1e Minutes
le-
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 12, 1997
Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the
Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Berquist, Councilman Engel, Councilman
Mason, and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Charles Folch, and Kate Aanenson.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the
agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Mayor Mancino: Are there any items that Council members would like pulled from the agenda and
discussed separately?
Councilman Berquist: Since I was late to the pre-Council meeting, the items that we are given l(a)(2)
and 1 (b). The first one was revisions to the development contract for Springfield 151 AddItion. Did you
go through those at the?
Councilman Senn: Yeah we went through those.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, that's all gone through. And (b) as well?
Mayor Mancino: And you would like I (b) 1 and 2 both pulled?
Councilman Berquist: No, not necessarily. I just want them, I just don't want to rubber stamp them
without. I mean Ijust saw them 10 minutes ago, 15 minutes ago. You guys got there at 5:30.
Everybody's gone through them.
Mayor Mancino: We have gone through them and we have amendments to them.
Councilman Berquist: So they're going to get pulled anyway?
Mayor Mancino: No, because we did have time to review the amendments and say okay to them. We
did review them.
Councilman Senn: The amendments are the same thing that you're both talking about. What you have
there that was handed out are the amendments that Nancy's talking about. We didn't make additional
amendments.
Councilman Berquist: You did not make additional?
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Mayor Mancino: No. We did not make an additional amendment. So would you still like to pull those?
Councilman Berquist: No, let them fly.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, anyone else?
Councilman Senn: Just (k).
Mayor Mancino: Okay, we will pull (k) from the Consent Agenda and.
Councilman Senn: We can do that right away. It will be real quick.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, and we'll vote on that separately.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda
items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Springfield Addition, Lundgren Brothers Construction:
1) Final Plat Approval
2) Approve Development Contract & Construction Plans & Specifications, Project 97-14.
b. The Meadows at Longacres 4th Addition, Lundgren Brothers Construction:
1) Final Plat Approval
2) Approve Development Contract & Construction Plans & Specifications, Project 97-2.
c. Resolution #97-31: Approve Proclamation Declaring National Public Works Week, May 18-24.
d. Approval of Reassignment of Development Contract, Oaks at Minnewashta, Project 94-14.
e. Appointments to Board of Adjustments and Appeals.
f. Amendment to City Code Section 20-405 In Regard to Wetland Alterations and the Chemical
Treatment of Wetlands, Second and Final Reading.
g. Approve Petition to the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District for Basic Water
Management Plan.
h. Approve City Code Amendment Concerning the Makeup of the Public Safety Commission, Final
Reading.
1. Approval of Bills.
J. City Council Minutes dated April 28, 1997
Planning Commission Minutes dated April 14, 1997
Planning Commission Minutes dated April 16, 1997
1. Amendment to Special Assessment Agreement, Lakeview Hills LLC.
2
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
m. Appointments to Environmental Commission.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
K. APPROVE PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH P AULSTARR.
Mayor Mancino: May I please hear a second, another motion please for l(k). Approve private
redevelopment agreement with Paulstarr.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the Private Redevelopment
Agreement with Paulstarr as presented. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed
and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
AWARD OF BIDS: 1997 STREET REPAIR PROGRAM. PROJECT 97-9.
Charles Folch: Thank you Mayor, members of the Council. This past Wednesday, May 7th, bids were
received and opened for the 1997 Street Sealcoat Program. Formal tabulation of the three bids received,
you do have hopefully in your possession tonight. The low bid was received by Allied Blacktop in the
amount of$156,272.20. This low bid received is within the program budget for this year's contract and
in addition Allied Blacktop has performed satisfactorily on all of the 3 or 4 of the last 5 years sealcoat
programs in the city so we're confident in recommending them to you.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any questions from Council members to staff? Is there anyone here
tonight wishing to address the City Council on this issue? Okay, seeing none, may I please have a
motion?
Councilman Berquist: I'll move approval of the, and the award of bid to Allied Blacktop Company at
$156,272.20.
Mayor Mancino: May I have a second please? .'
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Mason seconded to award the bids for the 1997 Street
Repair Program, Project 97-9 to Allied Blacktop Company at $156,272.20. AU voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously.
CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL KITCHEN TO PROVIDE CONGREGATE DINING
FOR SENIOR CITIZENS.
Don Ashworth: Thank you Mayor. ... Todd Christopherson to some ofthe questions that have been
posed. City Council, back in January I believe. I think actually before that, we had talked with Hennepin
County. The initial position was one of knowing that congregate dining would be nice as part of the City
Hall expansion and Kate had approached Hennepin County in terms of trying to get that funded with
Community Development Block Grant funds only to find kind of a dead end because the rules have
changed and Community Development Block Grant funds now can only be used for something associated
3
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
with housing. Housing subsidy, repair of houses, you know etc. Thanks to Kate's continued work on
this we did determine that we had some, what I call previous allocations that literally could fall under the
old rules and accordingly the Council had approved an application to Hennepin County for roughly
$100,000.00. In the meantime we went through needs assessment, determination as to exactly what this
kitchen might look like, etc. At that point in time, in bringing it back, Todd had felt that the bids, Todd
Christopherson, would probably be closer to $120,000.00. $116,000.00 and the Council authorized
going out for bids. Preparing plans and specifications based on that number. Unfortunately, we have
received bids. We don't know ifit's the time of the year. How busy contractors are. Probably a good
part is the federal requirement that you follow Davis-Bacon requirements associated with any project
using federal dollars. We think that that contributed significantly to the bids that were received, which
came in closer to $144,000.00. That leaves us with a differential of approximately $26,000.00. Staff
noted in our report that that amount could be funded under the City Hall expansion, which actually we
had put dollars aside for that project clear back in 1994. For various reasons the project did not move
forward and that's kind of good news, bad news. Bad news that it didn't move forward. Good news in
that in sitting, those monies sitting in the bank, they actually earned interest dollars that you were really
not, have never really been allocated. Accordingly, staffis recommending that the City Hall expansion
budget be modified and that we add $26,000.00 to that from interest earnings as a means to insure that
the overall project could be accomplished. With that I guess I'd like to introduce Todd Christopherson.
He will also go through the building construction account associated with the City Hall expansion. Todd.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Hi Todd.
Todd Christopherson: Hi, good evening. Madam Mayor, members of the Council. It's a pleasure to be
back here again to see you. It's been a while. I thought I was going to get here early to maybe go over a
few of these things just before the meeting and I see you've changed your time now so sorry about that.
Do you want to talk about the kitchen bids first or the overall update on the expansion project?
Councilman Senn: Pick your poison.
Councilman Berquist: Let's take the expansion project in total first. As a whole.
Todd Christopherson: Okay. The sheet that I handed out tonight, and I apologize for not getting this out
last week to get in your packets. This is a summary of the project that is just wrapping up out here and
what I've shown on the left side is the budget that we had presented and reviewed. Not the very first one
but going back to this February 21 S\ which is the one that was acted on by the Council. The
$1,229,000.00. And what I've done on the right side is put my estimate to complete the project in.
That's a pretty solid estimate. At this point obviously the project is virtually done with the exception of
landscaping and irrigation and that sort of thing so.
Mayor Mancino: So you're saying that we're under budget by $25,000.00?
Todd Christopherson: On the bottom line, yes. However I want to point out that, a couple of things
there. One, the Council chambers was kind ofa separate line item and we're underneath on that by
roughly $16,000.00. And then part of the original budget also included a contingency which we've used
a portion of.
Mayor Mancino: And where have we used that contingency Todd?
Todd Christopherson: Pardon?
4
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Where have we used the contingency?
Todd Christopherson: It's hard to identify anyone particular thing. The nature of a remodeling project
like this is you encounter things as you go that couldn't have been seen by the architect or the mechanical
engineers as they were doing the plans and so a lot of little things would come up as you go through the
project that might be small but in the aggregate they add up to close to $40,000.00.
Mayor Mancino: And that was the purpose of the contingency fund, to use it for unforeseen?
Todd Christopherson: Generally that's, especially in a renovation, remodeling type of a project. You
need to have a contingency of about that size to cover those types of things. I can give an example would
be the plans called for us to tie into the existing drain tile around this building that existed, which was a
logical design decision. But when we got done with the elevator and the elevator's deeper than the
existing drain tile, we found that we had a water problem and so we had to dig down again and add some
additional drainage for the elevator pit. So that type of a thing maybe cost $2,500.00. It was the kind of
thing that couldn't have been, possibly could have been anticipated but in the interest of trying to do
things economically we.
Mayor Mancino: Were hoping you might not have to do it.
Todd Christopherson: Right. That's just an example.
Don Ashworth: We do have the retaining wall replacement. Is that in the estimate's you've given the
Council?
Todd Christopherson: That is not built in to this item here. We do have a bid and we've given the
contractor a tentative award of contract but we haven't actually written that contract yet.
Don Ashworth: So I mean really we should consider those dollars as spent because basically it's falling
down.
Todd Christopherson: It needs to be done, right.
Mayor Mancino: And what are those costs?
Todd Christopherson: That retaining wall bid was I believe $12,000.00.
Councilman Berquist: Where is that at? Where is this retaining wall?
Don Ashworth: Right here.
Todd Christopherson: There's a timber retaining wall that was done.
Councilman Berquist: The one right out in front here that separates the upper and lower level?
Todd Christopherson: Right. And it's deteriorated to the point where it's ready to give way.
5
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Mayor Mancino: So now you're saying that we're still on budget. We're under budget by approximately
$13,000.00.
Todd Christopherson: If you were to pay for the retaining wall out of this account, which is.
Mayor Mancino: Are there any others around that have been part of the expansion that we're still going
to need to pay for, like you know on Powers where you drive in to the new parking lot. The level of the
curb, I don't know the apron. I don't even know what it's called. The apron isn't correct.
Todd Christopherson: That is when you come in, there's a little drop in the asphalt.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah.
Todd Christopherson: That was anticipated and that's built into this. We put the asphalt down in two
lifts. One in the fall and then we'll wait until sometime in June to put the final one on but that's built
into the contract and the estimate here.
Don Ashworth: The only thing I'm aware of that we probably do not have in there is, if! remember
correctly when we went to award the initial bids, there were a number of options and there was sufficient
dollars to allow most of those options with the exception of again the retaining wall I think we kind of
left that one hanging. But one that I'm sure we did not count on was the massive landscaping destruction
that was carried out by, I don't know, NSP, the electrical contractor, whatever, but somebody coming up
that hill really did a good number on those trees and shrubs. I'd like to be able to replace some of those.
I don't know how much that would be.
Todd Christopherson: I think we're going to be okay there. I mean most of, the plan allowed for a
certain amount of reconstruction in terms of, we did show some grading to be done out in those areas and
the landscaping plan called for those areas to be restored with new sod and I think we're okay. We've
kind of done a walk through and looked at what was on the plan versus what's going to have to be done
now that most of that underground work is done. And I think we're okay. By the time we're said and
done with the landscaping, we might get into a discussion about possible little bit extra sod but I think
we're okay at this time.
Mayor Mancino: And you've also included the big perennial garden that will be on the southern side of
City Hall. We're going to have acres and acres. Councilmembers have any questions for Mr.
Christopherson at this time? Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: In terms of the overall budget. Well, I don't know if this is really a question for Mr.
Christopherson or Mr. Ashworth, and maybe we should just put this over, off and get it back on a work
agenda, or what do we call those?
Mayor Mancino: Work session.
Councilman Senn: Work session agenda. I think there's some real issues with this. In fact there's real
issues with it even from our January discussion on it in terms of some spending that's continued that was
specifically said not to continue and stuff at that time so I think it'd be best to get an overall picture of
where we're at on that specifically and get a specific list of the items that have come out of the
contingency without specific Council authorization and you know, just deal with the overall budget issue
which I think at this point is.
6
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Mayor Mancino: So you would like to table this and talk about it at a work session, overall budget. But
secondly, also to go on and we do need to have resolution about the congregate dining also.
Councilman Senn: Yeah. I mean I think the two fold together because I think we need an accurate
depiction of the overall budget at this point and how that fits together before we make the decision on
congregate dining, unless that screws up some kind of bid extension deadline or whatever. But I mean
I'll be happy to deal with it tonight but I mean I just, I think it's.
Mayor Mancino: No, I understand. Mr. Christopherson, do we have a deadline? I mean we don't have a
deadline that we have to make this decision by.
Todd Christopherson: In terms of the next item which is the congregate dining?
Mayor Mancino: Yes. So if we make it at our first, what is this, our last meeting in May, we're fine?
Todd Christopherson: We would still be okay in terms of the time on the bids.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions at this point?
Councilman Mason: No, with the concerns that appear to be there, I think what Councilman Senn at this
point makes a good idea as long as we don't have, we can deal with the congregate dining on the 27th. It
sounds like it would be just as well to table it now and deal with it on the 19th.
Don Ashworth: Mayor? My staff, I'm sure, would be ready for a discussion on overall budget versus the
construction budget that Todd has gone through. I'm guessing Todd that if you went to your computer
and said, print out all of the vendors that have been paid under the contingency account or kind of what
items were, you could do that by next Monday?
Todd Christopherson: Well it's not quite that simple but we could be prepared to meet on Monday.
Mayor Mancino: Great, and you could make some judgment calls if you needed to as far as what was
used for the contingency.
Todd Christopherson: Right.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Don Ashworth: And that means that the Council would have to be willing to modify your work session
agenda for next Monday because, what's the first item on? I know at 7:00 we're supposed to go to
Carver County. So that really should, if this item could be held to a half hour, I think Carver County can
be held to an hour and I think we can. We moved it out to the Rec Center so Councilmembers, just a
reminder. Next Monday's work session is going to be out at the Rec Center. That's where the Planning
Commission will be doing their hearing.
Councilman Senn: At 5:30 we were meeting with.
Don Ashworth: Julie Frick.
7
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Councilman Senn: With Julie Frick, Carver County HRA and then from there, the only thing we had
going was attending part of that citizen input session.
Mayor Mancino: So we could put this on the agenda between 5:30, between 6:30 and 7:00 or if we get
done earlier. Make some adjustment there.
Councilman Engel: We're meeting at 5:30 here or out there?
Mayor Mancino: At the Rec Center.
Councilman Mason: Not 5:30 we're not, not according to this agenda but that's fine if we are.
Mayor Mancino: Are we meeting at 5:30 at the Rec Center too?
Don Ashworth: Right.
Mayor Mancino: There was a change.
Don Ashworth: Places changed today so.
Mayor Mancino: We needed a change of atmosphere so 5:30 at the Rec Center. Councilman Engel, do
you have any comments?
Councilman Engel: No.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: So we're going to delay the congregate dining until that time as well?
Don Ashworth: Ifat all possible. Ifthere are questions of Todd, it would be better. I'd hate to take and
see this item tabled this evening and then get to the 27th and find that there's been a whole bunch of
questions that could have been asked tonight that we could have responded to before the 27th.
Mayor Mancino: So let's get our questions out tonight.
Councilman Senn: Or if you want, I can send you a list in the morning. Either way. Unless you want us
to sit here and listen to me ramble them off tonight. I'll send you a memo in the morning with the
questions.
Councilman Engel: So we can go over them next Monday.
Mayor Mancino: That works fine.
Councilman Berquist: I don't have a lot of questions. I do have a few and one I will ask. Is it practical
to be able to do a majority of the work to make that space ready short of electrical and mechanical?
Todd Christopherson: I would say it wouldn't be practical.
Councilman Berquist: Chases.
8
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Todd Christopherson: You have to have the mechanical guy on board virtually to do everything. Before
you can pour the floor. Before you can build the walls out. Before you can go upstairs and do the shaft.
Councilman Berquist: Right, we have to cut a lot of.. .don't we?
Todd Christopherson: Well no, we left a hole in the floor. There's no concrete in there. In that area.
We would come in with the plumbing first. It's just a dirt floor in that kitchen. But before we could pour
the concrete we'd have to have the plumber in there.
Councilman Berquist: Rough in only?
Todd Christopherson: For plumbing you mean?
Councilman Berquist: Well and the mechanical. So we get the chases in and roughed. Get the stubs up
and capped.
Todd Christopherson: It'd be really.
Councilman Berquist: Contract the rest of it out after it's done. After all that stuffs done...
Todd Christopherson: I know what you're saying. It'd be very difficult to do without rebidding it that
way. We would have to rebid it.
Councilman Berquist: Right.
Kate Aanenson: The opinion of the County, if it's integral to the service we're providing and it was bid
that way.. .pull it out. You'd have to rebid it for the sole purpose of cost savings or whatever.
Councilman Berquist: The sole purpose is to circumvent Davis-Bacon, that's exactly correct.
Kate Aanenson: You can't do it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions? Councilman Berquist. May I please have a motion.
Councilman Senn: I'll move to table.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the item pertaining to the
construction of a commercial kitchen to provide congregate dining for senior citizens to the next
City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
BOARD OF REVIEW AND EOUALIZATION.
Public Present:
Name
Address
9
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Ben T. Paulsen
Roger Lesser
Jerry Slocum
Bill Gleason
Brent Polivany
Tom Burns
Steve Bainbridge
James Lano
7013 Dakota Avenue
1430 Lake Susan Hills Drive
9920 Deerbrook Drive
6210 Barberry Circle
181 Fox Hollow Drive
1551 Lake Susan Hills Drive
1351 Minnewashta Parkway, Excelsior
2060 Oakwood Ridge
Don Ashworth: Thank you Mayor. The Assessor has, or did invite citizens to come in and to make an
appeal for their property if they wish. I think that meeting occurred probably what? 2,3,4, weeks ago
Orlin. Okay. And since that point in time citizens have been encouraged to send in a written appeal.
Tonight is the final time at which they can make an appeal. They can make an appeal in writing or they
can present their concerns orally. And this will be the first time that the City Council, myself or Orlin
will have been made aware of their concerns. We're not going to be in a position to respond to those
tonight. However, Orlin or somebody from his staffwill follow through, will contact the individual.
Attempt to review their property or respond to their question and by that point in time we will have
gotten the Minutes back and so both the original, their original comments as made tonight as well as Mr.
Shafer's response will be presented to the City Council for the final Board meeting which has been
scheduled for May 27d\ correct? So again at this time if any citizens have any comments to make a
verbal presentation as to the concerns of the values to their property, this would be the time to do it. I
would remind people, if they could try to take and make sure in addition to their name and address, if
they could give us your home telephone number, your work telephone number, and your PIN number.
Property identification number shown on your statement. I would also welcome any Council member
who may have questions of Orlin or whoever is speaking to do so and I do know that Orlin has a few
brief comments before we open the hearing.
Orlin Shafer: Thank you very much. I'm Orlin Shafer the Carver County Assessor and we operate under
contract with the City of Chanhassen to provide them the assessment service for their district. I would
like to remind everyone that we're talking about the values of the 1997 assessment for taxes payable in
1998. We will not be addressing tax issues so if you have a problem with your tax statement or
something that concerns that 1997 taxes, I would prefer that you see me privately later and we'll try to
address that question. If you have something for the Board dealing with taxes, I'm afraid I'll have to tell
you that you're at the wrong meeting. That is normally held at the budget hearings which are in the fall.
They're called Truth in Taxation Hearings and that's a time when the Board would field that type of
question. Again, please have a phone number for us. If you have something submitted in writing, we
would like that because we do have to have a graphic record of this and we would also like to have your
name and address if possible. That's all I have.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone wishing to address the City Council, please come forward. State
your name and address and all your phone numbers, voice mail numbers, etc please.
Roger Lesser: I have a written letter that I've already sent in to the Carver County Assessor's Office
about my property. I don't have a copy of this so I would need to make a copy of this.
Don Ashworth: I can make a copy.
Roger Lesser: I'm just.
10
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Can you give us your name and address.
Roger Lesser: Oh, my name is Roger Lesser. I'm at 1430 Lake Susan Hills Drive.
Mayor Mancino: Roger, could you say that again.
Roger Lesser: 1430 Lake Susan Hills Drive. My real estate value went up 8% and the previous years it
was like about 2% to 3%. I think I have that in the letter. And I've been told that it's gone, that we go by
the sales of the property in the area. My next door neighbor's house sold for $145,000.00 within the last
year and then another next door neighbor, right next door to me, sold for $148,900.00 and then behind
me a house which is about the same size sold for, I have a record of that here in the paper, $148. Let's
see. I believe it was $148,900.00. That was a three car garage.
Councilman Engel: What was this street that was on Roger?
Roger Lesser: Flamingo I believe. I thought it was in this paper.
Councilman Engel: Yeah, it would be. I'm just trying to get a feel for where it's at.
Roger Lesser: Okay. Well it was right behind me anyway. Two houses and behind me. So all of them
are like $145 to $148 and I thmk what we're looking at here is my real estate value was $137 and now
it's proposed to be at $146,400.00, which I feel is on the high side. Because the house right behind me
has a three car garage and it probably had three bedrooms up. I only have two bedrooms up and I have a
two car garage and my square footage is 1,833. And right next door to me, the one that sold for
$148,900.00 had over 2,000 square feet finished.
Councilman Engel: Do you know the square footage of the one on Flamingo?
Roger Lesser: Yes, I had that information. They're in an ad in the paper. They were in an ad m the
paper here. Listing the house it goes for I believe $148,900.00.
Councilman Engel: Oh, it's right next door to me.
Roger Lesser: So I just felt as though $146,400.00, which was an 8% increase, was too high. In 1994 my
property was valued at $127,700.00. 1995 it was $129,100.00. 1996 it was $135,600.00. And in 1997 it
was $135,600.00. And then the proposal for '98 is $146,400.00. I just feel that's a very dramatic hike.
When I purchased the property I was expecting to pay about $1,900.00 in taxes. That's what the 1992
taxes were when I purchased this house in '93. And now I pay about $2,900.00 so Ijust feel that this
would probably increase my property taxes probably another $300.00-$400.00, which I feel is high.
That's about all I have and I've given mine in writing. Is there any other questions for me?
Mayor Mancino: Roger, can you give us your home phone number and your office, if you don't mind.
Roger Lesser: My home phone's 448-2995 and my office is 906-2314.
Mayor Mancino: I think that's it. Any other questions?
Don Ashworth: Out of curiosity, you don't have your PIN number with.
11
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Orlin Shafer: He does have it here.
Don Ashworth: Alright.
Orlin Shafer: I think Roger said it but I don't know if anyone caught it. He has mailed this letter to our
office. We do have it, so and that's fine. His PIN number is on it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so I'm assuming you will be contacting Roger and setting up a time to get
together.
Orlin Shafer: ... haven't already and we haven't, we certainly will be, yes.
Councilman Senn: Have you met with the Assessor yet?
Roger Lesser: Yes. The Assessor came out to my house and said that she still recommends the 8% hike
in my real estate value so I'm coming here to appeal it to the Board.
Councilman Senn: Orlin, why is that I guess is my question. If in fact the comps are where they appear
to be here and we're normally at 90%. I mean that's even under the level where he's currently assessed.
Why are you increasing it?
Orlin Shafer: I can't address his comps because I haven't studied this at all. I don't know if the comp
sales are a year old or whatever but we will, the first paragraph of his letter he states that the 1996
assessment was $135,600.00. The 1997 assessment was $135,600.00. It hasn't moved. That means
really that in 1995 it was $135,600.00. '96 it was $135,600.00. Now in '97 it's going to $146,000.00
which is roughly a $10,000.00 increase.
Councilman Senn: No, I understand that. I mean I don't care whether there was or wasn't an increase.
Orlin Shafer: Basically it's appreciated value which happens here. Now that was not addressed for two
years. In '95 and '96. This might be a situation, was this...?
Ann Wise: No...I reviewed the property and I adjusted the sales to the properties that sold to the subject
property and you know.. .with the appraisal and it's a fair value in my opinion.
Orlin Shafer: So we will bring that to the Council. That information to the Council.
Mayor Mancino: So you'll be writing that up and your rationale behind it for us to review.
Orlin Shafer: Right, and I think Mr. Lesser is correct in coming here and doing what he's doing because
he has a discussion with Ann about this.
Roger Lesser: Yeah, Ijust feel that when I bought the property in '93 I was looking at about $2,000.00.
Well $1,910.00 in property taxes and now I'm paying $2,900.00 and then to get another 8% increase in
my market value will get me up to about $2,400.00 for a two car garage, two bedroom up split level
house.
Councilman Berquist: So you truly are questioning the valuation?
12
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Roger Lesser: Yeah.
Mayor Mancino: And so you do understand the process? Now what we will do is read the rationale from
the Assessor's Office and be ready to make a decision at our next Council meeting on the 27th of May,
and we've also listened to you. Okay, and read your letter.
Roger Lesser: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Odin Shafer: Mayor, if! might insert. I failed to mention earlier but everyone that has made an appeal,
whether it be tonight or previously in writing, a telephone call or however we've received that appeal,
after the Board meets on May 27th and makes their final decision, we will be mailing a letter to everyone
telling them what the Board's final decision was. Now if we've contacted you and you were satisfied
with our explanation, our recommendation back to the Board, you can decide whether or not you want to
carry it further than that. If you're satisfied, you need do nothing and it will be self correcting. If you
want to appeal further, the next step would be the County Board level so that's something that I didn't
say earlier. That is part of the process.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing, or would the next person like to come up
please.
Jerry Slocum: I'm Jerry Slocum, S-l-o-c-u-m. I live at 9920 Deerbrook Drive.
Councilman Senn: I'm sorry, can I get the address again.
Jerry Slocum: 9920 Deerbrook Drive. We built a home here. We moved in 6 or 8 months ago and we
did it badly I think because one of our criteria for deciding to build here was the property tax, and we
aren't very clever about those matters as you'll quickly see because what we did was we asked all our
neighbors kind of what their taxes were and we got that information and factored that into our decision.
Well, the assessment of our house would put our tax about double what we anticipated it would be. The
Assessor valued our house at $646,900.00. Our neighbor, the next door to me, his house is very similar
in size. Maybe a little smaller. It's valued at $380 about. Two doors down is a house about twice ours, a
big house. I think it was valued at around $700. The Assessor, I wrote a letter and the Assessor came out
and looked and said, well the value of yours is right, the others are wrong and that well may be. I hate to
get my neighbors in trouble. But it's just the inequity of the facts as I think I know them that I would like
addressed. Mine is either, in relation to the current value on the other property, extremely over valued or
there's are extremely under valued. One of the two and I hate to think what might happen to the
neighbors in this case but.
Mayor Mancino: Did they come tonight with you?
Jerry Slocum: They won't be neighbors much longer maybe. No, they didn't. And that's all I have.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Are there any questions from Council members? Councilman
Senn.
Councilman Senn: Yours is a new house I take it?
13
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Jerry Slocum: Yeah.
Councilman Senn: Okay. Are you willing to share with us what it did cost to build it or whatever?
