CC 2006 05 22
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 22, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
Lundquist and Councilman Peterson
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:
Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT:
Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Don Asleson, Todd
Hoffman and Greg Sticha
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Ken Wencl Chanhassen
Kaycee Kramer Chaska
Desirae Coleman Prior Lake
Jerry & Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Marc Drummond Minnetonka
Resident 590 Saxony Circle, Chaska
Kirsten Sjogren Chanhassen
Caitlin O’Connor Chanhassen
Charlie Keller Chanhassen
Matthew Petty Chanhassen
Mark Nettesheim Chanhassen
Elena Bloudek Chanhassen
J.J. Campbell Chanhassen
David Jansen Chanhassen Villager
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening to everybody joining us here in the council
chambers, as well as those watching at home. We appreciate the fact that you’ve joined us this
evening.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded
to approve the consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated May 8, 2006
-City Council Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated May 8, 2006
-Board of Review and Equalization Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated May 8, 2006
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated May 2, 2006
-Park and Recreation Commission Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated April 25, 2006
Resolution #2006-36:
b. Approve Quote for Upgrade to Lift Station No. 15.
c. Approval of NPDES Phase II Revised SWPPP.
f. Accept Donation from the Family of Donald & Harriet Elmblad for Construction of an
Entry Monument at the Chanhassen Pioneer Cemetery.
g. Approval of a Two-Day Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, Chanhassen Fourth of July
Celebration, Chanhassen Rotary Club.
h. Approval of Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes for the Lotus Lake Slow-No
Wake Ordinance.
Resolution #2006-37:
i. Resolution in Support of Improvements to U.S. Highway 212
from County Road 147 to Norwood-Young America.
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 evening. I brought along the, one of our other sergeants
this evening that happened to be in the area. Sergeant Dwight Meyer. He’s my twin brother
and…
Sgt Dwight Meyer: You guys are aware that Jim’s going to be promoted. I was just tagging
along with him. Maybe I will hope to see my personal logistics work but maybe I can try to fill
his large shoes. Thank you for your evening.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Thank you.
Sgt. Jim Olson: In fact Dwight has been here with us for about 2 years and he came to us from
North Dakota where he was a Sergeant in Fargo?
Sgt. Dwight Meyer: Bismark.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Bismark. I was close.
Todd Gerhardt: You had two choices.
2
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
Sgt. Jim Olson: …so this evening for the council I have the sheriff’s office area report for the
month of April. The area citation list for the month of April. Community Service Officer report
and a couple of other miscellaneous items as well. Last year, or excuse me, last month in
Chanhassen we had 97 total criminal calls and that consists of 31 Part I calls and 66 Part II
crimes. And this compares to 81 total criminal calls last year for the month of April. Breaking
that down a little bit, we had 29 thefts and 13 theft related calls last month, and this compares to
19 and 2 last year respectively. The theft related calls again relates to identity thefts and credit
card theft and calls like that, and we certainly have seen an increase in that over the past year. 17
of the calls, or excuse me, some of the theft calls were gas drive off’s that we’ve had, and I know
I’ve talked about that with gas prices… We had 1,018 non-criminal calls last month, and that
compares to 788 last year for the month of April. The biggest change in this category again was
traffic stops, which was 335, and that compared to 192 from last year. Other notable changes
were disturbing the peace calls, and that includes noise complaints, harassing phone calls and
those types of calls. 51 last month compared to 20 last year. And miscellaneous traffic
complaints, we had 76 last month and that compares to 45 last year. Those include assorted
traffic issues including stalled vehicles, debris in roadway, vehicles in ditches, and those types of
calls. Medicals were up a bit last month. We had 64 compared to 31, and then our total citations
were 248 and that compares to 133 from last year same time. Any questions at all referenced the
numbers?
Councilman Lundquist: Sergeant Olson, as I look through the citation list, it appears like the
majority of the citations are on collector or other major traveled roadways versus neighborhoods.
How much of, and if you can just give me an estimate of the percentage of time of the traffic
officers time is spent in a neighborhood setting versus Powers, Galpin, Lake Lucy time frame.
Sgt. Jim Olson: You know they do spend time, certainly do spend time in the neighborhoods.
I’d have to do some checking percentage wise on that. Off the top of my head I really don’t have
a good answer for that, but we’re also, collector roads you know…collector roads and
neighborhoods as far as for traffic direction with the Chanhassen squads. A lot of their
complaints come from Powers and you know Galpin, Lake Lucy, Bluff Creek Road, which is
not a collector. Well actually it is a collector road I guess but, so they spend a lot of time on
those roads because that’s where a majority of their complaints do come from. But they’re also
in the neighborhood.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So the fact that we don’t see a lot of citations from that, do you
think that’s a fact that the, maybe there’s not a lot of speed in the neighborhoods compared to the
collectors?
Sgt. Jim Olson: You know I think it’s part of that. It’s also volume. There’s more volume on
the collector roads and highways than there are going through the neighborhoods. Where if a
car, you know if a squad sits…direct the patrol for a half hour, 45 minutes a neighborhood you
know during the day or whatever, maybe you’ll only see 2, 3, 4 cars versus on a collector road or
a highway where they’ll see a much higher percentage or much higher number.
Councilman Lundquist: Alright, thank you.
3
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
Sgt. Jim Olson: You’re welcome. Any other questions?
Mayor Furlong: Further questions? Sergeant, I guess following on Councilman Lundquist’s
question I guess, just in terms of traffic stops for the month of April, we’re down relative to the
prior 3 months. Was there any particular reason for that? It looked like they were down
anywhere from right around 100.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes. When we have new FTO’s or new deputies that start, that certainly does
have an impact on, in the time spent to a certain extent out on the road because there’s some
office time that’s needed for initial training with that, and we had the same thing last year for a
month or two with some new deputies that started in the city. And that does have an impact on
them.
Mayor Furlong: So we did have some new deputies join us?
Sgt. Jim Olson: Yep. Not necessarily that are assigned to Chanhassen, but we do have some
internal…that are in Chanhassen or field trained officers that train new deputies that do work
either here in the city or other areas around the county.
Mayor Furlong: So the new deputy may be following one of our deputies through their shift
activities?
Sgt. Jim Olson: Yeah. And initially there’s some book work that needs to be done as far as
teaching how to do traffic stops and then different things before they’re actually out taking some
of these calls.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the other question goes back to, you addressed the increased
number of thefts and theft related for the month relative to the prior year. You mentioned 7 drive
off’s as part of that. Do you see any other trends in those numbers at all that we should be
concerned about?
Sgt. Jim Olson: You know last year for thefts we were extremely fortunate. That was a year that
was extremely, extremely low. The last year. We have not seen, in previous years, well in terms
of last year there was, we would have waves of thefts from vehicles that would go through
neighborhoods looking for, you know whether it be notebook computers or house stereos or
different things like that. I have not seen that this year at all. Or last year for that matter. You
know we don’t have 8, 10, 12’s on a night like we’ve had previously. You might get 1 here. 2
here. There really hasn’t been any pattern at all.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Then the other question I have with regard to, how we’re receiving the
reports this year with the Part I, Part II crimes. Clearly we see by the information that they’ve
gone back and updated last year’s calls for service to fit within those categories.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes.
4
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Is there a plan to go back further so that we can look for trends within some of
these categories? Are you aware?
Sgt. Jim Olson: They will be going back for the entire year from last year, but I don’t think.
Mayor Furlong: 2005?
Sgt. Jim Olson: Correct. But I don’t think they’ll be going back to previous years than that.
That does involve going back through all of those calls and looking through them all and data
entry and that is time consuming so I don’t think they’ll go to last year at all.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Okay. There are a couple other things I’d like to go over real quick. Last month
I talked a little bit theft from mailboxes. That we’re having an issue with that. I’m happy to
report that we did catch the people that were involved with that. It was actually a father-daughter
team that were going out and stealing mail, and they are pending charges as well and they were
all over the metro area. Our detectives were able to get a confession out of them at their
residence so that was a good thing. I also, we had an unfortunate call about a week and a half
ago that a local business where a car drove through the front of the business and it caused quite a
bit of damage. I’d like to commend the rescue personnel, fire department and ambulance
personnel that were involved with that call. It certainly was a very confusing scene initially upon
arrival and they did a great job of getting in there. Assessing what was going on and treating all
the patients. I just want to commend them for a very fine job that they did with them. There’s
one other thing. We have a lot of construction that’s occurring around the city and I’m sure you
have noticed some of that, but I’d like to ask people, please drive with care in construction zones.
Pay attention to the traffic control signs because there are, things do change occasionally. People
need to pay attention to those signs and watch out for construction workers. Is there anything
else for me at all this evening?
Mayor Furlong: No. Very good, thank you.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Chief Geske is here with the fire department. Good evening Chief.
Chief Gregg Geske: A couple things I’d like to start with. As you can see our call numbers
continue to trend downward, which is good I guess for, that turns our fire prevention, take credit
for that. Couple things I’d like to bring up. One is, we’re participating in what’s called the
th
Women’s Fire Service Expo. It will be June 10 and what it is, us along with Edina and
Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, Hopkins and Bloomington are putting on this day long expo out at the
Southwest train facility in Edina and we’re trying to I guess promote more women in the fire
service. We have quite a few on our department so we’re helping out in that regard. There’ll be
st
an article on it in the Chan Villager, for anybody who’s interested. On June 1 it talks about it.
If anybody’s interested they could also contact Ed Coppersmith to find out more about it here at
the city offices. We did have a OSHA walk through last week through our department and we
5
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
didn’t have any violations. We had a few recommendations that we’ll be completing and be in
compliance there but things went well for the OSHA inspection that we had. I’d like to bring up
this weekend they’re talking about warmer weather, in the 80’s and the holiday weekend.
Hopefully everybody that is out on any of our many lakes has water safety on their mind and I
know we had the water facility last year and I just want to bring it up. Everybody’s using
personal floatation devices and such. The water’s still pretty cool. About 63 degrees out there
yet so if you go out, you definitely want floatation devices as well. Along with that, we see an
influx in the start of motorcycle accidents and keep everybody in mind to watch out for the
motorcycles. A lot of the accidents that we have are people pulling out in front of motorcycles
so, there’s always the bumper sticker, start seeing motorcycles. It is that time of year so I just
want to bring that up. Along with that the season, there’s a more recreational fires. There is, the
city web site and you can find out about recreational fires. Basically they’re kept to a 3 by 3
enclosed area, and burning natural materials. Not rubbish and such is what our code is in the
fire. If you’re interested in getting burning permits for something outside a recreational fire, that
can be also, more information can be found through Ed Coppersmith or through Mark Littfin
who works with the city staff so, that’s all I have to report. Any questions?
Mayor Furlong: Any questions for the Chief? No? Very good. Keep up the fire prevention
activities.
Chief Gregg Geske: Oh you bet. Take credit where we can.
Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. Very good. We’ll move now to the next items on our agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN ON-SALE BEER & WINE LICENSE,
FRANKIE’S PIZZA, PASTA & RIBS, 7850 MARKET BOULEVARD.
Justin Miller: Mayor, members of the City Council. The city’s received a request for an on-sale
beer and wine license from Bruce Foster Restaurants Las Vegas, Inc., which is buying Frankie’s
Pizza, Pasta and Ribs restaurant on Market Boulevard. Law enforcement did conduct a
background check on the principals of the organization and no negative comments were found.
