CC 2005 05 09
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 9, 2005
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
Labatt, Councilman Lundquist and Councilman Peterson
STAFF PRESENT:
Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Todd
Hoffman, and Paul Oehme
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Michael Nelson 15667 Village Woods Drive
Blake Freese 7060 Howard Lane
Steve St. Bonifacius 6655 HorseFoot Lane
Mark Undestad Planning Commission
John Backes 8951 Sylvan Ridge
Irene Alexiu 9730 Purgatory Road
Lynne Webster 9953 Balmoral Lane
Stacy Stiles 9920 Balmoral Lane
Aaron Burstein 9520 Leaftop Circle
Josh Trohy 17450 Georgemoran Drive
Brandon Heckmann 17737 Cascade Drive
Leslie Backes 8951 Sylvan Ridge
Sokhoeut Tong 11385 Westwind Drive
David Jansen Chanhassen Villager
Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Jon Pidde 14015 Chestnut Drive, Eden Prairie
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening everybody and welcome those that are here this
evening and those watching at home as well. We appreciate you joining us. At this time I’d like
to ask if there’s any additions or modifications to the agenda that was distributed with the council
packet?
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, I would like to add item number 4 at the end of new
business. Resolution for action in the Chanhassen Skate Park.
Mayor Furlong: Without objection. If not we proceed with the agenda as modified.
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Furlong: We’ll start with public announcements this evening. This coming weekend our
Chanhassen American Legion Post will be hosting the Third District Annual Convention on May
thth
13 through the 15. This convention will bring hundreds of American Legion members to our
city for a weekend full of events. The convention will conclude with a parade in downtown
thth
Chanhassen along West 78 Street on Sunday, May 15 beginning at 1:00. Everyone is invited
to come downtown and watch the honor guards and the parade and there will be bands, classic
cars and other parade events. The City of Chanhassen is honored to know that the American
Legion is selected to host this event and we hope that all the residents will come out and support
our veterans and enjoy the parade. Additionally, the Chanhassen American Legion deserves
recognition for their contributions to our city over years. This includes donations to our fire
department, senior center, law enforcement, crime prevention, and our park and recreation
department. They’ve also contributed to a broader community including Boy Scouts of America,
Ducks Unlimited, Epilepsy Foundation, Legion Baseball, Special Olympics, Campfire USA and
many more. We’re proud to have the American Legion part of our city community and we wish
them every success with this coming weekend’s convention. I believe there’s a representative or
two from the Legion. Would you like to come up and just extend a personal invitation?
George Beniek: Mr. Mayor, my name is George Beniek, and fellow councilmen by the way.
Not fellow, councilmen. Yes, appreciate the, those comments for the Legion and we invite
everyone to come out and join in the festivities on Sunday. There will be a memorial service
also by the library, 9:30 Sunday morning if anybody wishes to attend. So with that thank you
very much and appreciate the comments.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Hope it all goes well.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s
recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-Board of Review & Equalization Minutes dated April 25, 2005
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated April 25, 2005
-City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated April 25, 2005
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated April 19, 2005
Resolution#2005-45:
f. Preliminary & Final Plat Approval to Subdivide 5.2 Acres into 2
nd
Lots; Seven Forty-One Crossing 2 Addition, Located South of Highway 7 and West of
Highway 41, Thomas Hodorff.
g. Amendment to City Code Chapters 1, 10, 13, 18 & 19 Correcting State Citation
References.
2
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Resolution#2005-46:
h. Approval of Proclamation Recognizing the Chanhassen American
th
Legion and Proclaiming May 15 as Chanhassen American Legion Post 580 Day.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
CRESTVIEW FINAL PLAT AND APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, PROJECT 05-11.
Tim Larkin: Mr. Mayor, council members. I’d like to begin by just briefly reading a letter to put
on the record the items of concern that I have over the Crestview project. I appreciate the fact
that you’ve removed the project from the consent agenda so that I might briefly address you. A
great deal of effort has gone into this project on the part of the city staff and the developer in
order to make it work for all parties and I appreciate their efforts. City staff has a difficult job to
do, as do each of you. There’s only one item that we remain divided over and that’s the
inclusion of the pedestrian walkway to the junior high school. After meeting last week with city
staff a recommendation remains to keep the access trail and it seems to be for two reasons. A,
the comprehensive plan calls for connection to parks and the junior high school has been deemed
a park. B, due to the possibility that the school district will begin charging residents of
Chanhassen who live within 2 miles of the middle school for transportation. Therefore pedestrian
access to the school is increasingly important. While I certainly appreciate the city’s concern for
these two issues I would like to submit that the currently approved access points more than
accommodate each of these concerns. As you review the map of access points to the school,
which I’ll hope to do in this…you’ll see that the Crestview access would be only 50 yards from
the previously approved Plowshares access, or Pinehurst access. And it would be 166 yards
from the existing access on Murray Hill Road. It’s my hope that the council will agree that the 3
access points within 200 yards of each other is redundant and unnecessary. Clearly removing the
Crestview access point would not create a hardship for pedestrians, runners or bikers in the
Chanhassen area. Simply reviewing the map of residents in the surrounding area reveals that a
vast majority of residents, both existing and proposed, would have their nearest access to the
junior high via Plowshares or the Murray Hill access. Both the physical distance and the
walking routes are shorter to these access points than would be the case for Crestview. Given
these facts I’m asking you to remove the pedestrian access trail from the Crestview project.
Doing so will ensure that my family of 5 will be able to enjoy the private end of the line cul-de-
sac that we believed that we were purchasing 6 months ago. My 3, 7 and 10 year olds will be
able to safely ride their bikes in a cul-de-sac. There will be no possibility of this cul-de-sac
becoming a drop off or a pick up point for the convenience of those attending the middle school
for either school or for summer rec activities. Indeed without this pedestrian trail there would be
no car traffic in the cul-de-sac except for those who live there. This doesn’t seem like too much
to ask, does it? And I submitted that respectfully yours. I’d like to just share some additional
data with you that I gathered this week. I don’t know how well you can see that. 3 questions to
simply ask the council to consider. Is it necessary to create 3 access points within 200 yards of
each other? Where is the hardship created by using only the 2 approved and existing points.
Why demand a third access point and create an unnecessary safety concern for an existing
homeowners, yours truly. I’d like to share with you the chart. There are 3 cul-de-sacs or cul-de-
sac, yeah all three are cul-de-sacs that would be affected by this decision. Addressing each from
the standpoint of either convenience by being able to access the park, or in the case of the school
3
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
district, making that decision to charge residents for busing, how that might affect residents on
those 3 cul-de-sacs was an issue. These days odometers on vehicles don’t have 2 digits for
tenths of a mile so you’ll have to forgive me but from Whitetail Ridge Court, which is the
furthest out from Crestview, the furthest north along Galpin, from Crestview, it would be 4/10 of
a mile from the deepest point in that cul-de-sac to the existing Murray Hill access. You would
also be 4/10 of a mile to the proposed Crestview access. There are 7 homes in Whitetail Ridge
Court that would be affected by that. Again, not creating any advantage from the current Murray
Hill Court. They have very adequate access to parks currently. They have very adequate access
to the school should the need for transportation become an issue. On Crestview Circle, which is
across Galpin on the east side of Galpin directly east of Crestview Drive, it is currently 4/10 of a
mile to Murray Hill access, and I know that seems difficult to believe. Frankly it seemed
difficult to me. That’s why I measured it literally 3 times. It has to do with how deep those cul-
de-sacs are. They vary in their depth. The Crestview Circle is not a very deep cul-de-sac and
it’s 4/10 of a mile to the Murray Hill access currently. It would be 3/10 of a mile, which was
hard for me to believe living on Crestview Drive, it would be 3/10 of a mile to the proposed
Crestview Drive access, creating a very slight advantage by putting that access there. There are
th
5 homes in that cul-de-sac that would be affected by that. 65 Street which is one block to the
north and on the west side of Galpin has a total of 8 homes. It currently has 4/10 of a mile to get
to the Murray Hill access by going out and around. Frankly I think most of those children would
go up and cut through the yard, but if they took the long way, they’d go out to Galpin and
around, it would be 4/10 of a mile for them to get there. 4/10 of a mile for them to go the other
direction through to the Crestview access. And I’d like to point out that portions of those roads
obviously are not there currently. City staff was good enough to help me estimate the distances
that would be required, so I simply would submit that to the council for your consideration. We
purchased the home in September. We certainly knew that there would be development around
the home. What we didn’t realize is that the council would require interconnection of both of
those roads. I think without this access point to the school, that interconnection of roads really
does not pose us a great deal of hardship because without that access point there would be no car
traffic back to the end of the line. There really is no need for it. For anyone who doesn’t live
there. My concern is, and again I have 5 children like several of you do. My concern is it would
be very difficult for me to send my kids out into that cul-de-sac with the knowledge that cars
would be dropping kids off in that cul-de-sac during summer rec programs. If the council had
some way of assuring me, and I realize that you don’t. If the council had some way of assuring
me that pedestrian traffic and bikers and runners would be the only folks accessing that trail, I’d
have no difficulty with that at all. My concern is that it creates a car magnet and I think that’s
unfair. So with that I appreciate your time and I’d entertain any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Larkin?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I think if maybe staff could address the, Mr. Larkin’s issues. That he
raised…
4
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Kate Aanenson: Sure. The history on the 2, the 3 access points and the first one to come in was
actually Crestview and that’s our preferred access. At that point the Pinehurst subdivision came
in and that was really, is not as, the grades are a little bit more challenging so if we were to drop
an access, the staff, and I believe the Park and Rec would recommend that the Crestview be the
primary access. That’s really at grade. It’s a better access, so if there’s too many, the Pinehurst
one really kind of gets, to make sure that both properties were treated the same is requiring an
access, but really the grades work better off the Crestview one. And so that would be our first
choice for an access.
Tim Larkin: Just one additional comment to that, and I appreciate Kate’s perspective. Just, I
know you’ve had a lot of projects and just so for your memory, the reason that, and my
understanding from the last time this was considered, the reason that the Pinehurst or the
Plowshares folks were required to put in that access was I believe I owe a debt to Councilman
Labatt who pointed out that there are 43 homes in that proposed subdivision and they would have
no access through their subdivision to the junior high school, and Kate is correct that it was a
little trickier to provide access on their side of the development but 43 homes versus 5 homes, I
think Councilmember Labatt pointed out that that seemed very unfair to create a problem in our
cul-de-sac that was created by 43 homes. Again, I understand staff’s concern for the issues of
grade. I also understand from meeting with staff that the reason that the method of access was
chosen in the Pinehurst subdivision was stairs. And rather than a switchback, which would be
ADA compliant, the reason that was given to me is that that school district was not willing to
give up that much land, which again seems very unfair.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I’d just add a little more history to it. We also moved the location based
on Mr. Larkin’s request. We had a different alignment that worked better and we did move it so
it had been moved from the original proposal that came forward with the Crestview, which was
closer to your home. So it was moved, and we did put sidewalks in for the kids to ride their
bikes so there’s that opportunity too.
Tim Larkin: That’s correct, and again I don’t want to give the impression that you haven’t tried.
The city staff and council hasn’t tried to improve the project. You certainly have, although it
seems incredulous to me that a subdivision with 43 homes could have come in without access
and that we could have been deemed the primary access point. I think Councilmember Labatt
was exactly correct. That would have shifted the problem from that subdivision over to our’s,
and again I don’t think that’s overly generous to rectify that inequity. But thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any other questions or thoughts or comments? Well I
guess just in general I appreciate Mr. Larkin’s comments and thoughts and involvement. As
Kate Aanenson said, what we originally I think has been improved tremendously and with the
connections there. One of the concerns, and we do hear it from time to time, that you put a trail
in off my road there’s going to be more traffic. One of the benefits of having multiple access
points is it mitigates that potential. So it’s, I think we’ve made some improvement here. Mr.
Larkin’s been involved in this process right along, which has been good and that’s helped
improve both the Pinehurst development down to the south of this property as well as Crestview.
I guess my position is still I think it’s better overall to have that access there off of Crestview,
and notwithstanding the comments made earlier.
5
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor is there any way we could somehow, if this does pass,
that it could be monitored so if Mr. Larkin does feel that the traffic is excessive, or it is a hazard,
you know it can be looked into further. Does that ever happen where those trails are monitored
at all for excessive traffic or dangerous conditions?
Mayor Furlong: I’ll defer to staff on that question.
Todd Gerhardt: Well we have one other one that does access the middle school and has been a
concern with the people in that cul-de-sac but it’s typically been during school hours when we
drop, some parents have dropped kids off there. But you know that’s what it’s there for. I think
that may have improved a little bit with how they’re realigned the drop off at the middle school
this past 2 years ago. It would get so congested at the middle school, parents were looking at
other means of dropping their kids off and they would go and access the cul-de-sac on Spring
Court. But with their access points, that’s what they’re used for and usually people that drive in
the cul-de-sacs, I live on one. They’re usually going pretty slow. They’re looking out for
children because there’s children all over in this community, and so it’s not a practice that we’ve
had where we’ve closed off an access after we put it in.
Tim Larkin: Mr. Mayor, I think in Brenden Court what they did was, put up no parking signs. It
doesn’t alleviate the concern of dropping off and picking up, dropping off and picking up.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: It’s an enforcement issue.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions?
Councilman Labatt: I’ll just re-state my point to Mr. Larkin’s. I just don’t think it’s fair to put
somebody else’s problem on another property owner so I would support pulling item, or
removing condition number one again and I don’t know if I have enough support for it though
but.
Councilman Lundquist: Steve to use your logic, if you don’t have that access point there, then
those homes are going to be shifting to another access point.
Councilman Labatt: Well it’s kind of like how when I grew up in Minnetonka and when I
walked to the bus stop, and I lived on a cul-de-sac, we just cut through the yards and the local
people don’t mind your neighbors cutting through your yards that went to the parks, but we do
mind, at least my parents did and I did, when the folks 3 blocks away came down our cul-de-sac
and dropped off and they cut through, so I’m taking back 23 years or so and realizing what it was
like back in 1974 and it was a problem and I can see a problem now so.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Is there any other discussion?
6
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: I would concur with your thoughts Mr. Mayor that one of the things I
think that people value in Chanhassen is access to park and recreation amenities and Minnetonka
West Junior High is a large one, one of the larger park and rec amenities that we have in the
community and it would be my view that we should provide as many access points to that as we
could. And I guess with the nature of Crestview and how that road comes off of Galpin and
things like that, I think you have natural roads that make that a little bit more difficult to get in
and out of as well to probably mitigate some of that cut through as well, and I’m in favor of
leaving the trail there. I think we’ve done some things to help mitigate some of the concerns
there as well, and that would be my view again that we provide as many access points to those
park and rec amenities as we can feasibly do.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other comments?
Councilman Peterson: No, I would agree with Councilman Lundquist totally.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else? If not, is there a motion?
Councilman Lundquist: I would move that we approve item 1(c)1 and 2 as published in the staff
report.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we’ll
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council
approve the final plat, construction plans and specifications and development contract,
Project 05-11 as presented. All voted in favor, except Councilman Labatt who opposed and
the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Jim Broughton: I’m Jim Broughton, 6927 Highover Court North. Mr. Mayor, council members,
if I could talk about the Lake Harrison development. I believe, hopefully you’ve all received my
thth
e-mails and mail so I think it was May 4 and May 6. Things that we see that are concerns.