Jerry Slocum: My wife does all that but it's in that neighborhood, yes. Of the assessed value.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Bill Gleason: I'm Bill Gleason and I live at 6210 Barberry Circle. We bought this house in '94. Moved
across town basically in Chanhassen and had a couple conversations with the Assessor and the debates
on the value of the thing. And my value's going up 10% this year from the last. And since we've moved
there it's basically gone 5% the previous couple years. Now we're going 10% apparently to catch up to
something and realizing, I mean and I've heard that among cities and counties and so forth there's an
effort to get valuations up to full in anticipation of property tax reform and so forth. But I think guys like
me probably end up suffering a little bit on that. I can see, we debated, her and I, about the merits of
existing homes versus new homes and the valuations and which ones are actually gaining more in equity
and I think it is new homes. I mean I had one before and I think they tend to go faster and quicker than
the existing homes. Further there's some other reasons she gave me a couple comparisons. This one
needs a roof badly. Almost to the point where I actually intended to do it last year and I didn't and I'm
going to start to have damage if! don't. I need to replace the driveway and I think one thing that
probably wasn't taken into account before is I'm right against Highway 7 and that always factors into the
value of a home. And so while I can see a 5% type of thing as a reasonable, particularly for newer
homes. This one was built in '78. 10% I think just for the sake of catching up is something else and then
there's an estimated market value on top of that which allows for another 11 grand to go up again next
year so. I'd like to see it kept more in line at a more reasonable 5% level if we can do that. Any
questions of me?
Mayor Mancino: Can you give us your home phone and your office please Bill.
Bill Gleason: Home is 470-0658 and my office is 449-0885.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions from Council members to Mr. Gleason?
Councilman Berquist: I do. You mentioned you talked to someone from Orlin' s office.
Bill Gleason: I believe it was Ann.
Councilman Berquist: And you've been going up 5% per year and now this year was a 10% and what
was the reasoning behind it?
Bill Gleason: I think she feels like that she's, it's catching up with other things. I don't know she
probably doesn't remember the conversation specific. She's probably had a few of them along this line
but I do believe you did come back out. I asked her to come. If she would reconfirm that indeed the
roof, I have to reshingle and I really need to do the driveway, and these are things that I think I have to do
just to maintain the value that's there, let alone start getting beyond what I paid for it.
Councilman Berquist: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Would anyone else like to come and address the Council please.
14
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Steve Bainbridge: Good evening.
Mayor Mancino: Good evening.
Steve Bainbridge: My name is Steve Bainbridge. I live at 7351 Minnewashta Parkway. I have to
apologize. I'm not as well prepared as the rest. I'm just trying to learn the process.
Mayor Mancino: Steve could you give your address again please.
Steve Bainbridge: Yeah, I'm sorry. 7351 Minnewashta Parkway. It's on the southeast side of the lake.
The house is about a 1964 house and I've been there about 10 years and I'm just terrified at what's
happening to my property taxes. Is there, and I'm just going to ask a question. I'm not going to appeal
but I would like to if I could find the form that I need. Is that something that I can get tonight and is
tonight the last night to appeal?
Mayor Mancino: It is and Orlin, do you have forms tonight so that Steve could fill one out?
Orlin Shafer: Yes, we can do that. You are however making your appeal right now.
Steve Bainbridge: Well I guess and I don't even know the specifics except I'm going crazy. Well there's
one Item that Craig already told me out in the hallway, that he'd look into and that's that I just sort of had
on my latest statement a new improvement hit of several hundred dollars and I just didn't have a clue as
to why that was there because I haven't made any major improvements since I remodeled the house when
I moved into it.
Councilman Engel: When was that?
Steve Bainbridge: About, it'd be the major improvements like a deck. I mean that's the first question he
asked was, you know was there a deck put on? I said not for 7-8 years so really all I'm doing is mowing
my lawn and even my paint job has gone to hell in the last 5 years and I'm like the other fellow. Need to
put on a roof and do a paint job pretty quick so.
Mayor Mancino: I think you need to get the assessor out again.
Councilman Engel: What's your assessed then?
Steve Bainbridge: Right in at $300.
Mayor Mancino: Steve, could you give us your home phone and office phone please?
Steve Bainbridge: Yeah. It's 470-0307 and the office phone is 828-8828.
Councilman Berquist: What was the assessed value last year and the year prior?
Steve Bainbridge: You know, as I say I'm coming a little unprepared tonight. I was just trying to learn
the process but I realized I was at the deadline when I read the detail here a little closer.
Mayor Mancino: Well that's fine. I mean I think between now and when we meet again.
15
-----------1
City Council Meetmg - May 12, 1997
Orlin Shafer: We'll provide all that to the Board. Our forms, I don't know if you had a chance to peruse
those forms but our forms do have the previous value as part of the documentation. So that does come
with it.
Mayor Mancino: And you may certainly you know write to us if you want to add to your, to the form
letter.
Steve Bainbridge: Sure, I can give more detail. Okay, and that would just.
Mayor Mancino: And then we'll be meeting again on the 27th. May 27th to finalize our decision.
Steve Bainbridge: Good. Well I'll do my homework and have it to you in a couple days here. Thank
you.
Orlin Shafer: If! might, would you send it directly to our office. It will save a day in the process.
Steve Bainbridge: Okay, and that's Carver County, the one that's in the corner of this form?
Orlin Shafer: Right, yes.
Steve Bainbridge: Thank you. Appreciate it.
Brent Polivany: Good evening. My name is Brent Polivany. I live at 181 Fox Follow Drive in
Chanhassen. My home phone number is 937-0509. I can give you my office number. However, it's
unlikely you'd get a hold of me there. Do you want my office number?
Mayor Mancino: If you could.
Brent Polivany: 924-2618. The people that answer the phone aren't real courteous about.
Councilman Senn: 181 Fox Hollow?
Brent Polivany: 181 Fox Hollow Drive in Chanhassen. Do you want my PIN number? I've got that if
you want it?
Mayor Mancino: Please.
Brent Polivany: R25.2730830. Are we ready?
Mayor Mancino: Yes, we've got all the stats on you and you can go forward.
Brent Polivany: My house was assessed last summer, the summer of '96. I received my 8% kick in the
fanny like the rest of my neighborhood. This year again I went to the meeting on April 7th and, I'd like
your last name because I can't remember it.
Ann Wise: Wise.
16
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Brent Polivany: Wise. Ms. Wise came out. Very responsive. Came out right away and assessed the
house again in the middle of April sometime I'm guessing. Just this last April. And I'm assuming, from
what she said when she came to the house and from our subsequent conversation on the phone, that my
8% was going to stay. I think that's how it's going to be, at this point. I've collected some figures, both
from the Carver County Assessor's Office. Their records, and also from a real estate source. For those
of you who are familiar with the Fox Hollow neighborhood, it's a neighborhood of about 100 homes.
Approximately. Pretty much all of them were built by Rottlund. When we moved in there there were,
I'm guessing 6 or 7 or 8 different models approximately so you could, if you were building you'd pick
the model you want. That's what you built. So there are, in my neighborhood, probably 30-40 house
with the identical basic floor plan as mine. Obviously you know you start adding fireplaces and
bathrooms and ceramic tile and what not. Decks. So I have, I think what I'm using in comparison here is
apples and apples rather than com flakes and gorillas or something like that. Okay. So I've jotted down
some figures and I don't have copies of that. I would be happy to provide that in the next day or so if
somebody wanted to. My home, I'll start with that, is, and these homes that I'm talking about are multi
level homes. They're either four level or a five level home. Most of them are four level. I have an
excavated fifth level in the basement. I have a three bedroom home. It has two decks on it. Two
bathrooms. I have two fireplaces and we put a three season porch on approximately 5 or 6 years ago.
I'm not sure what. And I've added two decks. My basement, as of right now, is unfinished. Ms. Wise
has been in my house twice in 12 months and seen the basement. My porch that I put on, my three
season porch, is I would call mostly completed. The floor is concrete. There's no floor covering. No
carpet, no wood, whatever. The walls are prime sheetrock that right now the room is kind of a large
closet with windows. Other than that we're not using it really as a porch. A year ago when Ms. Wise
came in I had finished the laundry room in my home so the laundry room is finished. It's trimmed out.
Has cabinets and a finished floor. It's done. So she has seen that and understands that. Now in my
neighborhood I understand that barring improvements or additions or whatever to your home, the change
from last year to this year is 8% across the board. And I will buy that. Reluctantly but I'll buy it. I guess
my contention here and my point that I'm going to try and make and get across is that, most of these
homes are here and their 8% goes up this much. My home is up here and it's gone up this much and my
home is basically what these homes are. There is a home at 6503 Gray Fox Curve. It has a 25 x 12 deck.
It has two fireplaces. A finished basement. Now the total finished square feet according to a real estate
information when the home was sold, is 2,420 feet. Their assessed value for 1998 is $156,200. Across
the street is 6504 Gray Fox Curve. Now this home is not like my home, although it is a multi level home.
It has an inground pool in the backyard with the privacy fence around the back. There's a deck. The
total finished square feet, according to the real estate ad, is 1,842. Their '98 assessed value is
$150,700.00. There's another home at 90 Hunter Court. This house is identical to mine. Although this
house also has a finished three season porch. It's carpeted. There's furniture in it. They have two
fireplaces. They have four bedrooms, three bathrooms, a deck. Their basement is completely finished.
Their total square feet finished, above and below grade, is 2,328. Their assessed value for '98 is
$166,500.
Councilman Engel: And what was yours?
Brent Polivany: $168,200.
Councilman Engel: And your square footage is identical?
Brent Polivany: Okay. According to the tax records my, no. It is not. According to the tax records my
above grade finished square feet is 1,602. Okay, then we go into the low. There's two levels below.
Two levels below I have a finished laundry room that is. . .I'm guessing using their figures, is you add
17
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
another 150 onto the 1,600 I already have finished, then I'd have about 1,750 I'm guessing. The rest of
my other two levels below the grade, above ground or whatever you call it, is unfmished. Here's a house
at 141 Fox Hollow Drive. It is identical to my home. It has two fireplaces, a finished basement, a deck.
Their total finished square feet, above and below grade is 2,150. In '98 their assessed value is $155,200.
Here's another home at 121 Fox Hollow Drive, and again this home is not identical to mine, although it
is a multi level house, has a finished basement, a deck, I believe it does not have a fireplace, although I'm
not sure. Their total finish square feet above and below grade, 2,348. I don't have the figure. Their
taxes in '96, the year '96 were $133,200. Mine was $145, 900. I can go on with these figures which are
all similar. What I feel is, and Ms. Wise made the argument that I have a three season porch. This is
true. She also made an argument that when she assesses a home she takes into account the condition of
the house, and she made an example that a home she had gone into had a dog and the dog had created
quite a bit of damage to the home so therefore she assessed that house lower. I guess if we're going to
use that rule then, we're going to have to look at my three season porch compared to someone else's
three season porch. You know mine is not warm, fuzzy and all full of nice leather furniture and stuff and
carpeted floor. I have a concrete floor and a bunch of junk piled in it. Now you know, get the junk out
and we'll start from there. But it is not completely finished. My basement is not completely finished.
So I kind of feel that I have this three season porch with an unfinished basement. Somebody else has a
finished basement and no three season porch. I'm thinking maybe that sort of balances out a little bit.
And the balance to me appears that I'm about $13,000.00 to $15,000.00 higher than all these other
houses and again I'm comparing apples to apples in my neighborhood. So I'm willing to take the 8% like
everybody else, because what's fair is fair but I think my fair is starting out up here and everybody else's
fair is starting out down here. And I want my fair brought down to everybody else because for some
reason my assessed value has been rocketing up and everybody else's has been climbing but not like
mine. I think somewhere along the line, maybe 3 or 4 years ago something, some clinker got thrown in
this thing and I got shot out and it's just now that I'm starting to do a little research and look at some
facts and figures and finding out where everybody else is down here and I'm up here and I can't
understand why. I'm living in the same house as the guy down the street. He's got a finished basement
and I don't and I'm paying more than he is and I'd like to know why. So does anyone have any
questions?
Councilman Berquist: Your market value Mr. Polivany was one?
Brent Polivany: For 1998, $168,200.
Councilman Senn: Of all the comparisons you have, are any of those comparisons based on a recent
sale?
Or are those simply a comparison of like style houses to. . .
Brent Polivany: I guess there hasn't been a, I mean some of these recent sales. There's one here from
last year, 1996. 121 Fox Hollow Drive. It's the house I mentioned. That house with a finished
basement, deck what not, was sold for $169,600.
Councilman Engel: What month was that sold last year?
Brent Polivany: July '96.
Councilman Senn: And the major difference is that's got a finished basement and you don't?
Brent Polivany: Right.
18
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Councilman Senn: Okay. I'm just asking.
Brent Polivany: You know another, I mean another point that Ms. Wise made was, well what do you
think you can sell your house for right now? Well, my guess is if somebody walked into my house and
saw the construction mess in my basement and concrete floor in my three season porch, I'm not going to
get as much as the guy down the street that's got the same thing. That's my contention and I think that's
a pretty logical contention. There's another house at 141 Fox Hollow Drive. That has a finished
basement. Two fireplaces, like my home.
Councilman Senn: And that was a recent sale too?
Brent Polivany: That was May of'96. And it sold for $165.
Mayor Mancino: The 141?
Brent Polivany: 141, right. 90 Hunters Court, I mentioned that home. That home sold in November '94.
It sold for $163. That is the home identical to mine. It has a three season finished porch. It has four
bedrooms, three baths. My house has three bedrooms, two baths. This house has a deck. All these
homes have a double garage. Double attached garage. All the lots are I think fairly comparable in size.
You know some are, might be in a cul-de-sac. Some might have a view of Lotus Lake. Those are kind of
some down around the comer but I'm not using any of those. The 6503 Gray Fox Curve again is a home
like mine.
Mayor Mancino: And you said that assessed value was, for '98, $156,200., correct?
Brent Polivany: For?
Mayor Mancino: For 6503 Gray Fox Curve. Yours is $168,200 and it's $156,200.
Brent Polivany: $156,200. That's the assessed value for 1998. That home is like mine. It has one
fireplace. It has a deck. A large deck. I have two small decks.
Mayor Mancino: But it has more square footage?
Brent Polivany: 2420 finished. That's above grade and below grade.
Mayor Mancino: And yours is approximately 1,700-1,800?
Brent Polivany: Right now, yes. And with the capability of having 2,300-2,400 I suppose if!, you know
if I get to it.
Mayor Mancino: Can you specifically well and help us with the comparables in some of these
subdivisions. How you look at that when you write up.
Orlin Shafer: Yeah. We pull out comparable sales for. ..and match sales, or at least try to match it as
close as we can and that's a documentation that we work with. Ifwe find that we're over assessed, as
you are, we can recommend that it be lowered. We don't have a problem with that. If Ann has done that
and I.. . she has, if she's communicated that to you. Apparently she might have. Those are the things that
19
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
we do come back to the Board and ifthere are further questions...that you can ask that of us. Again, do a
major appeal to Ann earlier on.
Brent Polivany: In April, yes.
Orlin Shafer: Yeah, and so this is.
Brent Polivany: And I haven't heard back. Well I guess I kind of have heard back but I thought I was
going to get something in writing. I don't know.
Orlin Shafer: You'll get it after this Board makes a decision. We don't decide anything.
Brent Polivany: Okay. I thought I understood that I would get something back after we talked in April.
Orlin Shafer: No.
Brent Polivany: Maybe I misunderstood that.
Orlin Shafer: The most you would get is another phone call telling you what we came up with.
Brent Polivany: I did. I got that.
Orlin Shafer: Okay. And this in essence is you're carrying a little further on the Board... More perhaps
than what you had on your appeal.
Brent Polivany: Right. I just want to make another comparison here, which is kind of along the same
lines. The 6503 Gray Fox, 6504 Gray Fox, 150 Bluff Ridge, which is another house in the area. 2528
Gray Fox Curve. According to the tax records at the County that I received today, these homes have an
above grade finished square feet of 1,520, 1503, 1,560, 1,520 and my home has an above grade finished
of 1,602. So I'm, I guess 100 to 40 square feet bigger than these four homes I just listed. The range of
their taxed value goes from $151,700. I'm sorry, $150,700.00 up to $156,200.00. I guess I don't see
where my, in addition with my laundry, where my extra 150 to 200 feet more room warrants a
$13,000.00 to $18,000.00 difference between these four homes for instance. I just think, like I say, I
don't mind paying my fair share. I don't mind paying what everybody else is paying but I think I'm
starting out up here and everyone's starting out down here and I think I should either be brought, I want
to be brought down to where everybody else is so I'm paying my fair share like everyone else because
I'm sure they think they're paying their fair share, and then some or whatever so. Did you want me to
mail in any of this? Or have what I've said is enough? I don't know.
Orlin Shafer: Is that the only copy you have?
Brent Polivany: Yeah, I just scribbled my notes and wrote facts and figures down. Something I could
refer to up here tonight.
Orlin Shafer: Have you talked to Ann about this?
Brent Polivany: Some of this yes. I've dug into it a little further since April. Since our meeting in April.
20
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Orlin Shafer: Ann, would you contact him and. . . more of that or if we need more than that. If you got it
from us we already have it.
Brent Polivany: Some of it I have gotten from you and some of it I have gotten from a real estate source.
As far as the sales in the area, you know some of the stuff! have is from sales in the area and I've gotten
that from a real estate source, but their figures.
Orlin Shafer: We would also have those.
Brent Polivany: Yeah, I would assume.
Orlin Shafer: We'll contact you and try to work out some arrangement to get some of that.
Brent Polivany: Do you have any other questions or need any other information from me?
Mayor Mancino: No, I think that's it.
Brent Polivany: Thank you very much.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address Council?
Tom Bums: My name is Tom Bums and I live at 1551 Lake Susan Hills Drive.
Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry Bob, 155.
Tom Bums: Tom.
Mayor Mancino: Tom, I'm sorry. Well let's start again Tom.
Tom Bums: 1551 Lake Susan Hills.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Councilman Engel: What was your last name again Tom?
Tom Bums: Bums.
Councilman Engel: It's a lot of writing here.
Tom Bums: I guess I was a little concerned over our property assessed increase. Last year our assessed,
or estimated market value was $125,800.00. This year the market value is $149,900.00. We do have a
limited market value at the 10% so it's tapped there but again next year is another hit. We built the house
in '91 and we purchased the house for $115 and we've been at about 4% to 5% increase per year over the
last 5 years. This year's a big hit. So we're just a little concerned that we're getting kind of taxed out of
town. We had done some basement improvements. Again we have not finished them primarily because
we don't have money to finish that, let alone to add to the taxes on top of it and we would like to do more
property improvements. You know add a deck, a patio. You know things like that but if we're going up
10% a year for the next few years, I don't know what we can do.
21
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Tom, did you make some of those basement improvements over this last year?
Tom Burns: Yes. We pulled permits in '96 but we have not had final inspections on any of it.
Councilman Engel: How much square footage did you have finished when you moved in in '91?
Tom Burns: 1,400 and we've added about 600.
Councilman Engel: So you've got 2,000 now?
Tom Burns: Approximately.
Councilman Engel: What's the design? A split?
Tom Burns: It's a four level split with a walkout. There are other properties, I guess looking at sales in
the neighborhood, sales have been in the 150's range, although some of the other houses I believe have
you know the three car garages and a little different floor plan. Probably different upgrades and things
like that. I think it was assessed last fall. I think they did the neighborhood but now there's.
Mayor Mancino: The round?
Tom Burns: Okay. And I guess I'm just a little concerned that you know 10% this year and normally it
goes up 5% but we already have another $10,000.00 market value estimate.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions for Mr. Burns?
Orlin Shafer: If I might. Do you recall Tom. was your estimated market value last year is similar to this
year?
Tom Burns: No, our estimated market value last year was $125. We've gone up $24,000.00.
Orlin Shafer: Okay. Do you have your card?
Tom Burns: Yeah.
Orlin Shafer: Could I just have a peek at that real quickly?
Tom Burns: Sure.
Orlin Shafer: I would like to have you fill out a form for us to use with your name and.. .
Tom Burns: I did fill out a form and my wife dropped it off at the. ..
Orlin Shafer: Recently?
Tom Burns: This afternoon.
Orlin Shafer: Oh okay. Then we'll have it. Okay, yeah. Limited market value. That's what I wanted to
check to make sure it was working properly. Thank you.
22
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Tom, do you want to give us your home phone and office, if you don't mind please.
Tom Bums: Sure. The home phone is 368-4366 and the office would be 542-5932.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Appreciate it.
Don Ashworth: Mayor? The gentleman, Tom reminded me. We have receive, we did receive several
appeals here just in the last week or so and right now I will hand those to Odin to add with the list that he
had from before. Tom in all likelihood is in this listing.
Odin Shafer: I would like to inform the Board also that we have about 90 appeals here, just on this list
and we did forward that to the Board. Just for your information so you will have those on file. We're
working with them. And also these people, with the exception, very few will be contacted and we have
included most of it in the computer tonight that had written in their names wrong, they're on this list and
apparently haven't satisfied their desire so some of those things will happen.
Councilman Berquist: When did we get that? I haven't seen that list yet.
Odin Shafer: It probably was late this afternoon. Did you? Oh, we still have it.
Mayor Mancino: We have not received it?
Odin Shafer: Right. It was just an information.. . telling you that we had these in hand and it was to
document that.
Councilman Berquist: I remember last year getting a list of everyone that had filed an appeal and I was
sort of, I've sort of been looking for that so if you've got it.
Odin Shafer: Yes. We do have it. You'll have It before the evening is out.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
Odin Shafer: With the exception of these might not be on it yet.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: Odin. Can you, ifit's not tonight that's fine. If you don't have the stuff handy or in
your head to answer it but why are the across the board percentages this year 8%? I mean that's higher
than it has been, you know at least as far as I remember. I mean I thought I always remembered that
hovering around 5%-6%. You know and I'm remembering over a very active real estate market now and
I mean the market now actually isn't any more active. In fact it's probably less active and now we're
jumping 8% so I mean I'm just trying to understand you know why that percentage is kind of working up.
If it's the market you know at this point in time in Chanhassen so to speak.
Odin Shafer: It's really not working against the market. The market in some ways in Chanhassen is
accelerating faster than 8% and the other part of that equation may very well be that this was an area that
we looked at last year and decided not to increase because we didn't have enough base information for
the market last year. But this year we do. We had one that was at $135,600.00 for two years in a row.
23
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Now when we go this year we're talking 4% per year but it would be 8% and that's the quandary that we
have if we hold back one year. What do we have to do the following year and this strata of homes where
we talk about the homes stratified by value. Sometimes by area. And pinpoint that some areas of the
community sell at different rates than others. And they can be similar homes. It seems like sometimes
the address makes the difference. It's a location thing. So you might see 5% here, 8% here and that
might go for 18 months and then shift to where both is equal at 4% for instance. Or static. We don't
have any... neighborhoods evolve. They'll remain static for a while and then younger families move in
or whatever and you might have as much as half of a neighborhood turn over. That would be 20-30 sales
out of 70-80 homes. Very active, small area of the city really but it pinpoints what we're saying about
studying neighborhoods individually, which we do. We do a lot of analysis.
Councilman Senn: As a community, I mean is it possible for you to give us an analysis that basically
shows overall market value growth you know over the last 5 years or whatever? Again comparing us as a
community to other communities in the County or whatever.
Orlin Shafer: I can document, I can bring that to you. I don't have that with me tonight but I guess I
recall from last year the sales prices.. . changed. I believe if I recall the numbers, we're right now at an
average selling price approaching $200,000.00. It wasn't just a few years ago we were talking $145-
$150. And now the sales study, the number of sales. . . there were $51 million worth of property sold in
those 289 sales. And they averaged around somewhere around $180,000.00 and that, just in that group of
sales.
Councilman Senn: Yeah I'd rather, if you wouldn't mind, I mean I'd rather look at overall market value
growth because that can be kind of misleading, I mean depending on what houses are selling and which
ones aren't. It may be expensive ones this year versus mid market for the year before or cheaper the year
before or whatever. I mean overall average sale price can be a function of what part of the market's
moving the best that year.
Orlin Shafer: Right but, yeah. Our overall market, or sale prices in Chanhassen have always been higher
than anywhere else but yet our growth has been very similar to other places when we talk percentages.
We would have a 3 Y2% to 5% growth for the greater area ofChanhassen and we'd have the same growth
in other communities but there could be $25,000.00 difference in those two communities.
Councilman Senn: And that's what I'm just saying. If you give us the market value, total market value
in those areas comparing us to the others, I mean that will come out and show us effectively that that's
been similar versus really dealing with you know the percentage change and overall value will tell us
that, right?
Effectively.
Orlin Shafer: In theory I guess it would, yeah.
Mayor Mancino: Mr. Ashworth.
Don Ashworth: Just to kind of repeat what Orlin said, at least as I heard him. You look at the sales ratio,
sales activity within neighborhoods and so I believe like my neighborhood, the Western Hills area dido't
see anywhere close to 8%. I think that we're probably closer to 3% to 5% at the very most.
Orlin Shafer: That's right.
24
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Don Ashworth: When you give this type of analysis to the Council, I mean I'm assuming you can do one
that would be aggregate community. But the Council should keep in mind that one area, you've got a lot
of new homes in, a lot of changes and what not, you could very easily have an 8% increase whereas an
older, established neighborhood like mine might be pretty stagnant.
Orlin Shafer: It has something to do with the demographics and the age of people living in that
neighborhood too I think. I guess that's what I was alluding to a little bit when I mentioned
neighborhoods changing over, turning over. People reach a certain point in their life.. . something else
and a lot of people don't realize it but we do see that where we have a group of people that own 5,4 or 5
bedroom homes. The kids are grown. They might have one child left in high school and it's time to
move to a 3 bedroom house instead of a 5. That's the sort of thing you see. And some people step down.
There's somebody else there to make the step up. Chanhassen... Nothing has slowed Chanhassen's
growth... It hasn't happened.
Councilman Berquist: And for informational purposes.. . for the public record, you're charged with
getting the tax, the assessed market value to what percentage of the, the assessed value to what
percentage of the market value?
Orlin Shafer: According to statute it's the market value. It doesn't say a certain percentage. However,
the rule of thumb, the guideline put out by the Commissioner of Revenue's office who has the power to
change all, is a minimum of90%. If we're at 89.9 we'll give a 5% increase straight across the board.
Every property in the community. We don't want that. We work very, very hard to prevent that from
happening. Currently in the City of Chanhassen, after we accomplished this latest assessment, we had a
93.5 sales ratio with a coefficient of3.69, which any time your coefficient drops below 15 you're doing
good. Below 10 excellent. I don't know, we must be superior or something else.
Councilman Berquist: You're wonderful.
Orlin Shafer: I always thought that. And our PRD which is the Price Related to Differential is at 104
where if you're at 100 that means you're treating all property in the spectrum equally as well. So our
yard sticks that we use to measure our effort are very representative of the job that's being done and
they're the same ones used by the Department of Revenue to measure. We're audited constantly and
we're tracked constantly so those are things that we must perform on. We don't have a choice. Now
they match up very nicely with other communities in the County. Our overall County ratio is 93.24 so
when we talk about residential property across the entire County, we're very good. Our coefficient there
is 4.99. So it really, now this is the second year in a row our effort has really been very good across the
County. A lot of that is.. .computerization of our documentation and our ability to study.
