CC 2006 06 12
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 12, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
Peterson and Councilman Lundquist
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:
Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT:
Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Paul Oehme, Todd Hoffman and Kate
Aanenson and Roger Knutson
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Pat & Keith Gunderson 6661 Mohawk Drive
Cindy & Chris Anderson 6680 Lotus Trail
Gail Thorsland 6680 Lotus Trail
Rich & Joan Wright 6640 Lotus Trail
Gil & Margaret Laurent 24760 Cedar Point Road
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Furlong: Welcome everybody. We’re glad that you joined us. Those here in the council
chambers and those watching at home. At this point I would like to ask if there are any changes
or modifications to the agenda. If there are none we’ll proceed with that agenda that was
published with the packet. Hearing none we’ll move forward.
CONSENT AGENDA:Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s
recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated May 22, 2006
-City Council Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated May 22, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated May 16, 2006
c. Approval of NPDES Annual Report.
d. Chapel Hill Academy, 306 West78th Street: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to
allow a Monument Sign with LED Lighting.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
e. T-Mobile: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 9 foot fence at the Water Tower
Site, 6434 Murray Hill Road.
f. Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvement Project: Approval of a Wetland Alteration Permit
for Basin 8.
g. Lake Minnewashta Homeowners Association: Approval of a Fireworks Permit for July
4, 2006.
Resolution #2006-39:
h. Approval of 2005 Year End Closings and Transfers.
Resolution #2006-40:
i. Adoption of Resolution Removing Properties from the Rural
Service District.
j. Expansion of Licensed Premises for Serving Beer & Wine, CJ’s Coffee & Wine Bar, 600
Market Street, Suite 170.
k. Approval of Quote: Tennis Court Resurfacing Project.
Resolution #2006-41:
l. Longacres Drive Storm Pond Outlet Improvement and Lyman
Boulevard Sewer Repair, City Project Nos. 06-08, 06-09: Approve Plans and
Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Bids.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Keith Gunderson: This is new business?
Mayor Furlong: No sir. This is visitor presentations. Is there a particular item that you wanted
to discuss?
Keith Gunderson: Yes. It’s about the trees that Todd Hoffman has made a decision to plant on
the north end of Lotus Lake.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, this would be the time to do it.
Keith Gunderson: My name’s Keith Gunderson. I live at 6661 Mohawk Drive. I’m here
tonight to talk about people affected by the decision that Todd Hoffman just made to plant trees
in the parkland known as Carver Beach Park. Todd has 5 trees scheduled for planting on the
north end of the park that runs parallel with this trail. Six homes are affected by this decision,
and this is what I want to talk about tonight. The homes affected by this decision from north to
south are Maureen Schroeder, Glen Grainer, Richard and Joan Wright, Martha Nygren, myself,
Keith and Patricia Gunderson, Chris and Cindy Anderson. Here tonight we have a couple of the
homeowners with us tonight. The Wright’s and the Anderson’s, along with myself. Martha’s 93
and she doesn’t get out much anymore. All these people have felt that, have told him that they
2
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
don’t want these trees for various reasons. One being that it will block some of the view of the
lake. Conversations with Todd to these people started out with they had extra trees and in further
conversations went to erosion problem. And then finally to just start beautifying the boulevard.
As far as extra trees there is a need for these extra trees in other parts of the park and it would be
wasted if they are planted where they’re staked out now. There are places that need extra trees.
I’ve got some pictures. I’ve got the writing on the back, if you want to take a look at them. It’s
got various erosion problems and placements on the large beach, which is at the south end of
Lotus Trail right now. Carver Beach Park, and a small beach which is located on the north end
of the park. As far as the erosion on the south end of the park is a large area that ATV’s and the
snowmobiles run up and down in the winter time. In fact several times about trying to contain
that problem because they dig up the park and there’s some serious erosion going on there, and
these trees could be helpful in a couple of reasons here. One being…erosion and they would
possibly block off some of the traffic that’s going up and down the parkland area. As far as
erosion goes, where Todd has got these trees staked out, they are boulders at the water’s edge.
Right now there’s a 20 foot long grass buffer zone that’s going to be extended to 20 feet, and the
road in front of us, Lotus Trail is paved with gutter work and catch basins which 3 of them are
located in front of my home. The grade in the road to the lake is only about 2%, so the erosion
and the runoff is not an issue. And the trees planted in this location would just be wasted. The
last reason I will talk about is to beautify the area. How do you fight that? Everybody wants to
look at a beautiful park. We just got this in the mail the other day and I’m sure everybody saw
this. Well this is Carver Beach Park. If the trees get planted where they’re staked out this time,
it’s going to block some of that view. Let’s talk about the view. Bottom line is the view of the
lake. That’s what’s beautiful. People driving by on the north end of Lotus Trail actually slow
down and look at the lake. If you start planting more trees here, some of that view is going to be
blocked off. Back to beautifying the park, my wife and I walk the path from the small beach to
the big beach twice daily. We clean up after our dogs, even if they defecate in the woods, you
know because nobody wants to step in the stuff. Two weeks ago we pulled out 3 tires that were
in the lake and rolled them up to the garbage can at the small beach. And they’re still there by
the way Todd. We also, along with other homeowners, pick up the garbage up and down the
path on a daily basis. As far as condition of the park, I have driven through some of the other
parks in the city and if I had to rate Carver Beach Park, I guess on a scale of 1 to 10, I’d have to
give it a 4. You’re going to have to send out some people on the council here to take a look of
this because there’s erosion problems going on, and it could be solved very easily with planting
some of the trees… On a personal note, when I built my house 10 years ago the City told me
that I can only build my house so high because it would block the view of the houses behind me.
Now the City’s coming in and putting trees in front of me to block the view. It’s, when the
house was built, the assessor came in and went to the windows and wow, look at this view. And
I said no, no. I said the house is what we’re taxing here. And he says no. This is your home.
Part of the…to figure out the taxes that you pay, and the view is part of that formula. The
homeowners that are affected by this decision to plant the trees that will block this view are
being taxed for this view. It’s a fact. That’s how they come up with some of the formula. It’s
not fair and most of all it’s just not right. So again the homeowners affected from north to south
are Maureen Schroeder, 6600 Lotus Trail. Homeowner and taxpayer of 18 years. Glen Grainer,
6630 Lotus Trail. Homeowners and taxpayer 25 years. Richard and Joan Wright, 6650 Lotus
Trail. Homeowners and taxpayer in this house, the land has been in the family for over 60 years.
Martha Nygren, 6650 Lotus Trail. Homeowner, taxpayer, 23 years. Keith and Patricia
3
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Gunderson, 6661 Mohawk Drive. Homeowner, taxpayer of 21 years. Chris and Cindy Anderson,
6680 Lotus Trail. Homeowner, taxpayer, 10 years. These people have enjoyed this view for
many years and it would be a crime to take it away. All these people agree that the parks belong
to everybody but we also think with this many years we should have something to say as far as
what’s planted in front of our homes. We live on the northwest end of Lotus Lake and we see
approximately 65 plus percent of this lake. These are the best views on this lake, and Todd
wants to take that away from us. We have shown that there’s better placements for these extra
trees and the erosion is not a problem. As far as beautification, how can you improve on what
we already have so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Mr. Gunderson, I appreciate the comments. I’d like to try to keep
moving along here.
Keith Gunderson: Okay, that’s all I’ve got.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Keith Gunderson: Appreciate the time.
Mayor Furlong: Nope, and thank you for coming. As is typical of visitor presentations, we’re
not going to make any decisions up here but I would like to at least this evening, would like to
hear from Mr. Hoffman on his thoughts and maybe how we can address Mr. Gunderson’s
concerns.
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the council. I do have a diagram that, at
least on the south side of the natural boulevard. This is Keith and Pat’s home right in the center
here. The Gunderson property. And then the natural boulevard is here so the 3 trees that we’re
taking a look at are located at this location, this location and this location. What you have is a
boulevard parkway at this area, separated from the homes by Lotus Trail. There are 2 trees
existing that have a distance about 175 feet between the 2 trees. They’re mature ash at this
location and then a mature willow at this location. So we’re looking at putting 3 trees. One at 43
feet and 36 feet between those. 30 feet between these 2 trees and then a 66 foot distance. So we
have an area that’s uncharacteristically void of trees. We’re simply putting 3 trees to beautify
the area. Not intentionally taking anybody’s view away and this would be typical of boulevard
tree plantings anywhere in the city. In fact the typical spacing is about 30 feet between
boulevard trees.
Mayor Furlong: Where are the locations of those trees Mr. Hoffman? I’m sorry, could you put
that schematic back up again?
Todd Hoffman: Where are the locations?
Mayor Furlong: I’m just trying to envision. One of the things that Mr. Gunderson talked about
was his view, looking out over the lake and I guess not knowing the nature of the trees or the
height of those trees, there may be a period of time when they do obscure or is there a way to
achieve what you’re looking for without obstructing the views. Or minimize that obstruction.
4
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Todd Hoffman: Yeah, you’re planting 3 trees on 175 foot opening. We have a storm water little
retention pond here to avoid at this location. So they’re just evenly spaced. They’re about as
evenly spaced as you can get in that area. It’s really, we’re not covering the area. Three trees in
that location are going to grow up. They’re going to be mature trees and yeah, you can’t look
through a tree in the summer. You look through it and see the tree in the winter, and we can
certainly have views around those trees, underneath those trees throughout the other times of the
year.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Todd, how come it’s all empty there now? Why is it so open? As
opposed to everywhere else.
Keith Gunderson: It’s always been that way.
Todd Hoffman: Yeah, it’s been maintained that way for a number of years. In 1996 we initiated
an area of natural shoreline buffer to protect the water, Lotus Lake, protect the waters of Lotus
Lake and protect that shoreline. That area after, well it’s 1996 so 10 years should be actually
volunteering trees but there’s not a lot of trees coming up in that area but it’s just, it’s been
maintained that way for over time.
Audience: It’s also the old boat ramp.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: It was mowed?
Todd Hoffman: Yeah, about half of the area is mowed. The boulevard’s probably 30 feet wide.
About approximately half of it’s mowed and half is not.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Any thoughts or comments? I guess my, from the council.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well this is the first time I’ve ever heard people not wanting trees.
This is a new one for me. Usually people are wanting to have trees planted and saved so this is a
unique situation I think. It’s a new situation for me so I think I’d like some more time to think
about it and figure it out.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, our past practice in visitor presentations like this is for staff to meet with
Mr. Gunderson. Sit down. Talk about alternatives of where we might be able to place these
trees in that area. Work with him. Typically if we can’t come to conclusion on that, we bring it
back to council for another presentation so, in the next couple weeks staff will sit down with Mr.
Gunderson and see what we can work out and appreciate his comments and coming in and giving
us his thoughts on this.
Mayor Furlong: I think that makes a lot of sense. So I do appreciate you raising it to the
council’s attention.
5
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Keith Gunderson: Thank you for your time.
Mayor Furlong: Certainly. You’re very welcome. We’re still in visitor presentations, if
anybody else would like to address the council.
Don Sinniger: Good evening Mr. Mayor, City Council. My name is Don Sinniger and I live at
600 Lyman Boulevard and I’m here this evening to listen to a healthy discussion about the
regional trail that’s proposed to go through my front yard. Or the right-of-way into my front
yard, and that’s what I’m here for.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I know you sent an e-mail out and I know the city staff has met
with you as well. When you talk about a discussion, it’s not on our agenda this evening. That’s
part of the 212 project so if there’s, I mean Mr. Gerhardt you can just kind of give the rest of the
council and other watching a little bit of background to where we are on that. I think there’s still
some open questions that they’re working on to try to address some of your concerns. And even
though from a proximity standpoint, it’s near Southwest Village which we will be talking about,
that it’s not part of that discussion item. So Mr. Gerhardt.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, the trail that we’re talking about runs on the north side of Lyman
Boulevard. There’s an existing trail that runs on the south side of Lyman from the intersection of
101 and Lyman Boulevard. The proposed trail that would be constructed in this area is a part of
the 212 improvements. So the plans that you’ll see tonight with the Southwest Village is that
those improvements that would be done with the 312 improvements. We’ve met with the
residents in that area. Todd Hoffman, Paul Oehme and myself to talk about several options that
might be out there to try to accommodate the construction of the trail through this area. Paul
Oehme, our City Engineer in the past probably 2 weeks since we’ve met has been having
discussions with MnDot to see what other methods could we build in this area. Maybe shorten
up the turn lane and doing that we potentially could save all the oak trees in that area. Paul, do
you want to talk a little bit more about that?
Paul Oehme: Sure.
Todd Gerhardt: Tell us about your discussions with MnDot.
Paul Oehme: Sure. Yeah, I’ve been talking with the project manager of the 212 project and our
conversations have been very constructive, I would characterize it as. We have talked about
narrowing the turn lane down approximately, or shortening the turn lane down for the Southwest
Metro park and ride facility approximately 80 feet. That would allow us to move the turn lane
and some of the taper off of Mr., Don’s property and also another improvement that we had
talked about internally was the park director and with MnDot was to narrow the trail down from
the proposed 12 foot wide trail down to a 10 foot wide trail and push the trail onto the back of
the curb of Lyman Boulevard so that there would not be any grass area between the trail and the
roadway. That would allow us to decrease the amount of disruption in the right-of-way in front
of their properties, which would help, and we think we can save those trees at that point in time
so. So that’s where we’re at today. MnDot is currently reviewing that, those options but
6
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
everything that we’ve discussed and they’ve looked at that to date, are very positive. It seems
like we should be able to address some of the residents concerns there.
Todd Gerhardt: Paul, do you think we can get a concept of that and draw it up for him and
propose that to him and see what, you know you always have to see it on paper and sit down
with you again and show you how it would lay out. How we would save those oak trees and see
what the ultimate plan would be for you then.
Don Sinniger: Yeah, and I don’t know if you’re aware of this but the trees have been marked for
removal right now and so we’re concerned because we’re coming up on the July start day and so.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, it’d probably be good when we meet is that we bring in a MnDot
representative to give you that assurance that those trees will be saved.
Don Sinniger: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: And show you the alignment.
Don Sinniger: Okay, that’d be great. Thank you.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Sir. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: On that particular issue on the trail, some questions I think as Mr.
Sinniger and his wife brought up and things, and being that we have a start date of 3 weeks away
from now, proposed date, I think, it’s an issue that I’d like to have some discussion on. If you
prefer not to do it tonight on that, but as we can do that 2 weeks from now. Agenda item or
something like that. Want to, have some questions and concerns about that trail and whether or
not it’s premature or timely or will it really service a need that we have there or understand that
it’s there for future development and things like that but, I think that there’s some discussion that
we should have. Or that I’d like to have on that so leave it up to your discretion as to whether we
do that tonight or in 2 weeks.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, I guess given that staff has had conversations with MnDot and they don’t
have the answers back, it would be prudent here this evening, we might we wasting time when
we might have some answers relatively soon so. Understand you’ve got some, you know based
on what you just said, there might be some questions but I’d encourage them to keep working
with it and maybe you can.
Todd Gerhardt: Well, let us continue to meet with the homeowners in that area and see you
know how things progress from there and if we’re still at an impasse, we’ll bring it back for
council’s consideration of what maybe next steps might be.
