trees may be added to the west side within Outlot C if
their installation does not damage root systems of existing trees within that area.
14. A row of four conifer trees shall be added north of the parking spaces in the northwest
corner of the loading dock area.
15. Tree preservation fencing is required to be installed prior to any construction around
existing trees along Galpin Boulevard, Outlot C and any trees preserved along the
north property line.
16. All landscape plantings along Galpin Boulevard shall be field located as to not
damage existing plantings.
17. The bufferyard plantings along the north property line shall be spread out between the
property line and the building to provide screening in depth.
18. Areas proposed for the preservation of existing trees shall not be sodded.
19. The developer must install a storm sewer stub south of CBMH 6.
20. The storm sewer downstream of CBMH 6 will not be owned or maintained by the
City since it will not convey runoff from a public right-of-way.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
20
21. The developers of Parcels A and B must enter into a maintenance agreement for this
segment of storm sewer.
22. The outstanding balance of the Park Dedication Fees for Parcels A and B must be
paid with the building permit. The amounts are $82,600.14 for Parcel A and
$29,579.78 for Parcel B.
23. The height of the berm shall be increased and extended to the west to provide
additional screening for the existing single-family homes to the north.
24. A revised grading plan must be submitted with the building permit application.
25. Retaining walls four feet high or higher require a building permit and must be
designed by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
26. Eight-inch watermain must be looped around the building. This watermain shall be
privately owned and maintained.
27. Sanitary sewer and water hookup are due for this site. The 2006 trunk hookup charge
is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for watermain. These fees may be specially
assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. Builder must comply with Fire Prevention policies numbers 4, 6, 7, 29, 84, 36, 40, 49
and 52.
31. Drive aisle widths shall be a minimum of 26 feet.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER VACATION OF ROADWAY EASEMENT
WITHIN LOTS 29-31, BLOCK 1, RED CEDAR POINT, LAKE MINNEWASHTA.
Public Present:
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
21
Name Address
Gary A. Peterson 3632 Hickory
Greg & Peg Bohrer 3706 Hickory Lane
Alfred W. Smith 3714 Hickory Road
Richard Comer 3800 Red Cedar Point Drive, Excelsior
Paul Oehme: The applicant, shown on this drawing here, shaded in, has submitted a
request of staff for vacation of right-of-way. The address is 3715 Hickory Road. It's Lot
29 through 31 of Block 1. Red Cedar Point, Lake Minnewashta. The existing 30 foot
right-of-way is shown here in blue. That's proposed to be vacated… It's existing right-of-
way is 30 feet wide, or the property owner's requesting the vacation of 30 feet of right-of-
way. The 30 foot right-of-way was originally platted during the Red Cedar Point, Lake
Minnewashta Hancock Place for future development. Hancock Place was never
developed and therefore, and there is no plans for the future for any development in this
area. Currently Lots 29 through 31 are unbuildable because of the setbacks to the right-
of-way. Vacation is requested to meet the rear yard setback and allow for a new
construction. The existing sanitary sewer, or the center line of the platted Hancock Place
requires a drainage and utility easement to be dedicated. A 15 foot drainage utility
easement shown on the submitted survey and would be sufficient for the future
maintenance of that sanitary sewer. Gopher State One has been contacted for private and
public utilities. That issue has been looked at as well. At this time I request that the
council hold a public hearing for the vacation of the right-of-way and I stand for
questions.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions for staff currently? Just a quick point of
clarification Mr. Oehme. The recommendation in the staff's report, approves a
resolution. Does that resolution place that 15 foot utility easement over the top at the
same time?
Paul Oehme: No it does not but when it comes in for an application for, when it comes in
for the paperwork it administratively can handle the drainage utility easement in that…
Mayor Furlong: So that's not something we have to include in this motion? Even though
that's expected to be required.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, that would have to be done at the same time. When the paperwork's
taken care of.
Audience: So how much is being vacated?
Paul Oehme: 15 feet.
Councilman Lundquist: What, 15 feet back essentially?
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
22
Paul Oehme: Yes. It's basically a right-of-way vacation for roadway purposes. We do
put utilities under streets, or a road that's never going to exist. Then we're going, just so
staff does not see a problem with vacating the roadway. I do feel we maintain our sewer
that's out there and we are requesting a 15 foot wide drainage utility easement in this
same exact footprint that we're vacating roadway for the dedicated…
Audience: The City owns the other 15 feet?
Mayor Furlong: Is the right-of-way 30 feet wide? Currently.
Paul Oehme: 30 feet wide.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, and this property owner is requesting their half of that 30 or 15
feet to be vacated?
Paul Oehme: Exactly. If we didn't need.
Mayor Furlong: And over that 15 feet the easement will be placed. The 15 feet that is
vacated.
Audience: The City has the other 15 feet of it.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and I'll get to you. Resident questions in just a minute here sir,
and you'll have a chance so, but for clarification Councilman Lundquist's questions, we
have a 30 foot right-of-way. This would vacate 15 feet of that and instead of right-of-
way we would take back and easement, a utility easement because we have utilities under
there.
Paul Oehme: That's correct.
Councilman Lundquist: So then there's a 15 foot road right-of-way left out there?
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, there's 15 foot with where the road, bring back this drawing here.
…show in blue, there's another 15 feet that's not shaded in and there's still roadway right-
of-way that's still platted out here that is not shaded in so the property owner who lives
here, he still can come in and request that additional right-of-way be vacated.
Councilman Lundquist: So the other 15 feet belong to that pie shaped, or that triangle lot
that's on the south side there.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, it's this property here.
Councilman Lundquist: Gotch ya.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
23
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and council, just for clarification. Let's include in the motion a
contingency that the easement is given contingent upon the vacation so we want the
easement, just so there's no question down the line.
Mayor Furlong: The vacation's given on the condition that the easement be replaced with
an easement.
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Audience: Who decides…the vacated part of that.
Mayor Furlong: What I'm going to do is open up a public hearing right now and allow
people to come up. Please state your name and address.
Audience: I think it's pretty important…
Mayor Furlong: Absolutely and your time to come up right now. I just want to make
sure sir we get your name on the record and that, so everybody can hear you at home. So
at this point I'll open up the public hearing and invite interested parties to come forward.
Ask questions or address the council on matters. I really don't care who goes first. As
long as someone does.
Richard Comer: I'm a little uncertain about what this pond is supposed to mean. This
project looks pretty interesting.
Mayor Furlong: If you could state your name and address sir. Just for the record so that
our recorder can have it. Just your name and address.
Richard Comer: I'm a 15 year resident of here. Richard Comer, C-o-m-e-r.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Richard Comer: I'm in favor of this whole thing but we aren't getting the complete
information and how much of this is on the plot that is now in possession of, and then
how much is the area increased after the vacation of that? It's not shown on here.
Mayor Furlong: Go ahead please and answer the questions.
Paul Oehme: The vacated right-of-way again is this portion here. That goes back to the
property line. But you require, are requiring a drainage and utility easement to take place
over that, over that segment of right-of-way that's being vacated so the existing property
line is right here currently. That's maintained by the property owner. The right-of-way,
center of right-of-way is right here and the other half of the right-of-way is right here, so
the new property corner is the center line of the 30 foot roadway right-of-way. So this is
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
24
the new property corner here and here. So, but we are requiring a 15 foot drainage utility
easement at this location.
Councilman Lundquist: So it's 15 feet wide by how long is that piece of property?
Councilman Peterson: 81?
Councilman Lundquist: About 1,200 square feet or something like that, in the
neighborhood of.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess the question, the effect of this, if it's approved, would be to
move the rear property line 15 feet back, which then would be used for calculating
building setback purposes.
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: For the rear yard setback. Okay. Thank you.
Councilman Lundquist: I think your question sir, you asked, he's getting 1,200 square
feet added to his lot.
Richard Comer: What is the lot to begin with? That he has.
Mayor Furlong: Why don't we work on getting the answer to that question. Keeping
moving it. If there are other, if you could come forward. If somebody would like to
comment, please come forward. State your name and address please.
Gary Peterson: My name is Gary Peterson. I own the rest of the lots around… I own the
rest of these lots here but this lot here is owned by the City… The question I would have
here, is where does this outlot, what will happen to this road gets vacated so where does
this utility… It used to be 30 foot from that, from where this road does, and that's why it
was not buildable before. If you're not going to vacate both halves of that road, you
have…part of the city's, that doesn’t move his property rights up 30 feet or up to within
10 feet of him, so what's his, how much of this is being vacated?
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Oehme? What's the request and Mr. Knutson.
Paul Oehme: The property in question again is this, these 3 pieces. 29 through 31. This
is city property here. This is the 30 foot easement so the vacation again is 15 feet of the
30 feet, so it's half of the right-of-way here. So that's the.
Gary Peterson: Does the setbacks remain 30 feet from the center of this road now or does
that go, come down to a 10 foot?
Kate Aanenson: Right, center of the road. Goes to the property, street right-of-way line
which would be 15 feet.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
25
Gary Peterson: Which one? Which street? Goes down to this one or is this thing still.
Kate Aanenson: Still shows as a right-of-way, right. 15 feet of right-of-way.
Gary Peterson: But right-of-way is now where you're, is not where the 30 feet is
considered to be. For building purposes. You have to be 30 feet back from the road and
you have to be 10 feet back from the property line, and those are not exclusive.
Kate Aanenson: I believe what the ordinance says is 30 feet from a right-of-way.
Whether it's.
Mayor Furlong: Which would be the property line.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Whether it's improved or not, it just says from the right-of-way
line.
Mayor Furlong: And would it not be, and I thought this was the question. Because if that
right-of-way is vacated then the rear property line I think is shown on the map with the
blue there, Mr. Oehme? Right, can we zoom in on that? That blue section is, if I'm
understanding correctly, is now, it would be now part of the existing property. And
therefore that line that runs down is now the middle of the right-of-way. If vacated that
would be the rear property line, and that would be used for setback calculation purposes.
Gary Peterson: So why don't you vacate the whole road? Why are you vacating one little
chunk at a time?
Mayor Furlong: That's come up before and I'll defer to the city attorney on that.
Roger Knutson: The practice is to ask, we consider vacations when someone petitions us
and asks for it. We don't go around looking for vacations. When a property owners says
I have an issue or I'd like this vacated, we deal with it. I think that's the City's practice.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Anybody else that would like to speak at the public hearing?
Provide comments.
Greg Bohrer: Yeah, my name is Greg Bohrer. I've got the lots adjacent right to this
property. I was wondering, I think on the property lines itself, they did a survey and then
they said they found, they had to put in iron monument sets. Well right after they did
this, 2 months after I spent a considerable amount of money to have a survey done on this
lot line too. What we had to do is we had to find these monuments. We did find them,
which were buried in the ground about a foot. And so I don't know why they came out
with this survey saying that he said anything because the ground was not disturbed. We
had to spend like 6 hours digging for these monuments, so now he's giving a survey to
you people saying that he set a monument which he didn't. So I mean these lot lines are
not…
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
26
Mayor Furlong: I guess I don't understand the question. Are you questioning the
accuracy of the survey that he submitted?
Greg Bohrer: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Greg Bohrer: That's why I'm rejecting the proposed assessment.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Mr. Oehme, Mr. Knutson. Comments. Thoughts.
Paul Oehme: In going through the application process, I mean the survey was signed by
a registered land surveyor, and that's what we typically go by for accuracy. It's his
reputation on the line for making sure that these property corners are properly placed so I
can only assume that it was done correctly.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, as far as tonight's action, you're not here to resolve a dispute
between surveyors. You really aren't resolving that. You're just deciding whether it's
appropriate to vacate that 15 foot of the right-of-way.
Greg Bohrer: But the 15 feet has to do with property lines because I don't know if that 15
feet property line might be different.
Roger Knutson: There may be a dispute at the end of the day about where that 15 feet
takes you, but all you're doing, if you decide to do this, is you're vacating that 15 feet
closest to his property. Wherever that is.
Greg Bohrer: Now you're only requesting a easement for sanitary sewer. It turns out that
there is no storm sewer there and there's a culvert that goes over this piece of property
that runs the water down…and does this give him the right to pull that culvert out of there
now?
Roger Knutson: Mayor, I think what we're requesting is, which is our standard easement.
It's an easement for drainage and utility purposes is what he'd be receiving.
Greg Bohrer: That is not what he said. He very carefully said sanitary sewer.
Paul Oehme: No, there is a sanitary sewer that runs down the middle of the current right-
of-way line there. We know that there is drainage issues out here too but the easement
that we will be placing over the top of the vacated right-of-way will be specifically for
drainage and utility easements.
Mayor Furlong: The city standard.
Paul Oehme: …correct.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
27
Councilman Lundquist: So if it's a drainage utility then the answer is no. He can't pull
the culvert out without replacing it with something else or some other method to relieve
that drainage.
Paul Oehme: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to provide public
comment at tonight's hearing?
Richard Comer: Am I going to get an answer to my question? How big is the lot?
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Oehme?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, I could look up the plat after the public hearing and try to answer
those questions.
Mayor Furlong: I guess the answer is, it is whatever it is. Whatever he legally owns,
that's what he owns, so. Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to address the
council on this matter? If not, this has been a public hearing. Is there a motion to close
the public hearing?
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Furlong: I appreciated residents comments and questions. These are always
unusual and fact specific circumstances so it's good that we get those clarified. With that,
at this point, are there any additional questions for staff? Points of clarification.
Councilman Lundquist: Is there any reason why we haven't vacated the city half of the
right-of-way on that piece that we own adjacent to that?
Mayor Furlong: I guess since it reverts to the property owner, we'd be getting our own
right-of-way to our own property.
Gary Peterson: You'd move the setback.
Mayor Furlong: Well I think yeah. The specific request here is to vacate half the right-
of-way to 15 feet so. We're going to.
Councilman Lundquist: We'll do that when Mr. Peterson comes in and requests the
vacation on all of his lots in there. I was just curious.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other comments or questions of Mr. Oehme? Okay, any
comments or discussion points? My only thought is we deal with these all the time. I
know we look at whether or not there's any plan ever to include a road here before we do
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
28
that, and I'm pretty sure we also look for a trail or public access would be a possible
public purpose before we vacate these. I assume that we're not looking at connecting
these roads by trail for any means but I know that that's something that we've looked at in
the past and we should always look at from a public use standpoint. But based upon the
information received tonight, this seems fairly straight forward, unless I'm missing
something. I'll defer to my council members there. Any other thoughts on this? Is there
a motion?
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve as submitted by staff.
Mayor Furlong: And conditioned upon the placement of the drainage and utility
easement, standard easement over the top?
Councilman Peterson: That's affirmative.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Resolution #2006-59: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist
seconded that the City Council approves a resolution vacating fifteen (15) feet of
Place right-of-way located along the southwest property line of Lots 29 through 31,
Block 1, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER VACATION OF DRAINAGE & UTILITY
EASEMENTS, 6541 & 6561 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, KEVIN FARRELL.
Public Present:
Name Address
Kevin & Maureen Farrell 6541 Minnewashta Parkway
Ken Rennick 32670 195th Avenue, New Prague
Dean Simpson 2590 Arrowhead Lane
Paul Oehme: The property owner again at 6541 Minnewashta Parkway is requesting a
lot line between his lot and Lot 2, Block 1 Washta Bay Court be adjusted. But we're not
here to talk about that but the actual vacation of the current drainage utility easement.
The applicant has shown on this drawing here, the north parcel. What he is requesting is
shown on this drawing here. The vacation of the existing drainage utility easement. 6
foot on his property and 6 on the adjacent property owner, shown here in blue. Vacated
and dedicating, we'll be dedicating a 6 foot drainage utility easement on the lot line as
shown on… Gopher State One has been called in to locate any public or private utilities
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
29
that are out here, have been located. Again it's, I think it's for the setback purposes for
addition to the house. Staff is recommending approval of the easement vacation
contingent upon simultaneously recording of the lot line adjustment, easement vacation
and easement dedication. At this time I'd request the public hearing be open and I'd stand
for questions.
Mayor Furlong: Is the lot line changing between these two properties?
Paul Oehme: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: It is? Okay. And so the existing drainage and utility easement follows
the old property line and what's being requested is that the new one be recorded over the
new property line.
Paul Oehme: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? If not I'll open
up the public hearing and invite interested parties to come forward and address their
comments and concerns to the council with this matter. Please come forward to the
podium. State your name and address. Okay, seeing nobody, without objection then
we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion. Any follow up
questions? Of staff. If not, is there a motion?
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. All those in favor? Or any discussion on the
motion?
Resolution #2006-60: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist
seconded that the City Council approves the vacation of drainage and utility
easements for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Washta Bay Court, contingent upon
simultaneous recording of the lot line adjustment, easement vacation and easement
dedication. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3
to 0. (Councilwoman Tjornhom was not present during the vote.)
AWARD OF BID: CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT PUMPER.
Mayor Furlong: Good evening.
Sherri Walsh: Good evening.
Mayor Furlong: How are you?
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
30
Sherri Walsh: Good. Mayor, council. I'm here on behalf of the fire department tonight
to ask for your approval to award the bid to Crimson Fire for our next engine. Our truck
committee has over the last few years been working very hard at specifications and it
went out for bid back in May. We opened bids on June 15th and since that time have
gone through both bids with Crimson Fire and General Fire. Worked very closely also
with…Fire, although they did not submit a bid for the pumper. In reviewing these with
the truck committee we did note that General Fire took a very large exception to our
specs in the amount of $160,000. They were asking for pre-payment of the chassis when
it was delivered to the manufacturer and that was not specified in our spec and because of
that reason, we need to reject, the City has to reject the General bid. Therefore leaving
Crimson Fire with our only remaining… This engine, in the council packet we went
ahead and detailed the price differences. This engine is being placed out at our west fire
station at Minnewashta Parkway and Highway 7. It will be considered the main pumper
for fires and for personal injury accidents over on our west side. The reserve pumper, or
our existing pumper was built in 1981. It's 25 years old. We have been planning in the
CIP for replacement of the engine. The existing pumper that's out there will be held or
will be put as a reserve engine for fire extinguishing only, and hopefully in the future will
be utilized at a third station.
Mayor Furlong: Hint, hint.
Sherri Walsh: We also have the CIP was $400,000 last year. We very graciously gave
up $30,000 with the understanding that Waterous Company for the pump component
would supply us a pump that they consider an identical unit and we are taking
approximately $50,000? …probably more than that. Our total bid is coming in at
$339,900. That was for the actual truck and then the pumper is above and beyond that
which is 29,567. So with that I'm asking for your approval to go ahead and award the
bid…
Mayor Furlong: Thank you Assistant Chief Walsh. Comments or questions at all?
Councilman Lundquist: What's the catch with the demo pump?
Sherri Walsh: There is no catch. It's actually, they build pumps and they use them as
demonstrations when they're out touring the country trying to sell their pumps to other
fire departments. The option, it was opened up on the..company that any employee that
works with Waterous that would be currently by chance building an engine, could buy
this at a very significant reduced rate. Otherwise they tear it apart and sell parts to be
used so we capitalized on that.
Councilman Lundquist: So we have an employee that works for them?
Sherri Walsh: Yes.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
31
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Will it come with a warranty like if you were buying a brand
new one?
Sherri Walsh: Yes, and it is certified.
Mayor Furlong: What does one of the new pumps cost? You said this was about 30?
Sherri Walsh: The other is, came in at $107,000-$108,000.
Mayor Furlong: And that would be, oh I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Sherri Walsh: They took a 21% discount for so it's be $86,000.
Mayor Furlong: So that would be the equivalent, so about $50-60,000 reduction.
Sherri Walsh: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Any other questions? No? Discussions. Thoughts.
Comments.
Councilman Peterson: Good work.
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve.
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. I'm going to discuss one thing though and that,
because I've got the gavel. I guess I want to make sure that the members of the fire
department that serve on the truck committee are extended the thanks of the council and
the staff. I know they put in a lot of time. You said over a 2 year period and we
appreciate that because that is voluntary time above and beyond and the other comment I
wanted to make is that, it's my understanding in the past often these equipment for the
fire department hasn't always had the same priority as other equipment purchases within
our CIP and I thank Mr. Gerhardt and department heads working together. I know when
we set a budget we establish how much we want to spend on equipment each year. This
year it was about $800,000 so this one item here was about half that. I know it's been in
the CIP and planning for it but nonetheless that meant that other departments requests had
to be moved and often cases back in future years, but working together we're able to meet
that so thank you to the fire department and their members of the truck committee.
Thank you Mr. Gerhardt and all the staff members, the Chief and everyone for working
together to work this into the CIP within our budget as well.
Sherri Walsh: I'd also like to…
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
32
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I'd just like to thank the truck committee too. They do put in a
variety of different hours when they work in the fire department and one of the task is
potentially to be on a truck committee. They spend a lot of time working on the
specifications and looking at the detail and it's amazing you know just one truck may
have a drawer that another truck doesn't have and that's huge when you're in the fire
department to have that storage. And the design of the trucks using angle iron versus
cubed iron gets you another 3 to 4 inches and that's, that makes a big difference when
you're trying to store things so placement of winches and things like that, so they do get
into a lot of detail and look at the specifications to what their needs are and I thank them
for doing that extra work.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. With that, is there any other discussion on the
motion to approve the purchase? If not, we'll proceed with the vote.
Resolution #2006-61: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson
seconded that the City Council approve the purchase of the replacement engine
from Crimson Fire in the amount of $339,990 and from Waterous Company for the
pump system and accessories in the amount of $29,567 for a total bid of $369,557.05.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
MODIFY HIGHCREST MEADOWS STORM WATER POND DESIGN,
GRADING AND LANDSCAPING IN THE AREA.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members. I've met with some of the Highcrest
Meadows people and we'd ask that you table this item to give staff, the developer and
members of the Longacres Association additional time to sit down and go through the
numerous items that are before you tonight. I'd also ask that 2 council members that
could sit in on a meeting to discuss these things. I think it's going to take a while tonight
if we were to try to go through all them now. I'd like to have kind of a work session with
2 council members, the Longacres Association and the Highcrest Meadow developer. If
2 council members could be available this Wednesday at 10:00 to sit down and go
through those issues, I'd appreciate it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Do I have any volunteers?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I'll do it.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom, okay. Others?
Councilman Peterson: I can't do it at 10:00. I could do it at probably 11:00.
Todd Gerhardt: I think we could probably make 11:00 work.
Mayor Furlong: Does that still work with you?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
33
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, so Councilman Peterson and Councilwoman Tjornhom
will work with you on that. Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: So the item would be to table this.
Mayor Furlong: The action would be a table?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, and work with the neighborhood and the developer to work out
the issues.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a motion to table?
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to table action on
the Highcrest Meadows storm water pond design, grading and landscaping. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM (d). LIBERY ON BLUFF CREEK 2ND ADDITION:
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND APPROVAL OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS
AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT.
Mayor Furlong: So Ms. Lloyd, if you'd like to at this time come forward and you said
you had a question or some comments.
Debbie Lloyd: Very short.
Mayor Furlong: That's fine.
Debbie Lloyd: Actually wrote it down tonight…the city web site was not accessible on
Saturday…very frustrated. The PDF wasn't working…did not contain all of the report so
again, very frustrating. And it was so frustrating to have so little time to review items on
the agenda, then when the resources are not available, and the information incomplete, it
doesn't allow for emails prior to the meeting… Relative to the final plat…the report
when presented to the City Council on October 10th mentions projects 04-05. …until that
is finalized. So I hunted and hunted and I didn't find it. Rather I found a project 06-05
which I think is pertinent instead. And if indeed Project 06-05 is the correct project, I do
have a question about why the Lyman Boulevard, Audubon Road intersection was
eliminated from this project at this point in time. Considering the AUAR for those two
applied MUSA required that it be constructed continuously between Audubon Road and
Powers. Before the full buildout of Town & Country. And I guess the…that project was
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
34
like $688,000 project. I'm wondering who's going to pay for the cost of this if it wasn't
part of the 06-05 plan, and will you be assessing the Town & Country development at
this point since the final plat is approved? Also the improvements denoted on here were
to include…turn lanes to go south on Audubon. An additional lane and a traffic signal.
The AUAR calls for this improvement because right now it's called an F category. This
intersection is already bad and then you're building all these new additional home sites
so…create a safety issue for the city. So would you therefore call this premature or I
guess what are you plans? And kind of pertinent to a safety issue you have Washington
and Commonwealth, you have that one long cul-de-sac which I know Craig loves those
long cul-de-sacs and it only has one in and one out now. There's you know no egress to
get out if there's something major that happens there… And then apart from that the
typical question about the private street, and I know it's too late but 20 foot private
street…and allowing parking on it. …Minnetonka that the developer with Pemtom
always mentions. You should see that street. It is a wonderful private street, but it's not
in keeping with this type of private street. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, I guess…
Kate Aanenson: I can answer those questions. Sure. We did order the project. It's
underway. Actually the improvements on Audubon Way are also, they actually poured
the curb last Friday, so those turn movements, the project that was tied to, and that's in
the original conditions of approval which we tie back, so these projects could not proceed
until we ordered our project. Our project is well underway. Let Paul give an update,
kind of where we are on that. But this project is the second phase of the Bluff Creek
Boulevard, which is a public street, so they will have access to that and we should be out
there paving so I'll let Paul give you an update on where we are on that road.
Mayor Furlong: And again the project in question was what's been referred to
historically as the east/west collector.
Kate Aanenson: Correct, Bluff Creek Boulevard.
Mayor Furlong: And that again, assuming the status of that project, and has that
condition been met and.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, we're working on that. All the sewer and water is, I would say 85%
of the sewer and water is in at this time. They are back filling the street segment now.
They're approximately 40% done with the entire project. We do anticipate having curb
and gutter and paving that street before winter, so we will have a drivable surface you
know come next year, and into this year so. We are actually a little bit ahead of schedule
from what we anticipated earlier when we let the project. There will be a signal at the
intersection of Audubon and Bluff Creek Boulevard as well so, I mean that level of
service F that she had mentioned, that will be handled by the signal so that definitely is an
improvement there. And then we would anticipate another access down to Pioneer Trail
the end, the development plan that you will come in this year yet, so there, we anticipate
two access points there in the very near future.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
35
Kate Aanenson: And that's the Pioneer Pass project that would tie into Lyman
Boulevard. We left the other segment off. We talked about that earlier tonight. Actually
the area that we're going to put into study area, but there is adequate circulation for the
western half of the 2005 to develop. Again this buildout is going to be a number of years.
It's not going to happen all at once. Probably 2 to 3 year buildout. Maybe longer. So we
believe there's adequate infrastructure and they're both tracking together.
Paul Oehme: And as far as assessments too, the developer has waived his rights to the
assessment appeal so, and we are, will be assessing the majority of the east/west collector
road, Bluff Creek Boulevard in November. To be recorded at the County so, payable in
2007.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any follow up questions? Okay. Were there any other items to
be discussed on this item? Item 1(d). If not, is there, sorry. I heard murmuring. Is there
additional questions?
Janet Paulsen: Street? Is that wide enough?
Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry.
Janet Paulsen: The 20 foot street?
Mayor Furlong: Well I guess the issue of the street, I guess, I assume that was
considered as part of the preliminary plat approval.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so. And I know we discussed parking, both on street and off
street parking at length.
Kate Aanenson: And there's a condition that the City Engineer added regarding as you
get towards the intersection, that that parking can't be as close so there's better sight lines,
but again that's guest parking. It's not permanent parking. There's also, there's a
condition in here regarding winter conditions. Overnight parking so those are all
standard for street, private streets. And they're not all private streets. Those looping
streets are public streets. The only private streets are the ones that go between the small
units. Otherwise the rest of them are public streets, and we believe, we've learned from
experience that keeping those larger looping streets public, they get plowed sooner and
that issue and so, but there is guest parking a lot on those streets, as there are on other
public streets in the city.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or items? If not, is there a
motion to approve staff's recommendations for item 1(d), both 1 and 2.
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
36
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City
Council approve Liberty on Bluff Creek 2nd Addition:
1) Final Plat Approval.
2) Resolution #2006-62: Approval of Plans & Specifications and
Development Contract.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Move now to item number 6 under new business. Looking
at the hour, let's take, unless there's objection, let's take a 5 minute recess subject to the
call of the Chair.
LOREN VELTKAMP, 6724 LOTUS TRAIL, PLANNING CASE 06-25:
VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE SECOND LEVEL
OF A HOME WITH NON-CONFORMING SETBACKS. TWO SETBACK
VARIANCES WILL BE REQUIRED BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS A CORNER
LOT ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jeff King 767 Carver Beach Road
Pat & Keith Gunderson 6661 Mohawk Drive
Bruce Johansson 6711 Mohawk Drive
Matt & Liz Tibbetts 6699 Mohawk Drive
Don & Sig Sennes 6680 Mohawk Drive
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. This item…interpretation
of staff's…staff interpretation and I'll go through that in a minute. This item first
appeared before the Planning Commission back on June 20th and at that time staff…
There was concern with the Planning Commission the direction…and how the property
was being used so they asked us to look a little deeper into actually how the property was
being used so I'll go through that in a minute too. But the critical thing that you're here
tonight to discuss is the variance, and there's some other…issues that I'll touch on too.
…and the subject property is located here. There's an existing house that recently
burned, but ordinance does allow to build to the existing structure. There are some non-
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
37
conforming setbacks. They have requested to go higher in those areas that… I'm not
going to go into the building plan unless you have specific questions tonight but just
for…the area in blue doesn't meet the setback requirements and therefore…residential
height…35 feet. The area shown in pink does not meet the setback requirements from
Tamarack… have to stay with the existing structure… So therefore that's the request.