Councilman Berquist: 100%. So 100% is what you shoot for?
Orlin Shafer: 100% is where we're supposed to be.
Councilman Berquist: Alright.
Councilman Engel: Who keeps all those statistics for you?
Orlin Shafer: What?
Councilman Engel: Who keeps all of those statistics? How do you?
25
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Orlin Shafer: We keep some. The State keeps some. We're hopefully working with the same numbers.
The problem with being at 100% is that's an average so you know some, I would prefer to be somewhere
around 92-93. At least we don't have many people over 100. I imagine we won't but we will have some
below 90. But usually it's not numbers that hurt us because our.. .bell curve, under like a bell curve, it's
like a sphere. That's a bell curve. The deviation is very small so our assessment is very, very close
together. Our deviation of 4.5, our confidence factor is over 95%.
Councilman Berquist: Well sometimes there are some of us wish you weren't so excellent in your job.
Orlin Shafer: Years ago, and I appreciate that. Years ago we weren't quite as accurate and I really, we
were under a lot of turmoil to come in here and face the people that we'd given 50, 60, 70% increases.
But we elected to do it in one year and to have that argument one time... try to get back to the 4 or 5,
$10,000.00 increments. So it was quite traumatic for everybody.
Mayor Mancino: Is there anyone else wishing to address the Council?
Don Ashworth: Mayor? The action should be to really close this portion, this hearing this evening.
Again tonight was the last night to really turn in an appeal. Is there any extension to that? Well really
you have to have your review completed within 2 weeks so this really had to have been it.
Orlin Shafer: We're pushing the envelope.
Don Ashworth: Right. And so again people should be invited to come back on the 27th and again the
Board will receive Orlin' s recommendation and any written material that we have received from citizens
and the Board will make a decision on, I'm anticipating will make a decision on the 27th,
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you very much. Thank you.
Orlin Shafer: Thank you.
Mayor Mancino: So we'll move forward with the agenda tonight.
Councilman Mason: Do we want to close?
Councilman Senn: No, we can't. I don't think we can close it, can we? I mean our
consideration...that's what I thought we can't.
Don Ashworth: Is it open? What is the action?
Orlin Shafer: You can recess this.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, we can recess but we can't close.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, we'll recess this until May 27th. Thank you.
UPDATE ON U.S. POSTAL CARRIER ANNEX.
26
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Roger Knutson: Mayor and Council members.
Don Ashworth: Roger, why don't I go ahead.
Roger Knutson: Absolutely.
Mayor Mancino: Mr. Ashworth please.
Don Ashworth: Mayor, Councilman Berquist and myself met with the Postal Service towards the end of
last week. I think it is very fair to say that, well all parties are nearing, frustration levels are very high
and there's a strong desire to see this completed. I think that any negotiation that is carried out on both
sides. If either side walks out of the room feeling that they have won, that they have done better than the
other, it probably was not a fair negotiation. If on the other side both parties leave the room and feel that
what they would be willing to recommend to the Council as a whole and the neighborhood is, has certain
pain associated with it, for all is generally fair. Again you've probably reached a reasonable settlement.
We think that we've reached that level of agreement on Thursday and again everyone should realize that
Mayor Mancino and Steve Berquist could not speak for the entire City Council but I think it is fair to say
that the three of us are in a position of making a recommendation to the City Council of a position that
we think is fair to the neighborhood. Is fair to the Postal Service. Is fair to the City ofChanhassen. We
have put that in the form of a recital that we would like to take and present on the next City Council
meeting. Does there need to be action quicker than that? I guess what I'm trying to get to Roger, is I
really feel this position should be presented to the neighborhood. They should know the pros and cons of
it. I don't think that we're in a position this evening to do that. Ifthis would require some type of, well
let's talk about the timing issue.
Roger Knutson: First, this agreement which has been placed in front of you, which you just saw for the
first time this evening, was just done today and was faxed to the Postal Service today. It encompasses
the substance of what though was discussed at the meeting that Don just talked about. But the Postal
Service had not had an opportunity to react to the language here so in all fairness to them and I mean you
can't say every word is what they accept. They've accepted the substance of it but they have to sign off
on the language.
Don Ashworth: So our acting on this on let's say May 27th, do you think that that's an undue length of
time?
Roger Knutson: Not as far as I know, unless there's some construction activity that's got to be done
immediately. I know they're already shaping the berm.
Don Ashworth: Alright. I would strongly recommend that Mayor so that this item should be scheduled
for the 27th. In the meantime I would like to offer that representatives from the neighborhood be invited
to Roger Knutson's office where they could meet with Tom Scott. Talk in more detail as to kind of how
we got to where we got to last, I can't remember, W ednesday- Thursday. Maybe it was earlier than that.
And their reaction to it. Again, I'm sure that there's part of what we kind of reached as a settlement.
That the neighborhood probably won't like, and I'll specifically say what that is and that is that, the
slopes aren't there simply cannot support any type of a manicured type of lawn thing. The only thing that
really can be a part of that is going to be what I'll call a prairie grass needing very little maintenance.
That was a high demand item from the Postal Service. They did not want to get into that and the final
proposal includes that. Otherwise, virtually every one of the improvements that the neighborhood has
been looking forward to is encompassed in this document.
27
j
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Berquist.
Councilman Berquist: Well number one, I agree with getting together and allowing the neighbors to hear
what has been negotiated. I don't want them to have to go to Eagan to do it however. Have we received
anything besides a notification from Bryan Marschall verbally?
Roger Knutson: No. It was must put together today. Or yesterday and faxed over to him and we're
waiting to hear his comments.
Councilman Berquist: But on Wednesday night, late Wednesday afternoon we received confirmation by
voice mail that the Post Office had tentatively accepted the proposal as we had negotiated it. Has
anything been received that would substantiate that?
Roger Knutson: Nothing further other than, no.
Mayor Mancino: So I think before we have a neighborhood meeting we'd like to make sure that they
accept this.
Roger Knutson: Yeah, and I have no reason to believe that they won't. I mean I believe they will.
Don Ashworth: Mayor? I thought I had seen Bill out in the audience.
Roger Knutson: He was here earlier.
Don Ashworth: That's what I thought. We spent a lot of money on this project. I mean you think it
would really be unreasonable to have them travel to the attorney's office?
Councilman Berquist: Absolutely. I don't see, number one I don't see a, I mean I'm not speaking for
anyone else but I don't see a reason to have them run out there. I think if we want to do something, we
can do something up here for an hour, an hour and a half in the evening. I don't see any reason to have to
spend attorneys fees to have Tom Scott come out and do it. I think the presentation can be made just as
easily and probably better by you or me or Nancy, the Mayor, or.
Don Ashworth: Okay. I guess I was solely looking to try, trying to get away from paying traveling costs
for attorneys. You know an hour on the road, an hour meeting and an hour back. It's 2 out of 3
unproductive hours. I agree with that.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, that's fine with me. Other Council members? Councilman Engel, any
comments? You're comfortable with that? Councilman Mason? Councilman Senn?
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I'm comfortable with that I guess aside from the agreement and aside from the
discussion with the neighborhood though I would still like, I guess I'd like to see something internal that
tells us a little bit more about the agreement and both what the short, middle and long range costs are in
relationship to the City and where we intend on funding those from, etc. etc.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
28
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Don Ashworth: I don't know how. Why don't I put my hand to a memo to the City Council to be
included in the packet for this upcoming work session and see whether or not I have addressed all of the
issues that you just got through going through.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, that would be fine. And Roger, if you can let us know and if we can get
something back from the Post Office that this is fine with them, then we can have an impromptu meeting
with the neighbors.
Roger Knutson: You'll know as soon as we do.
Mayor Mancino: We also want to make sure that we put a date on final landscaping plans. If that needs
to be reviewed on the 27th also by City Council. Thank you.
CONSIDER PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF SANITARY SEWER AND W ATERMAIN
ALONG GRAND VIEW ROAD. AUTHORIZE FEASIBILITY STUDY.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Jean Sinnen
Linda Anderson
Steve Kokesh
Greg Larsen
8150 Grandview Road
8210 Grandview Road
8201 Grandview Road
8151 Grandview Road
Charles Folch: Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the Council. In conjunction with the current
Villages on the Pond development, municipal utilities, i.e. sewer and water are being extended to
Grandview Road at two locations. This has likely precipitated staff receiving a petition from 3 of the 5
property owners along Grandview Road requesting preparation of a feasibility study to evaluate the
extension of municipal sewer and water service and possibly upgrading Grandview Road. That petition
is included as Attachment 1 in the packet. One ofthe properties, 8151 Grandview Road does currently
have sanitary sewer when the Hidden Valley development was completed in the mid 80's. However, all
the rest of the properties are either on a well or private systems.
Mayor Mancino: Excuse me, please. Nothing from the audience until we're done. You'll have time.
We'll open this for the public. Thank you.
Charles Folch: Most, apparently most the lots in this area along Grandview are also large enough to
potentially subdivide in the future contingent on both having an upgraded road system and also the
extension of the municipal utilities. Staff has contacted accordingly the firm, consulting firm ofBRW
Incorporated, the consulting engineer of the Villages on the Pond development, and also provided
consulting services to the City in the past so we're familiar with their staff. They were the most likely
candidate because they are familiar with the area, the design and the utilities being extended for
Grandview Road. And accordingly BR W has prepared a cost to prepare the feasibility study. .. One, an
estimate for evaluating just the utility construction, which amounts to about $3,110.00 and adding the
addition of the road upgrade to the utilities, they would add $720.00 in addition. .. At this point it would
be staffs recommendation that it would be really important to know what the cost.. .include the road
with the project so that way Council at the time when you hold the feasibility hearing, both the Council
and the affected residents would know exactly, would have a good feel for what the cost would be for
29
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
both options. ... utilities and including the road or not including the road as a part of the project.
Therefore staff would recommend that the Council authorize the feasibility study in accordance with the
proposal dated May 7, 1997 for the evaluation of municipal sewer and water and the upgrade of
Grandview Road, Project 97-11.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you Charles. Charles, you're telling us that out of the five property owners on
Grandview Road, three of them are their own petitioned the City for municipal sewer and water services?
Charles Fo1ch: That's correct. Yeah, that's included as Attachment, right behind the cover.
Mayor Mancino: And that they did not petition the City for any sort of a road upgrade. Nobody did that?
Charles Fo1ch: That's correct. Their initial petition was strictly for the utilities. But it's my
understanding that one or more of the properties may have indicated to staff some future desire to
potentially subdivide the property. Currently city ordinance requires that a private driveway, any
driveway serving, a private 20 foot paved surface can serve up to 4 lots. Other than that, any more lots
than that would require upgrading a local road to full city standards. In this case here we have kind of a
grandfathered situation. It's also a timing factor because if you have let's say one particular lot of the
five or one particular property owner that wants to subdivide, that kicks in the requirement of upgrading
the road.
Mayor Mancino: But that's not a majority. I mean why would everybody else have to pay for it?
Charles Fo1ch: Well that's a case, it's a kind of chicken and egg. It could be a potentially chicken and
egg situation for anyone particular property owner if they wanted to subdivide in the future.
Mayor Mancino: So you're telling me if Greg and Mary Larsen want to upgrade, or they want to
subdivide, it's the first you know house on Grandview and they want to go in and they want to subdivide
there, that you would have to upgrade all, we would have to upgrade all of Grandview Road to do that
one subdivision?
Charles Fo1ch: Well it's the ordinance requires allowing just up to four so I guess it would be.. . access
points come in accordingly. Certainly you'd want to look at this comprehensively. I mean certainly in
the long run it's going to be more cost effective than maybe doing a piece at a time. Those are all things
that would have to be considered with a potential subdivision out there.
Mayor Mancino: I'm assuming the assessed value of the road would be to the abutting property owners
regardless.
Charles Fo1ch: That's correct.
Mayor Mancino: Than if you did it piecemeal, piecemeal you know it would still be accordingly
assessed.
Charles Folch: Difficult thing about doing it piecemeal is, if you're only serving one particular property
at a time.
Mayor Mancino: And it's in the middle.
30
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Charles Folch: Then it's a sole benefit type project that would fit into... Often times the contention here
is developing... Sometimes people are subdividing or developing their property are kind of left holding
the bag to be paying the full burden.. .necessary improvements associated with the development.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point?
Councilman Senn: Not right now.
Mayor Mancino: Is there anyone here wishing to address the Council tonight on this item? If you are,
please come forward and state your name and address and please give us your comments.
Steve Kokesh: My name's Steve Kokesh and I live at 8201 Grandview Road. My question for the City
Council is why do you need the feasibility study for a property in the center of Chanhassen when it said
in the paper and everything that you've been wanting to supply neighborhoods like this for sewer and
water for so long. You skipped it when you did the last project on the other side of us and now when
you've got the new church on the Ponds doing it, now all of a sudden you want to kick in, what's the
road for? And who's going to take care of this road? Who's going to, I take care of it right now. I plow
it. We all pitch in and sand it. I mean I grade it. The City's never wanted anything to do with it up until
now. Now why all of a sudden is it a big issue?
Mayor Mancino: Charles, if you could answer those questions.
Charles Folch: Well I don't know if it's a big issue but we're looking, we're trying to look at things
comprehensively and provide you with all the options and all the scenarios for you to consider. No one
at this point has said the road has to be done. We're just saying a road and utility improvements typically
go hand in hand together with improvements and we feel that it's best for you to at least analyze and go
over the options so you can make the most informed decision you can.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, but the neighbors have asked us to look at the feasibility study for the water and
the sewer.
Charles Folch: Three. Three on a petition.
Mayor Mancino: Three. The majority have.
Steve Kokesh: Well basically everybody on the road.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, yeah.
Steve Kokesh: .. . everybody didn't see the petition but why do you need the $3,000.00 feasibility study?
What is it going to do? What does it do to prove that it's needed to be there when you've put it in the
paper that you wanted everybody to be on sewer and water. What is this $3,000.00 doing?
Mayor Mancino: Tell us the contents of the feasibility study. I mean it's not telling us whether we
should have it there or not. It's going way over and beyond that, I'm assuming.
Charles Folch: That's correct. Basically what the feasibility study. ..municipal type project will do, the
main focus is to identify what specific elements would be included in the scope of the project. An
estimated cost of what the improvements might cost, including what potential alternatives might be for
31
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
each scenario. Associated costs. And then also a projection on forecasted funding for the project and a
detailed scope of a project schedule so that, then the next step is once the feasibility study report is
completed, it's brought back to the City Council and a formal presentation of the findings of the report
are made, and a public hearing for all of the affected properties are invited to come and hear the
presentation and provide input and comments on any concerns or questions they may have on the scope
of the project or what have you. And at that point in time the City Council can decide to formally order
the full scope of the improvements that may be considered for the project or a portion of the project
scope. Whatever the Council may choose. It's basically just going to provide information on what's
going to be involved. What the estimated costs may be and what's important to residents is, what
potential investment they might incur and whether or not they support doing this project...
Steve Kokesh: Well basically what is it going to incur? I mean you're going to spend $3,000.00 of our
money to tell us that sewer and water, you give somebody on a bid and if they mess up the bid, one way
or the other they're going to drag it down the center ofthe road. You've got to put fire hydrants so far
apart to meet city guidelines. I mean what, so what is $3,000.00 worth going to get you in there when, I
mean if everybody wants it, you're spending, I don't see why you're still spending the $3,000.00. I mean
it only, it affects us five. But you're spending $3,000.00 to tell everybody that this is what it is going to
cost you to bring sewer and water in a loop, to hook it in a loop from the pond around through Grandview
Road.
Charles Folch: Unfortunately this sounds over simplified and it really.
Steve Kokesh: Well I work construction and yeah I do understand it. I mean you go in.. .
Charles Folch: The other aspect, a very important aspect of the entire matter is that you are required by
law under State Statute 429 to conduct a feasibility study. It's a step that you need to go through if you
are intending on assessing a capital improvement project.
Councilman Berquist: And even if you weren't, we'd still need a set of guidelines and specifications
from which to solicit bids and that's really what it amounts to.
Charles Folch: Well actually we aren't going to that step yet but at least we're identifying what the
primary elements of the project are and what the estimated costs will be. We aren't going to the level of
preparing detailed plans. That wouldn't happen until you, if you officially ordered it by approving the
feasibility report but you still need that level of detailed information. The residents need information on
how many trees am I going to protect and lose on the property with the utility construction or whatever.
And what potential assessments might I incur on my property.
Mayor Mancino: And it gives you an estimate ballpark range of what it will be and secondly, State law
makes us do it.
Steve Kokesh: Okay, I understand. Then my next question, are you going to pull gas with it? You said
sewer and water. You're worried about a road. What about gas?
Charles Folch: We aren't involved in. .. private utilities. That would be up to the private utility
companies to decide... We aren't involved.
Mayor Mancino: The City doesn't do that at all.
32
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Councilman Berquist: You as the owners can contact the gas company and let them know that this
project is forthcoming and I'm sure that they'd be interested, if they have enough load to justify the cost.
Mayor Mancino: So you would want to make that money on the gas. Okay. Any other questions?
Steve Kokesh: How wide does the road have to be?
Charles Folch: Well that's something that we would evaluate in the feasibility. Our typical standard is
31 foot back to back but again you have to take consideration. That's a standard with typically new
construction.
Mayor Mancino: Typically 31-32 feet.
Charles Folch: But you know we'll look at what options, depending on what you have.. .take into
consideration the current neighborhood that's there.
Mayor Mancino: So if you go into any of the new subdivisions you can kind of get a feel for what they
are if you're in construction.
Steve Kokesh: I don't know how big they are. So then is the City going to, so if this would all go
through, who's going to take care of it?
Charles Folch: If it's upgraded to city standards and it's in public right-of-way, the City will be
maintaining it.
Mayor Mancino: That will no longer be a private street.
Councilman Berquist: But if it's not then it won't.
Mayor Mancino: And if we don't do it, then it will stay as a private street.
Councilman Engel: I had a question for Steve. What do the neighbors want?
Steve Kokesh: What do the neighbors want in general? Sewer and water. We don't want the road.
Councilman Engel: Okay. Is there any reason for or against?
Steve Kokesh: Why have the road? I mean the road's been there for 40 years. I mean.
Councilman Engel: You don't see any value in it is what you're saying?
Steve Kokesh: Yeah, I don't see the extra value to any of us right at this point to pay the extra, let's see
calculate.
Mayor Mancino: I think it was $700.00.
Steve Kokesh: No, I mean to actually put in.
Mayor Mancino: Oh put in the road, yes.
33
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Steve Kokesh: Above and beyond you're probably looking at, by the time they do curb, gutter, city and
then you've got the sewer drainage, or the drains sewers off, I would roughly estimate close to about
$175,000.00 to do it. Off the top of my head...! would say and for that sake, we don't even know where
the road's coming in yet off the Ponds. I mean they've showed different areas but nobody's nailed it on
the head so.
Mayor Mancino: The most likely scenario would be until someone petitioned to do a subdivision in the
area.
Councilman Engel: Okay.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the City Council on this?
Greg Larsen: I'm Greg Larsen of 8151 Grandview Road. I just want to state, I'm the one that has the
city water and sewer and I don't really care about that so much, or the road really. I like the road the way
it is and that's all I wanted to say.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the City Council?
Linda Anderson: My name is Linda Anderson and I live at 8210 Grandview Road and I just have a
question about, if Lotus Realty Development still has any role in it. In this whole thing. When we were
first approached by Brad Johnson, before any of this began, he came to each of us and I think Mary
Bernier states that in her letter and says, the thing that is really going to benefit you guys is that you're
going to get sewer and water utilities out of it. We're going to make it very easy for you. We're going to
bring it right to your property lines. We're going to help with the costs involved. None of that has
happened and I'm just wondering where is Lotus Realty in this and are they involved in this at all? And
ought they to share in the feasibility study. We kind of were brought into this whole Villages project
thinking this is our benefit. We are all concerned that if we have septic tanks that may fail, we don't
want to have that kind of an expense. The City doesn't want to have septic tanks failing and polluting
ground water. It's a benefit to everybody but we all kind of feel that we were misled by Lotus Realty.
That we were sold a bill of goods and that we're kind ofleft holding the bag. And I would just like to
know, are they involved in this at all anymore?
Mayor Mancino: They are involved in that they will bring it up to the property line and do we know
exactly where that is? Which property line that sewer and water will come up to? I mean that is.
Charles Fo1ch: We would have it as a part of the feasibility plans for the project. I don't have a copy of
those with me tonight. But there is I believe an extension both on the north and south end in that area so
at least for the watermain standpoint they have a looping capability.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so it is brought up to the property line. Are they paying part ofthe feasibility
study? I'm assuming not. And Lotus Realty is not paying any part of the assessment for the homeowners
in this area.
Charles Folch: That's not being, I'm not privy to any discussions that they may have had with the
neighborhood during the neighborhood meetings.
34
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Mayor Mancino: And I can tell you, I mean this is, from what I know, no they aren't and in other areas
where this is abutting development going on, it is the responsibility of those that are developing to bring
it up to the abutting property line and that's it. It is not the responsibility of the developing party to bring
it into or pay for any sewer or water work done on your property, but on theirs. But they must bring it up
to the property line.
Linda Anderson: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Berquist: Was that how you understood it?
Linda Anderson: It was all left, I'm assuming that we were all spoken to. All five property owners. We
were all spoken to by Brad Johnson. He made it sound very good. He made it sound like more than we
will bring it to the property lines and then you take it guys and run with it. He made it sound like we will
help you. You know our development because we would like this to go through. We want this to be a
really good thing and we would like your cooperation and we will help you with, he never said
specifically, no financially that he would help us with it but he just stated that we're going to make it
very easy for you and relatively inexpensive for us to get the utilities. It made it sound like they were
going to be going a little further than they were required to. And of course we have not seen anything of
them or Lotus Realty since then. You know since this whole project has started. So I don't know if
everyone feels that same way. I think we were all pretty much led to believe that they were going to be a
partner in it to some degree. And I know that's not the norm but that is kind of the impression that we
were left with. And I think it would be nice. I think it would be nice if they would help with the
feasibility study. Personally.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, did you have a question?
Councilman Senn: Charles, point of clarification. If these people were not petitioning now for these
improvements, these improvements would be required or not be required as it relates to Village on the
Ponds?
Charles Folch: I'm sorry, what was the last part as it relates to?
Councilman Senn: Okay. If these people were not now petitioning, okay. Would or would not this
extension or improvements, as far as the water and sewer goes, be required or not required for Village on
the Ponds?
Charles Folch: They would be still required as a part of the approved utility plan to extend the utilities to
the right-of-way for Grandview so that it's accessible for future extension, which we typically do. As the
Mayor pointed out, we typically do with any type of development going on which means they have to
start at one end of the property because somebody brought utility to that property line and extended
through their development and then also extended to the next area to connect to... Basically they will
still construct utilities to get, again in accordance with the approved plans so that whether it's now or in
the future, it will be accessible to make those extensions to this neighborhood, whether it's now or in the
future.
Councilman Senn: Well that's what I'm trying to get at.
Charles Folch: You don't need to do the, I mean to answer your question. If we didn't receive the
petition now.
35
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Mayor Mancino: We would not do it.
Charles Folch: We would not be.
Councilman Senn: We don't need to do it.
Charles Folch: Well we would not be considering it.
Councilman Senn: Right. We do not need to do it. And the point we would need to do it would be when
Villages on the Ponds petitioned us and then it would become part of an overall project.
Charles Folch: No, it wouldn't have really anything to do with the Villages.
Councilman Senn: That's what I'm trying to get at. So this extension has nothing.
Charles Folch: Villages are to extend the utilities to this area.
Mayor Mancino: To the property line.
Charles Folch: That's part of the approved plan. As a condition of their project. It will be extended to
the east property line of the Villages so that it can be extended in the future down Grandview.
Councilman Senn: Okay but what I'm trying to get at is who's on the down slope side I guess. Is this
neighborhood on the down flow or is Village on the Ponds on the down slope? More or less, does
Village on the Ponds need to flow through here or do they need to flow through Village on the Ponds?
Charles Folch: They will flow through Villages.
Councilman Senn: Okay. So at the point that Village on the Ponds does their improvements, that's also
the time then that the project could be extended to incorporate the neighborhood, if they want to wait.
Charles Folch: Considering it now.
Mayor Mancino: Could be but doesn't have to be. To make Village on the Ponds work.
Councilman Senn: And do the neighbors understand that?
Audience: Yes.
Mayor Mancino: So the neighbors are completely independent of Village on the Ponds. If they want to,
if they decide that they want it now, fine. And the road too. But we'll know what all the costs are. What
the design is to some degree. Okay.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, but I guess part of it is, is the cost of doing this small project. Free standing.
Whether we're talking about this initial assessment or whatever, it's going to be higher on this basis than
with the neighbors going with the broader project which could be tacked onto or part of what happens
with Village on the Ponds. Is that not a correct statement?
36
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Mayor Mancino: That's true.
Councilman Senn: And has that been explained to them? I mean if they're concerned about the up front
costs here, and the costs associated with the project because of it's scale, has it been explained to them
that maybe they're better off waiting and doing that when Village on the Ponds goes and their costs will
be lower.
Mayor Mancino: And can the feasibility study be part of Villages on the Pond?
Councilman Senn: Maybe you're not concerned about it but I mean, if I'm hearing you correctly you are
concerned about it so I think that needs to be explained to them and maybe they want to assess or
reassess if they want to really be going ahead with this at this time or not.
Charles Folch: Agreeably so. Small projects typically do not benefit.. . scale of a much larger project.
The only way I'd foresee this area of utility extension down Grandview being able to incorporate
economy of scale is for them, as a group independently negotiate with the contractor who's working on
the Villages on the Ponds' utilities and work out some sort of... I mean the only way, if that contractor's
on site, they... have their mobilization built in. There's no way for us, for us to do a public improvement
we have to openly bid it. We have to open it up for any contractor to bid it so if Villages on the Ponds
can build the utilities as per the plan that proposed. . . so whether or not this continues on or not, Villages
will extend the utilities accordingly to the site. But I don't know at this point in time whether.
Mayor Mancino: A way to piggy back on.
Charles Folch: A way to combine that economy of scales.. .Villages.
Mayor Mancino: And do we have some problems with State law trying to do that.
Charles Folch: Right. If it's a public project we have to bid it.
Mayor Mancino: Yes Roger, okay. Does that answer your question? I think it was a good idea.
Councilman Berquist: It is a good idea.
Councilman Senn: Well but ifI'm hearing you, it still could happen the other way but they need to go
meet with Village on the Ponds folks.
Charles Folch: Right. They aren't bond by the same requirements.
Councilman Senn: I understand. So I mean I hope you're hearing that. It's kind of a response to the
question that Linda brought up, I mean basically. I mean but you need to pursue that discussion with the
Village on the Ponds folks.