Councilman Lundquist: Before we start cutting sod and trees?
7
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Todd Gerhardt: Yep. No, we’ll try to get it done this week and we’d have to put it right back on
for our next meeting by June is my guess.
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah. Todd, you and I have had discussions so.
Todd Gerhardt: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: Hopefully they’re aware of it and they can be incorporating that in their
discussions too so that’s probably the most efficient way to get something done within a
timeframe.
Don Sinniger: Well we would appreciate that and obviously our first choice is not to have the
trail but we’re certainly trying to change something here so.
Mayor Furlong: And let’s see what we can work out and that’s the whole goal and these are the
people that are going to be doing that so. Good. Thank you.
Don Sinniger: Alright.
Mayor Furlong: Anybody else on visitor presentations this evening? Very good.
PUBLIC HEARING: 2006 STREET & PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 06-01:
A. HOLD ASSESSMENT HEARING AND ADOPT ASSESSMENT ROLL.
B. AWARD OF CONTRACT.
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. Staff is requesting that the City
Council hold a public hearing tonight and consider the resolution adopting the 2005 street
improvements assessment roll for the Chan Hills improvements. As council may recall on
th
September 26 of last year the council authorized preparation of the feasibility study, and then
th
on April 10 of this year council adopted resolution removing the Koehnen and Yosemite street
improvement project area from this project. We hope to bring that back to the council in the
future. Staff has held two neighborhood meetings. A public hearing and has opened bids on the
project now and the second neighborhood meeting that we had was just recently held on May
th
24. The assessment amounts that are in your packet were based upon the bids that have been
received. For the assessment hearing tonight, prior to the completion of the hearing, any
property owners wishing to object to the assessment must file a written objection or they waive
their rights to the appeal. Objections after the public hearing are invalid. The City Council
should approve of the resolution that’s on, adopting assessment rolls either as submitted or as
revised. Staff has not received any written objections for the assessments for this project to date.
170 notices were sent out for this public hearing. Now the project, if I can just run through that
real quick here is, the Chanhassen Hills resurfacing, which is mainly a mill and overlay and
intermediate improvements to the area. The project area includes Lake Susan Drive, Mary Jane
Circle, Lake Susan Court, Lyman Court, Chanhassen Hills Drive North, Barbara Court,
Chanhassen Hills Drive South. Proposed assessments proposed for improvements include
repairing several damaged pavement areas. Milling and overlay the streets. These streets are
recommended for rehabilitation by the pavement management program. Several street segments
8
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
that exhibit severe pavement distresses will be full depth milled as well. Damage concrete curb
in various locations is also being replaced. An alternate for drain tile improvement was included
in the contract documents, but is not proposed to be assessed. The assessments are for 40% of
the improvements to the benefiting property owners and that does include the street
improvements and the curb and gutter. The assessments were calculated on a per lot basis.
Chanhassen Hills area project costs that are assessable are total $549,809.27. A total proposed
assessment amount is shown on this sheet here. So again we’re, the city’s practice for
assessments for street improvements is 40% of the project cost, and the project cost again is
$549,000. The assessment amount is total for the area is $219,000 approximately and that works
out to be assessment amount per lot of $1,293.67 and the proposed assessment length is 8 years
at 6% interest. So at this time staff recommends the assessment hearing be open for the 2005
street improvements and the Chanhassen Hills neighborhood and staff will welcome.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff? The staff report indicated Mr.
Oehme that the proposed assessment now is less than what was originally in the preliminary
assessment. What changed to cause that and it was almost $1,700 and now it’s lowered to
$1,300 so what changed?
Paul Oehme: The main, two main items that had changed the assessment amount. One was, we
did receive favorable bids from the contractors this year on this project. We let the project early
enough. Contractors were still looking for a lot more work and so we figure we got favorable
bids that way. And then also in the estimate that the engineers put together, we had estimated
30% for indirect costs for this particular area. We came in substantially less than that. Indirect
costs again are the soil borings, the legal fees, the engineering costs associated with the project
so we took that 30% and knocked it down to I think it was more like 20% range.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good. Any other questions for staff at this time? If not then I will
open up the public hearing and invite all interested parties to come forward to the podium.
Please state your name and address and address the council on the matter before us. Anybody
that would like to come forward? Again based upon current practice we’d need to have any
objections in written form in before we close the public hearing and if nobody comes forward,
we’ll close the public hearing. So I guess this would be last call for anybody who wants to speak
for the public hearing or submit a written objection. Seeing nobody from the council, is there a
motion to close the public hearing?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Motion to close the public hearing.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The
public hearing was closed.
9
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Paul Oehme: The next agenda item is the 2006 street improvement project. It is the award of the
contract. This year staff is requesting that City Council consider awarding the contract to GMH
Asphalt, Incorporation for this year’s project. They were the low bidder for the, low bidder for
the bids that we received this year. Again the project, I just ran through the mill and overlay.
Curb and gutter repair. And then some draintile improvements too that we would be
considering. Through an alternate bid that was included. That alternate bid for draintile is
approximately 4,300 linear feet of new drain tile and if you look at the drawing here in the blue
shaded areas, those are the areas that we would propose to put draintile in to serve basically two
purposes. The draintile improvements would, those would be utilized to connect to existing
sump pump discharges that end up in the, currently end up in the street. This project would
connect the existing underground sump pump discharges to that draintile line so the water
doesn’t run down the street and become…create problems for property owners down the road.
And then also too, this area has been, is prone to high ground water table. Has a high ground
water table so we feel that installation of that draintile would improve that situation as well. So
that’s the Lake Susan, or Chanhassen Hills area. The next.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Oehme, quick question on the draintile. Where does the draintile connect
to then? Storm sewer?
Paul Oehme: Yep, exactly. There’s existing storm sewer, catch basins throughout the
development and the draintile would discharge…facilities and then into our regional system.
Todd Gerhardt: Paul, could you hold that up? We can’t see it on the monitor here. If you could
just point on there where the draintile. Lift it up so the council can see it. There you go.
Paul Oehme: So again it’s about 4,300 lineal feet serving properties on Chan Hills Drive North,
mainly on the south side. Some properties on the Chanhassen Drive South. There is some
existing draintile but there is some properties down in this location. When we went through the
feasibility study and looked at the final design, we noticed that a lot of property owners on the
north side of the development are already discharging north and would not utilize the drainage,
the draintile at that location so we were being sporadic in terms of where we put the draintile in
to service as many properties that we know are discharging onto the street, and then some low
areas too where we know there’s a high ground water table. Included in this year’s project was
improvements to Lake Ann Park. The improvements to Lake Ann include resurfacing most of
the parking lots and drives within the park, and also includes two bid alternates. And
improvements are shown here. They include milling and overlaying the roadway section in pink.
The main entrance points from the park. Milling and, full depth mill of the parking areas and
proposed to put curb and gutter back in, along would be the parking side of the parking lot areas.
Installation of 12 new parking lot, or parking stalls at one parking area. We would propose to
improve the intersection at the north end of the park. Make it more of a T intersection to
facilitate better traffic movement at this location. And then also some storm sewer improvement
as well. Mainly to the north parking lot. Alternate bids, we do have two alternate bids for this
project. One was to overlay, just overlay and do some minor improvements to the parking lot on
the north side of the park. These parking lots and drives were rated when we went through the
feasibility study as being poor and are recommended for full overlaying at this time. Not the full
10
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
depth as we were doing in some of these other locations but to bring it back up to a structural
strength to match what’s out here. We feel that’s a needed improvement. And then also
installation of rain gardens as well, and that’s kind of a new concept for the city. The rain
gardens or infiltration basins are environmental friendly ways to manage storm water runoff,
while at the same time beautifying the area. Basically they’re landscaped depressions that
infiltrate water into the soils, but include plantings to beautify those areas as well. Once the
gardens are planted and they get to mature, the sump areas or those low areas are literally, are
literally, they basically are aesthetically pleasing and I’ve got some pictures here of some other,
what they would look like. This is a rain water garden in the city of Burnsville in front of a
residential house. This is another example of a rain garden in Maple Grove, along the roadway
section. And again there’s no regional storm water treatment areas. These facilities function
quite nicely for infiltration and rate control so they don’t directly discharge into our lakes and
streams and into our water body so there is some water quality benefits of installing these type of
facilities. But construction of them is, at least in this project would be to construct the basins.
Basically putting in the draintile that would be needed. Any pea gravel. The top soil. Mulch
that would be required for these facilities and then next year come back with the planting
contract and city staff is working with the watershed district on some funding options there that
there might be opportunities to split the cost or have the watershed district fund a majority of
those improvements. So that’s basically the improvements associated with the Lake Ann Park.
st
The bids that we did receive were on April 21 at 10:00. Seven bids were received and
tabulated. GMH again was the low bidder on the project. GMH Asphalt was our contractor that
we used for the 2005 street improvement project for Lake Lucy Road and associated projects
south side of town. They did a satisfactory job on that project. Funding for the project total is
shown on this sheet. And again Chanhassen Hills area, which we had talked about previously is
shown here. Funding totals, the park. Improvements for the main entrance drive and the
apartment improvements are totaled at $394,206. Storm water improvements for both the rain
water gardens and funding half of the cost of the draintile in the Chanhassen Hills area is shown
here and the sanitary sewer and utility fund would pick up a portion of the draintile in the
Chanhassen Hills area. So again this is the total project cost for the improvements of 1.1, little
over $1.1 million dollars. The contract with GMH would be at $977,640.50 if all the alternates
are approved tonight.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. And it’s staff’s recommendation to go forward with all the
alternates, is that correct?
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff.
Councilman Lundquist: Paul, what was the engineer’s estimate? I know that we pulled the
Yosemite piece out of this project so we’re looking at the CIP versus actual. I can’t make the
gap there. What was the, for these pieces, what was the engineer’s estimate?
Paul Oehme: For the Yosemite?
Councilman Lundquist: No, for the pieces in Chan Hills and the Lake Ann.
11
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Paul Oehme: It was right in the, I believe those were $550,000. It was really close to what it
came in at.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I guess a question I thought that Councilman Lundquist was going
to be asking is what was in the CIP for the Koehnen/Yosemite portion of the project. What
portion of the CIP was attributed to that? We have 1.6.
Paul Oehme: 1.6 for the Koehnen area and Yosemite was 1.1 million dollars approximately. It
was $1.1 million in the CIP. There was another half a million dollars worth of MSA funding
appropriated for that project so.
Mayor Furlong: As a part of that 1.1?
Paul Oehme: No, no. That was outside of it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So the CIP amount had about $500,000 in for the street for this area?
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Other questions. The draintile behind the curb in the Chanhassen Hills
area. What’s the economic benefit that we’re receiving for doing that work?
Paul Oehme: Well the water table in that area is extremely high, especially in the low lying
areas. Some of the intersections. We feel that the addition of draintile would help mitigate some
of the frost heaving that we see out in that area in the winter time. Try to let water out of the soil
sub-base and the pavement section as much as possible. That’s getting the best bang for your
buck. The more water, the drier, the more compact the pavement section is. From the city’s
standpoint we feel that the addition of draintile will help lengthen the…
Councilman Lundquist: I’ve got to ask about the rain garden. How big, we’re talking about.
Paul Oehme: Here’s a drawing of the proposed rain garden areas. And the biggest rain garden
that we are talking about is approximately, it’s about 100 by like 20 feet at this location here.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Paul Oehme: Some smaller ones, maybe 30 by 10. 20 by 10 up in that area. And there’s a
larger one basically, I can show you on this drawing here. Located at the intersection point here
of these two drives. It’s approximately another 40 by 40 or so.
Councilman Lundquist: When we look at our water quality on the lakes that we have in the city,
where does Lake Ann rank in best to worst or however you want to do it? Middle? I mean we
don’t seem to be spending a lot of time on projects in and around Lake Ann versus Lotus and
Riley and some of the other ones.
12
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Kate Aanenson: The reason why we recommended it, a minimum rain garden is, at the end of
those parking lots it sheet flows straight down into the lake and we don’t have as much
residential around that lake and the same type of volume of lake users, but we felt it was
important, as long as we’re doing improvement to the parking lot, that we had an opportunity to
reduce some of just like you pointed out, the velocity and the sheet flow into the lake. So this is,
we are still trying to partner with the watershed district for the planting. That was the second
phase. That’s why we, with this phase prep it and then we’ll, Lori Haak, the Water Resource
Coordinator is working with the watershed district to get some funding for the plantings.
Councilman Lundquist: But you don’t anticipate the funding for the plantings until next year?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, and that was what, we laid it out that way. That we prep it and
then put those in next year.
Councilman Lundquist: So what’s the difference if we hold off on this money and do it all at
one time? I’m maybe over simplifying it but the way Paul describes it, I see these big mud holes
that we’re going to have until we get the plants growing in there.
Paul Oehme: No, well the planting project would take place in the spring. We want to do it as
quickly as we can next year. The beds again, they wouldn’t just be mud holes. There’d be
mulching…but they would be stabilized. They wouldn’t be, it would definitely mitigate the
erosion potential at these locations during the winter months.
Councilman Lundquist: And so the benefits of doing it this year versus waiting until we have a
deal with the watershed districts are what?
Paul Oehme: Doing it this year? We have, I think a very good bid. If you look back at the
engineer’s estimate and what the engineer’s estimate and what the contractor’s proposing were,
it’s right there. That $71,833 is the engineer’s estimate and GMH was at $71,825 so we’re very
close on the engineer’s estimate. I don’t feel that we’re going to get any better bids if we
postpone or better costs if we postpone the project til next year. We might get a little
inflationary cost associated with it. It’s nice to do again the get in and get out with these type of
projects too so we don’t.
Kate Aanenson: Least disruption to the park.
Paul Oehme: Least disruption. This project, this schedule is to take place after Labor Day,
September. We’re redoing the parking lots after the main peak usage of the park is over with. If
we do the project in the spring, it just adds more disruption for the patrons that use the park.
Mayor Furlong: What sort of equipment’s involved with these? In terms of building.
Paul Oehme: A simple little backhoe. Bobcat. Skid loader. They use rotor tillers just to make
sure the soil’s not compacted down. Just small little equipment.
13
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Councilman Lundquist: I’m looking at total CIP for 06 on storm water, storm sewer projects at
400 grand and we’re looking at spending $80,000 on a rain garden. I’m wondering if there isn’t
a better place to spend 20% of our total storm water budgeted dollars than on a rain garden at
Lake Ann or you know I know we’ve got lots and lots of storm water issues around, and that
seems like a decent amount of money to be spending there.
Mayor Furlong: I guess the question I have is, what are we doing now as a city? We’ve got with
Lake Ann Park with, I mean a lot of it’s grass and fields but are we treating any of the runoff
from that at all?
Todd Hoffman: The water’s going north goes directly to Lake Ann through a straight place so
it’s not being treated when, before it hits the lake.
Mayor Furlong: Not only not being treated, it’s not sheet draining. It’s being.
Todd Hoffman: It’s sheet draining partially and then it collects from the pipe just to the east of
the park shelter building and then it’s piped directly into the lake and it dumps out just there at
the rental dock. The water from the other 3 rain gardens go south into the creek and then head
south into Lake Susan.
Mayor Furlong: So we’re not treating, which creek? Is that Riley?