Mayor Furlong: Sir what I’ll ask, if you don’t mind, we’ll have an opportunity for public
comment during that, so why don’t we take it up so we’re getting it in context with the rest of the
information, if that’s okay with you.
Jim Broughton: That’s fine, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Anyone else who would like to present an item before the council this evening
under visitor presentations? Seeing none, we’ll move forward with our next agenda item.
7
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING ON REQUEST FOR AN ON-SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE,
CJ’S COFFEE AND WINE BAR AT 600 MARKET STREET, GEORGE WALTER, LLC.
Justin Miller: Mayor, members of the City Council. The city has received an application for an
on sale beer and wine license from George Walter LLC, which is a sole partnership operated by
Cynthia Baker. Mrs. Baker is planning on opening CJ’s Coffee and Wine Bar in the Market
Street Station development at 600 Market Street. Law enforcement has completed background
investigations on all the principles involved in this organization and no negative comments were
found. The city also sent out a public hearing notice to property owners within 500 feet
soliciting comments. We received none. At this time staff would recommend holding the public
hearing and then approving the request for the on sale beer and wine license contingent upon
receiving the license fee and liquor liability insurance. I’d be glad to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Miller? Hearing none, we’ll proceed with
the public hearing. At this time I would invite interested parties to come forward to the podium.
Please state your name and address and address the council on this matter. Anybody that would
like to comment on the public hearing on this matter? Please come forward now. Okay. Seeing
none we’ll close the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion. I’m assuming
that there are no additional questions based upon the public hearing we just preceded with so I’ll
bring it back to council for comments.
Councilman Peterson: Move for approval.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none we’ll
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approve the on-sale beer and wine license for CJ’s Wine & Coffee Bar at 600 Market
Street, Suite 160 contingent upon receipt of the license fee and the liquor license insurance.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL, RR TO SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RSF; REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 62 ACRES INTO 40 LOTS,
3 OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH VARIRANCES; AND A
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE GRADING AND FILLING OF
WETLANDS ON SITE; LOCATED AT 6950 GALPIN BOULEVARD, LAKE
HARRISON, THE PEMTOM LAND COMPANY, PLANNING CASE 05-14.
Public Present:
Name Address
8
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Justin Larson Westwood Professional Services
Matt Hermann 3920 Stratford Ridge
Dan Herbst 7640 Crimson Bay
Daren Laberee Westwood Professional Services
Dan Cook Pemtom Land Company
Patti Jo Hermann Edina Realty
Larry Marty 2117 Lake Lucy Road
Julie Fuecker 6751 Manchester Drive
Chris Cowan 2412 Highover Trail
Mike & Candice McGraw 2446 Highover Trail
Ann & Al Taylor 2340 Lake Lucy Road
Stephen Kerkvliet 2201 Lake Lucy Road
Gina Sauer 2244 Lake Lucy Road
David Senner 6829 Briarwood Court
Ray Alstadt 2423 Highover Trail
Jacqie Daugherty 2423 Highover Trail
Cheri & Jim Broughton 6927 Highover Court North
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site is located on the map just off of Galpin and Lake
Lucy, and I’m going to actually talk from the computer. I think at the Planning Commission it
was a little hard for some of the people to see the colored map so we’ll be using the computer to
go through in a little bit more detail. Again as I indicated, the subject site has numerous requests
before you tonight. Access is gained via Lake Lucy Road and Galpin Boulevard. The developer
was challenged with a very complex site as far as rolling topography, wetlands and significant
th
wooded areas. The Planning Commission did review this application on April 19. They did
recommend approval 6-0. The developer did have a neighborhood meeting and at the original
presentation of the subdivision this street right here was actually shown as kind of an access
drive and not a full street. The staff had recommended to the developer that we believed that the
site should be accessed via Galpin and Lake Lucy. In looking at the overall site in itself, when
we laid Lake Lucy Road, the subdivision out, the staff had recommended in this area here the
connection. Approximately 10 lots on that bluff, and then also Highover Trail, that this street
would come through and connect, but as it works out with the grading and the topography, that
connection didn’t seem to make the best sense as far as the impact. As far as the eastern part of
the site, the direction that the city’s going with that is the future water treatment site and a park.
As far as the park goes, we gave you an update on that. The Park and Recreation Commission
th
on April 26 did review that site and did believe it would be a reasonable site for a park. It has
some very beautiful views up at the top so the Park and Rec Director will be working with the
park commission to develop a plan. As far as the water treatment plant, any public process on
that would come back through the Planning Commission for a public hearing and back to the
City Council, so those are both set for future dates as far as that goes. Again, the connection, this
street via Lake Lucy. The developer of this project actually acquired a piece of property next to
the city’s well house to actually gain that access, so that was acquired to make the connection.
As I indicated we originally were hoping to tie into Highover but the grades didn’t work. Again
there is some significant impacts on this development, the topography. There is some variances
also being requested. There is a few areas that have 8% grade and I’ll go through those in a
minute. One up in this area here, and then another one through here. I have cross sections that
9
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
I’ll be showing you in just a minute. Again it does abut Lake Harrison, which is a natural
development lake which does require greater setbacks. In addition there was a question about
the OHW. That documentation has been provided and the lots can meet that. Again when
you’re next to the lakeshore, the lot requirement, the width is larger and as part of this
development there will be an outlot created so the lots are non-riparian. That’s typical on some
of the subdivisions that we have with that anomaly. One of the variances that came up was, and
I’m going to go through a color detail that was presented by the developer. When it went to the
Planning Commission there was some variances asked along Block 2, which I’ll go to in a
minute, and then the other significant variance was asked along the back of Highover, which is
this area right back in here. The original proposal that was submitted, there was a cul-de-sac up
in this area here, which is the plan that was originally submitted. In working through with the
Planning Commission it was decided to eliminate that so this is the only part that’s a common
drive, or common street. The rest of it is a private drive that would serve the back of Lot 12. At
the Planning Commission meeting the applicant had proposed and showed how a house would
fit on there. They actually put a pretty large house on there, significant in square footage but the
staff felt that was premature. We believe it’s a reasonable lot. If you look at what we propose
for a standard home size, which we now kind of look at 72 by 40, it does meet that. It’d be a side
loaded with excellent views looking this way. It can meet that without any variances. So the
variance, since we believe it is a reasonable area for a lot, the question then became for the
Planning Commission and the staff was, does it make sense if you have a buildable area to grant
a variance for 2 homes off of a private drive, so that would be Lot 11 and Lot 12. So this would
be the common portion again, and then this would be the private...feasible way to get to a lot, a
street can go into the bluff. In this case the staff felt it was much more environmentally sensitive
to do the private drive. Therefore we recommended the variance to do that private drive within
that. Again as far as the double fronted lot, there is an outlot that runs along Highover where the
trail is, so there is an outlot so the lots aren’t touching each other. I want to go back and show a
little bit…get to the engineer’s comments. The 7% gray area was in here. One of the questions
that the Planning Commission had in this area and I’ll show this area here on Lot 4, where they
wanted to push the houses close to that 25 feet. Again there’s significant topography here in
order to accomplish that and save as many trees as possible, which was the goal. Was if you
didn’t allow the 25 feet, you’d actually be impacting the back of the lot 17 additional feet, so
you’d actually push it further into the trees, and that was the information that the Planning
Commission said was important for them to make a decision on whether or not they would grant
a 25 foot variance, so if I could just shoot back to the plat again. So these lots all along which
are Block 2, would be those lots that they’re asking for the 25 foot variance, and that’s similar to
what we talked about in Longacres. We’ve done some of those where we’re preserving
significant trees. So that was a request. And then the similar circumstance, and actually it’s a
little bit bigger on Lot 7 where you’re actually by going, not allowing that small 8% grade in that
area, again the 7% is the ordinance, you’re actually pushing back into the trees 54 feet. So staff
supported those recommendations for that specific reason. Again there is wetland impacts and
those would be one in the area of crossing the creek through here, and two isolated ones within
the subdivision. There is a wetland replacement plan. The question raised at the Planning
Commission, and I believe in your letter too, the wetland delineation is being done. The lake
OHW is off by 1/10 from what they originally proposed. Again working with the developer
we’re pretty confident that we’re going to be very, very close as far as the delineation. They are
doing right now and hope to have those done by Friday. They are a condition of approval so
10
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
before final plat we would have to review those and approve those. Again any increase in lots
could not be approved but if there was a reason that they had to assemble lots because they
couldn’t meet a setback or the like, they can’t exceed anything that would be a condition of
approval in the staff report. There are some minor changes that we have outlined that we need to
make some small changes on, which we believe can be accomplished but again I want to go
through the motions that are required for this. It is zoned rural residential. The comprehensive
plan has it guided for low density. Staff, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan so the staff
is recommending approval of that. Again there is a preliminary plat subdivision for 40 single
family lots with the variances and those are conditions are also outlined in the staff report. And
then condition C would be, and that’s on page 23, would be for the variances for all of Block 2.
The 25 foot that I just mentioned, and then condition D would be for the wetland impacts. And
with that we do have the findings of fact in the staff report that was approved by the Planning
Commission with that. I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Why don’t we just start with general questions
for staff and then if you want to get into that, we certainly can. I think we’re going to get to
staff’s response. The question here is whether we want to get into now a response on a couple of
the letters that we received. I think there was, I’m sorry.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Yeah, I think written in my narrative I’ve discussed a majority of them as
far as the notification, the variance process. Again we’ve reviewed all that with the city attorney
and believe we’re in good standing in all of that. I mean and we have, if you wanted me to
repeat anything for the record but some of the, they’re worded a little bit different but some of
them are the same question asked a different way, if that makes sense. So I’d be happy to
answer any of those specifically.
Councilman Lundquist: Do you have Mrs. Paulsen’s letter?
Kate Aanenson: I have not seen it.
Mayor Furlong: Why don’t you take a look at that and do you want to address that now or give
them some time, at least…time to review it. And Mrs. Paulsen may or may not want to speak to
that.
Councilman Lundquist: Maybe take a couple minutes.
Kate Aanenson: If you want to let the developer go I can read it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Are there any other, before we go to the developer, questions for staff at
this point? Clarifying questions. Okay. I may have a couple as we get through this but they
might be answered as well so, at this point why don’t we go ahead to the applicant. Mr. Herbst,
how are you this evening?
Dan Herbst: Fine.
Mayor Furlong: Good. Good evening.
11
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Dan Herbst: Honorable Mayor, members of City Council. Professional staff, ladies and
gentlemen. My name is Dan Herbst with Pemtom. I live at 7640 Crimson Bay in Chanhassen
and as I get older I need more support staff so I’d like to introduce the group behind me. In
Sergio Garcia green is Justin Larson, a professional engineer and planner with Westwood
Professional Services. On his left is Matt Hermann with Edina Realty, helping us market the
Jerome Carlson home and lot. On his left is Daren Laberee, landscape architect and planner with
Westwood Professional Services. On his left is Dan Cook, partner of mine at Pemtom. On
Dan’s left is Patti Jo Hermann with Edina Realty helping us market the site. I just want to touch
on a few things. Kate did a great job of giving you an outline of the property. Some of you have
been on this site. We’ve had all the staff on the site numerous times. This is a magnificent
parcel of land that Jerome Carlson bought, and Linda a number of years back, along with the
Highover property. Been a wonderful steward of the land. Put some trees on the site. Many
trails. Little maintenance building. Beautiful swimming pool and a house. If you’ve been in the
house, a magnificent 8,800 square foot soft contemporary home with 4 cars up, 4 cars down.
Heated garage so and that kind of sets the tone for what we’re trying to create here. The
property, and it’s got many challenges but it’s the kind of property I thrive on. It’s the kind of
property I like to create some of the great neighborhoods I believe I’ve created at Trillium Bay
and Eagle Bluff, Crimson Bay, Chimo in Deephaven. On this particular site you’ve got over 110
foot swings in contours. You’ve got numerous trees. You’ve got wetlands. And it has all of the
right ingredients that I like to do to create the kind of neighborhood we’re attempting to do here.
So our original vision for the property was you know obviously looking at all existing
conditions, doing the topography map, doing the tree survey, doing the wetlands, you know the
siting the site very carefully and neighborhood, the city had plans for connecting Highover Trail
on the west through the site. Lake Lucy up to the north. There was no connection planned
through there, and there was another connection planned to go into the site at a future date off
Manchester and then the entrance to the Carlson property is off of Galpin Road. And this map
kind of shows where Jerome has put some of the trails in on the site. Maintenance building over
here. Swimming pool, and the entrance to the site, but the entrance to the site was critical to us.
It kind of gave us a wonderful feeling. You come in. You’ve got a bluff on the right. You’ve
got a wetland on the left. It brings you in through the site. You’ve got a 1910 windmill sitting on
the old farmstead site where the turn around is, and then it brings you into the woods into the
site. So that was our vision, to create a magnificent entrance off of Galpin. So we started
looking at various plans, and I think it’s important to look at the history of these plans, but as
Kate mentioned, we talked about bringing a street off of Galpin, through the site and then
connecting in through Highover. We did not have access to Lake Lucy at that time. So we
studied that with staff and bringing all that, half the traffic through Highover, the other half off of
Galpin, did not make a lot of sense to us. That plan had 57 lots. Then we moved on to putting a
cul-de-sac off of Highover. Putting a cul-de-sac off of Manchester. Having a small entrance
road coming in off of Galpin and then putting a temporary cul-de-sac through the property with
10 lots here, 10 lots through here, a couple lots here, and the rest of the site, and that particular
plan had 53 lots. Then as we started moving through the site we prepared this plan which was
th
presented to the neighbors at a public hearing on March 10. And the neighbors were very
actively involved in the site and gave us some good suggestions. Our plan was to do a cul-de-sac
off of Manchester, cul-de-sac off of Highover and then we wanted to use the existing trail as kind
of a fire life safety emergency road and then have a cul-de-sac coming off of Lake Lucy, and
12
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
then we optioned up the Gestach-Paulson lot off Lake Lucy, and then shifted out emphasis to
having two entrances off the site. One off of Galpin, and one off of Lake Lucy. And then as we
got further along in our planning process, we actually submitted this plan to the city. We started
having discussions with your need and the staff need to do a park on this site and a water
treatment facility. So now our great vision of having this beautiful entrance off of Galpin went
away. And now we’re looking.
Todd Gerhardt: No, it’s still there Dan.
Dan Herbst: Huh?
Todd Gerhardt: It’s still there.