However we are still waiting on a report from the Henderson, Nevada Police Department and I
referenced that in the recommendation that we’re asking tonight. A public hearing notice was
published in the Chanhassen Villager and sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the
property and to date no negative comments have been received. So staff is recommending that
you hold the public hearing tonight and then approve their request for the on-sale beer and wine
license for Bruce Foster Restaurants Las Vegas, Inc., doing business as Frankie’s Pizza, Pasta,
and Ribs contingent upon receipt of the license fee, their liquor liability insurance, and a positive
response from the Henderson, Nevada Police Department. And be happy to answer any
questions. Otherwise we ask that you hold the public hearing.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions for staff? Okay, thank you. At this point we’ll open up
the podium for, we’ll open up the public hearing and invite interested parties to come forward
and address the council on this matter. No one? Without objection then we’ll close the public
hearing and bring it back to council for any discussion. Thoughts or comments. Based upon
6
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
staff’s recommendation. Thank you, including positive response from Henderson. Very good.
Is that a motion Councilman Peterson? Thank you. 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
approve the request for the on-sale beer and wine license for Bruce Foster Restaurants Las
Vegas, Inc., dba Frankie’s Pizza, Pasta and Ribs contingent upon receipt of the license fee,
liquor liability insurance, and a positive response from the Henderson, Nevada Police
Department. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AUTOMATIC SLOW-NO WAKE ORDINANCE FOR
LAKE SUSAN AND CONSIDER SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION
PURPOSES.
Don Asleson: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. This evening we’d like to update you
on the efforts of the Lake Susan Slow-No Wake Task Force and the task force and the staff have
been working on and the resulting automatic slow no wake ordinance proposed for Lake Susan.
Staff is requesting that council solicited public input prior to making a determination on the
proposed ordinance. Since council has had some experience with the slow no wake ordinance
amendment on Lotus Lake, the presentation’s going to be a little bit shorter and to the point.
Kind of the nuts and bolts of what the Lake Susan people came up with. Basically council
appointed 6 members to the Lake Susan Slow-No Wake Task Force on February 27, 2006.
Three meetings. Members volunteered for the 3 meetings. First meeting was an introduction,
second for the details and then third to wrap up with the recommendation and something for
council to consider. During the task force meetings, task force members reviewed other
metropolitan communities that were using the slow no wake surface zoning for their lakes, as
well as taking into consideration that Lake Susan is a recreational lake and any sort of ordinance
amendment does have consequences to the recreational users of Lake Susan. The results are a
little bit different than Lotus Lake because the data that we had to review was much different.
On Lotus Lake we had sampling points probably once weekly, where on Lake Susan it was
maybe one…point a month that was taken by the watershed district, so we had one point
representative for each month. So the task force was kind of given the challenge of how do you
make a determination with one point out of every month, and make a good conclusion out of
that? So one way that we did that was we did supply, staff provided the task force with a map of
structures, as far as sanitary structures on the shoreline and we met, the task force members after
a task force meeting, out on the shore and asked them you know what makes the most sense?
What elevation makes the most sense to have this slow no wake ordinance since the data that we
nd
have isn’t that great. Since then, on May 2 we did install a lake gauge so from here on out we
should be getting more accurate data as far as lake levels and we can track the elevation of the
lake a little bit better, and maybe at some point in the future re-evaluate that elevation and pin
point it a little bit better. Secondly, the task force decided that the restriction should remain on
the lake for 24 hours after it drops below 882.5. That’s a little different than Lotus Lake,
because as you know we have a 3 day. And notification is very much the same. Signs posted at
7
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
the access. Using the Clean Water hotline and the web site, cable channel 8 and e-mails to the
known representatives around the lake. Staff, we agreed with the 882.5, that elevation as a good
starting point. With the limited data that we had, we feel that’s a very good starting point. As
far as the delay, we feel that a 48 hour would be the bare minimum that staff could recommend,
just to create a buffer for water events like, let the lake draw down so if we get a small rain
event, we’re not bouncing back and forth between slow no wake and non-slow no wake. We
also agree with the notice recommendations. We have a lot of tools and I think we’re using all
the tools we can to get the word out. Looking at the chart here, the maroon line, kind of the
middle one, right below the yellow line is kind of the proposed lake level elevation. That takes
care of the two peaks. Big one in 2001 as well as the one in 2005. There’s a big gap of data that
seems to be missing. The watershed district really was only able to provide me with 2005 and
2000 basically historic data back up until 2001. Zooming in on the 2005 events, which kind of
drove the automatic slow no wake ordinance, you can see that we’ve got that one main event that
we only really got one point so we don’t know if that’s as high as it got or if it was coming back
down when they collected that point, but we do see that spike there. Additional task force
recommendations. They do want to re-evaluate the elevation that’s chosen this fall after we have
collected some data to see if that is a good elevation to have that where it’s at. Adjusting it up or
down according to whatever the data says. They’ve also suggested that after we set the lake
gauge, that it appeared to be 3 inches lower than we had anticipated standing on the shore, so if
council were to choose to revise that elevation, that would be reflected at the 882.75 which is the
3 inches above 882.5. So you know same with Lotus Lake, upon approval of the ordinance it
will be sent to DNR for final approval. DNR has up to 120 days to approve but once it’s
published and approved by the DNR, the ordinance will become active. So staff recommends
City Council solicit public comment during a public hearing on the proposed ordinance
amendment and amend city code to read, as written in the staff report, and at this time I’ll answer
any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Questions? What was that last point you mentioned about 3 inches and
adjustment?
Don Asleson: After the task force meetings were complete, there was a couple task force
members that suggested that the 882.5 elevation, after we had the lake gauge set was 3 inches
lower than they had anticipated being when they were standing on shore. In task force
discussions, I think generally all members agreed that the starting elevation should be
somewhere between 882 and 883.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Don Asleson: So if it’s 3 inches as a starting elevation, I don’t think it’s a big hang-up, at least
from a staff perspective.
Mayor Furlong: But didn’t they determine that 882 to 883 based upon other landmarks around
the lake?
Don Asleson: Right. And that’s still below those landmarks. As far as the sanitary sewer was
the landmarks that we used.
8
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
Mayor Furlong: The 883 would be, or the 882 ½?
Don Asleson: Yeah, it was actually 882 ½ . During discussions 882 was considered the low
side…to start at and 883 was considered too high. So during discussions we split right down the
middle and said let’s go with 882 ½.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so the gauge though, once it’s properly set will give us a better, more
accurate reading going forward. Alright, thank you. Any other questions? Okay. At this point
then, absent any questions, I will open up the public hearing and invite all interested parties and
guests to come forward and address the council on this matter and comment upon the task force
recommendations. Nobody?
Ken Wencl: Ken Wencl, Lake Susan. All I have to say is that Don did a fantastic job leading
this group of people. Five headstrong guys you know and that kind of stuff, but he did a great
job. Thanks Don.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Thank you Ken. Anyone else? Without objection then we’ll close
the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion. Must be nearing the end of the
high school schedule. Are we that close to summer vacation?
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Berg won’t pass you unless you get this meeting in.
Mayor Furlong: Make sure everyone gets an agenda and notes their attendance. Bring it back to
the point at hand. Council discussion of the proposed no wake ordinance for Lake Susan and the
task force and staff’s recommendation. Thoughts. Comments.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor I just wonder, as we did the Lake Lotus one 2 weeks ago,
why we would do this at 24 versus the 72 that we did so, and Don any objection? Does it drain
faster or is there some.
Don Asleson: Generally it was determined that the lake drains faster than Lotus Lake and that
kind of came from the residents who lived around the lake to visually see it. Since we don’t have
the data, just generally they said that it drains faster than Lotus Lake and they experienced, it
only takes a day or two to reasonably drop to a level below what would be considered an extreme
at water.
Councilman Lundquist: From your chart it looked like there was only one point in the last.
Don Asleson: It’s only one point a month so it’s tough to derive anything from that.
Councilman Lundquist: So would your, from a staff perspective, as we looked to enforce the
ordinance like this, I mean staff’s recommendation is 48 hours whereas we have 72 in the other
one. Would it be advantageous to just leave it at 72 across the board or being sensitive to the
fact that we want residents to be able to use the lakes when they can, but the occurrences of the
time when this will happen, is it worth having, you know throwing the dart board, the dart board
9
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
to each lake has it’s own time limit. Would it be better to just go 72 hours across the board and
call it good or? Maybe that’s a rhetorical question.
Don Asleson: Well I think because it drains faster, they have merit to what they’re asking for.
However I think at the same time we did suggest to the task force that you know, 3 days would
be the best because I think the concern is to, in addition to not creating confusion but if a no
wake happens on a Friday, not saying it will, but there may not be anybody around on the
weekend to remove the signs and everything and change all the posting until a Monday morning,
and so I think that by doing a 48 hours at least, it gives til Monday morning to pull that sign.
Councilman Lundquist: Well maybe a better question is, hypothetically if we have a rain event
that causes Lotus Lake to be high, or Lake Susan to be high, what’s the chances that both of
them are going to be over that mark at the same time?
Don Asleson: Probably pretty good.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: So is your thought Councilman Lundquist to err on the side of consistency?
Councilman Lundquist: I think I would just say, for ease of enforcement and consistency that we
go 72 hours across the board. I mean understanding that one is contrasting the other, but I think
what we’ve seen across these events is that they happen very infrequently and it’s, you know I
don’t want to keep people off the lakes any more than they have to be, but it just seems like it
would be, you’d need kind of a cheat sheet. This lake’s 24 hours. This lake’s 72 hours. This
lake’s 48 hours. We’re going to have a hard enough time I think enforcing the ordinance as it is
at 72 hours and if we start finagling the time, it may be easier to just hit it at 72.
Mayor Furlong: Any thoughts? Comments.
Ken Wencl: May I address?
Mayor Furlong: If we, I’d prefer not to Ken, only because we want to kind of keep the
discussion going. Unless other council would like to hear it. Let’s hear the thoughts here first.
Councilman Peterson: I think this is…to Councilman Lundquist’s point…I think 72…a
reasonable number to use. We haven’t been able to discern which, how much faster does the
lake go down. We don’t know that. I think we’ve also kind of discussed the fact that we might
bring this back…
Mayor Furlong: From an implementation standpoint. Councilwoman Tjornhom, thoughts?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: …get implemented and during major rain events, it will be posted on
a web site, is that correct? And people e-mail about this no wake…so each individual will be
notified, is that correct? That is on the lake?
10
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
Don Asleson: Yeah, I believe last year the way we did it, we put it on the web site. I’m not sure
if we used the web site but we did use the Clean Water Hotline, and one of the messages was
when it was anticipated to drop below so you know, all those.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And each lake would be listed individually?
Don Asleson: Right. Right, because they have different elevations.