The 22 foot and the 15 foot setback on that setback…just some questions about, based on
some testimony, of how the property was being used and the existing conditions so staff
did a little bit more research on that, and that item did go back to the Planning
Commission on July 18th. At that time the staff also had some additional information that
we shared, and also I included in your packet some information from the residents as part
of their testimony as to the condition of the property and some complaints that may have
been researched on regarding…to the property itself. So what I wanted to mention is that
one of the issues that the staff also faced on the evidence that resulted in the investigation
on how the fire, on how the property was being used, we made the interpretation that that
property was being rented, and if you look at your staff report on page 6 of 8, that's the
first interpretation so as a part of the normal code process, anybody aggrieved of the
decision of administrative…to the planning department or myself, the planning
director… And part of the testimony, as it is in your staff report, again dated July 18th,
there is one of the Planning Commissioners was specifically asked…so that was one of
the findings the Planning Commission felt comfortable…Having said that, if the property
is being rented, and the applicant's request, again kind of going through…information
that the Planning Commission asked based on some of these questions and information
provided by the residents, that they felt that the additional height was also to allow for
additional income for the rental property. Again…and also the testimony the residents
felt like the existing height…add to that and so that was some of the problems that the
Planning Commission felt was a reason to deny…not demonstrated a hardship. That
there's an alternative...in the staff report where we outlined that should the applicant
choose to honor the city code, there is a process if the applicant applies for a variance that
would allow a single family situation… The Planning Commission did discuss this…
more of a dependent, elderly relative that they need to provide a basement or maybe over
a garage…and there is a process for that and we felt that if the applicant chose that as a
way to provide that…we included the information from the neighbors. There's some
other ongoing issues on the property and I wanted to stay focused on the issue of the
variance so…to know that Josh Metzer on our planning staff did meet with some of the
residents to try to assimilate some of their questions… the variance and what we're here
for tonight. The Planning Commission and the staff did recommend denial of the
variance and that the interpretation that the property is being rented…So with that, you
have…
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. At this point. Okay. We may have
some other ones in the future. Okay. At this point, I see the applicant is here. You're
appealing the Planning Commission so why don't you come forward and give us the
information.
Loren Veltkamp: Hi, I'm Loren Veltkamp.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
38
Mayor Furlong: Good evening.
Loren Veltkamp: Good evening. 6724 Lotus Trail. My house was built in 1926 or
started I should say. It's been worked on ever since I think. It's more like a question of
when wasn't it being built. I've been there about 15 years. I've doubled the size of the
house roughly and I see an opportunity now, totally unexpected, to make it a little better.
Perhaps a little bigger. But not much. I don't plan to increase my footprint or anything
like that. I don't want to encroach on anybody. I don't see any need for that. What I
have, and I don't know, it's a little different than what she showed you or what I had
before the fire. If I can just point this out here. As you can see, this little thing here is a
dormer and this is basically the blue part that she had before whereas this is the part that
we're talking about. This is the part that's controlled by setbacks so towards the front of
the house here I had a large room and truss it's called, which is a storage area. And this
was a dormer and this was a deck that came out about 6 feet. Beyond the house here so
the deck survived the fire but the dormer was lost, but I have the right now to rebuild this
dormer so I've already done so. The main issue for me tonight is this little square here
which is about 12 feet by 12 feet. This is behind the dormer here and it's going to go to
waste if I just put a roof over it. I would like to use it for storage or maybe to expand a
bedroom. It's a small area and it doesn't involve anyone's view that I can see. This house
here, this house here is about 44 inches from my property line. It encroaches upon my
property greatly. And it also goes 2 feet into Tamarack Road. This is a rental unit and
has been a rental unit for most of the 15 years that I've been there. Been a wide variety of
people living there. The only other thing on this Tamarack Road is perhaps a garage. It's
a 2 stall garage which is across the road there so this is looking… This garage, I haven't
exactly measured this but if the road here is about 40 feet. I think this road is about 40
feet. The garage is probably within 2 or 3 feet of this road, so the point I'm making here
is that these other properties are either on the road, or they're right next to the road. Now
these are the only, there's only 3 properties involved here because it's a really short street.
This one, this one and this one. And I went to the law library down in Chaska to research
this. I just got on West Law and when you punch in setbacks, do a search on setbacks, I
have 32 cases from the Supreme Court, and I looked through all the cases to see if there's
a case like mine and there was a case exactly like mine called Aurora vs. Burnet. And
there's different ways to interpret these cases I know but just briefly, what happened in
this case is that somebody was being set back more than other people on a street, and a
guy that Burnet. The city had him do setbacks and he didn't want to be set back because
he would be set back further than everybody else, and he just went ahead and built and he
defied the city and the city took him to court, as you would expect, and he won because
the Supreme Court ruled that well, you know the proper thing to do in this situation is to
set back the people all the same, you know, and not set anybody back any farther than
anybody else so he won the case. And this seems to me to be very similar to what we're
dealing with here because I'm being put under a new code here, you know 30 foot
setback, which I was never put under before. Now Carver Beach is a very old area. The
oldest housing association in Minnesota, built back in 1898. So the housing association
is still active. It's 108 years old. My house was built in 1926. I built this deck here
against Tamarack Road in the setback, I built this. I got, I think in 2001 I got the
approval to build this deck, which is further out than what I'm asking for now, and that
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
39
was just 5 years ago. So from 1926 to 2001, I had different setbacks on my property. I
had a 30 foot setback with, I'm pointing this out. My house was facing this way for 81
years. Now I find out, after my house is burned, my house is facing this way. Okay.
And this way. This has never happened before and my question to the council is, how
can these setbacks be switched you know in midstream like this. All of a sudden this is
not fair to me because I've been building one way and now all of a sudden it's illegal.
And who knew? So the reason my house was facing south originally is because there
was a road going up like this. And the people who designed this house spaced the garage
and the front door and the 30 foot front yard setback was all faced to a road called
Willow Road. And Willow Road was never built, and I guess that's because Lotus Trail
became the main road but Lotus Trail separates my house from the lake. Okay, it runs
between my house and the lake so they wanted to put that road in there because they
didn't want a road between them on the lake but eventually it happened, you know. So
Willow Road was abandoned and Lotus Trail became the main road because of some
decision somewhere along the line. Now I am forced to put my driveway out to Lotus
Trail then, so then that makes my house face a different direction, through no fault of my
own or the original builders or anything, but my feeling is that, because the house is so
old, that the setbacks should be grandfathered in along with the house, because I can't
have my setbacks switched every 5 years when I'm trying to develop this property. I
don't think that's fair to anyone. I think the city should just stick with a 81 year setback
that we've got going here and then we have no problems. Then I have no building
problems whatsoever. But it's because of that switch that we got into this jam and I
clearly question the legality of that because you know if the city takes control over a new
property that they didn't have before, now they're supposed to compensate the owner or
work something out, and in this particular case I'm kind of being deprived here you know
through no fault of anyone really. It's just you know, it's just the way of the
neighborhood has evolved, so I'm just asking for consideration here because it is an older
house. But anyway, getting back to this Supreme Court case, which is very similar to
mine. In this case the Supreme Court ruled that the fair way to do this is to set everybody
back according to the average distance that you know the people are away from the road.
So if we're looking for an average here, this house here is 2 feet over and this house is
probably 2 feet off. So the average would be right on the road, and I'm 16 1/2 feet off of
that, and I'm not even asking for that 16 1/2 feet. I'm just trying to build over my existing
footprint so it's very minimal what I'm asking for. It's not even what the Supreme Court
would get by a long shot, so I think this is very fair and it's not blocking anyone's views
because the view this way is already blocked by the dormer and the view this way is
blocked by this part so I don't see that it would have… And the other point I want to
make here is that this road here is not a road. It's just a paper street, like we were talking
about earlier tonight. So I feel like I'm being set back 30 feet from absolutely nothing
when everybody else is over the street. And particularly this part of the street up here.
I've never even been able to use this. It's supposed to be public property but it's been
blocked by trailers for almost the entire 15 years I've lived there, and I've been physically
harassed when I've gone over there to you know kind…about this.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
40
Loren Veltkamp: So other people are using the road a lot. I'm using it a little, and just
trying to you know make use of this little square here, and that's, this just concerns the
setback to Tamarack Road so. So you're talking about Tamarack Road setback number.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just make a point of clarification? If you go to page 3 of the staff
report, the way we determine setbacks is any public right-of-way. In this circumstance
there's two public right-of-way. One that's the improved and one is not but it's still
determined as a public right-of-way. So there would be two. Even if you were to vacate
Tamarack, as just suggested, the public street would still be Lotus. There'd still non-
conforming setbacks so the fact that you have two public streets, which we have corner
lots all over town. There's still, we call it two fronts so it'd be 30-30 is a general single
family residential district and then 10 on the other two sides. So, which would be if you
had a front and a back, it'd be 30 in the front, 30 in the rear so in this circumstance we
have two, a corner lot, it'd be the 30-30 so that's been a long, been along for quite a while.
Then also as far as the building permit, I just also wanted to point out, that does go back
to 1998 and the one in 2002, and someone made that incorrect interpretation on those and
those were pointed out in the staff report that those were issues in error. So just wanted
to point that out for the record.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Loren Veltkamp: That is another issue that she brings up. See staff now says that the
allowance of this, the allowance of this deck being built, which I built as a fire egress for
this bedroom up here basically, but they said the permit to build this was given in error.
I'm like, where's the error? I got the same setback for 81 years. There's no error. Now
the staff 5 years ago was simply respecting the original setbacks for this property which I
think is totally proper because you can't just be switching people's orientation on a house
like that developing the property. It's just throws everything up in the air. You can't, you
don't know what to do anymore. So the Carver Beach and these older neighborhoods,
and I would ask the council to you know be understanding to that because it can really
lead to problems when you're trying to build. You have to plan for the house and
building the house…and you can't do it, so it screws up a lot of stuff.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright.
Loren Veltkamp: Alright, so we're done with, that's my proposal, request on Tamarack. I
also requested a setback from Lotus. The same argument applies to Lotus is that it was
not the original front of my property. What I actually have there from the street, if you
take a measuring tape from the corner of my house, which would be here, out to the
street, which is in this area here. If I measure on a slope going down okay from you
know just chest level to the corner of the house, there's a slope there, I get about 24 feet.
Okay. So there's quite a bit of grass and that's at the closest corner. If you look down
here, it is at the 30 feet. So the average, I don't know what the average would be, it'd be
somehow around 27 feet I am from the street right now. Now, the reason that this,
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
41
they're setting me back so far here is because there is a right-of-way in addition to the
physical pavement and the way the street, you know you've got right-of-way which is
much wider than the street. In this case the street is slammed all the way over to the left
side so I've got like 20 feet of right-of-way and before we even begin to measure the 30
feet, so I'm perfectly willing to stay 30 feet away from the physical road. This is a dead
end road. You know it's never going to be increased or enhanced or anything like that.
I'm perfectly willing to stay 30-35 feet away from that road but putting me 50 feet away
from the curb, you know coming up over the top of my property like this, you're coming
up over my living room and pushing me back 50 feet from the road because they changed
the road. You know I just don't think it's fair. I'm willing to stay 30 feet plus from the
physical road, which if anybody walks down the road they can even look up and they will
not be able to see the second story. They won't see the roof or the second story. I can put
a little deck along here. You know set back. Make this 30 feet here, the closest corner.
You know set that back a little. Nobody would see it and I think that's, you know being
discreet. I feel it's pretty reasonable considering that these setbacks have been jerked
around through the years you know.
Mayor Furlong: Alright.
Loren Veltkamp: That's about all I've got to say about the setback.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Loren Veltkamp: Then there's one other request that I just have to ask you. This is a
little more involved. For the last 6 years I've been renting my property. This has been an
issue of great debate. I just can't believe how much debate we've had over this, but I've
been renting my property to roommates since I had a divorce, and during my divorce it
was discovered that I had a handicap. A rare mental handicap so I've not really been able
to work, so what I resorted to was, was renting out my property to roommates, and that
was the way I sustained myself for the most part. And at first the city didn't have codes
about this because this was 6 years ago, and then eventually I called the city because I
was wondering if they had any codes, and they said well no, we don't have codes but
we're making some right now you know. So I said okay, I'll wait and send them to me
when you got them, and then they did send them to me. And then there was some
confusion with the city because they felt that I really built apartments in my house and
that I wasn't just having roommates. And you can imagine how you know upset the
planning department was when they thought I was building you know a duplex or triplex
or having apartments in the house, which I never wanted to do. But on the other hand I
want to make my roommates happy, and have space and privacy and all this other stuff
so, I'm kind of caught in the middle here. And anyway, after considerable debate or
whatever, and many letters to the city, I got a letter from the city say it's okay for me to
rent if I didn't have doorways between these different areas of my house. You know so
that it was all one house. Not a rental units but one single house, okay and that was the
way we resolved it. And I got a letter to this effect and they inspected everything and
everything was okay, and we went on this way until the fire. Now after the fire, the
planning department took a new look at it and they felt strongly that I really had
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
42
apartments in this house after all you know and then they're back on my tail about this.
What I would like to do, I'm not telling you how to resolve this tonight, okay. It's too
complicated of an issue here tonight…this is impossible to do now. What I'm asking for
is just some way to have 3 roommates so I can stay in my house. That's what I want.
Just 3 people living with me, and I want to go back to what I had before. And the
planning department has started chipping away at what I had before, which was 3
kitchens and a large, good driveway. You know they started, they don't want me to go
back to that even though it was approved, but it was approved. Just like my original
setback was approved, so I think I should be able to go back to this time. You know
without being evicted from my house. I mean I'm going to lose my house if I can't get
my roommates and I don't want to you know do anything shady or efaithful about this
you know. I just want to find a way to do it and a few years ago during this debate I did
write a letter to the council, a 8 page letter and after quite a few months I got a note back,
and they said thank you for the letter. You know so at least somebody read it but I don't
know if it was any of you but in this 8 page letter I made a point that having roommates
in a house is good for people, especially for the handicap. You know there's a way to
keep a house and I think it's also a way to keep the low cost housing affordable, you
know because my rents are cheaper than anybody's. I can beat any price and you know
the cheapest rooms we have for people are the ones that already exist. So businesses like
it you know because they don't have to pay the employees so much, and you know
businesses benefit from having these people around. There may be some stress on the
neighborhood if you have too many roommates or allow cars, something like that. I
mean I know there's a down side too and I don't want to be any part of that down side. I
can tell you what the down side is sometime, we can sit down and talk about it. But
anyway, it's a very involved question and I'd like to see this area looked at of, and come
up with a viable way for people in Chanhassen to have a few roommates, you know that's
not going to bother anybody. It's just done nicely. And I'd really like to have the council
look at that now. Last time we were together, you know she got the planning department,
or is it the planning.
Kate Aanenson: Commission.
Loren Veltkamp: Commission, to agree that my house should be inspected, and I
actually did have, I actually was written. They asked me if I was renting and I said yes,
I'm renting. I'm charging rent and I don't think that means that I have, I'm admitting to
having rental units. Okay. As far as I know I've never had rental units. Never wanted
them. Just some roommates. And so yeah, I said yes you know. I have you know I was
renting and I want to continue renting… So what I'm asking for now is that this area is
looked at before you know I'm refused the right to have renters, or refused to have a
kitchen or driveway or anything like that. I would just like to have this help at this point.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Loren Veltkamp: Not decided or undecided. I just would like to have it…the legal
questions here are so difficult that I'm having a hard time with it myself, and I've been
thinking about this for 4 years.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
43
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright.
Loren Veltkamp: Suspended and find a good way for, you know to go back to what I
had. I don't want to lose what I had so…
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Any questions for the applicant at this point?
Kate Aanenson: I'd just like to comment, if I may Mayor. Council members.
Mayor Furlong: Certainly.
Kate Aanenson: Just to kind of, we did believe that there was rentals. We had received
complaints from the neighbors so building inspections went up. The planning department
never investigated that property. They just relied on the approval of the inspections.
Again at that time I think there was some ambiguity if the doors weren't locked. Whether
he's renting or whether the units, they're tenants. They're being charged rent and that's
what the definition in the city code is so. The other concern that we had was that there
was at least 6 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms and there were 3 separate levels with a kitchen
without a permit so to us, that kind of creates the levels, 3 kind of apartment areas,
whatever you want to call it, but there was exchange of payment for tenancy and that, by
our definition meets a rental. So for us to try to solve that rate of problem through this,
we finally had, you know what we would call prima facia evidence to say this is how it's
being used. While we tried to find it before, because we had received complaints, and I
think that's some of the angst with the neighbors but I'm not sure in this format, we did
provide another mechanism for the applicant to go through, which we would with
anybody else to try to resolve. He can have so many people at this point. I think we
really need to take that through a separate process, which is allowed by the code, under a
variance. Economic hardship, to come through that process and that's what the staff
would recommend. I think the Planning Commission really listened hard. It was a long
hearing. I think the neighbors would testify. Several hours, twice to really go through
and dissect exactly how the property was being used and I rely on their wisdom to, how
they formulated, based on the information, the testimony from the residents and the
questions that they asked of how the property was being used.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the, I guess the question is, the effect that would result. If
the first requested motion and to recognize that he meets the definition. What's the effect
of that?
Kate Aanenson: That's a good question and the fact that we have a zoning ordinance is
really to protect property rights. The surrounding properties. When you buy into a
residential district, your expectation is that you have some protection of how the
neighboring properties are being used. So if we were to say anybody, I think that's why, I
know that's one of the reasons why we came up with this rental license as we had some of
the older properties around town. People were starting to rent them and some of them
were nuisances. So we came up with the property maintenance, in combination with the
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
44
rental license so not only can we go after property that's in ill repair, but we also have
some control of tenants that are in properties and they can lose their ability to rent
property if they're not managing their tenants and the property. It was kind of a two
pronged approach on that, so it would have implications if you're trying to solve that, for
this application and not look at it city wide because there is an expectation of protecting
neighbor's properties.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Mr. Knutson.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, just quickly point out. I'm not going to, under a rental dwelling
license, revision to the city code, a dwelling, rental dwelling is, the term rental dwelling
means any rental dwelling with one or more living units, so even though you have one
living unit, not multiple living units, you can be a rental dwelling. To be a rental
dwelling that means you charge someone, or receive other forms of compensation for the
use of the dwelling. So whether you live there or not is, doesn't matter.
Mayor Furlong: Doesn't matter. It doesn't exclude.
Roger Knutson: If you receive rent from someone or if you receive vegetables from
someone for living there, any kind of compensation, that makes it a rental dwelling. The
fact that you're living there does not change it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Ms. Aanenson, follow up on the comments, both on the
setbacks. There was suggestions made that the setbacks were changing over time. And
the difference between the setback from the street. I know we've heard this, this has been
an issue and point of confusion with a number of people between the street and the right-
of-way.
Kate Aanenson: Right. The setback is taken from the right-of-way, not the improved
surface.
Mayor Furlong: Do you have that picture again? Is that the box that goes across there?
So by that picture, I think that hatched area that goes around the north, east and south
part, is that the deck?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: On the building. Does that go up and touch the right-of-way at this
point, or approximately touch the right-of-way?
Kate Aanenson: Close.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright.
Kate Aanenson: Again, that goes back to some of the older part…
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
45
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the request here is essentially to build a second story over
the entire pink area?
Kate Aanenson: The area in pink is the area that doesn't meet the setbacks. You're
not…to this point. …does not allow you to go into the 35 feet maximum height. Again
there was some concern with the residents that he was, that the applicant was building
higher. That does meet the setback. When the home was destroyed, you can meet
whatever the zoning ordinance allows, 35 feet. It's this area in pink that doesn't meet the
setbacks. I guess the same with the non-conforming portion.
Mayor Furlong: And what, even though it is, his home was non-conforming within
setbacks, because it burned he can still replace what was there.
Kate Aanenson: In the area that meets, correct. Meets all the setback requirements and
that's the...
Mayor Furlong: Okay, but the request here is to build higher within the pink area.
Kate Aanenson: Right. He came in a little bit higher and that was the one we recently
said no, there's…
Mayor Furlong: On the blue he's going higher as well?
Kate Aanenson: Correct…
Mayor Furlong: Okay, but that is not restricted because of any setback issue. It's the area
in the pink where he's requesting to go higher than what was there before, and that's
where, am I understanding that correctly?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. And that doesn't meet, it doesn't meet setbacks so you have to
stay with what was…
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so he can replace what was there before the fire but.
Kate Aanenson: …the apartment's non-conforming, yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions of staff? If not, discussion.
Comments. Alright, I'm going to start calling names. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: Got the short straw huh. Comments. I think the, my inclination
is to side with staff and Planning Commission. Carver Beach is one, it's hard for us it
seems like to go a month without seeing something. That's an old area of the city and the
lots are small and there's a lot of existing non-conformances and things out there that, I
think myself, you know I look at each one of those individually and the circumstances
surrounding it when they come in for whatever those variances or requests or things are,
and the, whether or not you know in 1929 or whichever what the circumstances were, the
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
46
fact is that we're allowing this applicant to build to replace what was there. To build
what burned down seems reasonable. Within that footprint. You want to change the
inside? You know lots of options you can do there within that existing footprint, and you
know there's right-of-ways there that define where those setbacks have to be and you
know if the right-of-way's there, that's where you've got to measure from so, you know I
believe my view is that there's some opportunity to increase the height of what's there
now in some areas that are within the setback so that's even in addition to what's there
now. For those areas that were previously non-conforming, I'm not inclined to increase
that non-conformance out there, especially given that essentially he can rebuild the house
in the existing footprint and there is potential to do more than that currently out there that
I'm inclined to deny the variance because I believe that there's reasonable use of the
property and you know in fact can be again made bigger in certain areas of that property.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I agree with Councilman Lundquist. I guess I could repeat
everything he said but I'm really not in favor of taking a non-conforming situation and
amplifying it. And I think he does have the right to rebuild what he does have and he has
reasonable use of that property and when he does rebuild it the way it was. So I also am
going to side with the staff and go on the Planning Commission's recommendation to
deny this.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: I concur. I think there's been a lot of discussion about definition
of rental. I guess as I read that and as you listen to our city attorney, there isn't a
question. He's renting. And you can ask a lot of what if's. Well what if he wasn't
renting? Would that change our perspective? No. The fact is, he is and so I'm not going
to even think about that. You know in, it creates issues and we have an opportunity now
to correct some of the issues that it creates and if he'd like to come back and request the
variance for, to get the zoning variance to do rentals, to do that route as Kate mentioned,
he certainly has every right to do that. But as far as expanding a non-conforming, I don't
see a compelling reason to do it at all.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I would concur. I think the issues of reasonable use
have been stated. He has reasonable use with rebuilding the property as it was within the
non-conforming area. I think the other issues, having read through the verbatim minutes
of the Planning Commission, actually 2 meetings where this was discussed, I think the
questions and the discussion were very pointed. Very appropriate and revealed
information on how the property's being used, to Councilman Peterson's point, and it is
being rented. I think that is clear. I think you know if we approved that first request,
we'll be stating the obviously on what's been agreed to. And I think the other issue,
because it's being rented, improving the non-conforming creates the opportunity and in
some cases it looks like the desire to increase income on the property as well, which is
another factor that came out in the Planning Commission meeting. And for those reasons
I think it's important for us not to go forward with approving and increasing the non-
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
47
conforming aspect of it. Being able to rebuild what he had, that is reasonable and I'm
glad that our state statutes allow that because I think that would be a reasonable request.
But to increase the non-conforming and to build more, I think that's unreasonable and
doesn't meet the standards. I think the findings of fact in the staff report are consistent
with what I've heard here and support the Planning Commission's and the staff's
recommendation to deny so. I would concur with other comments and for reasons
additionally stated, that it would not be appropriate for us to go forward with approving
this requested variance. Any other thoughts or comments? If not, is there a motion? We
have 2 motions I believe.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I'll make the first motion. The City Council concurs with the
Planning Commission and planning staff's interpretation that the owner of the property at
6724 Lotus Trail, Loren Veltkamp has been renting the property as defined in the City
Code Article VIII, Rental Dwelling Licenses, Section 10-217, Rental Dwelling.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on that motion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City
Council concurs with the Planning Commission and planning staff's interpretation
that the owner of the property at 6724 Lotus Trail, Loren Veltkamp has been
renting the property as defined in the City Code Article VIII, Rental Dwelling
Licenses, Section 10-217, Rental Dwelling. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Motion 2.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mayor I recommend that the City Council deny the variance
for 22 foot and 15 foot front yard setback area for the expansion of the second level of a
home with non-conforming setbacks in the single family residential district at 6724 Lotus
Trail based on the Findings of Fact contained in the staff report and the following 1
through 3? Okay.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, just to be clear. You're adopting the Planning Commission
finding as your own findings.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Did I read the wrong one?
Roger Knutson: No, you did it just fine. I'm just amplifying.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
48
Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on that motion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City
Council denies the variance for 22 foot and 15 foot front yard setback variances for
the expansion of the second level of a home with non-conforming setbacks in the
Single Family Residential (RSF) District at 6724 Lotus Trail, based on the Findings
of Fact contained in this staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has reasonable use of the property.
2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
3. There is an alternative process to secure a rental license.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you everyone.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Furlong: Memory serves, we had, I think this is our first council meeting since
National Night Out on August 1st. Since we're on the 14th, and I want to thank staff for
their work in organizing it. I also want to recognize and thank members of the Carver
County Sheriff's Department, and particularly the posse who serve on a volunteer basis
and came out in force to meet with our residents and various neighborhood parties. I
think we had, I know we had a presentation at our last council meeting, but it rained that
night. The following night and yet attendance was still very strong and I think that
speaks volumes of not only our residents but also the organization efforts. …staff and.
Councilman Lundquist: We also had the ladder truck and members of the fire
department.
Mayor Furlong: Absolutely, thank you. Fire department was out there.
Councilman Lundquist: One of our other assistant.
Mayor Furlong: I think we had 3 trucks out there in total from the fire department so
thank you for naming that. But it was a good night. A lot of enthusiasm. A lot of good
questions were raised. So I think everybody.
Todd Gerhardt: Neighborhoods made some makeshift tents between ladders and tarps
and so they had a place to gather to get out of the rain. That was pretty creative.
Mayor Furlong: So congratulations to everybody and especially to those 40
neighborhoods, for all the people that hosted the party. For their efforts and for everyone
that attended, appreciate it. Any other comments or discussion for council members? If
not, Mr. Gerhardt.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
49
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: First item we have is discussion regarding the council seat vacancy by
Councilmember Steve Labatt. The City Council really has two options. First one is you
do not have to fill the vacancy. Because Councilmember Labatt's term is less than 2
years left on that, there's no need for a special election. Second option, what we've done
in the past is advertised the vacancy and interviewed potential candidates and then make
a selection. You know staff has reviewed future agenda items and that has led us to
believe that there is nothing coming down the line that would need a 4/5 vote. Based on
that, it's staff's recommendation just to keep status quo. Because of the time it would take
to interview candidates and advertise, we would probably see that potential candidate
start the first week in October and be here for two council meetings. And then the
election would be November 7th, and so at that time if you should desire, you could select
whoever was the high vote getter or wait until January to have a full council. So you
know based on only having one meeting in September, you know that would probably be
the first time you could interview candidates would be the second meeting in September
and make the selection at that time for appointment in October. And for 2 meetings, and
based on some of the future agenda items, staff doesn't see the need to go through all that.
Councilman Lundquist: Did you say we do have the option of appointing after the
November 7th elections. The vote getter. That is an option?
Todd Gerhardt: Yep.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Councilman Peterson: We can appoint anybody after, anytime we want to.
Councilman Lundquist: Right.
Mayor Furlong: I guess that's the answer. Up til the end of the term, we can appoint
anybody at any time.
Todd Gerhardt: In the past we've done the interview process but if you would want, you
could appoint somebody you know even tonight I would think if you modify your agenda
and include that.
Councilman Peterson: I don’t want the job.
Todd Gerhardt: Any enemies out there you want to appoint? So staff's recommendation
is to keep status quo and wait until after the election.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions? Comments.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
50
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I think that certainly is reasonable. I think particularly
reinforced by the fact that the number one thing that we do in the fall, which is the budget
and the levy, as reinforced by tonight's work session, we're almost all the way there. I
don't think we're going to have much argument on how to get it done. So to that end,
reinforced by Todd's comment that we don't have that much coming in for the end of the
year, and the levy is done essentially, it certainly seems reasonable to wait and then we
can decide in November what to do for November-December.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah I think it's, other thoughts. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Lundquist.
Well I think it's all our desires, everyone's desire to have a full compliment serving on the
council. You know whenever possible. All the people sitting in these chairs should be
elected, accepted by the voters. It's only if we need to, in the case of a vacancy…and to
Todd's point you know, and also Councilman Peterson stated, you know the need isn't
there right now for us to have to do that. The option always remains but I think the
prudent thing to do, given our proximity to the election, is to continue with the vacancy
as recommended so. So at this point I think that's you know, we don't really need any
action at this point.
Todd Gerhardt: No.
Mayor Furlong: No action required unless someone would like to make a motion but
didn't hear that in anyone's comments so, okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Onto other items, I wanted to thank the Rotary for the number of
Rotarians that volunteered this past Friday and Saturday. Well not this past, August 4th
and 5th in helping the city paint old Village Hall. I think on Friday we had 13 volunteers
and on Saturday about 25, so you drive by old Village Hall and see the paint job there. It
looks great. Hard working group. Grilling hamburgers and potato salad. Didn't grill the
potato salad but…and just wanted, it was a good group of people and it was a great
community project. My son helped out. Tom's kids were there and Todd Hoffman's,
who's the lead project manager from the city on this project, and came with volunteers
and leading the paint and coordinating. Did a great job and I know his kids put a lot of
time and effort in and some of our employees helped scrape on Friday, to get it started.