Linda Anderson: Are you saying...we could do this privately and we could approach... they approached
the developers of the Brookhill subdivision themselves and came to them and said, hey. Can we hook
into your water and sewer and they said, sure. And they hired...
Councilman Senn: And you can do the same thing with Villages on the Ponds.
37
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Linda Anderson: And we could do that without going through the formal process?
Councilman Senn: Correct.
Roger Knutson: Mayor? Just so we're clear. If you do that, the City could not specially assess that cost.
So you'd have to get your own private financing through a bank or pay cash or whatever arrangements
you want to make.
Councilman Senn: Or make whatever deal they make with Villages on the Ponds. I mean we're out of it
at that point.
Mayor Mancino: But let us know so we don't do a feasibility study, if that's a route that you would like
to go. Or at least like to investigate.
Linda Anderson: Yeah. We all have different situations too. Greg and Mary Larsen don't need any of
this so we have, they're hooked into the sewer.. .so they're in a totally different situation... Mary Bernier
needs both but it would make more sense for her to go to the east, to the subdivision there rather than
going around. ..
Mayor Mancino: So would you like to go back and discuss it as a neighborhood and then come back and
let us know what you'd like to do?
Linda Anderson: We were not aware that that was an option for us. We were told a petition to the City
was the only way that we could go but yeah. Yeah, we would definitely like to discuss that and approach
Villages on the Ponds.
Mayor Mancino: And then get back and let us know though. I mean we would like to know what you
decided. Whenever you're ready.
Councilman Senn: But we don't have. . . to act on your petition at all tonight. We can just table it and
wait for you to get back to us, if you want.
Mayor Mancino: Yeah, just so you know that. Do you have any other questions? Along those lines.
Audience: Thank you.
Councilman Senn: I'll move to table then.
Mayor Mancino: Excuse me, yeah. Come on forward if you want to.
Councilman Mason: I'll second the motion.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table action on a petition to extend
sanitary sewer and watermain along Grandview Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Mayor Mancino: Until we hear back from the neighborhood, and let us know. Thank you. Thanks for
coming tonight.
38
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
APPOINTMENTS TO PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION.
Mayor Mancino: We have two seats to fill in the Park and Rec Commission. I would go ahead and
propose the motion that we have Rod Franks and Jane Meger fill those seats on the Park and Recreation
Commission. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Mancino moved, Councilman Mason seconded to appoint Rod Franks and Jane Meger to
the Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Mancino: I would like to thank David Moes and Amy O'Shea for also putting in their
applications and hope that they do when there's another vacancy. They were all very, very good
candidates.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: SOUTHWEST METRO UPDATE. COUNCILMAN ENGEL.
(VERBAL).
Councilman Engel: Thank you Madam Mayor. I have three things we'll talk about. The new Executive
Director, plans for the coming months and plans for the future. Len Simmuch has been hired by the
Commission. He started April 28th. He's got a solid background in transit management, marketing and
operations to the Commission. He was a former Director of the Metropolitan Planning for Arrowhead
Regional Development in Duluth. And he also is a Senior Project Manager for the Metropolitan Council
Regional Transit Board overseeing all regular route transit programs in the Twin Cities, including opt out
programs such as Southwest Metro. For the coming months there are four details. There are financial,
accountability to the cities, service changes pending and the transit hub. Financially, let's see, they want
to fulfill a three month loan agreement on time and with interest as agreed. Reimbursement of
Chanhassen is expected with July, 1997 payment of property taxes from the counties, Carver and
Hennepin. The potential for additional requests in November of '97 and again in spring of '98 are on the
board. Southwest Metro will endeavor to minimize and eliminate the need for these additional loans and
keep Chanhassen informed of the agency financial status. Accountability to the cities is a priority, not
just financially but otherwise. Meeting service needs for the residents and the businesses. Customer
satisfaction surveys regarding the service, communication of programs and services and stewardship of
the transit tax dollars paid by Chanhassen, that the money spent is not wasted. Service changes pending
are the circulator service starting in June. Full page ads are going to be planned in the Villager as well as
other publicity in school and at City Hall. Fare structure being adjusted to improve financial
performance so that the actual costs are covered by the route. And the last fare increase was in 1993.
The reverse commute serving many businesses in Chanhassen is being reviewed and will address
potential for serving second and third shift work times. As far as the transit hub, a surcharge soil
correction is still settling on the transit hub site. Ground breaking is set for Friday, September 12th at
2:00 p.m. Invitations are sent and publicity is arranged for the event. Plans for the future is to have the
hub construction expected to be completed by late 1998. A garage facility replacement within the next 2
to 3 years. Adding additional agency fleet vehicles and additional park and ride sites for Chanhassen as
population and service needs increase. Under 5 minutes.
ADMINISTRATION PRESENTATIONS. UPDATE ON CHANHASSEN BOWL LIQUOR
LICENSE ISSUE. CITY MANAGER.
39
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Don Ashworth: I distributed to the City Council a memorandum from the City Attorney's office that
basically states that the owner of the Bowl has applied for bankruptcy proceedings under Chapter 11.
Under State law.
Roger Knutson: Federal.
Don Ashworth: Federal. This City cannot revoke or deny the extension of a liquor license to a party
who is currently in the Chapter 11 process. I think all of that should be looked at as bad news. Good
news is that they had scheduled a closing for the property which would have paid off all of the back taxes
owed to the City for Friday. That currently has been rescheduled to Monday. According to Mr. Rummel,
attorney for Dan Dahlin, they've made various applications as a part of that. Title insurance. Title
insurance people have basically looked through all the documentation. Have not asked for anything
additional. Have not thrown up any red flags. They've been in constant contact with the bank. They're
moving ahead with the closing, which again a bank isn't going to be doing if it has serious problems
associated with the financing. Remember, these are comments from Mr. Rummel. Staff has not verified
those but let's say be prior to our next Council meeting on the 27th we should have known whether or not
any of those are true.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any questions for our City Manager? Councilman Senn.
Councilman Senn: No questions but I think it would suffice to say that I assume the City Attorney will
monitor and take whatever actions are necessary to protect the City's position. With that, probably no
more need for public discussion.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Mason, any questions? Comments?
Councilman Mason: No.
Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: No, I think Mark's, talking about what he mentioned last week and that is, if we can
get someone in charge of the cash flow.
Councilman Senn: They'll handle that as part of their.
Councilman Engel: That's the only thing I want to address.
Mayor Mancino: Okay. Councilman Berquist, any questions?
Councilman Berquist: No, other than I hope the thing closes.
Mayor Mancino: So do I, thank you very much and I don't think we need to take any action. That's the
last item on the agenda. We're done.
Councilman Senn: No it's not. You have one here. It says Administrative Section discussion.
ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION DISCUSSION.
40
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Let me look at this. Administrative Section Discussion and it does say adjournment.
We are to adjourn tonight by 8:45. So let's say, we have about a minute Mark.
Councilman Senn: I see 2:00 a.m. myself. Maybe there's a typo here. It says p.m. See, it says 2:00 p.m.
That's a typo so it's really 2:00 a.m., just so you understand.
Mayor Mancino: Any discussion on the administrative section.
Councilman Senn: Well I have several items but I mean if nobody else does, I'll still bring them up
anyway.
Mayor Mancino: Does anyone else before we get to Councilman Senn? Go ahead.
Councilman Berquist: Are you serious? Have you got a bunch of stuff to bring up?
Councilman Senn: Well I don't know, 3 or 4 items.
Councilman Berquist: Forgot to mention in Council presentatIons?
Councilman Senn: We never got thIS far.
Councilman Engel: We didn't get that far.
Councilman Senn: We never got that far.
Councilman Berquist: Did you do approval of agenda earlier? Are we adjourned?
Mayor Mancino: No.
Councilman Senn: We created a new section in the agenda now where we can talk about the
administrative section, you know.
Councilman Berquist: I miss one meeting and I show up late...
Councilman Senn: No, you were actually there. I mean I hate to tell you that but.
Mayor Mancino: We think you were there. You weren't present.
Councilman Senn: Mayor, at the beginning of the meeting from now on you'd better just say that all
people are here in body, not necessarily mind.
Mayor Mancino: Let me give a few things on the administrative section and then we can go down the
row. First of all on the schedule for the Park Referendum Task Force. They are in a meeting right now.
Otherwise they would be down giving us a City Council update. So if anyone would like an update,
you're certainly welcome to stop by their meeting that's going on in the City Hall tonight at this same
time. I had a question, just a quick question on for City Manager on the water tower site lease. Are we
in final, is this the final draft of the site lease or is there one more draft? Maybe Roger you can answer
that.
41
.i
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Roger Knutson: I'm not sure what draft you have.
Mayor Mancino: It's a 417 draft.
Roger Knutson: Sounds like the last draft, which I sent back to their attorneys and I'm waiting for their
comments. It's not over until they sign it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, so the Jay Littlejohn and.
Roger Knutson: Mark Krueger actually is working on it, but yes.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, but he represents, he's looking at the draft of it right now. Okay, thank you.
Councilman Berquist: You mean this isn't boiler plate?
Roger Knutson: 90% of it is. Ah 75% of it is.
Councilman Berquist: That's all. So 25% is custom per site?
Mayor Mancino: No, custom for our city. We haven't had one before.
Roger Knutson: So you know how it works. I have a form.
Councilman Berquist: You have a form.
Roger Knutson: Well we have lots of forms actually. Our office has done about 20 leases. We took one
that seemed a close fit from another site and we sent it over to City Hall and asked city staff for their
input on what they wanted in the form. We got that input and incorporated it in here and now their
attorneys are fussing with some of the language.
Councilman Berquist: Can you take your boiler plate Plymouth one and send it over?
Roger Knutson: I sent the boiler plate Prior Lake one actually... because we.
Councilman Berquist: And customized 25% of it?
Roger Knutson: Maybe 10%. City staffhad input in what they wanted in it.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, those are my questions or discussion I guess on the administrative section.
Councilman Berquist?
Councilman Berquist: I passed down to Councilman Senn a petition that I worked up and he worked up
regarding this potential grant program that we have been discussing. Before the evening is over I'll make
a copy and give a copy to everybody for their perusal prior to the May 27th Board of Equalization.
Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Councilman Engel.
Councilman Engel: None.
42
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Commission comments. Councilman Mason? Councilman Senn?
Councilman Senn: Don, the item on the public opinion survey. What was the total cost for the public
opinion survey done? Or what did that end up coming up to? Do we know?
Don Ashworth: I'm sure, if you remember we did take and get a proposal from him and I had heard, I am
virtually assured that it's exactly what he had originally proposed and been presented to you.
Mayor Mancino: I don't remember what that was. I want to say $7,500.00. $7,500 because the other
bid was like $15,000.00. From the other market research firm.
Councilman Senn: I mean just as a suggestion when we're kind of getting something like this and
reaching closure on it, it would be nice to get that kind of a summary so we just kind of know where it all
came m.
Mayor Mancino: I want to say it's that because TPL was going to reimburse the City.
Councilman Senn: $5,000.00.
Mayor Mancino: Yes, $5,000.00. Three quarters of it or something so we knew we only had $2,500.00
to pay.
Don Ashworth: I will put something out if that is not correct. I'll try to remember your suggestion in the
future.
Councilman Senn: Okay. In the, I was a little disheartened to see the two pieces of correspondence in
here relating to TH 101. Especially the one from the State Transportation Department which continues
to use such language as using this guidance I feel that the project will generally be eligible for County
turnback funds. I mean which to me specifically implies that it's still, a determination has not been
made, that it has been or any commitment has been made that it will be. I mean when is this level of non
commitment going to progress to a level of commitment?
Mayor Mancino: Who can answer that?
Don Ashworth: And I'll try to and you should, there is a meeting that is scheduled for all of the
engineers associated with the project and I believe that that was coming up very shortly. And we should
have more of that information following that next meeting. What I do not understand, and I double
questioned Jim Grube. I said aren't we having these meetings premature because it's my understanding
that all of the monies for turnback funds for '97 and '98, that they are approved applications that
consumes every one of those dollars. So why should we go through, I have correspondence to that effect.
Councilman Senn: .,. Well I mean this schedule they gave us last year said they'd be under construction
in '98. '97 was going to be, design was '97 and.. .and construction was '98. Now that's a whole new
thing now.
Don Ashworth: Before you jump on me.
Councilman Senn: I'm not jumping on you. I'm just.
43
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Don Ashworth: No, before you get going on that band wagon, right before we had met...
Councilman Senn: It's not a band wagon. It's a 10 year issue.
Don Ashworth: Before we had met with Jim Grube you had received a correspondence that I had
received from the State of Minnesota that said for those cities out there that haven't got an application in
for a project, for '97 or '98, do not bother applying. The monies have already been allocated. Jim Grube
came to that next meeting, Hennepin County Engineer. I asked the question that night, why are we going
through this if I've gotten a letter that says these dollars have been consumed? He told all of us, the
money is in the bank.
Councilman Senn: It's allocated he said.
Don Ashworth: We have the money.
Councilman Senn: Right, and now you're saying we do or we don't?
Don Ashworth: No, I went on what he told us that they in fact have the money.
Councilman Senn: Okay, I mean I guess I'd like a specific inquiry because if you read the State letter,
there's not even a commitment to the turnback funds, let alone money in the bank.
Don Ashworth: There is changes in what he had previously told us, but yes I will.
Mayor Mancino: Great waffling.
Councilman Senn: Let's see here. The future of animal control services. W ell let me just make the
assumption that you don't probably have all the answers on that but I mean this letter that, or this memo
that Scott wrote raises a lot of issues over animal control services. A lot of which are even contrary to
previous information that we have. So can we get some kind of a discussion going on that with Scott or
something as to what's going on and why.
Don Ashworth: I know that it is going to be a part of the 1998 budget process and that he'll have, I mean
you'll be going through that whole section. The question there then remains, what additional
information. Well first of all, we're proposing to continue the contract services through the end of '97.
This is only pertaining to 1998. And solely represents his recommendations. He will have to make
justifications to you as to how he is going to, with the loss of revenues, from Shorewood and other cities,
how he can defend the necessity of keeping the current level ofCSO's on with the loss of those dollars.
Councilman Senn: But '97 is still proceeding on the "profitable basis", which is what it was supposed to
be on?
Don Ashworth: It's proceeding on the basis as you approved it during the budget process.
Councilman Senn: Alright. Okey, dokey. That was it.
Mayor Mancino: That was it? Okay, we are done. We are adjourned. It's 9:00.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
44
City Council Meeting - May 12, 1997
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
45
-
ie.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 7,1997
Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Allyson Brooks, Alison Blackowiak, LuAnn Sidney, Craig Peterson,
Kevin Joyce, Bob Skubic and Ladd Conrad
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I; and Dave
Hempel, Asst. City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SIGN WITH A TIME AND TEMPERATURE
DISPLAY AND A HEIGHT VARIANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED BG. GENERAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 900 WEST 7STH STREET. TCF NATIONAL
BANK.
Public Present:
Name Address
Judy McDonald
Dave Shannon, Color Sign Service
51 McAndrews Road, # 119
2230 So. Plymouth Road, Minnetonka
Cynthia Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Thank you. Any questions of staff from fellow commissioners? The applicant is here,
would they like to address the Planning Commission? If so, come forward and state your name
and address please.
Dave Shannon: Hi. Dave Shannon from Color Sign Service, 2230 South Plymouth Road,
Minnetonka, Minnesota. Really we're trying to accommodate the City, and I know this is a small
request. The problem is that we're trying to use the existing brick foundation that the sign for
Century Bank is in. So we're trying to compress everything we have to say and still keep the
general tone and feel for all of the TCF signs throughout the metropolitan area so that this is sign
is similar to all the others because TCF has spent a lot of money developing an on-site ID
program that will work and has proven to work fairly well. The problem is that I just don't have
enough height to work with here and get a trim cap in that is like all the other signs. So I had to,
I even squished what I, if you can see from that design, the trim cap up on top is about 1 foot 4
inches high. Normally it's about 2 foot 4 inches high but I condensed it down even a little bit
more so that we'd be closer to the maximum 8 feet height. And the proplem is that we're just
trying to design around somebody else's foundation and get everything we want to say inside.
And I know it might not be a big point but to TCF, the trim cap and the time and temp are an
integral part of the design and we tried to come as close as we could to make it happen. Does
anybody have any questions regarding the design at all, I'd be happy to answer them.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Peterson: Any questions for the applicant?
Skubic: I have one. Should this be rejected, what would your alternative plan be?
Dave Shannon: Well we could take the, extend the planter, or that brick base. See we're asking
for 42 square feet and we're allowed I think it's 64, isn't it Cindy? 64 square feet. So we could
take the brick planter down, or the base I should say and redesign it and then put in 64 square feet
of sign age. But we're, you know it's not just a financial matter. It's the base is here. How close
can we get to what the City wants and what my customer needs so chances are we would, we
might do that. I can't say for sure that TCF would because it's an additional expense and there's
a time frame involved because the bank has to be open under the new name by a certain date and
we have a lot of other factors too.
Joyce: You're saying that you'd leave the 42 square feet right now and if the alternative would
make, be a larger sign obviously.
Dave Shannon: Larger, yeah. Longer but not over the 8 foot height. So we feel it's kind of a,
it's a nice compromise.
Skubic: Thank you.
Peterson: Other questions?
Blackowiak: Some quick questions. Can we look back at the sign? Would that be possible?
Does Express have to be over Teller or can it be to the left of Teller and I mean kind of squish
everything down?
Dave Shannon: Well the, yeah. That's the problem. It's a logo and it's advertised. Every
Express Teller sign has to be the same and so Express Teller, Express does have to be over Teller
and with those color combinations, yeah.
Blackowiak: It does, okay.
Dave Shannon: I'm afraid so. It's sort oflike the, we do signs with, I think it's the Fast Bank for
First Bank is always the same and Instant Cash for Norwest Bank.
Blackowiak: Yeah, I just didn't know ifit was required to be on top.
Dave Shannon: I'm afraid so.
Blackowiak: Okay, that's it.
Peterson: Any other questions?
Conrad: Yeah, sorry. I was a few seconds late. The brick base, or the sign facia is that over the
brick base? Or is it cut into the brick base?
2
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Dave Shannon: It's really, if you take the sign there and take it out, you'd just have the brick
base left.
Conrad: So where I see the bricks on the end, there's solid brick behind that?
Dave Shannon: Right.
Conrad: So this is an overlay. This is on the front side of the.
Dave Shannon: Yeah. What we're doing is we're placing the sign inside the, we're going to take
the existing Century Bank sign out. Build a new sign and put it in it's place.
Conrad: And why can't it drop down 8 inches?
Dave Shannon: Well, I think you could. You could rebuild that. I think you get to a point where
the snow builds up. I don't know.
Conrad: How high off the ground is the?
Dave Shannon: 2 foot 4 and that's really kind of stretching it for snow.
Conrad: Is that up on a hill?
Dave Shannon: Yeah, it's on a hill but it builds up on the west side I think a little bit. At least I
noticed it this winter as snow build up. I think on the east side you wouldn't have a problem but
we kind of actually, 2 foot 4's kind of stretching it. We like to keep at least 3 Y2-4 feet above
grade on any sign we do but there are occasions where we change it.
Conrad: And it's really not a visibility issue is it? It is up. It is, but it's really a matter of being
above maybe snowfall, right?
Dave Shannon: Yeah.
Conrad: Not a visibility.
Dave Shannon: No, it's not a visibility issue because the sign itself is up on a hill. It has good
height.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. If I could get a motion and a
second to open it for a public hearing.
Joyce moved, Brooks seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Peterson: This is a public hearing so if you have anything to add to the comments made earlier,
please come forward and state your name and address. Seeing none, may I have a motion to
close the public hearing and a second?
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Commissioners. Bob.
Skubic: I don't have any problem with the conditional use permit for the time and temperature.
That's fine, and that's what staffhas recommended that that be approved. Regarding the sign, I
really would like to, you know we have ordinances here to level the playing field and keep
everything on the level. I would like to see the applicant try to condense it a little bit more. It's 8
inches over about a 5 foot area elevation there. Or make it wider or lower it or do something to
fit it within that constraint. I like the topping on there. I think that adds a nice touch to it so I
hope that can remain. I would like to see, I'll agree with staffs recommendation.
Peterson: Thanks. Kevin.
Joyce: I usually take variances kind of seriously. To override the standards we have in place,
they have to be a serious situation.. . compelling reason here and I see that what we're talking
about really is ornamentation. I don't think that that's compelling a reason. The only question I
have though is if they're forced to push it down, would it become a larger sign, in which case I
don't want that to happen either. I think I'm just going to agree with Bob though that I'd like to
see them try to squeeze it down. Keep within the framework of our standards here. As far as the
other proposal, I'm fine with it. The motion. I'd echo what Bob said and keep the variance the
way it is, or keep the standards the way it is. No variance.
Peterson: Thank you. LuAnn.
Sidney: I believe, no I have no problem with time and temperature display as discussed by the
applicant. I do have a problem with granting a variance. We have ordinances in place for the
purpose of not, for maintaining certain standards within the community and at this point I don't
believe that I would recommend a variance in this case. I would like to see a redesign to bring
the sign into the 8 foot height requirement.
Peterson: Okay, thank you. Ladd.
Conrad: Question for staff. The applicant could build up the ground, couldn't they?
Generous: Sure.
Conrad: Absolutely. Just put 8 inches offill and the sign meets our specs. I think this is small
potatoes. 8 inches is not a big deal. I'd really like to ask the applicant to try to make this work. I
don't even want to talk about an 8 inch deal here. This is you know, I'd really like the applicant
to make it work, and maybe ifit's got down to a couple inches it might go away and the grass
will grow bigger and we won't notice, you know. I want the cap on the sign. I want the cap
4
Planning Commission Meeting - May'7, 1997
there. I'd be real disappointed if the sign grows. I'd be real disappointed ifit didn't have a cap.
I'd really like the applicant to try to get it down a little bit but there are ways he can put
something in here that's legal, that's a lot worse than what he's asking for so again, I'm going to
go with denying the variance but not because it doesn't make some sense. I just wish, you know
the applicant could try to make it a little bit closer to be real honest because the design is fine. I
don't want a bigger sign. It's not, the cap is what makes it look somewhat decent so I don't want
to lose that, very honestly. And 8 inches, on this sign is nothing so the precedence setting and the
standards is absolutely right. There's not a good reason from a code standpoint to grant a
variance but again I think there's so many ways we can get a worse product here and keep our
standards intact that you know, I just hope staff can figure something out here and I don't want to
see this again. Get it out of here.
Peterson: Thank you, Allyson.
Brooks: Well I see no compelling reason for permitting the variance. I think you can work with
the sign to get it. To get it to meet requirements. And I think that we should go ahead and
approve the conditional use permit for the time and temperature display. I don't think that's a
problem.
Peterson: Alison.
Blackowiak: I agree with what's been said and I certainly agree with what Ladd said and
couldn't say it any better so.
Peterson: Well my thoughts are the same. I have no further comments to add so with that I
would enjoy hearing a motion and a second please.
Skubic: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission deny the request for an 8 inch variance
and the construction of an 8 foot 6 inch monument sign based upon the findings presented in the
staff report, items I and 2. And that the Planning Commission approve a request for a
conditional use permit for a time and temperature display within the existing monument ground
low profile sign.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Brooks: Second.
Peterson: Any discussion?
Skubic moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission recommends to deny the
request for an 8 inch variance for the construction of an 8'6" monument sign based upon
the findings presented in the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a
vanance.
5
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
2. The applicant has a reasonable opportunity to reuse the existing ground low profile sign.
And also the Planning Commission recommends to approve the request for a conditional
use permit for the time and temperature display within the existing monument ground low
profile sign. AU voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-LOW
DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY FOR THE NORTHERN 30+ ACRES
OF THE PARCEL: PUD REZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES OF
PROPERTY FROM A-2. AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD-4. PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL MIXED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT:
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 44 BUNGALOW HOMES AND 168 VILLA TOWNHOMES:
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION REQUEST OF 249 LOTS. 2 OUTLOTS AND
ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
GALPIN BLVD. AND HWY 5. WALNUT GROVE. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
INC.
Public Present:
Name Address
David Jensen
Rick Manning
John Hennessy
Joan Joyce
Mark S. Peyereisen
Rick Sathre
Todd Stutz
Rick Murray
Julie W ojtanowski
Carol Oberaigner
2173 Brinker Street
7460 Windmill Drive
7305 Galpin
2043 Brinker Street
7501 Windmill Drive
150 So. Broadway, Wayzata
2601 Long Lake Road, Roseville
15 Choctaw Circle
2145 Brinker Street
2075 Brinker Street
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Thank you Bob. Any questions of staff?
Joyce: Bob, I have a question. Actually two details. Number one, on this density on the front
page. Is that supposed to be net density of5.74?
Generous: Yes.
Joyce: Okay.
Generous: That was a carry over from the original report and I never.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Joyce: On page 2 of that. On the bottom I start getting kind of confused and I realized if you
look it says 104 villas. That should be 128, right?
Generous: That's right.
Joyce: All right. Clean that up.
Generous: I had the applicant pointed that out to me also.
Joyce: The question I had, actually kind of dove tails with the setbacks. Are those setbacks for
the PUD ordinance then? Is that why you had these setbacks set up? Is that?
Generous: It would be established for this specific PUD, yes.
Joyce: Okay. Is there, I have a question. Is there buffer yards standards for PUD's that we set
up or has that changed?
Generous: No. That's basically for land uses and it would be a buffer yard be between low
density and medium density.
Joyce: Okay. I'm just, I'm looking at the plan itself and some of the landscaping and on the
northern part of this plan there doesn't look like there's a lot oflandscaping as far as what would
be buffered from that low to medium density. Is that something that the stafflooked at?
Generous: Yes, and that's one of the condition...we believe that the 10 evergreens located
there...
Joyce: Is that where the 10 evergreens are planning on going, is in that comer? Does that
adequately satisfy that buffer for going from low to medium density like that?
Generous: The only thing they would be missing is the shrubbery.
Joyce: Okay. I guess I'm just laying some ground work and I'm sure that Rick, you can come up
and we can discuss that I'm sure. Thank you. That's all I had.
Peterson: Other questions of staff.
Sidney: I have a question for Dave. Am I understanding looking at this, there's no entrance onto
TH 5? It merely goes out to Galpin?
Hempel: That's correct. There will eventually be two access points. The one on the north
frontage road, Arboretum Boulevard is constructed in the year 2000 with the upgrading of
Highway 5. That would be extended parallel to the north side of Highway 5 out to Galpin.
Peterson: Other questions?
7
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Sidney: I have a question for Bob. I guess I was a bit concerned about the number of off street
parking stalls in the villa homes area. How many parking spaces are we talking about and how
does that compare to the number of single car garages?
Generous: I've never counted them but.
Peterson: Maybe the applicant can address that too Bob.
Sidney: Is there maybe a rule of thumb or any ordinance that talks about, addresses that?