Todd Hoffman: Riley, and that’s not being treated either.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members. I kind of spear headed this project from a staff
level. Todd’s exactly right. We probably have close to 200 parking stalls in this area and we
force all people that come to this community to pre-treat their water when it comes to parking
lots, buildings, whatever it might be and I said we have to treat ourselves just like we would treat
anybody else that would come into this community. We would put in storm water ponds if storm
water ponds would work in these areas but because everything sheet drains in a 200 acre park,
we had to use the rain garden effect to accomplish our pretreatment. So it would be staff’s
recommendation to move ahead, if we got funding or not from the watershed district to put in
this storm water, rain gardens and to treat ourselves just like we treat anybody else that may
come in to the community and be good stewards of our lakes and our streams.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff? On this or any other items. With the
proposal. Okay. Thank you. Council discussion. The one bid proposals with some alternates
before us, what’s some alternates? There are a number of bids, overall project for both Lake
Ann Park and the city street projects. Thoughts? Comments? Discussions? Moving forward.
Councilman Peterson: Seems plausible and I would recommend we move ahead.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I agree with him…move forward.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay. Councilman Lundquist.
14
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Councilman Lundquist: Fair enough.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I concur. Is there a motion? Staff’s recommendation is on page 4 of the
staff report.
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve award of construction contract for 2006 street
improvement project to GMH Asphalt in the amount of $977,640.50.
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion?
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, that would include adopt the assessment roll also?
Councilman Lundquist: Is that the next one?
Mayor Furlong: Is that a second motion?
Todd Gerhardt: I think we had A and B were reversed. They’re correct on the agenda but in the
packet 2A and B got reversed. If they could do both in one motion. The assessment roll and
award of bid. We’ve done that many times.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist, would you like to continue your motion?
Councilman Lundquist: To continue the motion to also adopt the assessment rolls as published
in the council packet.
Mayor Furlong: And resolution for assessments.
Councilman Lundquist: And resolution for assessments.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. So is there a motion, or is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? Requests for clarifications?
Resolution #2006-42A: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded
that the City Council approve the assessment roll for the 2006 Street Improvement Project
and adopt the resolution for assessments. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Resolution #2006-42B: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that
the City Council award the construction contract for the 2006 Street Improvement Project
to GMH Asphalt Corp. in the amount of $977,640.50. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
15
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
AWARD OF BIDS: 2005 MUSA IMPROVEMENTS, BID PACKAGE #2, PROJECT
06-05:
A. RECEIVE BIDS AND AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT.
B. APPROVE ASSESSMENT WAIVER AGREEMENTS.
C. ESTABLISHMENT OF NO PARKING ZONE ON BLUFF CREEK BOULEVARD
BETWEEN AUDUBON ROAD AND POWERS BOULEVARD.
D. AWARD CONSTRUCTION SERVICES CONTRACT TO KIMLEY-HORN.
Public Present:
Name Address
Shawn Siders Town & Country Homes
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
Chadd Larson Kimley-Horn and Associates
Jeff & Terri Fox 5270 Howard Point Road, Excelsior
th
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. On April 10 of this year the council
approved plans and specs and authorized advertising for bids for the Bluff Creek Boulevard
improvements, Project No. 06-05. This has been an ongoing project for almost 3 years,
culminating the final improvements for this area under the feasibility study that was written in
2004. The improvements are shown in this drawing here. The improvements are mainly the
construction of Bluff Creek Boulevard shown in yellow here. The new roads. Collector
roadway from Audubon to approximately 4,100 feet east of that location. Construction of the
turn lane and traffic signal at, it would be the entrance point on Audubon and Bluff Creek
Boulevard intersection. Installation of trunk watermain from Bluff Creek Boulevard basically
starting at this location and working west. As council may recall on the first bid, or phase of the
project was to bring trunk sanitary sewer and watermain down from Lyman Boulevard to the
terminus here. Then also again installation of sanitary sewer at, underneath Bluff Creek
Boulevard and the future development too. Construction of storm sewer and ponding
improvements along Bluff Creek Boulevard. Treatment for Bluff Creek Boulevard and water
quality would be at this location. Construction of retaining walls and other various
improvements along Bluff Creek. Last year we did build the bevo section of the bridge section.
This year we’re proposing to build additional retaining walls and wing walls for the road.
Installation of street lights and landscaping along Bluff Creek Boulevard at various locations.
Mainly at the developer’s request. Sporadic street lighting at major intersections and at
intermediate points along intersection points and landscaping the median and sodding and
seeding the boulevard as well. We also are proposing a 10 foot trail along both sides of the road
at this time as well. These improvements are proposed to be constructed during the 2006 and
2007 construction season, and they’re necessary to prepare for developments in the 2005 MUSA
nd
expansion area. Bids were opened, or bid was opened on Friday June 2. And the amount of
the bid that was received was $4.383 million dollars approximately. The low bid was
approximately 10% less than the engineer’s estimate. The bid was also lower than the estimate
that was in the feasibility study for this project. Although there were over 50 plan holders for the
project, only one bid was received. One additional bid was received. However it was submitted
16
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
later. Late, and was not opened. Several contractors were contacted in an attempt to determine
why only one bid was submitted, considering the number of plan holders that we receive. Most
responses received back, the most common reason was given that the bidder was, the contractors
were too busy. They already received projects that they had to construct this year so this project
kind of fell off the radar screen. Again it was bid out a little bit later than say a reconstruction
project and that was one of the main reasons why the contractor’s stated they weren’t going to
submit a bid. Other concerns were on the side of the plan holders was that, were on the…for this
project and also a couple contractors commented on the clay soils and the problems associated
with that. The contractors also commented that other jobs they had bid on recently did not
receive very many bids as well. Basically in the last month. The plans and specs included a bid
alternate for the construction of a temporary roadway to serve the proposed adjacent
developments during the winter months. This alternate was included. Since the project schedule
may not allow for Bluff Creek Boulevard to be paved in it’s final condition prior to the end of
the 2006 construction season. Basically it’s to pave up the street from Audubon over to the new
development on the east side of the project. That section of pavement would be utilized for the
next year’s paving. It would not be used for, would not be used for the actual paving surface
would have to be ground up and replaced back and we’d use it for the base course for the final
paving section. The bid amount to construct the roadway was also lower than the engineer’s
estimate. The total bid amount, including the base bid and alternate is $4,448,083.38. Staff
recommends that the bid alternate be awarded to provide some flexibility in meeting the needs of
the adjacent developers during the winter season and next spring. S.M. Hentges has not recently
completed a city project but has worked on development projects within the city. S.M. Hentges
and Sons was, has worked with other consultants in other cities on similar projects in other
communities such as Eden Prairie, the Hennepin Village, County Road I think 4 project and also
in Chaska and their downtown project that was constructed last year for a street. We believe that
they are, S.M. Hentges are…to successfully complete the project. I’ve personally worked with
them in the past too on the project so award of the project, including the base bid, alternate bid to
S.M. Hentges is therefore recommended. Funding for the project is proposed through a
combination of assessments and some city funds. The funding proposal is shown here. And the
vast majority of the improvements are proposed to be assessed back to the benefiting property
owners. The state aid funds would be used for the over sizing of the collector roadway. If this
project were to proceed, the proposed schedule would be to start construction this month. Hold
an assessment hearing in November and then final completion of the restoration by June of next
year. I stand for questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Just to summarize, there are a couple of further
items. I don’t know if you’re going to go into a staff report but with regard to the assessment
waiver agreements that we received. On the assessment waiver agreements. Have those been
received, all of them?
Paul Oehme: Yep. That’s item number 3(b) I believe.
Mayor Furlong: 3(b), yeah.
Paul Oehme: We did receive all three property owners signed assessment waivers.
17
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Mayor Furlong: So we’re comfortable going forward based on that since the assessment hearing
will be sometime later this year. No parking, that’s the ability to use the MSA dollars that were
part of that. 20% of the overall project.
Paul Oehme: Right, the roadway section is shown on this drawing here. There’s 3 lanes or 16
feet wide. There’s no parking opportunities on this section of roadway. Only for emergency
purposes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then there is also a request to continue with the engineering
construction services with Kimley-Horn?
Paul Oehme: That’s correct. They have worked with us on the previous phase of the project.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions on any of those items for staff. Okay, thank
you. Any council discussion? You’re always concerned when you get one bid that you may not
be getting a good one but here clearly based upon the engineer’s estimate it seems to be a good
bid and based upon staff’s recommendation for their ability to complete the project, is there any
reason that anybody can see not going forward with any of these items?
Councilman Lundquist: I’m just looking forward to seeing Peterson make a motion for a 4,100
foot long cul-de-sac with a round about.
Mayor Furlong: Well maybe you’ll have the opportunity.
Councilman Lundquist: You’re going to have the record for the longest cul-de-sac.
Councilman Peterson: Whatever.
Mayor Furlong: At least…going to go away. Is there any other discussion pertinent to this?
Very good. Is there a motion? I think we can handle all these with a single motion, is that
correct?
Roger Knutson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there motions for items 3(a), (b), (c) and (d)?
Councilman Peterson: I’d make that motion Mr. Mayor based on staff’s recommendations as
submitted.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist, would you like to second that?
Councilman Lundquist: Feel free Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I guess I’ll second it.
18
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? For the motion to approve
staff’s recommendation on 3(a), (b), (c), and (d).
Resolution #2006-43: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded
that the City Council approve the resolution accepting the bid and awarding a contract to
S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc., in the amount of $4,448,083.38 for Bluff Creek Boulevard
Improvements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to
0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approve the Assessment Agreement Waivers for Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements,
Project No. 06-05. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4
to 0.
Resolution #2006-44: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded
that the City Council approve the attached resolution establishing a no on-street parking
zone along Bluff Creek Boulevard from Audubon Road to Powers Boulevard. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approve a consultant work order with Kimley-Horn and Associates in the amount of
$489,600 for construction phase services for the 2005 MUSA Expansion/Bluff Creek
Boulevard Improvements, City Project No. 06-05. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Todd Gerhardt: Paul, the final assessment hearing on this, are we going to consider this probably
in December?
th
Paul Oehme: November 13 it’s scheduled.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Let’s move on to the next item.
SOUTHWEST VILLAGE, NORTHEAST CORNER OF REALIGNED TH 101 &
LYMAN BOULEVARD, SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT: REQUEST FOR A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, A SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN
WITH VARIANCES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Len Simich Southwest Metro Transit
Doug VanOrden Klingelhutz Companies
Kyle Williams LSA Design
Bob Worthington Southwest Metro Transit
19
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Toni Baker Southwest Village, LLC
Jim D. Southwest Village, LLC
Patty Mullen 611 Summerfield Drive
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site, Southwest Village is located at the new State
th
Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard. Way back on February 18 of 2004 the City of
Chanhassen with Southwest Metro Transit worked to develop…a PUD for this specific site. At
the time of that review there were numerous things that were asked for by the neighborhood and
Southwest Metro put together and that was an analysis of the impact of the proposed park and
ride. Environmental assessment looking at noise, air quality and that and then ultimately a traffic
study. Through that process ultimately the Planning Commission and the City Council, back on
rd
June 23, 2004 recommended approval of the PUD standards, so that’s what this project now has
advanced and with the standards in place and proposing to get approval for tonight. So in
summary what they’re asking for tonight is the PUD amendment. Some of the things that they
had proposed in the PUD, they wanted some flexibility. A variance to the PUD itself, and then
site plan approval and subdivision approval. The PUD itself, when it was approved,
contemplated housing on the front portion of the site. One of the issues that the neighbors
adjacent to the site had is that they didn’t want to see apartments. They wanted to see more
owner occupied type housing, so as we talked about that, some of the flexibility, the changes that
Southwest Metro and you’ll see how that evolved. And then the commercial was actually kind
of sandwiched between the park and ride and the housing itself, and as that evolved too there
were some changes so those were the PUD amendments that I’ll go through now. For this
th
particular application the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 16 to review this
and they voted 4-0 to approve all three requests. So with that we’ll move forward with the
actual application. Again there’s a couple different things that they’re requesting. The first is
the PUD amendments. So as I stated, a couple years ago we built that framework in place and
the first request is actually to look at the commercial. What I showed you before had the
commercial in the middle between the housing and the park and ride. The commercial has now
moved adjacent to 101. One of the conditions that we put in the original PUD was to limit to
8,000 square feet for single use. So these separate buildings, these two buildings would have
been 8,000. What they’re requesting is additional 500 feet per building. Again staff
recommended approval. Is recommending approval to that PUD amendment. The second
amendment is for the height of the buildings. Again because this is a PUD, the amendment just
would affect what we put in place from the very beginning. The design standards, that we put
the 50 foot from Lyman Boulevard, which would be this street here and then also 50 feet, again
because there’s residential there, and then also the setback along 101 is the 50 foot. In looking at
the type of housing the applicant wanted to move the residential so it had a more urban feel.
Again that was…move the residential so it had a more urban feel. Again that was…and they
went through their own process of selecting a builder. Again staff was included in that process
as they worked through selecting a developer, looking at the product type and how that worked
so what they actually wanted to do is pull that forward. While the plan says, or the request is for
10 feet, right now they’re showing 15 feet from the property line. There’s additional setback
from the street itself. That allows some flexibility if they change the stoop and those sort of
things and I’ll go through that in a little bit more detail when we look at the design of the project
itself. So that would be more of the changes too. Again it says 10 feet but right now they’re
showing 15 feet from the property line. So the houses would be 40 feet from the actual edge of
20
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
the curb. Again the same setback they’re requesting on the retail commercial to get that urban
feel. Push that closer to the street. And in both instances there’s heavy landscaping along that
urban edge and if you look at the model, you can see how that relates to, and I’ll show you that a
little bit more too on the site plan. There’s another request for variance on the 50 foot here in the
transition. There’s a little corner of this retail building that encroaches about 5 foot. Again staff
is recommending approval of the variance on that little piece that affects it. The third
amendment would be for signs. If you look at the sign location on the project, there’s a sign
here. It might be a little harder to see. Can you zoom in just on the sign portion? Thank you.
There is signs that they proposed internally. Staff had felt that that might be a little excessive.
They will be assigned, queuing as you come in. This will be the main entrance from residential.
That’s off of Lyman Boulevard, and then there’s two large signs. When I say large I mean as far
as length. Then again these both meet the sign ordinance. It’s just a request for an additional
PUD which we didn’t have the project in front of us. There’ll be two signs identifying those two
entrances of Southwest Village. Again staff would recommend a second… So again the PUD
ordinance, you’ve got the one sign so the request is to get two. Then the other request is the wall
signs. There is some on the commercial itself. The dimensional letters being backlit. And
they’re also, for the retail. On the retail itself, we gave them an opportunity to put the banners in
place. The other thing, because the retail moved from the internal portions, they want more
visibility, a lot more signage. The concern that we had was whether it was facing the residential
side so the retail will be along both sides. If you look on the site plan, there’s access to both
sides. You can come in from the back from the park and ride, so there’ll be signage allowed
there. And then also signage allowed on this, and that’s always proportional to the wall area
that’s used, so if you’ve got two tenants, or one tenant and two spaces, that sign area be
proportional to that facia that they, so again while it’s consistent with the sign ordinance, it needs
to be amended in the PUD because that’s the scrip that they’re following. So again staff does
support that.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry for the interruption. This is along 101?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: And then also if you’d allow for the projecting signs which we hadn’t
anticipated before.
