CC Packet 2006 06 26AGENDA
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, JUNE 26, 2006
CHANHASSEN MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
5:30 P.M. - CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
Note: If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the
remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda.
Interview Candidate for Environmental Commission: William Fouks
A. Key Financial Strategy: TH 41 River Crossing Update.
B. Discussion of 2007 Budget.
7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance)
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
C. Invitation to Fourth of July Celebration.
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will
be considered as one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is
desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City
council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for
each staff report.
1. a. Approval of Minutes:
- City Council Work Session Minutes dated June 12, 2006
- City Council Summary Minutes dated June 12, 2006
- City Council Verbatim Minutes dated June 12, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated June 6, 2006
- Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated June 6, 2006
- Park & Recreation Commission Summary Minutes dated May 23, 2006.
- Park & Recreation Commission Verbatim Minutes dated May 23, 2006.
b. Infiltration/Inflow, PW254B: Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize Ad for
Bids.
c. The Preserve at Bluff Creek 1st Addition:
1) Final Plat Approval.
2) The Preserve at Bluff Creek 1st Addition: Approve Plans & Specifications
and Development Contract.
d. TH 212, Project 03-09: Approve Agreement with Zumbro River Constructors for
Grading and Restoration in City Right-of-Way.
e. Item Deleted (TH 101 Gap Project 04-06: Approve quit claim Deed for Lake
Susan Apartment Parcel).
f. Stonefield, Project 06-07: Approve Revision to Grading Plan.
g. Stonefield, Project 06-07: Amendment to Development Contract for Storm Sewer
Oversizing Reimbursement.
h. Item Deleted (Approval of Plan for the Use of New Electronic Voting Equipment).
i. City's Purchasing Policy: Approval of Amendment as Recommended by the City
Auditors.
j. Accept Donation of Statue for City Center Park, Friends of the Chanhassen
Library.
k. Approval of Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 18, Subdivisions and Chapter 20,
Zoning Ordinance.
l. Tractor, PW016LLL: Authorization to Order Tractor for 2007 Capital
Improvement Program.
m. Approval of Ordinance Amending Chapter 10, Licenses, Permits, Business
Regulations (Fireworks).
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
2. Overview of July 4th Parade, Jeff Anderson, Chanhassen Rotary Club (verbal).
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE
3 a. Sgt. Jim Olson, Carver County Sheriff's Office
b. Chief Gregg Geske, Chanhassen Fire Department
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS - None
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
CORRESPONDENCE SECTION
ADJOURNMENT
A copy of the staff report and supporting documentation being sent to the city council will be
available after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. Please contact city hall at 952-227-1100 to verify that
your item has not been deleted from the agenda any time after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday.
GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting. In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City
Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. That opportunity is provided
at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations.
1. Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor.
When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the
City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City
Council.
2. If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson
that can summarize the issue.
3. Limit your comments to five minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If
you have written comments, provide a copy to the Council.
4. During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion.
Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough
understanding of your concern, suggestion or request.
5. Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual
either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed to the City
Manager.
Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Houlihan’s Restaurant & Bar, 530 Pond Promenade in Chanhassen immediately
after the meeting for a purely social event. All members of the public are welcome.
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
JUNE 12, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the work session to order at 5:35 p.m.
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
INFILTRATION/INFLOW STUDY, PW254B: DRAFT REPORT DISCUSSION.
Paul Oehme introduced Todd Hubmer with WSB and Associates who prepared the draft
feasibility report in response to the Inflow/Infiltration (I/I) Surcharge Program implemented by
the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). Mr. Hubmer provided background
information on his company, WSB and Associates and their work in this field. In the power
point presentation he outlined the following issues. Definitions of infiltration and inflow and
reviewed the MCES policy on the I/I reduction plan. He showed a map which identified I/I
sources in the city of Chanhassen. Mayor Furlong asked about the possibility of Chanhassen
getting off the MCES surcharge list. Paul Oehme showed photos of examples of problems in the
city’s infrastructure. Todd Hubmer reviewed the current I/I Reduction Program and what is
proposed in the city’s I/I Reduction Plan such as revising city ordinance regarding point of sale,
building permit inspections, expand educational programs, record and enforce non-compliant
systems. Maps were shown of the city’s street reconstruction program and the schedule for
televising the city’s infrastructure in the coming weeks. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked about
the possibility of the city getting fined again if a 100 year rain event happens before the
reduction program is implemented. Mayor Furlong asked why new developments such as Pulte
are being proposed to be televised. Mr. Hubmer showed a map of the proposed sanitary sewer
visual inspection, repair and replacement program. He reviewed financial implications such as
anticipated costs, costs eligible for surcharge credit, financing sources and future savings to the
city. Councilman Lundquist asked for an explanation of the city’s cost savings versus CIP cost
and the number of cities facing the MCES surcharge. Mayor Furlong asked how much money
the city needs to spend to meet the MCES’ I/I goal. Councilman Lundquist asked for further
clarification on the city’s paying the surcharge versus the cost of improvements. Mayor Furlong
stated the key to this project is prioritizing which items should be done first to get the biggest
bang for your buck and manage those projects efficiently. The city also needs to begin working
on obtaining revenue to pay for solving the I/I program as soon as possible.
KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGY: DOWNTOWN PARK & RIDE UPDATE.
Len Simich, Executive Director of Southwest Metro Transit reviewed the progress on the design
and planning which will be implemented over the next couple years for the park and ride facility
City Council Work Session – June 12, 2006
2
in the downtown location and outlined steps Southwest Metro has gone through to find financing
and a location for the downtown parking ramp. The current park and ride site is currently at
capacity and Southwest Metro has an agreement with Bloomberg Companies to expand the
number of stalls to accommodate demand prior to the ramp’s completion. Mayor Furlong asked
for clarification of the funding options and timeline for construction. Clayton Johnson with
Bloomberg Companies provided an update on the status of the Chanhassen Dinner Theater, the
history of the theater in Chanhassen and the economics involved with the current facility, noting
a parking ramp is essential to the economic viability of the Chanhassen Dinner Theater. He
reviewed critical design issues involved with redesigning the theater and incorporating the
parking ramp into that design, noting that construction cannot interrupt the Dinner Theater’s
business and therefore the need to stage the new construction. He reiterated that Bloomberg
Companies is working on the assumption that the Chanhassen Dinner Theater will stay in
Chanhassen and that the parking ramp is a key ingredient to it’s success. Councilman Peterson
asked about the goal for timing on the design approval process. Mayor Furlong noted he has
hope that things will get worked out with Southwest Metro Transit and the Chanhassen Dinner
Theater working together. Todd Gerhardt stated that the $5.5 million dollar grant obtained by
Southwest Metro Transit is key to the success of the Chanhassen Dinner Theater.
KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGIES: UPDATE ON LICENSE SERVICE CENTER IN THE
CITY.
Todd Gerhardt reviewed the work done by Carver County, and Mark Lundgren in particular to
secure State funding for Carver County for the service center. He listed the pros and cons
associated with each of the perspective sites in Chanhassen, those being the east end of the water
treatment plant, Southwest Metro/Lake Ann property, and the Emerson Rosemount Triangle
Parcel. Councilman Peterson asked about other possible site locations in the city. Mark
Lundgren stated that Hennepin County is supportive of the County locating a service center in
Carver County and Chanhassen. Steve Taylor reviewed the planning and design process the
county is undertaking and the need to locate a site. He noted that the Carver County Board is
interested in purchasing a site, not leasing, with high visibility from Highway 5. Mark Lundgren
stated the Board is interested in the site being more of a service center, and not strictly a
licensing center. The only questions being how big and how soon. Steve Taylor stated he has
been given direction from the Carver County Board to investigate ways of sharing costs with
other governmental agencies. Mark Lundgren reiterated that the County has a big problem with
size and space in it’s current location. Mayor Furlong asked where this project sits on the
County’s priority system. Mr. Lundgren noted it is a high priority for the County.
Mayor Furlong recessed the work session at 6:55 p.m. The work session was reconvened at
9:45 p.m.
VETERAN’S MONUMENT UPDATE.
Todd Gerhardt noted that based on discussions with the City Council and Senior Commission,
staff has been working with the Senior Commission and Damon Farber and Associates to
develop concepts for a veteran’s monument and memorial at City Center Park. He reviewed
each of the concepts, outlining the pros and cons of each proposal and asked for City Council
City Council Work Session – June 12, 2006
3
direction on which concept they prefer. The council members agreed that Option 3.3 was the
best option. Councilman Peterson asked if names were going to be incorporated onto the
memorial. Todd Gerhardt stated that the Senior Commission recommended against using names
because of maintenance and error problems involved. Councilman Peterson stated the
monument needs some sort of wording or phrase incorporated into it. Mayor Furlong stated he
was happy to see this item being pursued and making progress. He liked Option 3.3 as well but
noted a missing component of incorporating flag stands to be used during special events.
Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
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: None.
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.
e. T-Mobile: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 9 foot fence at the Water Tower
Site, 6434 Murray Hill Road.
City Council Summary – June 12, 2006
2
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.
h. Resolution #2006-39: Approval of 2005 Year End Closings and Transfers.
i. Resolution #2006-40: 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.
l. Resolution #2006-41: 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, 6661 Mohawk Drive spoke in opposition to the trees proposed to be planted in
Carver Beach Park noting they will obstruct their view of the lake and suggested other places in
the park these trees could be planted. Todd Hoffman responded by showing a diagram of the
homes affected and where the trees are proposed to be planted. Todd Gerhardt noted that usually
no action is taken on visitor presentations and directed staff to work with the Gunderson’s to
work out a solution. Don Sinniger, 600 Lyman Boulevard stated he was at the meeting to listen
to discussion regarding the regional trail proposed to go in his front yard. Mayor Furlong asked
the city manager to provide background information on this trail as it relates to the Southwest
Village project. Paul Oehme provided an update on his discussions with MnDot relating to the
road construction.
PUBLIC HEARING: 2006 STREET & PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 06-01:
A. HOLD ASSESSMENT HEARING AND ADOPT ASSESSMENT ROLL.
B. AWARD OF CONTRACT.
Paul Oehme presented the staff report on this item. Mayor Furlong asked staff to explain why
bids and assessment costs came in lower than estimated. Mayor Furlong opened the public
hearing. No one spoke.
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.
City Council Summary – June 12, 2006
3
Paul Oehme reviewed the bids and specific street projects proposed for 2006. Councilman
Lundquist and Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on how the bids compared to the engineer’s
estimate and what was in the CIP. Councilman Lundquist asked for further clarification on the
design, funding and time line for the rain gardens. Mayor Furlong asked about current drainage
patterns from the park into the lakes and creeks.
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.
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
Paul Oehme presented the staff report and reviewed the bid opening. Mayor Furlong asked
about the status of the assessment waivers and clarification on the no parking zone.
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.
City Council Summary – June 12, 2006
4
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.
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
Toni Baker Southwest Village, LLC
Jim D. Southwest Village, LLC
Patty Mullen 611 Summerfield Drive
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Mayor
Furlong asked for clarification on the height of the elevator, and square footage allowed for retail
tenants. Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification on what’s been approved on surrounding
sites. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on limitations to signage, lighting, and setback
requirements. Len Simich, Executive Director with Southwest Metro Transit provided
background information on the process. Councilman Lundquist asked the applicant to explain
the trade off for increasing setbacks. Councilman Peterson asked the architect to explain the
model for the site. Mayor Furlong asked staff to further clarify the retail square footage allowed
on this site in relation to neighboring sites. After council discussion the following motions were
made.
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
City Council Summary – June 12, 2006
5
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
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 8,500 square 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
City Council Summary – June 12, 2006
6
Lyman Boulevard 10 feet
Highway 101 20 feet
Highway 212 excluding transit shelters and ramps 20 feet
Easterly Project Property Line 100 Feet
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
and stair well
35 feet or 3 stories,
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
City Council Summary – June 12, 2006
7
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.
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.
City Council Summary – June 12, 2006
8
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.
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
City Council Summary – June 12, 2006
9
signs which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way
intersections.
1. Project Identification Sign:
Two project identification signs shall be permitted for the development at
the entrance off of Highway 101. The total area of both project
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.
City Council Summary – June 12, 2006
10
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
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
City Council Summary – June 12, 2006
11
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
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.
City Council Summary – June 12, 2006
12
j. Lighting
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.
City Council Summary – June 12, 2006
13
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
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 the City 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
City Council Summary – June 12, 2006
14
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
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.
City Council Summary – June 12, 2006
15
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
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 the City 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.
City Council Summary – June 12, 2006
16
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.
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.
City Council Summary – June 12, 2006
17
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.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City 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.
City Council Summary – June 12, 2006
18
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.
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.
City Council Summary – June 12, 2006
19
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.
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 the City 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.
City Council Summary – June 12, 2006
20
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.
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.
City Council Summary – June 12, 2006
21
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.
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 presented the staff report and update from the Planning Commission.
Councilman Lundquist asked for comparisons to other beachlots on Lotus Lake and dock
regulations. Roger Knutson provided a summary of the registration process the City undertook a
number of years ago on recreational beachlots. Representing the Near Mountain Lake
Association beachlot, Jahn Dyvik presented highlights of their request. Kate Aanenson and
Roger Knutson clarified the city’s use of the Ordinary High Water Level in determining lot area.
After council discussion the following motion was made.
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.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None.
City Council Summary – June 12, 2006
22
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt thanked Justin Miller for his four
years of service to the City of Chanhassen and wished him the best of luck with his new position
as Administrator for the City of Falcon Heights.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification on
letters that were mailed in relation to soccer field allocation.
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
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
2
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.
h. Resolution #2006-39: Approval of 2005 Year End Closings and Transfers.
i. Resolution #2006-40: 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.
l. Resolution #2006-41: 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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
3
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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
4
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
5
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
6
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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
7
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?
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
8
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
September 26th of last year the council authorized preparation of the feasibility study, and then
on April 10th 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
24th. 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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
9
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
10
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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
11
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.
The bids that we did receive were on April 21st 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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
12
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
13
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
14
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
15
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
16
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
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. On April 10th 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
expansion area. Bids were opened, or bid was opened on Friday June 2nd. 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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
17
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
18
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
19
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?
Paul Oehme: November 13th 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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
20
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
Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard. Way back on February 18th 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
June 23rd, 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
particular application the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 16th 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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
21
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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
22
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?
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
23
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
24
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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
25
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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
26
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
27
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…
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
28
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
29
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?
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
30
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
31
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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
32
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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
33
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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
34
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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
35
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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
36
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 8,500 square 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 10 feet
Highway 101 20 feet
Highway 212 excluding transit shelters and ramps 20 feet
Easterly Project Property Line 100 Feet
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
37
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
and stair well
35 feet or 3 stories,
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
38
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
39
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:
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
40
Two project identification signs shall be permitted for the development at
the entrance off of Highway 101. The total area of both Project
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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
41
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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
42
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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
43
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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
44
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 the City 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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
45
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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
46
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 the City 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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
47
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
48
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 the City 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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
49
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
50
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 the City 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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
51
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
52
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
last meeting, which was then the 16th. 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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
53
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
54
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
55
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
56
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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
57
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
58
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
59
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
60
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,
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
61
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.
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
62
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
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
63
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?
City Council Meeting – June 12, 2006
64
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
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2006
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Mark Undestad, Dan Keefe, Kevin Dillon and Kurt
Papke
MEMBERS ABSENT: Debbie Larson and Deborah Zorn
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Bob Generous,
Senior Planner
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
PUBLIC HEARING:
ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISIONS, AND CHAPTER 20,
ZONING, CHANHASSEN CITY CODE.
Bob Generous presented the proposed revisions to Chapter 18, Subdivisions. Commissioner
Papke asked for clarification on requirements for fencing on retaining walls and infrastructure
connection points. Commissioner Dillon asked for clarification regarding materials.
Commissioner Keefe and Chairman McDonald asked for further clarification on the definition of
retaining walls and when they’re required. Chairman McDonald opened the public hearing on
Chapter 18. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed.
Keefe moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the attached ordinance amending Chapter 18, Subdivisions of the Chanhassen City Code.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Bob Generous presented the proposed revisions to Chapter 20, Zoning. Commissioner Papke
asked for clarification on the wording regarding fencing and the bluff impact zone.
Commissioner Dillon asked for clarification on the issue of outdoor storage regulations.
Commissioner Keefe asked about the possibility of limiting the LED message signs to the
Central Business District. Chairman McDonald opened the public hearing on Chapter 20.
Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive asked for clarification on the changes made to Section 20-645.
Dillon moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20, Zoning, of the Chanhassen City Code as
noted with the changes discussed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously
with a vote of 5 to 0.
Planning Commission Summary – June 6, 2006
2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 16, 2006 as presented.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 6, 2006
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Mark Undestad, Dan Keefe, Kevin Dillon and Kurt
Papke
MEMBERS ABSENT: Debbie Larson and Deborah Zorn
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Bob Generous,
Senior Planner
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
PUBLIC HEARING:
ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISIONS, AND CHAPTER 20,
ZONING, CHANHASSEN CITY CODE.
Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman, commissioners. As you stated this is a public hearing for
amendments on Chapter 18, which is the subdivision ordinance and Chapter 20, which is our
zoning ordinance. The first one. I did hand out tonight some revisions based on the City
Attorney’s review. So there’s new ordinance that correspond with those revisions and then
there’s some background material that goes through it. We last did this in November of 2005’s
amendment so it’s been a little while. For Chapter 18, as February of this year we had a
discussion about including standards for retaining walls, and we finally as part of this process
we’re bringing them forward. As the existing subdivision ordinance requires that they provide
grading plans and we just expanded that to say that if they have retaining walls that meet the
standards, MnDot standards for retaining walls for the larger structures, and that retaining wall’s
over 6 feet in height, located within 10 feet of any public way shall have some type of barrier
provided so people can’t walk over there and fall off accidentally.
Papke: Mr. Chair, are we going to hold questions until the end or in process are we going to
work this thing?
McDonald: We’ll hold questions until he’s done with his presentation.
Generous: Okay, fences or berms shall be installed no closer than 18 inches from a sidewalk or
trail so that bikes don’t run into these fences as they’re going along. Landscaping between stage
retaining walls be of low maintenance because they’re very difficult to access and so you don’t
want to have to try to figure out how to get them repaired. And then instead of stating what
materials can be used, we put the prohibition. Only smooth face concrete. However we would
Planning Commission Meeting – June 6, 2006
2
permit it stamped or patterned concrete which you see on a lot of new construction. We also
wouldn’t allow masonry which is used as mortar to hold it together. Railroad ties or timbers.
The second amendment to the subdivision ordinance, and this is one that has a change is
currently our, as part of our subdivision review we make developers extend infrastructure to their
property line. It’s inferred in the ordinance because it says you have to provide it for all the lots.
However we wanted to make it clear that the city could require it be extended to the end of the
project, so that’s what this is. However we did strike the last clause in that so that it’s, the
developer is required to install public improvements, including but not limited to sanitary sewer,
watermain, storm sewer, and urban streets to the property boundary and we have put a period
there. The City Attorney was concerned that the City Engineer would have too much discretion
so. So that, with that we are recommending approval of adoption of the ordinance for Chapter
18 and that’s the new one here. And I don’t know if you want to ask questions on 18 and then
get into 20?
McDonald: Yeah, I’d rather go ahead and cover them one at a time so that we can be a little bit
more spontaneous in our questions. Does anyone, council members have questions. Kurt?
Papke: Yeah, I had a couple on the retaining wall. A lot of mine had to, you know me. I always
are kind of a stickler for ambiguity. The retaining walls, you don’t stipulate whether it’s
supposed to be at the top or the bottom of the wall.
Generous: For the fencing.
Papke: For the fencing.
Generous: It should be at the top. We don’t want people to fall off.
Papke: So we should probably spell that out because otherwise, you know if I’m trying to
impede access, and also there’s kind of two scenarios. Either the sidewalk is at the top of the
retaining wall, or it’s at the bottom.
Generous: Yeah, and if it’s at the bottom you don’t really, you’re not concerned about people
falling off it.
Papke: Right. So in that case is there no fence required?
Generous: No. No fence would be required if the sidewalk publicly is at the bottom of the
retaining wall.
Papke: So we should probably call that out. So it sounds like, so it sounds like we only need a
fence if the trail or path is at the top of the retaining wall, and there we all need it at the top.
Generous: Right.
Papke: Okay. And then the only other one I had is the last one there. We don’t really spell out,
is this for all streets? Some streets? I mean what. Or is it kind of self evident that the
Planning Commission Meeting – June 6, 2006
3
watermains and so on. Where are they supposed to take them to if the, if I have four different
streets that end at the property line, where do I have to take water and sewer to?
Generous: To seal the next adjacent property is what the intent is, and we’ll know if as part of
our overall sewer plan, where the sewer line is supposed to go to service specific areas. So as
part of our subdivision review we tell them where they need to put that, and so we will determine
where. In some instances we may, if it’s a cul-de-sac we’re not going to have that cul-de-sac
extended to the property line.
Papke: Right. Right.
Aanenson: But I would agree there’s probably some ambiguity that we should clarify. To the
property line and where it determines future extensions are needed. Something like that.
Because it may be in two places, you’re right. It may be one, and it might not even be a street. It
might be a property to the south.
Papke: Yeah. Yeah. That’s all I had.
Dillon: On the retaining wall it prohibits smooth faced concrete, in parenthesis (poured in
place). How about smooth face concrete jus like a pre-fab nature?
Generous: Well if it’s smooth face, no. But it would have to have some type of patterning on it.
Like the pedestrian bridge it has those fake rock things.
Aanenson: Or stamped, yeah.
Generous: Or stamped. Something that’s stamped in it, so it could be a panel too.
Dillon: Because you know lots of times with highway over passes, you know they’ve got these
retaining walls of these pre-fab concrete square looking things, rectangular hooked together and
they’re kind of unsightly, and you know they’re not poured in place. They’re poured somewhere
else and then put in place.
Generous: Well and the poured in place isn’t necessarily as part of this ordinance. That was just
an example.
Aanenson: Right. I think again it might be, you could almost just take poured in place out
because really the intent is…
Dillon: Smooth face concrete is probably sufficient.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Dillon: That’s the comment that I have.
Planning Commission Meeting – June 6, 2006
4
Keefe: Question on retaining walls. Definition of retaining wall is, do we have a minimum
height on that? For retaining wall.
Generous: There’s no minimum height. If it’s over 4 feet then you have to get it engineered
under 4 feet. This is more, this is part of the subdivision ordinance so we’re not going to apply it
when the property owner comes in. They’re going to have that section of the ordinance that
says, if it’s over 4 feet you have to have it engineered.
Keefe: Right, and so in this case this just applies to a new subdivision and there is no minimum
attached to the height. In the retaining wall and subdivision.
Generous: There wouldn’t be but usually we don’t see small.
Keefe: Right, I mean I don’t, do we intend it to be that way?
Aanenson: We talked about that. We did talk about whether we wanted like 8 feet. If we had to
go 15-16 feet, that we do two walls instead of one.
Keefe: Right.
Aanenson: We did have that discussion and I think we decided to take that out but we always
evaluate that with each one when they come in. Typically they’re harder to engineer and we’ve
tried to work, our first choice is to try to reduce as much of the retaining wall as we can. You
know as we move in some of the development areas in the city now, it’s been more challenging
topography, especially as we move south. So there will be more.
Keefe: I guess the question is, it says all proposed retaining walls must be shown on the plan.
At what point do we require them, I mean to have retaining walls? I mean is there specific
design standards who call for them to put in our engineering standards which all for them to have
retaining walls? Is there a definition on that?
Generous: Well that’s more what the engineer’s determine. Where it works to either reduce the
grading. Usually when we require it, it’s to preserve some natural feature.
Aanenson: To save trees. Those sort of things typically, but we did talk about that and I think…
Keefe: So this would be any retaining wall which is either, the engineer would call for or the
City would call for irrespective of height. It’s just any retaining wall?
Generous: Yes.
Keefe: Okay. That’s all I have.
McDonald: Can I follow up on that? Where do the MnDot standards come into play here? Do
they have anything to do with when you do a retaining wall or whether it’s one level or two
levels or anything like that?
Planning Commission Meeting – June 6, 2006
5
Generous: They’re just part of the engineering design for a retaining wall. So if you’re going to
build it this high and hold back this much, this is the setting that you have to put it in.
Aanenson: But I think Commissioner McDonald is right because I think we did talk about that
when Alyson said that, and MnDot has a standard if it’s so high then they want so much
separation between walls and I think that was one of the directions that we talked about. I think
that’s what you’re…we did talk about and we should clarify that. Maybe give a little more
specificity to what that MnDot standard was. But I think there was a separation in height.
McDonald: Yeah, because I thought when we had this discussion, that was why we went with
that because they had studied this and talked about back fill and separation and how high above
you could actually go before you needed to do a step or something.
Aanenson: It is kind of a, it’s a very topical issue right now because as we said, a lot of the
development’s we’re seeing, they have retaining walls. If we said you couldn’t have a retaining
wall, we’d actually be doing some taking because people couldn’t develop. So we’re trying to
find that balance of providing safety and minimizing, yet having some sort of standard in place.
McDonald: I have a question that goes back to the blocks. When we looked at this before we
looked at several pictures where they have the smaller…blocks that stack up. Are we talking
about those type of blocks?
Generous: That would be, they’re moving towards using those bigger blocks now because
they’re more efficient.
McDonald: Okay. Because what this is really aimed at is developers, not people doing
something in their back yards.
Aanenson: Correct.
McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions. And if no one else has any at this point I would
open the meeting up to public comments. Anyone wishing to make comment, please come
forward. Seeing no one come forward, I close the public meeting. I’ll bring it back up for the
commissioners for discussion. Let’s start with Mark. Kurt? No?
Papke: Are we going to vote on these chapter by chapter or are we going to go through all the
chapters or?
McDonald: We’ll go through chapter by chapter.
Papke: So do we vote on the first.
McDonald: Yeah, we’ll do 18 and then we’ll move to 20. I have no comments either. At this
point I’ll accept a motion.
Planning Commission Meeting – June 6, 2006
6
Keefe: I’ll make a motion planning, Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of
the attached ordinance amending Chapter 18, Subdivisions of the Chanhassen City Code.
McDonald: Can I have a second?
Undestad: Second.
Keefe moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the attached ordinance amending Chapter 18, Subdivisions of the Chanhassen City Code.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
McDonald: Staff, will you now give us a report on Chapter 20.
Generous: Chapter 20, Zoning. The first one is in Section 20-58 and it’s just a grammatical
change. When we have multiple criteria, they are plural so these criteria, rather than this and
people actually hold us to this one criteria so we’re going to make that change. Section 20-73,
and that’s the information I handed out tonight. It’s actually the City Attorney told us that we
needed to revise both 20-72 and 20-73. And I’ve provided a strike through and bold format.
Basically he said adopt these state statutes which requires that for non-conforming uses that you
have a period of one year to replace them. And then secondly if it’s destroyed by a fire or other
perils from natural disaster you’d have up to, to the extent no greater than 50% of it’s market
value, then you have to get a building permit within 180 days. That’s probably the biggest
change. Right now our ordinance gives you 2 years for that but it doesn’t specify other fire or
other perils. It just says natural disasters. So that was what we were originally starting to amend
the ordinance to and he came back and provided us with all this language about the State statute.
So 20-72 deals with all non-conforming uses and structures. 20-73 is just non-conforming lots of
record and what we did is took out the first, the old item (a) and actually that’s something non-
conforming uses and structures because it really didn’t apply to the lot. The lots, the non-
conforming lots you can develop them as long as you can meet all the other code requirements.
So we are, and then I also attached the actual section of the State statute so you can see the line
that’s in. It’s pretty faithful to that except for instead of municipality you say the city. There are
things that we go beyond the ordinance and we can require the non-conforming’s can be
superceded by approval of City Council but our ordinance can be a little less stringent than the
State statute but not more. So for, if someone tears down their non-conforming structure, they
have a year to replace it. We couldn’t say you only have 6 months to do that for instance, so
that’s the big change there. Next one in Section 20-645, the council had some concerns about
the closeness of the setback in the RLM districts between single family detached housing. We’re
coming back with a 5 and 10 foot setback requirement. 5 from the garage and 10 on the other
side. Or if you have two garages together, a minimum of 15 foot separation between structures,
so they’ve got a little more separation in there and that’s what that change was. 20-905, single
family dwellings. This is one we’ve been having difficulties with the new construction where
people come in and they’ll show a house plan and they’ll have a patio door and nothing outside it
and they’ll be at 25% impervious and we say, well you can’t do that because you’re going to put
a patio on and that will put you over. And they said no, no, no. That’s not going to happen so
this then is, if you show that on the plan, we’re going to assume that there’s at least 100 square
feet of impervious area, unless it’s connected to some structure.
Planning Commission Meeting – June 6, 2006
7
Aanenson: And again this has been a kind of buyer beware issue that, and you get stuck with the
problem because the builder turns the problem over to the homeowner. As soon as they get in,
they want to put the deck and the patio in because they don’t want to come through the mud to
come into the house and they’re at maximized at impervious. And legally they can build to the
maximum but then it’s forcing them, the homeowner, without their prior knowledge when you’re
buying, to get a variance and we don’t want to be the bad guys so we want the builder to show,
do a better job of disclosure about they’re putting in a patio. That there’s a minimum patio but
there’s a minimum expectation that they’re providing some sort of space.
Keefe: So just clarification. This in effect says 100 feet less than the 25%.
Aanenson: Correct. So if for some reason.
Generous: For each doorway or access point.
Keefe: Oh, for each.
Generous: Unless it’s connected to a, show us a sidewalk that’s going up to the front of the
house, a stoop or some other improvement. Also to further clarify that, we also said and this
under 10 by 10 area has to comply with all the setback requirements.
Aanenson: We’ve had one where the, the patio door goes right up to the setback so then you’re
forcing another variance. So while we can’t, the ordinance right now as interpreted by our City
Attorney, we can’t stop that but it’s really not you know for the homeowner to understand on that
issue and we try to take that burden away from them.
McDonald: So this really forces the discussion of a variance up front.
Aanenson: Correct.
McDonald: Where they come to us with either the subdivision plans or.
Dillon: If they don’t, what if they just have you know, it’s not on the plan. You assume 10 by
10 and they don’t build a patio so it’s a house without a patio. And then the homeowner wants to
do something that’s bigger than 10 by 10, will they then have to do the variance?
Aanenson: Yes.
Generous: If they exceed the site coverage or setback or whatever.
Aanenson: Because right now we’re having all kinds of funny little things happen. People
trying to leave off front sidewalks, you know things that make the house inferior, which we don’t
think is the right approach. They should design, or get a bigger lot. Pick a different lot for that
home or make a different home size instead of trying to make it inferior. So yeah, it happens.
Sometimes people don’t put a patio and the next buyer doesn’t understand it. Because if they say
Planning Commission Meeting – June 6, 2006
8
we’ll have the buyer disclose it at the sell. Well it might not happen with the first two years. It
might be sold and then someone else gets stuck with the problem. It just creates a lot of ill will.
McDonald: Next.
Generous: Okay, next is 20-909. Outdoor storage. Again this is one where the City Attorney
objected to our language. He said, well the way you’re changing it, you’re going to permit
storage in front yards because you took out that setback requirement. And then if you go to the
overhead, so what we did is drafted this revised ordinance. Revised language that says continued
storage of boats, all terrain vehicles, snowmobiles and trailers may be stored in the side or rear
yard behind the required front setback if owned by the resident or owner, lessee of the property
and subject to the following. Such storage may not extend beyond the front of the principle
structure. On corner and double fronting lots the front of the structure shall be defined as a side
access by a driveway to the public street. And the illustration up on the screen just shows the
area in blue would be all that area that would be prohibited from having storage of trailers and
it’s up to the setback and specifically then we had the bottom lot is a double fronting lot and it
showed that you’d have to meet the 30 foot setback on both ends, and then you’d have that
whole middle area that you could store in. On the top right corner it shows a corner lot. Or in
the top left and how you have to meet the 30 foot setback on the right side that’s farther back
from the property line so you could have a storage area right next to the structure there or on the
other side, but on the north property you’re not, I assume the 30 foot setback to the house and so
they would have to be behind that structure, so they had a limited area. But this is, we’ve been
getting complaints about people storing things in front yards and the neighbors seem to object to
that quite a bit so we wanted to make it clear that it has to be behind the front of the house.
Because under the existing language, if the house is back 50 feet, after the first 30 feet they could
put a trailer in. Because that’s required front setback. So that’s the change to outdoor storage.