Generous: There is an ordinance. It's 2 Y2 stalls, or 2 stalls per dwelling. However if you have a
2 car garage and driveway, that's more than, it meets the minimum standards.
Peterson: Other questions of staff? I have a general question that I had. If you look at the
background for the original when it went to Council and went with 44 conditions. I assume that,
I'm taking, I didn't compare all 44 of them but I assume that all of them have been adequate
addressed to staff s.
Generous: Or they remain conditions of approval.
Peterson: They are still there, okay. So at this point there are none that are of contention per se.
Okay. Any other questions for staff?
Brooks: I have a quick one. I noticed under the Park and Recreation it says Commissioners Lash
and Berg voted against the conditions because there was no childrens' playground component.
Was that ever worked out? There's still no playground?
Generous: The intention is to allow the association to determine exactly what playground use
should go there because if you get a lot of empty nesters, there might not be a need for a
children's playground. They might want to have a picnic area or a gazebo or something. What
we'd like to...
Peterson: Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward and state
your name and address please.
Rick Murray: Thank you very much. My name is Rick Murray. I'm from 15 Choctaw Circle
here in Chanhassen. I think first of all I'd like to introduce the gentlemen with me this evening.
Mr. Todd Stutz from Rottlund Homes. They will be doing both the cottage home product and
the townhouse product. And my consulting engineer, Rick Sathre sitting right behind Todd will,
after a short presentation, will be happy to answer any questions generated and respond to some
of the questions that have already been posed. Your previous packet, explained that this is an
existing preliminary plat and when I acquired the property I had some ideas of how possibly to
make that better. When I was in front of you in January, on January 11 th, we were sent onto the
City Council to see if this kind of conceptual program was even worth pursuing. And after 3 or 3
Y2 months, many meetings with my neighbors, especially the ones to the north and Mr. Hennessy
8
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
to the east, two different Council meetings, what you have before you is an evolution of those
gatherings, with the input and the modifications and this is the concept, the conceptual plan that
was generated. And I have a bit of an ego that says that this was my idea but quite frankly there's
a lot of input here that came from both the neighbors and the City Council, which we responded
to. The concept that was approved actually had one more unit in it than does this plan this
evening. One unit from the southern tier of single family lots through here has been dropped.
That was a concern from the neighborhood to the north at the approval, on the approval evening
on March lOth. Because we wanted to ensure, first of all that there was a little more width in
those lots and from our perspective we wanted to ensure that all lots would accommodate a 3 car
garage because so many single family homes and purchasers of single family homes are requiring
that in the marketplace. So that has been accommodated and we lost the one unit in that area.
The conceptual plan that was approved envisioned a comprehensive plan modification, to a
certain extent to modify the detached, or to allow these detached townhomes in the low density
plan district. There isn't a provision for that style of housing. If they were attached as twin
homes, that would be allowed in that, in your low density district. This plan is consistent with
the approval that we did receive conceptually. I got a little ahead of myself, I apologize. One of
our goals, we had some goals when we started out with this project of Walnut Ridge, or actually
when we started out with this project it was called the Highlands. We ended up into a bit of a
name dispute with one of our friendly competitors and acquiesced to change the name. There's
another project in this community named The Highlands at Lake St. Joe, and although the names
would be different on the plats, they're close enough to create confusion in the marketplace so
we've come up with another name. We wanted to transition this site from the north to the south
because we saw a single family neighborhood there and from that intensity of use to a very high
intensity of use, i.e. the Highway 5 corridor and the higher zoning district that was down there,
we wanted to transition through our own property into those uses. In doing so we knew that we
had to be careful with Mr. Hennessy's property to our east and try to insulate or buffer that..and
preserve that portion of our southwest comer that the creek accommodates, and I think this
concept addresses all of those issues. They've been discussed back and forth and we're hopeful
that it meets the City's needs and our neighbors needs. Our staff report has been very thorough.
There are two of the issues which I'd like to bring up. One of them will be in response to one of
the questions asked about the Park Commission. On page 23 in the middle ofthe page, and
actually combines two ofthe issues. It's recommendation number 3 and recommendation
number 4. Number 3 deals with our commons area in the subdivision and number 4 deals with a
recommendation to move the public trail to the north. This afternoon I had a discussion with Mr.
Hoffman questioning if the need was to move the trail either north or south would be
permissible, and I think he might have responded to Bob. Did he get a hold of you? While you
were in another meeting at the time. What he indicated to me, as long as on the south side, and
I'll go to the board for a second. There would be a drainage swale that would be behind this
townhouse unit. As long as we didn't put the trail in the swale, Todd said it could go to the
south. It could go to the south. What he wants is a larger open space in our central open space
for. . . purposes. We would rather have it to the south just because the value of these basic units.
The more valuable units on the bungalows, these will all have walkouts and would be in the $185
to $200,000.00 range. The ones to the south would be slab on grade townhomes and would
probably be the $130 to $150 range. They would be more accessible to the marketplace... Todd
had...the Park Commission didn't seem to have a problem with that as long as we didn't put it in
an area that would get flooded. Or be subject to that and I think we can accommodate that very
9
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
well. The other issue with respect to that meeting we had at the Park and Rec Board, and it was a
split vote. There were two dissenting members and they wanted an area for active participation
or active play. What we presented that evening was... Our intention going into the meeting was
to provide a gathering spot, i.e. a gazebo or something of that nature. Maybe it's a gazebo with
some tables. But the scene that we presented was the neighbors, the owners of this association,
the owners of this open space would actually be determining and making their improvements
subject to city approval as time went by. As this plan has evolved, what's become more apparent
to us as developers and the Rottlund Companies as the builders would be possibly the need for
benches along the public trail. And when this came up in a discussion recently it was suggested
that we accommodate the need for places for people to sit through that open space corridor or
that public trail corridor and provide that at 2 or 3 locations which might have some shrubbery or
some plantings around them. That's in response to the gathering sense, or the sense of gathering
that the staff is suggesting in number, recommendation number 4. And the other
recommendation that I'll address for a moment before I introduce Mr. Sathre to kind of go
through the whole plan is at the top of page 24 and that's number 11. Number 11 asks for a
prairie grass space to be established and if I've got these right Bob, the spaces would be this,
behind this buffer yard area and somewhere in. .. Well, we agree on one out of two. The two
spaces I would suggest and because the way I see probably the property being used, children on
this site are probably going to live in the single family area and the establishment of a prairie
grass area and the maintenance of a prairie grass area is pretty well defmed. It doesn't lend real
well to activity areas. I was going to suggest the open space being our bungalow units and the
townhouse units because mostly, predominantly these will be empty nesters type of homeowners.
Number one, they would appreciate the wild flowers and the prairie grass and understand what
it's there for and why it's there. I'm afraid children being children. ..more active uses... The
other area I would suggest maybe would be along the slope, which is more of a view area. It
would have good exposure from Highway 5 up the valley as another area that we could possibly
do this in, as an alternative. With that let me introduce Mr. Sathre because we've been through
six renditions of this plan. I told him not to go through all six but to concentrate on this plan and
maybe just show some of the highlights of where the changes have occurred and hopefully give
you folks a better understanding of this process. I know one of you, Mr. Joyce is intimately
familiar with the entire process but maybe for the rest of you it might be good.
Rick Sathre: Good evening. I'm Rick Sathre with Sathre-Berquist from Wayzata. We're the
planners, engineers and surveyors for this project. And I would like to give you a little
background of the project because although we've worked very hard with, as Rick said with the
neighborhood and the Council and the staff, the Planning Commission hasn't seen this for a long
time and I think it would be, if you would like to see how we've come to where we are, I think it
would be a good thing. Very quickly, this plan is the original, I don't know if you want to zoom
in but this plan was the original submission that the Planning Commission saw in January. We
were over, well over the allowable net density which we learned to our chagrin and just before
the Planning Commission reviewed that plan. The second plan was created which, I think I'll put
these side by side for a second... Here's our first significant change. The plan on the right, we
dropped down to 268 units, which was still, as it turns out, more than the allowable density on
the site. But there's a very significant change in the road patterns between the two. The 293 plan
provided good circulation within the PUD but also provided a little too much opportunity for
short circuiting of traffic into the neighborhood to the north, so in the 268 plan on the right we
10
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
moved what we now call Village Boulevard, then Highlands Boulevard. We moved the northerly
terminus of that road well west so that the, we really were able to avoid the short circuiting of
neighborhoods of our traffic and totally foreign traffic from the single family neighborhood to the
north. Well, after the Planning Commission saw this 268 unit plan and the 293 plan, we went to
some lengths to try to determine exactly what the allowable density was because it had been a
matter of much discussion. What we actually found was that 254 units were, or 253 or 254 units
could be permitted under the guide plan. Under the comprehensive plan. So in March we
presented a plan to the Council and received a conceptual approval for this 248 unit plan and the
significant changes on this are we, between the original submission and this point we have pulled
away from the creek farther. Pulled totally out of the woods in the southwest part of the state.
We've provided two clustering areas for the private open space in the center of the project and
we've taken into account the park commissions guidance which was sidewalks along two of the
proposed public streets and a trail corridor connection that will eventually go to Lake Ann, which
heads to the east from Village Boulevard. The Council had some concerns when they reviewed
this plan. A lot of them centered around what, the center product in the plan which is called a
cottage home which Rottlund has been building of late in several locations around the Twin
Cities. This particular housing style has the garage projected to the front of the unit and the
living space is behind the garage. And so as you drive down the street, there's a very strong
feeling that it's a garage forward unit that the architecture was found to be, by both the neighbors
and the Council to be perhaps not to their liking. The neighbors were a little afraid of what that
might look like, especially when it wasn't fully landscaped. So the next significant change was
made, which gets us up to date, which is the substitution in the center area of what Rottlund is
now calling the bungalows, which is a new product type which Todd would I'm sure like to show
you in greater detail. Which takes the garage and pushes it back in the unit and introduces a
porch that actually projects farthest towards the street for a softer look. So the major changes,
besides dropping density to meet the guide plan, the comp plan. The open spaces evolved
significantly through time. Our ponding plan now has evolved into a two tiered pond in the
south. The diversity of housing type has changed greatly. Just briefly we've got 12 unit villa
buildings that have two car garages on the end units and single car garages on the interior units,
similar to what is it, Mission Hills. There are 8 unit buildings in this plan as well, which all have
2 car garages now which is a brand new design for Rottlund. You haven't seen those before.
The vista townhomes, the split villa buildings that are on this plan which we can accommodate
walkout conditions with. There are 6 unit buildings and 4 unit buildings in the plan now that
allow us to take grade up better and there's a mix of 4 and 6 unit buildings there. Again in the
sixes the end units have two car garages. The internal units are single garage but all of the four
unit buildings are double garages. So there's a reallot of diversity even in that villa style
building product. All of the bungalow units have two car garage. The question came up about
parking. I counted 94 off street, extra parking spaces on the plan as we presented it. Rottlund's
goal was to have one-half extra parking space per unit, which would have suggested that we have
60 some, 64. There's actually 94 on the plan. Each of the single car garages has of course the
one garage space internally to the building and a space in front of the garage as well. So in the
worse case condition the units have two defined spaces for them plus the half plus space that's
shared. I counted, well Todd was doing some quick math while I was sitting there. We have
about 3.6 parking spaces per unit overall in the villa area so we're significantly greater than the
city would require but this is what we feel we need and want. The last quick issue I wanted to
address before Todd comes up was the staff report suggests that a few ofthe driveways be in the
11
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
bungalow area, that we side load some garages. The plan shows some units being side loaded.
Significantly there are two buildings which staffhas asked us to add a side load garage on and if
we can zoom in a little bit to this building right here. I don't know if that will work but the
building that the pen is pointed at, the staff has asked that we side load that garage. We could do
it, we're happy to do that either by side loading it on the south side or flipping the building and
doing it on the north side. I'm not sure which way would work better for us at this point but
we're happy to do that. The other building that we're asked to make a change on, the staffreport
actually refers to this building.. .north of the east/west driveway. Common driveway. I think
side loading that garage would be difficult but I would suggest that we could side load the
building directly south of that. Not to the south to that private road but actually to the north so
we could come out from. . . We could side load it to come out this way as opposed to straight out
the front which would give that home a nicer look from the Village Boulevard. That's Lot 15.
Instead of 14 in the staff report. With that, if there are no questions for me I'd like to turn it over
to Todd.
Todd Stutz: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm Todd Stutz,
President of Rottlund Homes. The Rottlund Company is very excited to be part of this
development. We'll be developing two neighborhoods within the Walnut Grove development.
The villa neighborhood, with approximately 168 total homes and the bungalow neighborhood
with 44 homes. What I'd like to do is share with you this evening some of the architectural
changes which has occurred since the last time you had an opportunity to review this
development. These changes come in direct response to some of the comments we heard from
the neighborhood and then also from the Mayor and City Council in the conceptual plan stage
and hopefully we've addressed those to your liking. The first thing I'd like to address is the
bungalow neighborhood which is a total of 44 homes. Within this neighborhood, of the total
four different plans, with a minimum of two elevations per plan. The square footage of the
homes which will be constructed in this area, we have 1,350 to approximately 1,600 square feet
in size with a price range of approximately $140 to $200,000.00. The target market for this
particular product is empty nesters and retirees, given the fact that the homes are single level and
then also the expansion space in the lower level. It's anticipated that the plan as reflected, as
shown here hopefully will sell equally well so that there will be diversity and will be able the
ability to have alternating plans so that the overall development will have a variety of looks to it.
One of the struggles that we always have as a builder is really to try to suppress the appearance of
the garage. So often I think you see both in attached and also single family neighborhoods, is
where the garage presents very much of a challenge and really is it's most distinctive feature that
you see as you drive down the street. What we've done with this particular plan is we've
widened the total exterior front elevation by 4 feet from what you originally saw so it's 36 feet in
width with a double garage leaving approximately 16 feet on the front elevation which can be
treated in a variety of ways. The garage itself will not be, will be suppressed in terms ofit's
depth in the fact that you'll have porch elements, portico elements extending past and out front of
the garage so as you drive down the street, what you'll see is porch features and roof features and
stoop areas and portico areas. We think that overall that certainly should present a very nice
feeling neighborhood and will encourage people to spend time out on the front porch areas and
the front yards versus in their back yards so we're very excited certainly about this product.
We've not built this product before. I don't have any pictures to show you. It's something that
was developed specifically for this development and hopefully you'll be pleased with this
12
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
particular product and neighborhood ultimately. This neighborhood will be governed by a
homeowners association, like the villa neighborhood will be. All the exterior maintenance,
including the exteriors of the homes, as well as the landscape will be provided by the
homeowners association and also be subject to a set of covenants which will regulate
architectural control as well as outside storage, etc. In addition, through the conceptual process
of reviewing the development, there's also comments with regard to the villa neighborhood.
There's a total of 168 homes within the villa neighborhood. 40 villa townhomes or row type
townhomes and then 128 villas or back to back type units that will be constructed in 8 to 12 unit
building configurations. That's what's reflected by this drawing which would be an 8 unit
building. What we've tried to do in this particular instance is to improve the end elevations as
well as the front elevations given the fact that the majority of what you'll see as you drive down
Highway 5, also along Village Boulevard, is you basically see the end element of the homes. The
homes will now have, versus previously what you saw, will have entrances on the ends ofthe
homes where the two units on the end and also does incorporate some of the features you see in
the bungalows in terms of field stone exteriors and those types of things which I think integrate
both neighborhoods better, between both of them so you have a common architectural style. The
target market for this particular product is singles and young couples. Square footage will range
between 1,200 to 1,400 square feet in size. Price range will be approximately $90 to
$140,000.00 in price. Again this is the 8 unit building configuration which was mentioned, has
all 2 car garages now versus what you saw previously. Again was a more prominence on the end
of the unit in terms of architectural detailing. This would be the 12 unit building. Again with
more attention paid to the end of the home with side entrances on the ends. Also incorporating
again the features that you saw in the 8 unit building, again tying back into the bungalow
neighborhood so there's some continuity of architectural style between both neighborhoods.
This is the villa townhome product. Some of the changes that have been made to this is the
addition of some of, again the common architectural themes with the fieldstone. Some of the
column areas that we're trying to accomplish in terms of improving the appearance of the homes
from what you previously saw. Also in terms of what you'll see for the most part will be the rear
elevations of these homes, especially in the open common area that's between the bungalow area
and the villa townhome area and what we'll be doing in these areas and some of the porch areas
in the back incorporating the use of picket fences and also columns in the deck areas again to
again encourage people to use that area, but also to provide some privacy but also additional
detailing of that area so that again it ties into the overall feel that we're trying to accomplish.
You didn't bring with by any chance, the rear elevations for either the 8 or the 12 units by chance
did you? As in the case of the 8, Mr. Chairman, in the case of the 12 unit buildings, what you'll
see is an exact mirror image on the other side. So it is a back to back unit, correct. Because of
the topography of the site, especially along the wooded area on the southern portion of the site,
it's necessary to have some walkout configurations and this is referred to as being a vista
townhome, which is included in the total of 40 row townhomes. In this case you'll have a
walkout ability on the back side with porch projections again on the back side of the home. So
that's what that will look like. Again, common architectural themes with the fieldstone, the
cedar shake areas, the shudders which again tie back the bungalow area also. One of the issues
that staff brought up was relative to the affordability. Metropolitan Council defines an affordable
for sale home as that selling for less than $120,000.00. 96 of the total 168 units will fall below
the $120,000.00 price range and we're committed to doing that within this development. That's
basically the architecture that we're trying to accomplish on this site. I know that our staffhas
13
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
spent a lot of time trying to address some of the needs and requirements the City has had and I
think overall the development has benefited by that process and I think everyone will be very
pleased when the development is finally completed. Thank you.
Peterson: A few questions, if you would please. Take a little bit of time to walk us through
where the villas would be. Where the walkouts would be. Just kind of point and just give a
general feel for that intense grouping and where the respective ones would end up.
Todd Stutz: The area that you'll see the walkout condition and the row townhomes, which we
refer to as our vista townhomes, occurs along the creek in the southern portion of the site which
would be these homes up here. The walkout conditions. The rest of them will be on grade, slab
on grade product as far as the row townhomes are concerned, and those row townhomes again
occur in a variety of locations. Here, here, these two locations here and also here. This area
again being the area that we'll be paying very close attention to in terms of providing some
confinements but also some privacy for those units in that open space and some additional
detailing on those backs of those homes with picket fences and such will be done to accomplish
that. The rest of the homes will be in the back to back type configuration with the 12 unit
buildings and 8 unit buildings again with end entrances on the end units and those occur
throughout the site. I'll just point out the 8 unit buildings to begin with. 8 unit buildings are
located here and here, here and here. And developing 12 unit buildings here, here, here, here and
in this location here, and those are reflected by the drawings that you've been provided.
Joyce: Can I ask a question, a quick question here? On the side elevation for the 8 unit building,
you have some windows, it looks like french doors. Windows without any shutters on them.
What exactly are those? The side elevation.
Todd Stutz: Right. The side elevation.
Joyce: Yeah. Are those french doors that open out or?
Todd Stutz: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Joyce. They are not french, in this location basically
in this location here is a two story space. So these would actually function a transom windows
because the two story space in that location.
Joyce: I'm talking about the inside.
Todd Stutz: Yeah. Here and the...it would be patio doors which comes off the dining room
area.
Joyce: Okay.
Peterson: You mentioned that the bungalow is a new style for you but the current villas, I
assume you have around the area in some places. Did you by chance bring any pictures of those
at all?
14
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Todd Stutz: I did not. You do have a villa development within your community called Mission
Hills, although I will say that this in terms of product developed using the floor plans internally
as well as the exteriors will be very much different than that. That was one of the concerns.
Those are all front loaded whereas in this case the end units enter from the side. You have a hip
roof configuration and also the level of detailing with the fieldstone that's been added, the cedar
shakes have been added, creates a much richer feel than what you would see in Mission Hills,
although Mission Hills was certainly a very successful development. I know that was a real
concern in terms of highway, the Highway 5 corridor and what the appearance would be along
Highway 5. I know there's some variety occurring and really with four different product types
that we have within the villa neighborhood itself, I think you'll see a real variety versus maybe
more of a monotony that perhaps was a concern more perhaps with Mission Hills or other villa
developments.
Peterson: Other questions?
Skubic: Just a suggestion. The bungalows, the rear elevations. They have quite a bit of
exposure to the north from Windmill Run, especially the bungalows that are on the top crest of
the hill there. I think it would be a good idea to have rear elevations of the bungalows also since
that is I think a prominent view from the north.
Todd Stutz: Yeah. We've not yet developed the rear elevations, understanding that this is very
preliminary in nature in terms of the plans. It was intended to at least reflect what the streetscape
would be, which was one of the concerns expressed at some of the meetings that we had with the
neighbors and some of City Council. I don't have those with me this evening, although I will
indicate that the backs of the homes with the combination of having four season porches and then
also a lot of transom windows and two story type windows, because of the amount of light we're
trying to get into the backs of these homes, I think will be as equally appealing as certainly the
front is.
Rick Sathre: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Skubic is it?
Skubic: Correct.
Rick Sathre: Rick Sathre again. When we were with the neighbors on several occasions and
with the Council as well, we shared some cross sections which we don't have here tonight. But I
have a board that shows what we did share view wise. I don't think this will work on the camera
but the section AA, this big yellow one through the site. We developed a cross sectional view
that showed the relationships of the Windmill Run houses to our single family lots in the
northerly portion of the site to the, what was then the cottage homes on that knoll that you speak
about, and then down through the villas down to Highway 5. Those bungalow units now that
replace the cottage homes in the middle are the highest units on the site but they're not that much
higher. In fact the street that comes out of Windmill Run, if we go back t6 the board on the table.
This street coming south, around this curve, actually is for a little ways, is actually higher than
that central knoll and the point being that the street in the single family area isn't that much lower
than the crest of that knoll. In fact the single family home that fronts this street will provide a
visual break or a visual buffer if you will to the bungalow area. Our greater concern internally
15
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
actually has been how would this, the look of these bungalow units be perceived by these single
family homeowners. So we recognize as neighbors concern about whether we're going to be
good or bad neighbors but we're also worried internally and so Rick Murray has spent a lot of
time with Todd and with Arteka working on the landscape package for the internal transition too.
So we're very sensitive to what the whole site will look like and can look like.
Joyce: That was leading up to one of my questions. Is that private road going to be right on top
of that term then?
Rick Sathre: Yes.
Joyce: So you're going to have the bungalows on either side of that private road, is that correct?
Rick Sathre: Yes sir and they're walkout units on both sides. The northerly ones walk out to the
pond and the southerly ones back up and walk out to that open space.
Joyce: What kind of grade are you going to have going up there? I'm just curious. Is that going
to be.
Rick Sathre: Well we can zoom in again on the grading plan and, if you zoom into this area. We
can get real specific if you wish. How about much farther in? Even closer would be good. Oh,
that's it. Okay. Well, that's pretty good. Lift it up. Each of these lines on the street are 2 foot
elevations or they're 2 foot contours. In fact all of the lines that you see the curvilinear lines that
are behind the units are 2 foot contour lines so you can see behind those bungalow units toward
the pond there's about 12 or 13 feet of fall from the bungalow units back yards to the pond. And
through the unit itself, rising up to the road, there's the typical 8 foot or so elevation difference
between the garage and the basement level. The walkout level. So what we're doing, the top of
the knoll as it existed right now. . . is right here. The road is skirting the edge of the very peak of
that little knoll.
Joyce: Thanks for explaining that. I didn't know what those arrows were and that makes sense,
thanks.
Rick Sathre: Sure.
Peterson: While you're on elevations, if you could go down to the villas that are closest to
Highway 5. What's the height and prominence of the berm between TH 5 and the villas?
Rick Sathre: Well now we're right down here. You'll remember that Highway 5 is actually just
south of the, bottom of the drawing. This is the future Arboretum Boulevard which is the future
frontage road. That will be similar in elevation to Highway 5. The top of this berm rises up to
982. The elevation of the frontage road will be in the 960's somewhere. We don't have, I don't
have the plan with me. We're anticipating an intersection elevation down here oh about 958.
Arboretum Boulevard will continue to rise I think as it goes over the hill. The existing hill. The
elevations of the villa buildings themselves are in the mid 970's. So this berm as we've shown it
would actually provide 5 or 6 foot high. . . from the villa unit sides. But from the highway side,
16
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
the highway is very depressed compared to that so there will be a greater slope south of the berm
than there is north.
Peterson: Thank you.
Rick Sathre: There's still an issue to work out too with staff having to do with that bus pull out
area. We're not sure where that might be. It could be in that location as well so, as we proceed
we would be working on that issue.
Peterson: Other questions?
Blackowiak: Actually that was one of my questions was the bus pull out area. But my second
question also has to do with parking. You've talked about the number of spaces on the street.
But as I read the information from the fire chief, they're talking about no parking on private
roads. I see everything but Windmill Curve and Highlands Boulevard as being marked private
roads. Am I correct in assuming then there will be no on-street parking anywhere else but those
two major roads?
Rick Sathre: Weare proposing, I'm sorry for the confusion. Weare proposing to have all off
street parking, even in the private street system. Each homeowner would have their inside garage
spaces. They also would have the space in front of their garage plus those shared off street
parking spaces. The little head-in parking spaces that are shown on the plan. Ifwe can go back
to the grading plan drawing I can point out some of those. Right here. There's 5 spaces for
instance in front of this little open space area that would be shared visitor parking. So we
wouldn't intend to have people parking willy nilly on any street.
Blackowiak: Oh as I read it, they couldn't park on the street. That's what I was making sure of.
And then when, I don't know if this is a staff question. When Arboretum Boulevard comes out,
will that access onto Galpin or onto TH 5 or what will happen? Bob, help me.
Generous: Arboretum will access onto Galpin Boulevard.
Blackowiak: Onto Galpin. So at this point in time we've got the entire, this entire neighborhood
dumping out onto Galpin from basically Windmill Curve, just one road. Has there been a traffic
study? And the results?
Generous: The results were that the level of service would be acceptable.
Brooks: You don't foresee any major traffic problems trying to get onto Highway 5 with 247
households trying to get onto TH 5 at one point?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that one a little bit. This development is very
similar to the Mission Hills development that you see down on TH 101 and we've not had any
problems that I'm aware of with that development and that has approximately 208 units in that
development... Again, the traffic study was prepared. They did not anticipate a problem with
the level of service at that one intersection. They anticipate a growth period here of a few years
17
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
in order to develop the site totally. By the time that that is fully built. . .closer to probably the
year 2000 in which time Arboretum Boulevard will be in place...
Brooks: When's the four lanes to Highway 41 going to be in?
Hempel: It's proposed to commence construction in 1999... year process. Build the frontage
road and widen Trunk Highway 5 concurrently.
Peterson: Other questions for Rick?
Rick Murray: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to Mr. Joyce. I skipped Commissioner Joyce's
question earlier about the landscaping.
Joyce: No, I would have caught you.