Mayor Furlong: On the internal street?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Well, actually…on the commercial too. So if you look on,
for example, I don’t know if you can see.
Mayor Furlong: We can’t see, but those protruding sides would be on either side of the
building?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. That’s an option. Correct. That’s for the commercial portion of
it. Okay. So with that, I’m on page 10. I did provide findings for all the PUD amendments. We
21
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
went through that. So those would be the summary of the PUD amendments. Then also for the
variance again, the variance strictly, now this is separate from the PUD amendment. It’d be for
the setbacks from the street. The PUD says 50 foot so this would be amendment just from that
PUD section. That says you have to have a minimum of 50 feet so this would be a little bit
different. So this would be stricter variance. Under the PUD amendment, these are the
variances. Again looking at the type of product that they want to put on. It’d be a more urban
feel on that pulling the buildings forward. Giving that street presence, and then to pull the
commercial forward too instead of signage in that between, you get that visibility. They wanted
that urban feel to walk up that transit oriented, pedestrian friendly feel. So with that again, the
variance on the 50 foot on this. The City and Southwest Metro preserved those trees along the
eastern edge of that to provide that buffer. So we are replacing a significant amount of those
trees. But it would just be these two sides then would be the request. So then the next action
that they’re requesting is the actual subdivision itself. So the situation of 35 lots. So this is
Lyman Boulevard. This would be the buffer area. 101. Lyman. So this provides the
mechanism to create the different uses on there. The two retail spaces. The 35 lots and then the
park and ride itself, so in the staff report again on page 13, there’s the breakdown of the different
lots. The lot areas and then again the findings of the subdivision. Again staff is recommending
approval of that. Any questions on the subdivision portion of that? Okay. And then finally, it’s
the site plan request and I’ll go through the three different uses. First would be the bus station
itself. And this is very similar to what was proposed originally when we talked about materials.
In front of you here, some of the materials from the other parts. The Southwest Metro station
itself. Highly articulated building. One of the changes that did occur, in order to, we had a 25
foot high, and I think I missed that in one of my variances but 25 foot high. We went up to the
35 foot height on the back of the building. Originally, we made that change to the grading on
that in order to accommodate that they’d have to go lower with that lower level parking which
would make it all underground. For the safety reason they felt it better to raise the building, as
did staff. And in looking at the site plan, the townhouse units on the front looking from Lyman
across would block your view so you will not see across from the Lyman side, you will not see
the park and ride ramp, so the units in front are tall enough to block that view. If that makes
sense. So with that, the building itself, the park and ride again, brick and smooth face block.
There’s a stairwell you can see on here that’s glass, and I’ll show the plan of that in just a
minute. And then trellises are a theme throughout the entire site. Again that shows up really
well on the model itself. So if there’s any questions about the first phase. It’s the 500 stalls
ultimately. They’re going to be one story, which maybe I can show this a little bit so if you can
zoom in a little. This would be Phase I. Phase II is the second story. So they’re adding, going
from 530 to the 800 stalls, so this would be Phase I and then the second story…so the footings
would be built in at the beginning. Large enough to accommodate the second story. I think
the…so we wanted to disclose to the neighbors the ultimate height… the 35 foot in that back
corner.
Mayor Furlong: And which back corner is that? South?
Kate Aanenson: Facing that slip off lane.
Mayor Furlong: So northeast? Northwest?
22
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Kate Aanenson: Northwest. Northwest corner is the highest. And the other thing I wanted to
point out, there are some signage on here. This would be typical of what they have at their other
transit hub. The Southwest logo. I didn’t point out there…and then this is the internal location
of a driveway. So access to the site, now this was determined when we did the original PUD,
coming through this, we’ve got the, and then this would be the main entrance so as you see that
Southwest logo over the top of that, the entrance to the park and ride. Some of the things the
Planning Commission was just talking to make sure that people are queued property, and I think
having that Southwest Metro over the top of that sign, over this entrance, that makes a lot of
sense and that’s back to this one that says Southwest Metro. Any questions on the park and ride
itself? The site plan.
Mayor Furlong: Is that, I assume it’s an elevator tower, that highest point to the northwest. Is
that going to be built initially regardless of whether they go with one or two ramps? Or would
that be increased with the addition of the second ramp?
Kate Aanenson: It’d be increased. So here’s the tempered glass look… And that’s one of the
sight lines. The next site plan, that’d be the retail…that I just briefly spoke about. The retail
space… These would be the two buildings. Parking would be accommodated in the parking
ramp, and then…immediately behind it there is some parking and they also will provide parking
in the ramp. So for that again same materials as the park and ride. The brick. The trellis, wood
trellises…picture of that. The one feature again that this has, there is a plaza between the two
buildings with a fountain. Again that’s kind of an urban space and kind of a landscaping around
there. If you look at the site plan, that’s certainly accomplished and that was one of the things
that we looked for in the design. Had some of those outdoor seating opportunities or benches or
something like that between…shop or catch a bus or the like. So again that was the only change
really from the, well two changes from the original PUD. One was the location. Creating that
urban feel. Putting along 101 and then adding the 500 feet for each building. Again
architecturally all brick matching the Southwest Station itself. So other questions on that part of
it?
Mayor Furlong: Quick question with the addition of 500 feet, we’re not changing, were there
limitation on the maximum footage for a single user? Single tenant?
Kate Aanenson: No. No.
Mayor Furlong: There was no limitation there? So you could have one tenant at 8,500?
Kate Aanenson: No, that’s kind of what we put in originally. Is that...concern that based on the
parking, that we would have that kind of a single user on the 8,000, 8,500.
Mayor Furlong: Were we okay with that or not?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes, we were okay with that. If they put one single tenant. There’s office
and retail mix too, so it could be a single office user… So we were okay with having one single
tenant in there.
23
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Mayor Furlong: What was the restriction that we put? There was a limitation.
Kate Aanenson: 800.
Mayor Furlong: On the west side? For the Sand Company.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. I think that was 800. That’s kind of typical. That’s where that
number came from. It’s pretty standard what we’ve done in some of those neighborhood PUD’s.
Again recognizing that this probably is a little bit maybe bigger draw for the neighborhood but
so. It’s kind of hard to…open space between the two buildings here. That green space… Again
we went through the architecture. Parking and all that too. And then the final, that location or
site plan that’s before you then would be for the townhouses. There’s one sixplex. Three
fiveplexes and three fourplexes. Again this is where they spent some time getting proposals
from different developers and what type of product and again responding to what the neighbors
wanted and that would be something not quite as vertical, which would be maybe more condo or
townhouse, but certainly based on the zoning, this is one unique zoning we have in the city that
is a mixed use, which allows commercial and residential and at a higher density than what was
proposed on the site. So driving that…I’ll show you the product itself. There’s some colored
lines on that. Let me just back up and say, the first phase would obviously be the park and ride
itself and the commercial, and once they get that done, the staging would be to move over to the
townhouses itself…Planning Commission and that’s really the mobilization and able to get on
and off this site. Because this is just one of the buildings, and I’ll show you a color. Highly
articulated. Some of you know the stone. The shed roof over every other garage door. The
window boxes under the back. And then one of the changes that we did ask them to make was
on the backs of the units. To actually look at providing green space on the back. One of the
concerns that the Planning Commission had was, gathering spots. Green space. They did
provide some additional green space on the back. With trees on the backs of all those parking
areas to address that request. And I’ll go through the color rendering itself. So this would be the
entrance coming off of Lyman. This is that tree preservation area. So that would be the main
entrance and that’s the sign we talked about…longer one that would be off of 101. So this would
be coming off of 101. There’s the two longer signs for park and ride and the builders and that’s
what…was saying from the Lyman side. Now you’re looking up from the Lyman side you’re
really, the view of it is blocked by the townhouses themselves to see that parking ramp. The
height of it. This would be the streetscape. This would be facing Lyman Boulevard. What
you’re not seeing here is the actual sidewalk that would connect to here. To this sidewalk here.
Councilman Peterson: So you’re about how many feet from.
Kate Aanenson: Right now this is about 15 feet, if you added something else, what they’re
requesting is the 10 here. So you have 15 feet to the sidewalk and then 40 feet to the edge of the
curb. And this is the additional landscaping that they put on the back of the garage, is that area
we’re showing you that and…landscaping, kind of helps to heat island and the like so that was a
request to the south and the back that the Planning Commission had. So with that, that’s again
the proposed, the variance, the site plan and the plat. So again there’s findings for each of those.
The subdivision, the variances, the PUD and that and with that we are recommending approval
24
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
and that approval starts on page 33 of the staff report. With that I’d be happy to answer any
questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Questions for staff. Kate, what’s on the west side of 101? Is that the Sand’s
Company?
Kate Aanenson: They’re just a little bit north of that. This has actually been bought by the
Shelard Group. They’re looking at, that was given, really the underlying. They’re pretty similar
zones, as we just spoke about. Some apartment, there was an apartment building approved when
Sand came in. Shelard is probably going to come in and ask for a couple tweaks on their PUD
too.
Councilman Lundquist: So you’re not worried about having retail signage facing west and that
building?
Kate Aanenson: No, because more than likely, they have, we know one of the uses that wants to
go in there is a gas station. And so that works in this area here. And that’s why we looked at the
retail oriented over here. We didn’t see that as a problem. Again we wanted to, and as we move
towards.
Councilman Lundquist: You don’t want the Lake Susan people looking, staring at a Mattress
Factory sign?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. That’s an issue. We just amended that and the last Planning
Commission we talked about LED intensity, but over here where we’re adjacent to the
neighbors, you can’t really see that. This portion over here. That’s where we looked at more of
an office use as we get to those neighbors, something that’s less intense, and that does need a
certain kind of signage…
Councilman Lundquist: And then the same on the south side of Lyman.
Kate Aanenson: Well that was approved for a townhouse, twin home project.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Yep. It hasn’t been.
Councilman Lundquist: No, right over here… Yeah, directly south of the apartments. Is that
the corner of Springfield?
Mayor Furlong: Directly south of this site? Is it the Springfield neighborhood?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes. Yeah, and this would be the Springfield neighborhood and then over
here you approved, which is, yeah we did that comp plan amendment. Because we’re upgrading
this intersection and we did approve a twinhome project. Again that was one of the, while we
25
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
put the residential here, we looked at, you know we told the other group that we wanted to see
something office. Not quite as intense to make that transition.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And where is the gas station?
Kate Aanenson: Up in this area. That was when we originally did the PUD, at the interchange, I
can actually show you better on the original. Sorry. The original site location. If you look at
this piece right here. This is where you recently approved the Sand project. The Gateway. That
was called Gateway, and then this piece right here is also owned by the same company. They
looked at an apartment here. This project is contingent upon getting 101 moved. They can’t go
forward until the old 101 is vacated so they’re anticipating a 2007 date. And there is utilities,
then they need the road to move, and then when we put that, we did anticipate a gas station up in
this intersection. Working with that and then office and some other smaller retails, similar to
what would be across the street. And really those zoning districts were kind of figured the same
way, and like I said, they’ll probably come in and want a few modifications. So one thing we…
was the fast food drive in. Some of those sort of things. That we don’t normally have in the
neighborhood business district.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So besides the Southwest station retail center, that’s probably the
only retail centers that will be out there?
Kate Aanenson: No, they looked at a strip center here too.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: By Sands, yeah.
Kate Aanenson: Yep. Yeah, they looked, yeah. Who’s now with Shelard Group. They have a
retail center. A gas station and then probably some office.
Councilman Lundquist: Back on, are you concerned then Kate about the, the variance on the
townhouses being that they’re that close to Springfield and that residential piece?
Kate Aanenson: You know they had a neighborhood meeting with them. We both have been
working closely with the neighborhood and because they, really what drove this layout is the
product success that they had, and looking to the designs. They’ve actually had someone from
the neighborhood working through their design issues themselves, so I think they felt
comfortable with it, and we felt comfortable, because really it’s 40 feet back from the street, and
again if you look at the landscape plan, it’s heavily landscaped along that street too so, I think it
should work. Again it’d different than what we’ve seen on a collector street. While it’s a
collector street, it doesn’t quite function on that. Once you get kind of around the corner,
obviously we’ll have more traffic once they bring in the lakeside development. You know we’ll
have more some trips going that way but it doesn’t have the same impact of wanting to go the
other way. Like going to the west. About the same number of trips. And I think too we really
tried, you know if you look here, you push that one building back. Here’s…additional space
because this is a busy corner and I think they’re working hard to put those buffers on all four
corners.
26
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Couple follow up questions to Councilman Lundquist on the signs along the
retail. Illumination. Do we have any limitation on the hours of operations for any illuminated
signs?
Kate Aanenson: That’s a good question. That’s something we just looked at at the Planning
Commission which you’ll be seeing at your next council meeting. We just went through and
talked about illumination and what we’re going to require for specs. We actually even put that
in, the LED and we did, what you approved tonight on the Chapel Hill request, that they actually
shut it off at a certain time, so I think that’s something you’ll be seeing…
Mayor Furlong: …I’m not necessarily proposing but obviously it’s something that we’re
looking at. If they change, the PUD terms don’t over ride regular ordinances and something like
that, is that correct? Right now to use an example, and again not advocating but asking the
question. If there’s no ordinance with regard to hours of operations for an illuminated sign in the
city, and we change that, is that going to cover everyone within the city regardless of whether
they build as part of the PUD or build just a regular ordinance zoning?
Roger Knutson: That’s true unless for example the PUD had specific provisions and if it says
you can have illuminated signs, say 24 hours a day and that specifically was called out on the
PUD, and that specifically would control over more general provisions but that’d be unusual to
see.
Mayor Furlong: So if a PUD is silent on an issue, then the ordinance is.
Roger Knutson: The ordinance would apply.
Mayor Furlong: So are we silent on this with regards to hours of operation on signage?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, and that does apply city wide. I think what we’re trying to look at is the
intensity. I think setting aside that you’re going to have this, they want it well lit for safety
purposes. Obviously we don’t want to over light it so we’re a nuisance to the neighborhood, so
it’s finding that balancing but I think that if you look at lighting the signs, I don’t think that’d be
the worst part, but again we are looking at that and have made recommendations to you
regarding intensity and brightness of sign.
Mayor Furlong: And I think that’s, from a temporary basis here, until this development on the
west side, this will be visible to the neighborhood to the northwest. Chanhassen Hills.
Kate Aanenson: That is correct.
Mayor Furlong: And so, safety is one thing. We’ve got some pictures of some lighting units that
are not down lit units. They’re going to be for the street lamps. But so a combination with non-
down lit street lamps plus storm…
Kate Aanenson: Those pictures may not show it clearly but they are capped and they will be
down lit. I’m not sure if that clearly…
27
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Okay, I’m looking at the one on page 20.
Kate Aanenson: I did clarify that today with Sharmeen, and they are downcast.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, all the lights will be down lit then?
Kate Aanenson: Correct, and that is a city requirement. All signs. I mean all lights. I’m glad
you brought that up but that, I meant to clarify that but they will all be down lit so.