So that was a nice project and I appreciate the Rotary's efforts. And then we had the
Barkus Parade this past Saturday. If you don't know what the Barkus Parade is, it's
Friends of the Library coordinated a little parade where you dress up your dog in your
favorite book character or cartoon character and parade them in front of family and
friends. We probably had 37 entries and probably about 75 people that came to watch the
event so, it's kind of nice to see those public events that we're not too heavily with, unless
your wife is on that committee and you got to help. But it was a fun event and had
characters like Prince and Mary Poppins and a couple little princesses and it was pretty
neat. So they do a great job. Their third year in doing it so, it looks like they're going to
do it again next year. And that's all I have. Oh! I've got to introduce Laurie Hokkanen.
Councilman Peterson: Oh, by the way.
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
51
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Forget about Laurie. Laurie is our new Assistant City Manager
and she comes to us from the City of Dekalb and Laurie, want to make a few comments
and tell them about your education and background.
Laurie Hokkanen: Sure. As Todd said, my name is Laurie Hokkanen. I did my
undergrad at St. Cloud State. Got a bachelors in public administration. While I was there
had the opportunity to intern in Becker for 2 years. They had a small staff. I got to work
on a library project. Community and economic development and then the assistant
administrator. And then moved to Illinois to pursue my masters at Northern Illinois
University. Interned for a year with the City of Dekalb and then moved into a full time
position. Kind of wore two hats. I was the only full time staff for a regional planning
organization, and then also the transportation planner for the city. Entailed a lot of
project management and grant management. Very happy to be here. I'm looking forward
to working here and thanks for having me.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you and welcome.
Kate Aanenson: It's a long first day.
Mayor Furlong: …utility easement vacations.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I didn't hear if she had a resume on handling the whole like
sound system and…
Roger Knutson: I don't think they told her about that.
Todd Gerhardt: I don't know if any of our candidates have that kind of experience. Get
your masters and go to school, AV is probably not one of the required classes.
Mayor Furlong: Well welcome. We look forward to working with you. Anything else
or questions for Mr. Gerhardt or staff? Any discussion on the correspondence packet?
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom 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 9:45 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
AUGUST 1, 2006
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Dan Keefe, Debbie Larson, and
Kevin Dillon
MEMBERS ABSENT: Deborah Zorn and Mark Undestad
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner;
Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; and Paul Oehme, City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
BOULDER COVE: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) TO RESIDENTIAL LOW & MEDIUM
(RLM), SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES AND A SITE PLAN FOR A ONE,
TWO AND THREE UNIT TOWN HOME COMMUNITY, LOCATED ON
PROPERTY NORTH OF HIGHWAY 7, EAST OF CHURCH ROAD AND
SOUTH OF WEST 62ND STREET, PLANNING CASE NO. 06-10, APPLICANT,
ROGER DERRICK, COTTAGE HOMESTEADS AT BOULDER COVE, LLC,
(120 DAY DEADLINE WAIVED.)
Public Present:
Name Address
Julie Hirsch 6321 Church Road
Dan Torgerson 6185 Strawberry Lane
James Gagnon 26125 Oak Leaf Trail
Lisa Wagner 26145 Oak Leaf Trail
Wade Navratil 3751 West 62nd Street
Stacey Klein 26000 Shorewood Oaks Drive
Kim McReavy 1350 Heather Court
Bill McReavy 3790 Meadow Lane
William Kahman 3780 Meadow Lane
Merlyn Wanous 6231 Church Road
Leah Schneider 26420 West 62nd Street
Jill Biatek 26285 Oak Leaf Trail
Mike & Mary K. Barga 26305 Oak Leaf Trail
Dory & Tom Croskey 26265 Oak Leaf Trail
Marcus Hoffmann 6195 Strawberry Lane
David Igel 501 Big Woods Boulevard
Roger Derrick 11954 Germanic Terrace, Eden Prairie
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
2
Cara Otto Otto Associates
Dan Smock 2475 Crestview Parkway
Henry Vloo Braun Intertec
Carrie Miller 6311 Church Road
Dave Hughes 6311 Church Road
Jacqui Kouba 3520 Highway 7
Mark Plewka 26540 West 62nd Street
Robin Dodson 26540 West 62nd Street
Jeff Jibben 26300 Oak Leaf Trail
Ken Durr 4830 Westgate Road, Minnetonka
Fan Tielking 26225 Oak Leaf Trail
Keith Korinke 6310 Church Road
Becky Finley 6310 Church Road
John M. Hugo 26110 Oak Leaf Trail
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Alyson Fauske addressed
traffic and drainage issues associated with the development. Ray Wuolo with Barr
Engineering talked about hydrology and ground water issues in the area. Commissioner
Papke asked for clarification of the drainage system in the area, and specifically how the
French drainage system works and how the clay liner in the storm water pond will work.
Chairman McDonald asked about the capacity requirements for the storm water ponds.
Commissioner Keefe asked about design criteria for storm water piping and ponds, if
West 62nd Street and Church Road were adequate to handle the additional traffic,
berming, and tree loss. Commissioner Papke asked staff to explain their rationale for
allowing higher hard surface coverage percentages. The applicant, Roger Derrick with
Cottage Homesteads addressed the issues of potential buyers, traffic, drainage, tree
preservation, and price point for the units. Chairman McDonald opened the public
hearing.
Dave Hughes, speaking on behalf of his daughter and husband, Carrie and Mike Miller
who live adjacent to this property, spoke to the drainage problems in the area, suggested
the pond should be moved to the other side of the property, placement of the water line
loop, noise mitigation along Highway 7, and the need for a sidewalk along Church Road.
Tom Croskey, 26265 Oak Leaf Trail, stated he was representing members of the
Shorewood Oaks Association, West 62nd Street and Strawberry Lane residents. He talked
about the need to address drainage in this area, and cited the legal standards for rezoning.
Kenneth Durr, 4830 Westgate Road, Minnetonka and developer of Minnewashta
Landings provided background on the series of storm water ponds that were built in his
development to address the drainage issues from Highway 7 and developments north of
Highway 7. He also had concern with the density of the development in relation to
runoff concerns. Robin Dodson, 26540 West 62nd Street had concerns with traffic and
pedestrian safety on West 62nd Street with the additional traffic being generated by this
development. Kim McReavy,1350 Heather Court opposed the rezoning of the property.
Julie Hirsch, 6321 Church Road, one of the three properties adjacent to this development
noted that the developer was willing to provide T connections to the French drain tile, but
was wondering if they developer could be required to provide the connection to their
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
3
properties and then assume any liabilities that could incur if the drains adversely affect
their properties even more, and/or enhances already existing water issues. Marcus
Hoffman, 6195 Strawberry Lane, which is the house with the driveway adjacent to the
road into this development, expressed concern with traffic on West 62nd Street and
suggested putting a right-in only off of Highway 7 into this development to help with
traffic on West 62nd Street. Wade Navratil who lives on the western boundary of this
property stated he was not opposed to the development but did have concern with the
traffic, drainage and rezoning. Carrie Miller, 6311 Church Road would support the need
for a trail in this area because the development is located between two public parks.
David Igel who lives at 501 Big Woods Boulevard in Chanhassen, but used to live on
Strawberry Lane stated concern with the location of the entrance on the curve of West
62nd Street and Strawberry Lane, and talked about drainage issues. Chairman McDonald
closed the public hearing. After discussion and comments by the commission, the
following motions were made.
Papke moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of Case #06-10 to rezone 12.99 acres of property zoned RSF, Residential Single
Family to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District for the Boulder Cove
as shown on the plans dated received July 7, 2006, and revised July 25, 2006, subject
to the following condition:
1. Lot 22, Block 1, Boulder Cover shall remain under the Residential Single Family
zoning district.
All voted in favor, except Keefe who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of
4 to 1.
Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision Case #06-10 for Boulder Cove for
39 lots and 1 outlot as shown on the plans received July 7, 2006 and revised July 25,
2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat application for staff
review. The revised calculations should include the entire area drained by the north
ditch of Trunk Highway 7 since concentration points have been established at the
inlets of the two existing culverts heading south underneath Trunk Highway 7.
2. The top and bottom of wall elevations must be shown on the final grading plan.
3. The developer will reimburse the City the cost of the Barr analysis upon final plat
approval.
4. Any retaining wall four feet high or taller must be designed by an engineer registered
in the State of Minnesota and requires a building permit.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
4
5. The developer is required to obtain any necessary permits for the sanitary sewer
extension from the Metropolitan Council (sewer connection permit) and the City of
Shorewood (work in right-of-way permit) and West 62nd Street must be restored.
6. Rim and invert elevations of all sanitary and storm sewers must be shown on the final
utility plan.
7. The utility plan must show the existing drainage and utility easements on the Miller
and Navratil properties.
8. The developer shall be responsible for any damage to the Miller’s fence as a result of
the watermain installation.
9. The existing wells and septic systems must be properly removed/abandoned.
10. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed
construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat.
11. The private street must be constructed to a 7-ton design.
12. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in
rear yard areas and bufferyards.
13. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the dripline for tree #71 or as
close to that location as possible. All other tree preservation fencing shall be installed
at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction.
14. All landscape planting shall be field located. No plantings will be allowed within the
dripline of tree #71 or below the NWL of the proposed pond.
15. No evergreens shall be planted in the front yards within a space less than 40 feet in
width between driveways.
16. The grading and the storm sewer alignment shall be shifted as far east as needed in
order to protect and save the evergreens along the westerly property line.
17. Payment of park fees at the rate in force at the time of platting shall be required as a
condition of approval. The 2006 park dedication fees are $5,800 per single family
dwelling, $5,000 for each unit in a duplex, and $3,800 for each unit within a three-plex.
18. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all storm water ponds and
storm water conveyance features outside of the public ROW.
19. The future storm water pond shall be constructed prior to mass grading of the site and
shall be used as a temporary sediment basin. A temporary outlet shall be installed
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
5
(perforated standpipe with rock cone) in the temporary sediment basin. A detail shall
be provided within the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
20. Energy dissipation shall be installed at the flared-end section outlet of the storm water
basin within 24 hours of outlet installation.
21. Area inlets and curbside inlet control (Wimco or similar) shall be installed within 24
hours of inlet installation. A detail shall be provided in the SWPPP.
22. The proposed rock construction entrance shall be a minimum 20 feet in width and 75
feet in length with a filter fabric installed under the rock.
23. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover
year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as
a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or
other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
24. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as needed. A pickup broom shall be used at a minimum of once per
week or as conditions warrant.
25. The plans shall be revised to include a typical erosion control detail for individual lots
and multifamily lots.
26. At this time the total estimated SWMP fees payable upon approval of the final plat
are estimated at $67,384. The applicant will receive a water quality credit of 50% of
the per-acre water quality charge for each acre treated by the on-site pond.
27. 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)) and comply with
their conditions of approval.
28. Building Department conditions:
a. Accessibility must be provided to all portions of the development and a
percentage of the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in
accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
6
information is needed to determine these requirements.
b. Buildings over 8500 square feet of floor area are required to be protected with an
automatic sprinkler system. For the purposes of this requirement property lines
do not constitute separate buildings and the areas of basements and garages are
included in the floor area threshold.
c. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as
determined by the Building Official.
d. The developer must submit a list of proposed street name(s) and an addressing
plan for review and approval prior to final plat of the property.
e. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the
site. Application for such permits must include hazardous substances
investigative and proposed mitigation reports. Existing wells and on-site sewage
treatment systems but be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code.
f. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections
Division before permits can be issued.
g. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-
hour fire-resistive construction.
h. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a
professional engineer.
i. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
j. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early
as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
k. The developer must coordinate the address changes of the two existing homes
with the construction of the development and provide access for emergency
vehicles at all times.
29. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This
is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by
firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
b. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be
installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
7
during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of
protection are provided.
c. Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction
of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire
Code Section 501.4.
d. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the
imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather
driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
e. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs
must either be removed from site or chipped.
f. Fire hydrant spacing is acceptable.
30. All existing buildings on the site, with the exception of the house and garage on lot 22,
block 1, shall be removed.
31. Lot 22, Block 1, shall maintain a maximum hard surface coverage of 25%.
32. Sheets 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall be modified to reflect the new layout of Outlot A.
33. A cross-access easement agreement shall be granted in favor of the property located at
3520 Highway 7.”
34. Work with the developer to resolve the back flow on the drain tile at the vicinity of
the French tile outlet.
35. Work with the developer to see if the additional significant trees can be saved.
All voted in favor, except Keefe who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of
4 to 1.
Papke moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of Site Plan #06-10 to construct 4 threeplexes as shown on the plans dated Received
July 7, 2006 and revised July 25, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall evaluate the potential for wing walls between the patios on the three-
plexes.
2. The three-plexes shall be built as shown on the elevations and floor plans dated received
February 3, 2006.
3. The applicant shall utilize cultured stone on a variety of elevations, i.e. an entire garage
elevation or an entire entryway elevation, rather than stopping at the midpoint of a wall.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
8
The applicant shall also use Hardie board siding versus stucco.
4. The applicant shall submit drawings showing the exterior elevations and materials for the
single-family and duplex units.
All voted in favor, except Keefe who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of
4 to 1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SITE GRADING FOR
THE DISPOSAL OF DIRT FROM THE HIGHWAY 312 CORRIDOR ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1560 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE AND 1425 BLUFF
CREEK DRIVE, AND SOUTH OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY RAIL
CORRIDOR AND BLUFF CREEK DRIVE, PLANNING CASE NO. 06-28,
ZUMBRO RIVER CONSTRUCTORS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Brad Moe 14372 Westridge Drive, Eden Prairie
Mike Billing 312 Lake Hazeltine Drive, Chaska
Cindy Peterson 1161 Bluff Creek Drive
Lindsay Lein 1161 Bluff Creek Drive
Mary Fafiushi 1520 West Farm Road, Chaska
Alyson Fauske presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Dillon asked for an
explanation of why this request was being made. Commissioner Larson asked how the
operation would impact neighboring properties. Commissioner Papke asked staff to
explain how they arrived at the traffic calculations. Commissioner Dillon asked about the
proximity and impact of these sites to the Seminary Fen. Mike Billing with Zumbro
River Contractors addressed the issues of site selection, impact to the fen, and haul
routes. The co-applicant Brad Moe, 14372 Westridge Drive, Eden Prairie, also speaking
on behalf of his father-in-law, Harold Hesse who lives at 1425 Bluff Creek Drive,
Chanhassen, explained why they requested fill be brought onto their property. Chairman
McDonald opened the public hearing. Cindy Peterson, owner of Bluff Creek Inn
expressed concern with Site 2 regarding traffic interfering with guest parking, noise,
compaction of the land affecting their ground water and well, drainage, and the affect on
their business. Chairman McDonald closed the public hearing. After commissioner
comments and discussion, the following motions were made.
Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permits to grade and fill Site 1
(1425 Bluff Creek Drive) in conformance with the grading plans prepared by
Zumbro River Constructors for the site, subject to the following conditions:
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
9
1. “Truck Hauling” signs posted at each end of Bluff Creek Drive.
2. Flag-persons must be on-site during trucking operations.
3. Bluff Creek Drive must be scraped and swept daily.
4. For safety reasons, access to the site should be via West Farm Road. The owner and
applicant are responsible for obtaining permission for this access.
5. A $4,500 escrow must be posted to guarantee the replacement of Bluff Creek Drive
curb and gutter and pavement that is damaged due to the trucking operations at this
site.
6. Hours of operations shall be 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no work allowed on holidays.
7. The site access must be clearly shown on the plan.
8. No fill shall be placed within the Bluff Creek Drive right-of-way.
9. The proposed swale along the southeast edge of the property shall be constructed to
minimize the potential for erosion around existing trees.
10. Each site shall be examined by a professional wetland delineator to determine
whether jurisdictional wetlands exist on-site or within 150 feet of the proposed fill.
Any wetlands that are identified shall be delineated, then reviewed by the City prior
to any work commencing on-site. If the delineation shows the proposed project to
include wetland impact, the applicant shall obtain a wetland alteration permit from the
City prior to wetland impacts occurring.
11. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall
be maintained around any 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 maintain a
setback of at least 40 feet from ag/urban wetland buffer edges.
12. Wetland replacement, if necessary, shall occur in a manner consistent with the
wetland alteration permit and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
13. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover
year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
10
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as
a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or
other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
14. Silt fence shall be installed at the base of all proposed slopes in accordance with
Chanhassen Standard Detail Plates 5300. A rock construction entrance meeting the
specifications of Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5301 shall be installed where truck
traffic will enter and exit Bluff Creek Drive. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public
streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. Wimco-type
inlet protection shall be installed in accordance with Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate
5302A in all catch basins within 200 feet of the proposed project sites and maintained as
needed. The construction plans shall be revised to show the locations of the proposed
silt fence, rock construction entrances and Wimco-type inlet protection and to include
Chanhassen Standard Detail Plates 5300, 5301 and 5302A.
15. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Transportation) and comply with
their conditions of approval. Zumbro River Constructors shall apply for and receive
an amendment to their existing NPDES Phase II Construction Permit for the Trunk
Highway 212 project from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to incorporate a
storm water pollution prevention plan for these sites.
16. The applicant should review proposed slopes and runoff velocities for the site and
provide additional rock checks as an erosion control mechanism if needed. Rock
checks proposed within the right-of-way for Bluff Creek Drive must be reviewed and
approved by the City prior to installation.
All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of
4 to 1.
Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permits to grade and fill Site 3
(1560 Bluff Creek Drive) in conformance with the grading plans prepared by
Zumbro River Constructors for the site, subject to the following conditions:
1. Overland hauling must utilize the existing creek crossing for the Bluff Creek Drive
realignment.
2. No fill shall be placed within the Bluff Creek Drive right-of-way.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
11
3. Hours of operations are 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no work allowed on holidays.
4. Each site shall be examined by a professional wetland delineator to determine
whether jurisdictional wetlands exist on-site or within 150 feet of the proposed fill.
Any wetlands that are identified shall be delineated, then reviewed by the City prior
to any work commencing on-site. If the delineation shows the proposed project to
include wetland impact, the applicant shall obtain a wetland alteration permit from the
City prior to wetland impacts occurring.
5. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall
be maintained around any 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 maintain a
setback of at least 40 feet from ag/urban wetland buffer edges.
6. Wetland replacement, if necessary, shall occur in a manner consistent with the
wetland alteration permit and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
7. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover
year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as
a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or
other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
8. Silt fence shall be installed at the base of all proposed slopes in accordance with
Chanhassen Standard Detail Plates 5300. A rock construction entrance meeting the
specifications of Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5301 shall be installed where truck
traffic will enter and exit Bluff Creek Drive. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public
streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. Wimco-type
inlet protection shall be installed in accordance with Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate
5302A in all catch basins within 200 feet of the proposed project sites and maintained as
needed. The construction plans shall be revised to show the locations of the proposed
silt fence, rock construction entrances and Wimco-type inlet protection and to include
Chanhassen Standard Detail Plates 5300, 5301 and 5302A.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
12
9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Transportation) and comply with
their conditions of approval. Zumbro River Constructors shall apply for and receive
an amendment to their existing NPDES Phase II Construction Permit for the Trunk
Highway 212 project from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to incorporate a
storm water pollution prevention plan for these sites.
10. The applicant should review proposed slopes and runoff velocities for the site and
provide additional rock checks as an erosion control mechanism if needed. Rock
checks proposed within the right-of-way for Bluff Creek Drive must be reviewed and
approved by the City prior to installation.
All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of
4 to 1.
Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends denial of Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permit to grade and fill
properties identified as Site 2 located southwest of Bluff Creek Drive, south of the
Hennepin County Regional Trail Corridor and north of the Bluff Creek Inn. All
voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to
1.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and
summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 18, 2006 as
presented.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:35 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 1, 2006
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Dan Keefe, Debbie Larson, and
Kevin Dillon
MEMBERS ABSENT: Deborah Zorn and Mark Undestad
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner;
Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; and Paul Oehme, City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
BOULDER COVE: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) TO RESIDENTIAL LOW & MEDIUM
(RLM), SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES AND A SITE PLAN FOR A ONE,
TWO AND THREE UNIT TOWN HOME COMMUNITY, LOCATED ON
PROPERTY NORTH OF HIGHWAY 7, EAST OF CHURCH ROAD AND
SOUTH OF WEST 62ND STREET, PLANNING CASE NO. 06-10, APPLICANT,
ROGER DERRICK, COTTAGE HOMESTEADS AT BOULDER COVE, LLC,
(120 DAY DEADLINE WAIVED.)
Public Present:
Name Address
Julie Hirsch 6321 Church Road
Dan Torgerson 6185 Strawberry Lane
James Gagnon 26125 Oak Leaf Trail
Lisa Wagner 26145 Oak Leaf Trail
Wade Navratil 3751 West 62nd Street
Stacey Klein 26000 Shorewood Oaks Drive
Kim McReavy 1350 Heather Court
Bill McReavy 3790 Meadow Lane
William Kahman 3780 Meadow Lane
Merlyn Wanous 6231 Church Road
Leah Schneider 26420 West 62nd Street
Jill Biatek 26285 Oak Leaf Trail
Mike & Mary K. Barga 26305 Oak Leaf Trail
Dory & Tom Croskey 26265 Oak Leaf Trail
Marcus Hoffmann 6195 Strawberry Lane
David Igel 501 Big Woods Boulevard
Roger Derrick 11954 Germanic Terrace, Eden Prairie
Cara Otto Otto Associates
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
2
Dan Smock 2475 Crestview Parkway
Henry Vloo Braun Intertec
Carrie Miller 6311 Church Road
Dave Hughes 6311 Church Road
Jacqui Kouba 3520 Highway 7
Mark Plewka 26540 West 62nd Street
Robin Dodson 26540 West 62nd Street
Jeff Jibben 26300 Oak Leaf Trail
Ken Durr 4830 Westgate Road, Minnetonka
Fan Tielking 26225 Oak Leaf Trail
Keith Korinke 6310 Church Road
Becky Finley 6310 Church Road
John M. Hugo 26110 Oak Leaf Trail
Al-Jaff: Good evening Chairman McDonald, members of the Planning Commission. As
Chairman McDonald mentioned earlier, the applicant is requesting a rezoning, a
subdivision with variances, and a site plan approval for property located north of
Highway 7, east of Church Road, south of West 62nd Street. Access to the site is
proposed off of a cul-de-sac off of West 62nd Street. The first request before the Planning
Commission is the fact that this property right now is zoned residential single family.
The applicant is requesting to rezone it to residential low medium density district. The
proposed density for this subdivision is gross density of 2.85 or a net density of 3.32 units
per acre. The comprehensive plan allows 1.2 to 4 units per acre. The proposed rezoning
is consistent with the comprehensive plan and meets the low density criteria. Another
thing that I need to point out that the Planning Commission needs to decide if they are
going to allow the rezoning, then the rest of the application would then be decided.
However, if you choose not to approve the rezoning, then the remainder of the
application is moot. With that said, the applicant is proposing to replat 13.69 acres into
39 lots and one outlot. 11 of the lots will house single family homes, and they are shown
in yellow. 16 will house duplexes. Right here. And 12 will have three-plexes. The
outlot will contain a storm pond and a gazebo. There are variances attached to this
application dealing with the length of the cul-de-sac. The ordinance requires cul-de-sacs
not to exceed 800 feet in length. This cul-de-sac is 1,200 feet. The second variance deals
with the private street. These two homes will be sharing access and at any time when you
have more than one home utilizing a street, it becomes a private street and it requires a
variance from the subdivision ordinance. Both of those variances are dealing with safety
issues, specifically access off of Highway 7. Alyson will be addressing the traffic and the
drainage issues later on and she will get into these two variances and justifications for
them further. All of the lots meet the minimum requirements of the residential low and
medium density district as far as lot area, width and depth. There is a single family home
that currently exists on the site, as well as several accessory buildings. Everything is
proposed to be demolished with exception of the single family home. That will remain
on the site. Staff is also recommending that this lot remains zoned residential single
family. One of the things that the applicant submitted was the design of the three-plexes,
specifically the exterior. It is proposed to have brick, stucco and vinyl lap siding.
Although all of those materials are permitted under the city code, we believe that it is
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
3
dated and we worked with the applicant and requested that they change the material,
exterior material to a Hardie board siding versus stucco and then also use stone. The
applicant made both of those changes, so this is the exterior stone that will be used on the
elevations. And the variety of the Hardie board that will be used on the exterior of the
building. There are also shutters. That will be the color of the shutters, and then the
frames around the windows will be the white. The applicant also submitted a sample of
the shingles that will be used on the exterior of the building. One of the requests that we
made, a condition of approval of this application was if the stone was used, or the Hardie
board, that it doesn’t stop mid way on any of the elevations but rather continue it all the
way to the top and the revised elevations that the applicant has submitted shows the stone
continuing to the roof basically. And then the Hardie board. And it’s alternating so it’s
giving each building some dimension. And it’s a much better design. At this point I
would like to turn it over to Alyson. Have her address the drainage, which has been a
concern of the neighbors in the surrounding area. As well as traffic.
Fauske: Good evening Chair McDonald. Planning Commissioners. We’ve been
working a lot with this developer to address some concerns that some of the residents in
the area have come up with. One of them being surface drainage. What we have here,
and there’s some extra copies available since it’s sometimes hard to see this up on the
screen. But what I have here is an exhibit showing the existing and proposed drainage
areas, and the reason we thought that it was important to do this with this project is that a
few of the residents have addressed staff with concerns with the amount of runoff coming
to their property so we wanted to have an exhibit showing what’s there right now and
what is proposed with this development. The area in yellow here at the top on this
exhibit here, and down here, show the area that drains to the north up into Shorewood.
The area in the green here, and this area right here, shows the area draining to the west.
The area in the pink here and the pink here shows the area draining to the south. And
then in the post development condition only, this area in blue is the area that goes to the
pond, the proposed pond on the south side. So what we wanted to do is just to show that
the actual area draining over land to these properties will be decreased. On page 6 of
your report you can find these exhibits in a narrative. Staff wanted to clarify, at the
bottom of page 6, the last paragraph should read that, the table below summarizes the
existing and proposed surface runoff conditions which indicate that the area draining off
site, the volume of the runoff and the peak discharge rate to the north and west will be
reduced. We have some changes that will be incorporated into that table to reflect some
changes that we’ve requested the developer’s engineer to incorporate in this area, the
ditch drainage along Highway 7 and also to have a better representation of the flow
characteristics of the outflow of that pond, so we’ll be revising that table to show a more
realistic post development condition, but the applicant is meeting the requirement that the
post discharge, the post development discharge rates to the south do not exceed pre-
development conditions, which is what’s required by ordinance so apologize for that but
just wanted to make sure that the Planning Commission knew of what changes we would
be putting into the report to provide a more clear report there. The exhibit shows here,
the proposed, the majority of the proposed development will be surface draining or
draining to storm water, to storm sewer that will go to the storm water pond on the
southwest corner. The challenge with this project is the overflow elevation at the south
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
4
end here to the Highway 7 ditch. That elevation is fixed. We’re trying to get it as low as
possible. MnDot, we looked at all the grades through this ditch here and set this overflow
elevation as low as possible so that we could try to get the high water elevation of this
pond as low as possible. So that was a fixed condition that we’ve had to work with. And
what we looked at in conjunction with this overflow condition is, the characteristics
associated with having a pond here, with these existing 3 homes to the west, we had the
developer had a consultant take a look at the condition. Come up with a proposal. In
turn staff had Barr Engineering and Ray Wuolo with Barr Engineering is here tonight and
he’ll be addressing the ground water issues here with you just in a moment. So that we
could have clarification from staff’s consultant that what they were proposing would be
consistent, would provide a measure of protection for these existing homes due to this
pond so if Ray could come up here, he’ll give you an overview of what we looked at with
this pond and with respect to the 3 homes on the west side.
Ray Wuolo: Thanks Alyson. Members of the commission. My name is Ray Wuolo and
I’m with Barr Engineering and the City asked me to take a look what the drainage pond
would do to ground water levels there. This is a somewhat atypical situation from what I
normally look at in that the ground water, the normal ground water elevation here would
be equal to the normal pond elevation, which is 969 feet, and during a 100 year storm
event, temporarily the pond water would bounce up a little bit higher. About to 971. I
did an analysis, a ground water modeling analysis to figure out what that would do to the
ground water levels in the area, and my analysis found out that there would be a very
small and temporary increase in ground water levels in the vicinity of the pond, but there
would be some, and as I understand it, the City has a requirement that you have to have at
least 3 feet of separation between the lowest floor elevation and ground water. In this
situation here the adjacent homes are at an elevation right now that’s, their bottom floor
elevation is equal to the normal ground water elevation. So any increase in pond
elevation is going to not meet that variance requirement. Putting in a clay liner in the
pond would have the effect of absolutely having no effect on ground water. In other
words the water going in the pond would not be an interaction with the ground water, so
there wouldn’t be any changes in water level but you would still have the situation there
where the existing conditions are less than 3 foot separation between the existing lowest
floor elevations.
Keefe: So if that just for the homes to the west then or is that also the homes in the new
development?
Ray Wuolo: It’s the homes to the west. The existing homes, yeah.
McDonald: Could you explain a little bit more to the impact of this 3 foot separation and
what it actually means.
Ray Wuolo: Yeah. Well what it normally, my understanding is the City has this 3 foot
separation and most communities in the metro area have this requirement of having 3 foot
of separation between the highest ground water level. Actually the highest water level of
the pond adjacent to it and the bottom elevation. The reason that they have that is
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
5
because many surface water features are connected to ground water. If you have a storm
event and you have an increase in the pond elevation, that can cause a rise in the water
level in the ground, and that can rise up into people’s basements. It can cause wet
basement problems. It can cause sometimes failure, so the 3 feet of separation is a
protective measure. In this case that 3 feet doesn’t exist to begin with.
McDonald: Okay, and is that because what you’re suggesting is this clay liner will,
within the pond so that any increase there doesn’t impact the ground water?