Mayor Furlong: So I guess one would imagine, hypothetically if both of the two lakes that
we’ve discussed, Lotus Lake and Lake Susan go up and exceed the elevation where the
automatic no wake goes into effect, we might expect Lake Susan to come off earlier, if it does
indeed drain faster. But regardless, I think part of what I’m hearing as far as implementation and
ease of implementation as well. Ease of enforcement. Any other thoughts Councilwoman
Tjornhom or?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I guess I hate to keep people off the lake if they don’t have to be off
the lake. Because we don’t have that many days to be on it frankly. And I think if they did post
it on the web site and there’s a hotline, I think people are going to call…call and find out what’s
going on if the notice says 72 hours or it says 24 hours, you know they will have been notified to
that. So I don’t know if it would be a lot of lake jumping where they would say well why is it 24
hours here and why is it 72 hours here? I think people are intelligent enough to investigate what
they want…and follow those rules.
Mayor Furlong: I think from a practical standpoint, it will be a notification. Either there will be
a no wake existing on the lake or there won’t be. There’ll be a sign up at the landing or other
notice, and what we’re saying is when does that, when does that emergency ordinance come off
is really the issue.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And I’m assuming on the sign too it would say 24 hours.
Mayor Furlong: I guess my assumption is, there’s a no wake period until such time as the
criteria meets and the lake comes off. And if that’s the case, then it’s going to be a question for
staff to manage whether it’s 48 here, 24. I agree with Councilman Lundquist in trying to remove
variability in the ordinance. I mean that’s the thing we need to do. The question here is where
do we strike a balance. Given the lack of data that we have, it’s difficult I think to go down to
the task force recommendation one day and my concern there is just from a practical standpoint,
is to try to eliminate the situation where no wake is coming on and going off. Coming on and
going off and that’s what this whole purpose is to give it more time for the lake to settle so that
when it does come off, we’re reducing the probability that it’s going to go back on real quickly
with the next light rain storm. If there’s another heavy one, that may happen but just a normal,
normal rain over the evening or through the day would be, what we want to do is avoid it
bouncing back up and down. I’d be comfortable with the 48 or the 72. Trying to find a balance I
think given the lack of data and I would certainly go with the 72 if the council also wanted to put
that…to reconvene in a year. Barring an event though, which may not happen this year, all
we’re going to be able to look at then is data and probably re-evaluate whether the high water
mark point is correct. If we have an event, not that we’re hoping for that, but if we have that,
11
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
that might give us, the task force more information to evaluate how quickly it came down and
then stayed down. But even then it’s going to be one event. Most likely or two, so I think I’d go
with the 48, or the 72. I wouldn’t want to go to the 24 right now given lack of information. But
I think that does provide a fair balance with what we’re trying to do and with the hope and
expectation that at the 82 ½, 882 ½, it’s going to be a roller event that triggers it as opposed to a
normal event. So Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: Following one more question for staff. From your perspective, would it
be easier to administer with the same timeframe or would it be better for two different?
Don Asleson: I think having the same would be easier. However I think the task force, we did
do them separately so they could develop their own recommendations so, we did do those two
separate meetings. We did Lotus Lake separately from Lake Susan so that we could
accommodate the two different lake users.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. I agree with Don on that. Whenever you can stay
consistent, it’s going to be easier for staff to implement because if we have a major event, you
know somebody’s going to pull out one of the ordinances. Take a look at it. We may be all
gone you know down the line and they’re going to assume they’re all the same so, you’re going
to have that potential problem down the line and so it’s a good point to bring up and you do have
that potential of making a mistake down the line. But you’re still going to have to monitor each
of the lake levels and they’re all going to come on and off at different times so somebody is
going to have to go out and check these things. The process that we used, we kind of made it
lake friendly and let them kind of establish their own rules, recommendations on what they think
is appropriate for their areas. And I think soils are also an issue. The way Lotus Lake is made
up, you may want 3 days just to allow the soil to dry out as the lake level comes down. The
different banking in that area versus Susan which is a little more flat. So that’s also another
factor to look at.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Do we have any guidelines for Lake Ann?
Don Asleson: Not at this time because.
Councilman Lundquist: There’s no wake at Lake Ann anyway.
Todd Gerhardt: The two lakes that are most concerned in the community are Susan and Lotus. I
think we’re going to look at Riley at some point down the line also. We’ve had a couple
occasions down there where high water has been an issue.
Mayor Furlong: And if we pursued something on Lake Riley, a couple things. One, we’d
coordinate that with the City of Eden Prairie. And two, the Watershed District currently is
working on a project with regard to increasing the capacity at the outlet of that lake which, …to
wait until that’s done and we can see the effects of that before we try to pursue anything there.
So I guess the question here before us tonight, I mean everything that the task force did, I mean
that’s excellent. Get enough data, you go out and observe and I appreciate that and the time that
they spent doing that. I think the real issue here is, what I’m hearing, I haven’t heard any issue
12
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
with the task force recommendation, the 882 ½. I think that’s reasonable for reasons stated. I
guess it’s just a question of how long after once that event occurs, how long after it drops below
that, do we want to keep the no wake in place for purposes to avoid it jumping back in and for all
the other reasons in terms of letting the system settle back out and that so.
Councilman Peterson: From a practical standpoint, if we had next month…rain, are we not
going to be out measuring anyway…and pull off the signs after 24 hours if we want, right?
Kate Aanenson: Yep.
Councilman Peterson: If we saw…in 4 days and the other in 22 hours…
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor I would move that we, are we in a public hearing?
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, the public hearing’s been closed.
Councilman Lundquist: I would move that we approve the change in ordinance per staff and
task force recommendation with the modification of 72 hours before this comes, the no wake
comes off. Pending further review as scheduled in a year.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council
approve the ordinance amendment including the statement, watercraft utilized by resource
management, emergency and enforcement personnel acting in the performance of their
assigned duties shall be exempt from the provision of this ordinance, and amend City Code
to read as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 6-49 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended
to include the changes listed in bold to read as follows:
“Sec. 6-49. Slow--No wake areas.
(1)
No person shall operate a watercraft in any marked slow--no wake areas in excess of slow--
no wake speed. Slow--no wake areas shall be marked in accordance with the applicable
regulations of the state department of natural resources. The location and boundaries of each
slow--no wake area established are shown on that certain map entitled Water Surface Use Zoning
Map of Chanhassen dated July 11, 1983, on file in the city hall. The map and all notations,
references and data thereon are hereby incorporated by reference into this article and shall have
the same force and effect as if fully set forth and described herein.
13
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
(2)
Emergency slow-no wake areas may be established by resolution of the city council and shall
be marked in accordance with the appropriate regulations of the state department of natural
resources and posted at all public accesses.
(3) Special Slow-No Wake Restrictions
(a) Lotus Lake:
All persons shall operate watercraft at a slow-no wake speed on Lotus Lake whenever the
water elevation exceeds the 100-year predicted level for Lotus Lake of 896.8 MSL as set
forth in the 1994 Surface Water Management Plan. The slow-no wake surface zoning shall
remain in place until the water drops below the 100-year predicted level of 896.8 MSL for 3
consecutive days. Upon the placement of a slow-no wake restriction, notice will be given:
1.On a sign posted at the public access.
2.On the City of Chanhassen Web Page.
3.On the City of Chanhassen Clean Water Hotline.
4.On the Community Cable Access Channel.
5.In an e-mail format to known representatives on Lotus Lake.
6.To the Carver County Sheriffs Department.
7.To the public by other appropriate means determined by Council. ”
(b) Lake Susan:
All persons shall operate watercraft at a slow-no wake speed on Lake Susan whenever the
water elevation exceeds 882.5. The slow-no wake surface zoning will remain in place
until the water level drops below 882.5 for 72 hours. Upon placement of a slow-no wake
restriction, notice will be given:
1. On a sign posted at the public access.
2. On the City of Chanhassen Web Page.
3. On the City of Chanhassen Water Hotline.
4. On the Community Cable Access Channel.
5. In an e-mail format to known representatives on Lake Susan.
6. To the Carver County Sheriff’s Department.
7. To the public by other appropriate means determined by Council.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone, and for those serving on the task force, we do appreciate
all your efforts and we will reconvene the task force after this season for sure. Within about a
year after we get some more data to review. Get some better information to help them with, if
they want to revise their recommendation so very good. Thank you.
AWARD OF BIDS: 2006 G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS.
th
Greg Sticha: Good evening Mayor, council members. If you recall at our May 8 council
meeting the City Council authorized staff to issue a $6.6 million and general obligation
improvement bonds related to the development of the 2005 MUSA area. In connection with that
14
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
staff, along with our financial advisors, Ehlers and Associates this last week conducted a
conference call with Standard and Poors to review our current bond rating. After that conference
call and review of our financial position, Standard and Poors reaffirmed our current bond rating
of AA- this week. This last week. Today the actual bond sale took place and with that, what I
will do is let Mark Ruff and Bruce DeJong from Ehlers and Associates go over the details of the
bond sale.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Mark Ruff: Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Mark Ruff with Ehlers and Associates. I’m
going to speak first about the bond rating and results and then ask Bruce to talk about
specifically what the bids were. First of all, a reminder that a rating agency is an arbitrary third
party that’s really only interest is to look out for the interest of bond holders and tell bond
holders that, what point in time they have to assess risk on different cities, and we have cities in
Minnesota that are rated as high as AAA and some that are rated below investment grade and
even though we have never had defaults since the 1930’s on a general obligation bond, there is a
great deal of analysis that goes into these bond ratings and so I’m going to highlight a couple of
things out of the bond rating report because I think it is important for council and the public as a
whole to know how this arbitrary third party does view the city. Specifically Standard and Poors
had several good things to say about the city, and I want to highlight a couple of them. One is
financial management and liquidity are good. By liquidity they mean that, and they highlight the
formal reserve policy to keep general fund balance to at least 50% of the next property tax
revenue and state aid for cash flow purposes. So it’s clearly very important for them to have that
cash flow, as well as with the, they very much highlighted was the 15% catastrophic reserve.
Rating agencies are all about, as I said, making sure that bond holders get paid on a timely basis
and a good rating is dependent upon the amount of cash that you have in case there was some
crisis that would occur such as, whether it be a natural event or whether it be a legislative event
that could be termed as catastrophic for the city. And so I think that’s one thing that’s clear too
is that, is to. No political statement whatsoever there. ...the rating agency highlighted was the
updates annually to the city’s financial forecast. The rating agencies like the idea that you’re
looking out several years and not just looking at the next year for budgetary purposes. That
includes the 5 year Capital Improvement Plan, which is also something that they highlight as a
fact that as a rolling, in other words you’re not, you’re doing this every year even though you’re
planning out 5 years. You’re not waiting every 5 years to look and see what your capital
improvements are that are necessary. Other issues that they raised that I want to add some
clarification to. One is, they talk about a high per capita debt burden but I want to highlight to
the council that is when rating agencies look at debt burdens, they look at the county, the school
district and the city all combined, and as was highlighted in this report, the vast majority, over
70% of the debt burden comes from places other than the city, and so, when you just remove the
city portion, it’s again very small and very much on par and actually below most Minnesota
cities. The other thing that they would also do is compare you nationally, and clearly not as
many cities across the nation have the ability as we do in Minnesota of issuing bonds without
referendums and such and for cities and so that’s a key factor. And the last thing is, is that they
very much do highlight the effective management and I think your long term staff and I just want
to compliment Todd and Kate and Paul and Justin, as well as Greg in the work that they do. That
really does make a difference for the rating agencies is, and it’s not just the staff but the council
15
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
and the direction that you set and your consistency in that really is recognized by the rating
agency. So again I applaud with having a AA rating. It’s not an easy thing to do. We have
many communities that have striven for that for a number of years and still haven’t achieved it
so, again congratulations to you on that and then we’ll talk specifically about the bond sale.