Dan Herbst: It’s not something that we had in our vision and our plans. Not, wouldn’t be my
first, wouldn’t be my first plan that I’ve ever created that would have had a water treatment plant
at it’s entrance for the entrance monument but anyway, so now we start adjusting our plans. We
wanted to accommodate the neighbors concern. Not bringing traffic through Highover. We
wanted to accommodate the city’s needs for a water treatment plant and a park, and this is the
plan that evolved. And then since the location of the treatment plan and the park facilities are
not designed yet, and you plan, this plan had 47 lots. The plan we are presenting to you tonight,
I believe this plan for park purposes and for the water treatment plant creates an entrance off of
Galpin, creates an entrance off of Lake Lucy, and lots off of Highover and 2 lots on a private
road off of Highover Trail. Then after our Planning Commission meeting, you know the
Planning Commission did a masterful job of picking this plan apart. Looking at all aspects of it
and with staff we went back to the drawing board again and came up with a plan to create only 2
lots off of the trail to eliminate a private road and to just put a driveway with a turn around on the
site. And after the public hearing comments, we’ll go into these cross sections but after going
back to the drawing board, comments from the Planning Commission, we were able to create
enough site plan to do a large structure here on Lot 12, and a large structure on Lot 11. And the
lines that you see here is the bluff setback and this is our setback from the 30 foot from the high
line that runs behind the Highover homes. And the only variance that we’re going to be required
to do this would be a slight fill on that private drive. And that fill actually creates a positive
impact for all the wetlands that are down below. Right now there’s a considerable amount of
drainage that’s going back of these homes, down through this ravine and once we are allowed to
fill with a slight variance say over this private drive we could capture all that drainage onto the
private street, and then down into the Highover Trail and capture the storm water through the
NURP ponds. So we can go over those in detail to show the cross sections to the homes. So
basically in summary, this is all private property. It’s 60 some odd acres. And this site, if
approved tonight as presented to you, only 24.5, 24.8 acres will be actually not encumbered in
some way. With the public right-of-way of about 6.2 acres. There will be a conservation
easements of 13.8 acres. And there will be a dedication for park purposes of 17.2 acres. And
our density here is less than all of the neighborhoods around us. If we want to go through each
one of the variances that we’re requesting, almost every one of them will have a positive impact
on the site. Whether it’s saving trees. Whether it’s protecting wetlands. Whether it’s protecting
drainage. And in the case of the private drive there, and you know I think in all my years of
doing this, I’ve never had a site that there will be so much land given to the public for putting
13
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
conservation easements on or 62% of the site will be actually either dedicated to the city or have
easements on it… It’s a magnificent plan on a great site and our goal is to create one of the
finest neighborhoods here in Chanhassen, and I think the letters that you’re going to be
addressing tonight and public comments make it sound like we’re pushing the envelope and
trying to do this for economic reasons, and as you can see as I walked you through, all the lot
plans we have here, we have diminished our density here substantially. All the variances we’re
requesting tonight in effect actually enhance the site. Trees, drainage, etc. When it’s all done, I
think you’re going to have a great neighborhood here. Any questions?
Mayor Furlong: Thank you, questions for the applicant. Perhaps just for my help and for people
in the audience here and those watching, and whether Mr. Herbst this is a question for you or
Ms. Aanenson, since the Planning Commission met, approved it with various conditions, what
sort of changes have we seen? One of them for example, with regard to the length of the private
driveway. The private street has been moved back to 11. I think on the pictures that’s no longer
a round turn around.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Maybe you can just quickly walk through some of those changes so if people
were at the Planning Commission, or watched there, they can see some of the evolution that’s
taken place.
Kate Aanenson: This is the old one. Originally this was a cul-de-sac located up in here. This is
a 30 foot right-of-way as per city code, and the rest of it is a driveway. So that’s a big, the
biggest change. There was a cul-de-sac up in this area that impacted so it’s outside of the bluff.
It is, this portion is in the bluff impact zone, but again that’s a driveway to the one lot.
Mayor Furlong: And is that, in terms of turning around, in case delivery trucks or other vehicles
come down, how does that take place?
Kate Aanenson: That would be taken care of right here. Right, otherwise anybody else going to
this home would turn around in that person’s driveway but that would be the common portion at
that point.
Mayor Furlong: So where’s the driveway? Where would be the proposed driveway for Lot 11?
Kate Aanenson: The driveway?
Mayor Furlong: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: It could come off this one or that one. Depending on the home placement. I
just wanted to show the difference between that and the original just to be clear. If you could
maybe zoom in on that one. This one had a cul-de-sac quite a ways up so that we believe
mitigated those impacts. The need for a retaining wall, and that is shown on, I know it’s on here.
Did I skip it? Where is the cross section with the retaining wall? Did I miss it? This one, I’m
sorry. So I scaled it. About 160 feet, 150 feet between the houses on Highover and the closest
14
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
lot. Approximately. This is between the houses. So this is the area we’re talking in here would
be where that private drive, would be the retaining wall. That slight portion where we’re in this
area. So that’s the change.
Councilman Labatt: Kate, coming down off of Highover, in that 30 foot, not there. As I’m
looking at the TV, that way. To the left. Other side.
Kate Aanenson: Oh, that left.
Councilman Labatt: There. That stretch there. Now that’s a public road?
Kate Aanenson: This is, this is what the request for the variance is a private drive, which is
required to be 30 feet, which this is. This portion of the plat, and the rest of it is a driveway. So
this is the portion that’s serving more than one lot, and that was the variance request, and again
the staff’s position on that was, the staff believes this is a buildable lot. Originally the developer
wanted to get variances on it. We believe it can be met without variances, and if the variances
want to come in, we want to see a specific home plan at a future date. Not something
speculative. That may not meet somebody’s needs, so the staff recommended against that, as did
the Planning Commission but they did support a variance for the street. …a driveway, additional
driveway to come off so it’s just the two homes. And again, to go back to your question on the
Paulsen, we believe this meets the code.
Councilman Lundquist: Dan, you’ve already got the drawings for that house on Lot 12 because
you’re building it right?
Kate Aanenson: So that was the one biggest change. And the other one, if I can just go through
those slides again, the other biggest change which was hard to understand at the Planning
Commission level was the impact of those 7% grades. There’s 2 or 3 areas that exceeded the 7%
and our recommendation is to only give those, if there’s a reason for the impact to the trees. And
while we had a very technical explanation, I think it was.
Mayor Furlong: Second derivative is positive.
Kate Aanenson: I think a picture’s worth a thousand words, so they actually try to do it in a
picture format, and as I showed on that Lot 7, which is the Highover connection. The impact
would be actually 70, 54 feet of additional tree loss because you actually have to make, blend
that dirt down in to make that work. To get to the 7%.
Mayor Furlong: So you’re saying by allowing to have an 8% grade versus 7% grade.
Kate Aanenson: In that section, correct.
Mayor Furlong: In that particular section, it’s 54 feet of reduced grading and that’s what they
would use as part of the condition.
15
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that was one of the 3 variance requests. And that’s up in this area, up in
here.
Mayor Furlong: And there are trees along that line?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. This is heavily wooded, and that’s where it’s dropping off quickly also
down towards the creek.
Mayor Furlong: Does that become part of the contract, the development contract?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: So that by granting this variance we build into the contract the expectation that
that grading and that…will not occur.
Kate Aanenson: In the conservation easement, correct. Right, right. And that goes back to how
we choose other ones too, that there’s an expectation. Someone buying that lot isn’t going to go
back later and then want to put a different amenity in their back yard. The goal is to save the
trees.
Mayor Furlong: You said conservation easement. Are we putting a conservation easement from,
or are we just as part of the grading and development?
Kate Aanenson: Well you know, in order to save the trees for the grading, I think there needs to
be expectation that by pushing it for we’re getting something and that would be to preserve the
trees, so it should be written in that that would be the, you know to save the trees, that would be.
If we didn’t push it forward so the trees could go later.
Councilman Lundquist: So is that part of the conservation easement on the property now?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Councilman Lundquist: One of the conditions so that would be written into the development.
Kate Aanenson: It should be a condition, yes.
Councilman Lundquist: Condition of this approval or condition of the development contract?
Kate Aanenson: Well it would be with final plat when it comes back, we’ll put it in there. And
then the other area which I mentioned was Lot 4, Block 2, I think this… Again just for
clarification, all of Lot 2 which backs up. Sorry, I’m moving these back and forth here. Again
just so everybody’s following. In this area here again, dropping off in the back. There is a
retaining wall in the back. Again the goal was to preserve as many trees so for example on Lot
4, by allowing the 20 foot you’re actually saving 17 feet of additional trees. By that grading. By
pulling the grading back. And so those were the major changes from the Planning Commission.
And this was their original request. The Planning Commission kind of got it to the technical
16
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
explanation but we’re just showing it to you more visually so everybody can understand those
impacts.
Todd Gerhardt: Kate, on the conservation easement, the reason we’re taking the conservation
easement is if we were to replat the lots, then we’d have to give probably more variances on
setbacks or reduce the lot size?
Kate Aanenson: Well in addition to that, if the expectation is to pull the houses to save the trees,
you don’t want someone to come back later and need a Sport Court or a tennis court or
something like that in the back yard because the goal was to push it forward to save the trees.
Todd Gerhardt: Right, because then they’d come in and cut down trees and make more of a back
yard.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Flatten it out to meet their needs so there’s an expectation that this
was a different type that once that wooded lot.
Mayor Furlong: And I think a question on that, I mean I certainly can understand if the
developer’s coming in saying we want to do an 8% grade versus 7, which is code, 7, so we can
save the trees. I think there’s an expectation there that the marketplace wants a wooded lot. I’m
a little concerned these would be conservation easements then across the back of the new lots?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Or in the outlot areas?
Kate Aanenson: They would be on the backs of those lots, and there is a retaining wall in the
back, and that’d be similar to the approach we did with Vasserman where they’re across the
back. Vasserman Ridge, across the entire back of those lots.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So is there potential trouble in the future for people wanting decks or
for putting…
Kate Aanenson: No, I think the developer’s done a good job looking at his marketing. If you
look at the grading plan, I don’t have. One, they put the retaining wall because you know as
we’ve gotten better at looking at these and as the applicant has as far as approaching their
market, that was one of the reasons they put the retaining wall too in so you created that
demarcation of where the usable area is. So I don’t know if you have a copy of that that shows
one with the retaining wall. Yeah, these are always harder to read. But on the backs of, this is
Lot 4 which is the one I showed you where the grading goes down. There is a retaining wall in
the back so again that’s kind of that area of saving the trees behind that and allowing some
buildable area behind the back of the house. And again that was another reason why on some of
those, pulling that 25 foot forward gave you some of that, because people want some back yard.
Patio, deck.
Mayor Furlong: What are those, I’m sorry. Go ahead.
17
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Dan Herbst: The site, Kate had mentioned that the site is really deceiving. This pond here is 20
feet higher than this pond here. So Mr. Carlson placed his home properly up on the site, so now
we’re across the street. We’re dropping 20 feet from here to here. We’re trying to do it not as it
would go down that slope, it’s going down very aggressively so if we can raise the grade of the
street and we can move the setback 5 feet forward, we can save those cross section of trees and
still have… This is kind of a gentle grade through here and it’s on the north side of that pond
about 20 feet below the grades and then it drops off very aggressively so we want to keep the
houses forward.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and again just go back to some where we’ve had, like on the back of
Yoberry. If you remember we had existing houses we were trying to work with and that’s a
complexity here. When you’ve got an existing house on the site, trying to work the street
elevation across. Kind of sets a benchmark, in this section. Which was their challenge. Any
other questions on changes?
Mayor Furlong: Any others?
Kate Aanenson: I think those are, unless I missed anything, I think those are the major changes
from the Planning Commission.
Mayor Furlong: I guess for clarification Kate, in the staff report I think it’s right up on page 2,
and this might have been left over from the Planning Commission but it states that the staff does
not support approval of a variance as being requested. Based on what I’ve heard tonight, I’m
assuming that that statement isn’t entirely accurate. Is that left over?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that would be for, we just assumed that they still wanted the variance for
the house, and I believe it was like a 5,000, 7,000 square foot. 10,000 square foot. It was.
Mayor Furlong: For Lot 12?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. And that was, and again the Planning Commission concurred that that,
so we still advance that forward, as of their request, but we didn’t support it, nor did the Planning
Commission.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So but, but the Planning Commission’s recommendation was to provide
the variance for the 8% grade at the points where it was appropriate.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: For the front yard setback and the private driving, bringing it back to Lot 11.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Which is on.
18
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Kate Aanenson: And then if they did want to, if they wanted to do something that couldn’t meet
that, that they would have to apply for a separate variance and they may or may not get it.
Mayor Furlong: Future…
Kate Aanenson: Right. It would give them the discretion to say you have to meet that building
envelope.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s staff’s position as well?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Given the information we received at the Planning Commission and after.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? The applicant? No? Okay.
At this point I would like to accept some public comments. We did have the full public hearing
at the Planning Commission and all of us have had an opportunity to either watch that meeting or
read the notes, so I would ask that the comments be not redundant and repetitious from the
Planning Commission but certainly invite if there’s additional comments or information that
residents or others would like to provide to the council on this matter, I would certainly invite
them forward now at this point. If we can just, we’ll follow the guidelines for visitor
presentations and we invite public comment at this time.
Jim Broughton: Again I’m Jim Broughton, 6927 Highover Court North. Mr. Mayor and
councilmen. City staff. I’ve heard a lot of things here and I think in my mind there, we have a
lot of concerns about the way this applicant brought forth the application. There are a number of
variances… I have 34 households that have signed a document saying that they are concerned
about this development. I’m just going to try, and this is very complex I know but I’m going to
try and just go over this briefly to try and just tell you where I think we stand on this. First of all
I think variances should be few and far between. I think the more variances we grant on a piece
of land like this, it makes the code not what it’s supposed to really be. Not of the intent of the
code. And my, I would just think why don’t we take a beautiful piece of land like this and try
and develop it without all these variances, and I think the reason we’re not doing that is
economically based. And the zoning ordinance in Section 20, which is referenced in Section 18
of the, this particular thing it says that a variance cannot be granted for an economic basis. And I
think that’s one of the things that I see happening here and I think this piece of land is beautiful.
I think we should preserve it and build houses if we can. But not with all the variances. There’s
the bluff encroachment. I believe Kate showed the driveway going across the bluff setback and
the bluff impact zone. A variance is required for that. You can’t put a driveway in the bluff
setback or bluff impact zone without a variance. It’s not being required here. The private street
needs a variance. The private street will also be in the bluff impact zone, I think and the bluff
setback. That structure that also needs a variance I believe. The street grades. The lot setbacks.
Lot 11, which we haven’t talked about. The plan that I’ve seen there are some structure setbacks
there that aren’t being met. There should be a 30 foot structure setback from the street. That’s
19
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
not being met. There’s a retaining wall behind that house. I mean I could just show that here.
