CC 2006 04 24
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
Peterson and Councilman Lundquist
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:
Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT:
Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Greg Sticha, Paul Oehme,
Todd Hoffman, Jill Sinclair, and Roger Knutson
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF
APPRECIATION AND MAPLE LEAF AWARDS TO OUTGOING COMMISSION
MEMBERS.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening and welcome to everybody here with us in the
council chambers, as well as those watching at home. At this time I would ask if there are any
modifications to the agenda that was distributed? If not, we’ll proceed with that agenda without
objection. I’d like to start this evening, we have a number of presentations that we want to make
to some volunteers for the city, as well as an upcoming Arbor Day celebration, so at this point
I’m going to come down to the middle and we’ll get started. I’d like to start this evening by
recognizing some volunteers, some residents that have volunteered their service, hours to our
city commissions. We have a couple people that have served and will receive a Certificate of
Appreciation. Both of them have served on our Environmental Commission. The first is Marcus
Zbinden. Marcus is here. Good evening. Come on up. Marcus was appointed to the
Environmental Commission in 2002 and he served as Chair of that commission for most of the
time. He’s been involved in the review and analysis of our single sort recycling, partnership and
grant application with the Arboretum for wind turbine. He’s also involved with the landscape
class series out at the Arboretum and Recycling Days. So Marcus, we appreciate your service
very much and would like to give you this Certificate of Appreciation. We also have with us this
evening Kim Grant. Hi Kim. Kim was appointed to the Environmental Commission in 2002 and
while serving on the commission she was involved with the City for Arbor Day event, our
Environmental Excellence Award program, new resident environmental information packet and
Chanhassen Day at the Arboretum as well so Kim, thank you very much for your service.
Appreciate it. We also have some Maple Leaf Awards this evening. Maple Leaf Award is an
award the City gives to those residents that have served for over 5 years on various commissions.
We have 3 that we’re going to give out this evening, which is always fun to recognize people for
their service but it’s sad in that they’re not going to be serving in the same capacity as they have
before. The first is Bobbi Headla. Good evening Bobbi. Bobbi’s been a commissioner on the
Senior Commission since 1994 and over the last 12 years has assisted the City in building our
new senior center. She was part of the team that worked on it’s expansion, and implementation
of the information referral, Senior Linkage Line program. Made senior housing a reality in our
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
city. Provide senior parking at public buildings. Participated in intergenerational activities,
congregate dining. You did a lot.
Bobbi Headla: I guess I’d like to thank the City Council and the Senior Commission for
allowing me to spend all these years on this commission. I learned a lot about Chanhassen. I
made a lot of good friends and I hope I can continue to go out to lunch with them.
Mayor Furlong: Also this evening we’ll be presenting a Maple Leaf Award to Dale Geving.
Dale, good evening. So good to see you. Dale is a commissioner on our Senior Commission
since 1995 and over the last 11 years he served as Chair of that commission for 2000 to 2004.
Good evening. Very good to see you. He was involved in the expansion of our senior center and
senior parking at public buildings, Meals on Wheels and congregate dining and we appreciate his
leadership on our Senior Commission for those many years, so Dale thank you very much.
Dale Geving: Thank you. And thank you Todd.
Todd Gerhardt: You bet. Thank you for everything you’ve done. Is that your second one?
Dale Geving: My second one.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Also this evening we’d like to welcome Uli Sacchet. Uli, good
evening. Uli has served our city for 15 years. First as a member of the Recycling Committee,
which no longer exists but became part of the Environmental Commission. He served on the
Recycling Committee from ’91 to ’95. The Environmental Commission from ’96 to 2000. Our
Planning Commission from 2000 to 2006. You were Chair of the Planning Commission I think
for the last 3 of those years? Does that sound right?
Uli Sacchet: Something like that. A bunch of years.
Mayor Furlong: A bunch of years. As a member of the Recycling Committee he was
instrumental in implementing the city wide recycling program. Major accomplishments with the
Environmental Commission include a recycling hotline, Arbor Day activities, Highover wetland
restoration, implementation of the Environmental Excellence Awards, and championed various
work regarding the Seminary Fen. As a Planning Commissioner Uli held the position of Chair
for the past 3 years, it says right here. Major accomplishments include implementation of the
AUAR for the 2005 MUSA area, city code update, multi-family design standards as well as a
number of other major developments within the city. Uli, we thank you for your many years of
service.
Uli Sacchet: Thank you. I just want to thank everybody for making this a very pleasant
experience. It was really the way, the reason I got involved was because I saw that the process
really works here. I got involved with a small issue and I was impressed how everybody was
heard and in the end that a solution was found and I worked for that and I’m sure you continue
that way. Thank you so much.
2
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you Mr. Gerhardt. I’m going to stay right down here
because the next item on our agenda deals with upcoming Arbor Day celebration. Over the years
our citizens surveys have demonstrated the evidence, emphasis that our residents place on open
space, trees, natural beauty in our city. The last 10 years the City of Chanhassen has been
celebrating Arbor Day each spring. Longer than any other city in Carver County has received
the honor of being a Tree City USA city. I’d like to invite all residents, their families and friends
th
to Chanhassen’s Arbor Day celebration this year, which will be held on Saturday, May 6 at the
Chanhassen Library at our City Center Park. In the morning volunteer groups will be cleaning
local parks and gathering for an appreciation luncheon at noon. If you have a group that’s
interested in helping out we would encourage you to contact Jill Sinclair at the City Hall. There
are a number of parks that are available for scout groups, school groups, church groups, to help
clean up the parks. It’s a great way to be involved. At 10:00 a.m. the Arbor Day events get
underway with a variety of presentations and activities for children, families, gardeners,
arborists. There’s something for everybody. The tree sale will go on again this year will include
some white pines and some crab apples trees as well as others. Outside the Arbor Day tent in our
City Center Park kids and adults will be able to plant seeds and work on various activities. I
would encourage people to come to this free and fun event. If you’re interested in a full list of
the activities and times, please check out the Chanhassen Villager or the city’s web site. As part
of our Arbor Day events we’ve prepared, I’ve prepared a proclamation declaring Saturday, May
6, 2006 as Arbor Day in the city of Chanhassen, which I’ve added to tonight’s consent agenda
for our council’s consideration and approval. Also as part of our Arbor Day celebration our
Environmental Commission works with and coordinates an annual Arbor Day poster contest.
This year we received over 79 entries from fifth grade classes from Bluff Creek Elementary, St.
Hubert’s School and Chanhassen Elementary. The Environmental Commission met and chose
the winners at their regular meeting. I’d like to tonight, we have a number of the winners here
this evening. Have them come up and join me. Jill, if you’d like to come up as well, and then do
we have members of our Environmental Commission here as well? Hi. Come on up. What
we’ll do is we’ll have the children come up and then we’ll take one picture of the whole group
when we’re done. The grand prize winner, who will receive a gift certificate for a tree donated
from Lotus Lawn and Garden, have her poster framed and hung in City Hall with past winners is
Hannah Weiby. Hi Hannah. I’d also like to invite up some runners-up, and I’ll have them come
up as well. They receive coupons for trees. Again available at our Arbor Day event. Jimmy
Spinner. Is Jimmy here? Luke Miller. Jordan Golberg. Vanessa Phommauong. Hi guys.
Congratulations. Elly Krych and Jenna Mady. Let’s give them a round of applause.
Resolution #2006-30: Mayor Furlong moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to
th
approve a Proclamation declaring Saturday, May 6 as Arbor Day in the city of
Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s
recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated April 10, 2006
-City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated April 10, 2006
3
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated April 4, 2006
b. Approve Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, St. Hubert Catholic Community, August 19
20, 2006
c. Approve Amendment to Development Contract for Liberty at Bluff Creek as amended.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
None.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you and good night, or good evening. Haven’t started yet, I can’t say
good night yet. For the council I have the sheriff’s office area report for the month of March.
The area citation list for the month of March and the Community Service Officer report, and I
have a couple miscellaneous items I’d like to cover also. Reference the monthly numbers. We
had 114 criminal calls last month, and those consisted of 38 Part I and 36 Part II crimes, and this
compares to 80 total criminal calls last year. Breaking that down a little bit, we had 27 thefts and
9 theft related calls last month, and this compares to 16 and 3 last year respectively. 11 of the
theft calls that we had last month were gas drive off’s. With the price of gas going up, we have
certainly seen an increase in that. Our traffic related alcohol arrests were also up this year from 4
last year to 11 this year. Non-criminal calls, we had 1,136 last month, which compares to 849
from last year. The biggest change in this category was traffic stops, which was 468 for March,
and that compares to 250 for March of last year. We’ve added two deputies, one being a traffic
education car that we did not have last year at this time, which accounts for that. Other
noticeable changes were we had 103 miscellaneous traffic calls last month, which compares to
103 last year and the motorist assists were 67 last month compared to 42 last year. And with the
rough weather in March with a lot of cars in ditches and so on. Our medical calls, we had 56 last
month compared to 33 last year. Any questions at all on the monthly numbers?
Mayor Furlong: Questions for Sergeant Olson?
Sgt. Jim Olson: And now I’ll go to a couple other topics I have.
Councilman Lundquist: Sergeant Olson as you look at the traffic stops, any idea, and as I look
through the citation list there, on the percentage of time that the deputies specifically on traffic
are spending in neighborhoods and some of those you know neighborhood roads versus say you
know Highway 5 and 101 and some of the other major roadways.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Sure. I have certainly stressed neighborhoods and some of the local roads as far
as the traffic enforcement. I also tried to target where we get a lot of complaints. You’ll see a
lot of citations for Powers Boulevard and we’ve had a number of complaints about speed along
there, especially south of Highway 5. We’ve been hitting that pretty hard. You also see quite a
4
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
few on Bluff Creek. We had some on Minnewashta Parkway. There were some on Pleasant
View Road so we try to hit the target areas or the areas where we get the most complaints at.
You know we target some different stop signs also, different neighborhoods you know around
the city that we’ve had some complaints.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Sgt. Jim Olson: For a percentage standpoint, I don’t have that information with me so.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have one question.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes ma’am.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: By stopping traffic violators from speeding on Powers Boulevard, do
you think it’s solving the problem? People are slowing down or are they just taking their tickets
and driving off.
Sgt. Jim Olson: What I am hoping that we can do, or what I plan on us doing is doing a speed
survey along there with tubes coming up here in the next month or so. With the city putting out
some tubes and us being able to track that somewhat. It does seem like it has slowed down.
We’ve done a lot of the traffic enforcement on that road, but I’d like to get some hard numbers
before I say that for sure. A couple other things I’d like to cover tonight. We had some reports
of theft of mailboxes. Or excuse me, theft from mailboxes. Of mail in the past month. The
residents are mailing checks or putting outgoing mail into their mailbox. Sometimes those
involve bills or birthday cards or whatever, and checks are being stolen. It is very easy to go to
a, any type of a software retailer and buy software to make your own checks up. They then have
your, you know when they steal your checks, they then have your routing number and your
account number and can make up their own checks. I would recommend for residents to mail
their mail, or put their mail into the post office drop boxes or drop boxes that are around the city
rather than in your own mailboxes. Putting up that flag. That flag tends to be a bullseye for
people that are looking to steal mail. That is under investigation. We’ve got some good leads,
but we had the same thing last year about the same time. You know I’d recommend that people
mail their mail at the post office or drop boxes. We also had a few thefts from vehicle at some
different areas around the city. Again I would recommend people take items out of their car and
bring them to the house or put them in their trunk if they’re out on a walk or whatever and don’t
leave them in plain site. In your vehicle. Mr. Mayor, you talked a little bit about having a park
clean-up day. I wanted to kind of transition into that a little bit and talk about dogs in parks.
Dogs are not allowed in the city parks. They can be walked on trails through the park as long as
they are leashed, and you also need to have a bag with you and clean up after your dog, and dogs
must also be licensed. We have had a number of complaints about dogs running loose in city
parks over the past couple of weeks. And I wanted to talk just briefly on air soft and BB guns
and just remind residents of that. These types of guns cannot be used anywhere in the city,
including on your own property. We just had a complaint over the weekend where somebody
saw some individuals by some construction equipment on the new 212/312 construction area and
5
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
it looked like one of them had a rifle, and that concerned the citizen. So they called us. We got
there and the kids took off running. We observed what appeared to be a rifle also. They
eventually turned up, or caught up to them. It turned out to be 3 juveniles. One was 16. I think
the other two were 15 with an air soft rifle and then 3 handguns. Or what appeared to be hand
guns. They were air soft handguns also, and our officers couldn’t tell the difference you know
between them and a real gun. You know this certainly could have led to a tragic situation that
we don’t want to see, so take a look at what your kids are out playing with and the Highway
212/312 construction area is all posted no trespassing as well and people should not be driving
around out there or playing out in that area at all. There are some dangerous areas out there and
they need to be careful so. Anything else from me at all this evening?
Mayor Furlong: Anything for Sergeant Olson? Very good, thank you.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Okay, thank you. Have a nice evening.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. We’ll now hear an update from our fire department. Assistant
Chief Walsh is here. Good evening.
Assistant Chief Walsh: Good evening. I’m sorry that your agenda says Greg. Chief Greg. I’m
not Chief Greg.
Mayor Furlong: You’re better looking.
th
Assistant Chief Walsh: Thank you. Just quickly want to let you know that as of April 16 we
responded to 138 calls for the year. Over the same date as last year 150 so we’re a little under.
We currently have 46 active fire fighters and we’re looking at extending our membership to 3
th
more, probably late summer. In preparation for some potential retirements. April 6 was our
first weather spotting event of the season. One week prior to our weather watch week. We are
anticipating probably a busy summer like we had last. All fire fighters are trained in weather
spotting and we do position ourselves out amongst the city, looking at the sky and being those
trained eyes for the weather service in Chanhassen so it is something that we are involved in.
And then as far as fire training, we have our probationary fire fighters that have completed fire
st
fighter I and II as well as their hazmat training. They will be hitting their 1 year mark May 1
and so we’ll be welcoming them on as full time members. And then our 2 rookies are finishing
up the first set of their fire fighter I classes. They’ll be done in about 4 weeks. Any questions?
Mayor Furlong: With regard to adding, you said you might add another 3 fire fighters later this
summer. I don’t know if they’ve been identified yet but if people are interested in serving, how
would they go about?
Assistant Chief Walsh: They can call City Hall and ask for Mark Littfin or Ed Coppersmith to
submit an application. The other thing I need to remind the citizens of is that the State has issued
a statewide burning ban, so until further notice there should be no burning in the city.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any questions?
6
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Assistant Chief Walsh: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you.
AWARD OF BIDS: BANKING SERVICES CONTRACT.
Greg Sticha: Good evening Mayor and members of council. In December of 2005 the current
banking contract the city has with M&I Bank expired. As is a recommended best practice in
government standards, every 3 years professional services should be reviewed and bids should be
taken on those services. In February the finance staff and a selection committee was formed to
evaluate bank RFP proposals for banking services. The proposals, the banks were contacted in
st
February and had a requested deadline date of March 31 to submit proposals. In that time we
also conducted a pre-bid meeting to evaluate or let them know some of the list of criteria that the
committee was considering. After we contacted the 8 local banks in the community we received
proposals from 6 of them. Those proposals came in from M&I, US Bank, KleinBank,
Americana Community Bank, TCF Bank and Community Bank Chanhassen. The criteria for
evaluating initial proposals was to first have an account that had limited or no fees for any type
of transaction. Second preference was also to have an account that, if possible, had as low
minimum balance, and third, competitive interest rate on that balance was requested as much as
possible. We did take into account other factors, such as cut off times and deposits for deposits
and wires. After reviewing the initial proposals, the committee selected or narrowed down the
list to 3 preferred vendors. KleinBank, M&I Bank and Americana Community Bank. As the
city currently has it’s bank account with M&I Bank, the committee decided to make site visits to
the other banks, KleinBank and Americana Community Bank to attempt to gain a perspective on
the customer service that each of those institutions could provide, as well as give them a chance
to demonstrate their internet capabilities for providing services, and just generally make a sales
pitch to the committee. After making the site visits, the committee decided that of the two visits
that were made, it was felt that Americana Community Bank based on the staff that they had in-
house and the presentations that were made, that the transition would be, if the transition were
need to be made, a transition to Americana Community Bank would be a much easier transition
based on the presentations that were made. Then the committee evaluate whether it was
financially reasonable to make a switch from Americana, or from M&I to Americana
Community Bank. Based on the information you’ll see in the spread sheet attached, which kind
of breaks down the financial numbers of the proposals, the committee decided that the amount of
interest savings per year in making a switch, which would be basically 85 basis points, if you
evaluate the financial information on Americana Community Bank’s proposal and M&I
proposal, 85 basis points on a million dollars, on a million dollar balance over a year would be
about $8,500 per year. After consideration the committee decided that although there would be
some costs in making a transition, the amount of costs to make that transition would probably be
minimal. A few thousand dollars at most. Some new checks. Some stamps and possibly staff
hours to get all the new accounts set up with our current payable and receivable customers.
Therefore the committee is recommending to City Council that the city select a new banking
services provider and is recommending Americana Community Bank to become that services
provided for a term of 3 years. And I guess at this point I will take any questions about the
process we went through or any of the proposals that we did receive.
7
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Any questions? Thank you. If there are no questions for Mr. Sticha, is there,
thank you very much for your presentation. I’ll ask the council if they have any comments or
discussion. Either on the process taken by the staff or the recommendation.
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
accept a contract with Americana Community Bank for a three year banking services
contract. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
LIBERTY AT CREEKSIDE, 1500 PIONEER TRAIL, APPLICANT TOWN &
COUNTRY HOMES: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO
PUD-R; SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 36.01 ACRES
INTO 29 LOTS, 5 OUTLOTS, AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE PLAN
APPROVAL FOR 146 TOWNHOUSES; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
ALTERATIONS WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE
BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Chris Moehrl Westwood Professional Services
Kevin Clark Town and Country Homes
Shawn Siders Town and Country Homes
Tom Whitlock Damon Farber Associates
Steve Thatcher Thatcher Engineering
Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
th
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. At your April 10 meeting you tabled this item for three specific
issues. The park design, looking at architecture and then road access to the north of this
property. The subject site, off the new 212 access would also be off the proposed frontage road.