Bruce DeJong: Mayor Furlong, council members. Bruce DeJong with Ehlers and Associates.
We had a very nice sale today. We were not expecting quite as many bidders as we actually
received because we were fairly aggressive in structuring this bond issue. With the uncertainty
of the speed and timing of the prepayments, we put in a call date that’s probably earlier than
what most of the bidders are expecting to see, so we have this structured for 7 years of principle
payments beginning in 2008 and we have a call feature in the bottom that allows you to call the
stst
bonds that are due on February 1 of 2010 on February 1 of 2009. So pretty aggressive but
because this is being paid for almost entirely by the special assessments, we’re expecting that
that won’t cause any problems. And we actually received 6 bids today. The low bidder was
Griffin, Kubik, Stephens, and Thompson from Chicago, Illinois with a true interest cost of 3.93%
th
and the cover bid, the next lowest bid was only 3/100’s of a percent higher than that so pretty
heated bidding for these bonds. The rating as we indicated, as Mark indicated is a AA- from
Standard and Poors, but these bonds will carry a AAA rating because Griffin and Kubik decided
to purchase insurance from Excel Capital Assurance, so they can sell those as AAA bonds out in
the market and that makes that easier for people to purchase. In this case we had fairly
significantly lower interest rates than we had projected. We were on a fairly strong uptake on
interest rates but with the stock market starting to go down, we also saw a little bit of that in the
bond markets so interest rates were pretty aggressive. We had projected 3.95 to 4.4 percent here
on your pre-sale report and the actual results of this sale ended up being 3.75 to 3.8 so almost a
flat interest rate there which led to some significant savings. Because you’ve had a, you know a
fairly significant change order already on this project, staff requested that we put those savings
into the bond issue for the capital project account so that we have those available if there are
other change orders. That was about $25,000 and the final resolution will reflect that change if
those proceeds weren’t there. So the principle amount did not change at all. Still $6,640,000
worth of bond proceeds. The discount allowance actually went down some from what we had
projected, so they’re not getting a lot to market these bonds. And the interest rate, significant
th
savings of $146,000 over the life of the issue. And the closing date is projected to be June 13
so that’s when you’ll actually see the money in the checking account. Greg will be a happy man
that day, and we just ask that you award the bids to Griffin, Kubik, Stephens and Thompson and
adopt the resolution providing for the issuance and sale of $6,640,000 General Obligation
Improvement Bond, Series 2006A.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Bruce DeJong: Any questions?
Mayor Furlong: Questions. No? Very good, thank you. Appreciate your efforts. Any
discussion on this. It’s good news all around it seems. With the interest rate. The reaffirming
by Standard and Poors of our AA rating. All and all good news so it’s nice to see the benefits of
some of the hard work of so many people. Is there a motion to adopt the request of council
action?
16
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve as published.
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion?
Resolution #2006-38: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that
the City Council award the bids to Griffin, Kubik, Stephens and Thompson and adopt the
resolution providing for the issuance and sale of $6,640,000 General Obligation
Improvement Bond, Series 2006A.
LIBERTY AT CREEKSIDE, 1500 PIONEER TRAIL, 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 ALTERATION WITHIN
THE FLOOD PLAIN AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY
DISTRICT.
th
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor. This item was tabled on your April 24 meeting. Since that
time the staff has been working with Town and Country Homes to revise the site plan and the
building elevations. The direction you gave staff and the applicant was to look at the views
specifically from 212 and try to differentiate this project from the project that was recently
approved on the Audubon Road side. So in working with the developer, they did introduce, on
the previous plan had, both plans have 146 units. The previous plan had 29 structures. This plan
has 37, and that was accomplished by adding the twin homes and breaking apart the fourplexes.
This is a preliminary plat. There are motions starting on page 17 of your staff report. I just want
to clarify, you will see this project again as that moves forward with the conditions that are
addressed. I would like to turn it over to the developer and to go specifically through the
changes that they made and the color scheme, so with that again as I indicated, staff is
recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions for staff? If not, I see the developer here. Good evening.
Shawn Siders: Good evening Mayor Furlong, council members. My name is Shawn Siders with
Town and Country Homes. A K. Hovnanian Company. With me this evening is Kevin Clark
our Vice President of Land Development. We’d like to thank you for working with and
challenging us to enhance the Liberty at Creekside community so it is a source of pride for the
residents of Chanhassen now and in the future. I’d like to take a few moments to provide a brief
overview of the modifications we have made to the plan since we last met with you. Provide
additional information regarding the architecture that will be used on the Premiere Homes
throughout the neighborhood and also provide a perspective from the 212 corridor once it is
constructed. Since we met with you in April we have eliminated actually the 7 six unit Premiere
buildings that were proposed for the site. In their place we have introduced 11 twin home
Premiere buildings creating additional breaks in the buildings which will provide more view
17
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
sheds throughout the neighborhood. On the south section of the neighborhood we’ve been able
to introduce a 4-2-4 home configuration of the Premiere units to create a more varied streetscape,
and I don’t know if you can see this or not but the twin homes are all I believe in red. Because of
the introduction of the twin home units we have also been able to break up the visitor parking
spaces within private street C which is a private street on the north edge of the property. The
parking areas are now dispersed on either end of the street and will allow for parking choices
closer to the residents and their visitors on both ends of the street. The Premiere homes offer
three distinct architectural styles which will be used in both the twin homes as well as the four
unit buildings. The mission style has brick on four sides of the building. In addition to the four
sided brick, these homes have a mixture of hip roofs on the front and rear that provide additional
architectural detail. As is the case with all of our homes within this community, the varied color
treatments on the front and rear ensure a varied streetscape and prevent monotony and we
provided a rendering of both the twin and the four unit. The Victoria style Premiere homes have
varied gables with eyebrows to break up the roof lines. The batting board pattern on the rears of
these homes further distinguishes the Victorian home from the others, while the trim placement
and color treatments enhance each unit. The farmhouse style Premiere homes offer stone
treatments on the fronts and the sides, the wrap around porch distinguishes these homes from the
others, while the gabled features on the rears of the homes break up the roof lines. We
understand the need to create a varied streetscape within the community. In addition to the
modified side layout, we will develop the site using all six color schemes on the Premiere homes.
Because the number of Concord units within the development are limited, we would suggest
dedicating three color schemes for those homes. And then lastly, during our previous
discussions there have been many questions regarding the views of this community from the 212
corridor. We’ve taken this opportunity to provide a perspective from the closest point of the
development to the 212 corridor. The home shown in this rendering are east of private street D,
and are approximately 250 feet away from 212. As you can see the varied architectural styles
and color treatments in addition to the extensive landscaping will ensure the views from 212 are
visually appealing. I would like to take this opportunity to thank yourselves and city staff for
your collective vision to challenge Town and Country Homes to create a distinct community.
Liberty at Creekside will be a valuable asset to the community and we are proud to be a partner
with the City of Chanhassen. I’d be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Siders? No? Very good. Thank you.
Anything else for staff at this point? If not, council discussion. Thoughts or comments.
Councilman Lundquist: I’ll go first. I like the changes and modifications that have been made to
the proposal. I think that the developer heard our feedback from before. Still you know, I still
have, share some or have some concerns about things like the road access and the access to the
park and some of that stuff from the meeting a month ago hasn’t changed. But as I said, a month
ago I mean those aren’t deal breakers for me. I mean they’re less than perfect things but we’re
going to have that in most developments. We’re not going to have everything so, we talked a
little bit 2 weeks ago about impact of one development on another and I think that as we look at
the road that goes to the northwest, obviously meets up with the one through there and so then
that, we had the discussion a month ago. Do we go straight south or do we go northeast from
there and again you know we’ve heard all the different discussions so that said, the northeast
seems to be the least intrusive. Maybe not ideal but nothing in the development right now that is
18
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
jumping up and down for me to say no so I think I’ll give the developer credit for breaking up
the barracks look and 600 of the same units, like we talked about a month ago and comfortable
with where we’re at now. Knowing that it’s not perfect but I think we’re in a pretty good spot
right now.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know I just would like to thank Town and Country for what you
did. I think I know I’ve probably been your worst nightmare…but I just really, I love what you
did. The changes that you made. The architectural changes that you made. The reconfiguration.
The different styles that you’ve used as far as housing type… I just want to thank you for that
because it’s going to be a good asset to our community right now. And I guess that’s all…
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: …we have a better product…something about the sheer scope of Phase I
and Phase II. You can’t not because…so that’s why I think we need to work harder to make it
both visually attractive from 312 and…so it’s not exactly the same as Phase I. That was my
goal…few weeks ago, few months ago…the changes and reinforce the fact that they listened…
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I think my thoughts are similar to what has been expressed by the
council. This council challenged Mr. Clark and Siders, your development with Liberty on Bluff
Creek to give us something better. Show us something more. I think we pushed to the limit
there in terms of that development, and I see here where we’ve done even better and each
development that goes in, I’ve always kind of used as a gauge, if this becomes the one on your
marketing brochure, then we’ve got that you know. Then we’ve done enough. If you’ve got
somebody else’s on there…maybe there’s more we can do. I think overall, in all seriousness, I
appreciate your professionalism in working with the staff. Listening to the council. Working
with the Planning Commission to try to find something that works for you but also works for us
and that makes a big difference. Others might have dug in their heels and said, no. This is it.
I’m not going to do anything more. You didn’t do that and we appreciate that and I think
because of that, where a few weeks ago had we put it to a vote, it probably wouldn’t have gone
the way you wanted it to. Tonight it will and I think the ability to work together to get that done
is a credit to you, a credit to our staff and others that were involved so appreciate everything
you’ve done to do that. And I do like this layout, this site plan better. Plain and simple and the
inclusion of the twin homes to break up, create more open space inbetween. The elimination of
some of the larger six unit homes. Spreading out the parking. Dispersing the different types of
products around the development. Overall make this a nicer neighborhood for those that live
there and others who drive by so, appreciate all your efforts there. With that I guess I would ask
if there are other comments or additional comments, that’d be fine. Otherwise is there a motion?
We’ve got a number of motions here I believe, is that right Kate?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve motions A, B, C and D with
the published conditions and findings of fact in the staff report.
19
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and the one question I’ll ask Ms. Aanenson, just to be sure with
regard to the conditions. Were they updated with all the comments made at the last meeting so
those are…
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. They’ve been modified based on these recent elevations too.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so the revised site plan as well as the recommendations from council at
our last meeting?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Are all included. Thank you. Any other discussions or questions?
Clarifications?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approvestheRezoningof the property located within the Liberty at Creekside
development with the exception of Outlot A and the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary
Zone (Outlot D), from Agricultural Estate District (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -
Residential (PUD - R) incorporating the development design standards contained within this
staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approvesthe Preliminary Plat for Liberty at Creekside, plans prepared by Westwood
Professional Services, Inc., dated June 17, 2005, revised February 3, 2006, revised April 6,
2006, which may also be revised to incorporate lots around each dwelling unit, subject to
the following conditions
:
1.The applicant shall prepare a noise analysis for noise that will be generated by traffic on
Highway 312. The analysis shall identify appropriate noise mitigation measures to meet
noise standards for residential homes as specified by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, which shall be implemented by the developer.