Mayor Furlong: So lighting you can control in terms of directing the lights for safety purposes.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. You know we had the same issue when Villages on the Pond, we had
a lot of street lighting and not a lot of buildings and there was a lot of, so we kind of worked to
identify those areas that we needed to keep well lit intersections, that we actually reduced some
of the other lighting until we got the buildings in place. And I think we can work with them too
to make sure that, since there isn’t that buffer, that we can work on that.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay, so that, okay. Just a follow up question I had with regard to the
change, the variance request and the change in setback. Specifically outlined I think on 101 it’s
not as bad and most of that’s retail. I guess the challenge I’m still having when you’re allowing
a 10 foot setback, that’s 10 feet to the property line, and granted there is some grass inbetween
the property line and the trail and then the trail to the curb but it’s still 10 feet off the right-of-
way, which you know most homes when they’re built, if they’re not on a collector, if I’m not
mistaken is 30 feet from the right-of-way, which might be 45 feet from the curb but still it’s 30
feet. If this was a different type of building, such as an apartment building or something like that
with a limited access, where that access was internal and to the development, it might be a lot
easier to do that. I’m concerned about somebody, whether it’s Todd or anyone, coming out off
Lyman and being that close to cars and trails. So I guess my questions, do we ask at all, or can
we ask what options might be to increase that?
Kate Aanenson: Oh absolutely it’s a PUD and I think, that was kind of the challenge that the
Planning Commission spent some time on too, besides the green space. Certainly the one you
know there’s guest parking and one thing that we as staff always look at, is we don’t want to do
something that would already prejudice a project to be inferior. So reducing the parking, maybe
you could take a few parking spaces out. I’m not sure that’s going to be able to push any of the
product back. They are asking for the 10. I’m not sure...they say they’re not going to put a stoop
on these and go with the 15 so that…15 now instead of 40…45.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s still, that would be a normal house on a normal city street or cul-de-
sac which is different than Lyman.
Kate Aanenson: Sure, sure. And I’ll let them address some of those challenges. We went
through that too and again, they’re trying to address through their working with the neighbors to
get a product that they wanted, and because you have to park behind, that’s some of the
challenges too but they didn’t want to look at garagescape so again.
28
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Mayor Furlong: I don’t want to get into counts. There’s numerous quality features that have
been built into the design and layout and such like that. This was the one, and unfortunately we
spent our time with the ones that catch our eye, and this is the one that really caught my eye so
I…
Kate Aanenson: No, the Planning Commission…
Mayor Furlong: I know they did. Any other questions for staff at this point? There may be
some others after we hear from the applicant. Anything at this point? Councilman Peterson,
you’re good right now? Great. Applicant’s here I see. Any comments or things that you’d like
to address with council?
Len Simich: Mayor, members of council. My name is Len Simich. Executive Director of
Southwest Metro Transit. I think Kate did a wonderful job of providing a summary of the
overall plan that we’d like to implement. To your comments, yes we did work real closely with
the neighborhood. Part of the thing that they wanted was some architectural interest and a
number of things that we looked at tried to, in terms of the density. It was approved at 16 units
an acre. We brought that down to 11, so this is kind of what we were trying to do to maximize
the site. Give it a lot of interest and hence the setback. I will say, you know we looked at it
primarily with the concern, especially in a suburban area, and this is kind of an urban type
product, but we feel pretty comfortable at what’s been proposed. I’d be happy to answer any
questions on the plan that you may have. There’s members of our team here. From the retail.
From the housing. The landscaping and so forth so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions?
Councilman Lundquist: So Len, what is the trade-off, if you want to call it that, to pushing that,
pushing those units back further away from the road and increasing the setback? What do you
have to give up to make that happen?
Len Simich: I think the most logical is you’re going to give up units. Because you have to keep
a level of parking, both for the residents as well as the guests so the trade off in a sense would be
the number of units. We’re kind of at the low land right now where we’re talking 33 units on
this site. That was one of the challenges when we went out to try to find a developer. A lot of
the bigger developers, it just wasn’t a big enough site. They have that point of no return so to
speak and dropping down some units may cause them some issues with the developer.
Mayor Furlong: Is there any flexibility? We’ve got some good parking spaces there for guests,
which you mentioned, which we deal with with other developments. Other developments don’t
have a big parking ramp right there. I mean is there any possibility to leverage some of the
parking there so that you don’t have to lose units but you could still increase that setback? Or
maybe not units. It could be either, hopefully none. Maybe singular. I mean is that something
you can look at?
29
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Len Simich: We will definitely look at it. I will say, with housing, the difference between
housing and whether it’s a retail or office complex with our use, transit use, is my customers are
coming in at 5:00 in the morning, and if a guest is utilizing those stalls, and it’s all on a weekend,
guess who’s in those stalls when my customers start coming in so it does, it’s not the perfect
shared use as it would be with the retail or office. I won’t say it’s impossible because it has been
done in other areas, but it’s just not the perfect match.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions at this point?
Councilman Peterson: Len, why don’t we hold up the rendering of the actual model, just to get
some sense.
Kate Aanenson: I’m glad you asked him to hold it up.
Councilman Lundquist: Did you build that Craig?
Councilman Peterson: No I didn’t. I like it though.
Len Simich: I’d like to ask our architect Kyle Williams to come up and address the overall site
plan.
Kyle Williams: Did you have some specific questions?
Councilman Peterson: Well I think one thing I wanted to just kind of visualize is look at Lyman.
Actually if you can switch it this way so that the rest of the council people can see Lyman
Kyle Williams: This is Lyman and 101 is here. So as Craig suggested, and as Kate identified
there’s landscaping on this edge. Southwest has planted landscaping along the edge from
neighbors as part of the original, I guess it was a year or so ago. Part of that discussion of the
visual buffer so two issues. One was the visual buffer and two was, as you suggested Mr.
Mayor, the safety edge along Lyman. The visual buffer I think was well addressed by the
previous plantings along Lyman on the south side and proposed plantings along the northerly
side. The issue of safety is well taken. I might ask the developer to discuss their expectations of
the people I expect here and the type of people they expect to live here and any concerns they
have because that will be a concern of their’s as well. But we think that given there are stoops.
There are lots too in trail, and people are walking along the trails. Kids are going to be on the
trail. Bikes are going to be on the trail. If it’s safe for those people, I would hope it would be
safe for the residents as well, so we didn’t have a significant concern about the proximity of the
housing to the roadway because kids on a bike are going to go and they’re going to be in, I don’t
want to say harms way but they’re going to be in the public realm even if they’re 10 more feet or
20 more feet back from the actual road. So it wasn’t a concern of our’s as we worked with the
developer to develop the entire site. There are areas within the property where little kids can go.
…parks in areas. They can certainly run about in here but there are areas where small kids can
certainly be safer. And there is access on both sides. The garage doors, like for this unit would
say he’s on the north side. So to go out and barbeque and have space not on the street is
certainly possible in the units.
30
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Any follow up questions then
for staff? Ms. Aanenson, on the west side, and then this goes back to the size of the user. Why
on this side of 101 do we feel comfortable that there’s no limitation on the user for the retail side
now? And on the other side we want to put that 800 square foot limitation?
Kate Aanenson: Well, again the challenge is I think that you’ve given me too is to try to find
those opportunities where we can put additional square footage and fit into the neighborhood
where it’s appropriate. Where we had it put between the park and ride and the housing, less
visibility I think. It probably would be limited the uses you’ve got in there because of the
visibility and how to find to get in there, and because there wasn’t the opportunity to provide,
there wasn’t enough square footage to make that work and still create that common space
inbetween. We felt it was appropriate to maximize that and if it puts an extra 500 feet in there, it
seemed to work.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and I’m not talking about the extra 500 feet. I’m talking about limitation
on square footage per user. There’s none on this development, is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: And we have some across the street on 101. On the west side of 101. On the
Sand Company. Or am I mistaken?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, it’s my understanding we, I wrote the Sand Company one and this is very,
very similar. But they will probably come back and I know in meeting with the Shelard Group,
they’ll probably ask for a couple tweaks on their’s too. It wouldn’t be the same one for the
similar use. The reason we did that is sometimes people try to go under the radar screen and get
a use, a square footage approved and then bring in a single tenant whereas our goal is to provide
those uses that go with the neighborhood and working with Southwest Metro has worked with
the neighborhood. What sort of things would you like to see, and sometimes putting in a single
tenant, while we put that in there is, even if you have two 800 buildings, if they were attached,
you might get one single tenant or something less desirable. Furniture showroom. A large,
large, that sort, or different type of use. What we really want is.
Mayor Furlong: But that could go in here?
Kate Aanenson: No because we’ve got two 800’s you know. I guess.
Mayor Furlong: 8,000 right?
Kate Aanenson: 8,000, sorry.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So, in looking at that we’ve always tried to put that square footage cap in to
take that variety, to fill those needs…neighborhood so that’s why we put that in place. And we
31
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
see it pretty typical in most of the PUD’s that we’ve done. Even on Villages on the Pond, we put
that in there because you have some of the buildings on the first floor, for the more retail space,
that could be one large single user. Again the intent is that you’re providing a service to those
people that live in Presbyterian Homes and if you had one single user, that might draw outside
the area and still provide as we put in our city code, those uses that meet the daily needs.
Mayor Furlong: Wouldn’t it make sense to do the similar thing here then or not? I’m curious
why not do it here?
Kate Aanenson: You know if they’re comfortable with it, we can live with that. I guess what
we’ve normally capped it at is around 8,000, but if they’re comfortable with that, that’s fine.
Councilman Lundquist: …8,000 we’re worried about how much per user, right?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. That’s what I’m hearing.
Mayor Furlong: No, yeah I’m not, the 8,000 or the 8,500, that’s not the issue. What I
understand what on the west side we limited it to 800 per user. And maybe I’ve got my numbers
wrong. I’m just going…no limitation on per user and I’m just, and maybe that’s okay. I’m just
trying to understand why.
Kate Aanenson: It’s 8,000.
Mayor Furlong: On the west side it’s 8,000?
Kate Aanenson: I’m sorry, they’re both 8,000. Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, I heard…
Kate Aanenson: I’m sorry, that was a slip of the tongue.
Mayor Furlong: So reverse the tape…let’s move. If they’re both the same, that’s fine. I heard
800… Okay, no. Then if they are the same on both sides, then that’s great. That’s great.
Alright. Any other questions that are pertinent to the discussion? Alright, if there are no other
questions, at this point let’s open it up for council discussion. We have a number of issues here.
There will be multiple motions, if everything goes forward. We can handle them as one but let’s
start with discussion on the overall project and then if we want to go down under any of the
particular items, we can do that too. Who’d like to start?
Councilman Lundquist: I think overall happy with the project. We’ve got kind of a model to
look at if you will on the Eden Prairie station, which I think is well done. Obviously this one is a
smaller version than that. I would like to see a larger setback on that Lyman side but I’m
encouraged that Southwest and the developer took the time to meet with the neighborhood and
you know the e-mail box hasn’t been inundated so that must mean that that was a successful
endeavor and so I guess that makes me feel good enough about it to not make that a deal breaker.
You know we go through enough of these that it’s never perfect so I’m not going to not fall on
32
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
my…so overall I think it’s well done and in a great spot. It will make a great addition, additional
park and ride and…success that we’ve had with the other ones we have, that it’s just in a great
spot and look forward to seeing that as well so, I’m overall in favor of moving forward.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I agree with Councilman Lundquist. I’m in favor of moving forward.
I think the plans are well…and a good development was proposed and…doing that I think and
also Southwest had to be a good neighbor to the neighborhoods around it. I’m hoping that it will
be a good relationship that will continue…blend together and make use of each other. My only
concern is with Lyman and the front doors, but there is a back door…small children, I’m sure
most parents are responsible and if they have small children, you probably wouldn’t want to live
there anyway so. I think about bikes and kids and trails and my child rides on 101, that trail
every day and that’s in pretty close proximity to cars and you know I think people are pretty
responsible so I think it will be alright. It will work out so I just welcome Southwest to
Chanhassen. I think it will be something that our community doesn’t have. Asset to our
community and I think we’re all going to really enjoy.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: I agree, and just to clarify. We already are in Chanhassen so.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well.
Councilman Peterson: Not with a ramp but soon to have two hopefully. You know I’ve been
picking and prodding on this project for a number of months now with my role as a
commissioners, and to the point of the neighborhoods and the neighborhood, particularly
Springfield working with Southwest Metro and development team. We started a year and a half
ago, two years ago with the first meeting and there was probably 60 or 70 people there. Mostly
protesting just the idea of it, so that journey has been one that has been with I think
misunderstanding and I think through a period of many discussions and evolutions, and with the
help of the residents, I think one Patty Mullen is here. She is representing the neighborhood and
has done a fine job representing them and it has been a wonderful turn. The project itself I think
that, is going to be a nice asset and if you drive by the other facility, I think you can certainly
hold the standards up as being the same, and certainly the development team has made that
commitment to meet that standard and hold that standard high and we’ll certainly do that. With
regard to the setback, would I prefer having a larger setback? Yeah, but it’s also a change. I
mean we’re going with an urban feel, and that, would I prefer that urban feel being downtown?
Yeah, but you know you can’t always have everything you want and I think that it is going to be
a change but I think it’s an interesting change. Part of what we talked about before is we want
new stuff to come in and this is different. So hopefully it’s a good different and I think that I
believe that it will be a good different. So again I applaud what Len and his development team
and everybody who’s participating has done and I’m proud to move ahead with it.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and Councilman Peterson, I appreciate your summarizing the story
of this development, which did start with a large turn out from a number of residents that, the
33
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
first. After that first meeting, back in concept plan, I received phone calls, e-mails and just
talking to people that were at the meeting. They said this thing isn’t going forward. No chance.
And through Mr. Simich and others with our staff, Sharmeen Al-Jaff and others, after a few
meetings not only did it go forward but when it went to the Planning Commission, there were no
objections, and again here this evening it’s coming forward. It just took Kate, I’m not sure how
long. Probably one of your longest presentations to the council for a single project because of
the complexity of the project. I think to everyone’s credit, if the main issue that we’re talking
about is a setback, we’ve done a pretty darn good job. Now I do have reservations still, not so
much from the people that might use the trail, or any trails. Generally those are going to be
teenagers or pre-teens. My concern is the toddler walking out the door without the parent
knowing about it, and those things do happen. And that is my concern. And I guess I would
challenge the developer to take a look at if they’re right now at 15 feet, what else could they do
and are there some options that could be done to try to increase that setback. We’re still going to
have the same feel if it’s another 5 or 10 feet and if that can be done, I think from a safety
standpoint we should do it. So as a request I would ask to do that. Is that worth delaying it at
this point? Probably not, but it certainly would be something if it’s something that the developer
would consider, if Southwest Metro Transit would consider doing and looking at that.
Challenging them and seeing how that could be done. Working with staff. If it can be done, do
it. But again, I like what’s being done with the retail. Now that I understand it better.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just make one point of clarification, as long as we’re on that topic, really
quick.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: The original proposal had a 1,600 square foot retail center.
Mayor Furlong: A single one?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. And that’s where the 8,000, no single use 8,000, so we could get one
tenant in there.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Now, if you look on page 33 of the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s fine.