Next change is Section 20-1019. This is on fences and we’re adding a section on bluffs that we,
they have to maintain the structure setback from the bluff for fences. It can’t be in the buffer
yard or the 30 foot setback. There are concerns at the top of bluff that any alterations are going
to start erosion issues and so this is more a health, safety issue for us. Next is Section 20-1124.
This is the parking standards and Sharmeen had brought this back when we looked at that
apartment building on 101 and our old standards required one enclosed stall and one parking stall
and that was adequate and so we’re just moving back to that. We looked at other communities
and our ordinance seemed excessive and we haven’t had parking problems for apartments. So
we’re recommending that it go back to the one stall enclosed.
McDonald: Can I ask you a question on that before you go on? The thing that brought this up
was that development that’s going in over on 101. With this new ordinance would they now
have, be able to meet that requirement?
Generous: Yes.
Aanenson: Correct.
Generous: Section 20-1255. There’s two sections. These are signs that are people are able to
put out without a permit and so for development they could have 3 or 4 different signs put in the
Planning Commission Meeting – June 6, 2006
9
front of it. We want them to consolidate that if they’re going to put them up, but also that they,
we don’t get a proliferation of signs. Especially if you get multiple developments in an area. So
when we have the construction sign and the project advertising sign combined and then you get
the bigger area for the construction advertising and you can split it up however the developer
wants consistent with what his contractor would like so. Section 20-1259. This is, right now we
allow motion signs or electronic message signs by conditional use permit but we didn’t have any
standards and so we tried to come up with standards. We had Josh had reviewed other
communities. Most communities don’t allow them. We have, and you know so that they have a
purpose and, but however we don’t want them to be a safety issue so we don’t want the flashing
signs in there and we don’t want it to cause, be excessively bright. We want to have a separation
from residential neighborhoods so that you don’t get the light into the house at the night. We did
contact some companies to see what the standards were. Originally we had a maximum nit that
we were going to propose in here but they say that changing technology, you know may be
superceded right away so you don’t want to do that. You just, you don’t want it to be
excessively bright. And again, if it’s a sign, we don’t want it scrolling around and distract people
while they’re driving. They have one message out there and then it can change over time. And
then the standards for it. Finally we would prohibit an agriculture or single family residential
zoning districts.
McDonald: Can I ask you a question about bright. It sounds as though it becomes kind of a
subjective. Shouldn’t there be a, what’s the standard? Who’s to say what’s bright? I mean if
you go out and tell a guy his sign’s bright, he’s going to tell you no, it’s not.
Generous: We’ve had that issue before and if we get multiple people agree that it’s bright and
we have them, there’s ways to reduce the intensity of lighting without actually changing the sign.
McDonald: Why don’t you want to go with the standard? If you’re saying that.
Generous: Well because, the standard, the average brightness I believe was 5,000 nits and with
new technology and they’re making that measurement more, they could make it more brighter. I
don’t know the technical, the details on that and so.
Aanenson: How about it be something that we can look at…
McDonald: …setting us up for a problem there.
Generous: When it was originally drafted that was one of the things I was looking at and they
you know, they said the recommendation was that we not adopt the standards but we can get
more information on that.
Aanenson: And that was the sign company that recommended that.
Generous: And then in Section 20-1267 also deals with signs and our ordinance says you have
to provide individual dimension letters but we don’t have any, what’s the minimum dimension
and so we’re just putting this, and this is about an average minimum that we see. Usually the
individual letters are bigger, 4 to 8 inches but when they put a panel in, we say well you can have
Planning Commission Meeting – June 6, 2006
10
the panel but you have to stamp letters and how big. Is it 8 inch enough? No, that really doesn’t
provide the differentiation that you want to see so half inch was like I said the minimum that
we’ve been seeing on these panel signs that are coming in now. And that’s it so staff’s
recommending approval of the revised ordinance which is in the stuff I handed you today. And
incorporated those changes that I talked about from the city attorney and with that I’d be happy
to answer any additional questions you have.
McDonald: Kurt, you want to start? You have any questions?
Papke: I just had one simple one. On the fences and within the bluff impact zone. It’s not clear
to me, could you explain how a fence could be inside the, or inside the 20 foot bluff impact and
not be within, it just sounds like it’s redundant. Couldn’t we just say within the 30 foot.
Generous: The 30 foot. We could actually eliminate the buffer. Can’t be in the buffer if you
have to meet the setback, you’re right.
Papke: Yeah, it’s just confusing because they’re both in there. That was the only comment I
had.
Generous: Originally that was intended to where the wetland ordinance which allows you to set
it within the setback, but it has to be out of the wetland buffer. But that has, the Forester said
you know that wasn’t a really good idea to get any encroachment into that area.
McDonald: Kevin.
Dillon: For the section that deals with the storage of boats, all terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, etc,
and they can’t be in front of the principle structure. I mean would it be practical or you know
politically even feasible just to say they can’t be, or they only can be stored behind the house and
not on the side at all?
Aanenson: Well go to your map real quick Bob and just show you where the problems are of
being on a corner lot.
Generous: Yeah this one they literally.
Aanenson: This one right here, if you wanted to store something on this side of the house…this
one too, it’d probably be more practical to do, if you wanted to do some side yard storage.
Generous: A lot of people will put the driveway in and then they have a turnout to park their
trailer in that area.
Dillon: And I think they’re an eyesore myself but I mean that’s.
Aanenson: Yeah, we did a survey of this a number of years ago. Came up at council regarding
so many, because we have so many lakes, especially in summer people want easy access to get
their boat in and out. That seemed to be a problem and there’s a different section of the code that
Planning Commission Meeting – June 6, 2006
11
talks about RV’s because sometimes people park an RV for a day or two in the front yard. That
happens. So it’s long term storage of boats, especially in the summer. Or in the winter it
reverses and it’s a snowmobile where people want easy access where they, as Bob just showed
you on that, they can kind of slip out the driveway and have it in that part of the side yard. It’s
kind of a good neighbor. When we went through a different ordinance that we proposed, I think
it went to the Planning Commission. We talked about, when we talk about canopies. We had
people trying to do boat canopies. Those also can be an eyesore. Some subdivisions have
ordinances. Their homeowners association has standards also that restrict how those apply. That
they don’t allow those so this is, for those areas that don’t have that regulation.
Dillon: I was thinking more about the snowmobiles out there in the summer.
Aanenson: Yeah. Or both tied up in the back yard all winter. Yeah.
Dillon: Right. I mean I.
Aanenson: We could pass that point on. I think that.
Dillon: I understand that.
Aanenson: That would bring a few people to argue.
Papke: There’s a lot of people that store boats.
Dillon: I don’t know. I mean I, I know it’s impractical for a lot of people to do it anywhere else.
Aanenson: Right, and that’s what we’re really trying to put, at this time of year we get a lot of
complaints in the spring about people don’t always put it in the back yard and people are trying
to sell their house and they you know, and that’s, so we just try to say at a minimum screen them.
And some people do nice fencing along the side to screen them a little bit more. Landscaping
and just try to create that uniformity.
Papke: I’ve got kind of a related question. I have a neighbor who has a berm in the front yard
and he regularly parks his boat in his driveway off to the side but you can’t see it as you drive by.
And he’d be prevented from doing that. I don’t know, do we want to say anything about
visibility? But then that’s kind of a slippery slope.
Aanenson: It is.
Papke: If I have a pine tree in my front yard, then you know in theory nobody can see it.
Aanenson: Right. We’ve actually had that a lot too where people have actually tried to slide
them underneath pine trees so you can’t see but the one neighbor still can across the street and
it’s all up, it’s really, what we discovered with the carport thing, there’s, every neighborhood has
a different tolerance level and it’s just a fact in the city. There’s just different tolerance levels
Planning Commission Meeting – June 6, 2006
12
and people have different expectations so they try to be really consistent. Some of the older
neighborhoods have different rules.
Papke: What’s the enforcement like on this? Who does this get reported to?
Aanenson: Some of them go through the CSO’s. The Community Service Officer and some of
them come through us.
Generous: Through planning.
Aanenson: To planning.
Dillon: That’s the only comment that I have.
Keefe: The message sign shall not be located in Ag or single family. Do we consider limiting
them just to the Central Business District?
Aanenson: Yeah, well you know the other thing if you look at, we have Office Institutional, for
example you just looked at Chapel Hill. I mean I think that was when we originally looked at
LED signs, that was kind of the intent that they would be kind of more message boards. You
know like the high school when they’ve got activities. The schools or community centers, those
sort of things would have it. And then we kind of started.
Keefe: Feels more urban, you know.
Aanenson: Yeah, well and you know more people using them. Walgreen’s. All the banks pretty
much have them now, so it’s kind of proliferating out.
Keefe: Of downtown, right.
Aanenson: Yeah, right. But the school district, that was an issue we had, we talked about how
to minimize that at night so we, the Planning Commission recommended that that, and that
hasn’t gone to council. That will be on for the 12th too. Limit the hours so it’s not bright at night
because it’s more of a residential feel but that’s, in OI zoning district it isn’t a problem because
it’s office institutional right here in that zoning, yeah.
Keefe: You know it says it can’t be distracting to traffic but I mean they’re so eye catching, I
don’t know how they can’t be distracting.
Generous: Well the flashing is the thing that we were mostly concerned with.
Aanenson: That might be something that, yeah if you wanted us to look at it for like.
McDonald: But I thought the purpose of them is to catch your eye.
Keefe: Well they do a good job of that.
Planning Commission Meeting – June 6, 2006
13
Aanenson: Yeah, so whether it’s commercial or what, you know you can kind of take two
approaches which we talked about whether it’s, who uses it. What type of uses do you want to
assign those to or what zoning district.
Keefe: So where do we have them outside of the Central Business District?
Papke: We just approved a landscaper in southern Chanhassen.
Aanenson: Yeah, that was an issue. Yeah…
Keefe: I mean you just see this sort of, you know once they get them all over, then we end up
becoming.
Aanenson: That’s a valid discussion. I mean if we want to continue to have them. That’s what
we looked at capping the square footage on and you know you said something, maybe you want
to restrict to more limited.
Undestad: Personal opinions.
Papke: Just kind of a personal antidote, I mean I think they get more distracting as you get older.
I was visiting my mother recently and she was complaining about all these signs and how they’re
so distracting. I think it’s, part of it’s attention span and as our population ages, all of us old farts
are going to have more and more of an issue as we get older with this stuff.
Aanenson: Just more things coming at you.
Papke: More things coming at you to confuse your eyes.
Keefe: Well and you know, we’re sort of at the beginning of these new signs coming into
Chanhassen and we’re all like, if we let them go, we’re not going to be able to go back.
Aanenson: Right.
Keefe: Once they’re in place, they’re in place.
Aanenson: And I think it’s a good time to talk about that, and that’s why we put it on. It’s like
it’s really something, do we feel like that’s something we want in the community?
Undestad: What else is coming when the freeway comes through and.
Aanenson: Right, right. Right, do we want…
Papke: It just seems like in the downtown business district, I mean you’ve got movie theaters. I
mean it’s just really fitting, but you know, along Pioneer Trail.
Planning Commission Meeting – June 6, 2006
14
Aanenson: Let me back up. LED’s are only permitted under conditional use. These would be
the standards. But you can’t deny a conditional use. You can only do it, put standards to
mitigate the impact. Square footage and that sort of thing but so, so that might be something you
want to change too, or to look at because, and that goes back to what you were talking about.
Maybe there’s just only certain instances you want to do. Some of the conditions on the
conditional use is, I think even on the bank they’re asked to do community messaging. Such as
the February Festival, those sort of things, that we ask them to put some of those things on too.
Keefe: If we were to limit this to the Central Business District, and it’s under conditional use
correct? They come in and apply for a variance to the conditional use permit or?
Aanenson: They can always apply for a variance.
Keefe: So they could come in and still apply for a particular sign that could be in another zone.
Aanenson: And we believe.
Keefe: That would be a variance to the conditional use, is that correct?
Generous: If the standard was adopted.
Keefe: Yeah, if the standard was adopted as such.
Aanenson: Yeah, because I do believe the movie theater was given a variance to, I think it was
the height of that LED sign and the nexus to that was that the Planning Commission and the City
Council felt like, because that was the only movie theater in town, that there seemed to be some
relationship that that might be one loud sign that made some sense so that’s why that one got
approved at that height and that big.
Keefe: Well you know if we’re sort of in the middle of an industrial park or something along
those lines, you know why wouldn’t we allow a variance in that situation? I just feel a concern if
you start seeing them along every retail corner. You know commercial use…
Aanenson: Yeah, I think we were too. It’s a lot of distractions.
Keefe: Right, and I don’t necessarily, I don’t know. Maybe somebody else has some thoughts
on this?
McDonald: Well one thing I was wondering, what other communities have got standards on
this? Has anybody really done any look?
Generous: As part of this we did look at some communities. Like I said, most of them prohibit.
Eden Prairie said they prohibit it but, we’ve seen them out there so we did, we did look out there.
Most of them don’t have standards. They just say you can do it and.
Aanenson: Or they’re approved with a variance as part of a site plan or whatever.
Planning Commission Meeting – June 6, 2006
15
McDonald: Well I understand the intent is that we don’t become a Las Vegas where everything
is just neon signs and everything but, if we make this such that we’re going to have a lot of
variances, we’re going to have a lot of people probably coming up here and how in the world do
you begin to judge because you hurt a person’s business because they can’t get everyone’s
attention. I mean that will be the big argument.
Aanenson: Well I think, in the fact that we already restrict the size of sign proportionality to
building size and that sort of thing already, I think there can be some reasonable regulations on
that.
McDonald: Yeah, we’re okay I think as far as size and everything, but if we start talking about
where you can go. Now central business district and those kind of things, what’s the central
business district? You know it can, it is changing.
Aanenson: It’s a zoning district. It is a zoning district, yeah. It’s the most intense one.
Keefe: I mean they’re limiting it here by saying you can’t do it in…so they’re selecting that.
And that was my point. Do we want to select where they can go?
McDonald: Well there’s so many ways to look in a particular area. If it’s more residential than
it is business…
Papke: Right now in single family though, I mean it kind of opens up for multi-family or RLM.
Aanenson: Flashing the rent. You know vacancies, yeah.
Keefe: How many zoning districts do we have? 15 or 16? Something like that.
Aanenson: Yeah, you could put all residential instead of saying single family. That might be
more appropriate.
McDonald: Well I guess I’d be more in favor, at least right now we’ve got something. And
we’re probably going to have to look at everything on a case by case basis and then we’ll learn
from that. We can make changes from there but at least this will give us some control. Isn’t that
what staff feels is that at least we can say.
Generous: Well yeah. We have some standards if they come in bigger because right now it’s a
conditional use or nothing.
Undestad: Yeah, but we can’t deny conditional use so…
Generous: Just put reasonable standards.
McDonald: But at least we can put standards on, we’ve got that.
Planning Commission Meeting – June 6, 2006
16
Keefe: So many we amend this to say all residential zoning districts, instead of just single
family.
Generous: Or just single family.
Keefe: Right, for all residential zoning districts. Because then that would leave what, CB?
Generous: Well commercial and industrial and office.
Keefe: We’d have commercial and industrial office. So it’s a fair compromise. All residential.
McDonald: Well at this point then I would open the floor for public comments, if anyone wishes
to make comments on this particular Section 20. Please come forward to the podium. State your
name and address and address the council.
Debbie Lloyd: Good evening. Deb Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I’m here about Section 645.
The RLM district.
McDonald: Was that 20-645?
Debbie Lloyd: Yes. Sorry. Point 5. I don’t know if you have the present ordinance in front of
you. I’m sorry I missed getting here earlier. That presently for single family dwellings there is a
5 foot setback for the side yard. For the two family dwellings and the RLM district, there’s a 10
foot and for townhomes or multiple family units there’s 10 feet. So really if you change the
ordinance, you’re affecting the two family dwelling and the townhouse and multiple family
dwellings. Is that correct Bob?
Generous: No, this would only apply to the single family.
Debbie Lloyd: Well according to the code that I just printed off the internet it says the side yard
is 5 feet.
Generous: Right, for single family. This is subsection 5(a). There’s a 5(b) and a 5(c).
Debbie Lloyd: Right. 5(b) and (c) is what I just mentioned.
Generous: Yeah, those apply to 2. We’re only applying this to the single family section.
Keefe: This is to 5(a).
Debbie Lloyd: Right, and what is the change?
Generous: We’re adding.
Aanenson: Increasing it.