2.The developer shall provide a design plan that shows the color and architectural detail for
each unit on the site for final plat approval
.
3.The developer shall pay $6,285.00 as their portion of the 2005 AUAR.
4.The developer shallrevise the plat to incorporate the twin home units as shown on the
plan dated May 8, 2006.
20
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
5.The developer shall establish a separate outlot(s) for the land within the Bluff Creek
Overlay District primary zone.
6.Dedication of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone shall be made to the city or a
conservation easement shall be established over said outlot(s).
7.The wetland mitigation for Liberty on Bluff Creek shall be complete within one year of
the authorized fill on Liberty on Bluff Creek.
8.Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420) and the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit for
Liberty on Bluff Creek.
9.Wetland buffers 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around Wetlands A and B and the constructed wetland mitigation areas.
Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the
City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the
direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All
structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
10.Due to a secondary access through the MnDOT right-of-way (ROW) to the north in the
northeast portion of the property, the applicant will be responsible for creating or
securing sufficient wetland mitigation for MnDOT that will meet all conditions imposed
on MnDOT and will be responsible for any and all fees associated with the redesign of
the wetland mitigation areas in MnDOT ROW. Final plat approval shall not be granted
until the wetland mitigation plan has been received and approved by the City and
MnDOT.
11.The plans shall be revised to show bluff areas (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and
a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe). All bluff areas shall be preserved. In
addition, all structures shall maintain a minimum 30-foot setback from the bluff and no
grading shall occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20
feet from the top of a bluff).
12.All structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the primary corridor. No
alterations shall occur within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback
from the primary corridor.
13.The applicant shall submit a plan for the revegetation of the farmed area south of Bluff
Creek that incorporates native plants and is consistent with the City’s Bluff Creek Natural
Resources Management Plan Appendix C. Special attention shall be paid to areas with
steep slopes (greater than 3:1).
14.Alterations appear to be proposed within a mapped FEMA unnumbered A Zone (100-
year floodplain). In lieu of a LOMA, the applicant shall obtain a conditional use permit
for alterations within the floodplain.
21
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
15.A storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) shall be developed for the
development and shall be completed prior to applying for the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit.
16.A stable emergency overflow (EOF) shall be provided for the proposed pond. The EOF
could consist of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf re-enforcement mat (a permanent
erosion control blanket). A typical detail shall be included the plan.
17.The plans shall show paths of access to both wetland mitigation areas as well as all
erosion controls and restoration practices.
18.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a
curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other
natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
19.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as-needed.
20.The applicant shall provide details for curbside inlet control. Wimco-type inlet controls
shall be used and installed within 24 hours of installation.
21.Typical building lot controls shall be shown on the plan. These controls may include
perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street sweeping, inlet control and
temporary mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the certificates of occupancy.
22.The proposed storm water pond shall be used as a temporary sediment basin during mass
grading. The pond shall be excavated prior to disturbing up gradient areas. Diversion
berms or ditches may be needed to divert water to the pond and a temporary pond outlet
is needed. The outlet could be a temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. A detail
for the temporary pond outlet shall be included in the plans. Additional temporary
sediment basins may be needed or an alternate location may be needed depending upon
site conditions during rough grading.
23.The ultimate outlet from the site to Bluff Creek shall be turned to the southeast to align
with the creek.
22
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
24.Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) should be provided over all
existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water
ponds. An easement adequate to provide access to the pond for maintenance purposes is
needed and should be shown on the plan.
25.At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording, is $266,850.
26.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of
Transportation) and comply with their conditions of approval.
27.Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated
for preservation and/or at the edge of proposed grading limits.
28.Silt fence or tree protection fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading around both
wetland mitigation areas.
29.A fenced access road will lead from the east mitigation area to the west mitigation area.
This will be the only access allowed to the western site. Fencing shall be placed on either
side of the access lane. After construction, the access lane shall be restored according to
the ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’.
30.A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to
construction.
31.No burning permits shall be issued for tree removal. All trees removed on site shall be
chipped and used on site or hauled off.
32.The applicant shall implement the ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ dated
9/29/05 for restoration within the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
33.The applicant shall submit a full sized ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ with
final plat submittal.
34.A turf plan shall be submitted to the city indicating the location of sod and seeding areas.
35.The developer shall pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final plat
approval in lieu of parkland dedication.
36.The applicant shall provide all design, engineering, construction and testing services
required of the “Bluff Creek Trail.” All construction documents shall be delivered to the
Park and Recreation Director for approval prior to the initiation of each phase of
23
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
construction. The trail shall be ten feet in width, surfaced with bituminous material and
constructed to meet all City specifications. The applicant shall be reimbursed for the
actual cost of construction materials for the Bluff Creek Trail. This reimbursement
payment shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and receipt of an
invoice documenting the actual costs for the construction materials utilized in its
construction.
37.The developer shall provide a sidewalk connection to the Bluff Creek trail through
private street B.
38.The developer must coordinate the location and elevation of the western street connection
with the Pioneer Pass (Peterson Property) and Degler property developments to the west
and northwest.
39.The height and length of retaining walls must be reduced to the maximum extent
possible.
40.The top and bottom of wall elevations must be shown on the final grading plan.
41.A building permit is required for any retaining walls four feet high or taller. These walls
must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
42.The style of home and lowest floor elevation must be noted on the grading plan.
43.Typical sections for each housing style must be shown on the final grading plan.
44.The final grading plan must be 50 scale so that staff can complete a full review of the
proposed grading.
45.The developer must verify the invert elevation of the sanitary sewer connection that will
be constructed with the 2005 MUSA Improvement Project.
46.The development may not proceed until the Phase II 2005 MUSA utility extension
project has been awarded.
47.Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges and the SAC
charge at the time of building permit. The 2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575.00/unit
for sanitary sewer and $4,078.00/unit for watermain. The SAC charge is $1,625.00/unit.
Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel
at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of
SAC units assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit
issuance.
48.The northern access (currently shown to the Fox property) must be shifted to the east to
the MNDOT right-of-way parcel. Prior to final plat approval, the developer must contact
24
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
the Fox family to coordinate the elevation of the northern street connection at their
property line.
49.The Arterial Collector Fee shall be paid with the final plat. The 2006 fee is
$2,400/developable acre.
50.The final plans must show the new orientation for Lots 13 and 14, Block 2.
51.The site plan and final grading plan must identify the proposed 10-foot wide bituminous
trail.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves Site Planfor 146 townhouses, plans prepared byWestwood Professional Services,
Inc., dated June 17, 2005, revised February 3, 2006, revised April 6, 2006, subject to the
following conditions:
1.The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2.The developer shall provide a design plan that shows the color and architectural detail for
each unit on the site for final plat approval.
3.Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire-
resistive construction.
4.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
5.No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either
be removed from site or chipped.
6.Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire code Section
501.4.
7.A fire apparatus access road 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.
8.Fire apparatus access road and water supplies 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.
25
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
9.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.
10.Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
review and approval.
11.“No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required on the private streets. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of sign. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire
Prevention Policy #06-1991.
12.Staff will work with the developer on materials, colors and diversity.
13.The developer shall incorporate the twin home units as proposed in the sketch plan dated
May 8, 2006.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves Conditional Use Permitfor alterations within the flood plain and development
within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions:
1.The applicant shall implement the ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ dated
9/29/05 for restoration within the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
2.The applicant shall submit a full-sized ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ with
final plat submittal.
3.The wetland mitigation for Liberty on Bluff Creek shall be constructed prior to or
concurrent with wetland impacts on the Liberty on Bluff Creek project.
4.Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420) and the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit for
Liberty on Bluff Creek.
5.Wetland buffers 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around Wetlands A and B and the constructed wetland mitigation areas.
Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the
City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the
direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All
structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
26
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
Kevin Clark: I just want to thank you mayor and council, and it really has truly been a joint
effort throughout this whole process. Both at Bluff Creek and here at Creekside and I guess
mostly we thank you for your patience with us. It seems like we’ve been…going to school on
this and I think we’ve benefited and we appreciate your input, your time spent with us and you
know your investment so we’re looking forward to moving forward.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and we look forward to your successful developments for our city.
Very good, thank you.
TH
GALPIN CROSSING TWINHOMES, LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78 STREET
AND WEST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD, EPIC DEVELOPMENT XVI, LLC,
PLANNING CASE 06-13: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-
R), PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL CREATING 13 LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT
WITH A VARIANCE FOR A PRIVATE STREET AND MORE THAN 4 HOMES
ACCESSING A PRIVATE STREET; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT.
nd
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This item appeared before the Planning Commission on May 2.
They recommended, they took their motions separately. Voted 3 to 3 to, the motion was to
approve the rezoning. It was 3 to 3 so basically in effect that died. They also voted a negative 1
to 5 for the approval of the preliminary plat with the variances, and then also 1 to 5 against the
conditional use, so therefore they recommended denial and the findings of fact in your packet
reflect that motion for denial. What I’d like to do is take some time and go in your staff report is
the background, is take a few minutes and walk through the background of how this project came
th
about. And as you stated mayor, the subject site is located on West 78. If you go in the
background and on page 3 of the staff report it talks about how this property got severed and that
th
was the creation of West 78 Street, severed the property into two parcels, and at that time sewer
and water was provided. Shortly thereafter in 2003, can you zoom out just a bit? Thank you.
The owner of the property, Mr. Pryzmus appeared before the, a conditional, or concept, excuse
me, concept approval for a plan and that was in 2003. That included the recreational fun center
and some town houses. Multi family on the north side and that included approximately 18.
There was a letter that was put out by the city at that time talking about kind of the concept had
not standing, so that sat for a while and then in December of 2005 a concept was brought
forward to the City Council. Maybe you can zoom in a little bit on that. So we’re looking at
again the entire PUD which included at that time office industrial or commercial, and then
residential on the north side. The council at that time gave conceptual approval but then based
on specific recommendations specifically regarding that retail study we completed, which to date
we haven’t gotten the final draft yet on that either so we haven’t given any standing on the retail
study and at a minimum, only twin homes be considered to be consistent on that north side. So
th
that was the marching orders that was given again when that appeared on the December 12,
2005 conceptual approval. So with that to date the applicant has come forward with a twin home
plan. Just I’ll make another point. On this plan here there was shown 10. Then when it came in
it went to 12, and they came in requesting a PUD. The purpose of the PUD allows for the
flexibility in the ordinance. It also is a tool that we used before this property is in the overlay
district. If you look at the original plan that I showed you that had the 16 units on, all those units
27
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
were backed up against the creek itself and since we got the overlay district, we had that
buffer…and that’s what’s shown in green. The overlay district. Again in looking at the PUD, the
staff evaluates how that tool is used. Specifically in this case we’re looking at the green space
and the applicant to get that number of units, 12 we would have to do a private street. I just
wanted to show as an example, this blue line here would be, which is the private street. If you
went all the way up to the front of the houses, that’s the 50 foot setback so if you used a public
street, you’d actually would be back into the homes up in, approximately where the front door is
to get, that would be a 60 foot street. So if you used a public street, or certainly eliminate, it
pinches in. You’d be up against the setback line of the Bluff Creek. So in evaluating this, where
we are to date, the Planning Commission, if you looked at, as the staff went through these
exercises, looking at the different zoning applications and balancing the PUD. What benefits
was the city getting out of doing the PUD. Certainly there’s the preservation of green space.