Kate Aanenson: And then they can be one user but they still, it follows the original premise
which just said it was one building…
Mayor Furlong: And I think that’s fair because the one thing we need to look at is, I mean this
is, part of this developer is being part of the city of Southwest Metro Transit along with Eden
Prairie and along with Chaska, and if we were providing restrictions on property owners across
the street, I wanted to make sure that they were the same and I’m comfortable now that they are.
And so I think this layout I think is an improvement over the concept plan in terms of how it’s
34
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
laid out and where the buildings are aligned. I think it will be an asset clearly and you know I’m
looking forward to moving forward with this project. The articulation and the look of the
buildings and the ramp is the types of looks that we’ve been looking for, to Councilman
Peterson’s point and I think when we have developers come in here and building these types of
townhouses, it’s going to be something that we can point to and when other developers come to
town and they’re looking at their developments and saying, you know if we can do it here, we
can do it there too. So, overall I’m comfortable going forward and with my request noted
because I think it’s an issue that we all looked at but I don’t think it should stop everything from
moving forward at this point, with the commitment that they’ll look at it and see what can be
done. And if something can be done, let’s do it. Any other comments or discussion? If not,
motion starts on page 34 of the staff packet. 363 of the electronic. There are multiple motions
here for a planned unit development amendment. Staff includes the changes, the variances, the
subdivision and the site plan I believe. Is that correct? Those four.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Do we need those separate for any particular reason?
Roger Knutson: No Mayor you don’t. You should also concurrently adopt the findings.
Mayor Furlong: Some day I’m going to get that.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I’d move that we approve the planned unit development
amendment, the variance, the subdivision and site plan retail, site plan residential, the site plan
parking ramp, subject to the findings of fact with particular note to the Mayor’s comment about
trying to move the setbacks back as a physical note.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Or request for
clarification.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approves the Planned Unit Development amendment for SouthWest Village clarifying
setbacks, signage, and retail building size as follows:
PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a Mixed Use PUD including a Transit Oriented
Development, Neighborhood Commercial and Residential. The use of the PUD zone is to
allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive
35
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan
review based on the development standards outlined below.
b. Permitted Uses
?
The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and
service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood and the
transit facility users. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is
a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Community
Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be
provided on these lots shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and
service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Commercial and transit uses
shall be limited to the area located north of the access point off of Highway 101.
Residential uses shall be located south of the Highway 101 access.
?
Small to medium sized restaurant-not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no
drive-thru windows)
?
Office
?
day care
?
neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,500square feet per building footprint
?
convenience store without gas pumps
?
specialty retail (book store jewelry, Sporting Goods sale/rental, Retail Sales, Retail
Shops, Apparel Sales, etc.)
?
personal services(an establishment or place of business primarily engaged in
providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a tailor
shop, Shoe Repair, Self-service Laundry, Laundry Pick-up Station, Dry Cleaning,
dance studios, etc).
?
Park-and-Ride not to exceed 800 spaces.
?
Residential High Density (8-16 units per acre).
c. Prohibited Ancillary Uses
?
Drive thru Windows
?
Outdoor storage and display of merchandise
d. Setbacks
The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following
table displays those setbacks.
Boundary Building and Parking
Setback
Lyman Boulevard 10feet
Highway 101 20 feet
Highway 212 excluding transit shelters and ramps 20 feet
Easterly Project Property Line 100 Feet
36
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Internal Project property lines 0 Feet
Hard Surface Coverage 50 %
Commercial and Transit Facility Hard Surface Coverage 70 %
Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height 35 feet or 3 stories,
whichever is less
Maximum Commercial Building/Structure Height 1 story
Maximum Park-and-Ride Ramp excluding the elevator shaft 35feetor 3 stories,
and stair well whichever is less
e. Non Residential Building Materials and Design
1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of
architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a neighborhood and
transit friendly development.
2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all
walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in
place panels, decorative block, or cedar siding. Color shall be introduced through
colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous
bands are prohibited.
3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed
cement (“cinder”) blocks shall be prohibited.
4. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved
except as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HVAC
screen, and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area.
5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary
structure.
6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing
material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks,
etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment
shall be screened with material compatible to the building.
7. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large
unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by
architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations,
or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping
with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be
prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed
aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural
interest through building design or appropriate landscaping.
37
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
8. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall
receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities.
9. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with
the adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them.
Extreme variations between buildings in terms of overall appearance, bulk and
height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited.
f. Residential Standards
1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of fiber-cement siding, vinyl
siding, stucco, or brick with support materials such as cedar shakes, brick and stone
or approved equivalent materials as determined by the city.
2. Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as arched louvers, dormers,
etc.
3. All units shall have access onto an interior private street.
4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the
building or landscaping.
5. A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include
colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick and stone.
6. All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls.
g. Site Landscaping and Screening
The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property
abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to
protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding
neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise
pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare.
1. The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated
with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage,
parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc.
2. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the
site plan review process.
3. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be
landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree
wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas.
38
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
4. Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101 shall be
sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required
buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any
proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded.
5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be
required where deemed appropriate.
6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible.
h. Street Furnishings
Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design
and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street
furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian
movement.
i.Signage
The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the
development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the business’s ability to
attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic
safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private
property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is
the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and
image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public,
and to use signs which meet the city's goals:
(1)Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable
opportunity to advertise their name and service;
(2)Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this
objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or
illumination;
(3)Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards;
(4)Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a
manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract
motorists;
(5)Preserve and protect property values;
(6)Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally
compatible with, the principal structures;
(7)Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an
opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting
signs which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way
intersections.
1. Project Identification Sign:
39
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
s
Twoproject identification sign shall be permitted for the development at
the entrance off of Highway 101. The total area of bothProject
identification signs shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display area nor
be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum
of 10 feet from the property line.
2. Monument Sign:
One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development
off of Lyman Boulevard. This sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign
display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign shall be
setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line.
3. Wall Signs:
a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved
building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than
20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a
maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos
comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or
translucent facing.
b. Illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the
PUD site, are prohibited.
c. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is
restricted to the tenant’s proper name and major product or service
offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices
are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band
and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is
the sign.
d.Signs along the sides of the retail buildings are prohibited unless the
actual entrance into a tenant’s space is located at the side of the
building.
e.
Wall-mounted signs along Highway 101 shall be limited to either
above the storefront windows when a shared entry configuration
exists, and for an unshared configuration, the signage shall be located
above the entry or above the tenant’s specific storefront windows, but
not both.
f.On the east elevation, signage shall be permitted above the storefront
only as well as small-scale pedestrian level decorative signage,
perpendicular to the wall (projecting signs). The size of the sign shall
40
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
not exceed 9 square feet.
g.A “SW” logo on the elevator shaft of the parking ramp building shall
be permitted. The size of the logo shall not exceed a 4 foot diameter
along the north elevation. This logo may be back lit.
h.A “SouthWest Transit” with a “SW” logo not to exceed a 4-foot
diameter along the west elevation shall be permitted. This sign may be
back lit.
i.A “SouthWest Transit” sign with letters 36 inches high shall be
permitted along the south elevation. This sign may not be illuminated.
4. Festive Flags/Banners
a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached
to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area
lighting.
b. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl.
c. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users,
businesses, services, or products.
d. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two
feet.
e. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet.
f. Flags and banners which are torn or excessively worn shall be
removed at the request of the city.
5. Building Directory
a. In multi-tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be
permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet.
6. Directional Signs
a. On-premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The
maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the
ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so
located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties
(including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the
general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. No more
than four (4) signs shall be allowed per lot. The city council may allow
41
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety
could be jeopardized.
b. Off-premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is
confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be
inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign
shall be no larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from
the roadway and shall be approved by the city council.
c.Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the
local transit authority.
d. Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and
other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street
fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate
vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs
should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area
and away from residential areas.
7. Prohibited Signs:
?
Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign.
?
Pylon signs are prohibited.
?
Back lit awnings are prohibited.
?
Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and
not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area
?
Menu Signs are prohibited.
8. Sign Design and permit requirements:
a. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should
reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be
consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the
development. A common theme will be introduced at the
development's entrance monument and will be used throughout.
b.All signs require a separate sign permit.
c.Wall business signs shall comply with the city’s sign ordinance for
the Neighborhood business district for determination of maximum
sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the “street” front and
primary parking lot front of each building.
j. Lighting
42
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
1. Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the
development. High pressure sodium vapor lamps with decorative natural colored pole shall
be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian
scale lighting shall be used in plaza
and sidewalk areas and may be
used in parking lot areas.
2. Light fixtures should be kept to a
pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet).
Street light fixtures should
accommodate vertical banners for
use in identifying the commercial
area. The fixtures shall conform
with (Figure 36 – Chanhassen
Lighting Unit Design).
3. All light fixtures shall be shielded.
Light level for site lighting shall be
no more than 1/2 candle at the
project perimeter property line.
This does not apply to street lighting.
4.Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the
parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in
close proximity to buildings.
k. Non Residential Parking
1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever
possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be
protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city.
2.The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a
minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The
office/personal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and
provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per
thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square
feet thereafter.
.
l. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approve variance request #06-18 to allow a 10-foot setback from Lyman Boulevard, a 20-
foot setback from Highway 101, and a 45-foot setback from Highway 212, as shown in
43
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
plans dated received April 13, 2006”. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that theCity Council
approve the preliminary plat for Planning Case 06-18 for SouthWest Village as shown in
plans dated received April 13, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
1.Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected for the
.95-acre commercial property and the housing units only as a condition of approval for
SouthWest Village. No fees will be collected for the transportation component of the
development. The park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat
submission and approval.
2.The preliminary plat must be revised to include a 25-foot wide drainage and utility easement
over the sanitary sewer and watermain along Highway 101, south of the SouthWest Station
entrance, and a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement over the storm sewer in the
northern portion of the property.
3.A catch basin must be installed at the ingress at Highway 101 and the storm sewer adjusted
accordingly.
4.The developer must submit written confirmation with the final plat application indicating that
the MNDOT pond located in the south loop of the Highway 101 ramp has been sized to
accommodate runoff from this development.
5.Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat submittals and must include
storm sewer inlet capacity analysis to verify that 100% of the runoff from a 10-year event can
be captured.
6.The utility plan must be revised to show the following:
a.Show the proposed water service to the bus station.
b.Due to differential settlement, the three valves and the sanitary sewer manhole must not
lie within the proposed paver-block circle at the intersection of the access road at the
western private driveway intersection. The valves can be relocated outside of the paver-
block circle. Sanitary sewer manhole 503 can be installed to the north of the paver-block
circle and an additional manhole can be installed to the west of the paver-block circle.
c.Sanitary sewer manhole 501 must not lie within the sidewalk.
d.Eliminate the 90-degree bend in the watermain at the Highway 101 intersection and
replace with two 45-degree bends.
e.The final utility plan must show the sewer and water services to the townhome units.
f.The lowest floor elevation of each unit must be shown on the utility plan.
7.MNDOT will be invoicing the City for a portion of the utility improvements for this
development. The developer must pay for 100% of the invoices that the City receives for
this work.
8.Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. These fees are
collected with the building permit and are based on the rates in effect at the time of building
44
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
permit application. The party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of
these fees.
9.The applicant shall provide an additional connection between the residential sidewalks and the
trail along the intersection of Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard.
10.Encroachment agreements are required for the two drainage and utility easements due to the
extensive landscaping and sidewalk proposed.
11.The applicant should show emergency overflow paths for storm water.
12.The Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan (Sheet C-03) should be revised to include a
legend.
13.The applicant should work with the City to develop a plan that outlines storm water and snow
management related to the parking deck structure for this and future phases.
14.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.
15.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed. A rock construction entrance should be shown on the plans.
16.Curbside inlet control details are needed. Wimco-type inlet controls should be used and
installed within 24 hours of installation.
17.Typical building lot controls should be shown on the plan. These controls should 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.
18.Water Quality and Quantity Fees:
Water Quality Fees
Parcel Size (ac.) Zoning Rate Per Acre Total
Retail 0.955 Commercial $12,100 $11,556
45
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Parking Ramp 6.292 Commercial $12,100 $76,133
Housing 2.769 High Density Residential $3,400 $9,415
TOTAL Qual $97,104
Water Quantity Fees
Parcel Size (ac.) Zoning Rate Per Acre Total
Retail 0.955 Commercial $6,400 $6,112
Parking Ramp 6.292 Commercial $6,400 $40,269
Housing 2.769 High Density Residential $6,400 $17,722
TOTAL Quan $64,103
At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $161,207.
19.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES
Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for
dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota
Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that theCity Council
approve the site plan for two 8,500 square-foot retail buildings for Planning Case 06-18 for
SouthWest Village as shown in plans dated received April 13, 2006, subject to the following
conditions:
1.Applicant shall include overstory deciduous trees within the parking lot plantings for the
retail area.
2.A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval.
3.Building Official Conditions:
a)The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
b)The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
c)Accessible routes must be provided to commercial buildings, parking facilities and public
transportation stops.
d)All parking areas, including parking structure, must be provided with accessible parking
spaces. As submitted, the retail buildings must have a minimum of 4 accessible parking
spaces, one of which must have an 8-foot access aisle.
46
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
e)The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the
proposed buildings, including but not limited to, allowable size and fire-resistive
construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine
compliance at this time.
f)The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures.
4.The grading plan must show proposed contours, minimum two-foot contour intervals and
proposed retaining walls, including the top and bottom of wall elevations.
5.Spot elevations must be shown along the east curb of the commercial area to ensure that the
parking and drive aisle area meets the minimum slope requirement.
6.The sidewalks and trails shown within the public right-of-way shall be privately owned and
maintained.
7.The developer must verify that the proposed eight-inch watermain will provide sufficient
flow for the proposed residential, commercial and sprinkling uses on the site.
8.Fire Marshal Conditions:
a)Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
b)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.
c)Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 501.4.
d)Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota State Fire Code
Section 501.4.
e)Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3 and 503.4.
f)Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load
of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire code Section 503.2.3.
47
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
g)Regarding the residential area, two hydrants will need to be relocated. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
h)Submit radius turn designs to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.4.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that theCity Council
approve the site plan for 33 town houses for Planning Case 06-18 for SouthWest Village as
shown in plans dated received April 13, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
1.Four additional overstory, deciduous trees shall be planted parallel to the offstreet parking
area within the residential district.
2.A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval.
3.Building Official Conditions:
a)The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
b)The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
c)Accessible routes must be provided to commercial buildings, parking facilities and public
transportation stops.
d)All parking areas, including parking structure, must be provided with accessible parking
spaces. As submitted, the retail buildings must have a minimum of 4 accessible parking
spaces, one of which must have an 8-foot access aisle.
e)The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the
proposed buildings, including but not limited to, allowable size and fire-resistive
construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine
compliance at this time.
f)The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures.
g)The applicant shall meet with the building official as soon as possible to discuss details of
building permit plans.
4.On-street parking is not permitted on the private streets.
48
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
5.The private street design must be adjusted to accommodate the turning movements of a fire
truck and a moving van.
6.The grading plan must show proposed contours, minimum two-foot contour intervals and
proposed retaining walls, including the top and bottom of wall elevations.
7.Note the lowest floor elevation of the proposed townhome units and include a grading detail
showing hold down information.
8.The first 30 feet of each private street extending from the access drive must be minimum 3%.