Planning Commission Meeting – June 6, 2006
17
Generous: Increasing the setback to 10 feet on one side and 5 on the other.
Keefe: So you’d have 15 between.
Aanenson: Making it greater.
Debbie Lloyd: Okay, making it greater.
Aanenson: Yeah, for the single family to be a little bit more consistent. Kind of traditional
home.
Debbie Lloyd: Right.
Undestad: So we’re not changing it…
Aanenson: That’s correct.
Debbie Lloyd: Oh okay.
Aanenson: And that came out of the feedback, when we did the last subdivision. The first
subdivision we did on the RLM, they’ve agreed to the 5 and 10 and then the council wanted us to
address that.
Debbie Lloyd: Okay. Good. I misread this. I thought, yeah.
Aanenson: It’s okay.
Keefe: That’s why we have the questions.
Debbie Lloyd: Well because I didn’t want to see any more reduction. Particularly because we
do allow parking between units and single family homes. You probably discussed that.
Aanenson: Yeah…some of the storage and stuff.
Debbie Lloyd: Yeah, and because the community too likes to keep some green space.
Aanenson: Yep. Yep.
Debbie Lloyd: Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to make comment? Seeing no one else come
forward, I’ll close the public meeting and I’ll bring it back before the commissioners for
discussion. Mark.
Undestad: No more here.
Planning Commission Meeting – June 6, 2006
18
McDonald: Dan.
Keefe: I’ve already discussed it.
McDonald: Okay, I have no discussions either. Looking for a motion.
Dillon: Motion to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission approval of the attached
ordinance amending Chapter 20, Zoning of the Chanhassen City Code.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Undestad: Second.
Dillon moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the attached ordinance amending Chapter 20, Zoning, of the Chanhassen City Code as
noted with the changes discussed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously
with a vote of 5 to 0.
McDonald: Motion passes unanimously. Okay.
Papke: How about the dropping of the single family, or yeah, the single family piece?
Generous: For the LED signs.
Keefe: For the LED signs. Do we need to add that in?
Generous: If it was clear, would you incorporate that?
Aanenson: So noted. With the changes. There were a couple of them.
McDonald: We did discuss those and you did agree to…Okay, so noted.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 16, 2006 as presented.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
MAY 23, 2006
Chairman Stolar called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Glenn Stolar, Jack Spizale, Jeff Daniel, Anne Murphy, Steve
Scharfenberg, Paula Atkins, and Tom Kelly
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; and Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Superintendent
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Dick Mingo 7601 Great Plains Boulevard 952-934-7236
Harold Lund 20 Kelly Road 952-448-2381
Mike Poppitz 630 West 1st Street, Chaska 952-451-9360
Adam Dittrich 1960 Trillium Court 952-230-9714
Bob Meuwissen 201 West 77th Street 952-934-7433
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Spizale moved, Murphy seconded to approve the agenda as
presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Todd Hoffman announced the opening of the Lake Susan
Park playground.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Harold Lund, as a member of the Chanhassen Legion,
requested the addition of a new ballpark for an amateur baseball team and legion team over by
Lake Susan Park. Dick Mingo provided a historical view of baseball in Chanhassen and
surrounding areas over the past 50 plus years. Mike Poppitz, who currently coaches a Class B
team in Victoria, presented information on the current state of baseball in the area. Adam
Dittrich provided a player’s perspective of what town ball could bring to the community.
Commissioner Daniel asked for an explanation of why the team was moving out of Victoria, if
there is money in the budget and a timeframe for construction. Commissioner Spizale asked
about the availability of Lake Susan Park for such a ballpark. Chairman Stolar directed staff to
put this item on the next agenda for discussion.
Daniel moved, Atkins seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission direct staff to
put discussion of the town team ballpark on the next agenda. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Park and Rec Commission Summary – May 23, 2006
2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Spizale moved, Murphy seconded to approve the verbatim
and summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated April 25,
2006 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7
to 0.
SKATE PARK ATTENDANT PROGRAM. Jerry Ruegemer presented the staff report on
this item and reviewed the application process the City is undertaking to hire an attendant for the
skate park. The commission asked for clarification on funding for the new position, possible
duties, time commitment and enforcement. This was an informational item only. No action was
needed.
RECREATION PROGRAM REPORTS:
LAKE ANN PARK SUMMER SCHEDULE. Jerry Ruegemer presented the update on
activities at Lake Ann Park.
2006 SUMMER PROGRAMS. Jerry Ruegemer provided an update on what’s planned for
summer programs in 2006.
SELF SUPPORTING PROGRAMS: 2006 ADULT SOFTBALL UPDATE. Jerry
Ruegemer presented the update on the adult softball league.
ADMINISTRATIVE: PRESENTATION OF THE 2006 PARK AND TRAIL MAP, CO-
SPONSORED BY BOKOO BIKES. Todd Hoffman reviewed the process of designing and
printing the maps, and presented the 2006 park and trail map for the City of Chanhassen.
Chairman Stolar asked about putting golf courses and the Chanhassen Rec Center on the map.
Todd Hoffman thanked the commission for their work on the playground equipment replacement
program in the city’s parks.
Scharfenberg moved, Spizale seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried with a vote of 7 to 0.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 23, 2006
Chairman Stolar called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Glenn Stolar, Jack Spizale, Jeff Daniel, Anne Murphy, Steve
Scharfenberg, Paula Atkins, and Tom Kelly
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; and Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Superintendent
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Dick Mingo 7601 Great Plains Boulevard 952-934-7236
Harold Lund 20 Kelly Road 952-448-2381
Mike Poppitz 630 West 1st Street, Chaska 952-451-9360
Adam Dittrich 1960 Trillium Court 952-230-9714
Bob Meuwissen 201 West 77th Street 952-934-7433
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Spizale moved, Murphy seconded to approve the agenda as
presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Stolar: Todd or Jerry, any announcements?
Hoffman: None other than the opening of the Lake Susan playground, which has been out of
commission since last August and so we’re happy to have that open and the commissioners
visited that this evening and I think the community is slowly learning day by day that it’s open
and there may also be a newspaper article coming soon so that will help spread the word.
Stolar: Great. Thank you and thanks again for the picnic tonight.
Hoffman: You’re welcome.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Harold Lund: Thank you. I’m Harold Lund. I’m here in regards to the ballpark…present to
Todd.
Hoffman: You don’t have to talk right into it. There you go.
Park and Rec Commission – May 23, 2006
2
Harold Lund: Okay. And I’m here, actually I’m a member of the Chan Legion also and the
reason we’re here is we want to have a new ballpark for an amateur team over by Lake Susan
and we’ve done some tough ground work and a ballpark that already is there, we are now an
established team in Victoria. I have the coach, Dick Mingo and another representative who will
probably want to get up and say a few words too. But our biggest concern is, I think the
community is ready for it with a new school coming in and we would like to have also our own
legion team besides an amateur team here. The park down, the ideal spot and what happens a lot
of times in amateur baseball, a lot of the communities get on a state tournament and sometimes
that generates about $50,000 and you have to have like say we have a park here and then say a
park in Chaska for example. So you have to have two parks because it’s that big. I’ve had the
fortune to be in state tournament…for Victoria so I had a chance to be there and see what it’s all
about and amateur ball is really a great entertainment for the little kids. It’s a clean sport. You
don’t have any rowdiness or anything going on. I think it’s just an asset to Chanhassen. A lot of
these people up here, I know this young man, I know last fall I hadn’t seen him for a long time
but it’s just here to try to convince you folks there’s a need and I would like to have, I’d like to
have Dick Mingo come up too because Dick too is a resident here and at one time was a player
here. And he works with the Twins groups and he gets a lot of, around a lot of places and has a
lot of connections so he’d probably give you more feed than me. If you want to talk about
painting I could do a better job. But thank you anyway.
Stolar: Thank you.
Hoffman: Dick’s been at this podium a couple times anyway.
Dick Mingo: And they should have never built that Goddard School. Good evening. My name
is Dick Mingo, 7601 Great Plains Boulevard. Long time resident here in Chanhassen. About 50
some years and really it was baseball that brought me to this town and found a life for me
playing here. I played for Excelsior, Minnesota back in 1949 and 50 and then in 1949 Excelsior,
we had a hell of a team. We wound up winning the Class A tournament. In those days there
were three classes. There was Class AA where the town teams could pay an unlimited number
of players and the major league of that was a 7 inning where we had Austin and Albert Lea and
Rochester and Winona and they were paying guys and giving them jobs and they were making
better money there, playing that kind of ball than they were playing AA pro ball. And then the
Class A ball, which was what Excelsior was in, where you could bring in 3 players that you
could pay during the season and any other player had to live within a 15 mile radius and then
there was Class B where you could not have anyone that lived outside of a 15 mile radius. Well
Chanhassen at that time was Class B, and it just so happened the same year Excelsior went to the
State tournament, which was at Detroit Lakes that year, Chanhassen was in that tournament.
Had a nice little ball club. All home town kids playing up there in Detroit Lakes. Well it turned
out that in 1952 I was about to get drafted and I was working for a cement contractor out of
Excelsior. I’m telling you life history… I’m digressing a little bit but I was working for a guy
named Lenny S. A cement contractor and it just so happened that one of his workers was Arnie
Sayer who happens to be from Chanhassen. His sons live here now and he said well why don’t
you come over and play a few games for Chanhassen before you leave for the service, because I
was being drafted and I was leaving shortly so I did that. To make a long story short, I wound up
being kind of a lifetime resident after Chanhassen, or after getting out of the service. So I played
Park and Rec Commission – May 23, 2006
3
here in ’52 and then when I come out of the service in ’54 I played there one or two years and
wound up teaching school at Waconia so then I moved there because that’s how I got the job.
Catching for the Waconia baseball team, and eventually I left there and came back here to kind
of revitalize the team. Things had kind of fallen on hard times here. We had a really nice club
here for a number of years, and so anyhow, I’m here basically to plug that we try and bring town
baseball back here because I think we’ve got enough young kids. I’m just keeping my fingers
crossed that we get our own high school. I’ve been after that for years really and it finally looks
like it’s going to come into fruition. But we should have our own town baseball park. I’d like to
see us get lights. I’d like to see us get dugouts. We’ve got a nice field down here. We put
dugouts in there and put a nice grandstand up and I mentioned that I was, the reason I worked for
the Minnesota Twins. I worked for them for 17 years traveling around, putting on baseball
clinics throughout the upper Midwest. Last year we were heading out to Watertown. We had a
client which by the way, we’re going to be there a weekend after next but I told a couple of guys
I work with, this is the worst ballpark in the State of Minnesota, because it used to be. It was
a…couple little wooden bleachers. Just a crummy ballpark. Well we drive out there and man oh
man. Could believe it. They’ve got a beautiful stone stadium basically, with a grandstand
behind it with concession stands. Everything you need. Press box. Just great. And they’re
telling me what they’ve done out there to pay for that, every new home that goes in out there,
they’ve got a, I don’t know what you’d call it. $1,000 feet that’s tacked onto the building permit
or something to pay for that, and then the Lion’s Club has put up a great, big hall adjacent to the
ballpark for picnics and that kind of thing. So I was just dumbfounded. So it would be just
fantastic if we could get that, and then we have lights. Our high school team could play night
games here, when the weather gets nice, like today. Our Legion team, which we would have one
of our own could play in lights. Our town baseball team could play there. And I’m sure we’d
probably have a Babe Ruth team, kids like that that also could play in there at night when their
parents can watch them because let’s face it, it’s pretty tough for parents who’ve got youngsters
playing ball to go watch their kids play in the afternoon. They’ve got jobs. It’s tough to get
away and do that but if we play a few night games when the weather’s nice, it’d be no problem.
We could do that. And you could have other community activities of course going on in there.
And I know that’s expensive but I pushed for this and pushing for a town golf course but that,
maybe someday that will come to fruition too when I’m dead and gone but I really encourage
this to go ahead and try to put us up a nice facility. We’ve got beautiful softball fields. That’s
great, but how about the baseball? I’d really love to see that come to pass here and I’d be willing
to put in a lot of time to help you folks out. In fact I’m also going to go the Twins. You know
the Twins have got a deal where they’ve been carrying money in a pot for building of fields in
various communities all over the upper Midwest, and they think if we put an application in, we
could get some money from the Twins also to help in the future additions to that park down
there, because I think that’s a pretty nice ballpark. There are some drawbacks to it. I don’t know
exactly how much parking we’ve got down there, but I think it could be made into just one real
neat facility that this community could be proud of, and would allow their youngsters to play
down there. The first couple years and we probably would have a team. Obviously we’d
probably bring a couple ringers in to play for us until we get a little more mature group, because
I was known for that. I was Ringer Mingo. I used to bring in all kinds of outside players. I
brought them to Waconia. I brought them in here…and I think we’ll remember that when we
have some of these kids. And I want to share one more little side light. I said if we indeed
would ever get this to pass, I would love to see us name that ballpark after Lawrence. No one
Park and Rec Commission – May 23, 2006
4
ever called him Lawrence, Boogey Wraser. Boogey Wraser was with this town team from day
one way back, I think it started about ’46. Lou Bongaard had a shop in there where he sold
tractors and stuff like that. Farm equipment and he was the guy that got things started, but
Boogey Wraser played with team from the beginning and during all the tough years, Boogey was
here. Working on the ballpark. In fact when we built the third park, because this is really the
park we had down there, the last one was the third park. Boogey’s brother and myself, the three
of us more or less built that park. Boogey and his brother brought in a tractor and we would drag
it and we did work on it and the Legion helped to furnish the money and we were able to move
the ballpark from the north side of the highway, which at that time didn’t exist. In fact that’s
why we had to build a third park because the highway went through the middle of it and we
moved it to the south side. But I would love to see us name that field Boogey Wraser Field if it
ever comes to pass. I guess I’ve used up a lot of time here but thank you very much.
Stolar: Thank you.
Harold Lund: I’d have the coach come up here and talk a little bit. That coaches the Vick’s.
…Mike you want to get up?
Mike Poppitz: Good evening. I’m not a very good speaker. I’m sort of rough so just bear with
me. Currently we have a team in Victoria that’s called the Vick’s. It’s a Class B team which has
a very good level of baseball. We have a good team. I mean we have a team that’s, this year
again we’ll compete for a State berth. The kids are young. Our average age is probably 22. Our
core is like 27-28 year old guys, so they’re going to be around for a while. I would hope for
another 6-7 years at least. They will give you some very good baseball to watch and we do come
over here. We do accept us…baseball team. We’ve talked about this over the last couple of
weeks. The guys are set for coming over to Chanhassen to play next year. I mean we’ve had
nothing but horror stories. I could tell you stories about Victoria in the last 5 years but I’m not
going to get into it because it’s a long ways from Halloween but. If we come over, it isn’t going
to be, you know we’re not going to be trying to wedge you guys against those people on that
stuff. We’d just make a 100% commitment to this town and give you the best possible program,
the best possible we can give. And we do have kids from Champlin on the team right now
because we have no place really to put in Chaska or with us, whatever, and they play for us and
you know, like I say. It’s a young group. It’s a fun group. Last year one game away from
winning the State tournament so that’s not a bad team. Especially playing in the section that we
play in. There’s Chaska, Shakopee, Jordan, Prior Lake and us and now Green Isle’s coming into
it too so. It’s probably, if not the second toughest section in the whole State of Minnesota for
Class B baseball. So you will see some quality baseball so, I just hope that you accept this
because we’re willing to come. And we’d be, you know one thing I tell my guys is that
whatever, you know whatever you do, you respect the town that you’re playing for and you
respect the uniform that you’re in and they do. And they’ll, I mean they will do nothing to
disgrace your town. If they do, they’re not with us. They’re gone. Okay? Thank you.
Harold Lund: I’ve got to get the banker up here.
Hoffman: Is he writing a loan?
Park and Rec Commission – May 23, 2006
5
Adam Dittrich: Hi everybody. I work down at the Americana Community Bank here in
Chanhassen. Actually live in Victoria. I’m I think the only player that lives in Victoria and
plays on the team. And I guess I don’t have a whole lot to add to what these guys said other
than, I grew up in New Ulm in southern Minnesota which is kind of baseball central and it really
is an asset to a city to have something that on Friday nights and Saturday nights, Sunday
afternoons, people can get together and see some good quality baseball. Not have to go and pay
$5.00 for a beer and $30.00 to sit behind home plate or whatever. Just come out and see some
guys that are really out there to play for fun. I think it would be a great asset. I went down and
took a look at Lake Susan today. The basics of what’s there are really nice. Could make a really
nice setting. I don’t know if you’ve all had a chance, if you haven’t, I’d encourage you to go
watch a, pick-up a game in Jordan or Chaska, Prior Lake, any of those other teams we talked
about that we play against. It’s really a fun atmosphere and something I think the city can enjoy
with the sounds of future prospects for a Legion team to have a facility like that, it’s just great.