Can we zoom in on that a little bit? There’s a lot line here on Lot 11. This is the retaining wall
behind this house, the way it was proposed, at least what I saw. There’s no setback from the lot
line on that retaining wall, and that’s a structure and by code that’s not allowed. That’s a
variance. Retaining wall is encroaching the bluff setback and the bluff. Maybe not quite the
bluff impact zone but that’s a variance. The way it’s proposed here, the house pad needs to be
set back 30 feet from the street. It’s not. It’s not 30 feet. That’s a variance. So I just want to
point out, and I’m not an expert but I’ve studied the code because I realize what the impact was
going to be on my neighborhood and so I sort of tried to take charge here and just point some of
these things out. The next point is the applicant was incomplete and rushed I believe. There are
things required in the code for an application that are not in place. I haven’t seen any. I could be
wrong but if someone can tell me, that’s fine. Soil borings. Soil reports. Other things that are
required in the code for the plat have not been done to my knowledge. And then thirdly there are
serious issues here with the environment. We have wetlands, wildlife, lots of trees coming
down. If you look at the web site, the Chanhassen web site, it talks about how we want to
preserve trees and wetlands, how they’re very important. So bottom line here is why don’t we
just, why don’t we build, you know why don’t we build houses and put things in there that meet
the code without all of these variances because there are a lot of them, and a lot of them haven’t
been brought forward yet. In my mind. And the bottom line here is this is an economic reasons
why we’re doing all these things. Why we’re trying to make this such a complex deal. And
really contrary to the spirit of the city code I believe to grant all these variances, I’m opposed to
it. And I guess we’re surprised, I’m surprised that the city staff management isn’t more thorough
and that they aren’t supportive of the spirit of the code. And of course this all got started when I
saw all the trees that were coming down back in my house. I think if you’re trying to squeeze 2
houses on those lots, I think it’s unusual. It’s not a very good thing. In fact my, the guy 2 doors
down from me said he’s going to move because he doesn’t want those trees to come down
behind him and I understand the trees have to come down when you build a house. In this case
you need a lot of variances. It’s a beautiful piece of land. City staff actually has said, I believe
Jill Sinclair wrote the piece that I sent you in the e-mail about any development or problems with
that bluff or grading up there long term is going to have a severe impact on Lake Harrison, and I
think it’s fine to make all this happen and grant all these variances but when you actually get in
there and start grading, I think it’s going to be not what you’d expect so, than you for hearing all
the comments and thanks for your time and thanks for the e-mails that you read.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you sir. Please come forward.
Gina Sauer: Thank you. My name is Gina Sauer. I live at 2244 Lake Lucy Road and while
we’re on the topic of variances and the environment, I’ll just add one additional variance that’s
been requested, and it really sort of got I think rushed through at the Planning Commission level
and really wasn’t specifically addressed tonight. It’s my understand that part of the wetland
alteration permit includes the filling in of 2 ponds to create 2 housing pad sites. And Mr. Herbst
had made the comment earlier that all of the variances that are being requested for the Lake
Harrison development in one way or another will have a positive impact and enhance the site.
And I would just hope that we would be able to look at those 2 ponds in a little bit more detail.
Ask a few more questions and specifically understand how they’re going to positive impact the
environment. You may be saying okay, what’s a couple ponds? Who cares about a couple
20
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
ponds and if it was just these 2 ponds in a vacuum, that might be true but I think we have to look
at the overall impact. There has been significant environmental impact in terms of wildlife
habitat and overall change to the environment in this corner of Chanhassen. This spring going
on. The City Council approved the Pinehurst development. I’ve gotten to listen for the past 2
weeks to 11 acres of trees coming down. It’s not a nice sound. We’re going to have a new
housing development between Longacres and Highover. So this is the third one. This is really
the City of Chanhassen’s last opportunity as the last presenter sort of pointed out, to take a stand
and say when we are faced with a decision we’re going to make an environmentally sound
decision. So in that respect 2 little ponds may be is a little bit bigger deal. I’d like to make a
procedural comment about that as well. It’s my understanding from the Planning Commission
that the guideline that is followed when a variance is requested is what kind of a hardship is
going to be caused if the variance is denied, and again that was sort of rushed through at the
Planning Commission level. The only real discussion about these 2 pieces of wetland, the 2
ponds were a question, why did they need to be filled in and the response from the developer
was, well we’re not filling in the big ones so we’re going to fill in the small ones. That doesn’t
really seem like a sound justification because I think that the City Council probably would not
allow the very large bodies of water on this property to be filled in so it’s really not an issue of a
trade off. And more significantly, there wasn’t any hardship that was specifically addressed so
again I would hope that we could get into a little bit more detail about that tonight and consider
that more fully. Finally, if the environmental aspects of this don’t appeal to anybody, I guess I
would just appeal to the City Council’s sense of duty to future homeowners. I understand these
are going to be big, beautiful homes. Million dollars plus some of them and I just wonder what it
would feel like to be a perspective buyer of a million dollar home walking through with a real
estate agent and ask, you know what are we sitting on here? Corn fields? No, we’re sitting on a
couple of ponds. I’m not sure how I would feel about that house, so again I would just like to
see a little bit more detail and a little more investigation and not rush that issue through tonight.
So thank you very much for your time.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Kate, just point of clarification. We’ve had some comments
already and I will accept more public comments so that’s fine, but to address some of these
issues that have come up. Specifically with those last comments. The ponds and the proposed,
is that part of one of the variance requests or is that just part of the mitigation.
Kate Aanenson: No. It’s a wetland alteration permit and our wetland, or Water Resource
Coordinator has a very detailed report on the wetlands and their existing condition. And every
wetland alteration permit, one of the things you look at is how is it being used. Is it isolated?
What we always try to do is look at it as a place that we can enhance. Maybe save a better
wetland. Every project loses some trees and there’s isolated wetlands that cannot be saved based
on a project so we don’t save every little pocket, and Lori Haak, who is our Water Resource
Coordinator did do a thorough job looking at what they were impacting and making that
decision. Did that seem reasonable so staff believes that again, looking at the layout of the
project and providing those opportunities of larger areas instead of individual fingers, that’s a
very reasonable approach. And then if I can just comment on the preservation of the natural
features. Again the reason why there is variances on all of Block 2, we can eliminate those
variances but then it impacts greater tree loss. So the reason for the variances was to preserve
the natural features. If we say we’re not going to grant those, then those areas where I showed
21
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
the additional 54 feet or additional 17 feet, there’s actually more tree loss. So it’s that balance of
compromising to preserve something, so again that was the rationale on that. And if the street
issue, I’m not sure that people are still understanding what the rules are on that as far as a
variance request. Those are two buildable lots. Yes, there will be a retaining wall in there. A
street, if you read the continuation of the city ordinance as cited it says if there’s no other
feasible way to get through there, that’s where the staff recommended the common portion of the
drive and then separate driveway to the back to eliminate that impact. Again preserving natural
features.
Mayor Furlong: So the variance to go with the private street is in lieu of a public road.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. To save the natural features, because you could put a private
street, I mean a public road in. The road says if there’s no other feasible way to get there then, so
that’s why we recommended. We think it’s more sensitive to do the variance, again similar to
what we have all of Block 2. We think that preserves the natural features.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I guess to follow up on a couple other items that I’ve already heard.
Let me just clarify. There was the issue about retaining walls and private drives. Are those
structures in conjunction with the ordinance?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. The retaining wall can go in there on the, because it’s part of the street
and the home, the one additional one on the home. Again, depending on how the home
placement comes in on that, that’s again, and they showed a lot buildable area but
again…carefully on that to see how that home is sited and obviously you want to minimize that
as would the developer minimizing that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is the setback, the 30 foot setback, is that required from a private street?
Kate Aanenson: It meets the 30 foot.
Mayor Furlong: Oh it does.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Or it can meet it, correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, for clarification on this. This isn’t a preliminary or final plat.
Kate Aanenson: It is preliminary. So it has to come back for final plat, correct.
Councilman Lundquist: So to show all of those at that point would then have to have show all of
the setbacks as well on that final plat.
22
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Kate Aanenson: Right, we did make a recommendation on a couple of tweaks but yes,
everything would have to be, all the storm water calc’s and all that would be required.
Councilman Lundquist: These are drawn as rough building pads.
Kate Aanenson: Right, and construction plans. All of that, cuts and fills are evaluated to make
sure that we’re still within that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other public comment this evening? Good evening sir.
Al Taylor: Mr. Mayor, councilmen, and staff. My name’s Al Taylor. I live at 2340 Lake Lucy
Road. Right across from the well house and right across from the exit from this subdivision. I
wanted to address two concerns that I had that were not adequately addressed at the Planning
Commission meeting. I tried to set up a meeting with a member of the Planning Commission
meeting and the city engineer. That meeting has not taken place. The staff member
subsequently left and I had no other recourse but to address you. My concern centers around the
exiting onto Lake Lucy Road and the traffic concerns that I have with that. I have two concerns.
One of them is the traffic on Lake Lucy Road. The road between 41 and Galpin is not designed
to be a 30 miles an hour road, although that’s the posted limit. It’s a very wide road. The
developer stated at the last meeting that the road is not designed for that type of speed limit.
People take that road faster. Those of us who live on Lake Lucy Road know that. There are
enforcement problems with the speed on Lake Lucy Road. If you look at where the exit is… If
you look at the exit right here, we’re coming around a curve right here from 41 and you have a
clear sight vision of about 4 seconds worth of time at 30 miles an hour of cars coming from the
west. Going to the east towards Galpin, and we have a heck of a time just getting out of our
driveway, and my belief is there’s going to be some potential incidence for cars trying to exit
onto Lake Lucy Road, looking for cars coming from the west. I don’t believe that’s been
adequately addressed. From a personal standpoint, the other thing is that that road happens to
exit right across from my driveway, so not only do I have the adventure of getting across Lake
Lucy Road when I try to back out of my driveway, I now have to look at an intersection of
people coming from this development. I’ve asked if that road could be moved to the east, and I
believe there’s problems with a well house. So my concerns center around, I understand the
developer’s need to make a profit. He’s in it for risk reward but he is in it for a profit. But I
don’t want to see safety sacrificed as a result of that. And I would like some mechanism to
review with the traffic engineer of taking a look at what that situation looks like, and I would
recommend that we have that study done before this is approved.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Maybe we can at least, given that you weren’t able to talk to
staff, Mr. Oehme do you want to address the issue of the location, sight lines, access point.
Paul Oehme: Yeah. Mr. Taylor brought up a couple points that my assistant did share with me
on this plat and we did read through some of the stop sight distances and we did look at access
points and line of sight at the current location for this development on Lake Lucy Road. And
just based upon our site analysis and stop sight distance that we calculated, we feel that the
access point currently is located sufficiently for Lake Lucy Road. It is posted 30 miles an hour.
23
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
It’s Lake Lucy Road is a somewhat wide street and we feel that that speed limit is adequate for
that area, and the sight lines for the new development will be adequate as well.
Al Taylor: Can I address council again?
Mayor Furlong: Certainly.
Al Taylor: I think the council stated, or the staff reported that that’s a 30 miles an hour, but I
don’t believe that is the typical speed on Lake Lucy Road. Especially in the area between Galpin
and 41. Again the road is wide. It encourages speed and I believe the sight lines at 40 miles an
hour are considerably lower in timing. So I think there’s an enforcement issue of the speed on
Lake Lucy Road. We’ve had several complaints. We’ve complained about the speed on Lake
Lucy Road. There’s limited enforcement and it’s not been effectual.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so we have the enforcement issue and I guess just clarification on the
sight lines. Is there a difference coming in from the, using a non-engineering term, the outside of
that curve on Lake Lucy? Cars coming off of this development are coming from the outside so
they’ll have the view this way versus being on the inside I think where Mr. Taylor is.
Paul Oehme: Right, they actually have better sight lines on the south side of Lake Lucy Road
than they would have on the north side.
Mayor Furlong: And if it worked at 30, did it work above 30 or was it right at 30 or?
Paul Oehme: We looked at it 30 and I believe 35 too and in both instances it was adequate. You
know and again it’s posted for 30 miles an hour. If speeds are above 30 miles an hour that’s part
of an enforcement issue we’re trying to maintain our city standards.
Councilman Lundquist: Which part of Lake Lucy are we narrowing this year? Is that in that
section or is that further down?
Mayor Furlong: East of Galpin.
Councilman Lundquist: East of Galpin. Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to provide public comment?
Just stay close.
Larry Marty: Larry Marty, 2117 Lake Lucy Road. Mr. Mayor, council members, city staff.
Thank you for your time and your diligence on this. I do appreciate that. I do also appreciate the
insight about the variances and what not and the fact that by increasing it from a 8% to 7% that
we are saving more trees. Less impact from that so I do appreciate those types of things. I did
send an e-mail to the council previously and I guess just in reiterating a couple of key points that
I saw. That I guess I believe really still haven’t been addressed or I’d like to see addressed better
before we approve this development. The first is just with the bluff setback. If we’re able to
have buildable lots that are accessible through the form of streets, private drives, without impact
24
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
to the bluff, then I guess I’m okay with it but I’m still not convinced that we’re doing that and
when I walk that ridge and I look at where the homes are today and I look at where the power
lines are, and I look at the trees that are there on that bluff that will be taken out, I really question
our ability for two lots to do what we’re asking to do. With the roads there and the private drive.
Second of all, is dealing with the wetlands and the delineation. I understand we’re trying to
accelerate things to understand what the OHW report is. The key that I guess I struggle with
here is the O in OHW is ordinary high water. When I first lived or built my home here, a little
over 7 years ago, 8 years ago now, there was a lot more water back in the wetlands and the area
behind my house there that abuts to the Carlson property. Because of the development, because
of the changing of streams, because of the ponds that have been created and diverted, that is no
longer what I would deem, and I think what a lot of the DNR would now classify as a wetland,
so I’m concerned even about some of that land potentially at the risk for development in the
future because somebody now doesn’t believe it’s a wetland. Doesn’t meet 3 criteria of
hydrology and plant life in order to support that. Even tonight we heard about how the bluffs
and the grading will, and the ponding on the top side of the Highover side will prevent water
runoff down to Lake Harrison and to the wetlands down below. And that was viewed as a
positive. I don’t see that as a positive. I see that as a big negative in that these wetlands will be
impacted and will be impacted negatively. This area supports an extreme amount of wildlife and
I guess I’m concerned. Even yesterday there were 9 deer that came down Lake Lucy, almost
caused an accident and this was coming down from the Pinehurst development where we’re
already cutting the trees now, so the deer are already trying to find new ways to navigate through
this area. We’re going to develop the land, I understand that. I was a big part of this
development to begin with when I built my home here, but I’m real concerned about the wildlife.
Where it’s going to go. And I think we should also consider that and understand the impact that
that’s going to have for the city as far as complaints of potential deer/car accidents, etc.. The
last concern also echo’s the traffic element on Lake Lucy. This road is a collector road. I
understand that. We’ve talked about speed. We’ve talked about enforcement being a part of the
project…program. To try and control speed to step up enforcement, and I understand it is an
enforcement issue, but that has, we’ve done what, I think all that we can do. We’ve put up signs.
We’ve had the speed trailer. We’ve had the Carver County Sheriff sit out there on Father’s Day
Sunday and monitor traffic. And none of that has helped so that’s why I’m concerned that we’re
adding another development. We’re putting the entrance to a road that is in a challenging spot
with the existing speed. I also happen to have the situation of having a shared driveway. I have
a challenge that I have to look for where my neighbor is backing out of his driveway before I get
onto Lake Lucy. I’m backing out at an angle so it’s difficult to see traffic in both directions
easily, and we’re increasing the traffic. The speed is likely to increase or stay at the higher levels
rather than decrease. And we have a number of developments in the area around us, with the
Pinehurst development as well as some of the other ones. So I’m concerned that with this traffic
we’re making an enforcement, a greater enforcement issue. Greater challenges for the traffic
without any concern or a plan for really handling that. Thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Ray Alstadt: Good evening. My name is Ray Alstadt. I live at 2423 Highover Trail. I want to
take a moment too and thank the council. I was part of the Yoberry group, or I was involved in
the Yoberry proceedings and we all appreciate your support of our alternatives from the
25
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Highover group to offer the cul-de-sacs and we’re welcoming 15 year neighbors and that’s
terrific but, I guess first of all I’d like to address that the variances that are being offered, I had
one on Lot 9 and could we see that drawing. I just had a quick look at it with Jim and it looked
like there were huge retaining wall behind that.