When we looked at this overall PUD, when you go back to the original concept, one of the things
that we’ve always looked at is, and we’ve used the same application on the other side of the
th
street where we’ve preserved all this green space on the north side of West 78 and we’ve got
the impervious surface. So you had more hard cover. On the south side. This is one of the
applications we originally told the developer…and that preserves all that space on that, looking
across the view shed of the wetland. They chose to go forward with this application itself, so in
the staff report in the executive summary, what I’d like to do is just kind of walk through the
zoning options based on the fact that the Planning Commission did recommend denial of the
application. And obviously the first one is that you deny the application and that would be based
on the findings of fact and I know one of the questions that came up, because we spent 2 years
just talking about the project and most recently talking about architectural renderings. At this
point the applicant doesn’t know who the final builder is. To our knowledge they don’t know so
we don’t have, we did put design standards in there but we’re not tying it to a specific project but
to just sometimes unusual. And to be clear, and as city code, when you do a single family it
doesn’t require architectural guidelines and also in a traditional twin homes, but because this is a
PUD…request architectural standards and the staff did develop some but we don’t have a
specific product or project to look at these to tie it to. So that would be an issue, and then going
back to, if you wanted to look at this in a holistic sense, it’d be another issue. It talks about
whether that be considered green space for the other piece, or how that would be approved.
Then the other option that we put in there, again I’m on the second page of the executive
summary. It’d be approve subject to the staff report eliminating…so you actually include
architectural renderings but approve it the way it is. And then on C, would be to approve it for
just the 10 units. Not the 12, which would be eliminating 2 of the, spreading the units out…open
space. The property in the back of the subdivision is a traditional, what we call straight zoning.
10,000, each lot has to have 10,000 square feet. Again because this is a PUD, it’s clustered so
again if you put that public street in, which Vasserman has a public street, 60 foot right-of-way,
you’d certainly get significantly less units and how do you balance that, plus the appropriate,
based on the… So at a minimum the Planning Commission wanted less units and what zoning
application would apply for that. And then the other option would be to send it back to the
Planning Commission and let them review, and give you better direction on which ever way you
wanted to go on that. There isn’t, they’re at the 60 days, just…you have 120 days so there is
additional time to…45-50 days to evaluate that. The one concern I do have, if you remand it
back to the Planning Commission, they’ve got a full agenda on the second one in June, and then
th
the 4 of July is a Tuesday…so it doesn’t give a lot of time to try to meet that, if the Planning
28
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
Commission. I just want to point that out. If you did want to do that, then we would have to ask
for additional time…second meeting in June. So with that, if you had specific questions on the
project itself, I can go into more details…comments from the Planning Commission. And again
the findings of fact are in the staff report so I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Questions for Ms. Aanenson. Kate you mentioned different types of, …choose
my words correctly. Different types of zoning that will be available based upon the current
guiding. Looking in the staff report, single family residential, low density residential. R-4, or R
low and medium. Did we take a look at this site in terms of each of those types of zoning with
the guiding, and what would be available and would this meet any of those plans?
Kate Aanenson: I think in fairness, the fact that you’re pinched between the Galpin Boulevard
and the twin homes, I know we kind of felt the twin homes, it’s the application of twin home and
what allows you to get the most units.
Mayor Furlong: Are twin homes, the twin homes are allowed within one or all of these.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. It is, but so is single family for that matter. The difference is
the application and doing that PUD with a private street it does allow for more units. If you were
to do a straight 10,000 square foot lot with a public street, that would certainly eliminate some of
the units because you are required one more lot area per unit. But this takes the opportunity of
kind of spreading that green space around. And secondly, it requires more dedication of right-of-
way.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So it would be about, based upon the ordinance without the PUD there’d
be 8 units you think or 6 or?
Kate Aanenson: 6 to 8 maybe. Yeah, we laid this out this way. Again this incorporates a
private street so you could probably get 10 but if you use the public street, which is what
Vasserman did, so just to compare equal here, equal there. But again and the fact that it was
pinched.
Mayor Furlong: You’re saying there’s some reason to believe that a private street in this area.
Kate Aanenson: Well you’ve got a large public street here. Then to do another one, it creates a
lot of asphalt. But having said that, then it’s always the challenge of the trade of what did the
city get, and we don’t really know of the exact product yet. It’s a little bit more challenging.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. The other question that I think you addressed is that, when the twin
homes were presented and approved as a part of the concept plan, that was part of the concept
plan for the entire north and south parcels currently, correct?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. It is kind of a universal plan and the developer, they’re trying to put
something together that’s a little bit more challenged on that so we want to proceed with a
known quantity in their mind on the north side.
29
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? If not, is the
applicant here this evening? Good evening.
Perry Ryan: Good evening. Good evening Mayor Furlong and members of the council and staff.
Thank you Kate for going through that. I think Kate did a fine job of laying out all the facts.
This is just simply the graphic showing the overall as well as showing the twin homes on the
north side. The 12 units. What I guess I wanted to kind of go through a little bit here was, she
went through the history a little bit on there. We did gain concept approval from City Council on
th
December 12. We went through at that, I believe there were 33 conditions that were
th
recommended in the letter we received from the city on December 13. And we went through it
and as Kate pointed out, we were waiting for the market study. Our understanding was, that we
could move forward, that twin homes were at least conceptually agreed upon so we did move
th
forward. Submitted March 17 originally. Meeting all 33 of the conditions and just, she did
have, this is the concept plan. You can see the difference between the 10 units and the 12 units.
And I did want to do, if I can, was go through. We did move forward with the 12 units. It
wasn’t something that we’ve done. This overlay is doing, if we can zoom in just a little. Okay.
That’s fine. What this shows, and apparently one of the biggest challenges that the Planning
Commission was the number of units and we realized at the, it looks blurry because we’ve got
two overlays there so I just wanted to explain that. We didn’t understand that there was a
challenge with the number of units. We discussed with staff about going with planned unit
development. They gave us the 33 conditions as well as giving us some guidelines that may go
th
into the planned unit developed, as far as setbacks from West 78 Street. Setbacks from the west
side and all the particulars. What this is pointing out is, this lighter building here that’s kind of
shaded is the concept which was approved in late 2005. And the darker buildings are the…plans
which are conforming to the PUD standards as were set out in the staff report. In the May staff
report. What we wanted to point out, and again this is just kind of how we kind of went down
this road. As you can see on the concept PUD we have 3 buildings in this location almost
exactly as they were approved in the concept, and it’s quite clear what we did is we added this
building 11-12 and that was simply just by geometrics that we are able to accommodate the
concept plan. The concept plan didn’t have some of these setbacks in it. …photo on the wetland
as you can see where building 3-4 and building 5-6, and so basically from geometrics we are able
to accommodate this. We did look at the Vasserman Ridge project to the west. We looked at the
distances between these buildings and tried to do similarly the distances between these buildings
and there was room for one more building and that was simply the magic behind it being 12
units. As you can see, the view from the Vasserman Ridge neighborhood has, does not really
change from the approved concept plan. They wouldn’t really know that this building 11-12 is
in there. And then you go back to here, I’m looking on the overall layout. Again the area on the
cul-de-sac being the same as the concept. You know they’re still on…about 2 units per acre. It’s
12 units on 6 acres so we…substantial change. We’re certainly open. We went down the road
with staff. A good planned unit development on this parcel. We thought that was the direction.
I believe we’ve met all the conditions. There was additional conditions, they’ve got it up to 62
conditions and we’re comfortable with those conditions with the current layout so you know it’s
a matter of do we leave it as a planned development. Do you remove units 3-4. I believe the last
graphic that Kate had up was actually a graphic that we had given to Mr. Generous, do you want
to zoom in just a touch. This is the R-4 layout that we did actually, which meets the R-4
requirements except for the private drive. And as it points out, you know we are in a little bit of
30
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
th
a challenging situation. Now we are on West 78 Street. A street which does not allow direct
access to these units and so we’ve got a significant amount of street frontage that we cannot
access, which is really one of the main issues which is requiring us to do a private drive so with
that we’re simply looking for direction. Obviously we thought we were meeting all of the
directives which we received from staff. From City Council on the concept to build the 12 units.
It was something that we just did because we were able to do it and meet the guidelines. And so
this is, this is meeting the guidelines of the R-4 standards which is what the approval of
Vasserman Ridge was. We do have a couple different builders that are looking at this. The
architectural style would be very similar, almost exactly like what you see at Vasserman Ridge
kind of elevations. But that’s what we’re looking at and I’d be more than happy to provide that
as soon as we nail that down so. With that we’re just, we’re simply looking I guess for direction
on which way to zone it but I just wanted to go through how we kind of got to that point.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any questions for the applicant? What’s your, you had it
th
under your concept plan there, I think you had still the number on the south side of West 78.
You still have the 5. I think that’s what you were pursuing. Is that what we had for that concept
or not, or did we reduce?
Perry Ryan: That was, when it came before the council staff was still looking for, staff was still
looking for, there were two kind of major things that staff was looking or recommended. And
one was the reduction in the amount of buildings. I don’t know what the exact total was. It
escapes me now. And the other one was meeting those setback requirements and this, which was
I think increasing one from…on the west side and the current layout does now meet all of those
setback requirements but we have not changed the number of buildings yet. We’re again kind of
waiting for that study to come back.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And there were traffic studies and everything else with that?
Perry Ryan: That’s been completed and submitted as well and I believe, correct me if I’m
wrong, I believe that shows that one of the things that this traffic doesn’t show the detailed plan
is that there’s a median in here and it does anticipate a right-in/right-out at this location.
Mayor Furlong: Out on Galpin?
Perry Ryan: Yeah.
th
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Is all the north and south of West 78, Ms. Aanenson, is that all
guided the same?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Is it currently zoned agricultural?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: And what’s the guiding then?
31
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, low density residential, and again what I wanted to point out was how we
got to this point of looking at commercial to begin with is when Mr. Pryzmus wanted that
concept for the recreation center. It seemed to lend some credence that there’s carte blanc could
be used for commercial. And it was our understanding that was kind of a continuation of the
golf course, kind of that recreation sort of thing but that was really not the intent a long term use.
To go to something completely different, we felt we needed more information on that. So that’s
why we recommended against, as Mr. Ryan just pointed out, those conditions that really…
recommend reduce the number of building sites because it looks like kind of your traditional
commercial center.
Mayor Furlong: My recollection was that it was also, not commercial but office.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: It was staff’s recommendation for all these…
Kate Aanenson: Yes, and we have given him some guidance on if they wanted to pursue office,
then we’d look at that, because again looking at that as being the low density, single family.
Again if you went to twin homes, that could be consistent and how you apply the twin homes is a
separate issue but could you do twin homes on the south side? Certainly. That could be another
rezoning option too.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay, any other questions for the applicant? No? Okay, appreciate it.