You can get not only the amateur state tournament as was talked about earlier, but also the
Legion state tournaments which actually I believe revenue wise are quite a bit larger. So I’d just
encourage you all to really strongly consider it and thank you for your time.
Stolar: Thanks. Commission members have any questions? Anyone? We’ll start with you.
Any questions of our guests?
Daniel: Sure. So is it your intention to move? Move the team from Victoria to Chanhassen?
Harold Lund: Yes.
Daniel: Okay, and the reason for that is just not a good relationship with the community or?
Harold Lund: Yes. That’s about, yeah. It’s not a good relationship with the people that we had
talked about. We, how can I say this? About 4 years ago? About 4 years ago we were asked to
build a new field in Victoria. It’s call D-Town Park. It was like where the ice cream is,
community center, all that stuff. With the understanding that since it was posted for 10 years
you know, I mean I was in Park and Rec in Victoria. We posted the thing saying that we were
going to put a new park in the D-Town. Light it. It was going to be an active park. Everything
else like that. So when the time came to build a park, we, the baseball team, we stuck in time,
money, energies to get the basic concept in. The ballpark, the fencing. We built dugouts. We
laid out the field for them. You know we did everything except you know, we even did the
infield. We sodded, or seeded the infield. Whatever it took, well we did. We probably spent
close to $20,000 plus just unlimited number of hours of volunteer labor to do it. Because we you
know, that was supposed to be our field. So we come to the planning commission. We wanted
to get the lights going and that stuff, and went to a park and rec meeting and a couple of people
argued about it and went to City Council. They passed the lights. A week later they reneged on
it and said, no we’re not putting lights on it so we had no field to play on except the old field
which is Lion’s Field right by the church, and the City took care of that field for 3 years. Well it
looked like a cow pasture. I mean we went out there last fall and we spent what, probably
another 300 hours of labor doing that field to get it back up into playing shape, with the
understanding that that field would be used by us, the two legion teams in Victoria and the high
school, and nobody else. So we did it. Had no problem. Come scheduling time and that stuff,
Park and Rec Commission – May 23, 2006
6
all of a sudden there’s a bunch of other teams, Babe Ruth teams and that stuff. They
don’t…holes dug. Grading for baselines. Don’t do anything using the field. Kind of starting to
go backwards again. So I think from our standpoint we’re getting tired of being lied to. We’re
just looking for some open air. That’s all. That’s all basically we’re looking for is just some
love because, I mean they group is a fun group you know and I mean, they will interact with you,
your kids. It doesn’t matter. They’re basically kids themselves you know and they just want
some respect and some love. That’s all they want. And I can say, we’ll…we’ll do anything
required to, if we have to go out there and grow the field ourselves, cut the infield ourselves
…we’ll do it. We don’t care. We just you know, we just want to have some respect. And not be
lied to.
Daniel: Your games are played on Sunday, correct?
Harold Lund: We play 5 times a week.
Daniel: Oh, 5 times a week.
Harold Lund: We play basically Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. But they’re not
at home all the time. When you’re with B-ball, which is different than C-ball, you play a bunch
because you have a longer rotation. There are more pitchers. You have guys that need to play to
stay sharp. Rest up. You need to play to stay sharp because it’s better pitching you know, so we
play a bunch.
Daniel: One other question? Go ahead Dick.
Dick Mingo: If I could add something to that because I have been conversing with some of this
but, one of my intents if we do go ahead with this is that we would put a notice in the local paper
to notify everyone that would be involved. It might be interesting, and paying for this ball club,
anyone from 16 to 46 maybe that would want to come out that has got some playing ability,
come on out and we’ll have some try-outs too. I would guess, although what he’s thinking
about, but I would guess that the ball club that they bring from Victoria, the fellas we’d keep
from that…I would think we’d fill that in with two-thirds players that might be a little bit better
right from our own community. I’ve got to believe there’s some pretty, pardon my French, damn
good players that have got college experience that aren’t that old that live in this community that
might be interested in coming out and playing some ball yet. Right here and we’d surely invite
them all and give them a look. Some high school kids. We’ve got neighboring school district
that’s loaded year after year with that huge school they’ve got at Eden Prairie, and I think there’s
some of those kids that we go to church in Chanhassen that might be interested in trying out so
we might pick up some pretty good players from that area. I failed to mention something that
I’m sure none of you even realized. We’ve got a couple pretty good ball players that have
played in this town on some of those early teams. You’ve probably never heard…Bob Johnson.
Bob Walky Johnson. Kid who came up from Edina High School 16 years of age and he was
playing when I came out here ready to go into the service. Hit nothing but…What Walky ended
up doing, he got, Edina had a hell of a left hander pitcher in high school and the pros were after
him. They signed him and the deal was, he wouldn’t sign unless they signed Walky. Well the
left handed pitcher didn’t last but 2 years in pro ball and Walky wound up playing 10-11 years in
Park and Rec Commission – May 23, 2006
7
the major leagues. He was always a utility man but wound up hitting with a…batting average of
about 280 something, and he played in Chanhassen. Still in town. Still lives around here.
Would love to come out for anything we might have to do some advertising. The other guys that
some of you have heard of, a guy named Badger Bob. Ever hear of him? Badger Bob Johnson.
Hockey coach at Wisconsin and he found up in the pros and winning the Stanley Cup. He
played. Was a pitcher. I played against Bob in high school when he pitched for Roosevelt High
School. I was at West and he played for us. Him and his brother. Both played here in
Chanhassen. Back in the early 50’s. So we’ve got a little bit of baseball history that we’d like to
bring back and see if things can’t be rebuilt here in Chanhassen.
Stolar: Just to try to expedite this, if you have some additional questions but I’d like to try to
limit this to about 10 more minutes. Okay.
Daniel: How intentional is the Legion of getting a team here? Is it just something kind of pie in
the sky thing that they’d like to do or is it something that they plan on?
Howard Lund: Right now we sponsor, joint sponsor with Chaska and Chan Legion. Because
they have an A and B because of so many kids, so we donate $6,000 a year and we have
Chanhassen kids on that. So I think the way the growth factor is going out here, you know in a
few years we’re going to have no problem. We already have no problem sponsoring a team at
the Legion. I think that to me we’ve been really blessed down there on that corner and I’m
thankful I’m a part of it. I’m an officer down there and part of the group that helped build that.
And I’ve always been in Chanhassen when I sponsored the first hockey team here for kids,
which was the North Stars. I also sponsored the Mavericks baseball team for 5 years. So I’ve
been involved in quite a bit of stuff in the community. I’ve always been a big product of kids are
our future in this country, and as a veteran I respect that so.
Stolar: Tom, any questions?
Kelly: I assume with the schedule, 5 games a week, that lights are pretty much a requirement on
any field that you’re playing on. The only question I have is, I guess I don’t understand what the
requirements of these baseball fields. With the exception of lights, is there something wrong
with the big field at Bandimere? I mean is that field a suitable field for amateur baseball? I
think the fences go 360. Is that still, I guess I don’t understand the whole requirements for size
and lights are needed…
Harold Lund: That field is pretty well booked with kids programs out there in Bandimere.
Ruegemer: Yeah, so is Lake Susan so anything that comes into town is going to bump but we
can work around that.
Hoffman: We’re just trying to create a town ballpark. And on a single basis, like the field at
Lake Susan, that would be easier to accomplish than trying to mix it in with what else you have
going on at Bandimere.
Kelly: Okay.
Park and Rec Commission – May 23, 2006
8
There were comments from the audience that were not picked up by the microphone.
Stolar: We’re going to try to limit this to about 5 more minutes because we have the rest of the
meeting. Paula.
Atkins: I actually remember that grandstand. We’ve, step one, is this where you come first or
have you been talking about this with the Lion’s, Rotary? Anybody?
Harold Lund: This is our…
Atkins: We’re your first step right here?
Harold Lund: I’ve been talking to Todd and them.
Hoffman: This has been a conversation going on in the community for many, many years but
Harold and I just talked in the past couple weeks and I said, suggested he come talk to the park
board to get things started.
Harold Lund: This is called getter done.
Atkins: Get the word out.
Harold Lund: I think it would be a tremendous asset. Like I said, I’ve been around and kids are
our future you know, and they’ve got to have places to go, and not only the kids but parents.
We’ve got to do, like Chaska down there. They have a family night, and I’m sure all of you have
heard of John Lenzen who’s a great sponsor in the community down there. He has a night where
they have, he brings in a big…so they have special roast beef and barbequed whatever, and it’s
just a fun night. And the thing is that we would involve that certain night here, or something like
that similar, or even like…make it better because that’s just the way I am.
Stolar: I’d like to get some more questions out if we could real quick. Okay.
Daniel: What is the, Todd do we have anything in the budget? Little bit of timeframe you’ve
talked about Harold, as far as next year and some of the adjustments we have to make to Lake
Susan. I mean what is it, 360 in dead center? Is that probably about it? And I’m assuming you
probably want to get it closer out to 400, which means adjustment of the fence.
Harold Lund: 390 would be enough.
Daniel: That’s what they have in Chaska right now, isn’t it?
Harold Lund: Yeah.
Daniel: Yeah, so I mean do we have anything at all in the budget for 2006, or fiscal year to
make some adjustments. I mean lights are one thing but also some of the things that need to be
done and what type of timeframe, because that’d probably have to be a fall preparation.
Park and Rec Commission – May 23, 2006
9
Hoffman: Yeah, if this is a priority, you have the ability to make some of these things start
happening. I’m not going to let you get it all done this year but yeah, you’ve got the ability to
start if you’d like.
Stolar: Jack.
Spizale: How available is that park as far as…?
Hoffman: …they all are utilized but if you turn that into, you saw it tonight. We were all there
tonight and enjoyed it. It’s a busy park. The tennis court would have to go to make way for
parking. You’d have to expand those parking lots. Create a grandstand with restrooms
underneath and so there’s going to be some major improvements. It’s going to look like a town
baseball field and so it will dramatically alter what you, what Lake Susan feels like today to a
certain extent. Other facilities that are there are complimentary. The park shelter would be
complimentary. The playground would be complimentary. And so you’d be modifying it a little
bit but I’ll let Jerry let you know what’s going on there today.
Ruegemer: Currently we’re scheduled right now, it’s Monday through Friday. 5:30 to dark and
then Saturday from about 8:00 to 11:00. I cut it off at 11:00 to make way for picnics, and I don’t
have anything scheduled on Sundays. I believe there’s some other activities going on on
Sundays as well.
Daniel: Do those guys that play there on Sunday Jerry, they don’t schedule the park? They just
play there?
Ruegemer: Right.
Daniel: Because there’s games every Sunday you go by there. They’re playing, I don’t know
what teams it is but they play there every Sunday from noon until 3:00 or 4:00 it seems like
they’re there.
Ruegemer: Seven days a week, there’s activity out there right now.
Hoffman: We have, Harold brought it up I believe. There’s a new high school coming into
town, or potentially coming into town. There’s an opportunity there to increase athletic space in
town. There’s also, like I said, there’s going to be a new sense in this community when the high
school gets built here, and there’s going to be some increased activity for Friday night games.
Saturday night games. It’s going to be, if there’s a high school built with a football stadium
and…baseball being played so there’s going to be a lot of things happening in our future if that
referendum passes come this November. So this is one of the discussions that we’ll be having
amongst…in the next few months.
Harold Lund: Our Legion club also donates monthly, approximately $2,000 out of our gambling
funds to the city. And we’ve been doing that now for a couple years.
Park and Rec Commission – May 23, 2006
10
Stolar: Well Todd I guess my question to you is, what would be in your mind the next step to
discuss this? Is it to do some more looking at for us individually to look at other ballparks or
what would you say is the next step, if any?
Hoffman: The first step, if you want to investigate it, I think it’s to sit down with some park
planners and have them take a look at the land that you have available out there and start some
preliminary planning because first things first in life and there’s no reason to get real excited if
we can’t accommodate a sufficient park and sufficient support services to accommodate a town
baseball field in that location.
Stolar: And I also think, are you looking for this commission though to give you some, wouldn’t
do it tonight but to give you some input as to whether this is something we even want to look at?
Hoffman: Sure. Obviously.
Stolar: So it seems to me that would be one of the next things for us to do at a future meeting. I
don’t know if there’s any background you would like to provide Todd that he can forward onto
us, including if you had some pictures of some of the other facilities and if commission members
do take the advice and have a chance to go look at some of the other facilities, I think that would
be helpful if you could just provide some background and then I think maybe we put it on an
agenda for next one to say, to provide, if you want to provide us with a recommendation, that’d
be great. If not, if you want it as an open item under new business and we just decide whether or
not we want to move forward with these next steps. Because it would take an investment right to
get a park planner to look at it, right?
Hoffman: Correct. But we have the ability within our CIP.
Stolar: Understood. I was just saying I think it takes, we should provide direction as to yes, do
we want to move forward with this.
Hoffman: Absolutely.
Stolar: Do commissioners have other thoughts that we approach, I’m open to any suggestions.
Daniel: No, the only comment I’d have is, I mean I guess from our perspective, or at least from
my perspective, having played town ball for a few years with Chaska and then also played
several years with Chan Legion, the opportunity and I guess that’s one thing that I’d say this city
certainly is missing right now and if you look at all the amenities that we’re starting to gain as a
community and to regain some of the past that we had with regards to a local town team and a
local Legion team is an interesting thought at this point right now. It’s just a matter of if we have
the facilities to accommodate that because if you look at Chaska’s field, which if you haven’t
had an opportunity to take a look, it’s one of the top ballparks in the state. As well as with
Jordan and Shakopee’s really has come along over the years. They’re amazing facilities and as
well when you look at each Friday and Saturday night when they’re playing, it is a community
event. I mean I have friends of mine that have no interest, have never played ball and they go to
Chaska to watch baseball. It’s affordable and I haven’t been there in a couple years. Grabbed
Park and Rec Commission – May 23, 2006
11
my two sons a couple years ago and went and watched a game. So I mean it’s, you hit it right on
the head Harold. It’s something that’s very affordable and interesting, and if anything try to
establish I guess, reinforce some community pride on the end of, on the athletic side of things,
which there’s a lot of amenities that this city has, but certainly to bring back town ball and
Legion ball would be an interesting discussion. I think you hit it right on the head Glenn, that we
need to at least take these steps forward because quite frankly this is a, it’s a big investment.
Harold Lund: We can take pictures of where we’re playing now and give them to you, of the
stadiums. As we play games and give you a variety of them so you can see some of the stadiums
around. Because we play in some pretty nice ones so that won’t be no problem for us to do that.
So we’d be happy to do that. Get them up to Todd.
Daniel: That’d be great.
Stolar: Alright, thank you for your time. This is interesting and I do want to make sure we get it
on the next agenda if we can so that we can talk through it and see where we want to go. Is that
okay with commission members? Any objection? Okay, great. Thank you again for your time.
Harold Lund: Thank you.
Stolar: Do we have other visitor presentations? Okay.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Spizale moved, Murphy seconded to approve the verbatim
and summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated April 25,
2006 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7
to 0.
SKATE PARK ATTENDANT PROGRAM.
Ruegemer: Thank you Chair Stolar. I’d like to.
Hoffman: That was a motion on the minutes?
Stolar: Yeah.
Hoffman: Should we have a motion to put this on the next agenda? This discussion.
Stolar: I guess we could. Anyone want to make that motion? To move to put the ballpark
discussion on the next.
Daniel: Okay, I move to put the ballpark on the next discussion next agenda.
Atkins: I second.
Park and Rec Commission – May 23, 2006
12
Daniel moved, Atkins seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission direct staff to
put discussion of the town team ballpark on the next agenda. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Stolar: Okay. Now skate park attendant program.