Kate Aanenson: Is that Lot 11?
Ray Alstadt: I’m sorry, 9. On the top, right. And I have a drawing… It sure looked like a huge
variance there would have to be granted to allow 9.
Kate Aanenson: This has been revised. There is a retaining wall…
Ray Alstadt: Okay. Okay, so this wall is gone now?
Kate Aanenson: No, it still exists to a lesser extent.
Ray Alstadt: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: And that’s the one that we’re saying, just to be clear again those are ones that
we want to see the custom home plans on to minimize those off those, of this area. Again that
street has changed. Homes on 11 and 12 for that retaining wall.
Ray Alstadt: Thank you. So I guess that’s, I was just trying to address that. Thank you very
much. I think that answers some of it. I also heard the comment 30 feet several times tonight
and I guess the, for the road that’s going to go in.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. The right-of-way needs to be 30 feet. Typically they’re not paved to
that wide, and then the driveway, just meet the minimum for the driveway.
Ray Alstadt: So the road that will be on the other side of the existing fence will be a 30 foot
wide road?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Ray Alstadt: 12 foot driveway?
Kate Aanenson: As you’re looking at a private road…
Ray Alstadt: That’s perfect. That’s perfect. This is new to me so forgive me.
Kate Aanenson: Yep. I’ll give you this. This part right here, this is…common. This portion
right here. That’s the 30 foot right-of-way. This portion here. After that it becomes a 12 foot
driveway. And what we’re saying what the Planning Commission recommended and the staff is
saying when they get a specific home plan, we believe it can meet if they come back and they
want a variance, there’s no guarantee they get a variance. That’s their risk. So if the Planning
Commission, obviously they could appeal that to the City Council to decide at that time whether
26
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
or not that met the minutes so this would be the 12 foot portion. Again, we separated the closest
house and I believe it’s about 160 feet was probably the closest house?
Dan Herbst: 114…
Kate Aanenson: Okay, 170 that’s what I scaled off. Okay, the separation.
Ray Alstadt: Now I’ll go back to this if I may. This is my home right here. My walkout is on
the east side of that. So if what I’m hearing correctly, this is a 30 foot road.
Kate Aanenson: The right-of-way is. The pavement part is only 20 feet.
Ray Alstadt: So this is a 20 foot wide road.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Ray Alstadt: That’s correct, okay. I have a little problem with that because I know I am a
distance from here. A fairly substantial distance, but why do we need this turn around point?
Kate Aanenson: That’s a recommendation so, for the common drive. That if somebody goes
down the wrong way that they have a place to back out without going all the way down oops,
and got the wrong address. Fire Marshal also likes to see a secondary, as does engineering.
Ray Alstadt: Okay. And will that be marked private drive, private road?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Ray Alstadt: It will be?
Kate Aanenson: Yep. We can make that a condition.
Ray Alstadt: I guess that’s it, other than in closing to say there is, I agree with a lot of people
that have been speaking tonight. There is a lot of wildlife in that area and I think we should be
very careful of that. Once this property is gone, it’s a beautiful piece of property. Once it’s
gone, it’s gone. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Mike McGraw: Mr. Mayor, councilmen, planning staff, I’m Mike McGraw. I live at 2446
Highover Trail. I talked to Bob Generous early last week and he mentioned that the intention is
to clear cut all the trees along Lots 10 and 11, beginning east of the power line to the front half of
both of those lots. Is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: I’m not familiar with that conversation Bob would have with you. Again when
you do a driveway, and I’d let the developer address how they intend to put the driveway in but
typically that’s something you do a walk through and try to, there may be areas that the driveway
27
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
snakes, if that makes sense. If there’s a significant tree you want to save. I think that’s kind of
what they’re trying to do to get the amenity. I don’t want to speak for the developer but it’s
typically what you do to preserve the value of that. That you would snake that driveway in to
save the tree.
Mike McGraw: Okay, well then I’d like to make my statement. It sounds like there’s a
possibility it might be. Clear cutting would directly expose the power lines and the supporting
towers which would not contribute to the natural beauty of this property and neighborhood. And
there was an article in our local paper about a week ago really explaining the natural beauty of
Chanhassen. The trees that are currently there, that are targeted to be clear cut are a nice mix of
young and mature birch, maple, basswoods, and oaks that dramatically soften the power lines
and existing supporting structure. The developer is saying that he will replace a small fraction of
these trees with nursery stock, start up trees that I think 99% of us won’t live long enough to see
them even come close to the growth and height that those current trees have. So what would be a
better plan? I think a better plan would be not to disturb the trees that are just, that butt right up
to the power line on the east. Create a moderate strip of trees closest to the power line, all the
way along Lots 10 and 11, with a depth to be determined after we look at elevation maps.
Wherever we put a road or a driveway along Lots 10 and 11, we’re going to lose trees. There’s
no question about that. So I think the issue is to pick the place that maintains the natural beauty
and property and preserves that for the neighborhood. So what are the pluses and minuses of
what I’m proposing as an alternative plan? First the minus side. The only minus that I can think
of is that we may, may increase the height of the slope by moving that road farther east. But
we’re already going to need a boulder wall in there and I think if we have to add another layer to
that just to save the trees on the, up to the power lines, would be a good decision. Erosion should
not be a factor. I think if the wall is engineered correctly, I think we have probably the longest
and highest boulder wall at the corner of Lake Lucy Road and Highover Drive in the State of
Minnesota. And that has been there for 7 years and there’s no sign of erosion there. Now for the
positives. The new owners of Lots 10 and 11, if we move that road, driveway in a bit will have
dense trees on both sides of the driveway, which will serve as a natural barrier or an natural
barrier for both noise and a buffer for the visual high line and supporting structure. The existing
residential Highover will continue to have the dense trees to look at as a natural part of their
neighborhood, and also probably concealing somewhat the high line that is there. I think the
existing trees also will, on the western side of the road if we move it in, will actually help to
prevent soil erosion and prevent wash out’s to that road. And then finally I think that barrier also
would be habitat for the wildlife inbetween the two neighborhoods. So in summary, I’m asking
to preserve the existing natural beauty of Chanhassen and move the entrance access to Lots 10
and 11 farther east of the power line than it’s present intended location. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just add to that?
Mayor Furlong: Please.
Kate Aanenson: I would agree with everything he stated and I think the developer would too. In
looking at the location of the driveway, as we move through here, obviously looking at where the
28
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
significant trees and I think between now and if the council were to go in the direction of
preliminary plat, between now and that and then final, we would look at again the right-of-way is
30 feet, of siting that within that, the best location… I just also wanted to point out, while we’re
working hard to preserve the trees, Xcel is looking at additional voltage on that line through
there to get to the southern end of the city and to service Chaska for additional power, so they
were out this spring. Some of you, or this fall as some of you may know, they were out
surveying that line so there may be some other removal on that, so we’re taking that into
consideration with this too, but I think certainly working with the significant tree and we can put
the driveways around it, that would be a good goal.
Mayor Furlong: And just for visual understanding, underneath the power line right in that area
there’s a fence that says private property. That’s the property line and so, further behind that
fence is part of the easement for the power lines?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Or is the easement for the power lines contained all within the outlot?
Kate Aanenson: It’s hard to see on the exhibit…
Dan Herbst: Here’s the property line. Project property line of Mr. Carlson in the outline. This is
the easement. The power line is here. This is the easement, 30 feet on each side, so nothing can
be built within that easement. As far as structures. Basically the whole graphic I think I just
want to clarify because it’s a better graphic than we had at the Planning Commission but the buff
line here shows where the bluff is on this site. Nothing is being accomplished in the bluff except
for a slight fill there to make that driveway work. The blue line is the bluff setback, where it
says no impact. Within 20 feet nothing is being done as far as structures, except for this private
road. The yellow line is the building setback, 30 feet from the bluff line and all of our homes
will be, because there was a lot of discussion about Lot 11. There is nothing on the retaining
wall or the home pad that will be near the bluff impact zone. So the only thing that’s requiring a
slight variance on this entire plan as far as bluff setback and bluff impact is this driveway, which
will be a 12 foot wide driveway. There will be no trees removed between any of these
residences and the power line. Nothing will be done.
Audience: That’s not your property.
Dan Herbst: No, but I remember there was a discussion that we were going between the, as far
as visibility of the power. So nothing is going to be disturbed in there and the question of
drainage off of, you know if you understand the storm water drainage, what the storm water
people don’t want is they don’t want lawn fertilizer and drainage coming down off these lawns,
going down into the wetland. So this will be picking up storm water on the private drive, on the
road. Putting it into the storm water system. Putting it into NURP ponds before they go into the
wetland. So basically those two lots are in full compliance with all of your codes and all of the
ordinances, there will be no building in the bluff impact zone, but we are asking for a fill for that
driveway within that line.
29
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Mayor Furlong: And just a question with regard to, I think it was Mr. McGraw’s comments in
terms of starting at the property line, Mr. Herbst and going back in. That’s where the chain link
fence is now, is that correct?
Dan Herbst: Yes, and if we can do that, by all means.
Mayor Furlong: Then I guess the question is, is that something you’d be willing to work with
staff on to try to leave a buffer of trees there between that and the…
Dan Herbst: Trees are my friend. Every time one goes down I have to replace it, and it also
appreciates my market value so anything we can do to save trees will be done.
Mayor Furlong: And we’ve got some flexibility within the right-of-way as well as the…
Kate Aanenson: Right, and I just want to be clear again we’re in the power easement and there
are restrictions, and I just want to make sure that’s on the record. We definitely want to work
with them.
Mayor Furlong: Within our opportunities to create a buffer there if possible.
Kate Aanenson: Absolutely, yep.
Dan Herbst: Okay. Then a question about getting our homework done about reports not being,
everything that’s required of your ordinance is more that’s been done. Surveys, topography, tree
surveys, geotechnical, wetlands, work with the DNR, work with staff, so that’s all available and
something we have to have. Something you have to have, so there’s no shortcutting has been
done here whatsoever.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there any other public comments? Something that we haven’t
heard at the Planning Commission or this evening.
Audience: Can I make one more?
Mayor Furlong: Is it a new issue?
Al Taylor: It centers around another suggestion for exiting from the area. Which would go back
to the developer’s original plan to exit off of Galpin. My belief is, if you do your traffic study,
the clear line of sight from both of those areas, north and south, are considerably longer than
what they are on Lake Lucy Road. It’s 11 seconds to 13 seconds coming from the south to the
north and it’s about 7 or 8 seconds coming from Lake Lucy/Galpin intersection from the north.
And I believe that’s a safer mechanism than what we’re doing on Lake Lucy Road. However, I
believe what changed that was the fact that you’re going to put a water treatment plant where
they planned to put that exit and I believe that’s more economically driven than safety driven.
Just want to mention that to the City Council for further consideration.
30
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Couple more comments.
Jacqie Dougherty: Good evening. I’m too short. I realize that a few of the points that I have
here will be considered to be redundant but I think they bear repeating just because I would like
you to know how important it is to not only myself but my neighbors. My name is Jacqie
Dougherty and my address is 2423 Highover Trail. As a neighbor who’s property adjoins the
Carlson property, I’m in agreement with everyone who has stated that this is a unique and special
place. As staff reported it is 62 acres, the majority of which are mature trees. It has a lake, bluff
areas, and wetlands and is home to deer, pheasants, fox, coyote, possum, owls, hawks, ducks,
geese, numerous song birds and of course the infamous turkeys. They visit all of our yards. It’s
been kept in park like condition and is literally alive with nature. Before us tonight is a proposal
that would reduce tree canopy cover on this property by two-thirds. It would fill in wetlands,
impact bluff areas and destroy animal habitat. Combine this with all of the other developments
that are going on in the Lake Lucy Road area between Galpin and Highway 41 and you’ll see
that nature is literally being squeezed out of our town. Once these resources are gone or
damaged, they are gone for good. No amount of 2 ½ inch trees will replace them. You may feel
that this is the price one pays to grow our city and that these comments are merely sentimental
rhetoric, but it is my purpose here to encourage all of the involved and make very careful choices
and take a more sensitive approach to the development of this property. Pemtom has stated in a
letter we received from them in February that they take great pride in creating unique
communities. I agree that Trillium Bay is one of the most beautiful in the Twin Cities area. The
trees were preserved. The topography respected and minimum environmental impact was made.
The other developments I visited were not treated as such and were no more special than any
other in the area. The Carlson property is the perfect opportunity to make another Trillium Bay.
Currently the plans before us don’t show us that. Don’t make a mistake where you could make a
masterpiece. In closing I would ask that you take a long careful look at this proposal. If you
haven’t done so already, go out and tour the property and consider what is going to be gained or
lost here. Don’t allow impact to the bluffs and wetlands for the needless cutting of trees just
because it’s easier and cheaper to go in with a bulldozer rather than work around the existing
trees. Lots 11 and 12 and the private road off Highover Trail are particularly troublesome as
they impact all of the above mentioned items as well as encroach on their neighboring homes.
Once this development is done, Pemtom, Lundgren will move onto their other projects. It is the
neighbors who surround this area who will have to live with the results. I hope that this is
something that we can all be proud of. I thank you for your time and your consideration and
manner. I’d also like to say that I think Mr. McGraw’s comments were very good. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is it a new comment? I’d like to try to get moving here.
Jim Broughton: Yes it is. I’d just like to say that I went to the City, I asked Bob on the staff if
he had the soil boring reports that were required for the pre-plat and he said, no. He didn’t have
those yet so I don’t think everything was there, just for the record. I want to make that comment.
Also I believe on Lots 8 and 9 in Block 1, the topography there is questionable whether those are
also bluffs. I measured the distances and I think we may be, I just want to ask the question of
staff if they evaluated Lots 8 and 9. I think the slope is 30% or more. It’s close but it’s 30%. I
think those also qualify as bluffs and the proposal is to build 2 homes on those. Thank you.
31
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Kate Aanenson: It has to be 30%. Well, in our evaluation it wasn’t. If it’s 29.9, as the City
Attorney stated, and I don’t know what they are off the top of my head, what the slope is, it
would qualify so, and we do have, as someone pointed out, in Highover there’s significant,
throughout the city, and we do look at those really carefully. There was a time when we just
only looked at those on the southern end of the city and we made a conscience effort to apply
that ordinance city wide.
Audience: I don’t think Highover’s pertinent to this development.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Last one.
Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I wish to talk
specifically about Lot 11. Well this lot is approached by a private street and private streets
according to code, Chapter 20-615 is supposed to have the front lot line measured from the
public street. The lot line closest to the public street, and that is the lot line running east and
west. The delineation of the bluff, it doesn’t look to me like you have a 30 foot front yard from
the front lot line and I was wondering how you wish to address that.
Kate Aanenson: I believe it does. Disagree.
Janet Paulsen: And how do you believe it does?
Kate Aanenson: You can let the engineer.
Mayor Furlong: Maybe the developer can show us.
Daren Laberee: My name is Daren Laberee. I work for Westwood Professional Services. I’m a
landscape architect and planner. It’s not a public road. It’s a private road and all the setbacks
are from public right-of-way. What we have here is a private drive easement. You see the lot
lines are darken black here. This is the same…we used in Pinehurst where this is not right-of-
way. This is not an outlot. These are within these two lots and there’s an easement for cross
access along this private road. The front yard setback would be from this lot line, 30 foot which
is actually, we are 20 foot from back of curb which is the same standard we used in the
Pinehurst, which is adequate for parking and driveway and not blocking a street. The setback is
actually from right here, the property line is way exceeds 30 feet.
Kate Aanenson: Plus you can move that building pad back further.
Janet Paulsen: Well I beg to differ. The lot line that’s the front is this lot line. It has to be
measured from the public street that they determine what the front lot line is. This is the side lot
line. This is the back lot line. You have to have 30 feet in front, 30 feet in back. The bluff
doesn’t allow that so you need a variance. Does anybody have a code book here? You can
check it. Chapter 20-615.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there any comments?
32
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Roger Knutson: I would have to measure things for myself to satisfy myself but staff has looked
at it, but there’s no variance requested so none is being, on the setback. Am I correct?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Roger Knutson: So they’ll have to meet what the code is. They’ll have to move the building pad
if necessary, but apparently staff has looked at it and they disagree with that interpretation. But
if that were true, then you just have to move the building pad. You’re not approving building
sites here tonight.
Mayor Furlong: So they would have to follow the ordinance.
Roger Knutson: Yes. We’re not giving them any deviation from the ordinance, explain it in that
respect.
Audience: Mr. Mayor, can I just make one more comment?
Mayor Furlong: I really would like to go on. This is a courtesy we provide the public comment
here. I’m not trying to cut people off but at the same time we can keep going and going so, you
know I think it’s important we’ve had a lot of issues in addition to what we’ve heard tonight.
Again we’ve heard everything that was offered at the public hearing as well, at the Planning
Commission so.
Audience: Thank you very much for your time.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you for your consideration. I guess at this point we’ve had a lot of
issues. We’ve had some questions answered throughout. Is there any questions or follow-up
questions for staff at this point? Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Can you just refresh my, it’s a 60 acre parcel and what. Huh?
Councilman Peterson: 62.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: 62 acre parcel. I’m sorry, refresh my memory. What is the actual
number of acres that are being built on? And what is being preserved?
Kate Aanenson: I’d have to look it up real quick in my notes.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Sorry. I thought someone gave me those numbers earlier. I didn’t
write them down.
Councilman Labatt: 22 acres.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: It’s 22 acres out of the 62 that are being developed?
33
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Dan Herbst: The total site is 62 acres, as was mentioned. The bluff indicates right-of-way,
there’d be 6.2 acres of right-of-way. The conservation easement will be 13.8 acres, which is the
magenta color. And then all of this land, outlot, 17.2 acres will be dedicated to the city as
parkland.
Mayor Furlong: Could you, Mr. Herbst could you put that chart back up there?
Dan Herbst: Sure.
Mayor Furlong: On the conservation. Upside down. Okay. The lot lines, especially along what
will be the extension of Highover Trail. Those lot lines basically come up to the point of the
conservation easement, is that correct? The back lot lines.
Dan Herbst: These are going right for the back of the lot lines through here.
Mayor Furlong: Is that correct?
Todd Gerhardt: Dan, you’re not showing the conservation easement that would be on the
individual’s property though.
Dan Herbst: Not through here but we do have, on the back of these lots, the OHW, that’s
probably going to be an outlot versus the back of the lot lines so.
Kate Aanenson: Just to answer, it would go up further into those lots.
Mayor Furlong: And where is that in the conditions? And I guess I want to be clear because you
know in terms of providing the variances, especially in these lots.
Kate Aanenson: Right, and that’s what needs to be to preserving the trees through a
conservation easement.
Mayor Furlong: We can hold the developer to the tree preservation as part of the grading plan,
correct?
Todd Gerhardt: Correct. The conservation easement is taken on the individual property owners.
Dan is showing in the, I call it purple area, is an outlot that would be dedicated back to the city.
The conservation easement will be owned by the property owner and that property owner will
not have any rights to clear cut or cut any of the trees in the conservation easement area.
Mayor Furlong: I guess I didn’t see that and I thought maybe I missed it.
Kate Aanenson: I think the appropriate nexus for that would be under the variance that says, as a
part of the variance the 25 foot, that there be tree conservations be placed on those lots.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess what I’m looking for, and maybe we’re getting into comments and
I’d be interested in my fellow council members opinion, is clearly the developer’s asking for a
34
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
variance on the street grade. We should hold them to account in terms of the tree preservation
with their grading plan. But then to further impose a permanent conservation easement on a
future property owner, that’s where I trip a little bit there. Just in terms of property rights for
those property owners as well. We hold the developer, the developer’s putting in, and I guess
that’s my question Kate. Didn’t see that in here.
Kate Aanenson: It’s not in here and I think if you look through the construction plans, look at
them more closely, you know we’ve got, further iteration of the impact of the grading. That we
also look at that and what’s a reasonable pad for that as part of the final plat and proposals,
conservation easements on those lots, and we would review those on those individual lots as a
part of the final plat.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah I guess, clearly I think there can be, having not seen that I guess that
would be something that would have to be looked at.
Kate Aanenson: Well I think in the gross sense it is on the site plan, if you follow the grading
limits. What you don’t have is the instrument to convey that and that would be in an easement
document that would we would then approve.
Mayor Furlong: If there’s a desire to put that easement over the individual private property.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: We’ve got the conservation easement on the, in the outlot areas and in the large
preservation.
Kate Aanenson: That would be correct.
Mayor Furlong: Areas already. That’s coming.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Anything that would be in the bluff protection area, that would be a no
touch anyway or the wetland, correct.
Mayor Furlong: And that makes sense.
Kate Aanenson: Those areas that go beyond that, and what the developer showed you was those
minimum areas and it’s that additional property, the wooded area.
Mayor Furlong: I guess I’m…not in there because I didn’t see it so.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. We can talk about that. Any other questions for staff at this point?
Based upon comments received or other information.
35
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: Kate back to the other list from Mrs. Paulsen. On her questions 1
through 8.
Kate Aanenson: The OHW that we received from the DNR, we did receive a letter 993.6. What
they originally showed in their plan was 993.5 so we have reviewed all those calculations for the
house setbacks. Those lots that abut the, and I think the rest of them were kind of encumbered in
the street issue. The definition of a private street, private drive…
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. But you feel like that we’re within interpretation to meet all of
those?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. I think we respectfully agree to disagree.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff? If not, let’s open discussion. We’ve got a
number of issues here due to the development that’s clearly going through, has some challenging
effects but has some opportunities as well so I guess I’m interested in my fellow council
members comments. Councilman Peterson, would you like to start?
Councilman Peterson: Sure. It’s nights like these where this high paying job is a little
frustrating. You know when I first heard that this property was going to be developed, I was
concerned about the ability to retain the feeling and the general ambience that Mr. Carlson has
maintained over the years and really built. And I actually expected a lot more density than 1.35
acres. Which I was very pleased to see that that the density was that low. I think that is a
testament to the developer being sensitive to all the issues that were brought up by the citizens
tonight. I think we’ve talked a lot about the variances that are here, and when I was prepping for
the meeting this week, I was, I saw the variances as being minor in nature. Relatively speaking.
Relative is really an important word there. Relatively the variances are minor. And they are
done for the right reasons and I truly don’t think that they’re economic because at the end of the
day everything is about economics when you’re developing property but the density that this is
low, and the variances were to save the trees and to save the general feeling of that
neighborhood, which I think is a huge positive. I also heard a lot about the wildlife and we hear
about that with every development and chances are the wildlife that is in this area now was in the
area that the people that are talking about it tonight, they were probably, the deer were probably
laying in that building pad before a house was built so everything is contracting and we can’t
really do a lot about the fact that the land owner has a right to develop and our obligation is to
develop that and guide that development in proper fashion that we want our city to do. And
through the comprehensive plan so you know, I wish the city could afford to write a check and
keep that 60 some acres of parkland. We can’t. So that means we have to develop it in the most
sensitive fashion possible. In summary, I’m pleased with the development. I think that the
variances are small and appropriate. I think everything that’s been brought up tonight, the
developer seems to be amenable to working with staff by working with the neighbors to continue
to improve it as we get to final plat so, I’m looking forward to the final plat being a sensitive, to
that particular environment as it can be and I’d recommend moving ahead.
36
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I guess I concur with what Councilman Peterson said but you know
what, I also feel that the developer, I’ve often said is only as good as his reputation is and I think
this developer does have a good reputation of having a really excellent final product and a
product that we can all be proud of and I think we should you know, be thankful he is trying to
do what he is doing to make that work. I think the variances also are a positive thing. I think a
lot, a couple people said tonight when we were talking about preserving habitat and preserving
trees and the wetlands and I think that’s what these variances are doing. You know we’re saving
the trees and we’re saving, or we’re trying to protect our bluff so the animals will have a place to
still live, and I think Councilman Peterson’s right that it’s just, it’s growth and that’s what
happens throughout the city. I’ve lived in Minnetonka and we’ve had 12 deer in my yard. I’ve
lived in Chanhassen, I’ve got 9. We all have deer. I think we all have, I see ducks on top of our
neighbors house you know. We all have to learn to live together at some point and hopefully
that will happen. And so I’m supportive as also, I’m always encouraged when he does try to
work with the neighbors and have meetings because a lot of details and a lot of fears get ironed
out through those meetings and I think he’s done a good job with that, and working with staff.
And the Planning Commission also I think did a good job in trying to iron out some of these
wrinkles.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: I would echo comments made previously and also I think this is one
time when the term variance, it kind of has a negative connotation usually when we get into these
things. That that’s somehow a bad thing always, and generally speaking might be considered
that way, but this, at least in the grading ones here seems to be a positive thing and we’ve got to
look at the site as a whole and say, we’ve heard a lot of comments from staff from the developer
and from residents that we want to save the trees. Yet if we want to save the trees, we’ve got to
have some variances. So I’m in favor of those. I think the private street is a good compromise
there. Again those lots can be developed so if you can put a building pad on that. We could
easily within the ordinance plow a nice 30 foot wide street through there with curb and gutter
and sidewalks and all kinds of stuff that’s undesirable through there, so that’s also a good
compromise. Any time you have a site that’s fully wooded or predominantly wooded like this
one is, it’s always a challenge and also need to understand that just because you have a lot that’s
full of trees doesn’t mean that you don’t have a right to cut some of those trees to put a building
pad on it. And that’s why we have our preservation ordinances the way they are and the
developer will be planting a lot of trees, and when there’s a lot of pieces in our city that when
they do get developed unfortunately, some trees come out, but again there’s a compromise there.
And again as Councilwoman Tjornhom said, this developer has in the past and other
developments and experiences shown a sensitivity to the natural resources so again I am thankful
that we have a sensitive or a developer who has some background being sensitive with those
resources here. It is I think ironic or funny that all of these developments are coming in this part
of the city at the same time. And I think that exacerbates the impact, especially as one of our
residents commented tonight, with the Pinehurst, the Crestview that we talked about tonight, the
Yoberry in there as well, so yes. There’s a lot of things going on in this area at one time. For
what reason I guess I don’t know. We haven’t done anything special up there so just so happens
37
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
that that’s the way it’s going so, yeah. It does push it and it does impact it. I think the curious
thing in this one is, not that I want to propose this but funny how we also have another cul-de-sac
coming out of Highover. Perhaps that will be the birth place of long cul-de-sacs in our city
rather than through streets so Mr. Mayor, I know you’ll appreciate that comment. But on a
serious note, I think a lot of time, effort has been put in. Staff, developer. I do thank all the
residents for comments and for taking your time out at the Planning Commission and here
tonight. The e-mails. They are read. They are considered. And by staff as well. Hopefully you
feel like as you’ve given your comments, that they’re heard and considered. They’re not
obviously all granted all the time, but know that they are heard and considered as well in the
grand scheme of things. So, I am in favor of the development as it stands as well.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Well I won’t disagree with a majority of the comments that I heard here
from my three counterparts up here. The only, I mean I like the, I think it’s a wonderful piece of
property and a wonderful development and the applicant has obviously taken steps to minimize
the overall impact environmentally I think. The only really concern I have is this Lot 11, Lot 12
issue. But I realize this is preliminary here and I think the city staff has put in enough safeguards
to protect the residents along here and I mean if they can’t build on it once they come in for final,
they can’t build on it so. My whole, you know grant a variance there for the bluff impact to fill
that and to create that driveway. That’s my sticking point but overall, you take the development
as a whole package, I think it’s a very nice development.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Interesting to hear those comments for me. I believe I would
concur with them. The only thing I’d like to, I think it was helpful this evening for me to see the
progression of plans Mr. Herbst laid out initially. Where this started. Where it ended up and
that, how the process continued to evolve. That continued with the neighborhood meetings, with
the Planning Commission. I think the Planning Commission will concur with Councilwoman
Tjornhom. I think they did a very detailed and diligent job in terms of reviewing this and
coming up with good recommendations. They had more information than staff did going into
that meeting and once that information and the answers started coming out, then you can see the
justifications for why they wanted to go 8% versus 7%. I mean we sit here and we argue about
1% grade in the road, but when you start seeing where the benefit of that is, to the city in terms
of our natural resources, it’s worth asking those questions and making sure that we see those
answers. You know again, the developer’s history with the city is helpful in terms of developing
a level of trust here and trust would verify, a phrase spoken by I believe President Reagan was
the one that made that more public and I think that’s what we do with our conditions and our,
looking at all the plans as we trust that we verify and we make sure that it’s done as they say
they’re going to do it. In terms of, you know and I asked some questions here tonight. I’m not, I
believe that from a, in terms of preserving some of the trees in the forested areas in the backs of
some of these lots, I think we can do that with…
Kate Aanenson: Can I comment on that, and I’m sorry. If you look at condition number 34 on
page 19. I just want to make sure this is on the record. That does say any trees outside the tree
preservation plan, and if I can just show this really quick. We do have a colored preservation
plan. It’s on the plans that you have.
38
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Any trees removed. Yes, I saw that.
Kate Aanenson: Okay, and that, I just want to show this for the record really quickly. This is the
colored one. So if you look at the map that the applicant showed, it’d be more, it’d be, can you
zoom in all the way out. Sorry, back it up. So if you saw what he was preserving, it was this
area here, but they’re still…and so that goes back to your question. So this is the tie back to the
preservation plan and that’s condition number 34.
Mayor Furlong: And I understand.