Again to summarize, the project itself is 146 townhouse units. I’m not going to go through a lot
of the details. I want to kind of just focus on the issues that were… The park area, on the site,
this park area was enhanced. Includes the totlot and the developer will work to make that a
neighborhood totlot. The architecture itself, there’s a narrative in the staff report from the
applicant itself. Talking about that. I do have all the colorings but I’ll let them maybe go
through that in a little bit more detail. And then the last issue was the road access itself.
Included in your packet was a letter from the property owner to the north, which the staff also
8
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
commented on, and there’s some other additional information that was, appeared at your April
th
10 meeting which the staff, the City Engineer and I and, had addressed previously. Included in
your packet we showed you how the road stubbing from the north, to the north can tie in. The
complexity of this is that we know this property’s in flux and we don’t know exactly where the
road’s going to land, but we do believe that there’s adequate access on a subsequent road on that
north side that could tie into that. In addition they will be grading, there’s a comment about the 9
foot change in grade. There’s a, I know an anomaly that will more than likely be graded to
accommodate any further development, so this specific questions on, the comments on that, the
City Engineer or myself will be happy to go through those but again a lot of that information was
raised at the Planning Commission which we had addressed, and also at the last meeting. I know
it was additional new information. Going back to the south, we reiterate anything from the
engineer, it’s really not designed to go underneath that road. It was never accommodated and
MnDot…plan, I think there’s some confusion on that but we really believe that the best
alternative for the city for long term maintenance and access would be studying that property to
the north, and you know can we stop short of that and provide an access where appropriate on
the property to the north. So with that I’ll let the applicant maybe go through a little bit on the
architecture, unless you have questions on those other two issues.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I just Kate have one question, if you can clarify. You touched on it
briefly but it went by me but, access and MnDot and permission for them to do that.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, maybe I’ll let Paul.
Paul Oehme: Thank you. On the, working with MnDot on this issue, we, MnDot is still working
on their mitigation plan and I know that they are working with, we’re working with them on
establishing mitigation areas to accommodate their needs, and I know the developer is in that
loop too. He’d have to take on that responsibility of paying for mitigation and the…that goes
along with that, but you know we’re still in the design phase of any mitigation that would take
place. MnDot still has not agreed to any wetland mitigation off their premise. Off their site.
They’re still looking at the site as their main mitigation area for the 212 corridor for their, for the
Type 6 and 7 wetland credits. So we’re still in the process, I mean it’s one of the conditions that
we have with our, with this development is for the applicant to mitigate those wetland credits
to…go ahead with the road access. But at this time no decision has been made.
Kate Aanenson: Let me just add too a little bit. We have identified a site. We have spoken to
MnDot about that site. The developer is working to see if that site works so in working with the
wetland specialist at MnDot, they’re aware of it. They’ve been working through our wetland
specialist Lori Haak to work through that so there is contemplated site. There is a methodology.
It just has to be worked through the process, which is standard when we do projects like this and
we put a condition on that they have to meet all the requirements, and it is a condition of
approval that they have to get all the permitting stuff done, but we are in negotiations. We have
identified a site and understand the process as the developer has met with them too to understand
the process so it’s more than just we left it out there. You know we wouldn’t have put it out
there unless we explored that as an opportunity so we have found a viable solution and so we
believe it’s.
9
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Councilman Lundquist: Are you talking about to the north or to the south?
Kate Aanenson: To the north. The wetland. To the north I’m talking about.
Councilman Lundquist: …this developer’s property, how that’s going to work?
Kate Aanenson: It’s not a wetland yet. There is a question in their report that we’re impacting a
wetland. There isn’t a wetland there. It’s a replacement wetland. There isn’t a wetland there. It
was a replacement wetland that MnDot was going to use. Instead of replacing all that, we’re
going to replace some of that in a different site.
Mayor Furlong: So the property is part of the right-of-way that MnDot acquired.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: And they were going to use that to mitigate some of their other wetland
requirements as a part of the 212 project?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: If this road goes through there, then MnDot will have, the developer will have
to re-mitigate it at another location.
Kate Aanenson: Well they won’t re-mitigate it but they’d find another location for, that doesn’t
get mitigated there. It’d just be relocated. Relocate the site.
Councilman Lundquist: Can you show me where we’re talking about?
Kate Aanenson: Sure.
Mayor Furlong: MnDot needs all the property to meet it’s mitigation requirements, is that
correct?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: So if this isn’t allowed, if MnDot can’t mitigate here, then it’s got to be
replaced elsewhere.
Kate Aanenson: This property is owned by MnDot. What they want to do is replace the
wetland. There isn’t a wetland…replace the wetland. What we’re saying is that that portion of
the replacement is going to go somewhere else.
Councilman Lundquist: All that stuff in the green. Where does MnDot’s property?
Kate Aanenson: This is MnDot’s property.
10
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Councilman Lundquist: In the green there?
Todd Gerhardt: That triangle.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So worst case scenario, say they don’t want to do that.
Kate Aanenson: Well as I say, we’ve had those discussions already. We wouldn’t put it out
there unless it was a viable option. I mean this is what held up the project before because we
couldn’t go underneath the creek. That wasn’t a viable option so we had to find another one so
the prudent or the way to make it happen was to put the wetland, that portion of replacement
wetland.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, I know. I know.
Kate Aanenson: Okay, at somewhere else. So we’ve identified a site. We’ve still.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well on the site or somewhere?
Kate Aanenson: In the city. It’s a Type 6-7 wetland which is unique so we found another site in
the city.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So it has been found?
Kate Aanenson: Yep. And they’re…and we’ve had the negotiation that identified where that is
and we’re working on that so.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess to Councilwoman Tjornhom’s question. If for some reason it falls
through, it’s a condition right now, staff has recommended as a condition so they’d have to come
back if they’re not able to fill that condition.
Kate Aanenson: That’s right. That’s right.
Mayor Furlong: They’d have to come back.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: And then we look at other alternatives.
Kate Aanenson: That’s right.
Mayor Furlong: Does that answer your question? Okay. Other questions for staff at this point.
If not, would the applicant, good evening.
Shawn Siders: Good evening Mayor Furlong, council members. My name is Shawn Siders. I’m
with Town and Country Homes, a K. Hovnanian Company and with me this evening is Kevin
Clark, our Vice President of Land Development and Chris Moehrl, our project engineer with
11
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Westwood Professional Services. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Fox and Mr.
Dorsey for including us in their efforts to identify potential alternative secondary access points
for the Creekside community. We met with Mr. Fox and Mr. Dorsey to review their proposed
alternatives and we concur with city staff that the original plans that were presented to you this
evening that provide the secondary access through the MnDot property is the appropriate
location due to it’s limited impact on the overall site. Since our discussion with you 2 weeks ago
we have revised the plan for the open space bound by private street D, and have included a totlot
in that area. Ms. Aanenson pointed it out. The totlot will be accessed via a trail connection
through here. We’ll also install park benches and trash receptacle. We’ve also maintained a
little bit of green space for passive and active recreation space to provide additional opportunities
to the residents. Finally I’d like to confirm our commitment to the Premiere and Concord
product lines that are proposed for this site. We have reviewed a number of housing alternatives
for this area, and these two products that are being presented to you for this community provide
the greatest opportunity to create an exclusive community that is tucked into this natural setting
with houses that do include upgraded architectural features. Provides necessary infrastructure.
Allows us to partner with the city to upgrade Lyman Avenue while creating home ownership
opportunities that are available to a larger segment of the Chanhassen community. We’re proud
of our collaborative efforts, our collaborative partnership with the City of Chanhassen to ensure
that Liberty at Creekside is a long term success for the city, as well as Town and Country
Homes. I’d like to thank you this evening to discuss these plans with you and I look forward to
any questions you may have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Siders?
Councilman Peterson: A couple, and Town and Country one has been characterized, are there
any Concord units there?
Shawn Siders: Yes sir.
Councilman Peterson: And if so, how many? And same for the Premiere, if you could share.
Shawn Siders: The 62 Premiere units around the perimeter of the property and there are
approximately 144 of the Concord units integrated throughout the community.
Councilman Peterson: There’s two different numbers that I’ve seen in the packet. Phase II or
Town and Country II has either 142 or 138. Which of the two is it?
Shawn Siders: It’s 146 units actually. It’s 98 Premiere units and 48 Concord units.
Councilman Peterson: Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Do you want to go into some detail about how some of the
architecture has changed from our last meeting?
Shawn Siders: Sure.
12
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I mean I have it here on my screen but I’d rather just see it.
Shawn Siders: Understood. We have not altered the architecture from the Liberty at Bluff Creek
community. What we have done, if you’ll recall we worked with the city to develop a color
matrix that would include five colors that would be dispersed throughout the Liberty on Bluff
Creek community. What we have done as a result of Planning Commission and our discussions
th
with the City Council on April 10 is, we’ve actually developed a sixth color scheme for the
Liberty at Creekside community and what we have proposed is that 3 of the color schemes would
be dedicated to the Premiere units, which are located around the perimeter of the property.
These are the Premiere units are located around the perimeter of the property. And 3 of the color
schemes will be dedicated to the Concord units that are here within the middle. There’s only 6
of those buildings so we thought to really add 6 colors to those 6 units would almost make it look
like a checker board if you will. So we have dedicated you know where we proposed, we
dedicated 3 colors to each one which will add some distinction to the overall color selection of
Creekside community. However distinguishing from the Liberty at Bluff Creek community in
addition to the site, which makes a pretty distinct community from Bluff Creek.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Siders, one of the reasons you mentioned that you selected the two housing
designs was because of the topography.
Shawn Siders: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: If I understood you correctly. I guess one of the questions I have, all the
pictures we’ve been looking at from the top and I know in the plan there was one side view, but
help me understand and maybe you could give just the overall site picture up there Nann. For
those properties, the topography basically falls off, or declines from the top to the bottom of the
picture, is that correct?
Shawn Siders: Yes sir.
Mayor Furlong: Water runs downhill. Towards the creek. What is the view of those units in the
top? What are they, are they going to be looking over the tops of the building to the south or are
they going to be looking at the roof lines? What are they going to be seeing?
Shawn Siders: We actually have a rendering prepared. This would be starting on the north.
These would be the Premiere units on the north.
Mayor Furlong: And this is how the site would be graded?
Shawn Siders: Yes. So this would basically be your view from north to south so each unit, this
northern most Premiere unit, these would be on a similar grade with the Premiere units which are
on the opposite side of the street, and then you would start stepping down so this street would be
you know on a nearly even grade, and then we would make the next step down to the Concord
units here in the middle. And then we would make the next step down to the Premiere units
overlooking the creek.
13
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And what’s the elevation of the highway through that area, do we know?
Paul Oehme: Of?
Mayor Furlong: 212. Do we know? Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Can you show me where the retaining wall is going to be in that
elevation?
Shawn Siders: Where the retaining wall?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Where in the plan or where in that elevation?
Shawn Siders: It might be easier to show you an overall plan. There’s actually a tiered retaining
wall system here on the north. There’s a retaining wall here. A retaining wall here. And then a
retaining wall here on the bottom which holds up the street and then also accommodates the
installation of this trail.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Is that going to have an impact on trees?
Shawn Siders: Nothing that’s identified within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. So there will
certainly be some trees that will be impacted but they will not be trees that are you know marked
within that delineated area.
Councilman Peterson: One of the questions kind of keying in on what you were offering, maybe
you can put back the overall development of number 1 and number 2. Both Bluff Creek and
Creekside. One of the things that was voiced in the last meeting, which I diligently watched on
television because I wasn’t here, was that the back of the buildings and I’m curious as to, as you
look at that design and the perimeter of the site, what role, I mean how much of that will you be
able to see as you’re driving by on whatever road we’re going to have, whether that’s 212 or the
funnel roads to it?
Shawn Siders: The view from 212?
Councilman Peterson: Well from 212 or the other roads that are going to access the site. I’m
just trying to get a sense as to whether or not we should be concerned with the rear sides of the
buildings around the perimeter.
Shawn Siders: I do not know the views from 212. Perhaps Mr. Moehrl may have a better
indication of that. How this project will look from the Peterson parcel, which you’ll have in
front of you later this evening is, this is the Peterson development here and this is the Liberty at
Creekside development here, so we have approximately 600 feet of separation with extensive
landscaping providing that transition between those two developments and then these units, the
Concord units within the middle were located in part to help break up the views of the rears of
those Premiere units as well. And in addition, and this is also true at Liberty at Bluff Creek, as
14
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
we had introduced a very color and some additional depth to the rear of the Premiere units, is to
break up the monotony of the rear of the unit.
Councilman Peterson: Can you put back the map we used to go through the, and the walkouts,
yeah. The map we used earlier that showed a wetland. That showed the whole area. The one
you had Kate.
Kate Aanenson: Oh this one?
Councilman Peterson: Yes. I’m just trying to get a sense as you’re likely to see the backs of
some of those.
Kate Aanenson: There also needs to be noise attenuation too but they’re not sure on exact, and
that’s one of the conditions too is how that…wall. There may be a wall along there too. So what
you’re looking at on the back. Some of these are also going to be the walkouts so you’ll actually
have an additional, that’s showing on grade. The backs of these as you look across. This will be
a restoration area. Open space…and then these will be the walkouts. Then these will be the
side…
Councilman Peterson: So you aren’t apt to see, what’s going to go on the east side of the
project? What units?
Shawn Siders: These?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah.
Shawn Siders: The Premiere.
Councilman Peterson: The ones around the totlot are which ones?
Shawn Siders: Those are Premieres as well sir.
Kate Aanenson: Want to see the picture, yeah.
Councilman Peterson: And you’re likely to see that from 212. I mean logic would say that
you’re likely to see it pretty dramatically.
Kate Aanenson: Again depending on where that noise wall ends up. You know you’re going to
see it going northbound. Going southbound maybe not.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: This is a quick question. You talk about a noise wall. Who’s
responsible for.
Kate Aanenson: The applicant is. They have to demonstrate that they meet the PCA standards.
Just a comment on that too. Depending on what happens on the north side…and again they don’t
know what’s going to happen here, but that’s also going to be…
15
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Councilman Peterson: Is that Creekside property directly to the north of the, up into the white?
Up to the white?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Mayor Furlong: It’s the Fox family property directly north.
Councilman Peterson: Immediately to the north, yeah.
Kate Aanenson: You have the trees that are on that, on the, immediately to the north.
Shawn Siders: And I’ll also point out there will be a wetland here and there also will be some
perimeter landscaping going on along the edge of the property as well.
Mayor Furlong: What’s the nature of that landscaping?
Shawn Siders: Trees and shrubs.
Mayor Furlong: Overstory trees?
Shawn Siders: Yes sir.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. And then whatever we need for that noise mitigation. Whatever
that ends up being to meet whatever those standards. They’d have to demonstrate, that’s also
one of the conditions. Again all that would come back for us.
Mayor Furlong: Just, while we’re on the noise issue, I think we brought this up at the last
meeting, that condition number 1 under the preliminary plat.
Kate Aanenson: Sure.
Mayor Furlong: Did we add in any language there that they would not only identify for
implement appropriate noise? I don’t see it in the packet, but that might just have been.
Kate Aanenson: It’s on page 17, B(1). Is that the one you’re talking about?
Mayor Furlong: Page 17, B(1).
Kate Aanenson: Correct. The applicant prepare a noise analysis, right. So these are all the
things that we require for it to come back for final plat.
Mayor Furlong: Right, and I guess the issue there was, the analysis would identify, they’re
required to prepare a noise analysis and to implement.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. I’m sorry, that should have been put in there. To PCA standards.
16
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong: To PCA standards? Okay. Sorry for the tangent. Other questions right now?
Kate Aanenson: Like I’m saying, it may end up being a physical wall that would certainly
reduce your visual.
Mayor Furlong: Another question, and I was looking through the staff report here and perhaps
you can direct me. The net density of this development, we have 146 units, is that correct? Of
the, and as we look at that other smaller picture, there is the, the area to the south. The Bluff
Creek. The smaller picture of the site plan. There. Yeah. Did we do an analysis? Did staff do
an analysis with regard to what was buildable down there without mitigation of wetlands or
what?
Kate Aanenson: Correct, and that was an area that’s in the overlay district that we identified for
preservation. If you look in the staff report, it talks about the impervious surface at 30%.
Mayor Furlong: Where is that in the report? Do you know what page number?
Kate Aanenson: I do have it marked, hang on.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, keep going.
Kate Aanenson: That’s alright. It’s on page 5. It says the entire development, including the
public and private streets may not exceed 30%. The individual lots will be over the 30%, so one
of the tools that we employ in order to preserve the zone, to give some value of the overlay
district and just creating that overlay district to give it some value. The value is they get to use
that. Preserve it but they get to use it towards their impervious. So that’s the trade off. We
compress that but they get to use it towards their impervious.
Councilman Lundquist: Density transfer?
Kate Aanenson: Well, in this case they’re under the density. It’s effectively that but actually the
density on this, this is the one piece we clearly guided straight medium density because of the
topographic behind lot, we gave that one, the only piece that’s high density without a dual. And
they’re actually under for a 4.78 is guided for up to 8 units an acre, so they didn’t maximize,
going back to what your point Councilman Lundquist, they didn’t maximize that density transfer.
But what they are able to capitalize on is the, be able to use that impervious area down below.
There’s the two wetland replacements that are kind of in the light green there, and then what we
wanted to do following the plans of the Bluff Creek Overlay District was to revegetate that using
native species so it creates that open space. So as you drive, that’s one of the things that we’re
trying to capture as you drive through looking at that green space, the view that you get when
you go back to the original, we first had the very first kind of vision of the community, when we
used Bill Morrish at the University of Minnesota. That’s when we came up with these rooms.