Ruegemer: Thank you Chair Stolar. As the commission well knows, the Chanhassen Skate Park
was opened in September of 1999. Bar none it’s our most popular facility and destination that
we have in our park system. It’s a great asset that we do have for the city, and it’s really, really
used to a high capacity. Obviously there has been some concerns throughout the course of time
here and recently, really the last 2-3 years it seems like it’s really kind of coming to a head. Just
with the profanity language, litter, some other types of activities kind of taking place at that
location. We’ve had a number of discussions at, certainly the Park and Rec Commission level
with bringing in parents. Do parent organizations of some sort. Have kind of a club of some sort
for volunteering and supervising the area. From a paid staff and…kind of policing types of
activities, and really the time has kind of come to, really the time has come now that the city is
going to hire a paid attendants for the skate park. That really kind of came down really early part
of the spring. With that discussion has really, had kind of come to really to fruition now in that
we’re going to put that together now, and we’re planning to hire at least 2 attendants for that.
The advertising is out right now for that. Attached is the job description for the attendant. We’re
kind of looking for somebody that’s you know 18 plus years old. That can certainly handle
certain situations that may come up in the park itself. Really our idea behind the position is
really to be a good will ambassador. To build trust and also obviously to supervise and build a
repoire with our skate park users. Obviously their number one priority is going to be to
supervise the park itself to keep an eye on, not only language, behavior, garbage, that sort of
thing. …really have a presence there. Much more to be there all the time. Other activities we
had certainly discussed is to be kind of an ambassador to our whole park system. Up here at City
Center Park. The library area. To kind of walk through the area. Be visible to patrons and
guests throughout the course of the night. Help out with any type of activities that may be going
on, whether it be soccer or baseball, that sort of thing. Just really have a presence kind of
downtown within our park facilities here. The library. The skate park. City Center Park. With
their main focus really being the skate park itself. So that advertising, it takes really a very
unique position. There isn’t really a cookie cutter job description with that but we’re really,
really trying to get an increased visibility over at the park and only that’s going to change things
around for the, in a positive way over there. Really I think overall really this spring overall the
garbage has been quite a bit better here early in the morning and over night. Unless the park
maintenance guys are beating us here by 7:00 or 7:30. The park has actually looked pretty
decent in the mornings so. Hopefully kids are seeing the true need to kind of self police
themselves for that and hopefully this is going to be one way to enhance our overall facility at
the skate park. We’re pretty excited about it too so currently we are taking applications. We
have received 4 applications right now. The, we’ll be hiring probably a minimum of 2 people
out there for that 2 positions. We’re going to be varying hours out there. Really going 7 days a
week up there, kind of going for kind of varied hours on night over the weekends with the
weekdays during the schools out, summer vacation. That sort of thing. To really kind of keep
kids on their toes so to speak. Not really to create a pattern with that. Just to make sure
everybody is behaving and acting the way they should so. Given the job description is listed
Park and Rec Commission – May 23, 2006
13
below. Roughly 20 to 40 hours a week, depending on kind of the shifts and the…that we have
out there so it’s going to be a work in progress for us. We’re going to be keeping attendance out
there. Instant reports. Injury reports. A lot of those type of things that we certainly will share
with the commission at a future meeting so, that’s kind of the program in a nutshell and we kind
of look at them as our good will ambassador. They’re our first line of defense at that location so,
hopefully it’s going to be a great format. Great asset for our department.
Stolar: Alright, thanks. Questions. Jack, do you want to start with any?
Spizale: Sounds like something that helps solve some of the problems we’ve had, having
somebody visibly there, sounds like it work. I hope it does. I think it’s very important to get the
right people. That would be the key. And I know you’ll find them.
Ruegemer: We’re looking very hard and they’ll start as soon as we can get the right people
hired.
Daniel: Are there going to be any other type of equipment that they’re going to have access to,
the personnel there? I mean two way phones or, I mean from an emergency standpoint.
Ruegemer: Yep. I mean we certainly talked about that. At minimum there definitely would be a
cell phone of some sort to call out and whether that’s going to be, if we’re going to just sit on a
picnic table or erect a gatehouse of some sort. I’m not really quite sure but really I think our
main focus was to be out there under the shelter, kind of visible with everybody and kind of
build that repoire.
Murphy: So 2 people at 20 hours a week, is that kind of what?
Ruegemer: To start with.
Murphy: And there might be some activity in the library as well?
Ruegemer: That same person during their shifts will kind of roam around and make sure City
Center Park is, you know activity in the kind of the plaza areas is conducive to what it’s
supposed to be down there. Whether it’s library events or music in the park and that sort of thing
and really look as this person is really to be our, kind of our go to person on a nightly basis in
these general areas.
Hoffman: They won’t spend time at the library. They’ll just get to know the staff and check in
with them as a part of the park at, that the kids aren’t down there hanging out at the front door.
Skating on the benches.
Murphy: Good idea. There are quite a few I noticed in the summer unsupervised kids in the
library as well. Hanging around this area. So it’s a good idea.
Hoffman: Inside is their job. We’ll take care of outside.
Park and Rec Commission – May 23, 2006
14
Stolar: Paula.
Atkins: Is the skate park open, April? May through September or.
Hoffman: April through October-November.
Atkins: So that’s how, it’s a seasonal position. That’s all I have.
Scharfenberg: So are there going to be people there into the fall or are we going to draw a line in
the sand and say after this date we wouldn’t have anybody there?
Hoffman: We haven’t decided. It will be during busiest times. October quiets, starts to quiet
down once school starts. There is a little rush there towards the end of summer but it’s going to
be flexible. We’re not going to stick somebody there to talk to 2 people a day.
Scharfenberg: There will be a presence there in the evenings, especially at night. I mean that’s
when most of the problems are occurring, I’m assuming is at night so. There’s been discussions
with council about this and they’re all for this?
Hoffman: Yes.
Scharfenberg: Okay.
Stolar: Is this a newly funded position or is it taking away from a different position?
Hoffman: Newly funded.
Stolar: Newly funded. And from what I read in here, it’s one that we hope, like you said Jerry,
will provide more than just skate park supervision so to speak. But also be available for more
events as we’re talking about increasing the concerts we have here, and the events like that.
Would that be a part of what they would do also then is help staff to do some evening concerts. I
know those are lunchtime concerts we have right now but.
Ruegemer: We’re going to be doing nightly concerts as well on Thursday nights so, yeah I think
the position is kind of a blank page right now. It will evolve. It certainly is our hope that we can
utilize the staff person and use their creative tendencies and other aspects of our department.
Stolar: Just, in thinking through some of the things we’ve been talking about for here, this is
going to be more of a gathering place as we see in the future, with the different things so I think
it’s, although it’s unfortunate why we have to put this person on. Having someone here as we
start doing more activities around here is a great idea I think.
Hoffman: Yeah, we can have him do a lot of positive things with some of those activities.
Stolar: Exactly.
Park and Rec Commission – May 23, 2006
15
Hoffman: And just to be clear, it’s an under funded position in this year’s budget but it will not
be taking dollars away from existing programs and then we’ll be requesting it as a newly formed
position, or operation for next year’s budget.
Stolar: Has there been any talk about trying to offset the cost of this with a fee at the park?
Hoffman: There has been some but I’m resistant to recommend a fee because I think it really
takes away the, fee outdoor parks are all looking to take it away because there are so many free
parks out there now that once you put that fee up there, you’re really…kids away. It becomes
counter productive.
Stolar: Okay.
Scharfenberg: I had one follow up question to that. What sort of authority will this person have?
I mean are we talking about at some point kicking people out? Because now we’ll know
somebody’s there kind of observing what’s going on. We’ll know maybe who the trouble
makers are. I mean are you leaving that up to the police to take on that aspect of it or are we
going to rely on this person to kind of patrol and say, you know what you’re gone for today.
You can come back tomorrow if you, I mean will they have that sort of authority?
Hoffman: Most likely not if we, if they get into that kind of a position, they could be keeping a
long list of you know, and they’re not going to be there every day. And so if we’re going to start
to remove people from the park, they’ll go ahead and call either the non-emergency or the
emergency number. Have a deputy respond and go ahead and address that. If the person has left
by that time, and it’s just going to be a report. Obviously they’ll start to know names and faces
and so there’s going to be I think some general consensus that this person, just by presence
they’ll be driving away some of those worst offenders and so it will be some of that, but we’re
not going to have, deputize them. Give them a badge. They’re going to be a civilian employee
and they’ll call law enforcement if they need to.
Stolar: And no action was required, correct?
Hoffman: Informational.
Stolar: Great, thank you.
RECREATION PROGRAM REPORTS:
LAKE ANN PARK SUMMER SCHEDULE.
Ruegemer: Just kind of an update for the commission tonight. Summer is really upon us now.
It came fast again, as it always does this time of year. Staff has been extremely busy fielding
picnic phone calls and facility requests for baseball, soccer, boy you name it. There’s been a ton
of requests for camps. We’ve done a lot of camps this year, not only for sporting but also theater
types of camps. They’re going to be utilizing Lake Ann this year for, our pavilion area. That
sort of thing so it’s been really, just been a buzz of facility of phone calls in our office over the
Park and Rec Commission – May 23, 2006
16
last month or two. Concessions are going to be opening up this weekend. We’ve had quite a
few conversations with our manager, Nick Tomplin’s going to be coming back again for a third
summer with us and we’re going to be hiring a fourth staff person down there this year to kind of
get in the rotation and the mix. One thing differently this year, we’re going to be staying open
one hour later. From 6:00 to 7:00 at night to try to catch some additional beach business and rent
some additional boats here beyond the 6:00 timeframe so we’re hopefully, we’re going to keep
an eye on that but hopefully that’s going to be a great benefit. The workers down there are truly
excited about that, that they can offer that service to our residents and our guests at Lake Ann
Park so, concessions is going to be opened this weekend. It looks like it’s going to be an
outstanding weekend, by the looks of it right now. Probably one of the warmest on record down
there. Typically it’s 50 and raining on the Memorial weekend. We sell a couple sodas and that’
to the staff so we will see. It looks good this year. I did order up a new Aqua Cycle paddle boat
for the, and that did pass in our 2006 budget. The new Aqua Cycle 4x4 so that’s another 4
person paddle boat and that should be here sometime next week, so we’re going to take one of
the old paddle boats out the fleet and replace one of the original ones from 1993. We’re going to
put it out to pasture. We’ve gotten our money out of that and replaced with the new units and
we’ll still retain 6 paddle boats, 3 canoes and 2 fishing boats out there so, it will be good. So
Coke was delivered today, or ice cream. That sort of stuff is coming Friday. Thursday or Friday,
and we should be all set to go. Nick’s got the schedule pretty much done at this point and we
look forward to another great summer. People are calling to bring groups down there. Northwest
Athletic Clubs are bringing, YMCA. Kids Safari. A lot of groups are coming down to use the
beach again this year so we’ll be coordinating that with our beach, with Minnetonka. Providers
of our beach services again so we have enough lifeguards and staff on duty during those days so.
Picnics like I said have been really been picking up. Projections again, it will be 90 to 100 paid
picnics again this year. Revenue was around $9,000. I think our shelters are pretty popular
again this year. We’re doing a ton of graduation parties the first part of June with that.
Weddings. Just booked another group there for Lake Ann August 3rd. Booked that yesterday so
there’s just a lot of activity that people really love the beauty of our parks and the casual
atmosphere and all the amenities that we offer so, beach is going to open up as the commission
knows, Saturday, June 10th for that. Actually probably going to be bringing in, probably the 8th
through the 9th of June too with Cindy Kytell…Minnetonka School West is going to be coming
down on those days and bringing probably 100-150 kids down there for paddle boats and water
activities, that sort of thing so I’m pretty sure I’m going to be bringing in the lifeguards at least a
couple days early for that so we have coverages during those times. With that, so we’ll be open
again daily, 10:30 to 8:00 at night so look forward to another great summer. It’s going to be
busy out there again.
Stolar: Okay. Any questions for Jerry? Questions about Lake Ann? One question, if it’s so
nice this weekend, do we, I’m sure a lot of people are going to want to swim there and do they
just go in? It’s just unsupervised? It’s just you’re on your own? Okay.
Scharfenberg: Wear your wet suit.
Stolar: It’s still a little chilly huh?
Park and Rec Commission – May 23, 2006
17
Hoffman: Lifetime Fitness…Chamber luncheon at their pool would open this weekend and the
water slide and everything so… I got to stand up and introduce myself and I said our pool will
be open. It’s called Lake Ann so come on down and visit us. So we didn’t miss a beat at
Lifetime Fitness.
2006 SUMMER PROGRAM.
Ruegemer: Just kind of a summary of our different activities that’s going to be going on this
year throughout the course of summer. The summer newsletter is on the streets already. They’re
kind of separated out by categories. By field trips. Preschool programs. Youth programs.
Adult, youth, that sort of thing here so, kind of they do things that are coming up. We’re going
to be offering a trip to the Minnesota Lynx this coming summer. That’s new. The Minnesota
Zoo trip is a kind of a behind the scenes kind of a tour. Kind of a go and see kind of the
operations of the zoo itself. Kind of on a daily basis what they do to feed the animals, you know
that sort of thing so, it’s pretty popular. I know that space is limited so if people are interested in
that, I would definitely recommend that. It’s really a cool thing. One thing that we did also offer
this year that’s new, is the bug zone on the back page. It’s Bruce the Bug Guy, his name is, and
he’s really into bugs obviously but we’re going to be offering some, we’ve got some outdoor
recreation at Lake Ann. At the Lake Ann pavilion. It’s kind of our facility for that and he’s the,
kind of the close encounters of the buggy kind is where Bruce brings in his oodles and oodles of
you know centipedes and things and it’s all hands on type of activities so he’s really, I think he
taught at the University of Minnesota. He’s really into his bugs and I think it’s, he encourages
kids to come on out and they’re not going to bite you. Just touch them and pet them and hold
them and it’s going to be really a cool event. Then also the second kind of leg of that is the Bug
Safari where they actually go out. He loves the make-up of Lake Ann and just a great
environment for bugs. So they’re going to go out actually on a bug safari and observe all the
many different species and critters that Lake Ann has to offer. He loves the water features
around there and…ecosystems at Lake Ann Park and it’s going to be a great event. So, and
we’re also adding additional, a couple of extra, additional concerts in the park this year as well
on Thursday nights. So we’re also going to kind of continue to build upon our programming
within our park system here at City Center Plaza, and also continue to add to our total overall
programs so, we’re trying to kind of focus on what we have and make it good. Make it great and
we found out a long time ago that it’s not about quantity, it’s about quality so we’re really trying
to perfect and really go with what we have so.
Stolar: Is there going to be a schedule published for the concerts?
Ruegemer: Yep.
Stolar: E-mail that or something. That just sounds like a great event.
Atkins: When is the bug guy coming?
Ruegemer: There’s one in June and one in July.
Park and Rec Commission – May 23, 2006
18
Atkins: I’ve got to talk to him. I found a bug on a camping trip and took a picture of it, and
we’ve got to find out what it is. A big bug.
Stolar: Any other questions on summer programs?
Atkins: Was there any thought about Friday night concerts? Or was it just Thursday. More
popular or?
Ruegemer: Yeah, we’re just trying to throw whatever’s out there.
Stolar: You also get the bands for less don’t you, if you do it Thursday?
Ruegemer: Well I guess we hadn’t checked on Friday night pricing but I don’t know.
Atkins: I know a lot of people go to Chaska’s Friday night ones but.
Hoffman: We’re talking about continuing to adjust the program as years go by. We’re going to
build an actual performance stage out here this summer so it will be a little down where the seat
walls are and then where the grass is in front, we’re going to put a hard surface there so we can
try to create that. Jerry and I talked briefly about, similar to Chaska, we want to get it to where
it’s one night for 7 weeks and people don’t have to worry. Is it this Friday or next Friday. They
just go. If it’s Friday or Thursday night or Wednesday night, whatever night it is, they just go to
the concert.
Stolar: In college I was in programming and we did that. We called it Thursday Night Sunset
Concert Series, and it just, I mean we’d have a couple thousand each night. It was during the
summers, just to, they knew every Thursday night you can go to this place and you’re going to
have some sort of band. So exciting. Anything else?
SELF SUPPORTING PROGRAMS: 2006 ADULT SOFTBALL UPDATE.
Ruegemer: Thank you. Softball has been going for oh about 4 weeks now, and we’ve had a few
rain out’s here and there but it seems like it is Friday nights, which is okay because that’s a night
that we have the most flexibility on scheduling some double headers here down the road and
making up those games here so. Kind of a breakdown, and we did offer…people want to play.