So bring it to council for thoughts. Comments. Discussion.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I think that…I don’t recall the last time that we approved a
project, PUD…real challenge being able to rezone based upon… The retail market study, we
approved this sometime I think in December as I recall and that was one of the things we all kind
of wanted to wait and see what’s going to happen with that. There were some… And then lastly,
when I look at the concept of this, I looked at it as one project, not two separate parcels and
that’s probably the biggest challenge that I’ve got is, is now we’re trying to separate it and I
don’t think we really want to do that. I really would like to see both of them, especially what it’s
going to be because I’m being asked to rezone. Having 12 townhomes, 10 whatever ultimately
that go in there, just because there’s 12 townhouses that we think are going to look like
something isn’t really… I don’t want to use that term probably too much but it’s appropriate in
this case is that in the PUD we’re asking for something that has higher standards…and once we
approve the north side, that makes the south side less...so I think it’s premature.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, I going to be brief because I guess for me it’s, I can’t vote on
something I can’t see or don’t know what I’m voting for or against. It wouldn’t be fair to you.
Especially after Town and Country…they spent hours I think trying to get me to vote for their
development. I think there’s too many. I think that they’re kind of crammed in there. I have to
agree with the Planning Commission on that. The first concept plan didn’t have as many. The
32
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
layout was different and this is not what I saw at that time and so I too think that it’s premature.
I don’t agree with splitting it up. I think it should be consistent in whatever does go in there, it
needs to be well thought out and needs to have some sort of...It’s hard to vote on something I
really don’t know what it’s…
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: I would concur with comments, especially around the, when we looked
th
at this as a concept, that we looked at it, I looked at it as a concept north and south of West 78
Street and would concur with Councilman Peterson and Councilwoman Tjornhom on, I have a
difficulty looking at one without the other and so being that that’s what we looked at as a
concept, you know I certainly understand, given market conditions why the developer would
look that way but if we want to split it up, then let’s, you know I think we’re back at ground zero,
at the starting point and if we want to split it up, let’s go back and look at it that way versus a
split right down. And when this came through Planning Commission, I was surprised that we
were looking at two separate pieces so I would, I think given the approval of the concept to
where it was, that this is something different and whether it be, call it premature to approve
where we’re at now, or a totally separate concept, I think it’s semantics at that point but, that I’m
not ready to go forward right now. I’m not in favor of remanding back to the Planning
Commission because I think we’ve got more work to do than just sending it down so to speak,
but this is clearly, I consider it clearly different than what we looked at in December.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you, and my thoughts are consistent. There are a number of little
component, little pieces with regard to this application that I have trouble with but the biggest
component is the inconsistency with the concept plan that we approved just a few months ago,
and that we did look at a single concept plan across the entire property, both north and south of
th
West 78. And this is not inconsistent with what we’ve done in the past as a council. There
have been other concept plans. Advance Fitness I think comes to mind where there was a
concept plan for a fitness center as well as some other retail. I think there was a bank. There’s
got to be a bank everywhere. But there was a bank. There was a restaurant. There was a hotel I
think, and when it became clear to the property owner, the developer that the fitness center
wasn’t going to go forward, as I understand it they requested can we go forward with the other
part anyway and the answer was no. We looked at it in it’s entirety when it was approved and I
think we need to be consistent here as well. I think I would be hesitant to even to suggest
splitting them up because of reasons presented in the staff report and presented to the council
back in December, as well as again in this staff report, that until you know what’s going on the
southern piece, you don’t know the best use for the northern piece. I think this is the northern
piece is more the tail wagging. It’s the wrong end that you lead the horse with, let me put it that
way. We wanted the southern part, that’s where the bridle is, and we want to look at that and
make sure that we’re not, I think keeping this open to the extent we can makes a lot of sense. So
I think to your point Councilman Lundquist, I agree with you. This is not what we had in mind.
It’s not what we spent a lot of time looking at but I think at this point, given the four options, I
agree with you. Sending this back to the Planning Commission I don’t think would provide
value at this point. Would just cause more troubles and delay likely what I’m hearing here. I
can’t see either options B or C, which is some form of approval this evening, going forward. So
from lacking the, what I consider the view of the entire north and south development, I don’t
33
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
think we have enough motivation to go forward and change zoning at this point on the PUD so,
and I’m hearing that pretty consistently here as well. Any other thoughts or comments or points
of clarification?
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor I would just, I mean I know Kate talked about time
constraints but I would be open to allowing the developer some latitude to bring back a,
something similar to the concept approval, but being cognizant that that would deviate from what
went through the Planning Commission so I think we’re kind of walking an interesting line there.
And then I’d be willing to take a look I guess but you know if we come back with something,
you know if we would opt to table and come back with something significantly different, I would
have an issue with that just being that it wouldn’t have gone through the entire public hearing
and planning process as that piece so.
Mayor Furlong: You’re saying versus tabling tonight versus denial this evening?
Councilman Lundquist: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Yep.
Councilman Lundquist: But you know with that caveat that we’ve got to be, I personally would
be not leave a lot of latitude for something significantly different. You know just out of respect
for the process and the public hearing and the Planning Commission.
Mayor Furlong: I guess what I was hearing Councilman Peterson you were saying it was the
overall project.
Councilman Peterson: …the issue and to your point is, which one’s first? And then I think I’m
leaning towards the south has got to be first and then offer your rezoning to the north. Just
because of all the…bottom line is it’s premature so…denying things. That seems to be the more
prudent way to go.
Councilman Lundquist: I could get there too but you know, there’s been a significant amount of
effort on the developer’s part and the staff part as well. Rather than you know cut that off, I’m
willing to allow some latitude but I think we need to be careful how far we go deviating from
this without going, you know starting back and going through the planning process again.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess my only comment there is, well we haven’t talked about the details
here. You know the density. Lack of architectural views, designs. I mean there’s been some
feedback and certainly at the Planning Commission I would hope they’ve reviewed those
Planning Commission meeting minutes. You know they dealt with it honestly and objectively
and I would think that staff and the developer would take those comments to heart if this comes
back as part of an overall development with the southern part, so I don’t think it’s a waste of time
by any means and hopefully there’ll be some efficiencies gained. Okay. Any other thoughts or
comments? If not, is there a motion?
34
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I recommend we deny the proposed development as submitted
by staff, subject to the findings of fact…
Kate Aanenson: Can I make a clarification on the motion? So that would be the PUD, the
preliminary plat, the CUP, findings of fact and then more specifically the two other items you
just addressed as would be the rezoning. The fact that there’s no architectural standards, and that
you saw the project as an entire concept added to the findings of fact.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none, proceed
with the vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
deny the request for rezoning from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Planned Unit
Development-Residential (PUD-R), Preliminary Plat creating 13 lots and one outlot with a
variance for a private street and more than 4 homes accessing a private street, and
Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, subject to
the findings of fact listed in the staff report and clarified by the Community Development
Director. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Perry Ryan: Just a small piece of direction. It was our understanding with the direction on that
st
study was supposed to be done April 1. What I’m hearing from you guys is we can’t come
forward unless we come forward with the whole thing.
Mayor Furlong: That’s a, there’s a question. Where are we in that process?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. I guess the direction we’ve given the applicant is they wanted to pursue
industrial office. That’s a use that you’ve given us direction. We’re identified that. That they
can certainly pursue that. Is if they wanted to go for commercial, we would not support that until
we spent more time and analysis but we certainly directed Mr. Ragatz that if he wanted to look at
industrial zoning application.
Mayor Furlong: And I know we received some preliminary results back from that market study
but we haven’t received the final report.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Is that, have we shared that with them on the preliminary information?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Has that been shared with you?
35
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
Kate Aanenson: I talked to Mr. Ragatz on some of that, yeah.
Perry Ryan: Is the current concept layout…following industrial office as you suggest?
Kate Aanenson: No. It still has too many buildings. How that’s laid out and the footprint so.
Perry Ryan: …think of commercial with the southern part?
Kate Aanenson: Well we should be getting that this week but then the goal of that then to sit
down and let the staff kind of direct what, where we think we’re going. Then how we’re going
to implement and where we should go once we get that data. So if we say we’re going to rezone
another piece of property along Highway 5, I don’t think that’s going to happen anytime soon for
that. I think what we’re trying to do is kind of pick out those target areas that we want to maybe
specifically put into a study area and do a more specific analysis on that. That would be my
recommendation and then come back to you and we just haven’t had a chance to sit down and go
through all that.
Councilman Lundquist: Given that we just said we want to develop the south before we move
forward, I mean Kate when do you think that we’d at least have enough information to give, I
mean out of fairness to.
Kate Aanenson: Well I think clearly right now the market study and Mr. McCombs said that that
really for more strip commercial along Highway 5, we’re just getting the same sort of thing as
we already have. Do we need that? No. It’d be, you know I think what we’re looking at is to try
other opportunities for different types of retail and that would end up probably somewhere else
in the city. We do need more office. I think clearly that’s what he said is that we need to hang
onto our office, and we identified this since we knew this piece of property was in flux when we
looked at that 2005 area, we certainly, the staff identified this as an appropriate use for some
office. We always considered, based on it’s location, that’d be a nice medical, dental, those sort
of things in this location and while we would support a zone change, it wouldn’t be to just add
another, more strip center where we get kind of the same, the day to day things we already have.
That’s one thing that was pointed out in the study that we have a lot of already those things that
meet the daily need and those other uses may go somewhere south of 5.
Mayor Furlong: So with regard to the preliminary information we have, there’s nothing that I’m
hearing that has changed your mind based upon what you.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: What you thought for this particular property. Not maybe perhaps elsewhere in
the city there might have been some other things but based on the preliminary information from
that study for this property here.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
36
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
Perry Ryan: So where you ended there, did I hear you correctly, you did say that you would
support office use?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Perry Ryan: You would? Okay.
Kate Aanenson: We said that. We said that, no.
Perry Ryan: …you said industrial.
Kate Aanenson: No. Office, well office yes.
Councilman Lundquist: It’s OI.
Kate Aanenson: It’s OI. Office or industrial.
Perry Ryan: Because I mean with all due respect we’ve been waiting 5 months and so if we’re
not doing a detailed analysis on the site, we really need to move forward with something and if
we are to get some office, then we move forward with that concept plan.
Todd Gerhardt: Well Mayor, if I may. We started the retail study oh 3 months ago and we’re
looking for results from that. They gave some preliminary results and made some broad
statements and council had asked for some direction here. I think Kate gave that and as a part of
his preliminary presentation he recommended to staff and to the chambers that we shouldn’t be
adding more of what we already have in the downtown. Nothing against our dry cleaners or
things like that but that was one of the examples. You’re just going to continue to get more of
what you already have. You should try to get more uses that would support the current retailers
in the downtown, and he recommended trying to do more office and bringing users to your
current restaurants, to your dry cleaners and to your other establishments. I think he referenced a
study that they had done that most of those users during the noon hour, 60% of them go shopping
so they would go to the clientele in the downtown area and support the downtown area and make
it stronger.
Perry Ryan: So those ancillary deals like the cleaners and what not, which was actually added on
as possible additional amenities to the office use, which we talked about in the December City
Council meeting, not those additional uses but probably just the office use.
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Kate Aanenson: And just to be clear.
Perry Ryan: We’re looking for direction.
Todd Gerhardt: Yep.