Kate Aanenson: Okay, but I just want to make sure everybody understood that. We weren’t
looking at the minimum on that. We took it through the middle and that was the intent on that,
so there is a condition in the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and as I looked at that condition, and just for clarification, I think when
the developer’s asking for a variance, in order to preserve trees, we make sure through the
grading plan and through the tree preservation plan, that that occurs. That the developer does
what they say they’re going to do, and that’s the trust would verify that I look at. The question is
then the continual government demand on what, on the use of those trees when it becomes
somebody’s private home. That’s the leap that I haven’t taken yet. That being said, I don’t see
that here and we can talk about that if that comes back, but I think overall, to build upon a couple
of the comments that my fellow council members made. You know I think what the variances
here are indeed trying to preserve some of our natural resources. I had an opportunity a couple
weeks ago to join Jill Sinclair, who’s our Environmental Resource Specialist, Forester at the
national, I guess it was a national Minnesota Arbor Day luncheon out at our Arboretum where
the City of Chanhassen received Tree City USA award, which is awarded by the National Arbor
Day Society. Tenth year in a row. It was our tenth anniversary receiving that award as a city,
and we’re the only city in Carver County, to my knowledge that gets that award each and every
year. While we look at what’s taking place, let’s not forget some of the good things that we are
doing too. To build a house you have to cut down some trees. I was very pleased to hear Mr.
Herbst tonight listen to Mr. McGraw and say, hey can we look at creating a buffer there. And
the willingness to do that and work with that. Those are things that staff and the developer can
work on after here, and that’s all again, getting back to my first comment where this process
started, that process continued tonight with regards to part of the public comment and that’s, you
end up getting the best development in this area. I would agree with, going back to Councilman
Peterson’s first comments and others up here as well, I think we’ve got a very nice development
here. It is a development. It’s changed. There will be houses where there are now trees. But I
think that in terms of what could have been done, and here’s the example. Coming through,
following our ordinance with a 7 foot grade. Taking out more trees. Would that have been
found? Would that have been discovered? I don’t know. Just going with the standard setback
on Lot 2, or Block 2 I think is where we’re providing a 5 foot, getting them 5 foot closer to the
street so we can save 17 feet when they come through with the grading and put up those tree
preservation. Save 17 feet in the back. Would that have been discovered? I don’t know. But
the developer is bringing those forward as a way to make the development better. Wooded lots
are more valuable. That’s clear and I think we all appreciate that, and but there it’s a classic
39
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
example where perhaps the profit motivation of the developer is right in sync with what as a city
we’d like to see and that’s preservation of trees where we can’t, so overall I support this. I think
the staff, the developer put a lot of time and I especially thank the residents for being involved in
the process to make sure that we trust to verify that we get all the information in there. As
Councilman Lundquist said, we may not always agree with the recommendations but I can
assure you that we do listen and that we do read the e-mails and that we do take the information
very seriously and spend the time to understand what’s in the packet and what the information
that the residents are bringing up so I appreciate their involvement. Overall I agree with the
proposal and the plan this evening, which was recommended by the Planning Commission. I
think they did a good job and I would concur with what we have and what my sense is my fellow
council members concur with as well. Any other comments? Questions. If not we have a
number of motions beginning on page 15. Who’d like to go?
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I’d be willing to make a first motion which would be to
approve the rezoning of the property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family
Residential District based upon the findings of fact attached to this report.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to move approval of the
Rezoning of the property from RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Single Family Residential
District based on the findings of fact attached to this report. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Peterson: I’d make the second to approve preliminary plat subdivision to create 40
single family lots, 4 outlots and the public right-of-way with the approval of a variance for a private
street and a street grade, plans provided by Westwood Professional Services dated 3/18/05 based
upon the findings of fact attached to this report, subject to conditions 1 through 63.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussions on that? One point, just a note earlier Kate.
Councilman Lundquist: Discussion on number 63. References a cul-de-sac.
Kate Aanenson: That should be eliminated. It actually on the motion if you want to modify we
should reference Lots 11 and 12 as modified on plans dated 5/9/05.
Mayor Furlong: Do you incorporate that?
Councilman Peterson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt, you would concur?
40
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, deleting the 63 then?
Mayor Furlong: Not 63. I think.
Councilman Labatt: Changing from the cul-de-sac.
Mayor Furlong: Just strike the word cul-de-sac I think.
Kate Aanenson: That’s what 63 should say, correct.
Mayor Furlong: Just strike the word cul-de-sac would clean that up? Okay.
Councilman Labatt: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: I had a question on condition 57. Usually I don’t see personal pronouns in
conditions. Does that need to be re-worded?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah…
Mayor Furlong: So strike the last sentence?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other comments? If not, then Councilman Peterson you moved
the motion as stated with these additional comments?
Councilman Peterson: Yes sir.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt you seconded?
Councilman Labatt: Yes sir.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any further discussion on this motion? Hearing none we’ll proceed
with the vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve the
preliminary plat (Subdivision) to create 40 single-family lots, four outlots and public right-of-
way with approval of a variance for a private street and street grade, plans prepared by
Westwood Professional Services, Inc. dated 03/18/05, based on the findings of fact attached to
this report, subject to the following conditions:
1.The lot area for Lot 2, Block 1, shall be increased to a minimum of 15,000 square feet.
2.The lot frontage for Lot 3, Block 1, must meet the 90 feet standard at the building setback line.
3.Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 3, must be reconfigured to meet the minimum standards.
41
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
4.The lot frontage for Lot 14, Block 3, must meet the 125 minimum lot width if it is a lake shore
lot.
5.Lot 12, Block 3, contains a swimming pool and shall not be platted as a separate lot until the
pool is removed or the platting of the lot is concurrent with an application for a building permit
for a principal dwelling on the lot.
6.Prior to final plat approval, the developer shall verify that acceptable building pads can be
accommodated on all lots that have lake setbacks.
7.If Lot 1, Block 4is not dedicated for park purposes, then the development shall pay full park
fees in force at the time of final plat approval.
8.Building Official Conditions:
a.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
b.Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
c.The developer must submit a list of proposed street names for review and approval prior
to final plat of the property.
d.Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and
a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
e.Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot.
f.Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems on the site but be abandoned in
accordance with State Law and City Code and the existing home must be connected to
city sewer service when available.
g.The swimming pool adjacent to the existing residence must be protected by a fence in
accordance with City Code.
h.The developer must coordinate the address change of the existing home with the
construction of the development and provide access for emergency vehicles at all times.
9.A wetland delineation report illustrating wetland type, boundary and vegetation shall be
submitted prior to final plat approval.
10.The applicant shall submit a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) application illustrating two
alternatives that demonstrate proposed plans were sequenced in the following order of
decreasing preference: 1) Avoidance of wetland impact, 2) Minimization of wetland impacts,
3) Rectification of wetland impacts and 4) Mitigation of wetland impacts. The applicant
shall not impact basins A, G and F until it is demonstrated that these impacts have met the
above sequencing requirements. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with
the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans shall show fixed photo
monitoring points for the replacement wetlands. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring
plan shall be submitted yearly beginning one growing season after the wetland is created.
The applicant shall provide proof of recording a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants
42
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
for Replacement Wetland. The applicant shall secure City approval of a wetland replacement
plan prior to any wetland impacts occurring.
11.All impacts, including the filling of wetlands and conversion of wetlands into storm water
pond, shall be mitigated with the proposed project. The applicant shall demonstrate and
document how replacement will be satisfied to ensure the 2:1 replacement ratio for all
impacted wetlands.
12.A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be maintained around Wetlands A,
B, C, E, F, G and H. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 16.5 feet shall be
maintained around Wetland D and any wetland mitigation areas. 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.
13.Building setbacks of 40 feet from the wetland buffer strips shall be maintained for all
proposed building pads. Lot 3, Block 3 and Lot 11, Block 3 shall be revised to meet building
setback requirements.
14.Lots 11-15 Block 3 and Lot 10 Block 2 shall be revised to incorporate all of wetland B into
Outlot C.
15.The OHW determination shall be completed prior to final plat approval. All plans shall
illustrate Lake Harrison’s OHW and a 150 foot structure setback from the OHW.
16.All non-riparian lots within the shoreland management zone shall be no less than 90 feet
wide with 15,000 square feet of lot area. All riparian lots within the shoreland management
zone shall be no less than 125 feet wide with 40,000 square feet of lot area.
17.The bluff area on the property shall be preserved. All structures must maintain a 30 foot
setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff
and land located within 20 feet from the top of the bluff).
18.The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. Storm water calculations
shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water ponding is sized adequately for the
proposed development.
19.Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
20.MN DOT category 3 erosion blanket and seed shall be applied to exposed creek slopes
near/around road crossing within 24 hours of temporary/final grade. Riprap, appropriately
sized, shall be installed at flared end outlets for energy dissipation with underlying gravel
base or geotextile fabric. All emergency over flow structures shall be stabilized with riprap
and geotextile or permanent turf re-enforcement blankets. Erosion and sediment controls
shall be installed for the planned sanitary sewer crossing for Wetland A area. Silt fence,
43
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
mulch and wetland seed shall be used for restoration. All 3:1 slopes shall be covered with
category 3 erosion blanket. An outlet meeting NPDES water quality discharge requirements
is needed on Pond 1.
21.Following storm water inlet installation Wimco-type (or equal) inlet sediment controls shall
be installed and regularly maintained. A detail for the inlet sediment controls shall be
provided.
22.Following street and utility installation, Chanhassen-specification Type-1 silt fence or other
approved perimeter sediment control shall be installed for all positive slopes curbside.
23.Geotextile fabric shall be installed under the rock to promote effectiveness and lifespan of the
rock construction entrance.
24.Chanhassen type 2 heavy duty silt fence with straw/hay bale re-enforcement shall be
provided for all silt fences adjacent to wetland and creek areas. Chanhassen type 1 silt fence
shall be installed at the OHW elevation of storm water basins following permanent outlet
installation.
25.The “Inlet Sediment Filter” detail shall be altered to show a rock berm (1 ½ -inch rock, 2 feet
wide and 1 foot high along the outside of the silt fence. Only metal t-posts shall be used, not
wood stakes.
26.Silt fence shall be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland.
27.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.
28.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
29.All development phases shall be represented in the SWPPP (clear and grubbing, mass
grading, large utilities, small utilities, home building, along with any special requirement
such as wetland or creek crossing areas).
44
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
30.Construction phasing of the road shall be provided for the wetland/creek crossing. Due to
potential concentrated flows, a creek crossing plan shall be developed and outlined in the
SWPPP. A detail shall also be provided. Stabilization of the crossing area shall be provided
within 24 hours following temporary or final grade. The silt fence shall be wrapped up and
around the culvert leaving the wetted perimeter free of silt fence. Soil shall be prevented
from entering the waters of the state.
31.At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $135,285.38.
32.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Department of Health, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (for dewatering), Carver County, Met Council) and comply with their conditions of
approval.
33.Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction. Fencing shall be in place and maintained until all construction is completed. In
no areas shall the fencing be placed within the bluff impact zone.
34.Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans, dated 3/18/05, will be
replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches.
35.A total of 319 trees are to be planted. The number of overstory, deciduous trees, as shown on
landscape plans dated 3/18/05, required in the front yard of each lot are as follows:
Lot, Block Number of trees required
Lot 1, blk 1 5
Lot 2, blk 1 2
Lot 3, blk 1 1
Lot 4, blk 1 1
Lot 5, blk 1 1
Lot 6, blk 1 2
Lot 7, blk 1 2
Lot 8, blk 1 2
Lot 9, blk 1 1
Lot 10, blk 1 2
Lot 11, blk1 None – existing front yard trees to be
preserved
Lot 12, blk 1 None – existing front yard trees to be
preserved
Lot 1, blk 2 4
Lot 2, blk 2 3
Lot 3, blk 2 2
Lot 4, blk 2 2
45
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Lot, Block Number of trees required
Lot 5, blk 2 3
Lot 6, blk 2 1
Lot 7, blk 2 3
Lot 8, blk 2 2
Lot 9, blk 2 2
Lot 10, blk 2 7
Lot 1, blk 3 5
Lot 2, blk 3 2
Lot 3, blk 3 2
Lot 4, blk 3 3
Lot 5, blk 3 1
Lot 6, blk 3 1
Lot 7, blk 3 1
Lot 8, blk 3 2
Lot 9, blk 3 2
Lot 10, blk 3 3
Lot 11, blk 3 2
Lot 12, blk 3 3
Lot 13, blk 3 3
Lot 14, blk 3 3
Lot 15, blk 3 2
Lot 16, blk 3 1
Lot 17, blk 3 None – existing front yard trees to be
preserved
36.The developer shall be responsible for planting any trees in side or rear yards as shown on
the landscape plan dated 3/18/05.
37.Any private street is required to have 20-foot wide paved streets from back-of-curb to back-of-
curb, be built to a 7-ton design, have a maximum slope of 10%, and contained within a 30-foot
wide private easement. At the completion of the project, the developer will be required to
submit inspection/soil reports certifying that the private street was built to a 7-ton design.
38.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be
required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. The applicant
should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property
owner.
39.All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and a 10:1 bench at the NWL.
40.Any retaining wall over 4 feet in height must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in
the State of Minnesota with an approved fence. Also, it will require a building permit from the
Building Department.
46
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
41.Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review.
Depending on the size of the drainage area, additional catch basins may be required at that time.
The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and
utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage
system including ponds, drainage swales, emergency overflows, access routes for maintenance,
and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet
wide. Emergency overflows from all stormwater ponds will also be required on the
construction plans.
42.Erosion control measures and site restoration must be developed in accordance with the City’s
Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City’s Type II
erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the area adjacent to the
existing wetlands. Type I silt fence shall be used in all other areas. In addition, tree
preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are
recommended for all of the steep 3:1 slopes with an elevation change of eight feet or more. All
disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately
after grading to minimize erosion.
43.All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in
the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and
the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility
improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance.
44.The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The
2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain. Sanitary
sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of
building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned
by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance.
45.The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge
from homes not adjacent to ponds.
46.All plans must be signed by a registered engineer in the State of Minnesota.
47.Maximum 3:1 side slopes are allowed without the use of a retaining wall.
48.On the preliminary plat sheet show the street right-of-way for the cul-de-sacs.
49.Minimum 20-foot wide public drainage and utility easements will be required over the sanitary
sewer and watermain that is outside of the right-of-way.
47
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
50.On the grading plan:
a.Show the benchmark.
b.Add a note to remove all existing approaches.
c.Show the retaining walls top and bottom elevations.
d.Revise the street grades to comply with the 7% maximum requirement.
e.Eliminate Pond 1 and bring the drainage to Pond 2.
f.The proposed grading for Lots 4-6, Block 3 needs to be revised to prevent the garage
elevation of Lot 4 from being lower than the street.
g.The garage elevations of Lots 5 and 6 need to be at least 1.5 feet higher than the emergency
overflow for the street.
h.Install a culvert under the proposed street connection at Galpin Boulevard.
i. Show the 1036 contour around the housepad of Lot 2, Block 1.
j.Show the proposed storm sewer on the plan.
51.Label the existing and proposed street names on all plan sheets.