We’ve really been trying to get us to do double headers for a little while now and I decided to
kind of pull the trigger on that this year. I had umpires that commit to the extra games, and with
some additional revenue coming in with that too so, that’s very popular. It seems that we’re
going to take a look to kind of what happens for next season. I may be, about the only night I
have available is probably Friday nights or Sunday nights for double headers so we’ll see if I can
get some additional umpires and we’ll take a look at that expansion of that as well so, that’s been
a very popular thing. Tuesday night we are combining again with the City of Eden Prairie to
provide, we combined our leagues and we have 10 teams in that. It seems to go very well.
Lyndale Fry does the scheduling and, or kind of pretty much all the work so it works out pretty
good for me. I’ve done it a couple years and it seems like we’ve been kind of flip flopping every
now and again and he seems to enjoy doing it so, we do that so we provide fields. They provide
Park and Rec Commission – May 23, 2006
19
fields at Round Lake, Lake Riley and that sort of thing too so it works out pretty good.
Wednesday night is kind of like the Energizer Bunny. They just keep going and going and
going. As Jeff knows, he’s had…playing in that league for a number of years.
Daniel: And my dad.
Ruegemer: And your dad? So those guys are also playing double headers on Wednesday nights.
Another excuse to get another key of beer and stay a little longer at the park so. Again we have 8
teams on that. That’s been a popular night and I think we’ve got our umpires all ready to go for
that and it’s been good. Thursday night is by far our most popular night. With that we fluctuate
anywhere from you know 16 to 20 teams on that on Thursday night, and we have 18 again this
year. We kind of slid into two different divisions with some kind of inner league play between
the upper and the middle divisions and the lower’s kind of by themselves, so it’s been working
out really good. Friday night we’re down a couple teams. We seemed to be kind of, trying to
kind of feel our way through Friday nights. You know probably our high was 14 and now we’re
down to 4 so people are, a lot of the better teams have been kind of moving on for different
competition. That sort of thing so we’re kind of re-evaluating Friday nights to see kind of where
we go and that may be another opportunity for another double header league for men’s or
women’s or however that’s going to work out so. But that’s been keeping me busy as well with
that so we just kind of keep plugging away.
Stolar: Thank you. Any questions on softball? Okay, thanks.
ADMINISTRATIVE: PRESENTATION OF THE 2006 PARK AND TRAIL MAP, CO-
SPONSORED BY BOKOO BIKES.
Hoffman: Thank you Chair Stolar, members of the commission. It’s been an exciting day. We
actually mailed the maps today so it will be in your mailbox the next day or so. This is a
cooperative effort with Bokoo Bikes and the City of Chanhassen. Bokoo Bikes makes…$5,000
contribution and again they’re not at all against if we go out and seek other sponsors for this
map. But they’re very involved in the community and want to be a part of the map. This is their
second time around. We publish it every 2 years and so this year again we were involved with
Bokoo Bikes and one of their graphics people and they came back with really four alternatives
for something to look at. So we looked at these four. …in Minneapolis. He came up with one
concept. A second concept, a newspaper concept…and some people liked this. It’s kind of like
the wider shot of the…Discover Minnesota type of a theme approach. And then that approach.
The newspaper approach. Four seasons approach. So we took a look at that. They had some
very good concepts for us. Almost a Disney World or Monopoly approach. Discover
Chanhassen type. So we selected this type of approach. There’s a back of the map and when
they came back with some options, and Chanhassen, a Great Place to Call Home with the lakes
and then all of the different pictures. This was not exactly how it was going to turn out but we
selected this type of a look. They had…in the bottom with all the nature we wanted to bring up
and…some folks actually out there on the park and so we’ve done that and you’ll see those in the
map. And then of course the business side of the map is the park and trail map, which
everybody’s after. They want to get out there and play and they’re running around, walking
around so we have the updated map. For those who had, we added a north and south… some
Park and Rec Commission – May 23, 2006
20
community contacts. Information about artists and so they continue to refine the product. And
here it is. It was delivered on Monday. Very attractive map. It went to all residents in the
community. All addresses in the community. If you look at the cover, we included the web
page, www …and those who bike, you open it up…photos on the back. There’s freelance
photographer works for the Villager…and then also Eric Rivkin is a local resident. This is Mr.
Rivkin’s shot on the cover. And then his large photo is on the back of the map. This is a shot of
Carver Beach Park, so again most people…understand this is right in downtown Chanhassen.
Not in northern Minnesota. It’s a very beautiful shots of our park system. And then inset photos
that I talked about, we have February Festival. A shot that was very well liked…The Fourth of
July with the sand castles. Dave Huffman 5K Run. And then a trail shot… the last time this map
was printed, which was closer to like 50 miles.
Stolar: I was going to ask you if that’s something we could have put on here like you know,
2003 census, 2005 census or you know.
Hoffman: So it’s in the mail and we’re glad to have them completed and… Any questions or
comments?
Kelly: Why is there a park, or is it a perspective park there on Lyman and, where the new
construction is down there? On Audubon, where that overpass is down there.
Hoffman: That’s parkland.
Kelly: Oh it is parkland, okay.
Hoffman: It’s parkland. There are some like Chanhassen Nature Preserve, it’s just part of the
Bluff Creek Preserve.
Kelly: Okay. It’s that field that’s right in there?
Hoffman: Right. So if you’re ever in Bokoo, please take the opportunity to thank those folks.
Introduce yourselves from the Park Commission. They will receive a supply, a couple of
thousand of these maps for their business and they put them in every bike sold so it goes right in
with all the different manuals. Creates a very nice… You can see a lot for future underpasses
planned. I think there’s 5 in existence and 5 more planned and so, and they are very well located
in the core of our community where people can get back and forth across the Highway 212 and
Highway 5 and make those nice connections.
Scharfenberg: Is there any word Todd on that 41 underpass into the park? Is that, I think didn’t
they put in a plan for that or approval of that?
Hoffman: They were two projects short of the funding cycle. The County will be reapplying
next year.
Kelly: What was the thought with going with blue as opposed to, previously it’s been…and the
blue stands out better but that’s one thing I noticed different about this.
Park and Rec Commission – May 23, 2006
21
Hoffman: The graphics folks. We just allowed them to make recommendations.
Stolar: So the next iteration of this, are we going to put on like the…golf course at all?
Hoffman: Yeah we talked about that. Halla Greens will go on and then there’s going to be, this
whole area is going to fill out.
Stolar: And we actually should put the Rec Center on here too.
Hoffman: Yep, correct. Start marking it right now. It comes fast…This is the third one.
Stolar: Any questions? Great.
Hoffman: And please, if you don’t get it in your mailbox, let us know because…Beyond that in
administrative, I’d just like to thank everyone for attending the picnic this evening and thank
Glenn…for starting that conversation last year. We thought we could maybe get it in at the end
of the season into the project, but this year seemed to work out better so we appreciate you all
being there. Appreciate all your work on the, many of you worked here in this room. Many of
you worked out in the field working with the neighborhoods and doing the installs, and it was
nearly $600,000 in playground equipment over the last 2 ½ years so that’s a major investment in
our community and I think we see it paying off now that… There’s still a few odds and ends left
to be done. Curry Farms is a never ending project so they’re down there continuing to work and
as it dries out we’ll be cleaning that park up. And then just about that time they’re going to
introduce another pond project down in Curry Farms Park so we have a future pond project as
well but, also the parks are getting cleaned up. This is the time of year when parks really come
into their own, and other than the dandelions, we got through that now, but now they’re really
looking good.
Stolar: Todd the only other item we had at some point was a visit to Seminary Fen at some point
this summer maybe.
Hoffman: Sure. We do that in June.
Stolar: Does anyone have any other items to discuss?
Scharfenberg: Just wanted to know if Todd had received any response to his letter in response to
the Chan/Chaska Soccer Club.
Hoffman: Not from the Soccer Club themselves but from many of the residents that had emailed
in response to Mr. Nygaard’s letter, and they were satisfied and happy to see the response.
…that the City’s position that the current field allocation is fair and so, but we have not had the
opportunity to meet with the soccer associations. It’s my guess they want to get through their
season and then we’ll sit down and talk at that time.
Park and Rec Commission – May 23, 2006
22
Scharfenberg moved, Spizale seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried with a vote of 7 to 0.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, P.E., Dir. of Public Works/ City Engineer
DATE: June 16, 2006
SUBJ: Infiltration/Inflow, PW254B: Approve Plans & Specifications;
Authorize Ad for Bids.
REQUESTED ACTION
Approve Plans & Specifications; Authorize Ad for Bids.
BACKGROUND
On December 12, 2005, Council held a joint meeting with Metropolitan Council
staff to discuss the MCES Sanitary Sewer Surcharge Program.
On June 12, 2006, the Council reviewed a Sanitary Sewer Infiltration and Inflow
(I&I) Reduction Plan.
DISCUSSION
The 2006 I & I project is to fix known problems with the City’s sanitary sewer
system that contributes to I & I. These improvements include lining sewer
pipes, pipe joint sealing, grouting manholes and pipe joints. Also included in
the project is televising over 2500 ft. of sewer pipes and inspecting manholes to
prepare for potential improvements for next year’s project.
Staff is also planning to include televising all of the MCES Interceptor within
the City of Chanhassen. If I & I problems are identified in these lines,
improvements will be proposed for 2007. Staff is working with MCES on this
work and agreement.
Funding for the City’s portion of the project is proposed to be paid for by the
Sewer Utility fund. MCES will pay for 100% of their project cost, which
includes any indirect costs (engineering fees), televising and fixing any
associated problems.
Attachment
c: Todd Hubmer – WSB & Associates, Inc.
Th
e
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
-
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
D
e
t
a
i
l
s
C
h
a
n
h
a
s
s
e
n
M
N
May 30, 2006
Th
e
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
Scale: 1”=10’Not to Scale
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
The Tradition Homes, built by Ryland, have been recently redesigned to provide updated features to the exterior and interior of the home. Some of the exterior improvements include a new design that reduces the number of garage doors by adding a third stall home with a tandem garage. We are also introducing a home specifically designed for a corner lot. The garage for this home is side loaded and placed at the rear of the home. Both of these improvements increase the visual appeal of the streetscape by reducing the dominance of garage doors as you move through the neighborhood. We have updated our floor plans to provide the amenities and living spaces that today’s discriminating home buyer is requesting. They provide a carefree lifestyle that will appeal to families, professional couples and active adults.The Tradition Homes have three to four bedrooms and 2 1/2 baths. Many of the floor plans include a formal living room, formal dining room and eat-in-kitchen. The master bedrooms have a private bath and walk-in-closet. Additional bedrooms and living area are available in the optional finished basement. Enjoyment of the outdoors is provided with deck and sun porch options and numerous walk-out-homes with views of the natural features the site offers.architecture
ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
r
e
p
e
t
i
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
Th
e
s
a
m
e
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
be
u
s
e
d
b
y
h
o
m
e
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
a
c
r
o
s
s
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
or
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
.
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
C
o
l
o
r
Op
t
i
o
n
s
Up
g
r
a
d
e
C
o
l
o
r
Op
t
i
o
n
s
architectural color options
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Oehme, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: June 26, 2006
SUBJ: Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications for
The Preserve- Project No. 06-14
(Simple Majority Vote Required)
The attached development contract incorporates the conditions of approval for the final plat
and construction plans and specifications. A $2,599,693.51 financial security is required to
guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract relating to the installation of
public streets and utilities, one-year of public street light operating costs, engineering,
surveying, inspection, landscaping and payment of special assessments.
The cash fees for this project total $649,337.78. A breakdown of the cash fee is shown on
pages SP-3 and SP-4 of the development contract. No City funds are needed as part of this
private development project.
The applicant has also submitted detailed construction plans and specifications for staff review
and City Council approval. Staff requests that the City Council grant staff the flexibility to
administratively approve the plans after working with the applicant's engineer to modify the
plans accordingly.
Staff recommends that the construction plans and specifications for The Preserve dated June
15, 2006, prepared by Westwood Engineering and the development contract dated June 26,
2006 be approved conditioned upon the following:
1. The applicant shall enter into the development contract and supply the City with a cash
escrows or letter of credits for $2,599,693.51 and pay a cash fee of $649,337.78.
2. The applicant's engineer shall work with City staff in revising the construction plans to
meet City standards.
Attachments: 1. Development Contract dated June 26, 2006.
2. Construction plans and specifications are available for review in the
Engineering Department.
c: Westwood Engineering
G:\ENG\PROJECTS\The Preserve\approve dc.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
THE PRESERVE AT BLUFF CREEK 1ST ADDITION
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SPECIAL PROVISIONS PAGE
1. REQUEST FOR PLAT APPROVAL........................................................................SP-1
2. CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL.....................................................................SP-1
3. DEVELOPMENT PLANS........................................................................................SP-1
4. IMPROVEMENTS...................................................................................................SP-2
5. TIME OF PERFORMANCE.....................................................................................SP-2
6. SECURITY...............................................................................................................SP-2
7. NOTICE....................................................................................................................SP-3
8. OTHER SPECIAL CONDITIONS............................................................................SP-3
9. GENERAL CONDITIONS.......................................................................................SP-8
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. RIGHT TO PROCEED............................................................................................GC-1
2. PHASED DEVELOPMENT....................................................................................GC-1
3. PRELIMINARY PLAT STATUS............................................................................GC-1
4. CHANGES IN OFFICIAL CONTROLS..................................................................GC-1
5. IMPROVEMENTS..................................................................................................GC-1
6. IRON MONUMENTS..............................................................................................GC-2
7. LICENSE.................................................................................................................GC-2
8. SITE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL......................................................GC-2
8A. EROSION CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING
OR OTHER BUILDING..............................................................................GC-2
9. CLEAN UP..............................................................................................................GC-3
10. ACCEPTANCE AND OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS..................................GC-3
11. CLAIMS..................................................................................................................GC-3
12. PARK DEDICATION..............................................................................................GC-3
13. LANDSCAPING......................................................................................................GC-3
14. WARRANTY...........................................................................................................GC-4
15. LOT PLANS............................................................................................................GC-4
16. EXISTING ASSESSMENTS...................................................................................GC-4
17. HOOK-UP CHARGES.............................................................................................GC-4
18. PUBLIC STREET LIGHTING................................................................................GC-4
19. SIGNAGE................................................................................................................GC-5
20. HOUSE PADS.........................................................................................................GC-5
21. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS............................................................................GC-5
22. DEVELOPER'S DEFAULT.....................................................................................GC-6
22. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Construction Trailers.....................................................................................GC-6
B. Postal Service...............................................................................................GC-7
C. Third Parties.................................................................................................GC-7
D. Breach of Contract........................................................................................GC-7
ii
E. Severability...................................................................................................GC-7
F. Building Permits............................................................................................GC-7
G. Waivers/Amendments....................................................................................GC-7
H. Release.........................................................................................................GC-7
I. Insurance......................................................................................................GC-7
J. Remedies......................................................................................................GC-8
K. Assignability..................................................................................................GC-8
L. Construction Hours.......................................................................................GC-8
M. Noise Amplification.......................................................................................GC-8
N. Access..........................................................................................................GC-8
O. Street Maintenance........................................................................................GC-8
P. Storm Sewer Maintenance.............................................................................GC-9
Q. Soil Treatment Systems.................................................................................GC-9
R. Variances......................................................................................................GC-9
S. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations....................................GC-9
T. Proof of Title................................................................................................GC-9
U. Soil Conditions............................................................................................GC-10
V. Soil Correction............................................................................................GC-10
W. Haul Routes..........................................................................................................GC-10
X. Development Signs...............................................................................................GC-10
Y. Construction Plans................................................................................................GC-10
Z. As-Built Lot Surveys............................................................................................GC-11
SP-1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
THE PRESERVE AT BLUFF CREEK 1ST ADDITION
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
AGREEMENT dated June 26, 2006 by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a
Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and, The Ryland Group, Inc., a Corporation (the
"Developer").
1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for
The Preserve at Bluff Creek 1st Addition (referred to in this Contract as the "plat"). The land is legally
described on the attached Exhibit "A".
2. Conditions of Plat Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on condition that
the Developer enter into this Contract, furnish the security required by it, and record the plat with the
County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 30 days after the City Council approves the plat.
3. Development Plans. The plat shall be developed in accordance with the following
plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. With the exception of Plan A, the plans may be
prepared, subject to City approval, after entering the Contract, but before commencement of any work
in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, the written terms shall control.