9.The sidewalks and trails shown within the public right-of-way shall be privately owned and
maintained.
10.The developer must verify that the proposed eight-inch watermain will provide sufficient
flow for the proposed residential, commercial and sprinkling uses on the site.
11.The four monument signs along the private streets are prohibited.
12.The monument sign at the entrance to the development off of Lyman Boulevard shall not
exceed 5 feet in height (including the logo).
13.Fire Marshal Conditions:
a)Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
b)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.
c)Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 501.4.
d)Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota State Fire Code
Section 501.4.
e)Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3 and 503.4.
49
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
f)Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load
of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire code Section 503.2.3.
g)Regarding the residential area, two hydrants will need to be relocated. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
h)Submit radius turn designs to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.4.
14.The trellis at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Highway 101 shall be eliminated.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that theCity Council
approve the site plan for Phases I and II of the parking ramp and transit station for
Planning Case 06-18 for SouthWest Village as shown in plans dated received April 13,
2006, subject to the following conditions:
1.Building Official Conditions:
a)The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
b)The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
c)Accessible routes must be provided to commercial buildings, parking facilities and public
transportation stops.
d)All parking areas, including parking structure, must be provided with accessible parking
spaces. As submitted, the retail buildings must have a minimum of 4 accessible parking
spaces, one of which must have an 8-foot access aisle.
e)The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the
proposed buildings, including but not limited to,; allowable size and fire-resistive
construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine
compliance at this time.
f)The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures.
2.The applicant must show how bus-passenger vehicle conflicts will be minimized along the
east-west access road.
3.Bus routes through the site must be clearly shown on the plans.
50
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
4.The grading plan must show proposed contours, minimum two-foot contour intervals and
proposed retaining walls, including the top and bottom of wall elevations.
5.The grading plan must identify the proposed grades on each level of the parking ramp
6.The sidewalks and trails shown within the public right-of-way shall be privately owned and
maintained.
7.The developer must verify that the proposed eight inch watermain will provide sufficient
flow for the proposed residential, commercial and sprinkling uses on the site.
8.Fire Marshal Conditions:
a)Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
b)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.
c)Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 501.4.
d)Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota State Fire Code
Section 501.4.
e)Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3 and 503.4.
f)Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load
of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire code Section 503.2.3.
g)Regarding the residential area, two hydrants will need to be relocated. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
h)Submit radius turn designs to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.4.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
51
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
NEAR MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSOCIATION BEACHLOT, OUTLOT B, REICHERT’S
ADDITION: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
THE ADDITION OF A SECOND DOCK.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jahn & Amy Dyvik 610 Pleasant View Road
Steve Wanek 6613 Horseshoe Curve
Kate Aanenson: The Near Mountain Lake beachlot association is located on Pleasant View. The
area shown in orange. The homes that are associated with that beachlot are the gray shaded area.
The 8 homes. The Planning Commission…they voted 4-0 to deny the conditional use at their
th
last meeting, which was then the 16. Their reason for the denial was setting the precedent for
more variances. And while that came from testimony from other associations that were notified
at the meeting. Increased boat traffic. Decreased safety on Lotus Lake due to increased boat
traffic. They felt the hardship was not demonstrated, and they believe that owners in the
beachlot association had reasonable use of this property. So with that, existing condition out
there today is, this is the size of the beachlot. These are the homes that are associated. Currently
there is a dock right here to provide for 3 slips. So on page 2 of the staff report, the Near
Mountain Association has over 500 feet of shoreline and approximately 27,000 square feet above
the OHW. A survey…difference of opinion on the square foot area but again anybody aggrieved
with that interpretation can go through this process too, but we believe that regardless of that, it’s
still under the 50,000 square feet. Again the City code requires the 200 feet of shoreline per
dock. In addition to the shoreline requirement, they must have a 30,000 square feet plus for
another dock, which they are requesting, and additional 20,000 square feet to get you to the 50.
Therefore it does not meet that. So what they’re asking for again is a variance and conditional
use. The applicable regulations for the beachlot requires the standards on the beachlot which I’ll
just reiterate for the 20,000, or excuse me, 200 feet of…that 30,000 plus the 20,000 square foot
of area. …there is 8 homes for the Reichert’s Addition that was platted in 1978, and the staff
report for 1978, the CUP it was determined that the association had 46,000. What seems to be in
question is if that area, obviously there’s different times that the OHW and again a difference of
opinion on how that OHW was determined. But again that aside, they’re still under the 50,000
square foot area. The applicant applied for the CUP, the CUP amendment. It was given a
conditional use in ’87, in August and that’s attached as one of the conditions for the beachlot. So
within that, I’m on page 3 of the staff report. The conditions were that as part of the zoning
ordinance that no alteration of the existing site be permitted, which if you look at the pictures on
the beachlot, that were shown, included in your packet, there is area undisturbed. That they get
one dock and one canoe rack. Again the one dock does permit the 3 boats. The original
application when they wanted an additional dock included, 4 boats per dock. They’ve reduced
that now in their request just to the 3, so there’d be a total of 6. Again there’s some other
conditions there regarding the beachlot itself. Again the analysis would then be that the original
CUP did allow for the 3. That’s consistent based on area and frontage consistent with the zoning
ordinance, and in reviewing that, the variance request, the staff felt that that didn’t meet, or had
recommended no, as did the Planning Commission concur. There are some other beachlots that
52
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
were cited by the applicant and they’re… I can go through all those, just for brevity, I’ll just say
this. As the person who processed all those beachlots as one of my first assignments here,
they’re all over the map as far as how they were used. How they applied for…A lot of these
beachlots were non-conforming. Some were put in place, as they came in for development…
which you’re kind of comparing apples to oranges and some of them were fire lanes that were
given non-conforming rights. Some of them actually had conditional use permits, and as I
indicated, some of them were actually given through the development contracts, certain rights so
it’s kind of hard to compare them all equally across. If you have specific questions, I’d be happy
to answer those. We’ve addressed the… So what you’re looking at tonight is actually 3 requests,
and I’m on page 5 of the staff report. The first one is the conditional, the first request is for the
general issuance standards for the conditional use permit itself. We provided the findings of fact
to why we believe it doesn’t meet the conditions for the beachlot itself. The second request is for
the beachlot standards. Again which we believe they don’t meet and are recommending against
that. And then the third request would be for the second dock. Again that would be for the
variance for the conditional use. Again the staff is recommending against the variance for the
second dock. So with that, the other request has been eliminated and that was for the 4 boats.
They struck that out from the staff report. So with that…for the two docks and this is the area
that’s, the rest of this area is kind of left undisturbed so this would be where they would like to
put the two docks. Again the staff’s opinion, as stated kind of in the cover of the memo that…to
the Planning Commission summarized is because we have so many different types of beachlots
that are out there, they would all be asking for something. Some have boat launches that are
non-conforming that they were granted. …always trying to eliminate too so they’re just kind of
all over the map as far as that goes. So with that, we are, as did the Planning Commission
recommending denial of the request with the findings of fact and the motion as stated on page 14
of your staff report. I’d be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff?
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, how many, approximately how many houses are, households are
served by that one dock?
Kate Aanenson: Eight.
Councilman Lundquist: Eight. And then compare it to, I don’t know, pick one of the other ones
like the comparable ones that were in the staff, or not comparable ones. The other ones in the
staff report. The Colonial Grove, Lotus Lake, Kurvers Point.
Kate Aanenson: So you’re asking how many homes are in those?
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah. Like if you picked Colonial Grove, Lotus Lake Estates or
Kurvers Point.
Kate Aanenson: …to some on Minnewashta that have 80 and they only have one dock so, again
it’s kind of all over the map as far as what’s permitted. And some have no.
53
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Councilman Lundquist: But users specifically on Lotus Lake, if you take Kurvers Point and
Lotus Lake Estates.
Kate Aanenson: They would have more than 8.
Councilman Lundquist: Like a lot more or?
Kate Aanenson: Quite a bit more. Yeah.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. More than 20?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I would think so.
Councilman Lundquist: Or somewhere in that neighborhood?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Yeah. Even the subdivision…is larger too.
Councilman Lundquist: And then do we have on lengths of docks, do we have ordinances or
restrictions on how far away from the shore you can be?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and that’s, you know there’s criteria for both and that’s in a separate
chapter of the city code but what it says is you can’t impede the navigable water and when you
get in certain areas of the lake, because of the shape of the frontage and vegetation, that becomes
a problem where sometimes docks go into each other and we’ve had situations regarding that
before. We’ve had to mediate that. The ordinance, the boats in waterway ordinance does
regulate that you’re supposed to come out parallel from your’s. It also talks about you can get to
a depth of 4 feet, however long that takes. There’s certain areas of the city that people have
docks out 120 feet to get to a depth of 4 feet. So again it’s really variable depending on the
location. You can see up at the end of this bay, when you come up in this bay, that we’ve got
some pretty long docks. There’s some shallow water which was a concern before when we
looked at some requests…just couldn’t get to a depth that would work. So that’s kind of another
complicating issue too. Trying to find how you can make those work. So we did propose it here.
It’s not intruding. If you’re moving down this way is where it becomes more difficult.
Councilman Lundquist: I was just thinking a longer dock out there gives them a spot to
temporarily hook up for the day or you know potentially add maybe a…
Kate Aanenson: And we’ve used that application before where we’ve given conditional uses on
beachlots that do meet the criteria. What we’ve done, in working with the DNR, instead of the
impact of 3 docks, we’ve worked with the DNR. If they meet all the requirements of the lot area,
they can have one dock with 6 boats on it. We’ve done that before too. If it meets the criteria.
First it has to do that. The area and upshoreland.
Councilman Lundquist: Sure.
54
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Roger Knutson: Mayor, I don’t know, is the council familiar with the registration process we
went through on recreational beachlots a number of years ago?
Mayor Furlong: Perhaps you could give us a summary.
Roger Knutson: Yes I can. It was quite a process. The City was having constant issues on
virtually, I won’t say all but many, many recreational beachlots in the community. As to what
they could have and what they couldn’t have. What their grandfather rights were and what they
weren’t. How long they had docks there. How long would they have just met everything else
there. So when the council decided, I’ll call it a current standard for what was needed for
recreational beachlots, it went through a registration process where it gave a window of time for
every recreational beachlot was inventoried. Every one came in and they registered their non-
conforming beachlots. So it was a complete record of everything that was there and we basically
drew a line in the sand and said alright, you meet the ordinance. You were here before this
ordinance and we will acknowledge what you have and you can keep it. But henceforth these are
the rules. Because we had constant issues about over crowding of lakes and did someone put out
a new dock. How long has that dock bee there? What’s fair? What’s right? And so this
process, I believe must have taken well over a year or two. And we went through it and
documented it as well as we could and I think for the most part we had concurrence with all the
recreational beachlot owners as to what they had. Not every one of them but there’s general
agreement that this is it. From now on anyone that comes in has to meet the new requirements.
Mayor Furlong: When did that process take place?
Kate Aanenson: I believe ’91-92. But let me just, before that beachlot ordinance, I believe it
was passed in, a few years before that, and there was given, there was a conditional use put in
place but what happened is all the ones that were non-conforming were never documented for
their level, and that’s what caused a lot of angst. So to be clear, there was some that did have
conditional uses. Or shortly after we passed the beachlot ordinance that came in to that process
so there was still some out there that, and some that were given development contract rights, and
those are a little tougher too.
Roger Knutson: Yeah, a lot of them come from various different situations and from points of
time. We looked at aerial photographs of various years and we documented it as well as we
could and it was, for the people doing it, it was a very difficult, painful process because there
was a lot of emotion attached whenever you’re talking about docks and boats and lakes. We go
through it and that’s when the line was drawn.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this point?
Kate Aanenson: Can I just, I did receive one other e-mail that I passed out to you.
Mayor Furlong: Which was from Ron Harvieux?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
55
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Any other questions for staff? If not, is there a
representative from the applicant here this evening that would like to address the council? Good
evening.
Jahn Dyvik: Good evening. Mr. Mayor and Council members, my name is Jahn Dyvik. I’m at
610 Pleasant View Road. I’m a member of the Near Mountain Lake Association, and I just gave
you the complete packet so I’m just going to hit a few of the slides that I want to highlight. This
is our Outlot B that we call, well refer to Outlot B, and it’s 600 feet of lakeshore. As you can see
there’s about, well maybe you can’t see so clearly there but the southern 30 feet of it or so is
mowed out to the lakeshore. The rest of the 550 feet or so of the lakeshore there is maintained as
a natural buffer zone. If you go to slide number 3. Staff showed this already. I just want to
point out, there’s an inset on the lower right showing the pre-1978 plat where Outlot B was
actually an extension of Lots 6, 7 and 8, and then Reichert decided to merge those into Outlot B
as a recreational beachlot and I just point that out now because I’m going to say something about
that in a moment. And by the way on those slides the north is to the left. If you go to, let’s try
slide number 6. This again was just shown by staff but it showed the request. We have a current
existing dock with 3 boat slips on it. At the Planning Commission meeting, as was stated, we
were asking for 2 docks with 4 boat slips on each. That really required 2 variances so we backed
off on that and amended that. We’re just simply asking for the 1 extra, 1 second dock with 3
boat slips on it. And to answer the question that was asked before, the requirements on length of
dock is 50 feet or as long as you need to go to get to 4 feet of depth, whichever is shorter, and
where we are here, those docks, our current dock is 50 feet. That is about 4 to 5 feet deep at the
end of the dock, and so the second dock would be no longer than that. As was stated, we need
for a second dock, we need a total of 400 feet of shoreline, and 50,000 square feet of area. We
certainly meet the requirement for shoreline length. We have 600 feet, as you can see there on
the slide number 8. And the question is how much area do we have? And here, this is another
interpretation. If we have 50,000 square feet, there would be no need for a variance. We would
just be able to operate under a conditional use permit and have 2 docks. So what is our, we have
3 reference points. In the lower left part of that slide it shows the Carver County GIS system.
That’s their satellite view that they’re showing of our outlot. They have us listed as 57,000
square feet, so when this process started we thought we had 50,000. You know that met the
minimum requirement for area. We also had that 1978 survey that was mentioned, and that
shows us as having 46,000 square feet. We recently had a survey done in March of 2005 and
when that survey came back, and you can see that in the lower right side, the ordinary high water
line kind of meanders through the lot there, and based on that reference, it shows 27,000 square
feet. But they also did measurements at the edge of the ice at the time, which gave us an area of
38,350 square feet. And then we extrapolated that, because using the edge of the ice at that time
was high. Higher than the average, and if we look at what the average level would be, it would
give us 47,000 square feet. And you see those numbers change pretty drastically and the reason
is, we have a very flat, low lying lot. If you go to the next slide, you’ll see that the ordinary high
water line, level is 896.3 feet, and that’s where we got the 27,000 square feet measured in our
survey. The edge of the ice measurement that they did at that same time was 895.8 elevation and
that was 38,350 square feet so you see there’s a difference there of half a foot, of 6 inches made a
difference of 11,350 square feet. So if we extrapolate that further, to the average water level of
895.4, then we would calculate 47,430 square feet, which is closer to that 1978 survey that we
have. And one thing that I wished I known at the Planning Commission meeting was that there
56
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
is no city documented policy or procedure to use the ordinary high water level for calculating
area. There is one reference in the city code that talks about using it but that’s in Section 20-480
which is titled Zoning and Water Supplies/Sanitary Provisions and it’s specifically for single,
duplex, triplex and quad residential lots and it’s referring to sewers and sanitary provisions, but
nowhere else in the city code does it talk about what reference to use for calculating area. And
actually I spoke with the DNR, to Julie Eckman as well because the city often uses the ordinary
high water mark because the DNR uses that as a reference for certain determining setbacks for
structures and things like that. But in this kind of issue with a seasonal dock, it’s going to be
sitting within the DNR area and then it’s not restricted by those setbacks obviously because it has
to be out in the water. And the DNR has no jurisdiction over that, and they said that they have
no set policy on how they would calculate their. On the next slide is just showing the ordinary
high water level. There’s a chart of the last 10 years of water level of Lotus Lake, and if you
look at the ordinary high water level for 10 years, that’s been reached a total of 5 or 6 instances.