We kind of wanted to create these corridors so when you look up here you’re going to actually
have a corridor going through this property, the Peterson going all the way up the creek, so that’s
that corridor that will be replanting. So they got to compress the density. They picked a product
17
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
that they couldn’t maximize, going up to 8 units an acre. But they were able to spread the
impervious over that part.
Mayor Furlong: So when you say it’s part of the impervious, in the area, if we look at it north of
the trail, the impervious surface coverage there may exceed what they’re allowed.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: But when you look at the entire parcel, they’re within the limitations. Okay.
And in the plan, just to be clear. The water, there’s storm ponds I see on this site as well.
Kate Aanenson: There’s one there, and the wetland replacement…there’s two wetland
replacements. And that’s actually, they’re re-establishing the old farmstead that was kind of a
gravel mine so actually re-establishing that whole area. Taking out kind of what’s been
degregated and restoring that, which was also one of the goals of the overlay district. And
making that a nice view looking in.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions at this point for staff or the applicant?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I at some point though still really want to be sold on the access points
for this property so when I do vote I feel like every stone was unturned and we figured out the
right thing to do.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think Paul’s prepared to go through all those if you wanted him to.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sure that’s what Mr. Fox wants to comment on as well so.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So I’m willing to wait but I’m just saying that I hope that.
Mayor Furlong: That’s an issue, absolutely. Okay. Mr. Siders, thank you. Thank you very
much for your comments.
Shawn Siders: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: At this point we will accept public comment so Mr. Fox, you indicated or your
representative.
Steve Thatcher: Hi. I’m Steve Thatcher with Thatcher Engineering and this is Tom Whitlock
with Damon Farber. We represent the Fox properties and we’re here to ask you to, allow us to
work with you and we consider the north access. We’re thinking that, based on your permission,
we have available the southeast access has some advantages. The advantage that I want to talk
about briefly are as follows. Item number 1 is, the southeast access provides access to a lot of
pedestrian and emergency vehicle access to the future pedestrian trail in the Bluff Creek Overlay
District. It also connects to Pioneer Trail, thus providing access between the development and
south which would be more convenient for residents, reduce congestion on the north, east, west
collector street on the north side of the development. Reduce gas issues by residents that want to
18
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
drive to the south and improve emergency vehicle access from the south. The next one I want to
talk about item 4. With you know the MnDot plans, they talk about and show that they’re going
to be excavating the soft soil underneath the southeast access road. Most of it anyway as part of
the 212 corridor. This will reduce cost to build the southeast access road. We’ve also reviewed
the MnDot soil borings to see if there’s a method for constructing the southeast access over that,
and yet although soil may remain…as required for 1 to 2 foot of slick granular material on their
local city roads. Geogrid, the geo composite can help with that filling across. Item number 6 is
that there’s advantages, there’s no impact to forestry there, going to the southeast. And item
number 7, no one would maybe have to pay for removing the driveway access from the Bluff
Creek district. It may be desirable to do that at a future date. The MnDot plan dated 4/7/06
shows a cross section of the driveway reconstruction of about a 4 ½ foot high fill, 50 foot wide
underneath the westbound 212 bridge, and it drops to about 2 ½ foot high with 30 feet wide on
the eastbound 212 bridge in that area. Based on the information we have available to us, on the
north access, there’s a couple items that we’d like to discuss. Disadvantages that we see, the
information we have is that the road will be a barrier between the wetland and forest preserve.
Although there may be a wetland in there now, there will be a wetland in the future to the east.
The forest preserve is to the west of this access road, and this will limit flexibility of providing
use of these two natural resources, and will revive wildlife habitat and increase quantity intensity
of surface runoff to that wetland. Item number 4 is that that north access road appears to be over
approximately .4 acres of the Bluff Creek Overlay District up in that area. Next item I have is
item 5. It talks about the road, it appears it will cross a waterway flowing from the northwest
part of the Bluff Creek district across down into the wetland that would be made. This may need
to be preserved. It’s within the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone, and that must be
carefully analyzed. The road may interrupt the ground water flow associated with this waterway,
the wetland which could negatively impact the wetland. Item 6 I have is if the only access roads
are to the north, there’ll be no access to the south for the residents of the development. This
causes additional traffic congestion on the roads to the north, inconvenience and increased gas
usage for residents to the south. A quick rough estimate is that the road to the north, going
through the Fox property, an estimated traffic generation for some of the Fox property, that road
on the Fox property becoming a collector street, based on the Metropolitan Council’s
transportation policy threshold for a collector of 1,000 vehicles per day. That would increase
cost on the Fox property. With those items, you know our opinion is that we’d like to work with
the staff and the city to analyze these options further. We think that the south access to Pioneer
Trail has minimal environmental impacts, less cost and greater convenience to the residents.
North access would have greater environmental impact and greater cost and less convenience to
the residents, especially those that want to go to the south. And therefore we would recommend
further consideration of that southeast access road. Any questions?
Councilman Peterson: I’m going to be visual tonight so pull out the map laying there again and
point out.
Steve Thatcher: Sure.
Councilman Peterson: So if you would just point out where you’re recommending, both for the
people here and at home.
19
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Steve Thatcher: On this drawing, 212 is the gold line there. Land to the south is there…Lyman
Boulevard is there. Bluff Creek blue in here… This is on the west side map… The access, one
access for sure to the northwest, which is the yellow line goes through the site like this. The
north access would be along…up through and into this road in here. You know the Fox property
is here, and up in here. We visualize this coming underneath the bridge, following whatever is
most logical corridor down here to connect to Pioneer Trail. The yellow line shows it right about
there.
Councilman Lundquist: Where’s the gravel, his gravel driveway now?
Steve Thatcher: It’s right in that location. This black line, it’s right there right now. I don’t
know if there’s an exact location to the south or will come…where would you connect that. We
know there is a plan that seems to show a connection to the south to a cul-de-sac. Connection
from the north to Pioneer Trail which is seen as a cul-de-sac.
Mayor Furlong: Maybe the question Mr. Oehme, maybe some comments if you would in terms
of, I don’t know if your presentation’s done or not but I don’t want to cut you off.
Steve Thatcher: That’s it, no. Just open for questions.
Mayor Furlong: Sure. I guess some comments on what we’re looking at here and what we’ve
heard.
Paul Oehme: Well as you probably have heard from Ms. Aanenson, staff does not agree with
that alignment for several reasons. One of the items that Mr. Thatcher brought up was access for
emergency vehicles to the south there for pedestrian. There’s going to be, we’re envisioning a
10 foot wide trail along that corridor there which would adequately address safety issues for
emergency vehicles to get back there if any event were to occur. The issue in terms of
separating, getting back to the north access, by separating the forest area on top of the hill from
the wetland issue. You know the design that we would envision for that north corridor would
address both the ground water and the, any natural drainage flows. Potentially a culvert between
the two areas. We would not envision any significant ground water issues because of the
pavement section would only be limited by probably 2 to 3 feet worth of structural material.
Depending upon how that design is made, you know would that road potentially sit on top of the
existing grade? Depending upon how that grade is brought up to the, potentially to the Fox
property. So those are some of the issues to that effect. Bringing the road down to the south,
getting back to that point, yeah there is, in the AUAR we had envisioned a cul-de-sac off of
Pioneer Trail to address the future development in the 2010 area, development area. That
currently is zoned I believe industrial or commercial application. What we’re talking about here
is bringing residential units, residential traffic through an industrial park. Staff did not envision
that as a good practice.
Councilman Peterson: Where’s that?
Paul Oehme: The specific triangle of land? What the AUAR had shown was, this road actually
going away but that location here would be a small cul-de-sac to facilitate the development of the
20
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Laurent property and the Peterson property for potential industrial use, so to bring in residential
traffic to a more of a commercial area, we don’t see as a benefit. The AUAR also addresses this
property as in the traffic analysis and we had always envisioned that traffic to be brought back to
the collector roadway. The east/west collector roadway and the traffic. In this development you
know can definitely, the east/west collector roadway can definitely support that type of
additional traffic so, we don’t see that there is any traffic issues related to bring that, this
development traffic to the east/west collector roadway. It gives us, in bringing two access points
will mitigate some of the traffic you know through the Fox property and basically along the
corridor so stacking along at one access point during peak periods would be somewhat limited as
well, so we think there’s advantages to bringing the roadway to the north.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor? Paul, isn’t the key point on trying to bring the road underneath
312, 312 is under construction today and that bridge section that goes through there is not
designed for a road to go underneath there at this point.
Paul Oehme: Right. This is a picture, that’s today of the bridge that’s currently being
constructed. It’s not a typical bridge per se with wing walls. This is a land bridge. There’s
actually another several sections of this bridge, and MnDot in it’s analysis or it’s, when it was
going through the design of this bridge, it always, they envisioned this as a bebo section or
regular bridge girder section, but when they did the soil analysis here I think the peat in this area
is somewhere between 50 and 60 feet deep, so they elected to actually drive piles to support the
bridge and lengthen the bridge to approximately 400 feet. So they are, in this corridor alone that
we know that there is significant soil issues that MnDot is actually spending a lot of money
addressing that in terms of building a bridge instead of actually filling this area in with soil and
so, that’s, MnDot never had envisioned this corridor to be brought in to have a roadway. A local
roadway brought in at this location for residential use.
Todd Gerhardt: So from where the potential road bed would be to the bottom girder of the
bridge probably would not meet MnDot specifications for a roadway to go underneath there.
Paul Oehme: I don’t know that at this time. I don’t know what the height is between the actual
road grade. Potentially they like to be in the bottom of the girders for the 212 bridge but.
Steve Thatcher: I’ve got the, I didn’t mean to interrupt. I do have the cross section there for the
bridge in that area. I know the height that they’re proposing but I don’t know what’s the
minimum standard for that. What they’ve got is, this is the cross section at the westbound lane
and it shows the bridge from there to there, the bottom of the girders there. They show the
driveway up to here. From the ground to the bottom of the girder, that’s 20 feet of vertical space
from the ground. And you show their sub-cutting there. Underneath where that driveway, sub-
cut shows 25 feet in that spot. That’s the dark hatch area there. So there’s 20 feet of space
between the ground and the bottom girder.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay, and then the other part of not meeting the specification is putting a road
that close to a creek bed. And so it was never designed to have a road go underneath that bridge.
21
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I’d just like to add to that one point as far as the AUAR. You know we
try to, I mentioned this last, 2 weeks ago is that we try to minimize creek crossing and we
provided one creek crossing in there for that specific reason, and if we talk about permitting
required to go to the north, replacing a wetland that’s not there yet, as opposed to getting
permitting and go back and amend the AUAR because it was never approved in the AUAR. Go
back and amend the AUAR to see if we can get permits to cross the creek and the cost which we,
as Paul indicated, the soil corrections are huge there. Then there’s a long term maintenance
when you’re building on poor soils like that. We think it’s much more prudent to take the road
to the north where the risk is much less. And a better way to service.
Paul Oehme: Another item too to bring the road to the south Mayor and council. Right now
MnDot has acquired a driveway access for the Jeurissen property. I believe, I don’t know, I
think it’s between 20 and 30 feet wide, in order for a road, a public road to be built at that
location to typical right-of-way width to 60 feet per our standards. That’s not adequate at this
time. What MnDot has acquired, the applicant would have to purchase additional right-of-way
from third party properties out there, and we don’t know if that would be feasible at this time to
make that, to have that right-of-way acquired.
Mayor Furlong: What’s happening to that, what are MnDot’s plans with regard to that driveway
access? You say that it literally is a driveway right now coming off from Pioneer Trail.
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Access the property…the creek. You said it’s 20 feet wide?
Paul Oehme: I think it’s 25 feet wide. Maybe 30 feet wide as the most. The right-of-way that
they have acquired for that driveway.
Mayor Furlong: But from a width standpoint it’s not, it doesn’t meet our standard.
Paul Oehme: It doesn’t meet our standard anyway.
Mayor Furlong: Public street. What is going to become of that current driveway and who’s
responsible for doing something with it?
Paul Oehme: Well it’s MnDot’s property and they’re responsible for the maintenance of it. I
would envision that MnDot would consider that a remnant right-of-way after the property has
been sold to the developer and that driveway is no longer in use, the collar would be eliminated
there on that crossing there. Bluff Creek. As part of the project, I would imagine so.
Councilman Lundquist: They’ve got to leave it in there now to have access to that property.
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Until something else.
22
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Paul Oehme: Until something else, and that access is no longer necessary, sure.
Mayor Furlong: Alright.
Councilman Peterson: How many homes would it, what’s the trigger point from only needing
one access versus having two?
Paul Oehme: The council just passed a cul-de-sac limiting, limiting our cul-de-sac lengths to
800 feet. So we’re trying to limit our cul-de-sac length, both as a utility issue and a safety issue
in terms of an emergency vehicle accesses. We try to limit properties to potentially about 15-16
units at the max, and that’s typically about how many units you can support off of an 800 foot
cul-de-sac single family. And we’re talking 140 units. 46 units here.
Councilman Lundquist: If I go back to the road, if you put the map of the, yeah. Here’s what
I’m struggling with. I mean I understand Paul and Kate where you’re coming from. You’re
talking about the potential, if we go to the south that we’re going through some commercial
industrial land, and you know we’ve talked off and on at this point about the Fox properties
ending up in some kind of an industrial or commercial you know potential, don’t know what’s
going to end up there but it’s quite likely that if something in that could go in there. Regardless
of whether we go to the north or the south, there’s wetland/ground water type issues, whatever
that might be. You know there is, you know I think there’s some potential struggles there with
the width of the road and some of that thing, but at this point I look at that as really the only
thing that’s really standing there because either way, as I’m looking at it, unless I’m wrong, that I
think we’re going to end up going through commercial retail or industrial of one kind or another,
no matter which way we go, and there’s going to be some wetland and water, ground water
issues regardless of which way we go. Now we don’t have to cross the creek if we go to the
south. There’s some issues with the bridge if we go to the south, but the way I’m looking at it,
unless I missed something, I think those other two issues we’re going to have regardless of
which way.
Kate Aanenson: But the soils is a huge issue too, you know.
Councilman Lundquist: Well because you’ve got to go across the creek there.
Paul Oehme: We’re just looking at current zoning. We know that the zoning to the south along
Pioneer Trail is more commercial industrial. To the north, right now that’s more residential.
Councilman Lundquist: Well there isn’t any zoning to the south, right? Because it’s just guided.
Paul Oehme: Well it’s just guided.
Mayor Furlong: The triangle piece.
Kate Aanenson: So is the other piece is just guided also to the north. It’s guided residential.
Councilman Lundquist: So we can do anything we want with that.
23
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, right.
Councilman Lundquist: Going forward. Okay. So are there other pieces? As I’m looking, you
know that may be over simplifying it by saying you know I think we’ve got the same issues
going north or south. There may be a degree of difficulty with the soils and the right-of-way and
some of that going to the south, but.
Kate Aanenson: Well the degree of difficulty is also you have to go back and amend the AUAR,
so that could be a year or two. You know I don’t know, they may never get that permit. That’s
a, maybe the City Attorney can address that but you have to go back and amend that, so I’m not
sure. The other one, there isn’t the soil. It’s a long term maintenance. Those kind of issues too.
Paul Oehme: And there’s long term maintenance involved too for the city’s perspective.
Another creek crossing means another bridge or another structure for the city to maintain. The
staff had always envisioned too the watermain looping of this area. If we go to the south, that’s a
different zone. We can’t really loop the water in this area basically we’re stop at a long dead end
unless we get an easement to the north. To loop that watermain back up to the east/west
collector roadway. So in terms of long term maintenance, I think the length of the roadway too
is a little bit longer as we go to the south.
Councilman Lundquist: So do we have a picture of what the AUAR showed roads in this area?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I don’t have it with me this time but it shows the two cul-de-sacs on the
Laurent property. Stopping short of the creek, yeah. Cul-de-sac.
Mayor Furlong: They’re short cul-de-sacs Councilman Lundquist. The one comes from
Pioneer, yeah.
Kate Aanenson: One comes off of Powers and one comes off of…stop short of the creek. That’s
what we envisioned…
Councilman Lundquist: Room for access to the Jeurissen property.
Kate Aanenson: This direction and that direction.
Councilman Lundquist: So on our AUAR it showed.
Kate Aanenson: It didn’t show those specific parcels being tied in, nor did it show the specific
parcels on, just they showed the north side on Lyman Boulevard, it showed one access point
besides the senior Degler piece. We showed that ring road tying, winding to Audubon. We also
showed another connection that needed to be.
Councilman Lundquist: Like that little, yeah.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
24
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Councilman Lundquist: So why is an amendment to the AUAR required if we never showed.
Kate Aanenson: Because you’re crossing the creek. That was an environmental, that also got
approved by the PCA, the DNR, the watershed district. All those agencies that have jurisdiction
because all those agencies commented on the original one, so that would be a significant change
that would have to go back and amend the AUAR.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Let’s say, just for grins we decided to go back through that
process and those agencies that comment on that decide they don’t want to allow that access
then, then our choice would be to give it one access or go back to the north then? Is that?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, yep.
Councilman Lundquist: …happens? Okay.
Councilman Peterson: Has there ever been a community in the area that’s had that many homes
with one access?
Tom Whitlock: I believe Bearpath is a loop system with one access point.
Councilman Lundquist: Not including their emergency back roads.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, go ahead. Questions still.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Explain to me again why we can’t take that cul-de-sac and, and not
make it a cul-de-sac but make it a road or another access point.
Kate Aanenson: Which cul-de-sac?
Councilman Peterson: That’s not a cul-de-sac.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: That’s what I’m saying.
Kate Aanenson: You mean that would cross the creek or?
Mayor Furlong: The one that they’ve shown there.
Councilman Lundquist: You run one big loop through and service them both from.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right.