52.On the utility plan:
a.Revise the note to say "All storm pipe shall be Class 5…".
b.Show all existing utilities, pipe type and manhole rim/inverts within Lake Lucy Road,
Galpin Boulevard, Highover Trail and Manchester Drive.
c.Revise the location of the downstream sanitary sewer from MH-15 so it goes between Lots
4 and 5 versus Lots 5 and 6, Block 1.
d.Show all utility and storm ponds easements.
e.Sanitary service must be 6-inch PVC and water service 1-inch copper type K.
f.The watermain must be looped through to Manchester Drive versus Galpin Boulevard.
53.Staff is recommending that a raw water transmission main be extended through the site for
future connection to the City’s second water treatment plant. The construction cost for the raw
watermain will be paid by the City from the water portion of the Utility Fund. The developer
will be required to provide public drainage and utility easements over the transmission main and
to install the pipe as a part of the utility construction.
54.Since the applicant is now proposing more units (39) than what the property has been assessed
for, the additional 38 units (39-1=38) will be charged a sanitary sewer and watermain lateral
connection charge. These charges are due at the time of final plat recording.
55.As with past developments that access off of Galpin Boulevard, a right-turn lane into the site
will be required to be constructed. The turn lane must meet Carver County design requirements.
56.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 hydrants
can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance #9-1.
48
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
57.Two additional fire hydrants are required.
58.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.
59.Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of the
new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4.
60.No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be
removed from site or chipped.
61.Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review
and approval.
62.Create a Lot 1,Block 4 on the eastern portion of Outlot A, east of wetland E.
63.The private street for Lots 11 and 12, Block 1 shall be modified as shown on revised plans
dated 5/9/05.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Motion C.
Councilman Lundquist: You’re on a roll Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, Mr. Mayor I’d recommend City Council approve the front yard
variance for Block 2 and deny the bluff setback variances based on the findings of fact attached to
this report.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none we’ll proceed
with the vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve the
front yard variance for Block 2 and denies the bluff setback variances based on the findings of
fact attached to this report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a
vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Fourth motion.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I’d recommend City Council approve the Wetland Alteration
Permit to fill and alter wetlands on the subject site with the following conditions 1 through 13.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
49
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Seconded by Councilman Labatt. Any discussion on this motion? Hearing none,
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve the
wetland alteration permit to fill and alter wetlands on site subject to the following conditions:
1.The wetland alteration permit is contingent on final plat approval for Lake Harrison.
2.A wetland delineation report illustrating wetland type, boundary and vegetation shall be
submitted prior to final plat approval.
3.The applicant shall submit a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) application illustrating two
alternatives that demonstrate proposed plans were sequenced in the following order of
decreasing preference: 1) Avoidance of wetland impact, 2) Minimization of wetland impacts,
3) Rectification of wetland impacts and 4) Mitigation of wetland impacts. The applicant
shall not impact basins A, G and F until it is demonstrated that these impacts have met the
above sequencing requirements. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with
the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans shall show fixed photo
monitoring points for the replacement wetlands. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring
plan shall be submitted yearly beginning one growing season after the wetland is created.
The applicant shall provide proof of recording a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants
for Replacement Wetland. The applicant shall secure City approval of a wetland replacement
plan prior to any wetland impacts occurring.
4.All impacts, including the filling of wetlands and conversion of wetlands into storm water
pond, shall be mitigated with the proposed project. The applicant shall demonstrate and
document how replacement will be satisfied to ensure the 2:1 replacement ratio for all
impacted wetlands.
5.A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be maintained around Wetlands A,
B, C, E, F, G and H. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 16.5 feet shall be
maintained around Wetland D and any wetland mitigation areas. 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.
6.Building setbacks of 40 feet from the wetland buffer strips shall be maintained for all
proposed building pads. Lot 3, Block 3 and Lot 11, Block 3 shall be revised to meet building
setback requirements.
7.Lots 11-15 Block 3 and Lot 10 Block 2 shall be revised to incorporate all of wetland B into
Outlot C.
50
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
8.Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
9.Erosion and sediment controls shall be installed for the planned sanitary sewer crossing for
Wetland A area. Silt fence, mulch and wetland seed shall be used for restoration. All 3:1
slopes shall be covered with category 3 erosion blanket.
10.Chanhassen type 2 heavy duty silt fence with straw/hay bale re-enforcement shall be
provided for all silt fences adjacent to wetland and creek areas. Chanhassen type 1 silt fence
shall be installed at the OHW elevation of storm water basins following permanent outlet
installation.
11.Silt fence shall be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland.
12.Construction phasing of the road shall be provided for the wetland/creek crossing. Due to
potential concentrated flows, a creek crossing plan shall be developed and outlined in the
SWPPP. A detail shall also be provided. Stabilization of the crossing area shall be provided
within 24 hours following temporary or final grade. The silt fence shall be wrapped up and
around the culvert leaving the wetted perimeter free of silt fence. Soil shall be prevented
from entering the waters of the state.
13.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 Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering))
and comply with their conditions of approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, we’ll see some things back on final but thank you Mr. Herbst and your
associates, we appreciate it.
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE CHANHASSEN SKATE PARK.
Mayor Furlong: Do we have copies of this for those in attendance? Okay, there are copies at the
table. Councilman Lundquist, this was your item. If you’d like to go.
Councilman Lundquist: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Resolution that I put together, the skate park is of
particular interest to me. My family and I use particularly the playground equipment and park
behind the elementary school so we’re in this area a lot, although I’m glad that we have the skate
park. Keeps that activity from, mostly from being on our, in front of our library and the steps and
certainly from the businesses around Subway and that over there. I am dissatisfied with where the,
what’s going on at the skate park lately, and so I put this resolution together to drive some change to
that particularly in the foul language, excessive litter and even this morning wonderful graffiti that
we had on there at 6:30 in the morning as I drove past. So the purpose of it is I guess, well not I
guess. The purpose is to direct Mr. Gerhardt and staff, also the Park and Rec Commission to, within
30 days to submit a plan to use for what we can do to eliminate those behaviors and other things
51
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
going on out there. Otherwise it would be my position that our only alternative is to either
permanently or temporarily close that skate park to send a message that we won’t tolerate that type
of behavior in any of our parks, and especially not one that’s kind of the cornerstone of the city and
within ear shot of an elementary school. So the resolution is there as printed I guess. If anybody
has any discussion or questions.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, why don’t we open up discussion, if that’s okay on this item.
Councilman Lundquist: Absolutely.
Mayor Furlong: You want to start with council discussion? Staff, thoughts or comments?
Councilman Lundquist: Be interesting to hear Mr. Hoffman’s comments I guess.
Mayor Furlong: Or Mr. Gerhardt.
Todd Gerhardt: Why don’t we start off, Todd why don’t you give a little update on the activities
that occurred probably last night and what you’ve done to correct the situation and how you’re
enforcing the damage that occurred at the skate park. My comments from the resolution as I read it,
I think are good. That we should probably establish some enforcement policies. Get some feedback
from our Park and Rec Commission if such events like this happen again, that we have a set of rules
and we’ll post those on signs letting people know what would happen if they break the rules. And
Todd, why don’t you kind of explain what we’re doing right now.
Todd Hoffman: Sure, thanks. City Manager Gerhardt, Council, Councilman Lundquist and Mayor.
This morning our entire community I think started out on a bad note. The graffiti at the skate park
was a shocking to many and it was not attractive. Inappropriate phrases were spray painted on the
skate park equipment itself and on the hockey boards. Approximately 8 locations. I called for a
police report immediately but I was pleasantly surprised that Deputy Tim Gerber had already filed a
report at about 6:30 this morning, so on his routine patrol through the city he noticed that vandalism
at the skate park. Deputy Gerber does routinely make a point of stopping and talking to the patrons
at the skate park, which is a good thing in our community for the deputies to do that. At 7:30 our
staff reported to the site to begin the clean-up efforts with both a power washer and graffiti remover.
At about 9:00 or 9:30 they were completely finished with that removal process. City staff had
logged their time and materials that we invested in that process and will present a report to the
Carver County Sheriff’s department based on our findings. Then at about 9:00 Deputy Gerber and I
met. Talked about actions we could take at the skate park as a response to this particular incidence.
It was our agreement that we would close the park today. We closed it at approximately 10:30.
Locked the gates and posted a sign. Three signs in fact at every entrance. The signs say skate park
closed. Due to vandalism the skate park is closed. If you have information concerning this or any
other illegal activity at the skate park contact Carver County Sheriff’s Office and the cell phone
number for Mr. Gerber so he can follow up on the investigation. The reason we’re closing it is to
put some pressure on those individuals that were in the park after hours. Conducted the illegal
activity or criminal activity. The other patrons of the park are going to say hey, that thing’s closed
because of that activity. Let’s find out who did it so we can you know let the officials know so we
can get our skate park back opened up. At the same time we also had a conversation about the
52
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
overall lack of cleanliness at the park. It’s been an issue that we’ve dealt with since we’ve opened
the facility and we agreed to post a sign that will say to the point, be a neon yellow sign with black
letters. Notice, this park will close if skaters/spectators fail to keep it clean, and that’s just a point of
reference. It’s used very heavily as you all know but still, simply because the facility is used
heavily does not mean that we have to pick up the trash on a constant basis. And that is one of the
biggest issues at the skate park as far as the cleanliness of this facility. So that’s the action we’ve
taken as of today. Skate park is closed. First patron I saw walk up to the skate park, with their skate
board in hand, turned immediately around and got on his cell phone and made the first call saying
that the skate park is closed, so the word travels fast. I’m sure it’s out there this evening and we’ll
continue to keep the council updated if we hear new information about this investigation.
Mayor Furlong: You mentioned daily maintenance and clean up. To what extent is staff required to
clean up that park on a daily basis, or a regular basis.
Todd Hoffman: Every morning we spend about a half hour at the skate park cleaning it up. First
thing we do.
Mayor Furlong: Trash, litter, bottles.
Todd Hoffman: Yeah, routine inspection of the equipment and then picking up trash.
Mayor Furlong: Do we do that at all our parks or, at the same level?
Todd Hoffman: We clean up all our parks, maintain the trash. Pick it up and based on the activity
that you see here versus a ballfield or another location, trash maintenance and pick up is one of the
largest activities of our summer maintenance of our park system still. Yeah, we pick up other parks
every day as well, but certainly not to this extent. We don’t spend a half hour at every single
location.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, and that’s my question. There’s more time spent at this park than, because
of the trash.
Todd Hoffman: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Than other locations. Other questions of staff?
Councilman Labatt: No I think, I think Brian’s resolution is wonderful. This gives staff a chance to
hit a nail on a head here with a big hammer and get some stuff done out there. I’ve been over there
with my kids last summer. I haven’t been there this summer but I don’t disagree with Brian’s
analysis at all on what goes on over there.
Councilman Lundquist: It wasn’t, and Todd and Todd and staff, this resolution not intended as an
indictment on the staff. More to give you a tool to you know enforce this type of thing and
unfortunately, for whatever the reason the users of that park seem to not follow the commonly
accepted rules that you throw your trash away and you know when you’re around children, you can
watch your language and you certainly don’t spray paint any kind of messages on somebody else’s
53
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
property, so you know hopefully this gives a tool to tell people to act their age and follow those
commonly accepted practices and if not, then unfortunately I think the poor actions of a few will
affect the many, but hopefully this will give staff a tool to help enforce that. Correct some of that,
so I know that Todd your staff does a yomen’s job out there, and it’s my opinion you shouldn’t have
to do that. And hopefully this helps do that. Obviously you’re going to be fielding a lot of phone
calls and other things probably but in the end maybe we’ll get the best out of it so.
Mayor Furlong: How long do you intend to keep the park closed?
Todd Hoffman: Probably 2 or 3 days. Until we get some leads on the investigation and then open it
back.
Mayor Furlong: So we need some results. We’re looking for results. And that’s good to hear. I
also, along with Councilman Labatt, I concur with this motion in particular involving our park
commission because they were involved in not only creating this park earlier but also involved with
recommending and working with the staff to add some new equipment just, I think it was a year or
so ago that we put some, couple years ago that we added some new equipment…getting some plans
back in a reasonable timeframe so that we can prevent this from happening again makes some
sense. Other thoughts? Comments.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, the only one point I’d like to end with here is, it’s the 80/20 rule again.
You know 20% of the people have wrecked it for 80% of the people that do put their trash away.
That go out there for exercise and enjoyment and for us not being probably as strict as what we
should have been, it was to protect that other 80% that do enjoy it. But it’s at the point now where I
think it’s getting out of hand so appreciate the feedback.
Mayor Furlong: Well thank you for the information as well. Is there other discussion on this or
would you like to propose a resolution of this motion?
Councilman Lundquist: I’d move that we approve the resolution as printed.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on it? Proposed amendments.
Hearing none, proceed with the vote.
Resolution#2005-47:Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve
the Resolution Requiring Action on the Chanhassen Skate Park as proposed. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS.
Councilman Lundquist: I have one. Another accommodation to the Park and Recreation staff. Mr.
Hoffman and your staff at the rec center and the dance recital for the Dance for Fun program this
weekend. Had the pleasure of watching my daughter in one of those for the third year in a row, and
again Susan Marek and Nicole and Lisa put on a great program. They put a lot of blood, sweat and
54
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
tears into that program. A grand number of little girls that enjoy that very much and parents that
enjoy that very much too, so again publicly to thank them for their efforts and credit well deserved,
so if you could pass that on, appreciate that.
Todd Hoffman: Sure will. We talked about it today. She showed me the pictures.
Mayor Furlong: Other presentations from council.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I’d like to just very briefly mention that Southwest Transit
received a national award last week for environmental excellence from the Department of
Transportation, which is an award that 265 applications are made and we were the victor in
excellence in taking vehicles off the roads and running a bus system efficiently, so pretty prestigious
award. You may have read about it in the paper but we’re pretty proud of it so.
Mayor Furlong: Congratulations. Other comments?
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: I have one item. We have a Kraus-Anderson mediation session scheduled for
th
Tuesday, May 17. Try to provide you with an update at our next council meeting. Probably be an
all day session and this is our second mediation go around and if we’re not successful at this one, it
looks as if the next step would be litigation. So I’ll give you that update at our next council
meeting.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt or staff?
Councilman Peterson: Todd what is the effect of the church moving out of, moving out
permanently? Does that affect cash flow? Were we charging them rent at all or not?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, it was about $600 a month I think is what we received in rent, and then they
were responsible for the utilities. And a facility like that it would run up to a little over $1,000 a
month in the winter time to heat. So I’m working with Roger’s office and trying to set up a meeting
with St. Hubert’s to potentially look at renegotiating our current lease and try to talk about some
changes in that.
Councilman Peterson: Current lease goes through when?
Todd Gerhardt: 2008.
Councilman Peterson: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for Mr. Gerhardt?
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
None.
55
City Council Meeting – May 9, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on the correspondence packet? Hearing none, if there’s no other
business to come before the council this evening, we do have a couple items left on our work
session which we’ll pick up immediately after we adjourn here. We’ll reconvene as a work session,
in work session, excuse me in the Fountain Conference Room immediately following. If there is no
other business to come before the council this evening, is there a motion to adjourn?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:40
p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
56