Ray Wuolo: Exactly.
Fauske: Mr. Chair if I could interject for a moment. With regards to when staff looked at
this application initially, when we first consulted with Mr. Wuolo and we were looking at
the 3 foot separation requirement, but we first started looking at the analysis, we spoke to
the city attorney regarding the 3 foot separation requirement and what the city attorney
advised us is that the 3 foot separation as we currently have it in our ordinance is for new
structures only. And so what we were looking at with this development is an existing
condition where the low floors are set at an elevation, as Mr. Wuolo stated, an elevation
below that high water level by our ordinance. It came about after we started looking at
this analysis, like I said from the city attorney that this requirement does not apply to the
existing homes. But as we’ll explain in a moment here, what the developer is trying to do
to remedy the situation that exists currently.
Keefe: Is there a lateral, or a distance apart that has an impact associated with that
condition? So I mean how far away is the pond from those homes?
Ray Wuolo: The pond is sufficiently far that the pond won’t have an affect on increasing
the water levels. But nevertheless, the existing water levels are already at the floor
elevation.
Keefe: Right, okay.
McDonald: Are you finished with your part of it then?
Fauske: If you have no other questions about ground water, we just brought Mr. Wuolo
here because he is a ground water expert. We did have him do the analysis for that
section.
McDonald: I’ll bring it back to the commissioners. Do you want to ask questions of the
city’s expert now or do we want to save our questions and ask everything at the end of
the presentation?
Papke: I don’t know if this is a question for Alyson or Mr. Wuolo but if, when the pond
does get into an overflow condition, where does the water go to? I guess it goes to the
ditch along Highway 7. Where does that drain to, and in the staff report there is a
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
6
mention of a French drain. Could you explain what that is? How it works and if that has
any impact on the discussion?
Fauske: Certainly I could. The overflow is approximately at this location in the
southwest corner. The overflow of the pond goes into the Highway 7 ditch, and there’s
some, there’s two culverts that go under the Highway 7 to the Ken Durr development to
the south, Minnewashta Landings. Those are the post development discharge rates that
we had to be left them, the existing discharge rate. With respect to the French drain, as I
mentioned earlier, what I touched on was, what staff looked at doing and what the
developer was, is proposing here is to put a French drain system along the west side of
this pond. Essentially a French drain is simply a rock bed. They’re going to set that
elevation. The bottom of the rock will be 3 feet below the low floor elevation for these
homes and will have a perforated pipe in there and that French drain will extend along the
west property line, along the south of this property within an easement, and then will…
will discharge to the existing Highway 7 ditch. And so that was a measure that the
developer is proposing to help remediate the problems that exist out there with the
existing ground water elevation being so high.
McDonald: Okay. Is this kind of a back up to you know if the water level gets to a
certain point that it would start to effect the houses to the west, it will go through here
and would mitigate any flow to the west?
Fauske: It’s a back up measure in that respect but more importantly it’s lowering the
existing ground water elevation in that area.
Papke: Almost like a drain tile system in effect.
Fauske: Correct.
Papke: Just to carry it to completion here. When the water flows through the culverts
underneath Highway 7, I assume it eventually ends up in Lake Minnewashta?
Fauske: Yes it does.
Papke: Pretty directly or how does it get there?
Fauske: There’s a series of storm water ponds in Minnewashta Landings that we actually
have a consultant taking a look at that system to make sure that there were some issues
that came up during last year’s storms, as it did throughout the whole city, so we’re doing
our due diligence to see that those ponds were designed properly for the runoff, for the
runoff characteristics going to it. But as it pertains to this development here, this
development is treating the runoff generated from their site, on site and so it’s merely a
question of the peak discharge rate requirement being met, which it does.
McDonald: I’ve got a question for you about the capacity of the pond and what all this
means, and I’m not sure if that’s for you or the consultant, but it was stated that the
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
7
normal level would be 969 and it could go up as much as 971. What kind of volume are
we talking about to get up to that? What kind of a storm event would have to happen to
raise the pond 3 inches?
Fauske: That’s the 100 year event. That’s the requirement for what we call the live
storage, which is the difference from your normal water and your high water is your live
storage for the 100 year event.
McDonald: Okay. And during the past couple years we’ve had a number of storms in
that area, because drainage is a big concern. How do those storm compare with the 100
year event? How would this pond system work in that particular case?
Fauske: A 100 year event is described as 6 inches of precipitation over a 24 hour period.
To give you an idea of how that falls with last year’s storms. The September storm was 4
inches in, I believe it was 2 hours or perhaps 3 or 4. So that certainly exceeded the
design criteria for 100 year event. And the October storm wasn’t as intense, but was
around the same intensity as the September storm, so those certainly exceeded the design
standards for 100 year event.
McDonald: Okay. And one of the things too, has the City looked, because we had a
number of people come in after that, there were some other developments and one of the
big complaints that I heard then was the system going from the north side of Highway 7
into Lake Minnewashta under those culverts. That there had been some problems there.
What are we looking at to alleviate that so that that doesn’t back up and cause additional
problems to this development.
Fauske: The culverts at this location or further to the west?
McDonald: Okay.
Fauske: There’s certainly several culverts that go under Highway 7. I can’t tell you the
number. I only know that there’s the 2 at this location. What we had the developer do is
include some, as I mentioned, one of the reasons we need to update the table on page 7 is
to include drain, pardon me, the area of the drainage ditch on the north side of Highway 7
so that our consultant will have better data to model those ponds downstream. We also
have, because it’s a MnDot road, the applicant is required to get permission from MnDot.
They have to submit their drainage calculations to MnDot, and we just heard today that
MnDot has reviewed their proposal and is okay with their design so there’s certainly a lot
of checks and balances, not only with the City but with MnDot to ensure that the
discharge rates going through those pipes is not excessive.
McDonald: Okay.
Papke: One last question before we’re done with the pond. If we put a clay liner in here,
obviously that’s to prevent too much ground water from leaking out. One would think
that that would make it more impermeable and you’re going to have less inflow into the
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
8
ground period, and so if we had another situation like last year where you had storms in
reasonable succession, would it be safe to assume that we’re raising the risk a little bit of
it overflowing from multiple events just because we’re not going to get seepage into the
ground. As much seepage into the ground as we would without the clay liner.
Fauske: And if I could, I don’t know. I think when we were asking Ray about that is, do
we, is there a system that warrants a clay liner and please correct me if I’m wrong. My
understanding is that, the nature of the soils at this location based on the soil boring
information is that a clay liner would not be any more beneficial.
Ray Wuolo: That’s right. A clay liner is really a deminamus impact. It’s sort of the belt
and suspenders approach. The soils are relatively impermeable and the applicant’s
engineer did their calculations on sizing the pond, assuming there was no seepage at all.
Papke: I was a little confused because it sounded like we were going to be putting in a
clay liner.
McDonald: That was what, that was my understanding too.
Fauske: Any other questions on drainage that I could answer at this time?
McDonald: Well I think, I guess this is about drainage. What we’re talking about here is
you’re going to build up the soil in this area so that you redirect the drainage from what it
currently is, and I read it in the report, and this is where I guess I thought we were talking
about putting clay down, or something but we’re going to be raising the elevation in
certain areas to redistribute the water. Is that, is that correct?
Fauske: Yes and no. They are bringing fill into the site. The reason they’re bringing fill
into the site is to provide building pads and to get drainage to work on the site. It’s a very
challenging site because you’re fully encompassed to the north, south, east and west. But
what they’re doing with bringing in fill, the reason the drainage areas are being
minimized, as you see here, is because of the installation of storm sewer. So instead of,
in this condition for example when we look at the yellow area going to the north, it’s high
along this ridge here, if you follow my pen, and it drains overland here. Whereas in the
proposed condition it mimics the same characteristics here. But the reason it’s such a
tiny sliver here is because storm sewer is being installed along the property line to
capture that surface water runoff. So it’s no longer going towards, north towards
Shorewood. It’s being captured by the storm sewer, which goes to the west, to the south
and empties into the storm pond. Likewise, with this green area here, which currently
drains to the west, as you can see here the developer is pretty much all but eliminate the
surface runoff going there because they will be putting a storm sewer and not perforated
drainage tile along the west side here to capture that runoff so that it won’t exit to the
west off the site.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
9
McDonald: It sounds like what we’re depending upon, so we’re going to catch the water
that would normally flow to the north, to the west and to the south and we’re just going to
redirect it by using a storm sewer system.
Fauske: A storm sewer for the most part and also from grades, particularly along this
southern portion of the property.
McDonald: Right, so it isn’t so much a topography type of a redistribution. We’re just
going to put systems in place to capture the water.
Fauske: Correct.
Keefe: Okay just for clarity, these ponds are designed for 100 year storm events, is that
right?
Fauske: Storm sewer is designed to a 10 year standard. And the reason being is to
design to a 100 year standard gets to be excessive pipe sizes. You get a very large
diameter pipe. It has to go deeper. The costs just for the city, from the city’s aspect, it
goes through the roof as far as maintenance concerns. So the standard engineering
practice is a 10 year design for storm sewer. A 100 year design for storm ponds. When
we look at the emergency overflows to the road here come back into the pond so we do
have that extra measure, which is what we call the emergency overflow, so if this storm
sewer is inundated in a larger event, or if a catch basin cover gets plugged, we can look at
what the overflow route is for that storm water runoff and make sure it’s getting to an
appropriate area.
Keefe: So let me ask you the question, if we do have a big event, will there be more
water draining, that exceeds the 10 year sizing. Will we have more water flowing to the
north or will we have less?
Fauske: There could be some water going to the north, under.
Keefe: But would it be worst than the current condition?
Fauske: No.
Keefe: No. Okay.
McDonald: Any other questions on this subject? Thank you Alyson.
Fauske: I’ll go through the streets at this time too. First of all we wanted to look at the
access to Highway 7, which has been a topic of discussion quite a bit with this project.
When staff first started looking at this, we realized with MnDot controlling access to
Highway 7, that we would have, that MnDot looks at this development and their
comment is, wherever possible new development should access from a local road system.
So when they took a look at this proposal, they said West 62nd Street, Strawberry Lane
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
10
are existing road conditions that could, this development could connect to. What we
looked at is historically what other developments along the Highway 7 corridor have
gone in and what have we done for accessing these situations. Moving east to west we
have Boyer Lake Minnewashta, which is this development in this hatched area here.
They attain access from existing local street systems. Boulder Cove is here. Hidden
Creek Meadows actually got access from this Hidden Creek development. The Hidden
Creek development was a unique one where they were connecting to existing Pipewood
Curve, and the existing Pipewood Curve access at this location was an unsafe intersection
and so what they did is they closed off this intersection to Highway 7 and built a new one
here at a new location where sight distances and sight lines were better. So when we look
at the development along the Highway 7 corridor we haven’t had a new access onto
Highway 7. The other benefit of looking at the proposed street accesses that we get 4
existing accesses off Highway 7. These are a single family if you will access to a single
property versus a street. You know there have been discussions of, you know there’s 4
accesses off Highway 7 within this development with this property to the east. Why can’t
we use one of those? Well it’s not the same type of access. The 4 existing accesses are
for a single resident only. Actually 2 are for 1 property and then 1 each for the remaining
2 versus looking at a brand new development with you know 38 units accessing at that
location. So we looked at that. We also looked at the city codes access spacing
requirement. So having a full access here on Highway 7 would not have met the city
access spacing requirement along Highway 7. And then the other point we wanted to
make was, MnDot is interested in putting a signal, once it meets warrants as far as traffic
counts, our concern at this location of Church Road and Minnewashta Parkway, they did
a count in December, 2005. Currently it does not meet counts for a signalized
intersection. But we certainly want traffic to be diverted to this Church Road intersection
so that people will have a safe way to enter onto Highway 7. So those are all issues that
we looked at when gaining access to Boulder Cove, and why we didn’t pursue a
connection to Highway 7. When we looked at the proposal of the local street, the
intersection of the street is at, when we were looking at the location of the local street
intersection to West 62nd Street and to Strawberry Lane, we looked at some alternatives
and the issue through there is that it’s an existing curved road. As you can see up in
through here. It’s an existing curved road. And we wanted to make sure that it was at the
location that would make sense as far as sight distances so people entering and exiting
this development would have adequate sight distance. So for example a vehicle taking a
left out of this development would be able to see southbound Strawberry Lane traffic. So
that was something that we were very cognizant of when we started looking at where this
should access. There’s been discussions that Sharmeen brought up previously about the
cul-de-sac length. The city ordinance limits the cul-de-sac length to 800 feet. This
proposal is 1,200 feet. The staff is supportive of this variance because, as we already
mentioned and as we’ve already discussed, to have a through street onto Highway 7
doesn’t meet access requirements. It doesn’t meet MnDot’s requirements for granting an
access. So there were limitations as far as extending that street. Another issue that staff
looks at when we came up with that 800 foot cul-de-sac length, maximum cul-de-sac
length is the concern with treating a long dead end of watermain. When you have a long
dead end of watermain, the users at the end tend to get water that’s sitting in the pipe.
It’s not moving around. It’s not being circulated. However in this proposal there will be a
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
11
watermain connection that would be jacked under Highway 7 here and so it would be
looping the watermain through the site so that eliminates that one concern that comes
with limiting the cul-de-sac length. And then lastly, when we first started looking at this
proposal we had residents of Shorewood coming in and giving us calls about the traffic
on Strawberry Lane. The developer has hired TDI Engineering to take a look at the trip
generations. Staff also did an analysis in your packets there to take a look at what the
proposed traffic volumes would be from this site, which shows that if this was a single
family development, it would have very similar traffic volumes, both for total traffic and
for peak a.m. and p.m.. There’s a very slight variation but all in all it’s pretty similar.
Mr. Derrick has indicated that this type of product tends to be more towards the senior
housing which would be lower traffic volumes, but staff felt that we should just present it
to you as the proposal so we came up with those numbers using the trip generation
manual. In addition to looking at traffic volumes, the developer’s engineering, traffic
engineer took a look at where the traffic from this project would go. And their analysis,
this is the proposed development here. This is Highway 7. What they looked at, there
was, this purple here shows this, if there was a shortcut route. It’s not really a shortcut
route through the Shorewood neighborhood. In red here it shows going West 62nd to
Church Road. The developer’s traffic engineer took a look and estimates that 85% of the
traffic from this development will go West 62nd to Church Road and only 15% would use
Strawberry Lane for destinations north. So we wanted to have that information available
for you this evening so that you can get an idea of what volume of traffic would be
generated from this site, and where that traffic would be going.
Keefe: How do they determine that? Do you know?
Fauske: What’s that?
Keefe: How do you they determine that split?
Fauske: They take a look at what amenities lie within a certain area. They certainly
would have factored into the count that there’s a school up here. They look at, is there
any commercial development that would draw traffic from this location? And they look
at designs of streets and the speeds that people can take. They’re going to take the faster
route that they can so, those are all factors. One last comment before I’m done up here is,
this resident at this location here has expressed concern regarding the location of this
street connection with his driveway. Chanhassen requires for a corner lot a 30 foot
separation. And when we talked to the city attorney about this he said, his response was
that in the City of Chanhassen ordinances cannot be applied to the City of Shorewood,
and likewise the City of Shorewood ordinances cannot be applied within the City of
Chanhassen. So we came up with a situation where you know what do we look at doing
and when we take a look at this situation, the edge of the street to the edge of this
driveway is approximately 40 feet. So it meets the spirit of the Chanhassen ordinance,
which is 30 feet of separation and meets somewhat…to the Shorewood ordinance which
is 40 feet of separation. So we were at that gray area where we have overlapping cities
and we can’t apply our code to each other’s city so when we took a step back and said,
what are these city codes trying to achieve? Well they’re trying to achieve a separation
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
12
from a road to a driveway, which is what this is in spirit achieving so. Those are the
issues that we came up with during the traffic analysis and if you have any questions
about that I would be happy to answer.
McDonald: Want to start?
Keefe: I’ve got a question. Who’s, West 62nd, is that a Chanhassen road or is it a
Shorewood road or is that, and the question on that is just, you know I’m kind of buying
the analysis which was included in the report in terms of the mix of housing. The
question I have is just in terms of the size of that road and the quality of that road and if
you’re going to generate 85% of your traffic going westbound on 62nd and then taking
that sharp turn down Church, are the roads, 62nd you know an adequate road?
Fauske: They’re not built to the current standards.
Keefe: Yeah.
Fauske: We can’t require, we’re in a situation where we have a street reconstruction
program in place. Ultimately we’d like to get every street up to standards. It will be a
long process. This one isn’t even scheduled in here. To answer your question, the road
lies partially in Chanhassen and partially in Shorewood, so typically in these situations
the normal, a county road, we’re in a situation where it’s a local street and I believe
Chanhassen, I mean no. Shorewood. Shorewood plows West 62nd Street. They have in
this area of the city they have a, our streets department works with Shorewood to figure
out who will be maintaining roads and so. Ultimately we look at these situations.
Certainly you know when traffic volumes get to be higher and when we look at the
conditions of roads for reconstruction or for widening, we certainly try to program those
improvements and where it was possible.
McDonald: Okay. Debbie, no questions? Kevin?
Dillon: Not at this time.
McDonald: Kurt.
Papke: Questions or…
McDonald: I’d say everything at this point.
Papke: Okay. Let’s see, I think the only traffic issues, as long as you’re still standing up
Alyson is, the report from MnDot was kind of a good news, bad news story. The good
news is they like getting rid of those local driveways going out onto Highway 7. That’s
the good news. The only piece of bad news I saw was they did raise an issue with the
noise directly adjacent to Highway 7. There was a concern that it would exceed
standards. Could you or Sharmeen go over the berming plan? Are we going to do
anything to mitigate that noise or what’s the strategy there?
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
13
Fauske: I can partially answer your question with respect to grades. The grading plan
does show some berming along the south side here and I believe the landscape plan
shows some trees planting along through there to screen them from the noise.
Papke: What’s the height of the berm?
Fauske: The height of the berm, if we move along from here, it swales down. Well this
one isn’t much. This one will be at grade. Average 3 feet, yeah. Yeah, 1 here. A foot or
so here.
Al-Jaff: There is also.
Audience: 3 feet above 7 or 3 feet above the existing houses?
Fauske: Well if we looked, that’s a very good question. The question was, is it 3 feet
above 7 or is it 3 feet above the houses. When we look at this location, the street
elevation is at a 74 and the top of the berm is at a 78 so we have a 4 foot differential from
the street to the berm. At this location you’re at 2 feet difference. And at this location
you’re probably about 3 feet. The berm is 3 feet higher than the road.
Papke: It looks like we might have some noise issues there. My last question isn’t so
much a traffic issue or anything. It has to do with the rezoning, and clearly going through
the RLM meets the density standards, and no issues there. I guess my concern is, it does
create a relaxation of the hard surface coverage which is why I was querying Sharmeen
today, and Sharmeen you did a great job on providing a table of all the hard surface and
so on, and I guess given our surface water management plan that’s in the approval
process and the desire to protect Lake Minnewashta, you know it would say that we
should be conservative. On the other hand we’ve heard, it sounds like we’re going to, the
water’s going to be pretty well treated to death by the time it hits the lake. I mean it’s
going to go through a series of cascading ponds here. But I guess, I still have this little
nagging thing in the back of my brain about are we doing something here we shouldn’t be
with you know relaxing the hard surface coverage? And I know the City’s
comprehensive plan, and maybe you can explain to me. It doesn’t seem like it directly
mandates anything in this area. I mean it says low density, okay, and RLM is low
density, but there’s a radical change in the hard surface coverage, and that’s one of the
things that we’ve been kind of sticklers on here. I mean we’ve had other developments
around Lake Minnewashta where we’ve ruled with kind of an iron fist about thou shalt
not go beyond 25% and here, all of a sudden we’re hitting 35, 36 percent hard surface
coverage on some of these lots. And it, can you guys address that at all? I mean am I
worried about nothing at all or is, you know any guidance on that?
Al-Jaff: It is a valid point and we do look at that issue in depth, and when Bob and I were
working on creating that zoning district, that’s one of the things that we looked at in
depth actually. Often what you see is units located within smaller lots and then,
especially within a case such as this when you have a mix of single, duplexes and three-
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
14
plexes and then the surrounding area is open space. Often outlots maintained by
homeowners associations. The overall hard surface coverage is still within limits. I don’t
have the exact number as to what the hard surface coverage is.
Papke: Does it average out to less than 25?
Al-Jaff: It’s around the, it’s at 25%. It’s in that range. And always keep in mind that we
design ponds to accommodate that specific hard surface coverage.
Papke: Right. Right, okay. That’s all I have.
McDonald: Kind of following up, if I can just add to what you’ve asked there. Is it
possible for us to get something so that we have a feel for the exact numbers? You’re
saying a little bit and it’s close to but you know, is the 25% overall, is it, I’m just trying
to get a feel for the numbers because this is an important issue.
Al-Jaff: Absolutely. What I did was, I gave you a breakdown for the individual lots.
What the hard surface coverage was going to be on individual lots. And if you look at
them, the majority of those lots are below the 25%. I mean some of them are as low as
10% hard surface coverage.
McDonald: As I understand it, going to this subdivision approach we now look at the
total area, and that’s one of the advantages to a developer is that we’re no longer looking
at individual lots but we do tend to look at the total area and so then, that’s where the
numbers could begin to look better?
Generous: Mr. Chairman, that’s only through the PUD process that we’re allowed to
average it. However, under this zoning district that was part of the intent. We were
looking to have common open space to make up that difference and by going to smaller
lots we would probably maintain the average. But each lot has to meet the site coverage
for that. For single family it’s 35. For twins it’s 40 and for the triplex it’s 50% coverage
on the individual lot.
Al-Jaff: May I also that, you will notice that on three-plexes the percentages go higher.
The middle one is the middle lot on a three-plex is where you have the highest percentage
of hard surface coverage. You look at the side lot, and the hard surface coverage drops
drastically.
McDonald: Okay yeah, I’m not going to belabor the point. I think you got your point
across. I just wanted some clarification on that.
Keefe: I just have a couple questions. One, can you, there is a berm on the north side of
this property. At least part of it. A small berm it looked like right, kind of where the
road comes in to Strawberry Lane and West 62nd. Is that going to be, remain there or is
that going to continue further along? On the north side of that.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
15
Fauske: I believe the area you’re referring to is this location, right before the curve in
Strawberry Lane?
Keefe: Yeah, doesn’t it continue a little bit on the west? To the east there as well.
Fauske: There is somewhat, yes.
Keefe: Yeah, okay. But there’s nothing along the, from the, go east of where you are.
On the other side of the road. There’s nothing along there? Along that house.
Fauske: The grades do go up at this location. In through here. What the developer has
for example at this location here. This is a high point, so it drains from this point north.
And then from this point to the south. What they’ve tried to do is, they have to match
into the grades on site. They don’t show any off site grading that I saw on the plan, so
that’s the challenge is meeting those grades.
Keefe: Okay. It looks like the plan is to mass grade this piece of property and you know,
I was out there walking. I mean there are a number of trees on there that seem to be
fairly significant trees that are getting taken out and I don’t know, were there
consideration of that? I mean there’s some, like 48 inch oak trees which are coming
down and, can you speak to that at all in terms of what was considered there? What the
sort of overall strategy was. I mean I went through the tree inventory plan and I’m going
well why is this one coming out? Why is this one coming out? I mean I think my
overall, my overall take on that would be, I’d like to have some reconsideration of some
of the trees that are slated to be taken out. And I know they all said fair but I mean, and
I’m not a tree expert. I’m looking at it and going, maybe it is fair but it looks like a pretty
good tree to me.
Al-Jaff: Jill Sinclair, who is the City Forester, went out to the site. Walked it and
examined these trees, and believe me if there is a tree that needs to be saved, she’ll bring
it to my attention and make sure that we do everything that we can to save it. She did
comment that quite a few of the trees are not healthy.
Keefe: Well there’s some lousy trees out there, and I mean it’s pretty clear you know but
on the other hand, there seemed to be a number that at least I observed, just looking at
them that are like so. This isn’t in the pond. This isn’t in a house. This isn’t in a
driveway. This is sitting back here…decent tree. You know I guess my point is just to
sort of re-look at it.
Al-Jaff: Absolutely.
Keefe: Yeah.
Al-Jaff: There is one tree here that is an oak that will definitely be saved. And there are
a few along the property line that will definitely be saved as well.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
16
Keefe: Okay. And then the last question I have is, is there any plan for a path going
west? They’re all on 62nd. I mean one of the nice things about taking the driveways off,
and not having access to 7 is, you know from a safety perspective I think you know, it’s a
nice thing. But then you redirect some of that traffic onto the local streets, which may
degrade some of the safety on those local streets and you know, we do have kids here and
I know there are kids in the other neighborhood, for them getting to the Cathcart Park.
You know 62nd you’ve got more traffic on it.
Al-Jaff: I had this conversation with the, Todd Hoffman, the Park and Recreation
Director and there are no plans at this time to put any trails. One of the reasons why we
did not require.
Keefe: Dedication.
Al-Jaff: Dedication of trails, or land on this subdivision. We didn’t require the sidewalks
either.
Keefe: Yeah.
Al-Jaff: Because they would be going nowhere.
McDonald: I guess I’ve got a couple questions for Alyson. When we go back to look at
the access. Who controls access to Highway 7? How much input does the City actually
have in those types of decisions?
Fauske: It’s MnDot controls the access along Highway 7.
McDonald: Okay. And then when we look at the cul-de-sacs, I seem to recall that we
have violated the 800 foot for a couple of other cul-de-sacs for good reason. Am I correct
in that?
Fauske: The 800 foot maximum length requirement came about after, I think the Settlers
West subdivision on the border of Eden Prairie. There have been several developments
where the cul-de-sac lengths have exceeded 800 feet, but those pre-date the ordinance of
800 feet. That was just passed last December I believe.
McDonald: Okay, and again you’re saying the main reason for the 800 feet was because
normally water comes in at the top of a cul-de-sac and what you’re looking at is quality
of water for the bottom?
Fauske: We look at a variety of things. One is water. Water quality. Certainly we look
to connect streets wherever possible. Staff, when we look at this to connect the street
back over to Church, there’s no right-of-way to do that. There’s existing single family
homes. We’re not, the north and to the east are the same challenges, and access to 7 is
controlled via MnDot so there wasn’t really an opportunity to connect the road through.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
17
McDonald: Okay. No one has any further questions of staff or the consultant, I’ll ask the
applicant to come forward.
Roger Derrick: Good evening. My name is Roger Derrick. My company is Cottage
Homesteads. A lot of the questions were kind of answered because I can tell that some of
the questions really the answers need to be elaborated on a little bit. Before I get into that
though I just wanted to say that, for the past 15 years we’ve been developing one level
townhome communities around the state, and mostly senior citizen. Some open to
anybody. We have done some two level. We’ve done other developments too, but we’ve
done quite a few of the one level in the Twin Cities and then Rochester and Austin and
Mankato and Duluth and other communities. The reason I bring that up is because today,
not only Chanhassen but other communities are kind of tired of townhouses because
there’s probably too many after the last 10 years of being built, and I think you drive
down Highway 5 and you know you’re going to see them all over the place. And what
we’re trying to do is something different. Suggesting to go one level. Not two level, and
this doesn’t just mean it’s a rambler. It means that the people that live there are going to
be older. And this is not a senior only development, but because if you’re going to buy a
townhome, and if you’re going to buy a one level townhome, you’re going to pay
substantially more per square foot for a one level than you would a two level. So if
you’re younger, and you know you wanted nice space, you’re probably going to buy a
two level. And on the other hand, if you’ve got problems with the stairs or your knees,
like my wife does, we moved into a townhouse 3 years ago and I’ve been doing this for a
long time. It finally was our turn to do it. We do get a few younger people but 80% of
the people that move in to this development are going to be empty nesters or older.
They’re going to want to get rid of the house. You know the kids are gone. Probably
want to get rid of the stairs. They want something maintenance free and new and they
want to be able to go away and turn the lock and all the maintenance is done for them.
What that point though really means is that not only are the people that live here going to
be from the community, because 90% of the buyers tend to come from just a few miles
around. People like to kind of live where, well I did that. I live in Eden Prairie and I
moved 2 miles away when we went into a townhouse that I didn’t build but, because I
wanted to be close to where we lived. So that’s what you’re going to find, and also
there’s a traffic. There’s a big concern about the traffic. I have a table here that was
done by our traffic engineer, and I can pass that out but he shows, according to his charts,
and when they look at a townhouse, they look at a two story townhouse because that’s
what the charts show. If you look at a one level, he’s got to look at a senior only, because
that’s the only way the charts are. We’re going to have more traffic than a senior only,
but we’re going to have less traffic than just a two story. Just because of what I just said.
But even with the two story, we are going to have less traffic. If we had a two story with
the number of units that we would have, then if we had 24 single family lots. Plus the
two that we’re going to service that don’t belong to us at the end of the cul-de-sac.
Which are in the report, so even if it was a two story, we would have a little bit less
traffic than if we had single family, but the fact that it’s one level is going to be
substantially less traffic. Just wanted to bring that out. One of the questions that was just
asked about the berm on the north side that’s east of the road. There is a berm there. It’s
wooded. That’s going to stay. That isn’t going to be touched. That whole berm is going
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
18
to stay. It’s fairly new growth. It’s probably 10-15 years old and it does the trick. I’ve
taken some pictures, if anybody wants to see them later on. I’ll be around but from
Strawberry looking onto our property, looking both ways down the road, and of course
this time of year it’s just a wall of green everywhere, and of course in the winter time you
can see through everything, but there is a lot of vegetation on the neighbor’s property.