Steve Thatcher: We looked at that. This is the north side of the Creekside development. This is
the proposed connection north through the Fox property. And this is their northern road that
ends in a cul-de-sac today. So we studied to see if you could make that loop back to the north,
and this does show a connection that we follow the city’s grades and connect to the proposed
25
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
dead end driveway here and it will loop back to that north access point. That does require about
a third of an acre of encroachment into that Bluff Creek tree preservation area, which is actually
less than what’s proposed on the north. Right now the north loop shows about .4 acres of
encroachment into that.
Kate Aanenson: That also has a substantial retaining wall of about 800 feet, which we may want
terraced because it’s so tall, so I’m not sure that that’s feasible. And the other problem with that.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, could you repeat that?
Kate Aanenson: Yep. No, the significant retaining wall along this whole side here. It’s pretty
high. Typically when they’re that tall, we like to terrace them so they’re not that tall and so
again… This is also tying into a private street. A public street tying into a private street…
Steve Thatcher: Yeah, that’s true. There’s a double wall showing on the north, on the whole
north side of this development today.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, but I’m talking about the other wall too. There’ll be a new other wall.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, any other questions? Mr. Clark?
Kevin Clark: Commissioner, Councilman Lundquist. Another issue regarding the south access
is that, by bringing a full right-of-way through there, will certainly convert those, what are
proposed as private drives into public right-of-way and so then that will wipe out whatever
number of units as you come up into that totlot area that we’ve just got done focusing on. And
then. I just think it’d be a tremendous hurdle for the city to ask us to build 1,500 foot long, zero
loaded street through an area that’s identified as being basically bottomless. Building a road
that’s built to float, that’s going to be maintained by the city. Those are always dangerous words
for a street. And I think that there’d be a tremendous economic hardship to think about making
that a second access.
Councilman Lundquist: Fair enough.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, any other questions at this point? Gentlemen, thank you. Appreciate
your thoughts and comments. Okay. Better looking council chambers.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor, I have one more. I’m sorry.
Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Gentlemen, please.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: When this project was designed and laid out, was there any other
way it could have been designed and laid out so that we wouldn’t be talking about this tonight?
Or no matter what’s coming in.
26
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Kate Aanenson: Right, even with single family homes, again we have that long street. Even if it
was single family homes, even if it was commercial. I mean it’s topographically separated from
another piece.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So we’d still be talking about…
Kate Aanenson: Correct. As we do with every parcel that comes in, it’s angst on every project
that we do, and that’s our job is to make sure that all the pieces of the puzzle fit together and we
provide adequate access to adjoining parcels. Some pieces are easier because it just a natural fit.
Other pieces it’s more a challenge, even when we tell people a connection’s being made. It still
can be a challenge so you know.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay? Very good, thank you. Any other follow-up questions for staff?
Councilman Peterson: I guess the only other question I had, and we briefly talked about the
possibility of this loop without a secondary access point. I guess I’d like to focus on that a little
bit more so we have a better understanding of the difficulties in that.
Kate Aanenson: Having both streets come up at the same point?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: It’s a huge retaining wall. You’re getting back to the same point, you’re wiping
out some of the, Paul put his comments. Do you want to go back over your comments that we
commented on.
Mayor Furlong: Are you saying, Councilman Peterson, the loop that they showed right at the
very end there?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah.
Councilman Lundquist: That smaller one. No, not that one. That one right there.
Mayor Furlong: The little one on the table?
Councilman Lundquist: That one right there. Now if you zoom in on that. I think what Craig’s
talking about is you take that cul-de-sac is there and you tie it into, no. Just go straight to the
east.
Kate Aanenson: Go straight through the corner of the Fox piece.
Councilman Lundquist: No, no. Oh west. Straight to the west. Straight to the west. There you
go.
Mayor Furlong: Isn’t that just a cul-de-sac?
27
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. And you’ve got just one big loop which you’re all getting stuck on that.
Paul Oehme: I think the grades are, is that what you were asking?
Councilman Peterson: This one doesn’t have a loop. I’m saying if you created a loop, how
much of an issue.
Kate Aanenson: Well it’s a huge drop in grade.
Councilman Lundquist: Oh is it?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Todd Gerhardt: It wouldn’t meet city standard.
Councilman Peterson: That’s your retaining wall issue.
Councilman Lundquist: Ah.
Kate Aanenson: The change in grade is too significant. You wouldn’t be able. They were going
to the next level.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Go ahead.
Chris Moehrl: My name is Chris Moehrl with Westwood Professional Services. This is just a
copy of the plan that we had received. I looked at it really quickly and this here is just kind of a
grade limit line. I think what Kate was alluding to is that you’d actually be removing more trees
than what we’re looking at there. Another issue that I’m seeing that has been brought up too is
right here down on the corner. When we extend this road further to the northwest, this unit here
actually will have to rotate. Move a little bit to the southwest. We already have a retaining wall
there now so we’re already fighting some grade issues. A rough scale maybe it was 20-30 feet
and that could add another 10 feet or even longer, so that’s another issue that I see. I think on
this private road here, it looks like about 7%...
Mayor Furlong: Does that answer your question? Okay, very good. Thank you. Okay,
anything else before we.
Councilman Lundquist: Quick question on the park. This is probably something that we’ll talk
about on the next item as well. Putting an access, the park on the east side of the Peterson parcel.
You know in the potential of even putting a small access across that creek to get to that. Do you
know Todd or Paul or Kate, anybody, what’s the, so if we go back to the big map. No the other
one. There you go. So the yellow piece that’s on the west side of the Peterson property, if you
took that and moved it over to the east corner, yeah. Up by the creek up there somewhere, so
that you could potentially come across the, you know put a wooden bridge so to speak over the
creek there for bikes and pedestrians. What’s the elevation change from the, from the Town and
Country piece up into that northeast corner of the Peterson piece?
28
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Todd Hoffman: What’s the elevation change between here and here?
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah.
Todd Hoffman: You need just probably another difficult section of trail that would cross
wetlands, bridging the creek, either through a culvert or a bridge. And then come back up into
the other development. This is also the preferred location for the park. Services.
Councilman Lundquist: Those other 650 units.
Todd Hoffman: Yeah, and it just works out well. The planning buffer between the two different
types of uses. Fits in nicely to the road plan. You put it down here, on the lower side, it is
separated from the rest of the development and it really starts to isolate it down into the creek
area.
Kate Aanenson: That other, on this end too is the steeper part too. Being a walkout going this
way so… You could make the creek crossing but you’re on the flat. It’s probably the flattest
portion of the area. The Peterson property.
Councilman Lundquist: And so your trail would end up being the switch back and all kinds of.
Kate Aanenson: Not only the trail but the park would be.
Todd Hoffman: The park itself is a fairly flat location here with a playground and an open field.
It’s got good public visibility on the main road which is a good thing for a public park. You
stick it back into the back side of a development, it’s more difficult for the rest of the community
to locate, find, visualize.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Thanks Todd. Mr. Clark, what was the size, approximately size
of that totlot? Mr. Siders, either.
Shawn Siders: Totlot area is actually 45 by 45, so that includes a foul zone that’s required to.
Councilman Lundquist: The whole green space.
Shawn Siders: Oh, the whole area is.
Councilman Lundquist: Closer to a half an acre or an acre?
Todd Hoffman: Half.
Councilman Lundquist: That’s close enough. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, any other questions at this point? Some may come up in our discussion
and comments. If not, let’s try to move along and get people’s thoughts. On what we saw
29
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
different from last time or other comments that we’ve heard this evening in terms of road
alignments, as well as other. Thoughts. Comments.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I think that I’ve got some challenges and I’ll try to articulate
those as best I can. And I’ll speak in macro terms first of all. The 2005 MUSA gave us as a city
an opportunity to really form what is essentially the most significant part of our city. And to
design that with an AUAR and Planning Commissions and staff and councils. And you know I
think what I have tried, kind of set as my standard is, you can use a lot of different adjectives but
probably distinction is one that comes forth the best for me, and distinction isn’t about quality.
It’s about uniqueness and providing something to our city that is unique and provides, whether
it’s architectural style or life cycle living. Single level living. It’s a combination of everything
so I use the word distinction with quite a bit of thought. On Bluff Creek I articulated some of my
architectural standards, designs that I didn’t think brought that much distinction to our
community and again I’m questioning the quality. I’m questioning the distinctiveness of the
product that they’re using, along with scope of the project. You know so on Bluff Creek I was
concerned about the scope and the distinctiveness of some of the products they’re putting in
there. And now I’m presented with another development in Creekside that is essentially more of
the same. And hence there’s a conflict that I have trying to figure out how to deal with that.
And in another macro sense I’m a little bit concerned about the 2005 MUSA because we’re
putting in a lot of density. You are taking out some industrial and…replace that industrial yet
and our density numbers, I guess are becoming more dense than I had originally pictured as I
pictured the area for 2005 MUSA. We’ve got the Fox and Dorsey property that we’ve danced
around whether or not that’s going to be single family. We don’t know that yet but if it’s not,
then all of a sudden you’ve got the 2005 MUSA area with a great number of high density
complexes, and even the single family are going to be pretty small lots from what I’m
understanding. And that is of some concern to me. I don’t think that’s what our residents
wanted was a lot of high density as a balance there, and I’ll certainly look forward to other
councilors opinions so. Again, I’m concerned that we’re in many ways maybe moving too fast
and I’m not saying stop the developments but on this one particularly I’m saying it, seeing it as
being more of the same. And that concerns me as I don’t think it is bringing the distinction that
we need to for the community. And maybe my standards are too high. I don’t think so but that’s
kind of where they’re sitting. So in a general sense I’m probably not for the property, for the
development only because I’d like more variety. That’s putting it simply. And I think we can
get more variety. That being said, the totlot specifically, and I will address the whole package
here, I think is something that I think that area should be left to that individual community. I
don’t think we need to dictate that we need a totlot in there. I know it was discussed last time
and I wasn’t here to voice my opinion on it but I think that’s something that that area can be left
for a totlot, and if that development wants it, they can put that in. If the development does go
through. As it relates to the road. I can’t see any, going south just doesn’t make sense from
what I’m listening to and heard both sides. The cost structure and the maintenance, you know it
doesn’t seem feasible to go anywhere but north. And to work with the Fox’s to find the best
place north to go seems the only viable alternative so. So essentially I’ve voiced my opinion on
the project itself, that I’m not for it but should it go through, those are my opinions on the other
ancillary aspects of it.
30
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Thank you, and I guess in terms of questioning, getting back to your comments
Councilman Peterson on the distinction of design as you mentioned. You know when you see it
perhaps the answer, but what are you looking for from a.
Councilman Peterson: Well again I think it’s not so much what I’m looking for. I don’t want so
much of the same. You know we’re talking about hundreds and hundreds of units that are
essentially very similar, if not the same. You’ve got 146 Premiere in this development, and is it
135 of the Premiere’s in the other? It’s just a lot of the same. And you know when I drive
through communities, ourselves included, you want to see variety. And you’re going to have
separation here but not a great deal. And we are going to see, likely see the backs of these,
which you guys talked about at the last meeting that doesn’t bring architectural interest. They
are, color isn’t going to create a lot of distinction from my perspective. And or at least I haven’t
seen it used successfully. You need architectural lines that change the articulation in the rears of
those buildings. And I don’t know if that answers your question there or not but.
Mayor Furlong: No, I guess that helps. Thank you. Other thoughts, comments. Councilwoman
Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I always have to go after he has a wonderful speech about what he’s.
You know I guess I wish I could just say ditto from what I said last time. I feel like I was
disappointed when I opened my packet and saw it kind of looked the way it was last time. It just
kind of mirrors what they have across the street, or the road and I was thinking that, gosh you
know, you’ve got this beautiful piece of property and there’s so much you could do with it to
make it a distinctive place to live or a distinctive place in Chanhassen instead of just bringing
what you already have over to the other side of the development and so I was disappointed that
not much had changed with that and you know changing color palettes on buildings is a start but
I don’t know if it was enough for, to win me over as far as this project. And as I said before, I’m
not necessarily against the density of it because it was zoned for that density, and so I feel
comfortable where the project will come in. Maybe with just a little more thought or a little
more creativity or something as to what it would be used for. I like the life cycling. I’m not
quite sure if I’m sold on that. The totlot was a start, even though I don’t really encourage totlots
on private developments but it seemed with it’s location and the young families that would be
moving in there, it just seemed practical at the time. The road was a big issue for me. I think I
feel comfortable with following staff’s recommendations only because you know, I don’t want to
have to build a floating road under a bridge that the city has to maintain and has to really take
care of for years and years to come so, I would follow staff’s recommendation for the road if it
would come to that kind of, where it was going to pass and we had to make a decision so, I guess
I just am kind of echoing what I said last time. I don’t have much else to say.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: Well overall thoughts I think are in line with Mr. Peterson and Mrs.
Tjornhom that I mentioned at the last meeting that I’m still getting, I think I’m still getting my
arms around having 600 townhouses, or 600 units out there. Even that’s a lot and you know part
of it is, maybe I’m going through the shock and awe of that change in that stuff. That piece of
land might be, but even in light of that, there’s still, there’s just so much about this development
31
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
that just doesn’t feel right to me. The road thing, I think you know I can’t argue with the
previous comments about challenges on the soils out there. Putting a road under a bridge.
Whether or not, you know I think there’s still a lot of questions there and I fear that we may have
already missed the boat on the southern access with MnDot putting a major highway and a
bridge through there that may be a moot point now but it doesn’t mean there aren’t some other
alternatives there. I mentioned last time about the park issue. Again, challenging from a
perspective of topography and other parts there. I still from a practical standpoint doubt very
much that residents on a, you know when you send your kids, when they come home from
school and you send them out to play at dinner time, that they’re going to go to the park that’s on
the west side of the Peterson parcel. It’s just too hard to get there. It’s too hard for those you
know 6 to 12 year old kids that are going to get there. Now, a half acre totlot is a place to play,
and I would reiterate my concern that I don’t know that, I don’t have a good solution or
suggestion for a solution in that, but it’s a concern of mine that the residents there, you know
they’re not all going to be residents that have children of that age. Obviously there’ll no doubt
be a mix but I’m not sure that we’re servicing the needs of those residents there with that current
layout so. There’s just, there’s a lot of things about this that concern me. The zoning is there.
Or that the guiding for that is there. You know the density I think can be viewed as a win, that
we could have had up to 8 there that we have a reduction so I think that’s a win, but as Mr.
Peterson said, just because it’s a win on the number doesn’t mean it’s a win on what they look
like and appear like. Understand the topography and the use of those units fits in well with the
topography there. But that doesn’t mean that there’s not something else out there architecturally
as well that would capture the same so. I just, at this point I think I’m not comfortable enough
with the overall, you know there’s not probably one issue that’s a deal breaker for me but I’m not
comfortable that as a complete package that we’ve got the best thing that we can possibly have
right now. That we’ve got a little bit more work to do to go back and see what else we can get
on it.
Mayor Furlong: When we talked about this last week we talked some about architectural design,
not to the level that Councilman Peterson brought forth this evening, but we did talk about that
and we talked about the park and the road access. I think those were kind of the three main
issues. As I look at those issues, in no particular order, probably one of the biggest issues in
terms of points of contention is the road alignment. First of all I think the question is do we want
to have more than one access into the neighborhood, and I think the answer there is yes. That’s
from a designing city’s best practice standpoint, that’s a critical component for safety and quality
of life, so the real question is north or south. We talked about density and density transfers and
the desire to preserve the Bluff Creek corridor and some of that, well that was the reason on the
first Town and Country development that caused the actual density within the area where there is
development to exceed the medium density because we were protecting natural resources. So if
we’re going to be doing that, I don’t want to start adding crossings to the creek or whether it’s
trails or roads or those types of things. That would defeat the purpose for what we’ve already
done. So the, you know I think while there were issues raised that with the southern road access,
or access to the south to this neighborhood, you know is crossing the Bluff Creek the same in
terms of an impact as an additional wetland mitigation that isn’t a wetland right now but you
know would have to be mitigated elsewhere to meet MnDot’s standards somewhere else along
the corridor. I know from a hierarchy standpoint those are two different things. Is there
mitigation? Sure. But two different levels. The zoning to the south, it’s an industrial versus
32
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
commercial. What’s been discussed to the north right now which is zoned or guided for low
density residential. It was more of a mixed use commercial which is much more of a lifestyle
issue than, or access through that to this neighborhood versus coming up through the south
through an industrial park. It’s a different feel. Are they different zonings? Yes, but I think in
terms of complimentary, what’s currently guided or what’s being discussed to the north is much
more complimentary to here than what’s being discussed to the south. The costs I think are the
other aspect there. This is part of the give and take that comes in. There’s no perfect second
access to this property so what we have to do is pick the best one and everything I’ve heard
tonight, I don’t know what else we can hear but there’s nothing that’s compelled me to say that
the north is not the best of the alternatives. My thoughts there. With regard to the park. We
talked about that last time. I think, you know my thoughts are very much along with what
Councilman Peterson expressed tonight. I’m glad that we asked the developer to go look for you
know, can you do something there, but I think that leaving it up to the residents, if they, after
they move in, if the association wants to put something in, we know it will fit. If that becomes
an issue to them. I think as people look at these homes, as anyone in any city is looking to buy a
home, there are trade off’s between the amenities of not only the physical structure of the house
but also with the amenities surrounding it and if an association totlot is important to somebody,
and that’s high on their list, there are other developments in the city that have those. The one
right across the creek. Town and Country’s Liberty at Bluff Creek does so, so somebody might
be more inclined to buy over there if that was an important amenity, but the fact is we know that
something will fit if the residents want to, and I think to Councilman Peterson’s point, that’s
where I think we stay there. So as I hear conversations tonight, I mean the, we’re pretty close on
the park. I think you’ve heard my sentiment. I think we know that that’s an option. Let’s just
not make it a condition of the approval. The road alignment, you know to Councilwoman
Tjornhom’s comment, we keep asking but it seems that supporting staff’s position there is the
best of the alternatives. It may not be perfect for everybody but that’s the best. The real issue
gets back to Councilman Peterson’s question of distinction of design, if we use his terms, and I
guess they are. I would ask is that something from the applicant, are there, you know to me what
I’m hearing Councilman Peterson, don’t let me put words in your mouth but it’s not choices of
colors. But it’s the style of the houses, is that?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah. You’re looking at two communities that are within hundreds of
feet of each other, but they are different communities but they’re the same buildings. And with
one of the styles, the Concord I articulated on the initial phase that that was a nice urban feel.