But if you, over those 10 years that, the level was that high or higher for less than 3% of the time.
So out of 10 years for 3 months, it was at the ordinary high water level, so we don’t think that’s a
reasonable reference to use when computing area when the purpose is of a seasonal dock. And
especially because it is just a matter of interpretation and that the city and staff has chosen.
Mayor Furlong: On that issue if I could Mr. Dyvik. What would you recommend would be the
appropriate measure to determine the area?
Jahn Dyvik: We contend that for the purpose of the dock, that the average water level would be
a reasonable value to use, and that average water level, as I showed here gives us, you know sets
our area at 47,000 square feet. Now granted, we’re still below the 50,000 that we need, but I
think one of the reasons, well two of the reasons why the Planning Commission denied us I think
is because we were asking for 4 spots per dock. You know so there was two variances, but also
because they believe that we were so far off the requirement, the 50,000 square feet because they
were seeing the 27,000 square foot number based on the ordinary high water level.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just clarify how we interpreted that? The city ordinance is, when we do a
lot, any subdivision, riparian lot, we have to determine the OHW to make sure that it’s enough
area above the OHW. That would be the same computation we would use on a beachlot, and
those standards are in the city code of how to determine. While it’s not clearly stated in the
beachlot, it’s clearly stated in a lot configuration. This is zoned single family residential. It’d be
the same configuration that we would use to determine the OHW. And that’s our interpretation
and I think we disagree on that point, but that would be our interpretation.
Jahn Dyvik: Well and again in the city code there’s only the one reference to using the ordinary
high water level for area of calculation and that’s only regarding residential lots for sanitary
provisions. Nowhere else, there are plenty of other references to area calculations but none of
those are…
Kate Aanenson: It’s not referenced in the sanitary. We can clarify that for you. It’s how you
configure your lot area so I.
57
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I was interrupting just to get your recommendation on where you
thought it should be, since you’re raising the issue.
Jahn Dyvik: And then I just wanted to show a couple more slides. Another approach that has
been discussed is to return the outlot to it’s original arrangement of being extensions of Outlot,
or of Lots 6, 7 and 8, and that would then allow us to in theory put a dock on each of those lots
for a total of 3 docks. We’d prefer not to go that route. We think a better solution is to just limit
it to 2 docks. But that’s something that we have discussed. Just to summarize, then we have
more than enough shoreline length, and in fact we think that that should really be the driving
requirement because the shoreline is what determines dock density along your shore. I mean
with 600 feet of shoreline, we have 1, of the 2 docks, we have 1 dock per 300 feet of shoreline,
and that’s far lower density than in residential lots on Lotus Lake. Based on our average water
level calculation, we’re within 6% of the required area. And then the other point there in the
summary is just that we were practicing DNR recommended landscaping procedures for 30
years. Maintaining our natural state of the lot and a buffer zone. Almost 95% of it is preserved
that way. There was a question of parking that came up. We really don’t see that as an issue
because we all live within 500 feet of the outlot and we walk over there. As far as boat traffic,
this is simply just providing overnight mooring for boats that are already using, so we’re not
looking to increase the boat traffic. At the Planning Commission meeting we would have been
increasing the number of slips by 5 because we were going 4 and 4. Now we’re just keeping it at
3 on our existing dock, and then 3 additional docks so we’ve reduced the request from 5 to 3
additional docks. And then we have letters from surrounding neighbors on Lotus Lake, on either
side of our outlot that are in support of this. We have in particular John Nicolay, Tom and Judy
Meier, and Pete and Jane Thielen, and those are in the staff report I believe.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, alright. Very good, thank you. Appreciate that. Appreciate the handout.
It’s easier to follow. Any questions for the applicant at this point? No? Okay, very good.
Thank you. Any follow up questions for staff or any reaction? You asked a little bit about their
recommendation in terms of the, not that you calculate area. Any other thoughts or comments
from staff or?
Kate Aanenson: No. I’ll let the City Attorney but that’s how we calculate area above the OHW.
Mayor Furlong: So is that the method we’d use if this was a subdivision for a riparian lot?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct.
Mayor Furlong: We’d use ordinary high water mark?
Kate Aanenson: And that’s on our syllabus…subdivision.
Roger Knutson: Our definition, we have definition of lot area and it means the area of the
horizontal plane bounded by the front side or rear lot lines, but not including any area occupied
by water of lakes or rivers or by street right-of-ways.
58
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Kate Aanenson: And also if you go to the shoreland…it gives you for single family. How to
calculate above the OHW, which is what we would to determine, if it met the minimum
requirements in the lot.
Roger Knutson: I think that’s the correct way to calculate it but in this case it’s legally it doesn’t
make any difference. They need a variance. By anyone’s calculation.
Mayor Furlong: I guess the question is, if we don’t determine some elevation onto which to
calculate the area in a period of a drought, we could be inundated with dock requests for
recreational beachlots. If we went to water level. Average over what period. I guess that’s.
That’s the natural flow. If you don’t pick one, then you’ve got to.
Kate Aanenson: Right. That’s why we use the OHW, right. To be consistent because it does,
when we try to use the ordinary high water mark, which is designated on our lakes. And that’s
kind of tested over time. It’s not, while water level changes. The OHW should be consistent.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. It’s interesting a few weeks ago we were talking about high water levels
on the lake and now we’re talking about low water levels. So, other questions for staff or
questions of clarification?
Councilman Lundquist: The one slide Roger or Kate, on separating Outlot B back into it’s
extension of 6, 7 and 8. What’s the process for that? Possibilities of that.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the council. They certainly can apply for anything they
choose to apply for. My first initial reaction anyway is they’d have to go through a replatting
process to combine those outlots with the other lots. And they could certainly apply for that, if
they chose to do that, and that would be judged against our ordinances at the time. I haven’t
done the analysis as to whether.
Kate Aanenson: I haven’t either.
Roger Knutson: How it works but it certainly is a possibility. I won’t say yes. Just does it meet
your ordinance requirements making a new plat.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? If not then, let’s open up council discussion. On the
request here. Thoughts and comments.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I never like turning down reasonable people. However, you
know lake lots and docks are possibly one of the things that are one of the most heated and
talked about items in front of us. I bet you if we talk about the number of times that we’ve talked
about those things, it’s a pretty high percentage. You know so I think what that says is that we
have to be consistent and part of what I look at this, and is what Roger keeps telling us is there a
hardship, and I can’t see a hardship in this case. By not having a dock. It’s kind of the luck of
the draw that the homes that they bought and built and/or moved into don’t have but one dock, so
it’s a self created hardship. So I can’t support it.
59
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any thoughts?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I think it’s interest that when docks and lake issues come up, we have
more people here than Truth in Taxation hearings. I think Councilman Peterson’s right. It’s a
passionate issue and people do love their lakes and enjoy their summers on the lakes, but I have
to agree that…always have to remain consistent with this issue because there are several people
that come in I think during the year wanting more dockage or wanting, usually more dockage I
guess and I think I would just…because we do to stay consistent with our ordinances…
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: Little bit torn mostly because you know living on a lake certainly you
want to have as much access and as much use of that as you can. So when I first read through
this, you know a couple of things went through my mind like you know adding extra feet onto
the dock or an extra or something to find that compromise. The fact that we have other
associations on Lotus Lake that have considerably more houses or members to dock spaces
available is one important thing for me. Again the only thing we’re talking about here is the
overnight mooring of boats.
Kate Aanenson: That’s right.
Councilman Lundquist: Because during the day they can all 8 be on the dock out there so I mean
given that it’s not always the most convenient thing to do to put your boat in and out every day,
there is ability to use the dock there. Just not moored overnight, so and the fact that I think
there’s potential, possibility, if they were really serious about that, split some things up as well
and that, but I think the overwhelming thing is the fact that we have other associations out there
that have more homes with less slips per house ratios is probably what’s going to sway me to
leave it at that, and stay with what was guided in for the you know, as Roger stated, the things
that we’ve gone back to in the past and where do we go and I would have been in favor of
probably of extending that dock and giving one more space in there for a total of 4 but it sounds
like that’s a long drawn out process as well and would go against that ordinance too, so at this
time I’d be in favor of…request and keeping the current situation there with the 3 slips as is.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. My thoughts I think are similar. I think Councilman Lundquist just
stated my thoughts with regard to the condition of whether or not they have reasonable use.
What’s a reasonable expectation for a beachlot, and to me I think that reasonable expectation is
that it would have a dock. That there would be a few of the properties that are associated or
have, or their association owns that beachlot, would be able to moor boats overnight. But there
would be no expectation that all of the homes within that association necessarily do that, unless
of course there were simply 3 homes and they had 1 dock, or if they met the criteria for however
many docks there were and it worked out with the number of homes. This is a challenging one
in part because I think it’s clear that these homeowners have been good stewards of our
lakeshore, which is something that as a city we want all our residents to do. The request on it’s
surface, can we add, increase the, our ability to enjoy the lake that we see out of our front
window and front door every day? That’s a very reasonable request. I think the issue is, do they
meet the standards necessary and first is do they meet the ordinance requirements? If they did,
60
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
we probably wouldn’t be talking about it tonight under any measure, even under the
recommended measure, a variance is still required and then based upon the need for a variance,
is there a hardship and are they enjoying reasonable use? And I think Councilman Lundquist
spoke to the reasonable use and Councilman Peterson spoke to the hardship, and I have to concur
with them. I don’t see it here. Are there other alternatives? If they’re within our ordinances,
then that would be available to any property owner as well. But I think here, I don’t see a
justification for granting the variance. Consistent I think the Planning Commission did a good
job of questioning and articulating the reasons for it’s, you’d like to be able to allow people to do
the things they want to do and to enjoy the lake. Lakes are an asset and they’re for recreation use
but I think there are reasonable limitations that we as a city place on that access, and that’s what
this is. It’s an access limitation and so for that reason, I would also support denying it at this
time for those reasons I should say. I fail to see the hardship and I think they have a reasonable
use of the property at this time. Any other thoughts or comments on this? If there are none,
there is a motion, recommended motion in the staff report on which we can, which speaks to the
findings of fact, as well as other conditions. It is on page 14 of the staff report. 447 of the
electronic report. Is there a motion?
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve, to support staff position denying the request for
variance subject to the findings of fact as submitted by staff.
Mayor Furlong: Within the staff report and the following motion in the staff report? 1 through
4?
Councilman Peterson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: 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 denies
the request for a Conditional Use Permit amendment and variances for the lot area
requirement necessary for the second dock, based on the findings of fact in the staff report
and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property.
3. A revised conditional use permit with intensified use may reduce public safety due to
parking on the sub-standard streets and poor sight lines.
4. If this variance is approved, other recreational beachlots in Chanhassen will likely seek
variances from lot area restrictions.
61
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: I have one item. I’d like to publicly thank Justin Miller for four outstanding
years of service with the City of Chanhassen. This is kind of a bittersweet week for us. This is
Justin’s last week with the city. He’s going to be moving on to be the administrator at Falcon
Heights. That’s over by the Fairgrounds for those people that have never been to Falcon
Heights.
Councilman Peterson: …fairgrounds.
Todd Gerhardt: I think it is the fairgrounds.
Councilman Lundquist: Do they have homestead, market value homestead credit?
Todd Gerhardt: They’ll probably get some. Probably a little fiscal disparities and everything so.
He’s going to a city with lots of money. Roger will continue to see him every other Monday
though because Roger represents Falcon Heights so, I told Roger to do everything he could do to
not help Justin but. No, Justin’s done a great job for this city. Accomplished a lot of things you
know both on the economic development side, personnel and lots of newsletter items. The
Mayor’s letter is just great. It’s a team effort, right? So he’s going to be missed. I remember
four years ago interviewing oh probably 10 or 12 people and we could have gone in a variety of
different directions but Justin just stood out among those people and I think we were really lucky
to get him so, thank you.
Councilman Lundquist: I bet it was that power tie that he had on that day.
Todd Gerhardt: It was. That and I made him sit in a restaurant for an hour and not use the
bathroom after drinking two large sodas too. But we wish him the best and we told him we
know what Falcon Height’s phone number is so when we have certain questions, we’ll give him
a call. Thank you.
Councilman Lundquist: Being the cynical one, I have to add the only, among the miles of
accomplishments that Justin’s made, the only thing he hasn’t licked is this cable TV system.
Todd Gerhardt: But Craig will probably call him every once in a while and remind him…
Councilman Lundquist: No, congratulations Justin.
Mayor Furlong: Absolutely, and on behalf of this council and former council members that have
worked with you, thank you. We appreciate your professionalism and always your willingness
to help us any way that we ask questions and Lord knows we need help so, but you were always
62
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
there and always someone we could rely on too in Todd’s absence so we thank you for your
service and wish you the best of luck.
Justin Miller: Thank you. It’s been a pleasure working with all of you and Chanhassen’s a great
community and you have a great thing going here and you’ll definitely hold a place in my heart
for a long time. Thank you.
Councilman Peterson: Not forever?
Mayor Furlong: Anything else Mr. Gerhardt?
Todd Gerhardt: Nope. I don’t want to take any of the thunder of the fire department at our next
council meeting. We had a house fire and a little accident and I’m sure they’ll update you at our
next meeting. Everything’s fine but, they’re doing okay but I don’t want to take any other
thunder.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt or staff?
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
Councilman Lundquist: Are we, Todd are we, the letter that you sent out on the soccer field
allocation. The Chan/Chaska group. I’ve gotten just still a couple of comments back from them
about, have you gotten any more comments from those parents or members of that at all?
Hoffman: I have not, no.
Councilman Lundquist: And that letter went to all the members of the CCHA or Chaska?
Todd Hoffman: …went to those in Chanhassen. Mine went to him personally. Vice President.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So that was what…that never necessarily got mailed out to all of
the members of that group. Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: But some of the members did share it with other members in the organization.
Mayor Furlong: And I got personally for the e-mails that I received, I responded to each of them
after Mr. Hoffman wrote his letter and attachments throughout his letter individually to them. So
some of those people that sent us, anyone that sent me an e-mail, I believe I responded to all of
them, or I attempted to, and I did include the letter there. And ask them to contact me or Mr.
Hoffman if they had additional questions.
Councilman Lundquist: Very good.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, anything else? If there’s nothing else to come before the council this
evening, is there a second?
63
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
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 9:45 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
64