Rick Murray: It just dawned on me. Bob, in the staff recommendation it spoke to moving those
evergreens along the creek area to the north. Well I instructed the landscape architect this
afternoon to move them all the way to the north so you will find them on that plan in the back
yards of the single, of my single families to provide additional buffer to the people to the north.
Those will all be 8 foot evergreens. I didn't realize that you meant to have them go into the
buffer area between my product and the Rottlund's product. So I moved them all the way north.
Joyce: So you're saying that the evergreens are between Windmill Run and, okay. Could there
be any other additional shrubbery or whatever that would act as a buffer there because I'm just
looking at what we have here as part of our ordinance here as far as buffer yards and I'm just, I
don't even know how that is decided Bob as far as a buffer yard. Is there shrubbery that should
be added onto there?
Rick Murray: Their calculation Bob is right under your left hand. It's, but to answer your
question specifically Commissioner Joyce. The buffer yard between two single family, there is
not a buffer yard between two single family areas, although we are quasi kind of creating one
with some landscaping.
Joyce: There's no buffer yard between two single family but there is a buffer yard between
intensities and this is a lower, low density and then you have a medium density.
Rick Murray: Land use wise I think my single family densities are pretty equivalent to what. ..
Joyce: I think we're asking for a, you're asking for a LUP that would, with a 30.14 acres, you're
asking for that to be changed from, land use change from a A2 to medium density. That's what
we're here for isn't it? Bob? So there's a difference in densities there.
Peterson: Per your feeling of the ordinance for buffering Bob, would you consider that there is a
defined need for a buffering zone between the two?
Generous: By ordinance, yes.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Rick Murray: Let me ask the question a little differently Bob. Does my single family have to be
a medium density zone?
Generous: Yes.
Rick Murray: Okay.
Joyce: I think you've come a long way. I'm just asking you know.
Rick Murray: I didn't understand. I mean I didn't understand that.
Joyce: And I'm not really even forcing the issue here but I know he said that he was bringing up
the 10 trees, which aren't evident on this, and you said rightfully so. But I'm just saying you
know, if we're going to be consistent, I'm just, I'm throwing that out.
Rick Murray: As you can see from the buffering, we anticipated our buffer zone to be between
our single family and our bungalow homes. That's where on our landscape plan, even the
landscape plan that you folks have, that's where it's demonstrated on that plan. That's a
perception and not an ordinance definition between single family and the bungalows. To redo, to
do the guiding that Mr. Joyce, Commissioner Joyce raises a very good issue. Should I move that
buffer zone up to the top, and I'd suggest that that wouldn't fairly treat the single family
neighbors that were moving, that I was providing to be a buffer to the Windmill Run
neighborhood. That that wouldn't sufficiently treat their needs against the bungalow homes.
Joyce: When you present this to City Council, will you be showing those 10 evergreens that you
were...
Rick Murray: They're actually I brought the plan this evening. It just wasn't ready.
Joyce: Can you show it right now?
Rick Murray: You're not going to.
Joyce: Not going to be able to see it.
Rick Murray: You're not going to like this. I even took the time to color some of dots look
pretty small. The darker green ones in there are evergreens and I think there's 10 or 12 of the
black dots. You put some of the, 3 or 4 of them right here on the comer as a distinction between
neighborhoods and then the dark dots that are scattered through here, they came out right through
this area.
Joyce: All right.
Rick Murray: That answers the question. I didn't recognize there was more question there.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Joyce: You didn't bring anything else about density though. I do have another question for you
Rick actually. Can you break down the time table of construction phasing for us?
Rick Murray: Yeah. David, can I? We would like to be grading in the month of June. That
would give us the longest portion and the driest part of the year to enable our grading project to
finish. Would like to have utilities installed from somewhere about the first of July to the 15th of
August and we're hopeful that it could be a little quicker than that but that gives us 45 days to
accomplish that task. Our sewer and water mains both have to come from Highway 5, with the
exception of what we can pick up off of the Windmill Run trunk line. There's a little piece there
that covers about 18 units to our north. We'd like to have the roads in by September. First part
of September so that if we got into a bind and the season got real wet and we couldn't be on that
schedule, I looked at a couple of scenarios of get all four products to a marketplace that would be
available in the spring. What roads wouldn't we finish with blacktop or curb or whatever.
That's really not a pleasant thought for me to think about. When I've seen, and other builders.
I'm sure Rottlund's much better than some other builders that have built on sites but when they
come in and 5 or 6 trainloads full of sheetrock show up on your site and the immense, the amount
of material that, it's going to make it hard to come in a little bit later and finish the street because
there's so many things in the way. So our desire is to get everything finished this year. We have
kind ofa fallback scenario if we couldn't where we would condense those streets.
Joyce: But then you will phase in Phase 1. Are you say all the phases would go at once?
Rick Murray: All the improvements would be done this year.
Joyce: Right. But then how would the phasing of the actual, will the single family homes go in
at one time?
Rick Murray: The single family homes will all be available for construction. There are three
builders that will be doing them.
Joyce: There are three builders? Okay.
Rick Murray: And that's 10 lots a piece. That's generally about a season and a half for most of
them. For construction. There would be three models up for this parade season is what they're
anticipating. In the single family.
Peterson: Other questions from commissioners? Thank you. This is open for a public hearing
and I would like to hear a motion to do so and a second please.
Joyce moved, Brooks seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing so if you would like to address the Planning Commission,
please come forward and state your name and address please.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
John Hennessy: Good evening commissioners. John Hennessy, 7305 Galpin Boulevard. I own
the property right in this area. This section right in here.. .right now is looking at rezoning. My
understanding is.. . area that comes down here, is that correct Rick?
Rick Murray: Actually...
John Hennessy: Or whatever your recommendation is, should you recommend this, and I think
Mr. Murray has come an awful long way and I salute him. This is a very nice project. I'djust
ask that you also note in your recommendation that my property also be zoned for that same
medium density since it's surrounded on all sides by that type of zoning. So I'd just ask for a
similar zoning to what's going on around me then. Thank you.
Peterson: Bob, I assume we can't do that as it's not presented formally before us tonight. So
what we'll have to do John is to formally present that to City staff and we'll have to deal, that
would have to open itself up for it's own public hearing. Staff could help you with that.
John Hennessy: It seems to me that in the past though the City has arbitrarily changed the
zoning. .. without any notification to myself. At one point I was zoned in the agricultural area.
. . .my lower 2 acre parcel here was zoned for medium density. Then all of a sudden it's, this
comer here is to medium density and the rest is zoned for whatever. . . usage was designated so
I've seen all kinds of zoning. It happens without any notification to me. It's my property and I
don't see any need for that. That I should really have to undertake a huge process to go and have
it redone again when it's been arbitrarily zoned and rezoned at will. Is that standard?
Peterson: It's not standard not to be notified, no.
John Hennessy: Four times.
Peterson: No, again we apologize on behalf of the city but I'm sure the intent was to notify and
placed in a public hearing because that is a requirement.
John Hennessy: And one time this lower 2 acres, which are... was zoned for medium density.
Why that would disappear without my notification is far beyond me.
Peterson: I'm sure staff will endeavor to make it as simple and as easy as possible for you.
Anyone else wishing to address the commission?
Joan Joyce: My name is Joan Joyce. I live at 2043 Brinker Street and I just have a number of
requests to make. We spent a lot of time with Rick Murray trying to work through this
development and come up with what we feel is a good compromise and I do have just a couple of
concerns I'd like to point out. For one thing the villas along the southern part of the
development. I have a concern over the elevation. I just have, my thought here along this picture
right here is what that's going to look like from the Highway 5 corridor. I see nothing but garage
doors there and I'd like to make a request that the applicant consider putting up some sort of a
gable over the entry so there's a little more focus on the entry for the villas. And that specifically
would be appropriate I think for these, for this area right here. The other request I'd like to make
21
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
is the idea of the side entry for the garage on the bungalows. The bungalows look a lot better
than the cottages, I will say that as far as the architecture goes but it would be nice if there was a
consideration for these two right here. To have this side entrance garage for those two
bungalows. And then another concern I have is with regard to the single family homes. I haven't
heard much about the builders selected for those or if any of them are going to be walkouts. I'm
also concerned about the length of time. Would this, you know since there are three builders, is
this something that might drag on for 5 years or is there a time limit to how long this could go
on? And then last but not least, and I feel most importantly is the request over the landscaping.
My understanding is with the PUD, usually it is an enhanced development and I'm still waiting
to see some form of enhancement in this plan with regard to a feature primarily I would expect
would be seen through landscaping and I don't see that. I'd still like to find out if this is
minimum landscaping here or where the extras are and again, the way I read the PUD ordinance
is that there is a change in density and therefore there needs to be more of a buffer and
landscaping between those densities and that would specifically be addressed to this area. As the
plan is stated right now, it's hard for me to really get a full view of what this would look like but
I don't see that it's necessarily an enhanced landscape plan. That's all. If you have any
questions. Or you want to add to that. Do you want to respond to the landscape?
Rick Murray: ...calculation on the site, previously on the side of the bottom...gives the formulas
for the reforestation calculations. It also gives the formula for buffer yard and transition area.
The required plantings that the City requires for those two requirements is 513 trees. This project
has 628 trees. The requirements for those reforestation buffer yards are 113 shrubs. The project
has 3,251 shrubs in it. So we're 3,200 shrubs more and 115 trees more. In addition to that we
have 177 evergreens on this site. The City average for evergreens is 6 foot plantings. 75% of our
evergreens on this site will be 8 feet or larger. We have, well there's only 75 or 177 that will be
6 feet. There's 83 of them that are 8 feet. There's 11 of them that will be 10 feet. There's 12 of
them that will be. . .
Joan Joyce: So are these bigger than the minimum standards then? The sizes that you're
referring to again?
Rick Murray: Minimum standard is 6 feet.
Joan Joyce: Okay. Then my request would be to have some of these trees relocated to some of
the other areas because I don't feel that, and I heard your last change that you're moving 10 trees
to the north and that's a step in the right direction but 10 trees spread out on 13 lots is not really
effective, in my opinion, so my request is that you would consider maybe doing a little bit
more...
Peterson: We don't really need agreement here tonight. We just want to plant some seeds for.
Joan Joyce: Right, right. And again, I'm not looking at the trees that align the street on the south
side of those houses. I'm looking at what is on the north side of those houses because that is the
edge of the PUD development. That is where the buffer would, suppose to be according to this
city code. Thank you.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
David Jensen: David Jensen, 2173 Brinker Street. I just have a couple of questions. Number one
is the road, Windmill Drive. It's been proposed before that we would like to have that blocked
off during construction. I'm not sure exactly where we're sitting on that. Again the
neighborhood would like that blocked off so we do not have construction traffic coming through
our neighborhood. That is something that we would ask for as a neighborhood. Number two is
I'm also not sure exactly what building code is for when construction can occur. I don't know if
Saturdays and Sundays are open for construction. We would like, we would prefer not to see
construction on the weekends. If that's not possible, definitely we would like to have a later start
time on the weekends. Again I'm not aware of what the city code is for this so if you could
enlighten me, I would appreciate that.
Peterson: Dave, could you speak to both those items.
Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. The developer will be entering into a PUD/development
contract with the City which. . . the construction hours of the development. Is more geared for the
actual on site development. The site grading, the utility work, street work. Those hours are 7:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. On Saturdays it's 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.. No work
on Sundays or legal holidays. What regulates or governs the home builders however is city
ordinance which currently I believe is 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 to
5:00 on Saturday. Now there has been some discussions I believe at the City Council level
instructing staff to look into those hours to try to reduce some of the evening hours and weekend
activity. However, the home builders, they have a tight schedule. I'm sure there's going to be a
lot of. . . that end of it. Everyday home builder, homeowners out there that want to do the home
construction.. . hours and sometimes on the weekends, so people have to build a fence and
construct their shed or something like that so there's lots to take into account when we...
Peterson: Have you talked to Rick about the Windmill Run being closed off at all or not?
Hempel: No we have not but if you look at the grading plan, it states right on there maintain
existing barricade until street is installed. I think Mr. Jensen's concern as well as possibly some
of the new home construction where you get cement trucks, your sheetrock trucks, lumber trucks,
could potentially find their way back through there. Looking at the street layout, it's only the
shortest, quickest route into the development is through the new street except for when you start
building the homes furthest.. .and then there's the opportunity to go.. .It's really difficult to try to
regulate construction traffic there. Some home builders will install signs saying no construction
access points here but by that time it's sometimes too late.. .Difficult to regulate. We can
certainly request that though.
Peterson: Thanks. Anyone else?
Mark Peyereisen: Just one last comment. My name is Mark Peyereisen and I live at 7501
Windmill Drive and I think Ms. Brooks brings up a great point in regards to the traffic on Galpin.
Currently you're telling us that the 200 units that are going in there, that Galpin would be able to
handle that traffic, but I think there's some thought that should be gone into that. The Lundgren
23
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
development is not yet completed down the road from there and also the Centex development is
also enroute as well. And if you currently take a drive down Galpin Boulevard with the trucks
that are hauling there, the utility trucks and the sewer trucks that are coming in, the grading that's
going on down there, Galpin is not a safe street at this point in time to be on bike riding, running,
walking, whatever the case may be so I think there is some thought that needs to go into that in
regards to the Galpin Boulevard. Galpin Boulevard is an inferior street, especially for a 50 mph
speed zone on there and if that were to be the case, then we should look at lowering that speed
limit or just addressing the traffic study again in regards to Galpin Boulevard. That's it.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Seeing none, is there a
motion to close the public hearing and a second please.
Skubic moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Commissioners. It's been a long and winding road in more ways than one. Alison,
would you care to comment first please.
Blackowiak: Okay. Get on the right page here. I'm just going to kind of run down the
conditions that staff suggested and comment where I feel necessary. Numbers 3 and 4, we're
talking about the commons in the plat and also the trail location. I agree that the commons is
very important and would like to see the trail moved either north or south. It doesn't matter
which one but just give us a larger open space in the middle. I agree with the dissenting
members of the Park Commission regarding the need for some type of a playground or
something. I'm a member of the Park Task Force and a recent survey done of city residents
pointed out that neighborhood parks are number one on their priority list, and I can't believe that
the potential new neighbors in this area would be any different than the people we already have
in Chanhassen in terms of their desire to have a neighborhood park. So I would strongly hope
that something could be worked out and I agree that the neighbors could, and then probably
should have some input as to what it would be but I would like that to be a part of the plan.
Moving the trail a little bit and thinking about some type of a totlot or whatever you want to call
it but something there for the families that are going to have small children so that they too can
enjoy these parks. The gazebo's a nice touch. I don't know if that's the answer or the benches or
whatever but I like the idea of a place to meet and yes, a small playground can be a place to meet.
I really haven't heard anything about the bus shelter or bus cut out. I'd like to know a little bit
more about that and where that could be potentially incorporated because I am somewhat worried
about the traffic and the fact that we are at this point dumping everybody out with a single access
point onto Galpin, and that scares me a little bit because there will be a lot of cars. And I do
realize that Arboretum Boulevard is scheduled for 1999 but we all know MnDOT and that may
just not happen so I'm kind of worried about that. I like Joan Joyce's comments regarding the
higher standards of the PUD. We need to look for something that's going to be interesting.
That's going to be above average and just moving trees around maybe from the south side to the
north side might solve a couple problems but then if you really felt they were necessary in the
south side, can't we just add some instead of moving what we've got. If it is going to be a
medium density PUD, then I think that in order to conform to the requirements of our PUD
standards we would need some buffering then between the existing Windmill Run neighborhoods
and the proposed Walnut Grove neighborhood. Let me think here. Also parking. Hennessy's
24
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
property. Again I think we addressed that. That that will have to be a separate issue before the
Planning Commission. It will have to be published in the paper and proper notice given. And
boy, I think that's about it. We heard a lot tonight. But generally I think it's a good plan but if
we address some of those issues, and probably some others that the commissioners will bring up,
it will be an even better plan.
Peterson: Thank you. Allyson.
Brooks: Well I agree a lot with Alison. I do think the playground should be considered. I know
we talked about empty nester and we talked about retirement but I think that a lot of single
parents with children are attracted to townhomes and bungalow type homes and that you may
actually get more children than you expect. It's also a nice way for families to congregate and
meet each other. If you're looking at different sets of people, you know you can tailor open
spaces to the different sets. You know put your gazebo or sort of non-children in one open space
and have the play area in another open space. The traffic question is not directly related
necessarily to this development alone. Trunk Highway 5 is going to be, just a horizontal parking
lot one of these days and I don't know, I think we're all, our hands are tied no matter what. No
matter what development goes in. I do worry about the idea that there's only one access out to
Galpin and then onto TH 5 and the back-up that will cause. And those are really my major
concerns. Other than that I guess I don't have a lot more comments.
Peterson: Thank you. Ladd.
Conrad: I don't have much to say. I think it's really come a long way. From the comments I
made 3-4 months ago, and I wasn't even involved in the process. They've taken care of them.
Between the neighbors and the developer. This is a good PUD. It's got variety of housing styles
in here which it didn't have 3-4 months ago. These are nice designs. I compliment the Rottlund
group who put them in. For the tOwnhome type product, it's very good. I like the roadway
system and yeah, traffic's always going to be an issue but there was a study done. There was a
study done. We have to pay attention to the study. The study was done. Park and Rec also made
motions on what they like so, I think there's some things that could be done based on what the
commissioners like but overall I think, and John I think you won't have any problem getting the
zoning. If it doesn't go the way you want, I'd be real surprised. I can't believe it won't. But I
like this. I think there have been some comments on things that changing and ref acing loading. I
think that's my only comment. I think there are some tweakings that can be done and as to how
we load certain units here, which can add. I think there were some good comments made about
maybe some simple things that could give a little bit better vision on Highway 5 for some of the
housing down there, but overall boy I just don't have too many problems with the proposal.
Peterson: LuAnn.
Sidney: I'm the newest commissioner and this is actually the first time I've looked at this plan
and studied this and I'm very impressed with it. I really like the idea of variety of home styles. I
think it's well laid out and really gives, been able to tell there's a lot of thought and work put into
the plan. A couple things I did note. The other commissioners have mentioned the playground
and that was a concern of mine too. That there would be a playground in this development. Also
25
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
back to the parking, that I had mentioned before. I'm concerned about the amount of off street
parking and I'm wondering if the applicant could work with staff to see if that could be reduced
and the reason that I liked it reduced is to hopefully minimize the impact upon some of the open
spaces that you've proposed in just the villa home development area. Particularly I'm looking at
the very northern portion, near the villa homes where there are several spaces that are near the
trail and as I walk along the trail I really don't want to come within 3 feet of a car when I'm
walking along the trail. So I'd like to see those removed. Also, on the very southern most part I
see more stalls closest to the proposed Arboretum Boulevard. I guess I don't really like the idea
of having parking there. And then also food for thought about open space. " . right in the middle
of that villa townhouse development, could those slots, parking spaces be removed so that it is a
green space so you don't have to have your picnic table in the midst of a bunch of cars pointing
at you. I think the applicant can work to revise the parking plan. I would hope that the applicant
would do that. Otherwise I guess I see that this has been a long process. A lot of work and
thought has been put into this and really happy to see the developers worked with the neighbors
to make some progress in this area. That's what I have.
Peterson: Thank you. Kevin.
Joyce: Yeah...hats off to Rick. I think he's done a good job with what he has had to work with.
We've had some issues here. The road has worked out better than we had expected originally so
I certainly appreciate the help with that. I'm very happy with the bungalows. I think the
bungalows was a nice idea. I think they're going to be an asset to the neighborhood. The single
family homes once again is an extension of the Windmill Run. Somewhat of an extension to the
Windmill Run so that helped. I would have to echo that, on some of these 12 plexes of the villas
and on the 8 unit plex that to add gab ling to that would help. I would have to respectfully
disagree with some of the commissioners as far as the totlot. I'm not really that much in favor of
the totlot there. I think they're doing a good job with that open space. I'm kind of against half
hearted playgrounds versus maybe something a little more natural. A gazebo would be nice. I
know that there had been considerations of some problems they thought they might encounter
with the gazebo. I can certainly appreciate that. Really the only issue I have left here, through
this long process, and I'm proud to say that I was part of the process because it's really evolved
into something that I, you know I do look, I'm going to be looking out on this so I have a vested
interest in what's going on here. And it's evolved nicely. The only thing that I could say Rick is
that, I'd really like you to look at a little additional landscaping up north by us. I know you're
putting those 10 trees up there. I'm not asking for a complete visual screen up there. I'm just
asking for some landscaping because per our ordinances we're allowed to have a little bit of
landscaping up there so the trees are wonderful but please, and I'm going to suggest a condition
to that. That you look at some additional screening there. And otherwise I think it will work.
Peterson: Bob.
Skubic: .. .on the part of the developer, staff and the residents here, I think it really came along
nice. A couple comments. I tend to favor a totlot too based on my experience. I have kids and
what a neighborhood looks like but I think I really have to consider the developer's expertise on
this. He knows what he's developing these dwellings for so I think he has a better idea of what is
required here. And there will be input from the residents. The prairie grass. I live in a
26
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
neighborhood where the outlots of vegetation gets a real workout from the little kids and I agree
that prairie grass probably won't work to the north and I think it would work much better to the
south. And regarding the buffering. Now technically there should be buffering there a
potentially different from Windmill Run to the north. However that's not the intent of the
ordinance. The intent of the ordinance is to separate areas that have different densities, different
uses. In this case the houses to the south of Windmill Run I hope have the same value. Or same
type and I really don't feel, based on the intent of the ordinance that they should, all the buffering
that we would require between medium density and low density developments.
Peterson: Okay. Thank you Bob. My questions, my comments don't differ that much from my
fellow commissioners. I think that as you presented to the Council, Rick if you can present the
commons area and maybe the gazebo with a little bit more detailing as far as it's potential size
and give them some sense of how big we're talking. A 5 x 5 or a 25 x 25, just to get some sense
really of what impact that will have on the whole development. As it relates to the villa units, I
guess if there's anything that I do have concerns about with the development yet is in that area
and the really imposing size of them from the Highway 5 area south. I mean from a PUD, I think
it all fits. But in a PUD as close to Highway 5 corridor and the work we put into that study, I'm
even more concerned about what is within that corridor and what kind of views you really have
from Highway 5 going into the PUD. So I think anything that we can do to break up those units
on the villas, or that the comments were brought up tonight are germane or whether there's other
things that we can do to break up those into more appealing to the eye versus just the impending
size of the structure, does concern me. And I'm almost hesitant to vote in favor of the rezoning
because of that but the PUD is so strong in and ofitselfI think that that won't be the case tonight.
That I will vote for it but my rationale would be that because it being so close to Highway 5, it
was an issue in my mind. So anything we can do would be beneficial. But I think in many ways
what we're doing is sacrificing that to some degree to get more affordable housing and I respect
that position to some degree. I'd be somewhat concerned about moving the evergreens from that
natural area to the northern area. Again moving around vegetation and when you move those
trees you're opening up those villas to more views from Highway 5 too so you're definitely
taking something away from that area. As it relates to the side entries on the bungalows, and any
of the units that we're talking about tonight, which I think you did a fine job in creating those
unique structures. I think we should put the maximum number of side entries available into the
project to again, to further break it up. And lastly, the comments that I also disagree with one of
my fellow commissioners. Commissioner Sidney where you talked about the off street parking
in those areas. I, from a safety perspective I'd be concerned about removing those. On a
Saturday night if one of those or two of those people have parties, we're talking about a lot of
potential people parking on the street which is I'm sure Public Safety would have a concern with
that so there's a delicate balance there but I'd be careful about removing any. I'm generally a
proponent of, in those high densities, is to be sure we have enough so I'd just be cautious if talk
of removing is going on and what the impact of that would be. So with that, any other questions
or comments before we take a motion? Hearing none, may I have a motion and a second please.
Conrad: I'd make the motion. I think it's two motions. We need two motions here. I'd make
the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the land use map amendment,
amendment #96-2 LUP, amending the northerly 30.14 acres from Residential Low Density to
Residential Medium Density to permit the proposed development known as Walnut Grove.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Peterson: Is there a second?
Blackowiak: Second.
Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of the Land Use Map Amendment #96-2 LUP, amending the northerly 30.14 acres from
Residential-Low Density to Residential-Medium Density to permit the proposed
development known as Walnut Grove. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Peterson: Second motion please.
Conrad: You don't want to do it Kevin?
Joyce: No.
Conrad: Well you're involved. I'll make the motion. The Planning Commission recommends
approval of PUD #96-4 for a mixed density residential development rezoning approximately 50
acres from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Planned Unit Development, Residential PUD-R
with the...
Joyce: I'll second that motion.
Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
PUD #96-4 for a mixed density residential development rezoning approximately 50 acres
from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to Planned Unit Development-Residential, PUD-R.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Peterson: Third motion please.
Joyce: I'll throw this out. The Planning Commission recommends preliminary plat approval for
Walnut Grove subject to conditions, did you add a condition Bob?
Generous: 41.
Joyce: So we're at 42 right now? Okay. With condition number 10, the applicant shall work
with staff to relocate 10 evergreens scheduled to be planted along the boulevard near pond and
Bluff Creek. I'd like to add to the northern property line between Windmill Run and Walnut
Grove. And I'd like to add a condition. Number 43. The applicant present additional screening
to buffer the low density Windmill Run neighborhood and the medium density Walnut Grove
neighborhood.
Conrad: And all the other conditions stand?
Joyce: I'm sorry. Yes they do.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Conrad: Would you take some friendly amendments?
Joyce: Sure.
Conrad: On condition number 1. For the applicant to work with staff to, Bob I'm going to let
you word this but I'd really like to, we heard some recommendations both from the applicant and
maybe, I don't know who else but anyway, I'd like to have the staff review those, the
modifications that the applicant made and make a recommendation to the City Council. On
condition number 4. I'd like to make sure it's clear that the trail can be moved southward or
northward, but for sure out of the drainage area. Condition number 11. I'd want to make sure, I
do believe the applicant has a valid point about where the prairie areas should be and so I would
like as a sentence there to have staff review with the applicant the appropriate areas for the
treating of the prairie grass. Condition number 43. I'd like to have the applicant propose to the
City Council some revision to the villa units on Highway 5.
Joyce: That would be 44.
Conrad: Is that 44? Okay. .. .to the architecture on the villa units facing Highway 5.
Generous: Actually that should be the site plan.
Conrad: Site plan?
Generous: On page 23.
Blackowiak: We're actually looking at four motions, not three.
Conrad: Ah, I'm sorry. Sorry, yeah.
Joyce: Can we revisit that?
Conrad: Yeah. Yeah, let me do that later on. I'm sorry. I will work those in. So the only
comment that I made that is valid is the one on the first one on the site plan where the staff is
reviewing with the applicant the appropriate bungalow homes where the side entries work based
on the applicant's recommendation. Does that make sense Bob? That's the only, sorry Kevin.
That's the only amendment to your motion.