Creative, contemporary and current design, and the Premiere just lacked both on the front side
and the rear enough character that I thought brought distinctiveness to the development.
Mayor Furlong: And again, don’t want to put words in your mouth. You’re not saying, instead
of these two from across the creek, pick two more from across the creek. You’re looking for
distinction per se. Uniqueness.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, just because of it’s sheer size. You know hundreds of units and
then to drive, like you say, across the creek and seeing more of the same thing, that’s a huge
portion of our community from percentage wise of the same kind of style, and I think offering
our residents a more distinctive variety is I think an asset.
33
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong: I guess Mr. Siders, I’d ask you, is that, based on what you’ve heard this
evening, are there other potential designs that might be available? Given the topography and the
other conditions.
Kevin Clark: Well going back to our original submittal when we had primarily just, it was more
homogenous. Where we had all the townhomes and where that grew out of our understanding
that this is kind of an enclave really. Where this site is, at the time really was a protected area.
We though that that was a better fitting for that, to have, create that kind of area for that product
which fit into the site very well. And I think personally I don’t know if we’re getting enough
credit for the advances that we have put forth. Over the last 3 years, when we first came in, we
had two products for Liberty at Bluff Creek. We since elevated that architecture to 4 different
products. We’ve changed the elevation. Added materials. I guess I’m wondering when does it
stop. You know we’ve added brick. We’ve added four elevations to the Premiere. We’ve put
different architecture on the rears. At some point you know there has to be a balance there. Now
I understand what you’re saying about the units. When we move from the Bluff Creek
neighborhood into Creekside, we have some, the Premiere units, 62 of those, around the
perimeter of that neighborhood and that’s why we felt it’s inappropriate from both a community
standpoint and a density standpoint, we are investing oh probably upwards of $5-$7 million
dollars on a model center out there currently under construction, as a marketing effort to make
this a successful project. I mean everything that we’re doing and working with you on is to
make this a successful project. For yourselves. For the city and so that this community doesn’t
sit there and linger, and by doing that we make the investment to do that. To do that you have to
support it. You can’t just build you know 5 of this and 5 of that and then expect the project to
have any legs. I mean you build a model center. You invest in the model. The architecture, so
that was our impetus to really then moving that into that other neighborhood. Hearing from you
collectively, and the Planning Commission and such, we’d like some more adversity. We said
well that’s fine. That makes sense, so we moved and brought the other product up there in a
smaller contingent but to break that up, as you mentioned, more of an urban flare. Get some
views onto that public street. Change the geometry of the site by turning the buildings. Working
with that within the context of the topography, and we thought we did a fairly decent job of
doing that and meeting those requirements. I guess a long winded answer to the question is, can
something else be done? Can we go out and re-engineer and bring in a new product? That’s a
real hurdle when you talk about new architecture. New design and then coming up there for you
know, what would then be maybe a small nucleus for the effort to do that, and it’s a big
undertaking when you do anything like that. Stepping back a little bit, you know we looked at a
variety of products. A conversation earlier was, what’s the limit on the cul-de-sac because when
we started looking at what would be some other alternatives here to address access. To address
grades. We went back and did numerous iterations looking at single family. Looking at
different products. Looking at how we could get other products into that area. Frankly, single
family is just, that’s a tremendous hurdle. I mean we’d be really selling you a story if we
thought we could convert that right now to single family and really make a go of it in the market.
And even in the market 3 to 6 months from now, or past. It just, it would be certainly maybe be
distinctive. It would probably be the homes that would show up in Distinctive Home magazine,
because they’d all have to be at least a million dollar homes, and that’s not the market that we
think that this area can support. I don’t know if we can come back with more architecture. I
guess as oppose to getting denied, we’d certainly take the opportunity to look at it, but I can’t
34
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
promise you that I’m going to be able to come back here and say hey, we’ve got a new product.
What do you think?
Councilman Peterson: And you were speaking more to me than anybody else, so I guess I’ll
respond. I think that really what I’m talking about is degree. You know I approved the last
project and I supported it. I think we have a better product from what the Planning Commission
and you and council had. I’m essentially talking about numbers and if you were coming in front
of us with 1,200 units tonight, you’d probably get more push back. I mean in my..I think we’ve
got enough of the kinds of products you’ve got with the 600 in the other area.
Kevin Clark: That’s a misnomer. We don’t have 600 in the other.
Councilman Peterson: Well I was.
Kevin Clark: 440. 444.
Councilman Peterson: Well, 450 versus the 146 so. To that end, I’m just struggling with the
numbers.
Kevin Clark: Okay.
Councilman Peterson: So you know, and I support the numbers with the design differences
we’ve had, I’ve had the discussion with you before so. But again I think that’s where my point
is. There is a number from the size of it, the development that’s going to get pushed back from
staff and you weren’t at staff’s push back. You happen to be at mine. Now whether or not it’s
the rest of the council’s, I can’t speak so.
Kevin Clark: Sure. It’s kind of you know, that’s a conundrum that you individually have to
work with but I guess we’ve met that density requirement. I mean I think coming into this, back
when, this area was guided for these densities. I mean if some of these things were out there as
were taken into effect when the AUAR study was done. When you looked at capacity for other
improvements that you were planning on. What you thought your tax revenues would be.
Infrastructure. Viability. Assessment levels. All those things were important to do that and I
think when we look at Liberty at Bluff Creek, where are we at? 4.52 or somewhere in there as
far as net density as opposed to you know 4 to 8, so we’ve been very sensitive along with you
and listen to you on that throughout this discourse. But some of the comments I’ve heard
tonight, we’re kind of, we’re caught up in that more internal wrestling match, and I don’t know.
It is what it is but it’s kind of an unfair collective.
Councilman Lundquist: We did take some of the, we did take some of the, on the original
project, we did take some of the industrial out of that when we approved that. The Liberty at
Bluff Creek so there was, I mean you’re on point where you say that you have the low end of the
density here but as we look at that site as a whole, they have deviated from some of the guiding
on that by taking some of that industrial out, so we are, you know there’s some things that have
changed there as well as we look at the site as a whole but, you’re certainly on point where
you’re at the low end of the density.
35
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Kevin Clark: So that made, I think made Bluff Creek more of a challenge because that was an
undefined situation you left yourselves with. Really, that we all were trying to deal with is that
we left, there were more options there than maybe would have been ideal.
Mayor Furlong: And I think Mr. Clark, in terms of giving you credit. Perhaps we haven’t
expressed it publicly so I’ll do it now, and with Liberty at Bluff Creek there were some very
good strides made there through the process that resulted in the approval at the time.
Kevin Clark: Sure, and we’re grateful and excited about, you know what we’re doing out there
right now.
Mayor Furlong: And color palette was part of that but the other thing were some new design.
New product designs that came in there that were not originally part of it. And as I drive around
the Twin Cities area, or travel to other parts of the country, there are some places where you can
go to where you drive by beige box after beige box after beige box that are all just lined up, and
we don’t have that there so I think from what was accomplished at Bluff Creek, I think we did
make some great strides there in terms of the number of different housing products and
introducing some of the new products that weren’t originally designed, and I guess all I’m
hearing here is, is you know can we do some of that rather than just taking the extension of the
existing products there and transferring them over here. Tell me if I’m wrong. The other issues
that we’ve talked about, the park. The road. Are we generally coming to agreement on that as a
council? Councilwoman Tjornhom, again you were a little hesitant here but again talking about
the product or the, following up on Councilman Peterson’s comments there. In terms of the
road, you said the road to the north made sense to you and you know, the park is like it, but at
least it’s an option.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor I would say, you know as a, none of those are really deal
breakers for me. Do I like the road alignment? You know no, but does it work? Is it an option?
You know of all the options, then yeah. Is the open area/totlot/whatever you know you want to
call it ideal? No, but is it, would it work? Yeah. But there’s nothing compelling me as I look at
this thing as a whole to put those issues aside and say it’s worth accepting those less than ideal
conditions to go ahead and get it. Where there’s some, something compelling me about the
development to say that I really want these style of houses or this product or this market that isn’t
currently served in our residents somehow, some way. Something different about that. I could,
the road and the park thing wouldn’t be the detriment to me. But when I look at it as a whole,
there’s something missing there that isn’t jumping off the page saying, I want this.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Well and I guess to your comment, I guess what I think, to try
to keep it going but also to give some good direction there, what we’re looking for. The
comments have been made tonight. It would seem to me that we should probably take another
look at the housing products, or ask you to do that and have you come back with what options
might be available, and the pros and cons then of those options. Is that a fair?
Councilman Peterson: From my perspective, yeah, certainly.
36
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I think it’s very fair. I think you’re a very talented developer and I
think that there has to be more than 4 townhouses that can be built out in Chanhassen. I’m sure
you could find 2 more that are just as good, if not better. As far as design standards are
concerned.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other thoughts or comments?
Kevin Clark: No, I think I understand and we’ll take 2 weeks to take a look at it.
Mayor Furlong: See what can happen.
Roger Knutson: In order to make this work we’ll need an extension on the time lines.
th
Kevin Clark: I think we have through the 8, correct?
Roger Knutson: Right, but that won’t work for us because if we’re going to go in a different
direction, we have to start that process tonight. In other words, we need more time if you want to
actively consider something.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Lundquist: So you’re saying from a staff perspective we need more time?
Roger Knutson: If you’re going to go with findings different than what the Planning
Commission has put in front of you, in other words if you’re going to want findings for denial,
you’d have to order them prepared tonight so we could have them at your next meeting.
Councilman Lundquist: I didn’t hear us say findings for denial.
Todd Gerhardt: But you’re going to table now.
th
Mayor Furlong: I know but…the 8 is our next meeting so. Is that something to do whatever
our city attorney would like to do.
Kevin Clark: This is déjà vu.
Roger Knutson: Yes, we’ve done that before haven’t we.
Todd Gerhardt: Like I told Justin earlier, it’s just like home so.
Kevin Clark: What I’ve done is just amended the date.
Roger Knutson: To what?
nd
Kevin Clark: May 22.
37
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong: That would be our second council meeting from now. Just for clarification, if
we took action at that meeting, would that extension still be okay?
Roger Knutson: That will work.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, very good. Is there a motion to table?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Motion to table.
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded.
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council
table action on Liberty at Creekside, Planning Case No. 05-24. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
(The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
PIONNER PASS, 1600 PIONEER TRAIL, APPLICANT SEVER PETERSON:
REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM
RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY AND OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL-
LOW DENSITY (APPROXIMATELY 43 ACRES); REZONING FROM
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO RESIDENTIAL LOW AND MEDIUM
DENSITY DISTRICT (RLM); PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PIONEER PLASS
CREATING 82 LOTS, 8 OUTLOTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PUBLIC STREETS
(APPROIXMATELY 73 ACRES); CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT WITH A
VARIANCE FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO THE PRIMARY ZONE; AND WETLAND
ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE GRADING AND FILLING OF WETLANDS AT
FUTURE HIGHWAY 312.
Public Present:
Name Address
Joel Cooper JRH Inc.
John Chadwick J. Edwin Chadwick LLC
Paul Bilotta HMI Development
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. This project before you tonight,
Pioneer Pass is located also in the 2005 MUSA area. It will gain it’s access off the new frontage
road, then also off of Pioneer Trail. This request involves a couple of actions, most specifically
land use amendment from residential medium density or office industrial to low density. Of
approximately 43 acres. It also includes the rezoning to RLM and we’ll spend a little bit of time
going through that zoning district itself. Also preliminary plat and a conditional use for the work
38
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and a variance for the pond in the overlay district. And
then also a wetland alteration permit for grading and filling. Most importantly I’d like to talk a
little bit about the land use on this. If you want to turn to page 4 of the staff report, we put a
table in there showing you where we are to date on the different land uses. Based on the
previous discussion, it may be hard to believe this but our largest land use is low density, large
lots or single family is our largest land use. If you go to the housing goals, we’ve always said it
will predominantly 80% single family detached, so what you’re seeing now is the introduction of
some other product types. The RLM zoning district, which you look at this…was anticipated in
some of the properties within the overlay district. As we looked at the overlay district, as we
talked about in the past, there were two ways to accomplish providing the entire creek corridor,
and I’ll go back to my old map here. The goal was to provide a corridor that runs from the north
side to the south along the Bluff Creek and instead of acquiring it all, which we could have done,
we’ve worked through the zoning technique to provide that corridor because we have had
experiences where people plotting up the lot, so in this specific piece came before you and asked
for concept PUD to discuss whether or not you wanted to look at the medium density or the
industrial. At that time the applicants, also in talking with staff, we wanted to provide different
housing styles on the property so this would be a single family product. So what we did on page
4 is we put the compliance table to date on that percentage of units, and it was discussed actually
even on the bottom of page 2, talking about the 43 acres. Again, try to keep this simplistic but
when we did our compliance on the land use, or our calculations, we assumed that a 50/50 split.
If it went industrial or residential, we assumed based on the land use calculations for housing
densities at 50/50 split. So in looking at the units lost among the medium densities were, that
would have showed up on that 50% also. Again we used those numbers to keep track of that.
We had to make certain assumptions for assessments and we looked at those numbers of, number
of units, also for utilities. Water rate structure. Storm water fees so we look at all those
numbers. So looking at the overall, we’re taking into low density. Adding 42 acres, or taking
out of the medium density 21. So that ties back to that percentage. Again in looking at the
zoning that could have been applied on this, they could have gone with the medium or the
industrial but at the concept this council gave direction conceptually, while it doesn’t have legal
standing, in good faith they moved forward using the low density. I’ll talk about the specific
questions on the green, I’m not going to talk too much about that except that we did talk that it
slopes down towards the creek, and the park is located in that area that actually provides a good
transition between Liberty at Bluff Creek and this project itself. And also as the Park Director
mentioned, we believe it’s in a good site as far as the visibility from a major collector road,
which would be another nice view as you come down the collector road. Turn at the round about
and then…minor collector that they’ll be putting in place. So access on this, another issue under
zoning itself, because there is other industrial zoning on this piece of property, so what the
developer, but then also MnDot has and if they decide to turn back that right-of-way, excess
right-of-way, that would stay under guiding the industrial, which would tie into the triangular
piece that we talked about earlier. Everybody tracking me on that? So we, so this property is in
excess MnDot right-of-way. This property here.
Mayor Furlong: We expect it will be?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it could be turned back at some time when they’re done with the project.
39
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: But we’re not changing the guiding on that. We’re only changing the guiding,
so this will still remain industrial, and that ties back into…going to go here, and then this is also,
what we talked about earlier, is the industrial piece on the other side of the creek.
Mayor Furlong: If it remains industrial or will it be dual guided?
Kate Aanenson: Probably still be dual guided. But we would recommend probably a transition
area of some professional office, kind of in that area. Buffering. But the issue there then too was
access. Again, as I indicated, it will have access off of the collector road. They are also building
a minor collector on this portion. So they’re…the issue that we have is there’s a gap there
between the MnDot right-of-way and getting to Pioneer. So on this map doesn’t show it but the
subdivision map does show that connection onto Pioneer, so there’s two access points in and out
of that subdivision also. And as the City Engineer indicated earlier, that access point was, this
access point was actually over here earlier. Approximately in this area. It’s not been moved
over to this point as part of the design build.
Councilman Lundquist: So they’re building the road.
Kate Aanenson: To tie in…
Councilman Lundquist: From their development all the way to, is that Bluff Creek Drive coming
up there or what is that?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. This is the new aligned Bluff Creek Drive, right.
Councilman Peterson: They’re not building right up to that though?
Kate Aanenson: Yes they are. Building right across. Yes, we are making that a condition of
approval because there’s a gap and we wanted two access points in the subdivision.
Councilman Peterson: And that part is in MnDot’s right now?
Kate Aanenson: It is. It’s a condition of approval that they secure that to make that access
happen. Yeah, so we’re not putting all the pressure back on this road, so the two access points.
So I mentioned again these are all public streets. This one being the 80 foot. The rest of them
would all be the 60 foot. There’s a compliance table in the staff report talking about the lot sizes.
Again this is the RLM zoning district. We did apply this when we updated the city code to give
another zoning option within the RLM zone. This is the area that’s being preserved. There is
buildable area up in the, let me go to the plat itself. There is some buildable area on this side of
the creek, and on the north side. They are providing an additional access through their property
to the Creekside, Liberty at Creekside development. So again this is an opportunity for them to
take advantage of some of the impervious surface. In working with the grades, and our road
construction through the project itself, the best place to locate that pond without putting a big
40
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
retaining wall outside of the overlay district is where it is, and that’s why the staff supported the
variance on the location of that pond. Part of it is our construction of the road. I talked about.
Mayor Furlong: Is that…second? Secondary.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. It’s actually in the primary, so that’s the first time we’ve done that but in
looking at where, if we pulled it up closer to those lots, we didn’t want that proximity…so the
staff supported that again with some significant grading that you’re not seeing…so that’s already
being impacted by grading of the road, so we felt that was, it’s already been impacted by our
road design, so putting the pond there didn’t add additional impact.
Councilman Lundquist: How much of the primary zone is it?
Kate Aanenson: So this is, it’s hard to see on this. This is the grading, the lines. Can you zoom
in a pinch more, just up in this corner right here. These lines are pretty light but the significant
impact in grading right through here on that, and I know it’s hard to see. For the road. So that’s
where this pond follows, so the back’s up in here is pretty much the primary line right there.
Councilman Lundquist: Go back to the, okay.