On top of our berm, and on our landscaping plan we’re going to add some more
landscaping. Not right there because it doesn’t need it, but farther to the east where there
isn’t a berm. We’ve got pine trees growing on it and so on. Question was also raised
about Highway 7 and how do you block the noise. That’s probably our number one
concern, as you can imagine, because we need to find buyers and if you stand out on
Highway 7 now, which we did with a few of the neighbors the other night, you’ve got to
get real close to the other person to be able to hear them. So one of the reasons we called
this Boulder Cove is because we’ve got boulders on the site. This was owned by a
landscaping company, and some of those boulders we’re going to use to intermix with the
berm. When we did the berm we had to show the berm as a landscaped earthen berm
because that’s what you would normally show on a grading plan, and of course on a
grading plan you have to have certain slopes and you don’t have a lot of room and you
can’t do anything on MnDot’s property so you get a 3 to 4 foot berm. But when we
really landscape it and get some boulders in there and get some vegetation, it’s going to
be higher than that. So the trick is to get people that are standing in their house, not to be
able to see the cars on Highway 7. So that’s really our number one goal. Also with the
pond, I think it got kind of confusing when we talked about you know, is it going to have
a clay liner. It’s not going to have a clay liner. I think the point was that, that the
engineers were talking about, is having a clay liner isn’t really going to improve the
situation, although we are going to have a clay liner because the whole property is clay.
And when we first designed it, we were going to have what’s called fat clay, which is a
real dense clay and that’s what you use on a pond if you want to make it waterproof. So
that’s what we designed. Well that, sometimes it’s real expensive because you’ve got to
go find it. Well with us it’s you know just right there, so it’s easy. But whether you have
the fat clay or not, once you build that pond it’s clay anyhow and I think that’s one of the
points that was being made, but yes. It’s going to be waterproof. We intend to have a
fountain that’s, and then some boulders around the pond. It’s going to be real pretty. I
know you’re not here to judge how pretty it’s going to be. You want to make sure that
the water is not going to be intrusive to any of the neighbors. And I’d like to address that
a little bit. When we started looking at that, and of course the staff and Alyson and her
team, that was their number one concern because this is a site, this whole area is really
saturated. It’s not so much that the ground water is high. It’s just that there’s water
everywhere and when it rains there’s really nowhere for the water to go, because it gets
saturated right away and it all runs off. That’s one of the problems that you know it’s
had. It’s run to the north and it’s run out to Highway 7 and it’s run to the west. Just the
surface water. Then when you get the water underneath, you’ve got clay but you have
lens of sand and when the pressure gets on that water and escorts the sand into different
areas, and of course the 3 houses, as you’ve already learned are a little bit lower than they
probably should be anyway but they were built a long time ago. So 2 of those 3 houses
have their sump pumps going 24/7. In fact a couple sump pumps I think in some cases.
So naturally they’re concerned about anything we do, you know are you going to make it
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
19
worst because we can’t stand anything worst. How we going to take care of it? So in,
you know we had our engineering company, Otto and Associates, and then we hired our
experts and Henry’s here from Braun Engineering. And then the City hired their experts
from Barr Engineering. We’ve already heard about so we’ve had meetings full of
engineers and believe it or not we finally got everybody to agree, which was a feat in
itself. And the things I think that they agreed on is, when we’re done the situation is
going to be better than it is now. First of all we’re going to capture all the surface water,
so it’s not going to go to the north or to the west like it is. But more importantly, putting
the drain tile system in along the west, and that’s going to be down at a depth that’s deep
enough so that it will have the effect of sucking some of that ground water into that
system from those 3 lots to the west. Now nobody can say how much water it’s going to
suck in, but the fact that it’s 3 feet lower than their low elevation, it’s bound to do quite a
bit and maybe Henry can talk to that when I’m finished. So that’s going to make it, we
think substantially better. Nothing that we’re going to do is going to add to the problem.
The question was raised before about are we going to raise everything and truck in a lot
of fill? The only fill that we’re going to truck in is granular, that’s either required by the
city because we need to have 3 feet of granular under the road. That’s true with all roads,
not just here because that’s a city construction policy. And also we want to put granular
underneath our footings and underneath our slab. We’re probably talking maybe 6 inches
to 12 inches, depending upon what we find when we excavate to make sure everything
stays dry. All the buildings will have drain tile and we have a storm system so that, keep
everybody dry. That pond that we are going to be building is as low as we can make it,
and that is governed by the ditch. It has to be, it’s only about a foot higher than the ditch
so it’s got to be higher than the ditch so the water goes into the pond. But all of our
basements, where we do have basements. Some are basements and some aren’t, are
going to be 3 feet higher than that pond so we do meet all the new requirements, but the 3
houses, that’s not true because they’re lower. So that’s why we’re putting in the drain tile
system. So without the drain tile system we’re going to help those 3 because we’re going
to take care of the surface water, but not the water underground. That’s what the drain
tile system in that, we call it a French drain, which is really a big ditch that’s along the
area and has got a drain tile at the bottom and then it’s filled with granular and then the
top foot, you have black dirt and sod and grass. You can’t see it, and you don’t’ want
surface water going in there. This is all for the underground water. So that captures that.
So you know plenty of experts have looked at this and when we’re done the situation
isn’t going to be perfect but it’s going to be a lot better than it is now.
McDonald: Anyone have any questions of the applicant?
Keefe: Yeah, re-looking at the tree inventory, just when I was walking out there I just,
you know with the plan and was kind of looking at it and going you know why this one.
Why that one.
Roger Derrick: Well and you know we can, and I haven’t done that. I’ve been out there
and I saw some of the things that they did but of course I’m looking at it from a different
vantage point than you are, but let me just tell you some of the things that we did change.
When the tree person from the city you know went out, she marked it and she talked
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
20
about some trees that she definitely wanted to save, and one that was brought up before.
It’s near where the gazebo’s going to be. We had to redesign our buildings. Spread them
apart. You can see there’s a lot of land there. All of that is just to save one tree, but it’s a
big, beautiful tree. Then over on the opposite end of the property where we intersect with
existing single family, there’s a grove of trees there that we’re going to save, and we had
to move the lot line and she will put a little retaining wall in there, you know to do that
because we had those out in the initial deal when we’re saving all of those. And of
course we’re going to save the pine trees that are, the northern third of our property.
Maybe the northern half of our property on the west, there’s some big pine trees there and
we’re going to save as many of those as we can. They kind of come into our property so
we can’t save them all but we’re going to save as many as we can, and a lot of those are
on the neighbor’s property too so that grove is pretty much going to stay. There’s also
some trees where the pond is going to go, on the west side of that. The ones on the
neighbors yard are going to stay. The ones that are right on our property line, that’s
where the plan shows a pipe. We’re going to move that pipe over as far as we can to the
east into our property to save as many as we can. And before we do anything out there
other than put the silt fence up, the first thing that’s going to be done before we grade
anything is get the tree people out there and put the orange fence that you see around the
trees that we’re going to save because I’ve learned over the past 30 some years that if you
don’t do that, you can have all the best intentions in the world but the guy on the cat
backs up and he hits the tree. So we’re going to mark, they’re going to be marked
anyway but that doesn’t really help the excavators but we’re going to put the silt fence
around it and take the trees down first and not just do it with big equipment. So we’re
going to get them down. Get them out of there and, second thing we’re going to do is dig
the pond and then put in the drain tile system and get all of the water apparatus in before
we do the final grading. Of course then we have to do the grading. The storm sewer
system of course goes in after the grading, but the pond and the French drain and all of
that goes in first.
McDonald: I’ve just got a couple questions for you concerning the houses and
everything. You pretty much I think answered my biggest question was, you know why
not single family residential houses, which is what it’s currently zoned for, but what are
your price points for this development, just on average?
Roger Derrick: It’s going to be 350 to 500. We’re going to have, I think it’s about a
third of the lots are not going to have basements, and a big reason they’re not going to
have basements is because they’re too low to have basements. Where we do have
basements, and by the way, in our developments that we build, even where we can have
basements, we usually don’t put all basements in anyway because not everybody wants
all that space frankly, and some people do and some people don’t. So this is kind of a
good situation for us, if it was all basements. I don’t know if we’d put them all in
anyway but where there are basements, our basements are all 9 foot finished so we have a
10 foot basement. So when you go downstairs, I mean it’s, it isn’t like being in a
basement. It’s a 9 foot finished. They’re lookouts. We’re going to have windows.
Light. Finish the basements where people want that. We’ll probably price the basements
finished, which again means nothing to you probably but it’s easier than saying to the
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
21
people well, it’s unfinished but it’s so much for this and so much, people hate that you
know. They want it, they don’t want to pick out a hundred different things. If somebody
doesn’t want it finished, we’ll back out the price but most people are going to want it
finished. If they don’t want it finished, they probably don’t want a basement. We would
also intend to have some triple garages, right where we can fit them in. Everybody will
have a double garage, minimum. And some triple garages. Not because they’ve got a
third car, but because they’ve got all the junk that they can’t bear to part with when they
get rid of the house and they’ve got a place to put it.
McDonald: Another thing you said, that I’ve read about is that you can’t guarantee who’s
going to move in here. Whether it’s going to be a, you know empty nesters, which is
what you’re trying to get, or if it would be young families. And there’s probably a big
impact, especially upon traffic between those two particular groups. Is there anything
special you do as far as marketing to try to get it.
Roger Derrick: Yes, there is. I’m glad you brought that up because you know legally,
unless you have a senior designated project, then you can discriminate by age but
otherwise you legally can’t say no, you can’t be here. But that really is what happens.
We’ve had, we’ve got developments, one level developments in 11 communities. We’ve
been doing the one level developments for more than 15 years, and I can’t honestly think
of one unit where there’s a family. Not one. The reason being is because they all have 2
bedrooms upstairs. Now if they have a basement, naturally they’re going to have more.
A lot of times that second bedroom upstairs is really a den. It’s a smaller bedroom.
There is no place for kids to play. You know the grandchildren visit, you know and
they’re there and then they go home at the end of the day, which makes everybody
breathe a sigh of relief. And it’s just not a family type orientation and our sales people
know that. You know they’re instructed to point that out to people. But it really isn’t a
big thing because if you’re a family, you’re either going to want a single family home. If
you want a townhome, if you’ve got a lot of kids, you probably don’t want a townhome
unless price is important to you and then you’re not going to buy a one level because
you’re going to pay a lot more money. Why do you pay a lot more money for a one
level? Because you’re density, because it takes up more room. There’s less so your lots
cost more. A foundation and the roof are the two most expensive part of the building,
and of course they’re a lot bigger if you’ve got a one level than if you’ve got a two story.
So you can just get a lot more for your money with a two story. So it just, you know we
don’t have to really discourage people. They just, it just doesn’t happen.
McDonald: Okay. I have no more questions, unless anybody else has any follow up’s.
Dillon: You spoke of a lot of collaboration with the varieties, different groups of
engineers and people like that to sort through the drainage issue. Did you have an
opportunity to you know meet with some of the local residents that have you know
voiced concerns and, either formally or informally?
Roger Derrick: Informally, yes. The 3 owners to the west have probably got the biggest
concern. We’ve met with them, as a matter of fact last week, and previously but last
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
22
week we were at the site and kind of walked around and talked about the plan that we
discussed here this evening, and what they were mainly concerned about of course is the
water still going to come over land and what’s going to happen underneath the ground,
and we talked about the drain tile. One thing that wasn’t mentioned that I neglected to
talk about and that’s the drain tile system is going to have a T for every lot so that each,
those 3 lots. So that each of the 3, if they want to, can run their sump pump into the drain
tile system. And that may not even have to be pumped because the drain tile system’s
going to be lower than the bottom of their basement or footing probably. So and if they
want of course they’ll still have a pump just in case, but they can do that and that means
that we think, we all think that means that they’re going to have less water. Now on the
corner house, she doesn’t have the water problems that the other two have. She has a
sump pump also but it’s not going 24/7. So we’re hoping that this is going to take care of
things. Also as pointed out to me by one of the owners at the meeting, that there is an
old, was it a farm system or is it, the landscaper put it in originally.
Dave Hughes: The Minnetonka Nursery who owned all that property, put extensive drain
tiles under probably 300 acres.
Roger Derrick: That was 20 years ago do you think?
Dave Hughes: Oh no, it was 50 years.
Roger Derrick: 50 years ago?
Dave Hughes: And one of those, I’ll let you explain.
Roger Derrick: We have Mr. Hughes gave us a map of, there’s one line that goes through
kind of at an angle through these 3 lots, and it looks like it ends up right about where
we’re going to have, right by Highway 7 where we’re going to have our system. And
you know we can either hook it into the system or open it up. Right now it’s clogged up.
It’s not draining into the ditch in Highway 7. It could do either one depending upon
what’s going to be the best way of doing it. But if that in fact drains, we don’t even know
if it’s working but we can find out when we’re digging around in there. We’re going to
open it up. If it is working, we’re going to put a new end on it and connect it either to our
system, because if it was doing any good at all why not have it. So we’re trying to, just
to answer your questions, really we’re trying to do everything we can to see what the
present conditions are and what we can do to make it better and implement what’s
already there.
McDonald: Okay. Thank you very much. At this point I will open up the meeting to the
public and I would ask you to come up to the podium. State your name and address and
address your comments please to the Chair. Thank you.
Dave Hughes: My name is Dave Hughes and I’m here on behalf of Carrie and Mike
Miller. Carrie’s my daughter. I built the house at 6311 Church Road. I qualify that, we
built the basement and moved a home from Minnewashta Parkway onto that site. And I
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
23
would like to add first off the issue of drainage. We, as far as I know this property owner
was not consulted concerning drainage. They were told what the drainage plan was
going to be last Tuesday night. If they had been consulted I believe they may have
suggested, although there’s a 10 foot difference in elevation, may I have that coloring
map, the big one? Thank you. This end is 10 foot higher than this end on the site
approximately according to the drawings. I believe the property owner, at least the
Millers would have suggested, although there’s a 10 foot elevation with this end being
lowest, with the lots draining into the street and the storm sewer in the street, could have
just as easily drained the pond and put it here into the highway ditch and kept the issue of
the pond away from the 3 residences that are approximately 100 feet away from that
pond. Right now the residence of the Millers, which is this residence here, which is the
closest to the pond, is, their basement is 969.25, the floor level. The average water level
of the pond is stated to be 968.7, or ½ foot below their basement floor. That’s the normal
floor level. The outflow level of the pond, the discharge level is 971, making it
approximately 2 feet or 2 ¼ feet higher than their basement floor. If the pond had been
put over here, it wouldn’t be next to the homes that everybody’s concerned about. It
looks like the developer or the engineers have done due diligence to figure out a plan to
mitigate the potential problem with the French drain and other things, but it’s all a crap
shoot. No one knows until the rain comes, whether it’s all going to work or not. And if it
isn’t going to work, what are we going to do about it? I’m sure the 3 homeowners are
going to be back here and talking to City Council and engineering. So I would like
Planning Commission to consider asking the developer to take a look at that, and that
home. I’m sure could be put back where the pond was or reconfigured so there’s no loss
of revenue to the developer in that area. The second thing I would like to bring out is the
water line loop that is scheduled to come in off of Highway 7. I would ask the developer
and the engineer why isn’t it going out in the sewer excavation? It’s going to be in the
same trench with specified separations of 10 feet I’m sure. Why does it just continue out
there? What does it have to turn and go through between two properties being dug into
an easement that is too narrow, according to city standards for excavation. The reason I
know that is I tried to put a water line in an easement that was 5 foot utility easement on
each side of the properties. Property line. And that was standard when Klingelhutz built
the development next to my home, and I was told by engineering that you cannot put an
excavation or you cannot bore because you may have to service it in the future, through a
10 foot wide easement. 5 foot on each side of the property line. And I at the time wanted
to put in a sewer through the easement. They wouldn’t allow it and it cost me $19,000
more to go 500 feet the other direction. Now the plan calls for using an easement that
I’ve been told is non-spec and non acceptable. It’s not wide enough. The third thing I
would like to just point out to the board tonight is that, like the development that is east
of this one, that was last. Just east of the ballfields on Highway 7. I don’t remember
what the name of it is. They have beautiful tree lined berms and it looks, and it’s
separated and I’m sure they have excellent noise mitigation for Highway 7, and there’s
beautiful tree line, if I can have the overhead again. There’s a beautiful tree line along
here. Very thick, developed by the nursery I think 50 years ago. And would hope that,
where the 4 foot berm is nice, and can be added to a tree line, it doesn’t replace a tree line
and I don’t know how much is being proposed of that tree line to be left in there but it
certainly would do a lot to mitigate noise. And the last item I want to point out that I
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
24
don’t think has anybody is aware of, is that the developer of this little 3 home addition
here had made a covenant with the City, and it’s recorded at the court house. I just
picked up a copy of it today and it’s certainly available to the park and rec superintendent
or the manager. Anyway, this lot does have an easement for trails, but that they agreed to
as a condition to plot that property. Here it is but I can’t read easterly west 20 feet to the
mark and so on. Somebody else will have to tell people where that easement is, but I also
know that there is a utility easement for this water line that’s heading to Church Road,
and it’s quite wide and now would be an excellent time to address the trail issue that
council had brought up already during this development. And that ties into my last point
and that is, there are a lot of children that are using the park, as we all know. That’s just
on the west side of Church Road, and there’s children in the streets all the time. And I
don’t know the process that is required but I would imagine there’s an easement adequate
along Church Road, either on the east or the west side, that a sidewalk could be put in. I
know it’s not relevant to this developer but it’s relevant to what’s happening in this area
as it develops, and it would be an excellent time to tie in the, Todd Hoffman. That’s the
name I couldn’t think of. It’s an excellent time for Mr. Hoffman to look at the issue of
trails, not only for this property. Here we are talking about empty nesters and
grandchildren and where are they all going to want to go? The developer stated, there
isn’t room for them to play…and that’s not the way we want them to go walking into
increased traffic. We want them to use a trail so now I think is an excellent time to
address that issue, and thank you very much.
McDonald: Thank you sir. Next.
Tom Croskey: My name’s Tom Croskey. I live at 26265 Oak Leaf Trail in Shorewood.
Today I’m representing members of the association, Shorewood Oaks, West 62nd and
Strawberry Lane. As a brief aside, as a brief aside I would like to mention I’m going to
talk about the legal standards involved here, but as an aside on drainage, if we, I would
like to ask the commission, or the commission’s engineers if we’ve had two 100 year
events in the past 2 years, how many 100 year events have we had in the past 10 years
and we also have a storm sewer designed for 10 year standard. That in itself begs a lot of
serious questions about drainage and we are at our wits end in, on the north side,
particularly on the Shorewood side, and I know Wade on the Chanhassen side, as far as
drainage. We’ve got our sump pumps on all the time. I’ve had four instances of standing
water in my back yard, in some cases as deep as 10 inches so if this plan, if this
development exacerbates that in any way, that will surely affect us in not a positive
manner. But what I am here to talk about specifically, and other members of the
association will be discussing traffic and drainage issues, is the well established legal
standards, federal, state and local, that are not being observed and what is a true rezoning.
Aside from those protections provided by the Fifth Amendment, the Constitution and the
rights of persons in the State of Minnesota, we have in the City of Chanhassen code,
Section 20-58, General Conditions for Granting a Variance. In that section you have the
following language and I quote. A variance may be granted by City Council only if all
the following criteria are met. Section 1. Reasonable use including the use made by a
majority of comparable property within 500 feet. Section 3. That the purpose of the
variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
25
of land. I think it’s quite obvious to say that both of these things are occurring with this
request for rezoning. Furthermore we are faced with a rezoning proposal that goes
against Minnesota State Constitution that states, a local government failing to follow it’s
own procedural rules may invalidate it’s own decision on the basis that it was arbitrary, if
failure resulted in specific and demonstrable harm. The demonstrable harm in this
instance and the transfer of wealth from the developer, the developer’s trying to achieve
by devaluing our property through the use of a political process. This is also specifically
prohibited in Chanhassen’s own city ordinances. Mainly, quote. That a purpose of a
variation is not based upon the desire to increase the value or income potential of parcel
of land. The developer was under no illusions when they purchased his property. They
knew exactly what they were doing and what zoning was in place at the time of the
purchase. The developer did this with the delibering intent to profit through the political
process of rezoning to gain his highest profit. The developer is a speculator. He
speculated about who’s going to be moving into these properties. He’s also speculating
that this governing body will provide this rezoning so that he can achieve his highest
profit, even though this will be counter to all existing federal, state and city of
Chanhassen legal standards. Further constitution, U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment,
the rights of persons, the developer must prove as a matter of law that he cannot use or
develop this track under the existing zoning laws. It has been illustrated many times in
the immediate surrounding area that developers can profitably develop lots of single
family residential homes. The onus is on the developer to prove that he cannot use or
develop this lot under the existing zoning laws. This is our position. It is supported from
a legal standpoint on all levels of government, including most pointedly your very own
City of Chanhassen city code. We are reasonable individuals. We realize that this lot
will be developed in time. However what we object to strenuously is the development of
this lot with structures that are not compatible with those who surround it. We are will
organized and we are steadfast and we are determined to see this through to it’s end. I
would like to thank the Planning Commission for the time this evening.
McDonald: Thank you. Next.
Ken Durr: Chairman and members, my name is Kenneth Durr. Reside at 4830 Westgate
Road, Minnetonka. That may not show up the best but as long as you’re addressing the
issue of drainage, I thought it might help. Before the development of Minnewashta
Landings, which is on the south side of Highway 7, all of the water that came from the
proposed development on the north side, everything from Highway 7 did not flow onto
Minnewashta Landings property at all. Not one drop. All of that water flowed over land
to the east of Minnewashta Landings, east of the old Ironwood Road. To, and followed
along those residents to the east side. This is Ironwood Road. These properties on this
side, all of the water from this area flowed over land across here. None onto the
Minnewashta Landings property. Now the City couldn’t resolve that problem. That
existed for years until we decided to develop this piece of property. Then the City came
with the idea that we put in storm water ponds. Not one, but three of them. So we gave
up land which would mean lots. We had a lot of expense to put the ponds in. A lot of
culverting because one pond connects to the other, and then goes down the street.
Connects to a third one down before it goes into Lake Minnewashta. We paid a $30,000
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
26
surface water management fee to the city. That didn’t cover the cost of the land. The
development of the ponds, the culverts or anything. That was a fee we paid the city. We
paid all the costs. Put those ponds in, all the culverts and lost the land that they took. In
addition to that, at that time the City said that we would never receive more water into
that area than what we were now receiving. Now it appears to me that this proposal, we
will be receiving considerably more water than we did before. All of this yellow area
before flowed to Minnewashta. But the green area flowed to the west. It was absorbed in
land over here. This red area is the only one that flowed toward Highway 7. Now, what
do we have? We have all of the land flowing to Highway 7, or the pond, which
eventually goes to Highway 7. The only area that continues to flow a different direction
is this very narrow strip along the north. So the amount of flowage and water off from
there is at least, I would just guess looking at this, and I’d like to have it calculated, must
be at least 25% more, and that’s assuming that it’s open land that at the time we
purchased the property here for Minnewashta Landings was partially tilled land. Not
even compacted soil. So now the amount of runoff is much, much greater than at the
time we developed Minnewashta Landings. Now the 3 ponds that we put in have worked
relatively well, with the exception of 3 times in the last 8 years they have overflowed
causing a lot of damage, particularly to the beach. We have a beachlot where the final
disposition pond on the lake receives the final water. The amount of water coming into
that overflowed and washed out the beach 3 times in 8 years. And not to mention what
has happened to the properties to the east. I know particularly Dave Helke has had a lot
of problems with overflow, and washed out a lot of his property. Now that’s happened 3
times in the last 3 years. Just with the water that we’ve been receiving. Now if we get
more water coming in to us, we’re going to have a real problem there. The property that
is proposed for developer is a very high density project. I think that’s part of the
problem. Now with 13 acres, there’s one pond and not an extremely large pond. Our
development of 21 acres in Minnewashta Landings, we had 3 quite large ponds and even
then that hasn’t been adequate in all situations to handle the flow of water. We had those
3 overflows in 8 years. The density there is 39 units on approximately 13 acres,
something probably a little under 3 per acre as compared with our development, 21 acres
and 26 lots. So we’re looking at, if we had the same density, it’d be 63 units or buildings
on property that is only a third larger. I think the two things I think is the density of the
area there, the runoff. When you look at the number of units, 39 units, you’re looking at
what, a 1,200 foot street, which is hard surface. You’re looking at 39 units instead of,
which could be quite a few less. You know all the hard surface with driveways, roofs,
and so forth, there’s going to be tremendous amount of runoff and then almost all of that
runoff is coming to the south. Now I feel that that retention pond that they’re putting in
is not going to be adequate. There’s going to be overflow that’s going to augment the
problem we have on the south side of Highway 7, and not good I don’t feel. So it’s either
the density is too high or the ponding inadequate. Thank you for your time.
McDonald: Thank you sir. Anyone else?
Robin Dodson: Hi, my name is Robin Dodson and I live at 26540 West 62nd Street.
That’s on the north side of 62nd Street. The Hennepin County side, and while I agree
with everything that’s been said, one of my concerns, since hearing a projected number,
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
27
the 85% of this traffic using 62nd Street, and I’ve heard there’s no plans for road
improvement and there’s no plans for pedestrian safety. This road is I think 24 feet wide.
It’s dicey. Two cars going by. There’s no shoulder. There’s no curb. There’s nothing,
and Cathcart Park is on 62nd Street. The only way to get to Cathcart Park is to walk on
62nd Street. And there, I agree it’d be wonderful to have a path there to cut through this
new development to get to the park, but that does not protect anybody who doesn’t live in
the park, you know nor on Strawberry coming to use the park and I just have a deep
concern for the amount of traffic that’s going to be put on a road that has no plans for you
know widening improvements or anything to protect the pedestrians that already use the
road and the way it exists. Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you ma’am. Next.
Kim McReavy: Hi. My name is Kim McReavy and I live at 1350 Heather Court in
Chanhassen. I’m opposed to this rezoning in theory. I feel like there’s no justification
for it whatsoever. To go to a higher density when we’ve got all these drainage issues and
traffic issues and things like that increasing the density. I don’t care how you do the
numbers, it’s going to work out to be you know an increased use of the property and I
oppose that. I also feel like there are no hardship justifications that justify the variances
requested for this. The variance requests are put in based on what’s planning to be
developed there. It’s not like there’s a true hardship. If you were doing single family, the
same hardship would not exist so I’m opposed to that. As well I’m concerned with the
increased traffic, not just on 62nd and Strawberry, but also on Highway 7. It just gets, it’s
so crazy right now and I just feel like the existing infrastructure on this property and the
surrounding properties do not support this type of development at all. It just doesn’t exist
so those are my main concerns and I just feel like until the infrastructure is there, I don’t
understand how the City could justify this type of development. Thank you very much.
McDonald: Thank you. Next.
Julie Hirsch: Hi. I’m Julie Hirsch. I’m at 6321 Church Road. One of the 3 properties
immediately affected by the drainage, and while I don’t have as bad of issues as some of
these folks, my system was running tonight when I left the house and I guess I don’t
really, I’m not opposed to the development. My concern is that the developer’s providing
us T’s to tie up to the French drain and if that can’t be moved, I’m wondering the T’s are
a generous offer but could they be required to connect our properties and then assume
any liabilities that could incur if the drains you know adversely affect our properties even
more, and/or enhances our already existing water issues. So all that being said, I’m not
completely against it but I would like that remedied for at least the immediate properties
and the line of the water. Thanks.
McDonald: Thank you. Sir.
Dave Hughes: With all due respect sir I have to rebut a statement you made. You said
we could, and I, with all good intentions I know you would if you could. The invert or
the bottom of the drainage tile that’s been in there 50 plus years, where it comes out at
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
28
the ditch, or it doesn’t come out at the ditch. It actually comes out under the ditch, and
the force of the water coming all the way from Smithtown Road, a quarter mile north, is
forcing the water to percolate up and drain into the ditch. The invert, or the drainage
bottom of that tile is a 964.2. As we shot it when we dug it up when we built the Miller
house. The invert of your French drain is 966, so approximately 2 feet higher than that
drain tile, so it cannot be used. It would be wonderful if it could but. So, in conclusion,
that drain tile, we can only hope that it is going to continue to percolate up after the
construction of the French drain and so on, because if it stopped up, it’s not only the 3
houses on the adjoining on the west side that’s going to be affected, but houses all the
way to Smithtown Road because if you’ll look at the properties all the way north to
Smithtown Road, you find that they’re only half basements. The high water was being
drained from way up there all the way down to Highway 7 and to Lake Minnewashta. I
believe I know where the drain tile goes on the gentleman that was speaking. Is he still
here? On the development just south of the property. There is the historic drain tile that
drained all that is on the east, yes, on the east property line and it goes from Highway 7
due south into the lake but it was abandoned. The State of Minnesota had, according to
the son of the Minnetonka Nursery who was in the know about these issues. The State of
Minnesota had an agreement, made an agreement with the nursery to allow a drain tile
under Highway 7 and to then move along the southern ditchway of Highway 7. Drain it
east to the property line on the east side of that development that was discussed, and then
down to the lake. Minnetonka, or I mean Minnesota abandoned that agreement when
they didn’t inform their Constructors the improvement before last and it was cut. And
that mitigated problems on the north side for a lot of the property owners. That can be
probably located. The gentleman still is in the area and I imagine it could be researched
if the State finds the original agreement locations.
McDonald: Thank you sir. Next.