Joyce: Condition 4, you're going to move the trail southward. And so we have 43 conditions
then. Okay.
Peterson: Do you have that Bob?
Generous: I have 43 conditions, yeah.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Joyce moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends preliminary
plat approval for Walnut Grove subject to the following conditions:
1. The dedication ofa public trail easement through the east/west commons area from Highlands
Boulevard east to the property limit. Construction of an 8 ft. asphalt trail within this easement.
The applicant is to be reimbursed for material costs involved in constructing the trail from the
city's trail fund.
2. Payment of full park and trail fees per city ordinance.
3. The development ofa "commons" within the plat.
4. The developer shall relocate the trail northward or southward within the open area, staying
out of the drainage swale area, to expand the gathering space/public space and make a more
useable play area
5. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit to incorporate a transit component
within the development potentially providing land and/or funding assistance for a bus
shelterlbus cut-out.
6. Landscape species must be selected from Big Woods species list in Bluff Creek Management
Plan.
7. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around all trees to be preserved on site prior to
commencing grading activities.
8. The applicant must submit revised landscape species list with corresponding plan.
9 . Vegetation restoration plan for the slope leading down from road to wetland in southwest
comer must be developed.
10. The applicant shall work with staff to relocate 10 evergreen scheduled to be planted along
Boulevard near pond and Bluff Creek to the northern property line between Windmill
Run and Walnut Grove.
11. Incorporate prairie areas in open space south of the traditional single family homes and also
to the north of the four unit villa blocks on the west side of Village Boulevard. The prairie
areas shall have a detailed planting and management plan submitted with the overall
landscaping plan for the development prior to final plat approval. The management plan will
identify responsibility for the areas and outline maintenance practices to be followed during
the establishment period and beyond.
12. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any
building permits.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
13. Submit streets names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior
to final plat approval. Submit proposed street names for private streets 200 feet or more in
length. All private roads and a number of smaller driveway accesses will be required to have
street names. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for which streets will need to be assigned
street names. Street names must be submitted to both Chanhassen Fire Marshal and
Chanhassen Building Official for review and approval. No parking fire lane signs will be
required to be installed on private roads and roads leading to driveway accesses. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Fire
Prevention Policy # 06-1991.
14. Street and utility service shall be extended to the Hennessy's east property line. Drainage and
utility easements shall be dedicated over the utilities. The development's covenants shall
provide cross access easements in favor of the Hennessy parcel for ingress and egress over
the private streets within the development.
15. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan
requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and
formal approval in conjunction with final plat submittal.
16. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each
activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
17. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition
of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and
specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The private
streets shall be constructed to support 7-ton per axle design weight in accordance with the
City Code 20-1118 "design of parking stalls and drive aisles".
18. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and
will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
19. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm
events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance
with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve.
The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed stormwater
calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level
calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer
calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient
catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall
be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
20. The applicant shall enter into a PUD agreement/development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the
development contract.
21. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e.
Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Army COIpS of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and
comply with their conditions of approval.
22. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump
discharge from units not adjacent to ponds or wetlands.
23. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all
utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a
minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of
the ponding areas..
24. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way except landscaping along
the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor Study. The berm
proposed on Lot 18, Block 2 behind Lots 19 and 20 shall be redesigned so it is not situated
over the proposed storm sewer.
25. The lowest floor or opening elevation of all buildings shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the
100-year high water level.
26. Stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10: 1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level
and no more than 3: 1 thereafter or 4: 1 throughout for safety pmposes.
27. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain-tile as directed by the City Engineer.
28. The developer shall expand the conservation easement over Outlot A to include drainage and
utility purposes. This area may also be deeded to the City as an outlot.
29. The applicant shall be given credit for installing the 12-inch trunk watermain from Windmill
Drive to Arboretum Boulevard. The credit shall be for the construction cost difference
between an 8-inch and a 12-inch water line.
30. Direct access to all lots shall be restricted to the interior streets and not onto Galpin
Boulevard or Arboretum Boulevard.
31. The southerly stormwater pond on Outlot A shall be oversized to accommodate runoff from
the future Arboretum Boulevard in addition to the site runoff. SWMP credits will be given
for oversizing this pond.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
32. Final grades adjacent to Arboretum Boulevard will be subject to review and approval of
MnDOT for compatibility with the future widening of Trunk. Highway 5/ Arboretum
Boulevard.
33. The developer shall work with City staff in reducing the encroachment of the retaining wall
into the right-of-way along Walnut Curve (Lot 1, Block 1). If there are no feasible
alternatives the developer shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City.
34. The cul-de-sac proposed to serve Lots 37 through 40, Block 2 shall be redesigned to
accommodate fire truck turning movements.
35. Provide a 1" = 200' scale plan of the subdivision to the Inspections Division showing all streets,
driveways, property lines and building outlines.
36. A 10' clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants
can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance 9-1.
37. No burning permits for trees removed will be issued. Any downed trees will have to be
chipped on site or hauled off site.
38. An additional I to 2 fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
exact location of additional hydrant( s).
39. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant
to Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy # 29-1992. (Copy enclosed).
Additional number ranges will be required on the building ends adjacent to main arterial
roads. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location and size of letters.
40. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for water
protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable
prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Section
10.502.
41. The following setbacks shall be established within the Walnut Grove development:
Lots 1 - 14, Block 1, front 30 ft, rear 30 ft., side 10ft.
Lots I - 3, Block 2, front 30 ft., rear 30 ft., side 10ft.
Lots 4 - 17, Block 2, front 30 ft., rear 25 ft., side 10ft.
Lots 1 - 4, Block 3, front 30 ft., rear 30 feet, side 10 ft.
Setback from Galpin Boulevard: 50 ft.
Setback from Village Boulevard: 30 ft.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
42. Water Quality and Quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The
requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in
accordance with the proscribed land use zoning.
43. The applicant shall provide additional screen between the proposed development and
the existing development to the north."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Peterson: Next motion please.
Joyce: We're going back to site plan?
Peterson: For the townhouses.
Joyce: I'll present that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #96-14 for
168 townhouse units, site plan prepared by Sathre-Berquist dated 4/497 subject to conditions 1
through 4. Number 4 being minor adjustments to the villa homes fronting Highway 5, breaking
up the longation of those homes with possibly gables... etc. Does that work?
Peterson: Is there a second?
Brooks: Second.
Peterson: Any discussion?
Joyce moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site
Plan #96-14 for 168 townhouse units, site plan prepared by Sathre-Berquist dated 4/4/97,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall incorporate side entry garages for the bungalow homes on Lots 19,21,25,
31,43, and 44, Block 2, and Lot 14, Block 3.
2. The applicant shall incorporate three exterior siding selections for the villa townhomes and
four exterior siding selections for the bungalow homes, stamped received April 23, 1997.
3. No two adjacent bungalow homes may have the same elevations and exterior siding
selections.
4. The applicant shall make minor adjustment to Villa homes adjacent to Highway 5 to
increase architectural detail."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
34
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
PRELIMINARY PUD APPROVAL FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
CONSISTING OF OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL USES. SUPPORT COMMERCIAL USES.
AND PARK AND OPEN SPACE: REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE. A2
TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. PUD. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR
12 LOTS. 2 OUTLOTS AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY: WETLAND
AL TERA TION PERMIT TO FILL AND MITIGATE WETLANDS: AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR A 101.600 SO. FT. OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON
PROPOSED LOT 1. BLOCK 3: INTERIM USE PERMIT TO PERMIT SITE GRADING:
ALTERNATE URBAN AREA REVIEW (AUAR) REVIEW AND APPROVAL FOR
GATEWAY ADDITION. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF HIGHWAYS 5 AND 41. GATEWAY PARTNERS. STEINER
DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Bruce Buxton
Rich Wrase
Mark Wentzell
Brainerd, Minnesota
405 Cimarron Circle
A.K. Architects
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Any questions for staff?
Skubic: What do we have in here that would prohibit say a Cub Foods or a Best Buy retail store?
Generous: Under the intent section. Commercial use, retail uses are prohibited except for those
uses specifically...
Skubic: So they're not permitted uses you're saying.
Generous: Yes. They're strictly prohibited.
Skubic: Okay, thank you.
Peterson: Other questions?
Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman. Bob, the institutional square footage minimum. You were advised,
or the applicants said 250,000 is too great. Why did you set it at the 250? Was there a rationale
for 250 versus 100 versus anything?
Generous: No, because basically that was. . .Lot 9, Block 4. That threshold. And if you get
something that large you'd probably get a university, college type. ..potentially research institute.
And we did, this is one of the concerns we want to have a high quality development on that
comer...this, the design criteria...
35
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Peterson: Other questions?
Joyce: Bob, have we thrown out any idea of housing in here then? Is that what we're saying?
Generous: That's correct.
Joyce: So when we talk about support, commercial support here, we're really limited now
because you're only dealing with the people that are there going for their office work and that
kind of stuff.
Generous: Unless a convention center with...
Joyce: Okay. I'm just curious, and I'm not quite understanding this. You said in the report it
says that there's going to be, I'm looking at traffic signals on the north and south road and
Highway 5.
Generous: Yes.
Joyce: So there will be signals there for the traffic going east and west on Highway 5?
Generous: Right. It will be north and south. ..
Joyce: Wow. That's pretty close to Highway 41, isn't it?
Hempel: A quarter mile away.
Joyce: It is a quarter, I guess all right. Okay. Ijust, it would seem like a lot of backing up to me
but if we have a big traffic report so evidently they know what they're talking about. I was just
curious about that though. Okay. Thank you.
Peterson: Bob, why don't you kind of just give us a general update on the Wrase property and
where we're at with those discussions and the access, etc., etc., that was the issue last time.
Generous: The access would be required under... the developer would provide a. . . driveway
access into their property. My understanding from the City Attorney was...
Peterson: I assume we're not close within, before going to Council etc., etc. We're weeks or
months away.
Generous: I don't know exactly...
Peterson: Okay. Other questions of staff.
Blackowiak: I may have missed this but Bob, what happened? What is the progress of the park
negotiations? I know that the Park Commission had talked about acquiring some more of the
36
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
land and since Lot 1 of Block 2 is no longer multi-family, what's happening for that southeast
quadrant?
Generous: They're still negotiating that. It won't be resolved probably until the... There's a
compromise position that we're... Staffs preference is to preserve.. . developer has to have a
developable piece of property... We're getting closer I believe.
Peterson: Would the applicant like to make a presentation? And if so, please come forward and
state your name and address please.
Fred Richter: Good evening. I'm Fred Richter with Steiner Development. With me tonight is
Howard Dahlgren, part of our planning group and John Uban. John Uban will be making the
majority of the presentation regarding the overall PUD issues. And Mark Wentzell, an architect
with Ankeny Kell Architects will talk about the Phase I building and kind of run through the
exterior concept of that and the site plan on that. Just I guess one thing just to lead off and
reiterate what Bob has stated. We've had several work sessions with Council and I think it's fair
to say we've got a line pretty well figured out as to the boundaries in that southeast quadrant.
Approximately someplace in this area which will be an industrial site and... park issue with the
Council with the final resolution of the dedication or purchasing the land. That was a big
issue.. .pretty well focused now. I think with that, John can kind of run you through our
development and then we'll turn it over to Mark Wentzell who will talk about the architecture.
John Uban: Well the last time we were before you we did have a residential component that we
talked about quite a bit and as pointed out, in looking at an enlarged park, now about one-third of
the site is being considered for park, which includes basically the whole easterly one-third of the
property. This in a way changes the character of what we're proposing. It means we are
condensed into a smaller parcel. So what we have left is a set oflots. This is really a plat. It's a
set of lots that we have configured on this property with the north/south street primarily serving
lots, and in exchange an east/west at some future phase, out to Highway 41. So we'll have, when
we end up maybe 90 acres of developable land. 100. In that neighborhood that can be
developed. In addition, the Wrase property has already been discussed.. . going to be included in
with the development by virtue of an easement or driveway access that would get into.. . site so
they don't have to have direct access to Highway 41. And that will be integrated in with the site
plan through Lot 1. So that that is all tied together. A condition we anticipate a water tower site
there. On the perimeter, we're talking about enhanced setbacks that are part of the Highway 5
corridor treatment. We talked about a lot of landscaping. Almost a wall of landscaping, and I
will show you that plan. And the interior is then different. The interior is treated differently to
accommodate these buildings and each one of the sites is graded to it's own separate plateau and
between the sites we have these terraces that create a backdrop for each of the buildings, and
that's what I'll focus on before we get into the architecture. This drawing, once again, here's
Highway 5. Here's Highway 41. 82nd Street comes across to about here and then turns to the
south. Everything colored in here is the proposed park area. North/south road up to Highway 5
where there will be a full intersection. The traffic study has indicated that this is absolutely
necessary. In order to have an industrial park here, we have to have this intersection signalized
so that it works. Otherwise it's not an industrial site. Coulter Boulevard is still being considered
by the City, whether or not it should go in or shouldn't go in. The traffic study said that this will
37
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
operate equally well with or without this road in place so that is still a future decision. Obviously
it allows for more parkland to be usable if that road isn't built. The road over to Highway 41 is
one of our last phases of development and in that we would anticipate that Highway 41 will be
improved. Lowered to minimize the grading.. .tie into that. The grading on the site anticipates
these changes that will take place when Highway 41 and Highway 5 are developed. And we will,
after our first phase, create a second phase grading plan that precisely shows the cuts and fills and
quantities which are hard to do at this point. We have talked about some of the things with staff
that Bob brought up and we will continue to work with staff to kind of fine tune some of these
elements, like the land use where we would like to have a bank or financial institution. That's an
important part of a good service base for business and the same with servicing automobiles,
restaurants, these sorts of things. There is a significant industrial base to the south in Chaska that
they, themselves do not have good services. So we find this to be an appropriate place to
accommodate services that are... We are not anticipating a large institutional use, at least
initially. It would probably be unusual, a I in 10 sort of chance that something of a huge
magnitude would come along but we think a smaller number would work and would work well
within the park without really over burdening the tax base scenario for the development. I think
the important thing really to consider then is our landscape plan and our signage and what we're
proposing to do. We have illustrated here, and you can see it in different colors, a naturalized, re-
establishment of the terraced slopes throughout the development. These basic areas create the
grade changes between each individual lot and are fully naturalized. That means an extensive
planting of trees, native turf, flowers, everything so we kind of return some of the natural terrain
that is now under cultivation back to it's original form. And then all along the perimeter with a
gateway landscape feature at the comer of Highway 41 and 5, this is all planted in as well with
both evergreen and overstory trees. With the landscaping we're trying to blend into the road
system the landscape. Not just put up sort ofa wall of trees, but let's spread it out a little bit and
make it look more natural, which two things have to be done and we need the flexibility to do it.
One is to be able to plant in right-of-ways so that the trees or shrubs can blend closer to the street
surface. And the other is to have a variety of sizes of plant material. Instead of everything being
6 foot or 8 foot tall, or something, that we have a variety so it really looks like a naturalized
planting. So these are the details we'll present as we bring each individual development to you.
So by planting in the right-of-way it tends to give a visual narrowing of the streets, which calms
traffic and really I believe makes a much more attractive development. We have over 400 trees,
just trees alone. Lots of shrubs, just in this perimeter planting and the terracing. Each site will
have it's own landscape in addition so there's quite a bit to be planted for the site. We have
coordinated lighting. The signage, we're asking for signage larger than what has been talked
about with city staff. But primarily at the entrances of the three main entrances in which we
really need a gateway monument that expresses that this is an important site. And understanding
that the perimeter is going to be heavily landscaped, there won't be these immediate views into
the site itself. So what we have is a presence that needs to be expressed at the entrances.
Tastefully done. And we have right here as an example of the type of sign age that we're
proposing. Some nice stone, boulder, masonry work with a logo and the name of the park placed
on there. That's important. That's an important part of developing a high quality park that has
that type of signage. And we're just asking for subtle increases. A few feet in height. The
ability to have finials or caps come off the monuments that might be higher yet. An exact design
will be before you when we're ready to build it. These types offlexibilities where we hope you
understand and present to you this evening. In addition, tying into the overall site will be a pond.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
All the water quality issues are being addressed in the engineering. Traffic has been studied. An
indirect source permit is being processed. We have over 2,000 potential parking stalls here. We
don't know for sure but since the potential is there, we're processing an indirect source permit
and because we have over 500,000 square feet of potential building on the site, we are also doing
an alternative urban area review, which is an alternate way of doing the environmental review
when you have an excellent comprehensive plan and when you have excellent ordinances that
control many of the things that are ofa concern in an environmental review. You already have
much of that in place so that process merely meets the criteria and the law and expresses all of
those concerns in that document. That is presently being published and being distributed to all
the agencies for review. .. . show you the type of building. This is an interior building. Not a
building seen from the perimeter, so it's inside the park building. Industrial building and will
show the architecture and treatment of that structure.
Fred Richter: Mark is going to be showing you.. .you'll see more green space which is indicative
of the 70% maximum coverage. From our. . . standpoint, we're open up the development, Phase 1
in '97 and '98 of 82nd Street. So this would be Phase 1 and possibly the comer of Lot 2. And
then we go over here. '99 to 2000 is the potential for this lot here and possibly these. Then when
a full intersection opens up, and we've talked with staff, the comer lot, the larger lot. The one
that actually is anticipated to be a little different than what Mark will be showing in that we're
guiding this one to a kind of corporate user. A high tech manufacturing. One that's going to be a
multi-story building and more green space. Another just clarification. In the commercial, guided
commercial and this is also so what Mark will be showing you probably will be indicative of this
area here, which is the primarily industrial, multi-tenant or end user building with these being
guided a little bit differently. Mark.
Mark Wentzell: Thank you Fred. This is the site plan for that first building that Fred just
mentioned. 82nd Street and then the proposed north/south road. It's approximately a 10 acre
parcel with one building placed in the center of which. . . the first tenant coming into this section
and future tenants later so it becomes a modular kind of building layout. We have two entries to
the site. One off of 82nd, which is a truck traffic entry and then more parking for an entrance off
of the north/south road. Parking is related along the edge of the site. Along the front and
forward boundary of the site where the monument sign... The building is approximately 645 feet
by l60...service yard in the back with some additional employee parking... Also there's a
proposed future expansion of the building shown right here. . . parking and surface area here for
the loading dock. This is a computer generated perspective of the building. It shows the massing
and scale of the building. This is a view, this is the southeast comer of the building right here. It
shows a typical entry... that comer. They're repeated then along the building at regular intervals
so they can be subdivided for tenants. The idea behind each entry, which is a significant feature
of the building, is there a recessed entry rather than a projected entry. It keeps the, I think the
massing of the building more consistent and here's an opportunity to create a shelter entryway
around here. We have some grillwork and some changing colors.. .that you'll see in the
coloration I'll show you in a just a moment. So this is generally this large kind of feature right
here and the building matches the scale of the structure. The multi-tenant building... the street
faces the building. Parking is right out here and then the back yard across here is where the
service area is. This area through here would be...is the embankment up to the next site, the sort
of terraced area. That will be covered again with the native grasses and heavily landscaped. . .
39
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
This will explain a little more about the materials and coloration of the building. Since this is a
pre-cast concrete building with insulated wall panels and metal structure within. It's an efficient,
long lasting building system. To give the building character we wanted to look at both scales. At
the small human scale and also to scale the entrance canopies and the entry features to the scale
of the building. So we have a series of entries along here. Some will be actual entries for a
particular tenant. Some will be just recesses to modulate the facade if a tenant doesn't need this
additional entry space. So we're showing here five entries and three kind of just regulated
appearing like entrances. Again we've painted these in sort of a shades of earth tone. We started
out with the lower portion of the building with a light beige color and then above that a warm
gray band. And then a little lighter, an off white kind of color and then a gray cap give
dimension to the height of the building and... And then most of the features...sort ofa warm
ochre brown color to identify those entries and to give them the prominence. We then recess that
entry and side. The sense of shadow will help identify the entries and also protect them and then
an ornamental grillwork is in there to add some detail. I have here a photograph of a similar
building, if you can see that very well. But again it's somewhat.. . concept with the recessed entry
here and this dark area here looks somewhat brighter color and then the ornamental grillwork
gives that some enthusiasm right at the entryway. This is again a painted, pre-cast building.
Similar to the materials that would be used on this building.
Peterson: Would you pass that around, if you would.
Mark Wentzell: The back side of the building, the loading dock side is painted in the same
coloration with a single.. .cap across the top and then the lower.. .loading docks will be painted to
match and then the back is painted with the offwhite color. A little bit simpler than the front,
and again this is the north side that is the future expansion and this is the south elevation with
this entry actually being from the southeast. And this is the major one across three sides facing
the proposed north/south road. And I think that completes my explanation of it. Yes.
Peterson: If you would, just a few questions. We talked about the colored material and the
banding. Do you have any of that with or have you met with staff to let them review the types of
materials that you're going to be using? When you say paint it scares me.
Mark Wentzell: Well it's a cementitious paint product made for painting concrete. It's not
house paint but it is in any color imaginable because it is a paint product. It's not an aggregate or
an actual concrete product. I think there's several reasons for that. One, you get more consistent
color than you do if you're trying to use a natural concrete product. We have a greater variety of
color and we have the ability to put color on the building where we want it rather than as a pre-
cast panel which are made in 8 foot wide segments by the height of the building and you have to
pretty much stick with the color of that panel. So it's a little more flexibility. I think if you see
these photographs, the ability to get nice, warm colors. Kind of natural colors is quite. .. We can
provide the actual paint samples of the colors.
Fred Richter: One addition, in the pre-cast technology, this is a lot of reveals are put into the pre-
cast panels so as you talk about a color change, there is an architectural real crisp reveal that
starts to highlight, as you can see in that picture so this gives legitimacy to the color change. It's
really a way to take and develop a larger building and get it.. .like a day like today when you get a
40
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
lot of moisture, the exposed aggregate starts to modulate in color lots... Something that actually
allows in 10 years, whatever to update the color. To freshen up. . .W e think this is a state of the
art, something we're seeing from the pre-cast companies that have it in other industrial
markets. ..
Peterson: So as far as longevity of the paint itself.
Mark Wentzell: It's significantly different than the old days of putting let's say like a latex paint
on a concrete wall. This is not that kind of system. This is, it's not going to flake or peel or
blister off.
Peterson: It's just going to fade.
Mark Wentzell: It will fade like any paint, particularly bright colors will fade, and it will have to
be repainted sometime in the future but you're getting very long lead times. At least a 10 year
cycle now on these paints. I think maybe even 15. As a matter of fact a lot of these have never
been repainted. And it's consistent with the buildings that you see to the south. The what,
Flouroware building and.
Fred Richter: All the...!' d say the majority ofthose are painted with... This technique, with the
architectural reviews.. . actually a little more sophisticated...
Peterson: The ones with the dark blue is what you're talking of?
Fred Richter: ... the older buildings, some of them are just standard concrete panels. Some of
them are exposed aggregate. Some of them have painted stripes. Some of them have a masonry
band.
Mark Wentzell: You can see in those pictures how the reveal system works where it's not just a
paint line but an actual reveal where the paint colors change. That will be done here.
Joyce: I have another question here. In your development standards, item 11 of the building
materials and design. It says each building should contain one or more pitched roof elements.
How is that incorporated?
Fred Richter: We talked with staff, maybe Bob you want to answer how you define a pitched
element.
Generous: Well it varies. In this specific site plan...entryway with the grill system and
coloring... pitched roof element. The Byerly's went with the vault system. You know it varies.
.. .on Dell Road and Highway 5, they did those... Something that ties it in with the rest of the
community but gives it it's own...
Joyce: I'm obviously thinking more of.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Fred Richter: Yeah, the roof. I think when we talked to staff today, the.. .might be generalized.
It isn't literally a pitch but to achieve the objective of giving the building entry identity, scale,
spatial modulation of the long walls. That type of thing.
Joyce: Okay. I don't know if this is the right time to ask this question but we have all the, you
said there was going to be some parking back behind this building?
Mark Wentzell: Yes. ... parallel parking.
Joyce: Okay. What kind of tenants, is this a warehouse type of situation or what? Is this office
and warehouse or?
Fred Richter: The anchor tenant... they're a 70,000 square feet facility. 12,000 offices. They're
a direct mail marketing firm. So they would have not only their purchasing, front offices,
catalog, publishing, that would be in the 12,000 square feet. Then the rest of it would be
basically distribution. . .
Joyce: So 10% of the building is for office and 90% is for warehouse.
Fred Richter: Yeah. That is the anchor tenant. . .12 over 70.
Joyce: Or 12 over 70, I'm sorry. Okay, that's 15-20%.
Fred Richter: The remainder of the building, roughly 30,000, we would probably estimate
probably 20% for office. It varies. We've had buildings right now very similar dimensions and
all that, our first tenant is 50% build-up. In other words, 50% office. And in this... The overall,
a facility like this probably 20%.
Joyce: The thing I'm leading up to then I guess is, I believe we have to address something in the
parking with the islands, the landscape islands and things like that and I'm just, with that it seems
like a lot of parking to me and I just, I hate a building surrounded by parking. So how are you
going to address those situations?
Fred Richter: I think the islands, Mark did you want to address that.
Mark Wentzell: We had. . . that comment and I forget exactly. .. Our thought is that because
there's...repeated row of parking. You know aisle after aisle, that you get the parkiilg lot heavily
surrounded by greenery, just one aisle deep so that putting an island here really doesn't add a
lot... If it was a double row or you know three rows deep, then the islands do a lot more for the
parking lot to break up the asphalt.
Fred Richter: Ifwe can work it out with staff. ..other communities it's pretty common. What
happens here is if you get more greenery in the parking, you obviously reduce your parking.. .so
I think there has to be a balance.. .pretty close to landscape.
Joyce: Thank you.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Peterson: This is a public hearing. I'd like to hear a motion to open up the meeting to a public
hearing and a second please.
Joyce moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come forward and state
your name and address please. Seeing none, may I hear a motion to close the public hearing, and
a second.
Joyce moved, Skubic seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Commissioners. Bob, would you share your comments please.
Skubic: Well I don't have a great deal to say about this. I do have a question of Dave. We
typically don't allow landscaping trees in the right-of-way. What are the implications of doing
so?
Hempel: Typically we don't. Or we have in some residential communities where the
homeowners association that maintains them. They enter into what's called an encroachment
agreement which spells out maintenance responsibilities and if they fail to do it. .. we're not
responsible for damage or maintenance in the right-of-way. This particular subdivision does
have a very wide right-of-way. 80 foot wide right-of-way...areas will be 36 feet
wide. ..additional turn lanes so there may be some opportunity here to utilize some of that right-
of-way area for landscaping. Typically on a collector type street, Coulter Boulevard for instance,
we would have a streetscape plan where we will plant boulevard trees.. .with the city project.
. . .open for ideas for landscaping.