Kate Aanenson: Right in here.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So essentially the whole pond is in the primary zone?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. And again, the reason we did support that early on is that we
already were impacting that with our, so since it was, the grades were being changed for our
project, it made sense to put it there. Instead of putting it closer to the backs of the lots where
engineering had some concern. The…change of grades right in the back of the retaining walls.
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, what’s in that green spot in the back there? No, in the opposite
corner.
Kate Aanenson: Here?
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: That’s a wetland associated with the creek.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, and so.
Kate Aanenson: And this is all.
Councilman Lundquist: There you go. That one you just touched, right there. So putting a pond
right there, is that still in the primary zone?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
41
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, so it doesn’t matter, alright.
Kate Aanenson: But again that’s part of the green space that they’re capitalizing on, which I’ll
segway to now and then I’ll swing back to parks. In the compliance table we give you all the
lots. Lots average 15,000 square feet. The smallest being 9. It does say that 5 and a 10. The
plat you’re looking had some, it shows 10 all the way around on all sides. It does allow, 10 foot.
In talking with the applicant.
Mayor Furlong: Are you talking about side yard setback?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. But with a 70 foot, but.
Mayor Furlong: So then…
Kate Aanenson: Right, but what I’d like to recommend is that we had 5 in here, that is allowed
as a minimum. That we change that to a 5 and a 10. That would be 15 feet inbetween, to allow
that flexibility because this was designed for specific buildings. We had custom product homes.
Right now they’re trying to introduce a number of different builders in here, and this zoning
district also allows 35% impervious, again anticipating that we want to do a single family that
would be able to capitalize on the overall district, using that green space. This does allow for the
35% hard cover within the subdivision itself. So if you went with a bigger home on these
smaller lots, it would fit based on the impervious calculation, and that’s again in the RLM zone.
So they’re showing the 10 on either side. And that was with the 70 foot wide home in there.
Some of them are coming in a little bit larger so, they certainly can do the 5. 5 and 10, so you’d
rotate that. So we have at least 15 feet between, there’s probably some that certainly would be
the 10 and 10. So you’d have the, which is our standard.
Councilman Lundquist: So you’re asking for 5 and 10 or 10 and 10?
Kate Aanenson: 5 and 10. I’d like to leave that flexibility in because you may have a larger
home, if you get those, there’s some builders that they’re talking to that we’ve worked with that
do a little bit larger home than the 70. We’d like that flexibility to be able to introduce that. But
I would say there’ll probably be a lot of them at the 10 and 10.
Councilman Lundquist: So they’re asking for 10 and 10 or?
Kate Aanenson: They’re asking for 5 and 5.
Councilman Lundquist: Oh okay.
Kate Aanenson: I’m recommending that we go to 5 and 10.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, I’m with you.
42
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Kate Aanenson: That’s what the code allows, 5 and 5 and I asked them if they would be willing
to go to the 5 and 10. On the bottom of page 15, again the average lot size on that is the 15,000.
That’s also in the compliance table on one of the sheets on your site plan too. So it does have
some lots obviously that are over on the cul-de-sac lots, and again this project itself will have
some very interesting views which is certainly of interest to Mr. Peterson who owns the property
to take, to really capitalize on the serentic area here, and then also as a part of the extraction that
was negotiated through the park commission and park director, provide an opportunity obviously
for these residents…for the Bluff Creek and that would be a public park. I think that’s all I had
unless there was some specific questions on anything. I’d be happy to answer any questions that
you have.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions for staff?
Councilman Peterson: Kate what have we got, what do we have for similar setback between
single family homes…? What did we do at Settlers West?
Kate Aanenson: They’re 10 and 10, but they’re all maxed out. That’s a 25% impervious and all
those houses are going either at 24 or right at 25 when they come in, so in looking at this, I think
the uniqueness again, allowing the impervious to go higher because we’ve created that green
space in the back, it allows people to come back and do those porches, decks, those sort of things
without the fact that they’re going over, and that’s really key to what we believe is giving that
flexibility on developments, as opposed to putting those much larger homes on the minimum
15,000 which everybody tries to maximize the number of lots, so we believe that the flexibility’s
built in here and using this different zoning technique. Again we anticipated this application
somewhere in the district. The 2005.
Mayor Furlong: I guess the question is, should we reserve time on future agendas for hard
surface coverage…?
Kate Aanenson: Oh you may. You may.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess…I guess that’s a question in terms of initial design and wherever
you put the setbacks and what’s allowed so. For a builder to build out…what they’re allowed to
do so if that’s where.
Kate Aanenson: Right, and I’ll go back to the discussion we’ve had this with the Planning
Commission too. Our zoning ordinance was built at a time when our standard lot frontage, 90
foot and then you’ve got 10 on each side, left you a 70 foot home. Most of the larger home
builders now are doing a 74 or 75, 76 foot wide home. They can’t meet the setbacks, and not
only that, they’re much deeper. So you know we tried to look at how do we balance that and
that’s why we introduce this zoning district too. Now certainly going a small 80 foot frontage
wouldn’t work on that but it allows you to go the 35%. They can do the bigger lots, but they’d
also have to create that green space, so it’s an opportunity where you’ve got the right area.
Mayor Furlong: And that 35%, that would be valid for what, the 12,000 foot lots…
43
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Over the entire site. Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions at this point? Just one question I had, this was in the conditions
with regards to the parks. With regard to the economics of the additional park. Mr. Gerhardt,
any comments on that or?
Todd Gerhardt: I think the language that is written in the report reflect the purchase agreement
with D.R. Horton. I think for everything to be equal, I like the Mayor’s point that we talked
about earlier that as long as it doesn’t go any higher, but if it goes lower, then we’d want to
adjust the dollar amount so.
Mayor Furlong: I asked the question of where the dollar amount came up and I understood that
it was from the previous purchase agreement, and if that’s where…
Todd Gerhardt: That was a good recommendation Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: ...the only question I had, is that still a valid concern on our part.
Todd Gerhardt: I think we’ll address that with the final plat. I would think they’re probably
continuing to market the property and might have a purchase agreement by then and we can even
get a dollar amount in there.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think obviously getting some preliminary plat approval allows them to
accelerate their marketing, correct.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Any other questions for staff at this point?
Councilman Peterson: Kate from a historical, the only concern I’ve got to some degree is we’re
doing a zoning change without having any sense of a look or feel of what they’re planning to put
down there. And I don’t remember if we’ve ever done that.
Kate Aanenson: Well, except that we do it on a standard subdivision all the time. We don’t ask
if, when Pinehurst came in, we didn’t look at their product. We’ve asked them to whoever
they’re working with. It’s happened sometimes that they’ll reassemble lot lines that you can do
administratively. If they have to drop one lot to make some builder happy, they split part of a lot
and join it to the other two. If you follow me, so that may happen, but certainly that’s what they
need that information to go forward with marketing. And we do have this size lots, actually
Springfield was the last PUD that we did which is off of Lyman, and that’s an average of 15,000.
Some as small as 11. The problem is the 30% and still that’s sometimes in a PUD the single
family, you really need to get closer to the 35 for the smaller lot. And that’s how we looked at.
Councilman Peterson: The subdivision…rezoning.
Kate Aanenson: Well PUD would. Yeah, a PUD would.
44
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Councilman Peterson: But then we gain control with PUD…
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Well you still, our ordinance says we don’t do design
standards or design review on a single family home, so. We only do it on multi family, or
attached.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this point? You have some more questions… At this
point in time…the applicant, good evening. If they would like to address the council, you’re
more than welcome.
John Chadwick: Good evening. My name is John Chadwick. I live at 11430 Zion Circle,
Bloomington, Minnesota. Representing the Peterson family. Thank you Mr. Mayor, council,
staff. Chance to be here. It seems like I’ve had a chance to visit with most of your staff
throughout this last year and a half, and it’s been a good experience. Not that there hasn’t been a
little back and forth, but I think that’s really good. And what we tried to do, I think it’s about a
63 acre site when you look at it corner to corner to corner to meander and wherever she all goes,
but it does, it is part of the Bluff Creek and I think there’s 18-19 acres of that that’s being
preserved. And then there’s a 4 acre park, 4.79 acre, 4.73 acre park, the yellow area right there
that should be of great benefit to the people here. It’s available as Kate said, you’ve got a nice
drive what you’re looking at when you’re coming from the north and south. You come in from
the southern collector road, that comes in off of Pioneer, you can get there. You can see it,
everybody can get to it and can use it. That should be a great amenity. We did a road
connection and everything as a public street. We tried our best to follow the AUAR as far as we
need to build a southern collector, so we did that. We want to tie into the east/west, north/south
collector. We did that. We got that nice round about that gives us a beautiful sight lines to the
development, and you know I didn’t design all this stuff. We got design consultants and
engineer is here making that whole thing work out. And we’ve got about 80 foot drop from the
top of the farm all the way down to the water level of Bluff Creek, and so it’s a pretty nice deal
for making single family. It would be really difficult to do big, flat buildings on that thing
without grading the heck of her. So we, the street’s curved, turned out to the roads and the way
they lay out there. I’m sure there’s going to be a lot of grading but there’s been a lot of farming
done there too, so we don’t have to run into too many trees on this particular site. And as far as
down on the Bluff Creek area, some of that hasn’t been farmed. Of course that will be restored
as part of this development and put it back into a more of a natural state. Sorry about that Sever.
The deal’s probably done. And so with that we’ve got 81 lots and we’re anxious to get going on
that and we are actively marketing that and we’ve got a lot of great inquiries on that and
unsolicited inquiries now that the word is out. It’s out there and people like to be in Chanhassen.
And we like to make that possible and with your help and support we’re going to make that
possible. And make it as part of this area, this whole AUAR area that we worked so hard on.
We’re here to answer any questions. We don’t need to belabor the point. The hour is late. And
then…other areas that we’d like to get on to so with that I will stop and I thank you all for your
hard work.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Thank you Mr. Chadwick. Any questions? Very good. Any
follow up questions?
45
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Councilman Lundquist: Just had one quick one Mr. Mayor. Kate, the south side of the property,
as that will be some sort of, oh yeah. Of commercial, industrial, office. Whatever that might be
there. On the topography, landscaping, whatever that might be, do we have what we feel would
be adequate buffering between the backs of those houses? As Mr. Undestad can attest to, we just
went through a fun one like that as we transition from a single family neighborhood to what was
an open space is now an industrial office.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it’s a good question. I didn’t touch too much on this but they’re actually
buffering through landscaping the collector because you’ve got street on both sides like on these
lots. And then also on this minor collector, there is no direct access. You have to get that via
this street, so that would be a nice experience as you come along the park there. Also providing
additional landscaping here. To this area too, we’ve also talked about letting through their
covenants, letting those homeowners know that this is excess right-of-way and may be developed
as something else in the future. But there is a pretty good change in grade but we’ve talked
about some things that we can come back with on final plans too. How we take care of
addressing that and then the transition of buffer.
Councilman Lundquist: Is the grade change down or up?
Kate Aanenson: Right now it’s berm. But it could go away and that’s kind of what, they’ve
addressed that so that’s why we need to put in the covenants that may go away and it may be
something else, and that’s kind of what we’re talking about. Leaving that in place but figuring
out, because if a different use came in and we’d want to provide some other type, whether it’s
fencing or. It may be an office with a greater setback that may work too and get access via this
road and how we orientate that and stuff so, that’s something that we’d work on too between
now and final plat.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Just you know a concern. We bring in office industrial or
commercial, they’re not generally amenable to giving you a bigger setback. They’re trying to
put as big a box on there as they possible can so. Maybe it’s something we want to look at
between now and final as well to make sure that we’ve got some protection so that 8-10 years
down the road when that end of that gets…
Mayor Furlong: So will that remain zoned A2 guided…
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Yep, it will remain zoned A2 and guided for office or, excuse
me, office industrial/medium density.
Mayor Furlong: Or medium density.
Kate Aanenson: And that’s one we could look at too as we update the comp plan, if you wanted
to get something more specific, that could be one that we’ll target too. To look.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions at this point? Thoughts and comments.
46
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Councilman Lundquist: Want me to go first this time Craig?
Councilman Peterson: Sure. I can’t play the protagonist all night.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, my thoughts. I’m glad to see a different style in here. On
this property. It seems a lot of the issues that we just went through on the last one we won’t face
here. Kate, thanks for the comparison on the Springfield. That helps me get a little bit better
handle because when I look at the numbers and I think about 12 or 13,000 acre, or square foot lot
you know with a 35% hard cover on there, that seems like you know, you could share dinner
with your neighbors through the kitchen window if you tried hard, so that’s good there. The, you
know obviously the proximity to the park and all of that is good. I’m a little bit leery I guess not
having a builder necessarily identified that you know, I want to make sure we get a good quality
piece and I feel like as we, we’re at the point now where if we approve this, you know yes
there’s a final plat to go yet and hopefully we’ll have that not so minor detail taken care of at that
point, but you know I want to make sure that we lay out all the guidelines and we don’t get
somebody comes in and builds some lower quality pieces on there and there’s not a heck of a lot
we can do about it at that point so. Either that’s a concern that’s out there, but this being in the
preliminary phase, if we get to the final I’d be a lot more concerned about it at that point but
overall pretty straight forward. I like the way it’s laid out. It again still, it’s a lot of units in there
when you look at it on paper. It’ll be sandwiched probably inbetween two townhouse
developments which, and a future office industrial and a major highway and some collector
streets and all kinds of good stuff so it will be interesting to see how the marketing process goes.
Wish you luck there. Hopefully we can get a good builder in there, but as it stands overall I’m
comfortable with what we’ve got at the stage that we’re at now. You know look for some of that
buffering on the south side, and the final and hopefully we can get to a point where we’ve got a
builder identified so we can get a little bit more comfortable with the products that we’d be
looking for so, those are my comments.
Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Other thoughts.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well I feel comfortable with the project. I think that you know, I
don’t really have a fear that we’re going to have some disaster strike and we’ll have horrible
round houses or something in these developments. I think that we’ll come up with property
owners and some builders that have good design standards and are going to you know, the
neighborhood will only sell if they have good houses in them so I’m trusting that that, I’ll follow
my wisdom on that. I think that it’s a good neighborhood because it will have a different variety
of price points perhaps than some of the other neighborhoods we’ve had. We won’t have maybe
million dollar homes. We’ll have more something in reach for other people in the community.
I’m guessing. Maybe not. Maybe higher… I think that neighborhood flows nicely. I think the
park is a good asset. And I leaned over to Councilman Lundquist while you were up presenting
your plans and I said it looks like a good door knocking neighborhood. I like that. Homes close
together and easy access. Other than that I guess I don’t have any problems with it and I look
forward to seeing how it develops.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Peterson.
47
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Councilman Peterson: I would echo my two peers and previous comments so nothing to add.
Councilman Lundquist: One quick mulligan though. It is the one concern I do have that I’ll just
reiterate again is the loss of the industrial piece. You know we talked about it at concept. We
talked about it as we go along that you know, I guess we can’t let it slide by. Probably still
beating a dead horse but I’ll continue to do that as we.
Mayor Furlong: I’ll pick up on that and give you some of my thoughts. Perhaps something that
we or staff want to look at with the excess right-of-way piece to maybe take away the dual on
that. I’m not advocating that but consider it. Looking at if it works. Maybe then giving it a
single guiding, which, because that was a point Councilman Lundquist raised at the time that we
approved concept plan. We’ve learned more from that…and where things might be going but
that might be something to look at. Not advocating it but maybe that’s the opportunity. You
know overall I’m pleased with what I’ve heard this evening. It helped me gain some comfort. I
think my concern is when we’re dealing with smaller lot sizes, and here some of these are pretty
good sized lots. It’s probably more of a function of the topography and the lots going down to
the creek, you know. Because there are some small ones here too. I’m just a little concerned
with some of the setbacks in here. I think a normal single family residential we’re at 30 and 30
on the front and back. 30 in the front.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we’ve actually approved a lot of, yeah. If you go to like Longacres, a lot
of those were given the 20 on the front. On this PUD’s. Same with Springfield. Where we try
to preserve trees. Actually I think we did that on a few on Pinehurst too where if you recall as
you go to that ravine, so we try to stay at a minimum of 25. That gives you better stacking on the
front driveway. You’ll see that on another project that’s coming forward that we stick with at
least a 25.
Mayor Furlong: Because this is, you know setbacks are something I’ve mentioned before…
especially with 5 on a side yard, or even what’s being proposed here as the 5 and 10. 15 feet is
not a lot between two homes and you know my, on the impervious surface, you know 35% on a
22,000 acre lot, that’s quite a bit that can be used. Would it all be used? Perhaps not but it could
be used. My preference is to try to keep that down just from a storm water management,
especially near the creek. And maybe I can give…and try to force that to 30. Keep that at 35
and those side yard setbacks…but I would be interested in some thoughts there. A lot of the
flexibility is important but at the same time it’s that look and feel that’s going to add 5 more feet
to the lawn distance perhaps between homes but again… Yeah, 15 feet is not much.
Kate Aanenson: Can I throw this out Mayor since they’re working on, at this point if we look at
the 5 and 10 when they come back for final plat, when they’ve got a builder, then you’ll have a
better idea. Kind of what their needs are because if we eliminate it now, then we’ve prevented
them from doing anything bigger than that 70, so maybe it’s a percentage, if they kind of know
who their builders are.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess the assumption there is it might be a single builder. Maybe there…
but is there something that prevents us from relaxing those setbacks? I’ve got to believe that we
can’t be more restrictive… Is there some reason that we couldn’t relax those.
48
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Kate Aanenson: That’s what I’m saying. Keep it open so you can make it more restrictive, well
I guess that wouldn’t work that way.
Mayor Furlong: Well if we wanted, and I don’t even know if anybody else agrees with me.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I’m tracking with you. I understand.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, well just qualify it. Say at final plat we review based on the builders that
it may be changed.