37
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
Mayor Furlong: I would encourage you to set up a time and meet with staff because it’d
probably be easier outside of a council meeting to have the back and forth questions.
Kate Aanenson: And for the record, I’ve had this complete conversation with your partner so I
don’t know where the miscommunication is but he was in my office.
Perry Ryan: I just want it for the record.
Kate Aanenson: Yep, so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good, thank you.
ARBORETUM BUSINESS CENTER; 2970 WATER TOWER PLACE (LOT 1, BLOCK
TH
1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS CENTER 5 ADDITION); STEINER DEVELOPMENT,
PLANNING CASE 06-16: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 25,300 SQ. FT.
OFFICE-SHOWROOM-WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON 2.69 ACRES OF LAND ZONED
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. Planning Commission held a
nd
public hearing on this project on May 2 and they voted 6-0 to approve the project. The project
is kind of filling up the last few lots on the Arboretum Business Park. This property actually has
access facing, or excuse me, faces 41 while it has access off of Water Tower Place. Eventually
that street will go when 41 gets lowered, will have access to that street itself but right now it has
to come internally. The site plan itself, I’m not going to put up the big one. Here’s the material.
What we did have, and change to some of the entrance. If you look at the original one, this, can
you zoom in on that. A little bit more articulated on the views. The back of this building has
loading docks. It actually backs onto the other building so you’ve got back to back loading
docks, so there’s just a few questions on the sidewalk. Then the other issue that the Planning
Commission did spend some time on was, the roof top screening. Because of the elevation they
decided that that probably was, that’s something that we always make an evaluation on when
we’re looking at projects is sometimes trying to screen something so that it doesn’t need to be
actually, because it’s more of a kind of a visual and kind of as opposed to just leaving it natural
so they decided to use the charcoal gray painted, low profile HVAC equipment and that should…
So with that, what they’re asking for is site plan approval and the PUD standards were put in
place here a number of years ago. So unless there’s specific questions, I showed the materials.
The rock base block. It’s pretty articulated. It’s a nice looking building and the staff is
recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report, and I’d be happy to answer any
questions you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, this is not, this is not retail is it? This is just a showroom?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, office showroom. It’s similar to some of the other ones we have up
there. It’s mostly warehousing space.
38
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Kate, wouldn’t it be very similar to All About Lights building?
Kate Aanenson: Yep.
Todd Gerhardt: Just to the south.
Kate Aanenson: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: What about truck, as I recall when the building to the east, Vengra Designs was
put in there was concern about traffic flow between the two buildings. Where are, I’m looking at
that picture. Where are the loading docks? It looks like on the building to the east the docks are
angled. For truck flow.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, right. And then this will also have loading docks on the back side.
That’s always our goal to get loading docks so loading docks for that visual barrier. Engineering
did look at that and made some recommendations but I believe that the ultimate or circulation
pattern.
Mayor Furlong: So the circulation pattern would be from the street up inbetween the buildings
and then back out?
Kate Aanenson: Correct, and then ultimately when it gets developed when this access becomes
open. Right now it’s a cul-de-sac but right now there’s two access points. To review, this is a
truck traffic that will come through this way, reducing the conflict. The other issue was
providing additional sidewalk access points so people can walk.
Mayor Furlong: It looks like on the building to the east, on the…at least the one I’m looking at,
is that those docks are angled so that the trucks would back in.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Are the docks angled on this building?
Kate Aanenson: No they’re not.
Mayor Furlong: They’re straight. Is that going to cause a conflict or.
Kate Aanenson: We’ve got 66 feet between the two. For the loading. Paul.
Todd Gerhardt: Depends on the size of the truck right?
Paul Oehme: Exactly. Yeah, you know the access would come off from the east. East access
point. But if you, tractor trucks would have to back up and they’d come in at a 90 degree angle
there but for a 66 foot wide street, if that’s what it is, you know I think it would be, have enough
39
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
clearance there to have them turn in, back in at a 90 degree angle and then come out the same
direction they came in at.
Mayor Furlong: Where’s the 66? Is that to the property line? It’s only 44 to the property line.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, between buildings, and one of the conditions we had in there is a cross
access easement so they’re both backing across each other’s property.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. I’m just, I guess my questions is why aren’t we looking at the angled
docks so that we have a natural flow and easier…
Kate Aanenson: And making them do the angle?
Mayor Furlong: Well we’ve got an angle on the east building and as I recall, one of the reasons
for that was because we didn’t know what was going in to the west and for traffic flow. I guess
I’m just wondering why we wouldn’t have the same angled docks here so that we, it’s just a little
bit easier.
Paul Oehme: I think the access.
Kate Aanenson: Maybe the applicant can address that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Is that alright?
Mayor Furlong: Yep. No, that’s fine. Why don’t you come down. Let’s keep it efficient.
Joe Smith: Hi, good evening council members. Joe Smith from Steiner Development.
Mayor Furlong: Good evening.
Joe Smith: We have tried to come up with some flexibility with the back of this building.
Ideally what we’d like to do is have those be drive in doors. This building is planned to be an
office showroom, office so actually you’re not going to have over the road type trucks. They’re
going to be a UPS type truck, or FedEx type truck. They’re not going to be the 40, the 70 foot…
Mayor Furlong: Why don’t you get some of that at Buck’s Furniture or something? That all
doesn’t come through a, some of that must come on a truck.
Joe Smith: I guess it is possible. We had planned on putting one or two docks in and we would
angle them. Similar to what we’ve got at Vengra.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Joe Smith: But we’re still waiting to get the users. We don’t know what the users are yet.
40
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
Mayor Furlong: I guess from that standpoint, just looking at this, if we, if whatever docks go in
the back are angled so they line up with the other buildings. Once you’ve got driving doors, then
it’s a non-issue.
Joe Smith: Right. Right. Up to this point we’ve just tried to keep some flexibility as to.
Mayor Furlong: That’s fine.
Joe Smith: We’ve tried to plan this so.
Mayor Furlong: The elevations are such that you can have both drive?
Joe Smith: Yep. Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Drive in and.
Joe Smith: More likely the drive in would be on the south end and the docks would be towards
the north end. We just tried to keep some flexibility because we don’t know if it’s going to be
end up being all office users or office showroom. Just the way the economics work for us.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s fine and if we put in a dock and we angle it, I think that would be
something with the truck traffic and if there’s no dock then a drive in would be fine. I’m sorry.
Kate Aanenson: Condition number…
Mayor Furlong: Is there a 19 already or did we just add it?
Kate Aanenson: We just added it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, alright. At least I didn’t miss it. Alright, that’s great. There’s a simple
answer, thank you. Any other questions for staff before we invite the applicant back out? No?
Anything else to add or comments on the building? I think those were mine. It looks like a very
nice design and it’s nice to see this development being completed and be nice to get those
improvements to 41 as well, to line that up. So any thoughts or comments?
Councilman Lundquist: I think it’s certainly within the standards. I don’t disagree with the
angled docks and…development so I think I’m in full support of it.
Mayor Furlong: Great.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: …office, Kate I had just one question. …the signage. When the
building does get built. I read it in the staff report that kind of ironed out all this. Right, yeah.
Kate Aanenson: They’ve shown on the site plan, depending on the tenants. The sign band and
logo?
41
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. So there’s approved placement for it. Yeah. We’ve got a limited, we’ll
take you through some code amendments so the Planning Commission at their next meeting, so
item D. One of the things we looked at now is voltage, color, intensity so.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay…I think it’s a great asset for this development.
Mayor Furlong: I agree with the statements made and I appreciate your willingness on the
docks. I think it will just make it a lot easier with the neighbor and for all the users of the
property throughout the development so I’m ready to go forward. Is there a motion?
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve staff’s recommendation with conditions 1 through
19. Published 18 with the addition of 19 on the angled docks.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approve Site Plan #06-16 for a 25,300 square foot one story office-showroom-warehouse
building, plans prepared by Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group, dated March 30, 2006,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. A separate sign permit will be necessary for each sign.
3. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
4. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
5. Air-test required on that portion of storm sewer within ten feet of building or water service.
Permits and inspections required through Chanhassen Building Inspections Division.
6. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete plans are
submitted.
7. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
42
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
8. The applicant shall obtain permission from the property owner to the north prior to silt
fence installation. If permission is not obtained, the plans shall be revised to accommodate
all sediment control measures on-site.
9. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as needed.
10. The owner/operator of the proposed development shall apply for and receive an NPDES
Phase II Construction permit prior to beginning construction activities.
11. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a permit from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District and comply with their conditions of approval.
12. The Black Hills spruce near the building shall be moved east to serve as screening for the
truck area. A narrower species of evergreen shall be considered for planting in this area.
13. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before building permit approval.
14. All lighting fixtures must be shielded with a total cutoff angle equal to or less than 90
degrees.
15. A professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans.
16. The applicant will be required to submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10 year, 24
hour storm event with a full size drainage area map prior to building permit issuance.
17. The applicant must verify with the City Building Department if the site connecting to the
existing 8-inch watermain on the east side is adequately sized to handle the two lots
consumption.
18. As the eastern access will service the two lots, cross-access easements will need to be
obtained and recorded against the lots.
19. Any future loading docks will be angled.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: UPDATE ON FIELD ALLOCATION
POLICY.
Todd Gerhardt: At this point I’d like to have Todd Hoffman come up and just give you a short,
little update on field allocation policy.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
43
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Todd. Mayor Furlong, members of the council. We talked about
soccer last week for a little while and I’m here this evening to assure you that the City has a
sound field reservation policy and I think you’ve all seen the letter sent out by Mr. Nygaard and
my response. Again our policy is sound. We will be speaking to their association in the future.
If you have any questions of me this evening or at a future date, just let me know.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good. You received some preliminary feedback from residents
that have received your letter?
Todd Hoffman: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s been?
Todd Hoffman: Satisfactory.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Comments? Okay. Anything else Mr.
Gerhardt?
Todd Gerhardt: I attended the 276 leaders meeting. A couple issues just to keep you up to date.
In Victoria, they did a land swap with Three Rivers Park system. About 13 acres. This is just to
the northeast of where Dairy Queen sits. In that area. And it’s also going to help them expand
their downtown area down the line. And so give you an update on that one. Eden Prairie
mentioned that they’re going to be looking at breaking ground here in the next month or so for
their fourth satellite fire station, and that’s just south of the new Highway 312 and Dell Road.
Last thing was Minnetonka School District has entered into a purchase agreement with the
Bennett Family Park area right off of 101, so didn’t get into a lot of details but said they’re
probably look at getting into more youth programming and activities in that area, so they’re just
th
celebrating their 50 anniversary in existence so interesting that the school district’s getting
involved in that complex which is softball and baseball fields for youth and seniors. Senior high
school people. And that’s all I have.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt? Very good.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
Councilman Lundquist: …one quick mulligan just to publicly thank Justin for his efforts and
everything you do and I guess find out what Mr. Gerhardt’s made out of without his second hand
man around.
Todd Gerhardt: I won’t survive.
Mayor Furlong: He’s got one more meeting left.
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, but best of luck Justin and thanks for what you’ve done.
44
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Any other comments or anything else to bring before the council this evening?
If not we will complete our work session items immediately following the meeting. With that is
there a motion to adjourn?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council
meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
45