Marcus Hoffman: Marcus Hoffman. I live at 6195 Strawberry Lane. It’s right here at
the corner of West 62nd and Strawberry Lane. Right at the proposed entrance of the site,
and I’d like to review also the fact that the spacing guidelines set in Chanhassen specifies
40 feet. I do not live on a corner lot. I live at the end of a road. A corner lot would mean
that I have an existing road at the southern border of my property which I do not. One of
the safety measures that we are all concerned in these properties is that we all have very
small children who are getting to be school aged children who use this path back and
forth to Cathcart. Pulling their wagons and bringing their baseball bats and everything so
we would like to see something done with the widening of West 62nd to accommodate the
additional traffic of these properties. Also another point that was made earlier about
MnDot approving this property and the traffic flow and all of that. There are four
existing entrances. I know that’s been discussed and why they can and can’t be, but I
think an accommodation could be made for a right-in only on westbound Highway 7 to
flow through the property, not only for the standpoint of traffic alleviation on Church
Road and West 62nd and Strawberry Lane but also for police, fire, ambulance, those types
of services on such a long cul-de-sac in that design. That’s all I have.
McDonald: Thank you sir. Next.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
29
Wade Navratil: Hi. I’m Wade Navratil. I live on the western border of the proposed
development adjacent to the lot that’s about 2/3 of the development there. I’m not
opposed to this development. The property. I.
McDonald: Excuse me sir, could you give your street address.
Wade Navratil: Sure, 3751 West 62nd Street. Sorry.
McDonald: Okay.
Wade Navratil: I’m not opposed to this development. I fully expected this land to be
developed when I purchased my property in ’98. But I do have a few issues. One is the
traffic generated. We’ve heard all kinds of different stories of you know who’s going to
be living there. Who’s not going to be living there but let’s just do some simple math.
Two cars with 79 livable units in that development. Because there’s 39 buildings but he
has duplexes, triplexes and singles. So 79 livable units with 2 car garages. That’s 158
cars alone, if everyone has 2 cars. If we give them the benefit of the doubt and only half
of those people have 2 cars, and the rest have single cars, we have 118 cars. And if we
add that one half of those half have 3 cars actually, we actually take that up to 137 total
cars. If you develop that as a single, as a residential single family home, 24 units and
everybody has 3 cars, that’s 72 total vehicles. That in itself is just half. The drainage has
been beat to death. I do have a problem. The Millers have a problem. Julie has a
problem. There is, as he talked about, the existing drain someplace over here that cuts
kitty corner across our lot here that as he pointed out is 2 feet lower than the French
drain. If that French drain is draining into there, water’s going to back up into us. It will
push back up. It will follow a path of least resistance. And then in looking at your
finding of fact, there was supposed to be 7 adverse effects listed in there. I didn’t see a
one. All’s I seen was more propagation of why this should be done. And as far as West
62nd, it is a sub par street. It is lined by cedars. It is overgrown. I have troubles making
lefts out of there. Rights out of there. It doesn’t matter. We’re picking people off. It
does need some you know expansion, but additionally as well, if you’re going to zone
this as a residential low to medium. Medium is supposed to allow for bike paths, mass
transit, so on and so forth. There’s no reason that there can’t be a bike path that comes
out of the cul-de-sac here and goes over to Freeman Park. It runs parallel with Highway
7, as the bike path does on the other side of Highway 7. And that would give you total
access to the regional trail that runs behind all of our houses back there. And
additionally, the residential low to medium, everything around there is completely
residential single family. There is no barrier. There is no separation. There’s nothing. I
see no reason to put the medium nomenclature on there. If it under residential low
already and 1 to 4 units per acre. But I’d rather see it residential single family and stay at
that. Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you sir. Next.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
30
Carrie Miller: Hi. My name is Carrie Miller. I live at 6311 Church Road and my dad
came and very adequately represented our property I believe. It was mentioned why
build a trail. You know for personally I’m mainly interested in our children’s physical
well being so, I’m interested in their safety. It was stated that it would lead to nowhere.
Well I disagree. It could easily tie into the trail as Wade had mentioned, and people
constantly run and jog down the trail and down Church Road down to Minnewashta
Parkway. I’ll show you where people usually run because I’m right, let’s see where’s our
property? They run right down Church Road. They run across the road and they’re up
there and here’s the trail. This is where people run. They run up and down this road.
Because there’s a trail right here. Across the street. Now also I am also concerned about
the children at Cathcart, and the children at Freeman because this development actually is
right inbetween two parks. Freeman’s right over here. You know right past this
development, and Cathcart is right over here. Okay, so that brings me to my third point.
There was mention that senior housing would be attractive to 90% of the residents in the
area. Hopefully seniors so this would be senior housing hopefully because it would not
necessarily attract families with children. I disagree because this housing is between two
public parks, as I mentioned, and this area is influxed with children and families.
Therefore this housing will be very attractive to families. Thank you.
David Igel: Good evening. My name is David Igel. I live at 501 Big Woods Boulevard
in Chanhassen. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I’ve got a couple, I
will try to be brief. There have been a lot of good points made tonight but I have a
couple of things that I think maybe lend to my comments on this. One is that I formerly
lived in Shorewood at the end of Strawberry Lane. While living there we had multiple
vehicles flying through excess speed, excess alcohol, excess stupidity or what have you,
either through our yard and into the yard, tearing up the grass or to the south of it through
here where this new entrance is being proposed. At the time we were there the City of
Shorewood tried to address it by tightening the corner, trying to reduce the speed. There
wasn’t a lot of room in there to do much else. I’m not sure that I think we had as many
accidents or issues before so I think that one of the things that I would suggest as now a
Chanhassen resident, but a former resident of there, that you take a real close look at how
that traffic is going to be controlled, because from experience I can tell you that it’s, it
can be a very dangerous place. One of the things that we did before we left is put in
some large berms and large trees, but coming through the wrong spot I’m afraid you’re
going to have more danger to the people coming in to the north accessing that road. The
other thing is, drainage has been talked about extensively. I have a great deal of respect
for the City of Chanhassen’s staff. In looking at it, and it sounds like most of the issues
have been with Chanhassen. The interesting thing about this development is that
Shorewood is on the north, and I’m not sure how closely things have been reviewed from
that perspective. Didn’t take much more than a couple inches of rain to completely flood
Strawberry Lane on both sides. Those front yards. Back yards, and it looks like a lot of
the drainage is going to be become a larger problem for the people to the south of
Highway 7, which isn’t necessarily a good thing either, but I would just recommend that
as you’re looking at this and looking at the solutions, that probably may or may not exist,
there’s a lot of smart people working on the project. I would imagine they’d be able to
figure something out but take a look at what’s going on in Shorewood to the immediate
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
31
north. There’s a lot of people that are having a lot of impact. I know that these are issues
that come up as you’re dealing with bordering properties and new developments because
they’re not always your residents, but they are neighbors and I think you know, they
would like to see the City of Chanhassen be a good neighbor as well. The other thing
related to that was the mention of the increased storm activity. Where we currently live
now, we were exposed, you know hit particularly hard by the last storms. We’re at the
end of Carver Creek, which is more of a drainage ditch for the City of Chanhassen.
Before we moved onto that land we had our own engineers look extensively at it, and
they built the storm systems to accommodate the rains. They took a look at the
elevations where we built well above the ground level of water, or the added water. We
built well above the water level of the lake. We took a look at all those things. When
that storm came through last September, and the levy above us broke at the end of Carver
Beach Road, our entire yard was flooded. Everything in our yard has gone out to the
lake. Our basement flooded, not just from the water that was banging up against it and
pouring down the basement steps, but the sanitary, not only did the storm sewers fail, but
the sanitary sewers failed, and water was shooting up from our basement. Now, these are
all things that were engineered to death, that were approved through the City of
Chanhassen, and I paid for most of them so I’m, you know I take the responsibility to a
certain, to a great extent, having built the home down there and had gone through and
done that, but I would say, I guess I would caution you, take a look, take a look at the
existing requirements. They don’t seem to have been doing enough to protect the homes
and the well being of people and if you get another situation where you’re kind of doing,
where you’re doing things to spec and you’re pretty close on a couple things to spec,
doesn’t take much to push over that and you’re going to have some real issues with the
people to the west, the people to the north and probably more likely the people within the
new development. Thank you for your time.
McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward? Well seeing no one
get up, I close the public meeting and I’ll bring it back before the commissioners for
discussion. Why don’t you go ahead and start for us.
Keefe: Sure. You know I think the first question that came up, and I think Sharmeen
brought it and maybe we should have discussed it earlier is, should we be rezoning this
property and I think the, you know in listening to everything I’ve heard tonight, I think
that a lot has been done with the water, and managing the water on this particular site but
I’m just not convinced that it’s been addressed all the way around the surrounding area
and I think it’s just becoming a, just a larger and larger issue, especially when we do
these infill, if you want to call this kind of an infill location. And you know, the other
thing is I look at this and this particular zoning designation actually allows higher hard
surface coverage, which I think in this particular area is really the wrong direction just
given what’s going on in terms of water and all the issues associated with it so, I’m a
little bit uncomfortable with rezoning it to a higher hard surface coverage, just given all
the water issues. Even with all of the efforts which you’ve gone into to manage the
water, I’m just not sure that it’s the right direction to go. I’d be interested in anybody
else’s thoughts on that.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
32
Papke: Mr. Chair, if I could. Maybe Sharmeen, could you, I think there’s a little bit of
confusion around this rezoning and there were some questions about you know the
variance and could you comment on the issues surrounding this?
Al-Jaff: Absolutely. Absolutely. Just wanted to mention that with this rezoning we
remain at a low density. The low density of our comprehensive plan allows a range of
1.2 to 4 units per acre. As long as you remain within that range you are considered low
density. This development is below the 4 units per acre, and it’s actually 2.85 gross
density. 3.32 units per acre net density, and when we calculate the net density we are
subtracting the street right-of-way.
McDonald: Excuse me Sharmeen.
Al-Jaff: Yes.
McDonald: If I could say something. That’s about the second or third telephone that’s
gone off. I would greatly appreciate it if everybody would either put their telephones to a
silent mode or to buss yourself, but to turn them off. It’s very rude I think to do that at
this meeting. This is a very serious subject. We are trying to get all the information we
possibly can on this so that we can make an intelligent decision, and it really doesn’t help
our concentration to be constantly interrupted by cell phones. Thank you. Sharmeen.
Al-Jaff: Thank you. So, we are at a low density range right now. One of the things that
were brought up earlier was the hard surface coverage on the site. The average hard
surface coverage on the site, and we did run some calculations and what we have on this
specific site is 18.9% hard surface coverage. If we went with the residential single family
zoning, they could have up to 25% hard surface coverage, so we go back to, yes. The
hard surface coverage is higher on individual lots. However, when you look at the
average hard surface coverage of this entire development, we’re coming up with 18.9
percent.
Keefe: But that says proposed development. Couldn’t they add on additional hardscape
in the future to take it up to 35?
Al-Jaff: They could add patios. It could go up, yes. But then.
Papke: I’m sorry, go ahead.
Al-Jaff: The residential single family could go up to the, and we’ve seen a pattern with
single family residential. Three car garages. The added patio surfaces and they truly
need to maximize the hard surface coverage on single family. It’s not as needed with this
type of development.
Papke: So just to be clear, since we’re staying within the low density range, what
justification does a developer have to bring to the City to get clearance to get this rezoned
from RSF to RLM? What proof or what burden of proof is there, is required there?
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
33
Al-Jaff: He needed to remain within the low density range. One of the things that we
requested he does is create a separation, specifically the.
Papke: The point be, there’s no requisite for hardships or anything of that nature in order
to do that?
Al-Jaff: No. And speaking of hardship, there are two types of variances. The first one is
a zoning variance. The second one is a subdivision variance. What we have in this
application is not a, this is not a subdivision, a zoning variance. This is a subdivision
variance. The criteria for granting a subdivision variance is different than use made by
properties within 500 feet. And if anyone would like to contact me tomorrow, I’ll be
more than happy to give them a copy of the subdivision variance versus a zoning
variance. I’ll be more than happy to share that information with them.
Larson: It’s still a zoning. It’s a subdivision zoning variance?
Al-Jaff: It’s a subdivision variance. The length of a cul-de-sac.
Larson: So why are they calling it a zone variance change?
Al-Jaff: It’s not. It is not a zoning variance.
Papke: It’s a rezoning.
Larson: A rezoning.
Papke: The variance is for the cul-de-sac.
Larson: Okay, gotch ya.
Al-Jaff: For the subdivision.
McDonald: Beg your pardon sir? Would you.
Tom Croskey: I’m sorry, I was confused. …rezoning. I think you weren’t clear on that.
Al-Jaff: There is a rezoning request and that is changing the zoning from residential
single family to residential low medium density.
Mike Croskey: But you just characterized…and I was wondering about that.
Al-Jaff: The variance. The variance portion. There are two types of variances in the
Chanhassen City Code. The first one is a zoning variance, and when I talk about zoning
variances, I’m talking about the chapter, the zoning chapter of the city code. There is for
instance if the city code, the zoning ordinance requires a 30 foot front yard setback and
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
34
an applicant comes before the Planning Commission requesting a 20 foot front yard
setback. In that case it is a zoning variance. A zoning ordinance variance. Now,
subdivisions require that a cul-de-sac may not exceed 800 feet. That is a subdivision
variance. There are different types of findings under the subdivision variances versus the
zoning variances.
McDonald: Okay.
Keefe: So going from the rezoning, going back to the rezoning, because that’s sort of the
first question. Is taking it from RSF right to RL.
Al-Jaff: RLM.
Keefe: RLM. Reasons for doing that. I mean reasons for doing that would be to allow
the, what the triplexes or you know why? My concern was I guess is that it does allow
for greater hard surface and just given what’s going on, granted, I mean I grant you that
you know they’re at 18.9 percent or whatever it is on average, you know so be it but you
know, if you put on accessory structures and they may not be planning it now but if it
does allow them to go up, and just given all the water issues in this area, it’s a concern.
McDonald: Okay, I have a question about that too because.
Keefe: Well could she answer that, yeah.
McDonald: You mentioned patios. My understanding is patios are built into this.
They’re already included.
Roger Derrick: Mr. Chairman, I think I can answer some of the questions.
McDonald: Feel free. Please come back up.
Roger Derrick: Roger Derrick for the record. Question right now is what about the hard
surface. You build a house, you’re done with the house and you go in later you can build
a bigger patio or you can you know do some other things which is done all the time. If
you’re in a townhouse development, you’re under rules and regulations. You can’t do
anything. Nothing. You can’t put patio blocks out. You can’t do anything without the
approval of the association, and you just don’t get it because it’s the same, they run into
the same thing you do. You let this guy do it, you’ve got to let everybody do it so you
really, once you build it, that’s basically what you’re going to have. And the answer yes,
the deck and the patio is part of the package that we put out. The other thing that’s
connected with that is, it is confusing when you look at say a triplex and because there’s
3 different lots, and you look at one lot in the middle that’s got more hard surface and the
reason the ordinance allows for that, because the ordinance is clear you can have so much
for the triplex. So much for the twin, is because it doesn’t have any side yard of course.
It just has that front and back, so that particular part you know has to be more, but then
the other parts are less so when you take, if you’re going to go in and build 24 single
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
35
family homes, which you could easily do without any variances for lots or anything else,
instead of 38 townhomes, you’d have, you could have more hard surface coverage, as
Sharmeen pointed out because you could be 25%. Not counting any cheating that any
individual homeowner might do later, but closing it you could have 25%. And what you
would do probably is have all triple garages and you know just bigger houses because
you’re going to have large lot costs and when you have large lot costs for single family,
you’ve got to have bigger houses. So how would the whole thing stack up? You know I
really don’t know because I haven’t done the calculation but the amount of hard surface
coverage wouldn’t be any less if you had single family just because you’d have fewer
units. We already talked about the fact that the traffic, if you had normal housing in there
with families and extra cars would be more with the 24 than it is, then it will be with 38,
because of the configuration and you’d have families living there where you wouldn’t so
much now. And I think the important thing to recognize in the, where the cul-de-sac is
and we talked about the length of the cul-de-sac and the two variances. One is for the
length of the cul-de-sac and the only reason it’s that long is because we can’t get access
from Highway 7. There was early on, we’ve been working for 15 months you know with
the City and MnDot and so we’ve explored I think all possibilities. One was putting the
through road in, but MnDot won’t allow it period, and I think everybody here can vouch
for that. So that means there’s got to be a cul-de-sac coming in at some point. You could
have a shorter cul-de-sac. One of the reasons it’s as long as it is is because staff wanted
to, MnDot wanted to and we agreed to, make the cul-de-sac long enough so that it went
to the existing house that we don’t own. The Truax’s on that. So that they will have
access on that cul-de-sac instead of having to go out onto Highway 7, so that’s why it’s as
long as it is. Now if we didn’t have that long, it’d still be more than 800 feet but it
wouldn’t be 1,200 feet. Now, so that’s one variance and there’s really no way around it.
If we were to do single family homes, that cul-de-sac road would be exactly like it is now
because that’s the only way to do it. The other variance was to put the little private road
area from the cul-de-sac to the people that live to the east of the Truax’s. There’s one
home there and the idea is to let them eliminate their access on Highway 7 so that they
can come in onto the cul-de-sac and come in that way. And that was not in the original
plan but that was put in because if that was ever going to be done, now’s the time to do it.
And otherwise those people would never be able to get off of Highway 7 and this is their
opportunity to do that so, those are the only two variances that are requested and they’re
both, neither one would help us as a developer or as was inferred before, make us a
bigger profit or anything like that. It’s just the fact that it’s good planning to do that, and
now’s the time to do it if it’s going to be done at all.
McDonald: Okay, thank you for that clarification. Does that help? Just a second. Does
that help as far as the clarification of what you asked as far as what’s being asked for
here?
Keefe: Yeah, I mean no. I’m not convinced that the hard surface coverage, I mean after
really think through the math in terms of you know putting on 38 units, even though
they’re on smaller lots and you’ve got a higher you know coverage that you’re actually
going to achieve you know some sort of lower hard surface out there than you would
putting in 14 fewer units on slightly larger lots. I’m just not convinced of it. I really
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
36
want to run the math on that. But so I mean that’s the question. The question for me on
the rezoning is really, the piece I’m really stuck on the rezoning is the hard surface
coverage, okay. And I’m just not convinced that, if I can get convinced of it, I’m actually
pretty comfortable with the variances. I think the variances that are called for are you
know, I think there are hardships associated with those variances, particularly the
Highway 7 variance and the cul-de-sac variance and then the private street. I really don’t
have you know I can see the hardships on those. I’m just having, I’m struggling with the
rezoning a little bit, just particularly in light of the water issues.
Papke: I’m kind of struggling with it myself but I’m starting to lean in the direction of
saying maybe it’s not so bad. I mean from what I hear of the hydrology there, it’s going
to run off anyway. This is saturated clay, and you know putting a couple pads on there
isn’t probably going to have that big of an impact. I’m now getting more concerned
about the impact on the other side of the road. If we washed away the beach a couple
times in the last couple years.
Keefe: That’s part of it.
Papke: You know water is a zero sum game, okay. It’s either going to sink into the
ground, which it’s not in this case, or it’s going to flow out of the neighbor’s lots on
Strawberry Lane or it’s going to flow across the highway, okay. So it’s going to go
somewhere. In this case, if this development goes in as planned, you know I’m fairly
convinced that the city staff and the engineers have done a pretty good analysis here and
we’ve got the color coded maps showing you know where it’s going to drain. I’m pretty
well convinced that if we can fix the problem with the drain tile, that’s 2 feet lower than
we might have thought, that it’s going to flow. If it overflows, it’s going to flow into the
ditch and it’s going to go underneath Highway 7 and it’s going to glow down into the
beach on Lake Minnewashta so I’m actually more.
Keefe: Do you have any concerns about because the hard surface coverage can go up to
a higher level, in the future on this area, given the designation, the zoning designation.
Papke: There’s going to be an architectural control committee associated with the, you
know and restrictive covenants and all that kind of good stuff so you know.
Larson: It is already set.
Keefe: So given that it’s an association governed development…
Papke: Yep, been there done that and boy you can’t.
Larson: …how many people that have to agree to it.
Papke: You can’t put up a bird feeder in those things without getting permission.
Keefe: So that’s why I asked the question.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
37
Papke: I was struggling with it myself.
Keefe: Right.
McDonald: I guess ma’am, unless you have something to add to clarify it, at this point
I’m not sure that we need clarification.
Cara Otto: Okay, it’s just I’m the project engineer and it’s regarding the impervious and
what the calculations were for the ponding. I’m Cara Otto with Otto Associates and I just
wanted to clarify that although there is a less amount of impervious proposed based on
the buildings they submitted and those kind of things, the hydrology calcs were done
prior to them having a building chosen, so what you’re seeing on the plans are actually
quite a larger size. It’s actually more of a house pad that we’d be grading, but the
buildings would be smaller and the ponds is therefore designed with that conservative
number. And we never did, because of the drainage concerns, we never reduced it down
once they, instead of 80 feet deep it’s you know 65 feet house pads, or buildings. We
never did reduce that just because of some of the history of the area, so the pond is
actually you know planning on an increased amount, not a 25% impervious but a larger,
much larger so.
McDonald: Ma’am, could you state your name? I’m not sure you did that in the
beginning.
Cara Otto: I did quickly. It’s Cara Otto with Otto Associates.
McDonald: Okay, thank you.
Larson: Oh, my turn?
McDonald: It’s your turn. As long as we satisfied Dan’s question.
Keefe: You know just a couple other comments. In regards to, you know to get into the
actual development itself. I’d like to see some reconsideration on the trees, particularly
along Highway 7 and those significant trees. I have a concern with the safety along West
62nd and along Church and would really like to have, boy I’m not sure what can really be
done in association with this particular development but the city really needs to monitor
the safety situation along those streets so.
McDonald: Okay. Now it’s your turn.
Larson: Well you know, and I don’t want to reiterate everything he said but let’s just say
I agree with everything you just said and I want to bring up the safety issue with the
street. I’d like to see the city perhaps do a little more study on what they can do to
perhaps put in sidewalks or something, or some sort of path because there are children in
that area and there are parks. Regardless of what’s going in beyond it, the traffic flow is
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
38
going to increase quite a lot and that’s a very large concern. I mean granted, he didn’t
hear the previous. Anyway, enough people brought it up so I think it really needs to be
looked into. The drain tile issue, if we can drop that deeper on the property so the West
62nd residents aren’t getting flooded out, and then again the issue of the water going down
and washing out the beach. That’s a problem. I don’t know, I’m not an engineer. I don’t
know if I can understand what can be done to even take it further than what we had
already done, but I would like to see it looked into. And that’s all I have.
McDonald: Thank you. Kevin.
Dillon: Yeah, you know I don’t know if I can add much to that. I mean we’ve got water,
water everywhere and you know right now we know what happens when there’s a big
rain storm there. Everyone gets in trouble. Seems like there’s been a lot of professional
engineers have looked at this and have come up with a solution. On the other hand,
there’s a lot of emotion that you know says it’s not going to work and I don’t, I mean I
think we need to give, this looks like a, there’s at least a pretty good logical way of things
are going to float through the area and hopefully make it over to Lake Minnewashta in
one piece so there hasn’t been any concern from the, just the one person that kind of
spoke about that... I mean I think most people here are the neighbors to it and they’re the
ones who are kind of most concerned. It happens in their basements and their back yards
and I understand that. Is there any need to look at what might happen across the street? I
mean is that a part of the analysis?
Al-Jaff: We are currently, do you want.
Fauske: Commissioner Dillon and Planning Commission, what city staff has done is we
have hired HTPO to take a look at the drainage issues on the south side of Highway 7.
One of the preliminary findings that HTPO has found is that when the Minnewashta
Landings development went in, they made an error and did not include the drainage ditch
from Highway 7 in their drainage calculations. So that’s an issue, and so it’s a
downstream issue from this project. The ponding there. The overland flow. It didn’t
include all the drainage area going through there, and so what we’re doing is getting
HTPO to take a look at what are the volumes coming through there. What are the
discharge rates and what are some possible solutions to there.
Larson: Excuse me, who made the mistake?
Fauske: The engineer for the project, as far as I know from Minnewashta Landings.
There was over sight and they didn’t include some drainage area.
Dillon: And then the other thing is, I mean the road that leads from this development to
Cathcart Park has been inadequate since way before this project was conceived. I mean
I’ve been along that many times and so, I don’t know if there’s, if we should encourage
some greater collaboration between Chanhassen and Shorewood to put a sidewalk or a
widening or something like that between those you know, because it could tie into the
Shorewood Oaks you know thing pretty conveniently too possibly if it was done right.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
39
Papke: …circulated back to supporting the rezoning. I think it’s an appropriate land use
for something right along Highway 7. If you look at what we’ve done in other areas of
the city, you know it’s that transition zone where you transition from a busy highway to
something a little higher density to residential single family, so it’s an appropriate spot to
do that. The only bad news is, and we’ve kind of been over this, is the traffic pattern and
the only thing I’d add, if you look at the fourplex just to the northeast of here, they do
have a little better access from that fourplex, so it’s not really apples to apples
comparison to say that this is exactly equivalent, because that one did not, if I understand
the traffic flow from that one didn’t cause as many as the traffic problems that this one
will. Sometimes when this kind of development goes in, it does push the city over the
edge to say whoops, maybe we should push this farther up on the priority list for
improving the road so, in a back handed way we may end up, just as MnDot was saying,
this may be enough to push over the Church Road traffic light, which would help these
people in trying to make a, pull out and make a left hand turn in the morning when
they’re trying to go to work. It may happen that putting this would actually lead to the
solving of some of the traffic problems in the area.
McDonald: I guess my comments are that, you know I think I would echo what
Commissioner Papke just said. This is an opportunity for the residents within that
neighborhood. This developer can’t do anything about the roads. That really is beyond
the bounds of what this development is. Land is going to be developed. Everyone here
tonight has said that. Whether it’s single family homes or whether it’s what the
developer is currently asking for, it’s going to be developed. That problem is not going
to go away. The opportunity is that you have a chance here to influence your City
Councils, both of Shorewood and Chanhassen to do something about those roads. That is
a problem because the roads really are in no man’s land and what this could do is to tip
that balance to get those roads fixed, and that seems to be the biggest thing everyone has
said here tonight is that the infrastructure needs to be upgraded. It is not going to be
upgraded unless there is a reason for it, and it’s not going to happen unless you all talk to
your City Councils. There is nothing that we as a planning commission can do about the
roads. All we can do is look at what this development is. The issue of the water. I
would think that for the people living in Shorewood you would be in favor of this
because what we’re saying is, we’re going to take all the water and we’re going to dump
it to the south and we’re going to impact Chanhassen more than we’re going to impact
Shorewood. As far as the two cities, we have a letter in our file from the City of
Shorewood requesting that we cooperate with them. I’m sure staff is doing that. There is
nothing that the City of Chanhassen would rather do than cooperate with Shorewood.
However again, it’s a political problem and I think what you need to do is to address
these issues. This is an opportunity to I think get things upgraded. But this development
really impacts I think Chanhassen a lot more from a water standpoint, and I’m concerned
too about what’s happening with the water as it goes to the south, but it sounds as though
we’re looking at that and there may be some fixes for that. So as far as to the people to
the west on, to the west of the development, I don’t know what to tell you. When those
developments came through, I don’t know how your houses got built and the way they
got built because of where the water table was at. This may be an opportunity to fix
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
40
some of those problems. We cannot offer any guarantees that it will but you’ve got a
developer here that’s I think willing to do some of those things. Is willing to do
something to take a step forward to alleviate a problem that if he does nothing and walks
away, the problem does not go away. Water is a zero sum game. It’s there. It’s going
someplace. You know you have an opportunity here to try to redirect it someplace else.
I would think that would be an opportunity for you to take and to try to get that to
happen. As far as the, I guess the concern that a Commissioner Keefe has got about the
percentage of the hard surface coverage and everything. I guess I’m not as concerned
about that because yeah, the patios are there. If anyone tries to build anything more,
we’ve already been through this with a lot of the other commissions, it’s not going to
happen. If you had to go before an architectural committee, we’ve already seen the
results of that. They are very reluctant to allow any future development with any
particular area. So I guess I feel a lot safer from that standpoint, and it’s just overall,
overall I think this is a good use of the land. I know that’s not what everyone out there
wants to hear, but the other alternative is okay, we’ll deny it. We’ll make them put in
single family residences and at that point the hard surface could go up. Most likely will
because that is our experience with single family homes. That people add things to it.
Your problems do not go away. The whole thing about the water flow becomes a
different issue with single family homes than it does with this particular developer. So
I’m not sure that we do you any favors by denying the rezoning here. As far as the issue
of whether or not we are violating our own city code, what I would ask staff to do is to
ask the city attorney for an opinion on that and to give it to City Council when this goes
before them so that he is prepared for that. And I think other than that, I’m ready for a
motion on this.
Papke: Are we going to take these one at a time?
McDonald: Yes, let’s take the first one with the rezoning because I think as Sharmeen
has said, if that goes nowhere then the rest of it’s moot.
Papke: Okay. Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of Case No. 06-10 to rezone 12.99 acres of property zoned RSF, Residential
Single Family to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District for the Boulder
Cove as shown on the plans dated received July 7, 2006, and revised July 25, 2006 with
the following condition, 1 and only one condition.
McDonald: Okay, do I have a second?
Dillon: Second.
Papke moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of Case #06-10 to rezone 12.99 acres of property zoned RSF, Residential Single
Family to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District for the Boulder Cove
as shown on the plans dated received July 7, 2006, and revised July 25, 2006, subject
to the following condition:
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
41
1. Lot 22, Block 1, Boulder Cover shall remain under the Residential Single Family
zoning district.
All voted in favor, except Keefe who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of
4 to 1.
McDonald: Now let’s go ahead and continue with the others then.
Papke: Mr. Chair, I’d like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision Case #06-10 for Boulder Cove for 39
lots and 1 outlot as shown on the plans received July 7, 2006 and revised July 25, 2006,
subject to conditions 1 through 33 as stated in the staff report, and I’d like to add two
additional conditions. Condition 34. Work with the developer to resolve the back flow
on the drain tile at the vicinity of the French tile outlet. And a condition number 35. To
work with the developer to see if the additional significant trees can be saved.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Larson: Second.
Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision Case #06-10 for Boulder Cove for
39 lots and 1 outlot as shown on the plans received July 7, 2006 and revised July 25,
2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat application for staff
review. The revised calculations should include the entire area drained by the north
ditch of Trunk Highway 7 since concentration points have been established at the
inlets of the two existing culverts heading south underneath Trunk Highway 7.
2. The top and bottom of wall elevations must be shown on the final grading plan.
3. The developer will reimburse the City the cost of the Barr analysis upon final plat
approval.
4. Any retaining wall four feet high or taller must be designed by an engineer registered
in the State of Minnesota and requires a building permit.
5. The developer is required to obtain any necessary permits for the sanitary sewer
extension from the Metropolitan Council (sewer connection permit) and the City of
Shorewood (work in right-of-way permit) and West 62nd Street must be restored.
6. Rim and invert elevations of all sanitary and storm sewers must be shown on the final
utility plan.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
42
7. The utility plan must show the existing drainage and utility easements on the Miller
and Navratil properties.
8. The developer shall be responsible for any damage to the Miller’s fence as a result of
the watermain installation.
9. The existing wells and septic systems must be properly removed/abandoned.
10. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed
construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat.
11. The private street must be constructed to a 7-ton design.
12. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in
rear yard areas and bufferyards.
13. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the dripline for tree #71 or as
close to that location as possible. All other tree preservation fencing shall be installed
at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction.
14. All landscape planting shall be field located. No plantings will be allowed within the
dripline of tree #71 or below the NWL of the proposed pond.
15. No evergreens shall be planted in the front yards within a space less than 40 feet in
width between driveways.
16. The grading and the storm sewer alignment shall be shifted as far east as needed in
order to protect and save the evergreens along the westerly property line.
17. Payment of park fees at the rate in force at the time of platting shall be required as a
condition of approval. The 2006 park dedication fees are $5,800 per single family
dwelling, $5,000 for each unit in a duplex, and $3,800 for each unit within a three-plex.
18. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all storm water ponds and
storm water conveyance features outside of the public ROW.
19. The future storm water pond shall be constructed prior to mass grading of the site and
shall be used as a temporary sediment basin. A temporary outlet shall be installed
(perforated standpipe with rock cone) in the temporary sediment basin. A detail shall
be provided within the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
20. Energy dissipation shall be installed at the flared-end section outlet of the storm water
basin within 24 hours of outlet installation.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
43
21. Area inlets and curbside inlet control (Wimco or similar) shall be installed within 24
hours of inlet installation. A detail shall be provided in the SWPPP.
22. The proposed rock construction entrance shall be a minimum 20 feet in width and 75
feet in length with a filter fabric installed under the rock.
23. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover
year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as
a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or
other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
24. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as needed. A pickup broom shall be used at a minimum of once per
week or as conditions warrant.
25. The plans shall be revised to include a typical erosion control detail for individual lots
and multifamily lots.
26. At this time the total estimated SWMP fees payable upon approval of the final plat
are estimated at $67,384. The applicant will receive a water quality credit of 50% of
the per-acre water quality charge for each acre treated by the on-site pond.
27. 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)) and comply with
their conditions of approval.
28. Building Department conditions:
a. Accessibility must be provided to all portions of the development and a
percentage of the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in
accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further
information is needed to determine these requirements.
b. Buildings over 8500 square feet of floor area are required to be protected with an
automatic sprinkler system. For the purposes of this requirement property lines
do not constitute separate buildings and the areas of basements and garages are
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
44
included in the floor area threshold.
c. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as
determined by the Building Official.
d. The developer must submit a list of proposed street name(s) and an addressing
plan for review and approval prior to final plat of the property.
e. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the
site. Application for such permits must include hazardous substances
investigative and proposed mitigation reports. Existing wells and on-site sewage
treatment systems but be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code.
f. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections
Division before permits can be issued.
g. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-
hour fire-resistive construction.
h. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a
professional engineer.
i. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
j. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early
as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
k. The developer must coordinate the address changes of the two existing homes
with the construction of the development and provide access for emergency
vehicles at all times.
29. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps,
trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This
is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by
firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
b. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be
installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and
during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of
protection are provided.
c. Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction
of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire
Code Section 501.4.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
45
d. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the
imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather
driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
e. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs
must either be removed from site or chipped.
f. Fire hydrant spacing is acceptable.
30. All existing buildings on the site, with the exception of the house and garage on lot 22,
block 1, shall be removed.
31. Lot 22, Block 1, shall maintain a maximum hard surface coverage of 25%.
32. Sheets 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall be modified to reflect the new layout of Outlot A.
33. A cross-access easement agreement shall be granted in favor of the property located at
3520 Highway 7.”
34. Work with the developer to resolve the back flow on the drain tile at the vicinity of
the French tile outlet.
35. Work with the developer to see if the additional significant trees can be saved.
All voted in favor, except Keefe who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of
4 to 1.
McDonald: Motion carries 4 to 1.
Papke: Might as well finish her off. I’ll make a motion that the Planning Commission
recommends approval of site plan, Case #06-10 to construct 4 threeplexes as shown on
the plans dated received July 7, 2006 and revised July 25, 2006 with the following
conditions 1 through 4 as stated in the staff report.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Dillon: Second.
Papke moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of Site Plan #06-10 to construct 4 threeplexes as shown on the plans dated Received
July 7, 2006 and revised July 25, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall evaluate the potential for wing walls between the patios on the three-
plexes.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
46
2. The three-plexes shall be built as shown on the elevations and floor plans dated received
February 3, 2006.
3. The applicant shall utilize cultured stone on a variety of elevations, i.e. an entire garage
elevation or an entire entryway elevation, rather than stopping at the midpoint of a wall.
The applicant shall also use Hardie board siding versus stucco.
4. The applicant shall submit drawings showing the exterior elevations and materials for the
single-family and duplex units.
All voted in favor, except Keefe who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of
4 to 1.
McDonald: And with that we conclude this particular case.
Papke: 5 minute bio?
McDonald: Yes we can. What I would say to all the residents out there that yes, if you
do have questions about this, please contact staff and they would be more than happy to
explain.
(The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SITE GRADING FOR
THE DISPOSAL OF DIRT FROM THE HIGHWAY 312 CORRIDOR ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1560 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE AND 1425 BLUFF
CREEK DRIVE, AND SOUTH OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY RAIL
CORRIDOR AND BLUFF CREEK DRIVE, PLANNING CASE NO. 06-28,
ZUMBRO RIVER CONSTRUCTORS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Brad Moe 14372 Westridge Drive, Eden Prairie
Mike Billing 312 Lake Hazeltine Drive, Chaska
Cindy Peterson 1161 Bluff Creek Drive
Lindsay Lein 1161 Bluff Creek Drive
Mary Fafiushi 1520 West Farm Road, Chaska
Alyson Fauske presented the staff report regarding Site 1 and asked for
commissioner questions.
Dillon: Why is this being done?
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
47
Fauske: From what staff has been told, these property owners approached Zumbro River
Constructors stating that there’s some low areas on the property that they would like to be
filled. Zumbro River Constructors has an excessive amount of material from the 212
project that they are looking for locations to be able to use them, and so Zumbro River
Constructors came in and talked to staff about the potential of using these sites for fill and
has the proposal through here.
Larson: How does this impact the neighboring properties?
Fauske: The proposed grading would be entirely on the, Mr. Hesse and Mr. Moe’s
property. As far as impacts, there’s no physical.
Commissioner Larson made a comment that was not picked up on tape.
Fauske: It would be filling in a low area. I don’t have a photograph but.
Larson: They’re not building a mountain on that property?
Fauske: No, it’s filling in a low area. The property drops, there’s a large barn, a white
fence that they’re looking to remove regardless of the project. And it slopes from the
north to the south down to the roadway there. Just kind of a localized low area.
Larson: …fine with the neighboring properties.
Fauske: This shows the proposed area. The proposed fill area through here, and I don’t
know if the blue and the red show up very well but the red shows the low area in through
here. This is, we start moving up the slope through here and the blue shows where the
proposed fill would go in. There’s some tree lines in through here.
Keefe: And how do they get there?
Fauske: They would come from, via Audubon to Bluff Creek Drive and then staff is, if
Planning Commission is going to recommend approval, staff has provided a
recommendation to get access from this private drive here just to minimize the truck
moving, truck turning movement onto the site.
Keefe: So it just goes over land? There isn’t a roadway in there. They’d create a
roadway in there. How many trips is it? You say it’s a lot of trips.
Fauske: It’s several trips.
Keefe: Yeah.
Fauske: Each truck can take 10 cubic yards, so you’re looking at, and we never clarified
this with the applicant. I’m assuming the 35,000 cubic yards is a compacted volume, so
the volume that’s in place right now. So when you look at trucking operations, that’s the
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
48
amount of fill, that amount of volume of fill to be trucked may be increased by 20% or
more.
Papke: Could you kind of summarize your, I’m looking at the findings of fact here. The
statement that this would result in stopping traffic every other minute for over 3 weeks.
Could you explain that calculation?
Fauske: We went through this and what we looked at was, we looked at the proposal
based on the timeframe that they were requesting and the hours of operation that we
would be restricting them to. We can certainly, we can play with numbers all we want
and reduce the volume of fill being brought in there but looking at the volume of fill to be
placed in here, in their anticipated timeframe, we just looked at those trucks on a 28 foot
wide street would shut operations down every other minute.
McDonald: Is it possible to stage the trucks and say that only during certain times and
you know try to minimize the impact on?
Fauske: Well we can try to stage the trucks as much as possible but the issue is, it comes
down to the volume and the width of streets. With it being a 28 foot wide street and with
the type of vehicles that they’ll be using to bring the fill onto the site, when you take the
truck turning templates onto here, I just, I couldn’t get them to make the turns without
using up the whole roadway.
Larson: Does it wreck the road?
Fauske: The actual design of the pavement thickness of Bluff Creek Boulevard is a fairly
good thickness. So we don’t have an issue as far as the weight of the vehicles on there.
We just have an issue with the width of the road.
Larson: So.
Papke: How about the curb?
Fauske: The curb would be an issue. That’s why we would look at collecting an escrow
so that if there were curbs to be replaced, that we would have money to do so.
Larson: So the traffic issue that we’re talking about, it looks like it’s relatively…in that
area. Larger properties. So what kind of impact are we really talking as far as actual
citizens who…it doesn’t seem like it’s terribly far from one property to the other.
Fauske: I mean certainly it would, they would, Zumbro River Constructors would have
erosion control and dust mitigation measures to make sure that, to the most amount, to
the most extent praticable that they wouldn’t be disrupting neighbors. There will be truck
traffic generated from this.
Larson: Have any of the neighbors…?
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
49
Fauske: All 3 sites had a sign put up. We’ve had several calls from, and some visits to
City Hall from residents that saw the sign. They wanted to first of all make sure it wasn’t
development coming through. We explained it was a grading operation. Bringing in
anywhere between 30 to 90,000 cubic yards of fill.
Commissioner Larson’s question was not heard on tape.
Fauske: You know to be honest with you for, I don’t know if the volume of fill
registered with them. But to be honest with you, as soon as they found out it was not
development, they were fine.
Larson: You mean more so than we’re talking about what it’s going to do to the trees on
the property and that.
Fauske: Correct. And as far as traffic trips, I’m sure that there’s a representative from
Zumbro River here tonight who would perhaps give a better explanation as to what their
staging would be for traffic. How they could minimize the traffic trips through there and
you know try to make it as seemless as possible to do, if you approve, recommend
approval.
Papke: When would this occur? What time of the year? Fairly soon?
Fauske: I believe their application, well that was another issue is, you know they gave us
some time frames in the application for this site.
Papke: While school is in session? Because one of my concerns is that is a school bus
route and if we’re closing down traffic pretty frequently there, I’d feel concerned about
school buses.
Fauske: They’re predicting sometime in August, September or October of 2006.
Papke: Yeah, then you’re going to impact buses.
Fauske: And they anticipate, I believe it was 3 weeks for this. 2 weeks, okay. 2 weeks.
No, it’s 3. 3 weeks for this one. And when Zumbro River came in to talk to us about
this, they had identified that there were several sites they were looking at for grading
operations, and at that point we told them to bring them in as, all the applications in at
once, so that we could look at the cumulative effect of them. Again, they’re here tonight
to talk about what they can do as far as doing some fill operations here, and then waiting,
staggering them if you will so that they’re not trucking to multiple sites at the same time.
To the two sites off Bluff Creek Boulevard at the same time.
McDonald: Okay, if this property isn’t going to be developed, what’s the purpose of
putting the fill there? I know you said it’s low, but are we trying to bring it up so at some
point it can be developed or why these sites?
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
50
Fauske: What we were told is that the property owners approached Zumbro River
Constructors to place some fill on their property to level it out, and that’s all that we’ve
been told.
McDonald: And then if we go and restrict the hours from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., does
that take care of the school bus operation at that point?
Fauske: I believe that would still provide some conflicts. I would think for elementary
school that would have some conflicts.
McDonald: Okay. Anyone else have any questions on this particular?
Dillon: How close is this to the Seminary fen?
Fauske: This particular site, this is right here. The Seminary Fen is located right here
near Site 2.
Papke: So Site 2 would be more.
Fauske: Site 2, yes. So Site 2’s getting fill. Are we ready to move on to Site 2? Okay.
Site 2, as you can see on the drawing here, is on Bluff Creek Drive as well. The
Seminary Fen is located around here. There’s also Bluff Creek Inn is located just to the
south and east of the property. Again this is their proposed grading plan. This shows
Bluff Creek Drive at this location. To give you an idea, this is where the Inn is. Their
access would be from this field entrance here. This proposal is for 90,000 cubic yards of
fill. And their proposal would be for, I believe it was 5 weeks. 5 weeks of hauling to this
site. As you can see from the grades here, we’re high here at Bluff Creek Drive existing.
There’s some trees here located adjacent to the road, and then grades drop off as you
head to the south, and this proposal to fill along through that corridor up to the tree line.
The maximum amount of fill for this site is 27 feet. There’s some concerns that staff
also had with this site. One is that this isn’t a low area. It’s a gently sloping area. It’s
not a low area. However, so when we looked at this application, it wasn’t, we struggled
somewhat with what the reason was to place this fill here. With it not being a low area.
Just instead flattening out the slope up here at the top and then grading down to 3 to 1 up
to the tree line. That was one concern. Second concern is, all these trees along here
would be removed, and then third of all, would be the impact to this old structure here.
The Bluff Creek Drive Inn. It’s in some proximity, certainly there are construction
measures that we can take to minimize vibration to that structure but we would certainly,
we need to be cognizant of that structure being there and employ practices that would
minimize any potential damage to that building.
Larson: The trees that are there, are they significant trees or what do we have over there?
Fauske: The trees in through here, I don’t know that they, that tree’s a significant tree. I
think they just showed the tree removal. They just showed the percent of tree removal.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
51
It’s a lot of small, especially as you get along the right-of-way, it is smaller trees. The
City Forester has looked at this and her comments are also in the report. One of the, one
other environmental concern that came from our Water Resources person is, as
Commissioner Dillon had alluded to earlier, is this drawing here shows the extent of the
fen. To give you an idea of where we’re at, this is Bluff Creek Boulevard. I apologize
this is a little difficult to read. This is the proposed site where the fill will take place.
The fen comes up through here. And they have some hydric soils that come up through
here and we also had, we have another hydric soils map that indicates that there might be
some hydric soils up in this proposed fill area. The report indicates what some of the
issues are from an environmental perspective with placing fill so closely to the fen.
There’s concern with compaction of the underlying soil, that this could interrupt some of
the ground water flow characteristics in this area. There’s currently a feeder if you will
down to the fen area that runs north/south in this direction here so there’s some concerns
with ground water and the hydrology of the fen, Assumption Creek and the wetland
complex. Again, similar to the other site, staff also had concerns with the amount of
truck traffic and disruption to traffic on Bluff Creek Boulevard as a result of this fill
operation. We’ve recommended denial of this one. However, we have also provided
again an alternative recommendation on page 5 with some conditions of approval should
the Planning Commission find that there’s some resolution to the issues presented here
this evening.
McDonald: Okay, any questions on Site 2? I guess the questions I had, you can’t really
answer so I’m hoping that whoever the applicant is, that they can answer some of this.
Fauske: Okay.
McDonald: Why don’t we move on to Site 3.
Fauske: Site 3. The John Klingelhutz property which lies right here. 212 is right here.
This proposal includes the placing of up to 35,000 cubic yards of fill. Oh pardon me,
30,000 cubic yards of fill. Maximum fill of 27 feet. This drawing shows, again in red,
the existing and proposed, the existing contours, proposed contours in blue. They’re
proposing to fill a low area that is this, along the north side of Bluff Creek Drive, and
along the north side of the access to the property. There’s some tree, some tree lines
along the driveway here. This is again a natural low lying area that they’re proposing to
place some fill in. Unlike the other two applications, the fill would be brought over land
via the new, the new alignment of Bluff Creek Drive. So there would be no impact to
public roads associated with this hauling. They provided erosion control and restoration
similar to the other two plans. Therefore staff is recommending approval of this grading
interim use permit.
McDonald: Any questions concerning Site 3? Thank you very much. Is the applicant
here?
Mike Billing: Hello, I’m Mike Billing with Zumbro River Constructors. We’re located
at 312 Lake Hazeltine Drive in Chaska.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
52
McDonald: I guess at this point you’re waiting for us to ask you questions.
Mike Billing: Any questions you’ve got.
Keefe: When’s the highway going to be open?
Mike Billing: Which section?
Keefe: Dell Road.
Mike Billing: Dell Road? This fall. And if MnDot would reduce the revenue cap, we’d
open up Powers this year.
McDonald: Why this fill on these sites? What’s the importance of these particular sites
that we need to look at putting the fill there?
Mike Billing: This site here we were approached by the landowner. He’s got a low area.
He’s got a horse pasture right in this area. He’s got some standing water issues that by
filling that in he won’t have the standing water. Horses will be up on high ground instead
of on soft ground. And it will raise the site up for future development so that it would
alleviate the need for a lift station.
McDonald: It would alleviate the need for a lift station?
Mike Billing: For this property because it is so low right there.
Brad Moe: If it were to be developed.
Mike Billing: If it were to be developed down the line. I guess I’d have to go back to
staff. Do you concur with that? That doing that could possibly benefit the city?
Fauske: Based on, without looking at a development plan to know a dirt balance on the
site, yes it is a low area based on the existing grades but as well most developments have
cut in some places, fill in others. To give you a definitive, that absolutely this would
require a lift station, I cannot say that.
McDonald: Okay, that’s fair. If you don’t put the fill on these sites, where’s it going?
Mike Billing: It will either go down Audubon Road to 212 to a disposal site we have
currently down by the river, or down Bluff Creek Drive to 212, down 41 to the same
disposal site.
McDonald: And how involved are you as far as putting the fill on Site 2 and a potential
environmental impact to the fen area?
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
53
Mike Billing: We did talk to Bob Obermeyer from the watershed district. Met with him
on site and he did not see an issue with Site 2.
Keefe: Can you just back up a minute. So you’d take this down Bluff Creek Boulevard
anyway? I mean I know one of the staff concern is the number of trips going down Bluff
Creek and the amount of traffic it would generate. I mean if you weren’t doing these
particular sites during this time period, would you have more or less traffic along there?
Mike Billing: It’s about the same.
Keefe: It’d be about the same.
Oehme: I’d like to clarify that a little bit Commissioner Keefe. ZRC is not allowed to
run any trucks from their contract for the 212 contract on Bluff Creek Drive. That’s a
local road, collector roadway. They are only allowed to go down Audubon or county
roads at this time.
McDonald: So if they want to go down Bluff Creek, they have to do the same thing here.
Apply for a permit to use it?
Oehme: That’s correct. That’s in their contract.
Mike Billing: I guess we’d have to get a revised haul route. Which we’re currently in
the process of doing with the new realignment of Bluff Creek.
Dillon: You know the Site number 2, if we support the staff’s first thing to deny that, I
mean then are you guys prepared or is the land owner prepared to do the environmental
impact work that’s asked for and all these other stipulations? Or are you just going to
take it to the river bed after that?
Mike Billing: That, we’re undecided at this time. I mean it’s going to depend on how
fast we need the disposal area and timeframe that it’s going to take to do all the
paperwork.
McDonald: Any further questions? Okay, thank you very much.
Mike Billing: Sure.
McDonald: At this point I will open this up. This is a pubic meeting and we do accept
comments from the public. Come on up sir and again, state your name and address and
address the council.
Brad Moe: Hi. I’m co-applicant. My name is Brad Moe. I live at 14372 Westridge
Drive, Eden Prairie. I’m also here for my father-in-law, Harold Hesse. He’s co-applicant
as well. He lives at 1425 Bluff Creek Drive, Chanhassen. A lot of, council had questions
apparently, and I hope I can answer those. Excuse me, not council, commission. And
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
54
staff. I just want to make it clear, I’m not a developer. I’m just a farmer. We’re, you
know people are asking about the fill. I guess I’m a little concerned because I didn’t
think it was going to be this big of a thing, and we just found out this afternoon that
staff’s recommendation, that it not be approved, and I guess that’s surprising to me. I
guess I want to explain my position. I can start with Site 1. Site 1 is the homestead and
my father-in-law, he basically developed all of the Hesse Farm. I don’t know if anyone’s
familiar with it, and the homestead is this portion right here, and our intent there is, we
have the barn and the cow yard. And the cow yard slopes down and since the 1950’s my
father-in-law has been bringing fill in, and he’s put fill there and behind the barn and
what it’s done, it’s basically created a drop off to the south. And we can’t farm that. You
can’t cut the weeks. It’s a drop off. So what my intent is with this fill is to raise that cow
yard flat where it should be, and then from the cow yard down to Hesse Farm Road, fill
in the low wet area so then you can farm that and you can use that area. The other thing
is, it’s a neighborhood that was developed, as I said, previously by my father-in-law and
his desire was to keep the land rolling and wooded and natural. There has not been
extensive grading on the property. The only thing that we’re doing here, and I want to
respect that as well. And Harold’s with me on this as well is just fill the low area and
keep it appearing natural as it should be. And kind of fixing what he wrecked in the 50’s
with his fill at that time. Site 2 is located further down. That’s actually Harold’s land as
well. 20 acres below the bike trail. Formerly the railroad. And the intention there is the
same. Is to, staff stated that it’s not a low area, and it’s really not a low area but what it
has is when they built Bluff Creek Drive, when they improved it, paved it, the road was
built in such a way that it’s right on the edge of the hillside there and there’s a lot of fill
placed against the side and it drops off. And what happened previously with the railroad,
the water shoots down the hill quite fast and it goes in the gutters and they have catch
basins along there and it’s suppose to divert it down the hill. What’s happened is over the
years, once they removed the railroad tracks, that water shoots across there. Hits the edge
of, right at the top there and it falls down, so you have all this water coming down Bluff
Creek Drive, and it’s basically eroded in the what, 10 years or more since the road’s been
there. Eroded all this hillside and all that’s washed, we get all the trash off Bluff Creek
Drive and all the water, all the sand, and that’s my intent here was to fill that up so that
the water would stay within the roadway and provide us with an area that we can still
farm. As far as trees down there, those trees are dead elm and box elders. I don’t know
how you could find significant trees. There are some big box elders but the oaks and the
nice trees are further to the west. As far as the trees on Site 1, there’s probably a hand
full of those. And those are all trees that we’ve planted. My intent is to plant trees in
there once it’s done. The road project’s affecting additional land of our’s up to the north
and I have trees there. My intent is to take those trees. Transfer those onto Site 1. As far
as traffic, my understanding is reading the staff comment is that traffic’s a big issue. I
guess I look at it, yes traffic is an issue but it’s a temporary issue. I’m trying to fix
something here. Like I said previously, I’m not a developer. I’m not trying to make
money off this. I’m trying to fix problems and do the right thing, and I ask the
commission to do the right thing as well. I don’t, you know we had a case in here
beforehand. There’s a lot of people. There’s a lot of people on the Hesse Farm that
would have worst to say and I think there’s a few people here that might want to say
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
55
some words but for the most part I don’t think there’s any objection to this taking place.
And I can answer any questions you might have.
McDonald: Anybody have any questions? I guess the question I have is, would you be
agreeable to further restrictions as far as the hours? If this were to go into the school
year, to give priority to basically the bus schedule.
Brad Moe: I’d have to leave that to Zumbro. We wouldn’t have a problem with that.
Keefe: What’s the potential for getting it done before the school year?
Brad Moe: Depends on how fast the council can act.
Keefe: Does this have, this has to go to council doesn’t it? And when will it be on?
Generous: It’s scheduled for the 28th.
Keefe: Oh, not til the 28th. School’s in session then.
McDonald: And the other thing on Site 2, you know one of the recommendations that
they’re looking at is because of the Seminary Fen, there’s probably going to be some
additional impact that you’re going to have to look at there. Especially from the
standpoint of environmental impact. Are you prepared to pay the cost to get that done?
Brad Moe: I personally am not. I’m not, I can’t speak for Zumbro, but my concern is,
the fen doesn’t, isn’t adjacent to our property. I’d asked the City to place the location of
the fen because from what I can look at on this, it’s not on our property, if that’s what’s
in the red there. The orange is, I don’t know what the orange is.
Keefe: How far down from your property is the wetland? You’ve got on the elevation
there.
Brad Moe: Right. I mean everything we farmed is, it’s not wetland. I mean we’re
farming it and you can see that in black here. And that ends right at this point here so
you’d have, I don’t know. You know thousands of feet to that point where you’re at
there. It’s not a close you know, I’d be willing to meet.
Larson: ...lot?
Brad Moe: No. It’s flat. But you know I’d be willing to meet with staff and walk the
ground and you know, I’m surprised that it came to this point. That was my phone
number and name was on the application. I would have assumed I would have got a call.
I don’t want to waste anyone’s time.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
56
McDonald: Okay. Well I appreciate you coming to the meeting tonight. No one else has
any questions, is there anyone else that wishes to speak? Would you come forward
please.
Cindy Peterson: Good evening. My name is Cindy Peterson. I live at 1161 Bluff Creek
Drive and I own Bluff Creek Inn. So Site 2, I’m concerned about the Site w proposal
because it would have an impact on us. Traffic wise it would be difficult for guests
getting in and out. We’re at the bottom of the hill. Just right off of 212 so I think that
would impact people coming in and out. It would impact the hours of, between 9:00 or
3:00 would not necessarily impact us. We serve breakfast generally at 9:00 in the
morning and check out is at 11:00, but it is conceivable that people would be disrupted
from what they’re doing. Part of the charm of our place is that it’s country. There’s no
other buildings around. There’s not a lot of noise, except for the noise that goes up and
down this street. We have a well. That’s how we get our water. I understood that there
was some concern about compacting the ground with trucks and the additional of fill
being put in there affecting the ground, the water table under the ground. I’m concerned
that that might also affect our well. The field right now is level with our property. If
they filled it, then I do have some concern about drainage onto our property then, and it’s
not, it will no longer be level so I wouldn’t be interested in knowing what, how that
intends to play out. The trees are not necessarily significant trees but for guests in the
Inn that have rooms on the second floor, what they look out in the westerly direction and
that’s what they see. They see the field and they see the trees along that road. If those
trees are gone, that would impact the multi aesthetics for our property as well. 90,000
cubic yards of fill is 3 times the amount of fill for the other sites further up the hill.
That’s a lot of dirt they’re bringing in. I just have some concerns about our business. I
think it would impact our business and our livelihood. Have this construction go on. I
don’t understand how the trucks would be turning onto the property to dump the fill right
there because it is just Bluff Creek Drive, so you would have to stop traffic for trucks to
be able to get in and out and that would definitely have an impact on us. Thank you for
your time.
Keefe: One quick question. Is your business open when? Is it seasonal or is it year
round?
Cindy Peterson: It’s year round.
Keefe: It is, okay.
Cindy Peterson: And we’re in a good location for it to be year round.
McDonald: Thank you.
Cindy Peterson: Thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
57
McDonald: Does anyone else wish to come up and speak. Okay, seeing no one else
coming forward, we’ll close the public meeting on this agenda item and I’ll bring it back
up before the commissioners for an open discussion. I’ll start with you Kurt.
Papke: I guess I have to side with staff’s recommendations on this one. I’m real
concerned with disruption of traffic flow. You’ve got Bluff Creek Inn. You’ve got the
homeowners in the Hesse Farm development and those that live along there. You’ve got
the trailhead for the LRT right there, so you’d be disrupting access to the Hennepin LRT.
When, normally when we see a development, you know we’ve got pretty good grading.
You know we just went through 3 hours of drainage for the previous development with
real reasoned analysis on hydrological analysis of everything, and here we want to move
90,000 cubic yards with you know a topo map. Boy, you know I got a tough time with
that one, right next to the Seminary Fen. So you know I don’t have any problem with the
Klingelhutz one. I mean they’re going to go overland. They’re right next to 212.
There’s no disruption to traffic. The only other thing I’d add is, you know I live right
along Pioneer Trail. I’ve lived through 2 years of these trucks and don’t under estimate.
These are monster trucks, alright. My house is 300 feet away from Pioneer Trail and my
house shakes when they go by in the morning so, you know this is no minor impact so.
McDonald: Okay. Kevin.
Dillon: I’d agree. I think the Site number 2 is definitely got some issues on that. I think
that is kind of closer to comfort to the Seminary Fen so that, and plus we heard from the
one person on there with the, although it’s temporary, a potential impact on business for a
while, and certainly the added you know, you’re going to be right near the bicycle trail
and stuff. With the Site number 1, you know with the staff’s recommendations,
stipulations they have and they seem pretty reasonable. I would support that one and the
Klingelhutz one certainly seems…
Larson: Exactly what they just said.