Mayor Furlong: What I heard tonight and your comment with Settlers West was another most
recent example is that, whatever those setbacks are, they go to a maximum. …but so, from our
standpoint I guess…
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I guess in this instance too the ordinance does say 5 and 5, so we’ve
asked them in good faith if they would consider accepting the 5 and the 10, which they said
they’d like to do. So, or are willing to do, but I think you know looking at who the builder is,
we have a better understanding, or the builders if there’s a couple of them, kind of what their
needs are. So maybe it’s even greater like a 7 and 10, I’m not sure. Just give me that 2 extra
feet. Because sometimes it affects when people do side, side loaded, side decks. Those sort of
things.
Mayor Furlong: Right, I understand and I’d be interested in other members of council comments
but to relax something based on specific requirements… Whatever it is, it’s going to be that or
more requested so… I’ve gained a lot of comfort this evening with the presentations than I was
coming in tonight so. When we talked about the concept plan, we talked about some single
families…single family. The lot sizes and those setbacks are something that concerned me a lot
and…trying to visualize that. If we’re going to give in the impervious surface, I guess I’d prefer
to keep sides at 10 and 10, but open to any thoughts or comments.
Councilman Peterson: I understand exactly what you’re saying. As I said earlier in the evening,
part of what I’m sensing is, again to reiterate, south of, in 2005 MUSA we’re getting things
tighter than what we all perceived it to be, so I think to your point Mayor, if we can start bringing
things apart, even in a little way I think it’s a good thing because if you read a lot of the residents
have moved out here and obviously we’re talking about new residents coming in, but the ones
who have moved out here, it was because they wanted more green space and they wanted homes
that weren’t right next to each other so. Again I’m not trying to market homes but I’m trying to
address what our community’s wanting.
Mayor Furlong: Let me ask a question. Maybe Mr. Knutson this is a question for you. If this is
being rezoned…ordinances, do we have the ability to, and maybe it would be a different type of
zoning that would have… To me it sounds like a simple request but maybe it isn’t.
Roger Knutson: Well Mayor we were just discussing how we got here. The 5.
49
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Kate Aanenson: Is the minimum.
Roger Knutson: In that’s the minimum allowed.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Roger Knutson: In the zoning ordinance.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Roger Knutson: They’re not asking for a variance.
Kate Aanenson: No, I’m saying they’re willing to do a 5 and a 10. In good faith they’re willing
to accept a 10 foot. A 5 and a 10 foot. As a minimum, but it’s not in the zoning ordinance. We
make it.
Roger Knutson: You certainly can say they’ve agreed to do that. Can you condition it, condition
a rezoning on that? No. Because that’s what your zoning ordinance allows. But as part of plat
approval, you’re agreeing to that condition as a part of the plat approval I guess.
Mayor Furlong: Is there…zoning that wouldn’t throw it into variances on the lot sizes that, the
lots on those setbacks?
Kate Aanenson: Well if you did a PUD-R, the smallest lot would be 11, and they’ve got some
lots that are smaller than 11,000. And they’d also have the higher impervious, which would be
the 30% versus the 35.
Councilman Peterson: A couple lots are at 7,000.
Kate Aanenson: Correct, yeah. So it wouldn’t meet that requirement, plus it would set the
higher percentage for the impervious.
Mayor Furlong: I thought you said right now the impervious is 35.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. If you went to a PUD-R, which would be the other low density which
would allow you to average the lot size to get to 15, that PUD-R zoning district requires a
minimum 11,000. There’s lots underneath that so that would be, it wouldn’t meet that test. And
then also the impervious under a PUD-R is also 30%. This is 35.
Todd Gerhardt: We’re still going to have to get down to see what type of model, whoever’s
going to ultimately own this is, what kind of model can they fit on there. It’s nice that we give
them, these are the parameters, you know I think is what we’re establishing here. They’re going
to have to make their model fit to those parameters.
Kate Aanenson: Correct, but if it’s 5 foot, it’s 5 foot. If it’s a custom builder and the buyer
wants a certain home plan, that’s, it’s a custom builder.
50
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong: What I’m hearing is that the 5 and 10 is something that we’re requesting.
Kate Aanenson: No. I’m saying I asked them if they could do a 5 and a 10 and they said they
could. In good faith, but it’s not, the minimum is still 5 and 5, and that’s what the City Attorney
is saying you can’t enforce that.
Councilman Lundquist: But Kate I don’t see, as I’m looking through that compliance table, I
don’t see any lots that are less than 11,000.
Councilman Peterson: I saw one at 7.
Councilman Lundquist: 13, 14. 15. There’s 11,050.
Kate Aanenson: Also the 30% then too as opposed to the 35. They are averaging right now
19%.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess you know, 30% is more important than the smaller lots than on the
larger lots in terms of if it’s a 12,000 foot lot…
Kate Aanenson: Again that 19% was based on one builder you know using a couple different
products so I don’t know if you have 3 or 4 different builders, that number may jump up.
Mayor Furlong: Which number is that?
Kate Aanenson: If you look in the staff report on page 15. Yeah, underneath the chart we put in
kind of right now it’s averaging about 19%, but that was based on the previous home builder’s
design.
Councilman Peterson: In the narrative it states the lots range from 11,050 to 22,066.
Mayor Furlong: But at 98% that the average proposed coverage based upon the previous builder
so then there’s…they’d have up to 30?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, I think that code 9,000 throws you off there.
Mayor Furlong: That’s the issue that…look at. We don’t deal with product design on a single
family house so what we can work with is, is how they fit on the lots. Overall, like I said, you
know this evening I was a little concerned about the lots and the sizes and setbacks. I’m getting
comfortable with the lot sizes because of the examples given. Still not there on setbacks, and if
there’s something that we can do there that would give some more comfort, especially as we talk
about them driving down the roads, collector roads. The roads that the neighborhood…between
the homes provide greater views for people off to Bluff Creek as well. That’s my issue. I think
51
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
if, to your point similar…I’d be very happy to move forward. Proceeding with the rest and if we
need to reduce some things or take a look at some things.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, was this addressed at the Planning Commission at all?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Councilman Peterson: Well we create it, we do it or not. I mean.
Mayor Furlong: Can we do it this evening? Is that something we can look at quickly?
Kate Aanenson: Well I guess it’s up to the applicant. Yeah, Mr. Chadwick.
John Chadwick: Thanks for the chance to come back up here. With all due respect I wish we’d
started at 5 by 5 and you’d have asked for 10 and I said sure, 10. It really gets a little tough
when they ask for that, you double one side. That’s okay. You double the other side, that gets a
little tighter. I think there’s a big streak going through here. That’s an 80 footer so there’s some
open space there and there’s a park and there’s this and so I understand that people don’t want to
live right on their neighbors and I don’t either, but I think we’ll probably be okay and I hope you
can have some comfort in that and you’ve got another couple passes at us I think before we
actually start building anything. I hope that answers things.
Mayor Furlong: And I appreciate that, and I guess the question is, do we have…or not? If we
approve this tonight on preliminary…
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. That’s correct.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, if you approve it tonight this way, you can’t be more restrictive later.
Councilman Lundquist: But we can’t approve it at 10 and 5. We can only approve it at 5 and 5
because that’s the setbacks equal with the zoning.
Roger Knutson: That’s what your zoning ordinance provides.
Councilman Peterson: Why don’t we change it to a PUD.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess I would then ask council if there’s desire to try to do something
like that…
Councilman Peterson: Kate, the minimum lot size in PUD-R is what, 11?
Kate Aanenson: 11,000.
Councilman Peterson: So that’s not an issue. Impervious surface will.
52
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Kate Aanenson: Could be at 30%. It tends to be a problem in other PUD’s. That’s why we’ve
moved away from doing it. The last one we ever, that we’ve done is Springfield because it tends
to be a problem. They don’t have the green space that goes beyond the entire site though too so
it may work.
Todd Gerhardt: You can’t force a developer into a PUD situation. So they have to apply for that
and have to start all over.
Councilman Peterson: We couldn’t do it tonight.
Roger Knutson: They’d have to request. They’d have to withdraw their application and go back
through Planning Commission.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we noticed it as this.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Well that would be an over burden…I can’t see forcing that. So I guess
we’ll have to work on some faith that we’ll have some distance between the homes. Any other
discussion of council? Is there a motion?
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve subject to facts of finding supported by staff. Written
in there by staff.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Clarification. Would that be all five of the motions?
Kate Aanenson: Thank you.
Councilman Peterson: Yep.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded for all five motions. Is there any discussion?
Resolution #2006-31: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the
City Council approve the comprehensive plan Land Use Amendment from Residential –
Medium Density and Office/Industrial to Residential - Low Density of the land within the Plat
of Pioneer Pass except for Outlots A, B, C, D and G contingent on Metropolitan Council
review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve
the Rezoning of the land within the Plat for Pioneer Pass except for Outlots A, B, C, D and G,
Pioneer Pass, from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Residential Low and Medium Density
District, RLM. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
53
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve
Preliminary Plat for “Pioneer Pass” creating 81 lots, 9 outlots and right-of-way for public
streets, plans prepared by James R. Hill, Inc., dated 2/3/06, subject to the following
conditions:
1.The developer shall prepare a noise analysis for noise that will be generated by traffic on
Highway 312 and Pioneer Trail. The analysis shall identify appropriate noise mitigation
measures to meet noise standards for residential homes.
2.The developer shall pay $21,547.00 as their portion of the 2005 AUAR.
3.The applicant shall plant 369 trees within the development, 98 overstory and required buffer
yard plantings trees along Collector Road D and buffer yard plantings for lots along the
south property line.
4.Each lot shall have a minimum of two overstory deciduous trees planted in the front yard.
5.The applicant shall install the total required buffer yard along Collector Road D or show
proof of berm height of 3 feet or higher along the length of the street and adjust the
quantities of understory and shrubs accordingly.
6.The applicant shall development a restoration plan including native plants for the Bluff
Creek Overlay district north of Block 1. The plant species shall be selected from the Bluff
Creek Management Plan Appendix C. The final plan must be reviewed and approved by the
city before installation.
7.Signage for the Bluff Creek Overlay District must be posted on every other property corner
where residential yards meet the primary zone.
8.The 950 contour shall be extended over lots 5 and 6, block 3 to provide more coverage from
headlights for those homes.
9.Dedication of Outlots A and G shall be made to the city or a conservation easement shall be
established over said outlots.
10.The developer shall designate a 4.72 acre neighborhood park site, Outlot H. This
property shall be transferred to the city by warranty deed with 3.79 acres of the site being
dedicated/ donated by the applicant/owner and the remaining 0.93 acres being purchased
by the City of Chanhassen. The city shall compensate the owner/applicant $218,550 in
total compensation for said 0.93 acres.
11.The developer shall rough grade and cover seed the park site and construct a 20 stall parking
lot for an additional not to exceed payment of $50,000 from the city. The parking lot shall
include insurmountable curb. Construction plans for all improvements within the borders of
the park shall be submitted to the Park & Recreation Director for approval prior to initiating
construction of these improvements. All material and labor costs are reimbursable. Design,
54
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
engineering, and testing services associated with these improvements shall be provided by
the applicant.
12.The applicant shall submit a complete wetland replacement plan and must receive
approval of the replacement plan prior to alteration of wetlands. Wetland replacement
shall occur in a manner consistent with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
13.Wetland mitigation shall not be proposed for the northeast corner of the site in order to
ensure adequate area for a road connection to the property to the east of the site.
14.A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around all Ag/Urban wetlands. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved,
surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall
install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction
begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall be set back 40 feet from the
edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback shall be shown on the plans.
15.Any areas on the property that meet the City’s criteria for bluffs (i.e., slope greater than
or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe) shall be preserved. In
addition, all structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading
may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet
from the top of a bluff). The plans shall be revised to show any areas meeting the City’s
bluff criteria.
16.No alterations shall be permitted within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of
the setback from the primary corridor without a variance. All structures must meet the
40-foot setback from the primary corridor.
17.The applicant shall demonstrate that storm water management along the southwest
property line of Lots 25-31, Block 2 is adequate to prevent drainage issues for future
homeowners.
18.The outlet for Pond 2 shall be moved westward to increase the flow distance between the
inlet and outlet structures.
19.Drainage and utility easements with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be provided over
all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as public value credit
and storm water infrastructure.
20.Energy dissipation shall be provided at the flared-end section inlet to Pond 2 within 24
hours of installation. Additional blanket shall be provided for storm sewer installation
area for inlet infrastructure to Pond 2. The access area shall be protected with erosion
control blanket upon the establishment of final grade. Erosion control blanket shall be
55
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
used on the slopes within Lots 31-24, Block 2. Mulch shall be substituted for the blanket
proposed for the berm area of Block 3 along Street D.
21.Temporary sediment basins shall be provided in existing watersheds 1 and 3 during mass
grading activities. Where 10 acres or more of exposed area come to a discernable point
of discharge to a wetland or waterway, a temporary basin shall be provided. The
proposed storm water basins in proposed drainage areas 2, 6 and 7 shall be temporary
sediment basins until the contributing areas are stabilized. The temporary outlets could
be installed in place of the permanent outlets.
22.Perimeter control (silt fence) shall be installed prior to grading along the south side of the
Street D and CSAH 14 (Pioneer Trail) intersection. All silt fences near flared-end
sections shall be installed up and around flared-end sections so water is not discharged
against the silt fence, causing it to fail.
23.An outlet area shall be defined for the two areas labeled as temporary sedimentation
basins during the rough grading/subcut street phase of development. Any shredded wood
material from tree removal shall be saved for temporary mulch berms/vehicle exit pads as
needed. Typical silt fence shall be installed prior to initial rough grading activities along
the west side of Outlot H to the proposed “street by others.”
24.The total SWMP fee shall be paid to the City at the time of final plat recording. The
estimated total SWMP fee at this time is $165,600.
25.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction Permit), Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (dewatering permit), Army Corps of Engineers) and
comply with their conditions of approval.
26.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
27.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
28.Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new
roadways allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4.
29.Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of
fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
56
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
30.Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
31.Fire hydrant spacing is unacceptable. Locate fire hydrants at intersections and in cul-de-sacs
and at 300 foot spacing. Most spacing is in excess of 400 to 500 feet at this time. Submit
revised fire plans to Fire Marshal for review and approval.
32.Before site grading commences, the existing building and driveway access off Pioneer Trail
onto the property must be removed.
33.On the grading plan, add a note to remove any existing house and driveway access.
34.The developer’s engineer must work with Liberty on Bluff Creek’s engineer to ensure that
the proposed grading on each property matches at the property line.
35.Ground slopes shall not exceed 3:1.
36.A minimum 75-foot long rock construction entrance must be shown on the plans.
37.Retaining walls must be designed by a structural engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota and require a building permit if greater than 4 feet in height.
38.The developer shall work with MnDOT to move the access at Pioneer Trail so that it aligns
with the MnDOT’s street on the south side. The access to Pioneer Trail shall be constructed
in conjunction with the first phase of the development.
39.The property is also subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for all of the lots.
The 2006 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,575 per unit for sanitary sewer and $4,078 per
unit for water. The 2006 SAC charge is $1,625 per unit.
40.The Arterial Collector Roadway Fee of $2,400/developable acre will need to be paid at the
time of final plat recording.
41.All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and 10:1 benches at the NWL. Revise accordingly.
42.All of the proposed housepads must have a rear yard elevation of at least three feet above
the HWL of the adjacent ponds.
43.Storm sewer calculations and drainage map must be submitted with the final plat
application. The storm sewer must be designed to accommodate a 10-year, 24-hour storm
event.
44.The last public stormwater structure that is road-accessible prior to discharging to a water
body must have a 3-foot sump pump.
57
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
45.Future utility service and access to Outlot B needs to be determined prior to final plat.
46.The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump
discharge from homes.
47.Add catch basins in the back yards of Lots 1-15, Block 3 connecting to Street C storm
sewer. Also add a catch basin along Street A in front of Lots 25-28 and between Lots 15 &
16 and 4 & 5, Block 1.
48.All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
49.The catch basin between Lots 6 & 7 must be built with two inlet openings.
50.Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal.
51.An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading.
52.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
53.Utility services for the buildings must be shown on the final utility plan. Sanitary services
must be 6-inch PVC and water service must be 1-inch copper, Type K and will require a
City Building Department inspection.
54.Extend the silt fence along the south to the back yard of Lot 25, Block 1.
55.No retaining wall is allowed within any drainage and utility easement. Revise the retaining
wall between Lots 22, 23 and 24, Block 2, accordingly.
56.All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security
in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements
and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility
improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance.
57.Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required prior to construction,
including but not limited to MPCA, NPDES, MnDOT, Department of Health, Carver
County and Watershed District.
58.Reroute the sanitary sewer from Street A and the north-south corridor intersection to
minimize the sewer depth. Relocate the southern sanitary sewer out of the stormwater pond
easement at Outlot E.
59.Add a pressure relief valve to the watermain along Street D between Outlots E and F. This
will be a City improvement cost but installed by at the time of development.
58
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
60.In-home pressure reducing water valves may be required on all lots with a lowest floor
elevation of 930 or less. Final determination for the need of in-home pressure reducing
valves will be made by the City at time of building permit.
61.The applicant shall coordinate with the developer of the adjacent properties in the northeast
corner of the site the dedication of public street right-of-way to provide access from the
parcel to the north to the parcel to the east and revise the plans accordingly.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve
Wetland Alteration Permit for the grading and filling of wetlands on property subject to the
following conditions:
1.The applicant shall submit a complete wetland replacement plan and must receive
approval of the replacement plan prior to alteration of wetlands. Wetland replacement
shall occur in a manner consistent with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
2.Wetland mitigation shall not be proposed for the northeast corner of the site in order to
ensure adequate area for a road connection to the property to the east of the site.
3.A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around all Ag/Urban wetlands. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved,
surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall
install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction
begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall be set back 40 feet from the
edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback shall be shown on the plans.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve
Conditional Use Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District with a
variance for encroachment in to the primary zone to construct a storm water pond subject to
the following conditions:
1.Dedication of Outlots A and G shall be made to the city or a conservation easement shall
be established over said outlots.