Skubic: Okay, thank you. Regarding the institutional square footage. I don't have a strong
feeling on that. I guess 250,000 square feet is prohibitive, I would consider a reduction. I don't
know what to what. I think I need more convincing on that and more background. Just a couple
details. The building is a little bit plain, especially on the south side and it fronts 82nd Street.
There's no windows on the south side. I think it needs to have some architectural features on that
side. We typically get some materials in here to look at. I certainly don't expect you to bring in
an 8 foot by 20 foot pre-cast slab but we like to look at materials to see what they're like. I don't
have anything else to add.
Peterson: Kevin.
Joyce: I have a couple questions and Bob, maybe you can help me out on this. What do we
have, six motions here? Is that what we're looking at?
Generous: Five.
Joyce: Five, okay. The second motion is for the actual PUD, and I'm sorting through here. Is
there, in the conditions something about signage?
43
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Generous: That would be the design standards. Once this is final.
Joyce: Then we go into those conditions? Okay, that explains that for me, thank you. All right,
because we just went through that signage business with the 8 inches. I didn't want to do that
tonight for sure. I suppose that will also incorporate the multi-story possibility on Lot 5 and that
kind of thing. Is that?
Generous: Yes.
Joyce: Okay. All right. As far as the Heartland America, I guess I didn't ask the question about
condition 7. There was a request for increased evergreen plantings. Has that been taken care of?
Is that in the presentation? Did they increase those?
Generous: No they haven't.
Joyce: They have not?
Fred Richter: We have to, once we figure out. . .
Joyce: All right. Okay. It's a huge development and in some ways it's nice to have one
developer. I think that's a plus but then it can be a minus too. I hope it's not a cookie cutter type
of situation either, but since we'll be looking at each site plan it doesn't sound like it's going to
be. As far as the banking facilities, or I think there was a question to whether that would be an
allowable usage. I think that's a good usage. That's my feeling on that. Thank you very much
for this. This is very nice and helpful. I like being able to, when it's reduced and you can look at
these things. I will have to agree with Bob though, once you go to City Council, it'd probably be
good to have some samples of materials and stuff like that so, I mean I think you are aware of
that. Otherwise, I'm pretty satisfied with it.
Peterson: Good, thanks. LuAnn.
Sidney: I'm pretty satisfied as well and I guess I have one comment about architectural details on
the building. Personally I'm not a great fan of the metal grid or that kind of design element
above the door and I guess I would like to see some other options for the design of the building if
possible. That's all I had.
Peterson: Ladd.
Conrad: This is an interesting review meeting. I think City Council did a real nice job. I
attended their meeting when they talked about this project. We don't have their notes. Their
Minutes. I think that would have been real helpful to have seen their Minutes because I thought
they gave some direction to the developer and we don't have privy to that. So you don't know if
we're meeting what their requirements are or not. Just one comment. I think Bob, we've just got
to, when the Council gives real clear direction to the developer, we've got to see it. We do.
They had some insightful things and I think they were very positive. I thought it was a really
44
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
good interchange between the developer and Council. I guess it's such a big project, I guess we
lose sight of the fact that we're looking at a PUD first and then there's some other stuff that's
going to happen but we now merged the two and I think it's really overall, I think it's easy to
water this down and... I don't have many comments on the PUD. I think it's moved in the right
direction. I think the developer's doing a good job. I think the staff report, from what I can tell,
is on the money but that's just a guess because I didn't take the notes from the City Council
meeting but, and I'm going to make, I want to make, I think we should approve the PUD tonight.
Secondary, the other item before us, I'm the last person on this commission that gets involved in
architecture but I didn't, and maybe it's our new way of presenting things. But I can't relate at all
to what I saw tonight. We always have building materials here and I don't, I'm not even the one
that wants it, you know. I'm pretty much the one that would let developers do their thing and
staff reviews it and makes it fit. But I couldn't relate to what was presented tonight. And it may
be the presentation. It may be the materials. I know I need a better front elevation so I can relate
to what it is. I couldn't let that go through. It doesn't mean I'm against it. It just wasn't what we
typically see. Back to the big picture, the PUD for Gateway. The only thing that I see, and I
think the staff report is good. I made one note and the only note dealt with sidewalks. Are there
any? We probably connect to a trail but in an industrial like this, do we have sidewalks?
Generous: We will on the north/south boulevard.
Conrad: Do I know that? It's in the subdivision.
Generous: And under the design standards we have...
Conrad: And how do I know that?
Generous: On page 13. We typic all y say sidewalk or pedestrian access or some type of. . .
Conrad: So we have a master thinking. What I don't want to do is piecemeal it. There's, that's
okay. Well, is there a master plan for connectivity for sidewalks in an industrial park like this?
John Uban: The problem is it's hard to see on your television I think but we have indicated all
along here, the north/south, east/west if that takes place. It also shows a trail in here. It also
shows Highway 5, Highway 41 and the same for 82nd Street. So we have a big loop this way.
We're connecting into the park north/south and then the trail along the State Highway... We're
also proposing that, we'd like. . . between the curb and trail.
Conrad: Thanks. And Bob you started the presentation with a whole series of questions and I
don't know that we've really provided any direction yet. One, I can't remember what you said.
And I think at the bare minimum we should get out with at least giving you some direction on
that so as it goes to City Council they have, you know they have some direction. Well, as we end
talking about it, I think we have to address the issues that you brought up. If they were the
developer's issues or your issues. Bottom line, the site plan's fine with me. Looks good. It's
where...it looks good to me. I like it. ...the building that's presented. I don't know. I'll listen to
others. I haven't heard any critical comments so if somebody else makes the motion, that may fly
through. I just, again it may be the new format of presentation here but I think we should have
45
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
materials. We should have a pretty good front elevation rendering. And I didn't see that tonight.
And I guess the bottom line is, the architectural detail, I think as LuAnn said, makes me a little
bit nervous. I'm not, pre-cast is fine. We haven't ruled it out. It just wasn't up to what we had
been seeing from almost every other developer that's been in here in the last year.
Peterson: Allyson.
Brooks: I'm going to start with the traffic. I think I was really surprised to see that SRF could
ever put any kind of an assumption in their report that Trunk Highway 5 would ever be six lanes.
I think that is appalling. I can't believe that they could think that TH 41 would be four lanes.
The transportation system plan has been out in draft form with the Metro Division for almost a
year. They've had every access to it. There is no excuse for SRF to come in and do a traffic
report saying that Highway 5 could ever be six lanes. You know we were talking before about a
traffic report was done for another development you know and everything's fine. Well when I
see this, I question the traffic reports. This is not fine. This is completely out of the realm of
reality. And I think that you know again this development, and there's nothing that I suppose can
really be done. It's really going to put a lot of pressure on Trunk Highway 5. It's not going to
make it six lanes. It's just going to make a lot of traffic. I agree with the Parks and Recreation
Commission of their preference that the boulevard not be extended through the park preserve. I
think it would be nice to just leave it as it is. As for the Wrase property, I think I discussed
before, I believe that building is 19th Century building. Didn't we discuss that the last time it
came forward? 1880? Right. I would like to see something that if that property ever goes away
as part of the development, there is some mitigation done for the historical record. You know
whether we move the building or we don't move the building, take into consideration that we are
removing a piece ofChanhassen's history and we do something to mitigate that damage. Finally,
as for the building that Ladd was talking about. I found the building to be quite ugly. I don't like
the pre-cast building. I think they have no class. They have no style and they have no
individuality. They look like anywhere. There was nothing attractive or special about either of
those buildings that passed in front of me, and maybe as Ladd said you know, if we saw the
materials it might be different but just from the photographs, I thought they were particularly
ugly and I thought even the loading dock area, I realize nobody sees it but it's still pretty poor to
look at. Aesthetically, it was not a very nice building. And other than that, the development as a
whole I have nothing against but those are some of the issues that I came up with but that traffic
study is really alarming. I'm sorry Dave. To have SRF come in with six lanes is amazing.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that a little bit. We, staff does have concerns with
a lot of the assumptions in the traffic report. We reviewed it in about a couple of hours but we
have a lot of questions to go back with to SRF.
Peterson: Okay, thanks.
Brooks: Thank you.
Peterson: Alison.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Blackowiak: I too agree that overall I like the PUD. I'm personally glad the residential
component is out of it because I didn't really feel that that ever fit into it so I'm glad to see that's
not a part of that anymore. Regarding Coulter Boulevard, I too would prefer that that not be
extended through the parkland. Not only do you have a nice, you know Outlots A and B.
You've got the wetlands and the park area. You also have the O'Shaughnessy property
immediately to the east which is I think just a wonderful opportunity to leave an area untouched.
We do have residential to the southeast of this and that would just be a nice chance because if we
put the street in, we're just going to have lots of traffic going through this park very quickly and
that's a fact. And regardless of what happens on TH 5 or TH 41, it would be nice if we didn't
have to put the Coulter Boulevard extension through this parkland as well as through the
O'Shaughnessy property. The Heartland building, I wouldn't go quite so far as Allyson but I was
rather uninspired. Like she said, it's everything else. I mean we see this building everywhere.
We've talked about PUD's and how they need to show us something a little bit more. A little bit
extra. We've got, we want to see a little bit more in design standards as I understand the PUD
ordinance and I didn't see it there. I would like to see that again. I would like Heartland to come
back and show us the materials like Ladd said. Show us something a little bit more inspiring. A
little more interesting maybe than your run of the mill industrial building that you can see on any
area in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area so that's basically it.
Peterson: Okay. I think we have a diverse opinions tonight. I think there's a consistent theme
however on the PUD, as my thoughts parallel that. I think the idea presented tonight and the
uniqueness of a terracing is going to be a tremendous asset to the community and give a generally
unique feel. I agree with the other comments. I think one of the things missing, as I was talking
to staff today that I had a difficult time with regarding the Heartland building itself was, is that
we didn't have renderings of the building really before that were of the scale that you can get a
sense. I don't remember what scale it was. It was relatively small where we really didn't get a
sense of really what the building was going to look like. We had the top views and the parking
lot views but as far as the side and front and rear rendering to the building, they're really small
and hard to get a feel for what we're really experiencing. I think it is necessary for us to make an
informed recommendation to Council that we see that again. See the building and see the styling
of it more than what was presented tonight. I was squinting at the monitor tonight on the pencil
drawing to kind of get a sense of really what I was looking at. I really couldn't get that from the
pencil drawing. Bob made a comment earlier that I think the south side of the building clearly
needs some more architectural lines. I think that to me is at a minimum and I'd like to refrain
from making further comments on the front until I really get a feel for it and right now I don't.
We had done some very nice things with those building materials around town and I'm not
saying that this isn't there yet but again I don't know, and I can't make a recommendation up to
Council until we see a little bit more of it so. That's the extent of my comments. Do I hear a
motion? We have five so.
j ,I
Blackowiak: Well I'll start with an easy one. I move that the Planning Commission
recommends approval of the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate, A2 to Planned
Unit Development, PUD.
Joyce: I'll second that.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Blackowiak moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate, A2 to Planned Unit Development,
PUD. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Joyce: I'll take my turn. The Planning Commission recommends preliminary approval ofPUD
#92-6 for an office industrial business park and preliminary plat approval for 12 lots, two outlots
and associated right-of-way subject to conditions I through 29.
Peterson: Second?
Blackowiak: I'll second that.
Joyce moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
preliminary approval of PUD #92-6 for an office/industrial business park and preliminary
plat approval for 12 lots, two outlots and associated right-of-way subject to the following
conditions:
L The developer will be responsible for surface water management fees pursuant to ordinance.
Staffhas estimated the water quality fees at $528,255 and water quantity fees of$497,127.
Water quality credits will be given for the creation of on-site water quality ponds meeting
NURP standards in accordance with the SWMP. Water quantity credits will also be given
for payment of assessments and/or construction of trunk storm sewer lines. Final SWMP
fees will be determined upon review of the final grading, drainage and construction plans
with each phase of the project. Surface water management fees are only applicable to the
lots being platted and not outlots.
2. The developer shall supply the City with an overall phasing plan of the grading including
the amount of earthwork involved in each phase.
3. The grading plan shall be revised to incorporate the following items:
a) Lot I, Block I shall be revised to accommodate for a drive access over the easterly 40 feet
of Lot I, Block I to service the Wrase property.
b) The proposed storm water pond at the northeast comer of 82nd Street West and the
north/south street shall be reconfigured into a more north/south configuration to minimize
tree loss and preserve natural slopes adjacent to the wetlands.
c) The north/south street between Coulter Boulevard and the cul-de-sac street shall be
realigned 50 to 75 feet westerly to reduce wetland impacts and give slope relief along the
east side of the north/south street adjacent to the wetland/park property.
d) MnDOT's review comments shall be incorporated into the final grading and development
plan.
48
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
e) The grading plan may need to be revised to insure predeveloped runoff rates are being
maintained to Wetland C.
4. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be conditioned upon the City Council ordering
public improvement project No. 97-1. Without the project, preliminary plat and/or final
plat shall be void.
5. The developer should be responsible for extending sanitary sewer service to the Wrase
parcel which lies directly north of Lot 1, Block 1 as a part of the overall site improvements
with Phase 1.
6. Depending on the amount of sanitary sewer discharge from Lot 3, Block 1, Lots 1 and 2,
Block 1 may not be able to develop until Lot 3 is connected to permanent sewer facilities.
7. The installation of a temporary traffic signal and/or auxiliary turn lanes at the intersection of
82nd Street West and Trunk Highway 41 is required with Phase I development. The
developer shall be responsible for a share of the local cost participation of this traffic signal
on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in
relation to the total traffic volume on 82nd Street West. The developer shall also be
responsible for future costs associated with the local share of the traffic signal to be installed
at the north/south road at Trunk Highway 5. Financial security to guarantee the installation
of these traffic improvements will be required from the developer in the form of a letter of
credit or cash escrow.
8. The street right-of-way width adjacent to Lot 4, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3 shall be
expanded to 100 feet wide to accommodate future turn lanes.
9. The east/west street will be restricted to a right-inlright-out only at Trunk Highway 41. All
lots shall access onto interior streets and not Trunk Highways 41 or 5.
10. All public streets and utilities constructed by the developer shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
Detailed construction plans and specifications for the developer-installed public streets and
utilities constructed by the developer will be required in conjunction with final platting for
staff review and City Council approval.
11. The developer shall be required to enter into a PUD AgreementlDevelopment Contract with
the City and provide a financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to
guarantee site improvements.
12. The developer shall be responsible for the installation or costs associated with the
installation of street lights. The City's standard street light along industrial/collector-type
streets are 25-foot high corten steel street lights. Location of the street lights will be
determined upon review of the final construction drawings.
49
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
13. Type ill erosion control fencing will be required adjacent to wetland areas. Additional
erosion control fence may be necessary at the toe of steep slope areas and adjacent to storm
water ponds after the grading has been completed.
14. The storm water ponds and/or temporary detention ponds shall be constructed in the initial
grading phase to minimize erosion off-site. Erosion control blankets will be required on all
slopes greater than 3: 1. Revegetation of the exposed slopes shall occur immediately after
grading is completed.
IS. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod after completion of each activity in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
16. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland
ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and
will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
17. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-
developed stormwater calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and normal
water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or
creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also
be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water
quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
18. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and
comply with their conditions of approval.
19. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations.
20. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all
utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a
minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance
of the ponding areas..
21. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way except landscaping
along the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor Study.
22. The lowest floor or opening elevation of all buildings shall be a minimum of 2 feet above
the 1 OO-year high water level.
50
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
23. Stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10: 1 for the first ten feet at the normal water
level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes.
24. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain-tile as directed by the City Engineer.
25. Final grades adjacent to Trunk Highways 41 and 5 will be subject to review and approval
ofMnDOT for compatibility with the future widening of Trunk Highway 5.
26. Increase landscape plantings to include 400 trees in addition to buffer yard plantings and
individual site plan landscaping.
27. A 10' clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1.
28. Submit street names to Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen Building Official for
review and approval.
29. Existing structures on the property which may be demolished require a demolition permit.
proof of septic and well systems that are abandoned are required.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Peterson: Next motion please.
Sidney: I'll make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland
Alteration Permit for Gateway Business Park subject to the conditions of preliminary pun #92-6
approval.
Peterson: Second?
Skubic: Second.
Sidney moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Wetland Alteration Permit for Gateway Business Park subject to the conditions of
preliminary pun #92-6 approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Peterson: Next motion.
Skubic: I'll recommend that the Planning Commission recommend tabling of Site Plan #97-6 to
allow the applicant to improve the presentation and the architecture of the building. To take
another look at that.
Brooks: I second.
51
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Fred Richter: Just a question of staff. One, we're nervous about our schedule. Would it be
possible if we had. . . overall, the notion of pre-cast, the coating. If we come back with larger
renderings, and even have some options on some of the colors.. .basic industrial concept...
address the details of this. Again the Planning Commission and come back. .. I think the
comments I heard were one of not really understanding this. We apologize for that. We should
have had larger elevations. Materials is kind of tough since it is a piece of pre-cast. . . that we
showed you in that photograph. The idea of the reveal over on the openings is just kind of the
basic concept that has various elements...several different options on that. The basic concept...
600 feet long. And Bob, I guess I'm asking you also, schedule wise. If it gets tabled, we Can
come back when. . . ?
Peterson: We can take it in two weeks so it would be the following Council meeting. We're not
talking major delay.
Fred Richter: I have no problem with the comments, if! understand you right. I'm reading that
it's a matter of detailing more and maybe looking at some options and carrying our concept out a
little more...
Peterson: Yeah, I think the sense, the general sense is this is the first building of what you're
presenting and what we consider to be a fine development so we're taking maybe even extra care
with the first building sets the tone quite often to the rest of the development so, and what we're
saying is we haven't got a feel for what that tone is yet. Further discussion to the motion at hand.
Conrad: Could I make a comment, just so. Yeah, I think part of it was presentation because we
can't even tell. I don't have a problem with the 600 feet but it looked pretty boring. So when we
say we couldn't tell, that's the truth. We couldn't tell because we couldn't see. But there's a
feeling inside that you haven't broken up 600 feet very well and we've done that in Chanhassen
almost every building. We're breaking, not, we don't want two 300's. The 600 is okay but
we're looking for those design elements that can help break up that monotony of that long span
of space and I didn't see it in what I saw so, there's some surface stuff and then maybe there's
some depth behind it that I just want to be sure right now.
Peterson: Any further discussion to Bob's motion to table?
Skubie moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission table Site Plan #97-6 for
Heartland America. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Dahlgren: Mr. Chairman, a point of timing. Are we talking about tabling from two weeks from
now?
Peterson: Work with staff on that but I think that was the plan. Is that the final motion? There's
one more.
Brooks: I move the Planning Commission recommends approval ofInterim Use Permit #97-1
for Gateway West Planned Unit Development site subject to conditions 1 through 15.
52
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Peterson: Second?
Skubic: I'll second it.
Brooks moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Interim Use Permit #97-1 for Gateway West Planned Unit Development site, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide the city with a letter of credit in the amount to be determined
by the City Engineer based on earthwork quantities, maintenance of erosion control
measures and site restoration.
2. The applicant shall pay the city a grading permit fee as required by the Uniform Building
Code and pay for all city staff and attorney time used to monitor and inspect the grading
operation. The inspection fees shall be computed at a rate of$30 per hour per person.
3. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of the watershed
district.
4. The applicant shall work with City staff in revising the proposed grading plan to an
acceptable stormwater management plan in accordance with the City's Surface Water
Management Plan. Since the stormwater management plan for the subdivision has not
been fully approved, the applicant's engineer shall provide an interim storm drainage and
erosion control plan including but not limited to construction of temporary sediment
basins in accordance with the City Best Management Practice Handbook in an effort to
minimize erosion off the site.
5. Upon completion of the site grading, the applicant's engineer shall supply the City with a
letter certifying that the grading has been completed in compliance with the proposed
plan.
6. All site restoration and erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook. The applicant's engineer is encouraged to pursue
acquisition of this handbook and to employ these said practices. A stockpile must be
provided for the topsoil which will be respread on the site as soon as the excavation and
site grading is completed. Topsoil and disc-mulched seeding shall be implemented
immediately following the completion of the graded areas unless the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook dictates otherwise.
7. Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to.exceed Minnesota PCA or EPA
regulations. If the City determined that there is a problem warranting testing, such tests
shall be paid for by the applicant.
53
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
8. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and no
work on national holidays or Sundays. Hours of operation on Saturdays are limited to
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Ifcomplaints from residents are logged with city staff regarding
Saturday operation, the hours shall be reviewed by the City Council.
9. The applicant shall construct and maintain gravel construction entrances during the
grading operation.
10. All erosion control measures shall be installed prior to commencement of grading
operations and be maintained until all disturbed areas have been fully restored. The
applicant shall also be responsible for removal of all erosion control measures upon
completion of site grading. The city engineer will determine the appropriate time and
authorize the applicant to remove the erosion control measures.
II. The applicant shall notify the city engineer of all drainage tiles encountered during site
grading. The city engineer shall determine the appropriate abandonment or rerouting of
all existing draintile systems.
12. Additional Type I erosion control fence shall be used along the north perimeter of the site.
Erosion control fence surrounding the wetlands shall be the City's Type III version.
13. This grading permit approval is conditioned upon the City authorizing public
improvement project No. 97-1 to extend trunk utility service to the site.
14. The grading permit shall be conditioned on approval of the preliminary plat for the
Gateway West Business Park PUD by the City Council.
IS. The developer will be responsible for monitoring the effects from the construction activities
and mitigating any such effects."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
Generous: The car dealership's off for the 21 5t.
Joyce: What was that? I'm sorry.
Generous: The car dealership was supposed to come to you on the 21 5t and they requested to be
withdrawn again. Oh, another new business. I'm supposed to remind you on May 19th we're
having the citizen kick off meeting for the Comp Plan amendment schedule. It's open to the
Planning Commission and City Council. Basically staffwill run it but if you want to listen to
what people have to say.
Peterson: You'll be sending out a notification?
54
Planning Commission Meeting - May 7, 1997
Generous: We're doing it as part ofthe...article in the Villager... The 19th at 7:00, between 7:00
and 9:00 at the Rec Center. What we hope to do is put things on the wall... See if we can get
some input before we start the... On the 21st you have the land use section which is basically a
recap of what we have.. . start thinking about the comp plan issues.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Joyce noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
dated April 14, 1997 and April 16, 1997 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Generous: Chairman, the Paulstarr Phase II development. . . industrial building in Chan Business
Center off Audubon... The Gateway concept plan was approved. The reason you didn't have the
Minutes is that was approved last Monday. The report was done on Wednesday. We don't
normally have the Minutes...
Conrad: I knew it was a time deal but it's, I tell you, in terms of process and understanding, it's a
timing deal on staffs part but in terms of us looking at it, it's real helpful. It was a good
meeting. They analyzed it very well and they set out some clear direction to the group and for us
not to have it is like we're not playing with... They complain about, well enough said. It was
just too bad we didn't have it. I think the staff report was appropriate for what they said but...
Peterson: Anything else Bob you wanted to bring to our attention?
Generous: Not from Council.
Peterson: Anything else on anything?
Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson, Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
55
1~
---
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes
April 22, 1997
A special meeting of the Chanhassen Park & Recreation Commission was called to order at
5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 22, 1997 in the City Council Chambers.
INTERVIEW CANDIDATES: The purpose of this special meeting was to interview seven
candidates for two Park & Recreation Commission openings. The following commissioners
were present: Commissioners Lash, Howe, Manders, and Roeser. The candidates interviewed
included: Rod Franks, 8694 Mary Jane Circle; JoAnn Neff, 2150 Majestic Way; Randy
Koepsell, 1110 Dove Court; Joseph Maloney, 8690 Chanhassen Hills Drive North; Dave Moes,
6241 Near Mountain Boulevard; and Amy O'Shea, 7475 Crocus Court. Jay Mitrani, 7150 Derby
Drive was scheduled for an interview at 6:00 p.m., but did not arrive. The meeting was
adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
The regular meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. Members present: Commissioners Lash,
Howe, Manders, Roeser, and Meger. Staff present: Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director;
Patty Dexter, Recreation Supervisor; and Priscilla Weber, Facility Supervisor.
The agenda was approved with an addition to Administrative Reports: 6d, Power Hill Park drain
tiling.
CANDIDATES FOR COMMISSION V ANACIES: Commissioner Manders moved, Howe
seconded to recommend the city council interview Jane Meger, Rod Franks, Dave Moes, and Amy
O'Shea as candidates to fill the two vacant positions on the Park & Recreation Commission. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None
VISITOR PRESENT A TIONS: None
APPROV AL OF MINUTES: A motion was made by Manders and seconded by Howe to
approve the minutes of March 25, 1997 as presented. All voted in favor.
NEW BUSINESS
PRAIRIE KNOLL NEIGHBORHOOD PARK COMMITTEE, REQUEST TO ADD HALF
COURT BASKETBALL TO PARK PLAN: A group of Lake Susan Hills residents attended the
meeting to ask the commission to construct a one-half court basketball area in Prairie Knoll Park.
Considering that the park is under initial development, the commission felt it prudent to add the
court at this time prior to completing final grading at the site. Therefore, Commissioner Meger
moved, commissioner Howe seconded, to add a half-court basketball area at Prairie Knoll
Park & Recreation Commission Minutes
April 22, 1997
Page 2
Neighborhood Park. The motion was approved unanimously. Furthermore, the commission moved
to add Phase n playground equipment to the referendum component list.
APPROVAL OF 1997 4TH OF JULY FIREWORKS BID: Motion by Manders, seconded by
Roeser to approve a proposal from RES Specialty Pyrotechnics in the amount of$14,500 for a
fireworks display to be held on Friday, July 4 at 10 p.m. at Lake Ann Park. The cost of the
fireworks show is included in Fund 145, Recreation Program budget. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
CONFIRMATION OF PARK MASTER AND CONCEPT PLANS: Bruce Chamberlain of
Hoisington-Koegler Group was present to review the following park plans with the commission:
Galpin Boulevard North Parkland, Lake Susan Park, Meadow Green Park, Minnewashta Heights
Park, North Lotus Lake Park, O'Shaughnessy Donation, Pheasant Hill Park, Power Hill Park,
Prairie Knoll Park, Rice Marsh Lake Park, Round House Park, South Lotus Lake Park, Stone Creek
Park, Sunset Ridge Park. Upon review of these concept plans, staff was directed to revise plans for
all the parks and bring them back to the commission for approval.
PROGRAM REPORTS: The following program reports were given:
Spring Dance Recital
Park Pride/Arbor Day Celebration
Easter Egg Candy Hunt Evaluation
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: The following administrative reports were given:
Recreation Center
CCRA Ice Arena
Director's Report
Power Hill Park Drain Tiling: The commission directed staff to tile the wet portion of the north
play field adjacent to Mallard Court.
COMMISSION MEMBER REPORTS: None
COMMITTEE REPORTS: Commissioners Frank and Manders discussed the status of the park
referendum.
Motion by Manders, seconded by Roeser to adjourn the meeting.
Todd Hoffman
Park & Recreation Director