McDonald: Okay. Dan.
Keefe: So what can we do, we can’t do 1 and 3 right? So I guess I’d be in support of 1
and 3 which is different than what staff.
Papke: You are going to impact traffic when you do that.
Keefe: Right, but for a shorter period of time and I think.
Commissioner Larson’s comments were not picked up on tape.
McDonald: I guess my concern is, the lack of detail, especially well with the Site 2. You
know I guess Site 1 and Klingelhutz, I can be in favor of that, especially if the
Klingelhutz, when you tell me that we won’t have to use the road to get there, that makes
it a little bit more palatable and with the other one, if there’s some way to arrange that so
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
58
again there’s minimal impact, that would be something that I guess Zumbro needs to talk
to staff about and whatever restrictions staff would come up with. You’ve got to give
priority to the school year. You can’t be stopping buses and those things. And I guess
with Site 3, looks as though that one could be done fairly quickly so that minimizes the
impact off from the rest of the roadway there but, yeah I just don’t have enough detail
and I think Mr. Papke’s right. We spent 3 hours you know going through all kinds of
stuff about changing land because of water and those things. I don’t have enough detail
and confidence on Site 2. Even if you’re agreeable to working with staff, I think that’s
something that probably should have been done before hand so that we don’t have to do
this all on the fly. That’s just kind of my opinion on it but, now a question for staff. My
understanding is that we can vote on these a site at a time, is that right?
Generous: That’s correct.
McDonald: Okay. And at that point are you willing to accept.
Keefe: We could amend it too.
McDonald: Yeah, well…staff’s already proposed an amendment for us for Site 1. So
I’m open to a motion.
Keefe: I’ll make a motion the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval
of Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permit to grade and fill Site 3 in conformance
with the grading plans prepared by Zumbro River Constructors for the site subject to
conditions 1 through 10, and I would offer an amendment to this to include Site 1.
Larson: Second that.
Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permits to grade and fill Site 1
(1425 Bluff Creek Drive) in conformance with the grading plans prepared by
Zumbro River Constructors for the site, subject to the following conditions:
1. “Truck Hauling” signs posted at each end of Bluff Creek Drive.
2. Flag-persons must be on-site during trucking operations.
3. Bluff Creek Drive must be scraped and swept daily.
4. For safety reasons, access to the site should be via West Farm Road. The owner and
applicant are responsible for obtaining permission for this access.
5. A $4,500 escrow must be posted to guarantee the replacement of Bluff Creek Drive
curb and gutter and pavement that is damaged due to the trucking operations at this
site.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
59
6. Hours of operations shall be 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no work allowed on holidays.
7. The site access must be clearly shown on the plan.
8. No fill shall be placed within the Bluff Creek Drive right-of-way.
9. The proposed swale along the southeast edge of the property shall be constructed to
minimize the potential for erosion around existing trees.
10. Each site shall be examined by a professional wetland delineator to determine
whether jurisdictional wetlands exist on-site or within 150 feet of the proposed fill.
Any wetlands that are identified shall be delineated, then reviewed by the City prior
to any work commencing on-site. If the delineation shows the proposed project to
include wetland impact, the applicant shall obtain a wetland alteration permit from the
City prior to wetland impacts occurring.
11. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall
be maintained around any 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 maintain a
setback of at least 40 feet from ag/urban wetland buffer edges.
12. Wetland replacement, if necessary, shall occur in a manner consistent with the
wetland alteration permit and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
13. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover
year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as
a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or
other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
14. Silt fence shall be installed at the base of all proposed slopes in accordance with
Chanhassen Standard Detail Plates 5300. A rock construction entrance meeting the
specifications of Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5301 shall be installed where truck
traffic will enter and exit Bluff Creek Drive. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public
streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. Wimco-type
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
60
inlet protection shall be installed in accordance with Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate
5302A in all catch basins within 200 feet of the proposed project sites and maintained as
needed. The construction plans shall be revised to show the locations of the proposed
silt fence, rock construction entrances and Wimco-type inlet protection and to include
Chanhassen Standard Detail Plates 5300, 5301 and 5302A.
15. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Transportation) and comply with
their conditions of approval. Zumbro River Constructors shall apply for and receive
an amendment to their existing NPDES Phase II Construction Permit for the Trunk
Highway 212 project from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to incorporate a
storm water pollution prevention plan for these sites.
16. The applicant should review proposed slopes and runoff velocities for the site and
provide additional rock checks as an erosion control mechanism if needed. Rock
checks proposed within the right-of-way for Bluff Creek Drive must be reviewed and
approved by the City prior to installation.
All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of
4 to 1.
Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permits to grade and fill Site 3
(1560 Bluff Creek Drive) in conformance with the grading plans prepared by
Zumbro River Constructors for the site, subject to the following conditions:
1. Overland hauling must utilize the existing creek crossing for the Bluff Creek Drive
realignment.
2. No fill shall be placed within the Bluff Creek Drive right-of-way.
3. Hours of operations are 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no work allowed on holidays.
4. Each site shall be examined by a professional wetland delineator to determine
whether jurisdictional wetlands exist on-site or within 150 feet of the proposed fill.
Any wetlands that are identified shall be delineated, then reviewed by the City prior
to any work commencing on-site. If the delineation shows the proposed project to
include wetland impact, the applicant shall obtain a wetland alteration permit from the
City prior to wetland impacts occurring.
5. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall
be maintained around any ag/urban wetlands. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved,
surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
61
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 maintain a
setback of at least 40 feet from ag/urban wetland buffer edges.
6. Wetland replacement, if necessary, shall occur in a manner consistent with the
wetland alteration permit and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
7. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover
year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as
a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or
other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
8. Silt fence shall be installed at the base of all proposed slopes in accordance with
Chanhassen Standard Detail Plates 5300. A rock construction entrance meeting the
specifications of Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5301 shall be installed where truck
traffic will enter and exit Bluff Creek Drive. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public
streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. Wimco-type
inlet protection shall be installed in accordance with Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate
5302A in all catch basins within 200 feet of the proposed project sites and maintained as
needed. The construction plans shall be revised to show the locations of the proposed
silt fence, rock construction entrances and Wimco-type inlet protection and to include
Chanhassen Standard Detail Plates 5300, 5301 and 5302A.
9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Transportation) and comply with
their conditions of approval. Zumbro River Constructors shall apply for and receive
an amendment to their existing NPDES Phase II Construction Permit for the Trunk
Highway 212 project from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to incorporate a
storm water pollution prevention plan for these sites.
10. The applicant should review proposed slopes and runoff velocities for the site and
provide additional rock checks as an erosion control mechanism if needed. Rock
checks proposed within the right-of-way for Bluff Creek Drive must be reviewed and
approved by the City prior to installation.
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
62
All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of
4 to 1.
Generous: Mr. Chairman, could I have a point of clarification?
McDonald: You certainly can.
Generous: As part of that motion, did you add those alternate conditions on page 3 of the
staff report? That directly dealt with Site 1?
McDonald: I thought that that was your intent.
Keefe: Yes, it was my intent. I thought were those included in the?
Generous: They’re not.
Keefe: They would be to include those.
Generous: So add those conditions.
Keefe: Yes.
Generous: Thank you.
McDonald: We need to look at Site 2. So I would need a motion for Site 2.
Keefe: I though it was either or. A or B.
McDonald: Okay. It’s getting late. This is one of those things where we’re having
problems. I need some help from staff as far as.
Generous: Mr. Chairman, if you’d just take Motion A and drop Site 1 from that, then you
would be denying Site 2.
Keefe: We can do it that way.
McDonald: Is that alright? Okay. Do we need to revote on that then?
Generous: You would have to make a motion, yes because you did the approval of the
interim use permits so now you’re actually moving to deny an interim use permit.
Keefe: Okay, I’ll make a motion the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
denial of Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permit to grade and fill properties
identified as Site 2 in the staff report.
McDonald: Second?
Planning Commission Meeting – August 1, 2006
63
Larson: Second.
Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends denial of Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permit to grade and fill
properties identified as Site 2 located southwest of Bluff Creek Drive, south of the
Hennepin County Regional Trail Corridor and north of the Bluff Creek Inn. All
voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to
1.
McDonald: Okay, motion carries 4 to 1. Now the other site, was that covered?
Generous: That was part of the first one.
Keefe: Yeah, that was part of the first one.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and
summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 18, 2006 as
presented.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:35 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director
FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: August 28, 2006
SUBJECT: Lot 1, Block 1 Chan Haven Plaza 3rd- Release from
Development Contract and Statement Regarding Claims
Legal counsel for the party purchasing Lot 1, Block 1 Chan Haven Plaza 3rd,
60 Lake Drive has requested release from a development contract recorded
against the property. Legal counsel has also requested confirmation from
the City that there are no claims against the property with respect to the
Drainage Easement Agreement, Watermain and Sanitary Sewer Easement
Agreement and Landscaping Easement Agreement recorded against the
property.
Staff has researched the request and finds that all conditions set forth in the
development contract have been satisfied and the letter of credit and
maintenance bond have been returned.
Staff is not aware of any claims regarding the Drainage Easement
Agreement, Watermain and Sanitary Sewer Easement Agreement and
Landscaping Easement Agreement recorded against the property. All
easements will remain in place. A copy of the letter that will be sent to the
legal counsel is attached for your information.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council release Lot 1, Block 1 from the
Development Contract dated February 14, 1991, recorded April 26, 1991 as
Document No. 123344 in the Office of County Recorder, State of Minnesota,
County of Carver.
c: Kezia Coleman, Messerli & Kramer, P.A.
G:\ENG\PROJECTS\A-E\Chan Haven Plaza\8-28-06 CC memo.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Oehme, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: August 28, 2006
SUBJECT: Approve Consultant Contract for 2007 Street Rehabilitation
Improvement Project- Project No. 07-02
REQUESTED ACTION (Simple majority vote required)
City Council is recommended to authorize the preparation of a feasibility study for the
2007 Street Improvement Project and approve a consultant work order in the amount of
$100,450.00 with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
BACKGROUND
On August 14, 2006, staff discussed the proposed scope of the 2007 Street Improvement
Project with Council. Approximately 9,200 linear feet of streets are proposed to be
milled and overlaid at an estimated cost of $600,000.00. The area for improvements
include: Pleasantview Curve, Bighorn Drive, Shadowmere Terrace, Hill Street, Pimlico
Lane, Preakness Lane, Derby Drive, Canterbury Circle, Belmont Lane, Bighorn Drive,
Shadowmere Terrace, South Shore Drive, and South Shore Court. Rehabilitation will
also include repair of damaged pavement areas and replacing damaged concrete curb and
gutter and other miscellaneous improvements. A map of the 2007 Street Improvement
Project Area is attached.
On August 10, 2006, a Request for Proposals (RFPs) for this project was emailed to the
City’s consultant pool, which includes: Bolton & Menk, Inc., Bonestroo, Rosene,
Anderlik & Associates, Hansen, Thorp, Pellinen, Olson, Inc. (HTPO), and Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc. All firms submitted a proposal, which is summarized as follows:
Bolton &
Menk, Inc.
Bonestroo,
Rosene,
Anderlik &
Associates
Hansen,
Thorp,
Pellinen,
Olson, Inc.
Kimley-
Horn and
Associates,
Inc.
Submitted prior to the deadline ü ü ü ü
Acknowledgement of
Clarification #1 ü ü ü ü
Proposal format ü ü ü ü
Transmittal letter submitted with
required information ü ü ü ü
Members of the consultant team
identified ü ü ü ü
Understanding of project ü ü ü ü
Construction Supervisor
Experience ü ü ü ü
Proposed cost $129,050.00 $105,437.00 $111,675.00 $100,450.00
FUNDING
Forty percent of the project cost will be assessed to the benefiting property owners. The remainder of the
project cost will be paid from the enterprise funds or revolving street assessment account.
The contract will be a time and materials based work not to exceed amount. As with all engineering
contracts, the consultant must submit periodical invoices that staff will review before processing. The
consultant will be required to submit time sheets verifying the hours worked on the project and expense
sheets. Staff will review the invoices and expense sheets for accuracy and conformance to the contract.
Kimley-Horn has worked on several City projects, most recently the 2005 MUSA improvements. Their
work has been satisfactory.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
Move to authorize the preparation of a feasibility study for 2007 Street Improvement Project and approve
a consultant work order with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $100,450.00 for
complete engineering services related to the project.
Attachments: Project Area Map
c: Gordy Stauff, Engineering Technician IV
Jon Horn, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Chadd Larson, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Marcus Thomas, Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Mark Statz, Bonestroo, Rosene Anderlik & Associates
Laurie Johnson, HTPO, Inc.
g:\eng\public\07-02 2007 road rehabilitation\approve consultant contract 082806.doc
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, P.E., Dir. of Public Works/ City Engineer
DATE: August 18, 2006
SUBJ: Approve Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Shorewood for Watermain
Interconnect PW- 418
REQUESTED ACTION
Approve Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Shorewood for Watermain Interconnect
BACKGROUND
The City of Shorewood is requesting the City of Chanhassen service 35 existing properties in
the Apple Road neighborhood with Chanhassen water. The Apple Road neighborhood is just
north of Yosemite Road. The City of Shorewood well that currently services this
neighborhood is beginning to fail and the City of Shorewood does not want to make
improvements to the well.
The City of Shorewood paid for water distribution modeling and analysis to see if this area
could be serviced by Chanhassen water. The analysis did not find any significant impacts to
our system or any system capacity problems. The analysis also looked at looping the
watermain through this area or servicing this area by one watermain. The looping option was
found not to be feasible because of topographic constraints, and lack of necessary utility
easements. Water quality and reliability of the system is the only draw back with the one
watermain service option. The analysis also showed that a pressure reducing station would be
required to bring the water pressures down to plumbing code requirements.
Since water service was found to be feasible, staff has negotiated a connection fee for these
connections. The proposed amount for the connection is $230,000, which is 1.6 times the
current connection fee. Shorewood will pay 100% of all the improvements. The City of
Shorewood will pay for and install a meter to determine the amount of water the Shorewood
resident’s use. Chanhassen personal will radio read this meter like all other meters in the City
and send the City of Shorewood a bill each quarter. The City of Shorewood will then directly
bill the Shorewood residents.
The City has entered into these types of agreements in the past. Chanhassen currently
services some City of Victoria residents but bills the residents directly. The Settlers West
Development in the southeast area of the City is serviced by City of Eden Prairie water. The
City of Eden Prairie bills the Settlers West Development residents directly. Both of these
areas were with new developments not existing units. In order for staff to bill Shorewood
residents directly new meters would need to be installed at each property. From a staff’s
perspective, it would be easier to bill the City of Shorewood one bill and not deal with
potential delinquent payments from residents outside Chanhassen and Carver County.
Attachments
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Truth in Taxation.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor
City Council Members
FROM: Greg Sticha, Finance Director
DATE: August 15, 2006
SUBJ: Set Date for Truth in Taxation Hearing
The State of Minnesota annually sets aside dates for cities to hold their Truth in
Taxation hearings, along with dates for schools, counties and special taxing
districts. The first date is the public hearing where taxpayers are requested to
give input into the proposed budget and tax levy. The second date must be at
least one week later and is the earliest that we can finalize our budget. The
recommended dates for the hearing and adoption of the 2007 budget are
December 4 and December 11.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council set the dates as presented. This action
requires a simple majority vote of those present.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
DATE: August 22, 2006
SUBJ: Set Special Meeting Date, Joint Meeting with Commissions
Periodically, the City Council will meet with commissions to discuss issues or
concerns the commissions may have regarding developments, projects, roles and
responsibilities, etc. It is recommended that this meeting be scheduled for:
Thursday, September 18, 2006, 5:30 p.m.
Fountain Conference Room
Chanhassen City Hall
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Gregg Geske- Fire Chief
Sherri Walsh – 1st Assistant Chief
Randy Wahl - 2nd Assistant Chief
Mark Littfin- Fire Marshal
Ed Coppersmith – Training Officer
DATE: August 18, 2006
SUBJ: Monthly City Council update
Fire Department Overview:
Staffing is at 42 active firefighters as of February 18, 2005; allocation is 45 PTEs.
As of August 6, we are at 323 calls for the year, down 38 from 361 at the same time in 2005. We have
taken on three additional probationary members since our last Council Update.
We participated in the Carver County Fair activity doing standby and manning the Public Safety Booth.
The family of the house fire on Lake Susan Hills Drive attended our training to thank the firefighters for
the work that they had done.
Fire Training:
During the month of July the following training was held; HazMat operations refresher, Engineer and
dive training as well as Company level training – use of ground ladders.
Fire Marshal:
The fire last month on Lake Susan Hills Drive is still under investigation by the insurance company and
the toaster manufacturer. They will notify us when their report is finished. Gary Carlson on West 62nd
Street was cited recently for an illegal burn. No other significant fires to report on.
Todd Gerhardt
August 18, 2006
Page 2
Fire Inspections:
Ed Coppersmith has almost finished re-inspections of the restaurants in town, and has started the first
round of inspections for the daycare centers. Inspections and plan reviews for new projects are on the
increase. Emerson’s addition will be requiring inspections shortly as well as the Gateway Apartments,
Town and Country townhouses, the Minger building, Waytec, Partech, Pizza Hut, Jimmy Johns subs, the
water treatment plant, as well as other projects. We anticipate getting much busier in the next two to
three months. We should be gearing up for an exciting fall season.
Fire Prevention:
National Night Out was a huge success. We had three fire trucks visit eight neighborhoods over the
course of three hours. In spite of the heavy rains that evening, participation by neighbors was high.
Everyone had a wonderful time. We also have been busy with a number of visits to neighborhood block
parties as well as a couple of requests for fire trucks at local businesses. Maggie Moos in conjunction
with Spalon Montage had a local fundraiser for school supplies for kids and NRG Chiropractic had an
open house as well. The Fire Department will be gearing up for their Open House in October and fire
prevention week activities with the four grade schools in town.
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
IN RE: Application of Boulder Cove Subdivision #06-10
On August 28, 2006, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to
consider the application of a Rezoning of 12.99 acres of property zoned RSF, Single Family
Residential District, to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District, Preliminary Plat
with Variances to Subdivide 13.69 Acres into 39 lots and 1 outlot, Boulder Cove and Site Plan
Approval for the construction of 4 Three-Plex Units, Boulder Cove.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development which was
preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all
interested persons wishing to speak. The City Council now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned RSF, Residential Single Family District.
2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential – Low Density (1.2 –
4.0 units per net acre).
3. The legal description of the property is attached as Exhibit A.
4. With respect to the proposed rezoning from RSF, Residential Single Family District, to
Residential Low and Medium Density District, RLM, The City Council finds:
a. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and
furthers its goals and policies.
b. The proposed rezoning is compatible with present and future land uses in the area.
c. The proposal conforms to all performance standards contained in the Zoning
Ordinance.
5. The Subdivision Ordinance directs consideration of seven possible adverse effects of the
proposed subdivision. The seven (7) effects and our findings regarding them are:
2
SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS
a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RLM and RSF
Districts and the zoning ordinance if the private street and length of cul-de-sac
variances are approved.
b. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional
plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
The site is guided for a density ranging between 1.2 – 4 units per acre. The
subject site is proposed to have a gross density of 2.85 and a net density of 3.32
units per acre.
c. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography,
soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding,
and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions
specified in this report.
d. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm
drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements
required by this chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure.
e. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause excessive environmental
damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains
adequate open areas to accommodate house pads.
f. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but
rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
g. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of
the following exists:
1. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
2. Lack of adequate roads.
3. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
4. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
3
Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets.
6. Variances. Section 18-57. Streets. (r) Private streets serving up to four (4) lots may be
permitted in the A2, RR, RSF and R4 if the criteria in variance section 18-22 are met and upon
consideration of the following:
(1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a
public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of
existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of
wetlands.
(2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public
street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to
provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(3) The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural
resources, including wetlands and protected areas.
There is an existing single-family home on Lot 22, Block 1 that is proposed to remain.
Extending the cul-de-sac across Lot 22 is not a viable option nor is it warranted. Staff received a
request from the owner of 3520 Highway 7 to incorporate their access into the proposed
subdivision. They expressed concern with the volume of traffic on Highway 7 and difficulty
accessing their property from the highway. The applicant of Boulder Cove agreed to grant
access over Lot 22, Block 1. Elimination of the access points to Highway 7 is a safety
improvement.
VARIANCE FINDINGS
Sec. 18-22. Variances.
The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the
plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist:
1) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience.
Finding: The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The proposed private street and cul-
de-sac length promote public safety.
2) The hardship is due to the removal of access to Highway 7.
Finding: The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape and
topographical conditions of the land.
3) The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to
other property.
Finding: The conditions upon which the request is based are unique to this site and not
generally applicable to other properties due to its location next to Highway 7 and the fact
that all properties north of the subject site are developed making a second access unfeasible.
4
4) The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is
in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and
comprehensive plan.
Finding: The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public
welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance,
and comprehensive plan. The applicant is providing local access to properties that currently
access via Highway 7.
7. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's
compliance with the following:
a) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides,
including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that
may be adopted;
b) Consistency with this division;
c) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing
tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the
general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing
areas;
d) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural
site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to
the development;
e) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features,
with special attention to the following:
1. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general
community;
2. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
3. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of
the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and
4. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public
streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior
circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement
and amount of parking.
f) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision
for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light
5
and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations
which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the City's design requirements,
the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the site plan review requirements with
the exception of the length of the cul-de-sac and the private street, which will require a
variance. Staff is recommending approval of both. The site design is compatible with
the surrounding developments. It is functional and harmonious with the approved
development for this area.
The overall design is sensitive to the City’s image based on location.
8. The Planning Case #06-10, dated August 1, 2006, prepared by Sharmeen Al-Jaff, et al, is
incorporated herein.
DECISION
The City Council approves the Rezoning, Site Plan and Preliminary Plat and
subdivsion variances.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 28th day of August 2006.
BY:___________________________________
Its Mayor
6
EXHIBIT A
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION OF RECORD:
All that part of Section Five (5), township One Hundred Sixteen (116) North, Range Twenty
Three (23) West, described as follows:
Beginning at a judicial landmark on the north line of said Section Five (5), a distance of
478.5 feet East of the South Quarter Corner of Section 32, Township 117 North, Range
23 West; thence East along the north line of said Section Five (5), a distance of 491.84
feet to a point which is the point of beginning of the land herein described; thence
deflecting right and forming an interior angle of 102 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds and
running a distance of 53.17 feet; thence deflecting left and forming an exterior angle of
195 degrees 18 minutes 35 seconds and running a distance of 152.4 feet to a point on the
north line of State Trunk Highway No. 7; thence Southwesterly along the north line of
State Trunk Highway No. 7, a distance of 150.01 feet; thence Northwesterly, a distance
of 296.70 feet to the north line of said Section Five (5) and which said point is 185.82
West of the place of beginning of this description; thence East along the north line of said
Section Five to the place of beginning containing 1.2 acres of land more or less according
to the government survey thereof.
All that part of Section 5, Township 116 North of Range 23 West described as follows:
Beginning at a judicial landmark on the north line of said Section 5, a distance of 478.5
feet East of the South Quarter Corner of Section 32, Township 117 North of Range 23
West; thence East along the north line of said Section 5 to the Northwesterly line of the
right-of-way of State Trunk Highway No. 7 which right-of-way is set forth and described
in Case No. 9902 on file in the office of the Clerk of District Court, Carver County,
Minnesota; thence Southwesterly along said right-of-way to its intersection with a line
drawn through the point of beginning and forming an interior angle of 90 degrees 35
minutes with the north line of said Section 5; thence North to beginning, according to the
United States Government Survey thereof and situate in Carver County, Minnesota.
Excepting all that part of Section 5, Township 116 North of Range 23 West, described as
follows:
Beginning at judicial landmark on the north line of said Section 5, a distance of 478.5 feet
East of the South Quarter Corner of Section 32, Township 117 North of Range 23 West;
thence East on said Section line, a distance of 491.84 feet to a point which is the point of
beginning of the land to be hereinafter described; thence continuing East along said
Section line 317.85 feet to a point; thence South 76.2 feet, more or less to the North right-
of-way line of State Trunk Highway No. 7 which right-of-way is described in Case No.
9902 on file in the office of the Clerk of District Court, in and for Carver County,
Minnesota; thence Southwesterly along the North right-of-way line 260.5 feet; thence at
right angles Northwesterly 152.4 feet to a point; thence Northwesterly 51.9 feet to the
point of beginning.
Excepting also all that part of Section 5, Township 116, Range 23 described as follows:
7
Beginning at a judicial landmark on the north line of said Section 5, a distance of 478.5
feet East of the South Quarter Corner of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23; thence
East along the north line of said Section 5 to the Northwesterly line of the right-of-way of
State Trunk Highway No. 7 which right-of-way is set forth and described in Case No.
9902 on file in the office of the Clerk of District Court in and for Carver County,
Minnesota, which is the point of beginning for the tract to be conveyed hereby; thence
Southwesterly along said right-of-way a distance of 236 feet; thence due North 57 feet;
more or less, to the north line of said Section 5; thence East along said section line for the
place of beginning.
All that part of Section 5, Township 116 North, Range 23 West described as follows, to wit:
Commencing at the Southwest Corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township
117 North, Range 23 West; thence Easterly along the north line of said Section 5,
Township 116, Range 23, a distance of 478.5 feet; thence South 585.2 feet; thence South
62 degrees West 687.5 feet; thence North 16 degrees 30 minutes West 196.6 feet; thence
South 73 degrees 18 minutes West 198.5 feet; thence North 16 degrees 20 minutes West
795.8 feet to the north line of said Section 5; thence Easterly along said north line of said
Section 5, a distance of 598.2 feet to point of beginning, the East line of said property
above described runs in a North and South direction.
Excepting from above the following described parcel of land: That part of Section 5,
Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Commencing at the Southwest Corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township
117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence Easterly along the north line of said
Section 5, a distance of 478.5 feet; thence south, a distance of 585.2 feet; thence South 62
degrees West, a distance of 445.5 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be
described; thence continuing South 62 degrees West, a distance of 242.0 feet; thence
North 16 degrees 30 minutes West, a distance of 196.6 feet; thence South 73 degrees 18
minutes West 198.5 feet; thence North 16 degrees 20 minutes West, a distance of 795.8
feet to the north line of said section; thence East along the said north line of said section a
distance of 313.7 feet to a point 284.5 feet West of the Southwest corner of the Southeast
Quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence
South 25 degrees 12 minutes East 868.1 feet to the point of beginning.
Excepting from above the following described parcel of land: All that part of Section 5,
Township 116 North of Range 23 West described as follows, to wit:
Commencing at a point which is determined as follows:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township
117, Range 23 West, thence Easterly along the north line of said Section 5, Township
116, Range 23, a distance of 478.5 feet; thence South 585.2 feet; thence South 62 degrees
West, 687.5 feet; thence North 16 degrees 30 minutes West 196.6 feet, to a point of
beginning of land to be described; thence South 73 degrees 18 minutes West 198.5 feet;
thence North 16 degrees 20 minutes West 219.45 feet; thence Northeasterly 198.5 feet
8
along a line parallel with the Southerly line of the tract conveyed herein; thence
Southeasterly 219.45 feet along a line parallel to the Westerly line of the tract conveyed
herein to point of beginning, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office
of the Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor
City Council Members
FROM: Greg Sticha, Finance Director
DATE: August 28, 2006
SUBJ: Approval of Preliminary Tax Levy
In response to the discussion and City Council direction at the council work
session on August 14th and the work session of earlier this evening, staff has
prepared a couple options for a preliminary tax levy.
The City Council needs to decide the preliminary levy amount during the work
session earlier tonight. As a reminder, the preliminary tax levy is the maximum
amount the City can impose when adopting the final tax levy in December. The
preliminary levy can only be reduced between now and the adoption of the final
tax levy.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the preliminary tax levy as
discussed at the work session earlier this evening. This action requires a simple
majority vote of those present.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution Adopting the Preliminary 2007 Budget and Establishing Truth
in Taxation Tax Levies for 2006, Collectible in 2007
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
DATE: August 28, 2006 RESOLUTION NO: 2006-
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PRELIMINARY 2007 BUDGET, AND ESTABLISHING
TRUTH IN TAXATION TAX LEVIES FOR 2006, COLLECTIBLE IN 2007
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN AS
FOLLOWS:
1. That the 2007 Budget for the City of Chanhassen is adopted in the aggregate revenue and
expenditure amounts for the General Fund of $ 9,123,400, which are detailed in the 2007
Preliminary Budget; and
2. That the total preliminary levy to be certified to Carver County by September 15, 2006 is
$9,575,778; and
3. That the following sums of money have been scheduled as “Proposed Levy Certification”
to fund operations of the general fund, capital replacement fund, MSA fund and debt
service funds to be levied in 2006 for collection in 2007 upon the taxable property in the
City of Chanhassen as shown in this resolution; and
4. That the City Council of the City of Chanhassen determines that certain bonded
indebtedness levies are hereby adopted to meet current and future bond requirements and
that the County Auditor is hereby authorized and directed to increase or reduce the
previously adopted bonded debt levies as shown on the attached Tax Levy Certification
document ; and
5. That the Truth in Taxation hearing date will be set for December 4, 2006 and the budget
and tax levy adoption will be set for December 11, 2006 as allowed by law; and
6. That the City of Chanhassen authorizes the County Auditor to certify the amounts as set
forth in the attached Proposed Levy Certification document for purposes of preparing the
Truth in Taxation notices.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 28th day of August, 2006.
ATTEST:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
YES NO ABSENT