2.Any areas on the property that meet the City’s criteria for bluffs (i.e., slope greater than
or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe) shall be preserved. In
addition, all structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading
may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet
from the top of a bluff). The plans shall be revised to show any areas meeting the City’s
bluff criteria.
59
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
3.No alterations shall be permitted within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of
the setback from the primary corridor without a variance. All structures must meet the
40-foot setback from the primary corridor.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Lundquist: Yes Mr. Mayor, I would like to have a discussion regarding our skate
park, and I can defer if there are other members of the council that wanted to discuss other items
first or we can go ahead with that.
Mayor Furlong: Are there other items at this point? Other council presentations before
Councilman Lundquist?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: No.
Councilman Lundquist: Well first let me say thanks to Sergeant Olson and Mr. Hoffman that
hung around until 20 after 10:00 to talk about that because they’re two of the key parties and I
really do want your input and your thoughts, so thank you for that. Been an ongoing issue or
challenge probably since it was built. Continue to have some things going on out there that are
just items in my personal view that, or occurrences that I would rather not see. Last week we
had another incident on or around the skate park that concerns me from a safety of the people
using it standpoint. So what I want to discuss tonight, amongst the council members with some
input from staff and especially from Todd and Sergeant Olson is, I feel like that we haven’t
solved the problems at the skate park. We still have instances of things going on out there with
litter and the foul language. We’ve had some acts of violence out there now. We’ve got tobacco
use and all that other stuff going on. We’ve tried various measures of closing it down, and you
know I know that Mr. Gerhardt and Mr. Hoffman and the deputies have put their time, especially
Todd and Todd to go out and try to rectify those situations through, how shall we say you know
gentle persuasion. And you know, with limited success I think so, I look at that. It’s, you know
you get a collector of people together, especially when you’re talking about pre-teens. Teens and
there’s some older people that use that as well, but anytime we get a collection of people together
unsupervised…that are undesirable, I look at it as an overwhelming majority of people that are
using that space out there are doing it for the, are using it as intended. We’ve got a lot of kids
out there riding their skate boards. We’d absolutely rather have them riding them there than on
the front steps of the library or you know in front of the businesses downtown and all of that so, I
want to have that amenity. But I want to ensure that we’re, that we as a city are providing a safe
amenity as well. And an amenity where parents can feel confident that they’re sending their kids
out there and they’re not going to be subject to you know violence. They’re not going to be
subject to you know some of the other things that are going on out there. Things like that are
going to happen. Kids face all kinds of challenges, realize that but I can’t, I have a problem
sitting and knowing that those things are going on and we continue I think to do the same things
over and over, and I feel like as a council we need to have a discussion to talk about if we’re
providing the right resources to staff or the right direction to staff or what else is there out there
60
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
that we can do to provide a safe place for kids to use the skate park. So I’d be very interested in
some feedback from Sergeant Olson and Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Gerhardt and you know, most
notably from my fellow council members.
Mayor Furlong: Sergeant, Mr. Hoffman. Do you have specific questions or?
Councilman Lundquist: Well you know, you guys probably deal with it more than anyone. I
mean your thoughts about have we made progress over the last year? You know last year it was
in May where we had our resolution and developed our plan and gone through that. Do you feel
like we’ve made progress or is there you know, I guess maybe I feel like there was a short term
blip there where we made some progress and now it’s kind of the same old, back to the same old
human nature taking over thing. What would you like to, are there additional resources, actions,
direction from us that you’d like to see or have or suggestions for what we could do differently
out there to provide it or am I just all wet and blowing it out of proportion and it’s just average?
Kids being kids and nothing to worry about.
Todd Hoffman: I’ll go ahead and start. The skate park was opened in 1995, so it’s been around
for a while. I think we’ve gone through 3 sessions of having citizen input meetings at our Park
and Recreation Commission where we’ve had these similar type of issues. Language. Litter.
Graffiti. Kids pushing other kids around. They were actually real small at the time. So we
brought the community together. Talked about that and the people that filled this chamber are
skaters and their parents and they tend to support the skate park. They want to do whatever they
can to keep it open. I’m not going to stand here tonight before the council and tell you that I’ve
come up with a solution to solve society’s ills regarding illicit behavior and behavior that is on
the fringe because it’s out there in our community. It’s amongst our population and it does show
up in all ages and it shows up in teenagers who come to our parks, and so there are isolated
incidents of kids that either deal marijuana, drugs. The incident of a kid pulling a knife on
another kid, which is a ninth grade individual. Lives in our community and is that an act of
violence? Is that an act of poor judgment? What is it exactly but these things are unfortunate,
and I’ve spent a lot of time at the skate park the last year. I’ve talked with the kids a great deal.
Kids that hang out and tend to smoke and just come there for a location to hang out as kids, a lot
of those folks don’t skate and if you’re going to hang out at the skate park for 4 or 5 hours and
you’re on the fringe anyway in your decision, section in life, you’re going to tend to get into
more trouble than other kids who are trying to be there to do the good things and just be good
kids. I’m quite convinced over time that closing the skate park, closes the skate park and the
good kids go away and they come back good kids. And the kids that tend to do poor behavior
and make poor judgments, they don’t come back and say oh, I’ve now changed. I’m a good kid
because you changed the, you closed the skate park. The behavior will show up again and again
these are isolated incidents that occur across the population. Jim, I think you’ve picked up the
patrol over there a little bit. That’s something I encouraged from last year. I look out the
window. I can watch these things happen on a daily basis and when I see problems now I just
call over the non-emergency phone number and the deputies are over there in a couple of
minutes so I’ll let Jim comment more on what he’s seen as far as his officers at the skate park.
Sgt. Jim Olson: One of the biggest, best attributes of these skate park is also one of it’s down
falls so to speak and that’s it’s visibility. It is right in the middle of a busy area in the city so a
61
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
lot of the things that are happening in there are seen by a lot of people, including the…and so on.
What happened the other night I think was an isolated incident. I can think of one other fight at
least that was reported to us that we handled that happened here last year that was up at the skate
park. A lot of the things that are, that happen up there, they’re conduct issues. As you pointed
out Councilman Lundquist. The swearing and littering and you know we had the graffiti last
year as well. You know from a supervision standpoint, as a parent you know I would not take
my kids and leave them up there you know if I had a 10 year old son and leave him up there
unsupervised. However I also would not do that at Lake Ann or at any of the other parks either.
Where I would leave them unsupervised and just leave them up there by themselves. So as a
parent it certainly is important to be there to help and supervise and oversee what’s happening at
those places. You know by closing it down, you know those kids aren’t going to go away and
those things aren’t going to go away. It might shift some walls. Maybe to a place where it’s less
visible. Where you’re not seeing it and people are not monitoring it and that certainly can, you
know have mixed results from something like that so. Anything else, questions for Todd or I?
Todd Gerhardt: The only thing I can add to this, and Todd and I have talked about this on many
occasions but I mean this is our most successful teen program the city sponsors and short of the
capital investment that we’ve made into the skateboards and cleaning it up, you will have an
average of 8 to 20 kids using that. Probably more on the weekends. And most the kids that are
skating and riding their bikes in that area are following the rules. The word of mouth gets out
that they had a good time there so they tell their friends and you know so you get a new group of
people there that don’t know the history. It’s a melting pot of individuals that come to this place.
On the day that we were there, we had 4 or 5 kids from Hopkins. 2 or 3 from Eden Prairie. 1
from Waconia. 2 from Chaska and 4 or 5 from Chanhassen. So you know for everybody to
know what’s occurred there over the last 11 years is difficult and to educate without supervision
there, and we talked about maybe having supervision. But depending on what level you need,
that the kids would respect and then you also, you know if you do have the supervision, are you
still going to have the numbers too? So those are some of the things that we’ve talked about. I
think the Park and Rec Commission looked at this as what level of supervision should be out
there, and that’s kind of where we’re at right now. Is to put parental supervision out there is kind
of the next step that the Park and Rec Commission recommended I think it was last year. Todd,
correct me on that but you know, try to coordinate a group of parents that might supervise up
there. You know just the short period of time that Todd and I walked around the park, half of
them wandered away and waited for us to leave and then they came right back. And they come
in different groups. We came into City Hall and discussed the issue and I think there were 15
new people there that started skating in just the short time that we left, so there’s a variety of
different people that use that skate park. Early mornings we see moms out with their young kids
with scooters or rollerblades. In the afternoon you’ll see some older kids, you know age 18 to 25
that use it. And then in the evening it’s a whole melting pot of ages using it so, you know I keep
telling Todd you’ve got to solve this problem and he looks at me like how? And I don’t know if
there’s one right answer. It’s something that we have to continue to monitor. I think Jim and his
officers play a big role in watching over the park. Those kids know when those officers show up
that something’s going on. I think staff should sit down and meet with the council to discuss
what your concerns or potential solutions might be. Get it out onto the table. And I would
suggest either at a work session or a special night and maybe joint meeting with the Park and Rec
Commission. Get their feedback on some it too and just have a brainstorming session, and see
62
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
what are some options that we can do. But right now where we’re going is trying to make it a
safe environment for everybody over there. Jim has, I’ve directed Jim to have his officers stop
there periodically. Justin has talked to the CSO’s to have them stop by when they’re on duty.
Just to have a presence you know to let them know that there is supervision from a law
enforcement standpoint.
Councilman Peterson: And that’s new within the last couple weeks then?
Todd Gerhardt: Well I think we’ve talked about this over the past year. The isolated incident
that occurred last week, you know we don’t all have smart kids and this kid did not make a good
decision at all. He probably thought he had some power by threatening with this knife and he
got what he wanted for a short period of time. But I can tell you an hour later he wasn’t real
smart about, or didn’t think he was real smart at what he did, and so it’s, life is about choices and
opportunities and his choice was not a good one, and he’s dealing with the consequences of that.
So I think Jim’s guys are busy. I’d like to put more effort there, but I don’t think that’s prudent
either. Because we need them out in the streets and patrolling also.
Councilman Peterson: I mean ultimately it’s about thresholds. We’re all, all five of us and staff
are going to have different thresholds, as well as the Sergeant. When do we say enough is
enough and I think that’s part of what I think we have to define. We’re going to be, how often
are these one off situations going to happen. If it happens every week where we need, we
shouldn’t have to have a squad car going there 2 or 3 times a day. Nor can you afford that.
Because the opportunity cost is too high. I mean that’s a challenge and I empathize with you
Brian, exactly where that is. When is enough enough? And I haven’t decided that yet but it’s
starting to add up in my mind that the scale was going the other way. I think that’s something
we’ve got to address.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Compared to other parks in our city, is this the one park that seems to
have the most trouble with juveniles? You know if you go to Lake Ann or you go to Lake
Susan.
Todd Hoffman: It’s the same…
Sgt. Jim Olson: This is certainly the busiest park from a juvenile standpoint that we have in the
city so from that standpoint you know with more people, there’s going to be more issues. But I
don’t think it’s, I mean it has more to do with the fact that there’s more juveniles there.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Sure. Numbers.
Mayor Furlong: …it’s outside your window Mr. Hoffman and you can look out and see it. But,
and maybe this is…Councilwoman Tjornhom’s question but how frequently is a squad car over
there relative to, I mean because I go back we just received the report tonight. We’re going to be
on track in the sheriff’s department, you know 12,000 calls for services. I guess my question is,
we’re trying to put it into perspective. This incident that we heard about…call for service for
that?
63
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And to the extent that the deputies were there and called and they’re
pursuing or whatever is appropriate through the justice system, that’s the way it should be
handled wherever it occurs. But I guess the question is, help us to understand. How much more
prevalent is it here at this park versus other parks and to Mr. Gerhardt’s…other police issues
going on in the city, and that’s, maybe it’s the level of service. What level of service are we
looking at? So it’s prevalent in terms of juveniles at the skate park. Every time you go over that
it’s an issue but is it more or less than calls we’re getting, other calls for service we get
throughout the rest of our park system? Do you have a sense for that?
Todd Hoffman: I probably make the most calls, I think I’ve made 2 this year at the skate park.
Jim, I don’t know if you can answer. If you respond or you talk to your deputies.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Yeah. I don’t think it’s any worst or any better than any other parks, taken into
relationship how many kids are, how many kids are there. A couple years ago we had a robbery
at Lake Ann Park involving some kids over a drug deal gone bad. You know whether or not the
parks here in the city are safe, and I think the skate park is also one. A safe place. You know it
was an isolated incident that happened the other day.
Mayor Furlong: And I think Councilman Lundquist, there are conduct issues when we hear…
but we’ve got problems with conduct in our other parks and juveniles damaging property and so
I think when it becomes out of line, the question is…safety issue, maybe that’s the time that we
look at when we need more to be doing, because I think some of the issues, conduct, foul
language, littering, it’s happening everywhere. Maybe it’s just more visible because the litter
stays inside the fence.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well and it’s a more compact area too.
Mayor Furlong: More compact, more visible.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But it is ironic that we had this stuff going on and we have the
sheriff’s department just steps away from where it is. You know I don’t know if the solution is a
camera maybe and if there’s a sign that says you are under surveillance or something by the
sheriff’s department. So maybe not. Maybe they could care less and just go on with what
they’re doing but, that’s perhaps one option to think about at least.
Todd Hoffman: We considered that and you just have to have somebody watching it so.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But isn’t there a deputy watching a camera or a screen anyway? It
seems. There isn’t?
Sgt. Jim Olson: There’s some monitors that are up in the deputy’s office that are up there, but
they’re not monitored all the time. We don’t always have somebody in that office. They’re
generally out patrolling.
64
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Todd Gerhardt: And that’s just to see who might be at the door you know. You’ll get a knock on
the door when the deputies are in the back and can’t see it or hear it ring so they can…
Councilman Peterson: To my point, and to your point Todd. We need to work on defining those
thresholds.
Todd Gerhardt: Right.
Councilman Peterson: And informing the users that the scale is, the balance is changing. If they
keep on continuing with the same trends that they’re doing, it will probably be closed. I mean I
don’t think anybody argued that. If it continues and they get one call to service every week
there, then we as a council have to look at making some tough decisions.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But is that happening? One call a week.
Councilman Peterson: I’m not saying it is. I’m saying.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But I’m asking that.
Councilman Peterson: No it’s not. Because he just had 2 in the last you know…
Mayor Furlong: If it becomes something more than what we’re seeing elsewhere.
Todd Gerhardt: Well you know Lake Ann, Lake Susan, the activities there don’t pick up until
school lets out so you’ve got June, July and August. And those are going to be your 3 key
months for youth activity there, during the day. Swimming or hanging out at the volleyball nets
or picnicking. Trying to think of the incidents there. They usually gather as a group and that
seems to be when we have our problems. Density.
Todd Hoffman: One of the issues that I’d like to work on the council with is the issue of
loitering and underage smoking at the skate park. If we eliminate smoking at the skate park, then
it’s easier to differentiate when people are, if nobody can smoke, then you don’t have smoking at
the skate park. Because right now you have kids that are old enough to smoke and they sit up
there and they smoke at will. And then you have the kids that are underage and they’re smoking
as well, and to stop and have a deputy differentiate and give out those tickets to overage smoking
so there’s dozens of kids that are underage smoking out there on a weekly basis and so what does
that build? That builds the ability to deny the law and these kids say hey, we can get away with
this. What else can we get away with at the skate park? Plus they hang out an awful lot just to
go smoke at the skate park. If we eliminate that, then we eliminate that ability to go there and
loiter and do that activity.
Todd Gerhardt: And most of these kids have been yelled at most of their lives so Jim has his
hands full trying to enforce something, I mean you know. They’re not the best listeners in the
world. You know the ones that are misbehaving.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist, anything else?
65
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, I mean it’s a good discussion. I appreciate everybody’s input. I
think other than the suggestion Mr. Hoffman made and Councilwoman Tjornhom, I think, I still
think that we’re being soft and I think that we’re, I think we realized that, or I get the feeling that
we realize there’s a problem there. If we know, we can talk about it’s not any worst than any
other parks and we can hear all of the stuff. The fact is, that I have never, ever gotten you know
a complaint about a bunch of kids hanging out and trying to sell drugs to somebody else’s kids
when they’re at Lake Ann Park. Or a mother who’s greatly shaken because her teenage son got a
knife pulled on him at any other park, and the fact is I think, we know it’s going on and we talk
about well, you know closing it down’s not going to work, and this isn’t going to work and that’s
not going to work and these kids are going to do this and these kids are going to do that. I won’t
send my kids to the skate park because I’m afraid of what’s going to happen up there so, that’s
my issue is that I have a real problem sitting back and saying, we have a park in the city of
Chanhassen that I’m not comfortable sending my kids to because I don’t know if they’re going to
be safe or not, and I don’t know if they’re going to be propositioned to buy drugs or take drugs
or whatever goes on up there, and that we haven’t done a great job of addressing that, however
that might need to be done. And that we need to do something about that to provide a safe place
for kids to go in the city. And whether it’s a series of actions that I’d like to see us, I thin in a
work session is a good setting to talk about that and come up with another plan other than saying
well let’s just see what happens and you know kids will be kids and it’s just going to go on and
it’s no worst than any other park in the city. I think that, I just don’t, I’m not buying that that’s it
so you know, it’s certainly my opinion and one that I’ll continue to push along because I think
we’ve got some work to do in that area and we owe it to the kids that are out there doing what
they should be doing at the skate park to give them a safe environment to be at and we owe that
to their parents that they can have faith that they can send their kids up there and have a
reasonably safe environment. It’s never going to be 100%, I get that. Understand that. But I
think we’ve got a gap that we can close there and that we should make some efforts and attempts
to do that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other comments or thoughts? Any other council presentations?
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
None.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
None.
Mayor Furlong: Given the hour, if there’s no objection, let’s defer the remaining items on our
work session to a future date. If that’s okay with everyone? Okay. Any other business to come
before the council this evening. If not, is there a motion to adjourn?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at
10:50 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim
66