The plans are:
Plan A: Final plat approved June 26, 2006, prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
Plan B: Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan dated June 26, 2006, prepared by
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
Plan C: Plans and Specifications for Improvements dated June 26, 2006, prepared by
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
Plan D: Landscape Plan dated June 26, 2006, prepared by Westwood Professional Services,
Inc.
SP-2
4. Improvements. The Developer shall install and pay for the following:
A. Sanitary Sewer System
B. Water System
C. Storm Water Drainage System
D. Streets
E. Concrete Curb and Gutter
F. Street Lights
G. Site Grading/Restoration
H. Underground Utilities (e.g. gas, electric, telephone, CATV)
I. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments
J. Surveying and Staking
K. Landscaping
L. Erosion Control
5. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required improvements except
for the wear course on public streets by November 15, 2006. The Developer may, however, request
an extension of time from the City Engineer. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon
updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion
date.
6. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Contract, payment of special
assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements, and construction of all public
improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit in the form attached hereto,
from a bank acceptable to the City, or cash escrow ("security") for $2,599,693.51. The amount of the
security was calculated as 110% of the following:
Site Grading/Erosion Control/Restoration $550,000.00
Sanitary Sewer $215,000.00
Watermain $200,000.00
Storm Sewer, Drainage System, including cleaning and maintenance $240,000.00
Streets $670,000.00
Street lights and signs $ 10,000.00
Sub-total, Construction Costs $1,885,000.00
Engineering, surveying, and inspection (7% of construction costs) $131,950.00
Landscaping (2% of construction costs) $ 37,700.00
Special assessments (to be re-assessed to the lots and outlots in the final plat) $308,707.74
Sub-total, Other Costs $478,357.74
TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS $2,363,357.74
SP-3
This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. The security
shall be subject to the approval of the City. The City may draw down the security, without notice, for
any violation of the terms of this Contract. If the required public improvements are not completed at
least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down. If the
security is drawn down, the draw shall be used to cure the default. With City approval, the security
may be reduced from time to time as financial obligations are paid, but in no case shall the security be
reduced to a point less than 10% of the original amount until (1) all improvements have been
completed, (2) iron monuments for lot corners have been installed, (3) all financial obligations to the
City satisfied, (4) the required “record” plans have been received by the City, (5) a warranty security is
provided, and (6) the public improvements are accepted by the City.
7. Notice. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand
delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at
the following address:
Mark Sonstegard
The Ryland Group
7599 Anagram Drive
Eden Prairie MN 55344
Phone: 952-229-6000
Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed
to the City by certified mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: Chanhassen City Hall,
7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317, Telephone (952) 227-1100.
8. Other Special Conditions.
A. SECURITIES AND FEES
1. A $2,599,693.51 letter of credit or escrow for the developer-installed improvements, the
$649,337.78 cash fee and the fully-executed development contract must be submitted and
shall be submitted prior to scheduling a pre-construction meeting.
2. The $649,337.78 cash fee was calculated as follows:
Administration Fee: 3% of $500,000.00 + 2% of $875,000.00 $ 32,500.00
Street Lighting: $300.00/light x 6 lights 1,800.00
Final plat processing for attorney review and recording 450.00
GIS Fee: $25 (plat) + [$10/parcel x (53 lots + 4 outlots)] 595.00
Surface Water Management Fee 88,560.00
Park Dedication Fee: 53 lots x $5,800.00/lot $ 307,400.00
SP-4
Partial payment of 2005 MUSA Street and Utility Assessment and
Highway 101/212/312/Lyman Blvd. Assessment 165,267.78
Payment for pro-rated share for the preparation of the 2005 AUAR 14,365.00
TOTAL CASH FEES: $ 649,337.78
B. The “Existing Conditions” plan must be revised to show the drainage and utility easement
that was granted to the City and contain trunk sanitary sewer and watermain.
C. The applicant must provide documentation indicating that the proposed right-of-way for
Lyman Boulevard meets Carver County’s requirement.
D. A portion of some lots lie within the floodplain. Until a letter of approval from FEMA
has been received, homeowners may be required to obtain additional flood insurance.
E. Any grading within the floodplain will require a Conditional Use Permit.
F. Catch basins on each side of all public streets must be no more than 300 feet apart.
G. The outlet for Wetland A will be constructed when the property to the east develops.
H. All buildings must be demolished before the second phase.
I. Any retaining wall four feet high or taller requires a building permit and must be designed
by an Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
J. To the maximum extent practicable, the trail along the east side of Bluff Creek must be
within close proximity of the manholes for the existing trunk sanitary sewer.
K. The developer must pay $15,776 in cash with the final plat for the pro-rated cost for the
preparation of the 2005 MUSA AUAR.
L. The outstanding assessments – $310,999.03 for 2005 MUSA roads and water, and
$162,976.08 for Highway 101/Lyman Boulevard/Highway 312/Highway 212 must be paid with
the final plat or reassessed to the lots and outlots for future development.
M. 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
permit application. The party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of these
fees.
N. The City will construct Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements to serve the development in
conjunction with public improvement project No. 06-05. The property within the plat will be
specially assessed for this project.
SP-5
O. The development is subject to the arterial collector fee of $38,400 which must be paid in
cash with the final plat.
P. Curbs on public streets will be high-back; curbs on private streets will be surmountable.
Q. Sidewalks to public streets and within privately owned outlots shall be owned and
maintained by the homeowners association. Outlot C (Trail) and other sidewalks on public streets
can be used by the public.
R. All structures shall maintain a 50-foot setback from the ordinary high water level of Bluff
Creek. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the primary corridor. No
alterations shall occur within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from
the primary corridor. The 50-foot setback, primary corridor boundary, 40-foot structure setback
and 20-foot grading setback shall be shown on the plans.
S. The applicant shall provide details for the proposed trail crossing of Bluff Creek.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) permits shall be obtained for all creek
crossings. In addition, the trail alignment shall be revised to cross Bluff Creek in the same
location as the sanitary sewer crossing. Immediately south of the creek crossing, the trail
intersection shall be redesigned to avoid impact to the trees.
T. The applicant shall provide information to show the outlet for Wetland 7 and the routing
of water to a public waterbody.
U. The proposed sanitary sewer and storm sewer outlet in the vicinity of Pond 2 shall be
revised to ensure: 1. The runoff from the outlet will not compromise the integrity of the sanitary
sewer; and 2. The sanitary sewer is not located below the normal water level (NWL) of Pond 1.
V. The applicant shall clarify the avoidance of the drainage way to be preserved during the
construction of Pond 2 and, if possible, redesign the pond to provide additional storage and
treatment in lieu of avoiding the drainage way.
W. Pond 3 shall be constructed prior to the construction of all the areas that drain to it.
X. Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) shall be provided over all
existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
Y. 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.)
SP-6
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.
Z. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
AA. The applicant shall be proactive in addressing potential run-on problems in the vicinity of the
extreme southeast corner of the property. This would potentially involve vertically tracking equipment
up and down the graded faces of the slope to increase roughness and prevent rilling. Similar practices
shall be used behind the homes along the central part of Outlot A.
BB. The estimated total SWMP fee, due for Phase I payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $88,560.
CC. 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.
DD. Phase I Park and Trail fees are $307,400.
EE. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated
for preservation and/or at the edge of proposed grading limits.
FF. A turf plan shall be submitted to the City indicating the location of sod and seeding areas.
GG. Applicant shall remove Emerald Queen Norway maple from the planting schedule. The
applicant shall substitute another species with approval from the City.
HH. The developer shall work with staff to develop and install appropriate markers at lot lines
to demarcate the primary zone.
II. It is the intent of the City to draft the terms and conditions for the trailer at the City’s lift
station location.
JJ. The existing drainage and utility easement that Lift Station #24 partially lies within shall be
vacated once The Preserve plat is filed.
SP-7
KK. A 50-foot wide drainage and utility easement centered over the existing trunk sanitary
sewer must be platted and shown on the plans.
LL. Outlots containing public utilities-watermain, sanitary sewer and storm sewer that conveys
runoff from a public street-must have blanket drainage and utility easements over the outlot.
Private utilities (eg. storm sewer that only conveys runoff from a private street) within outlots
shall be owned and maintained by the association.
MM. The developer shall plat additional right-of-way for Lyman Boulevard/CSAH 18 if
required by Carver County.
NN. The “40’ ROW” note shown on the grading plan for River Rock Circle and Deere Circle
must be deleted since these will be private streets within an outlot.
OO. The right of way for Degler Drive South must be platted to provide access to Town and
Country’s proposed Liberty at Creekside development to the south.
PP. Fences, extensive landscaping and retaining walls cannot be installed within the drainage and
utility easement over the trunk sanitary sewer and watermain.
QQ. Staff recommends that the developer build side lookout units on Lots 3, 9 and 10, Block 5
since this housing style is better suited for the proposed grading.
RR. Additional catch basins are required at the following locations:
a) The corner of Lots 11 and 16, Block 1
b) Stations 6+50 and 2+25 on Degler Drive North, and
c) Station 2+50 on River Rock Circle
SS. A building permit is required for the proposed retaining wall. The wall must be designed
by an Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
TT. Lift Station #24 must be placed within an outlot that will be deeded to the City. The fully
executed Quit Claim Deed for this outlot must be submitted with the final plat mylars.
UU. Homes with a low floor elevation of 935’ or lower will require a pressure reducing valve
within the house.
VV. To the maximum extent practicable, the trail along the east side of Bluff Creek must be
within close proximity of the manholes for the existing trunk sanitary sewer.
WW. The developer’s share of the cost to prepare the 2005 MUSA AUAR is $14,365.00, which
must be paid in cash with the final plat.
SP-8
XX. The developer shall pay $165,267.78 in cash with the final plat to pay the 2005 MUSA
(City project 04-05) and Highway 101/212/312 and Lyman Boulevard (03-09) assessments for
the lots within the final plat.
YY. The developer must post a $308,707.74 security for the assessment amount that will be
reapportioned to Outlots A and B.
ZZ. 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
permit application. The party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of these
fees.
AAA. The developer must work with staff to ensure that the construction plans comply with the
City’s standard specifications and that all appropriate detail plates are included in the plan set.
BBB. The developer shall pay the $38,400.00 Arterial Collector Fee with the final plat.
CCC. The development plans must be changed to reflect the street names approved by the Fire
Marshal.
DDD. The street grades at Station 4+50, Deere Circle and Station 2+00, River Rock Circle must
be adjusted to meet the 7% maximum allowable slope.
EEE. Sidewalks adjacent to private streets and within privately owned outlots shall be owned
and maintained by the homeowners association and can be used by the public.”
9. General Conditions. The general conditions of this Contract are attached as Exhibit
"B" and incorporated herein.
SP-9
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
(SEAL)
AND:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
THE RYLAND GROUP, INC.
BY:
Wayne Soojian, Vice President
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2005, by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor, and by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of
Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the
authority granted by its City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2005, by Wayne Soojian, Vice President of The Ryland Group, Inc., a Corporation, on behalf of the
company.
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
EXHIBIT "A"
TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
The East Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 22, Township 116, Range 23, According to the
U.S. Government Survey thereof, Carver County, Minnesota.
Abstract.
MORTGAGE HOLDER CONSENT
TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
,
which holds a mortgage on the subject property, the development of which is governed by the
foregoing Development Contract, agrees that the Development Contract shall remain in full force and
effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage.
Dated this day of , 20 .
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
20___, by .
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
FEE OWNER CONSENT
TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
,
fee owners of all or part of the subject property, the development of which is governed by the
foregoing Development Contract, affirm and consent to the provisions thereof and agree to be bound
by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the subject property owned by them.
Dated this day of , 20 .
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
20___, by .
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT
No. ___________________
Date: _________________
TO: City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Sir or Madam:
We hereby issue, for the account of (Name of Developer) and in your favor, our
Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $____________, available to you by your draft drawn on
sight on the undersigned bank.
The draft must:
a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. __________, dated ________________,
2______, of (Name of Bank) ";
b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Manager of the City of Chanhassen.
c) Be presented for payment at (Address of Bank) , on or before 4:00 p.m. on November
30, 2______.
This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless, at least forty-
five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date (which shall be November 30 of each year), the Bank
delivers written notice to the Chanhassen City Manager that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel,
this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in
the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows:
Chanhassen City Manager, Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen,
MN 55317, and is actually received by the City Manager at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date.
This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified,
amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not
referred to herein.
This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw
may be made under this Letter of Credit.
This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and
Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 500.
We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly
honored upon presentation.
BY: ____________________________________
Its ______________________________
GC-1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
EXHIBIT "B"
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Right to Proceed. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not grade
or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities, public
or private improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) this
agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary
security and fees have been received by the City, 3) the plat has been recorded with the County
Recorder's Office or Registrar of Title’s Office of the County where the plat is located, and 4) the City
Engineer has issued a letter that the foregoing conditions have been satisfied and then the Developer
may proceed.
2. Phased Development. If the plat is a phase of a multiphased preliminary plat, the City
may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent phases if the Developer has breached this Contract and
the breach has not been remedied. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until
Development Contracts for such phases are approved by the City. Park charges and area charges for
sewer and water referred to in this Contract are not being imposed on outlots, if any, in the plat that are
designated in an approved preliminary plat for future subdivision into lots and blocks. Such charges
will be calculated and imposed when the outlots are final platted into lots and blocks.
3. Preliminary Plat Status. If the plat is a phase of a multi-phased preliminary plat, the
preliminary plat approval for all phases not final platted shall lapse and be void unless final platted into
lots and blocks, not outlots, within two (2) years after preliminary plat approval.
4. Changes in Official Controls. For two (2) years from the date of this Contract, no
amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current
urban service area, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot
layout or dedications of the approved plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing
by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Contract to the contrary,
to the full extent permitted by state law the City may require compliance with any amendments to the
City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date
of this Contract.
5. Improvements. The improvements specified in the Special Provisions of this Contract
shall be installed in accordance with City standards, ordinances, and plans and specifications which
have been prepared and signed by a competent registered professional engineer furnished to the City
and approved by the City Engineer. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the
GC-2
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services and other pertinent agencies before proceeding with
construction. The City will, at the Developer's expense, have one or more construction inspectors and
a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part-time basis. The Developer shall also provide a
qualified inspector to perform site inspections on a daily basis. Inspector qualifications shall be
submitted in writing to the City Engineer. The Developer shall instruct its project engineer/inspector to
respond to questions from the City Inspector(s) and to make periodic site visits to satisfy that the
construction is being performed to an acceptable level of quality in accordance with the engineer's
design. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a preconstruction meeting at a mutually agreeable
time at the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the
program for the construction work.
6. Iron Monuments. Before the security for the completion of utilities is released, all
monuments must be correctly placed in the ground in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 505.02, Subd. 1.
The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments have
been installed.
7. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and
contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the
City in conjunction with plat development.
8. Site Erosion and Sediment Control. Before the site is rough graded, and before any
utility construction is commenced or building permits are issued, the erosion and sediment control plan,
Plan B, shall be implemented, inspected, and approved by the City. The City may impose additional
erosion and sediment control requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the
excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in
that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion and sediment control plan, seed shall be certified
seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be fertilized,
mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the
essence in controlling erosion and sediment transport. If the Developer does not comply with the
erosion and sediment control plan and schedule of supplementary instructions received from the City,
the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion and sediment transport at the
Developer's expense. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed
action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations
hereunder. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in
full compliance with the erosion and sediment control requirements. Erosion and sediment control
needs to be maintained until vegetative cover has been restored, even if construction has been
completed and accepted. After the site has been stabilized to where, in the opinion of the City, there is
no longer a need for erosion and sediment control, the City will authorize the removal of the erosion
and sediment control, i.e. hay bales and silt fence. The Developer shall remove and dispose of the
erosion and sediment control measures.
8a. Erosion Control During Construction of a Dwelling or Other Building. Before a
building permit is issued for construction of a dwelling or other building on a lot, a $500.00 cash
GC-3
escrow or letter of credit per lot shall also be furnished to the City to guarantee compliance with City
Code § 7-22.
9. Clean up. The Developer shall maintain a neat and orderly work site and shall daily
clean, on and off site, dirt and debris, including blowables, from streets and the surrounding area that
has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns.
10. Acceptance and Ownership of Improvements. Upon completion and acceptance by
the City of the work and construction required by this Contract, the improvements lying within public
easements shall become City property. After completion of the improvements, a representative of the
contractor, and a representative of the Developer's engineer will make a final inspection of the work
with the City Engineer. Before the City accepts the improvements, the City Engineer shall be satisfied
that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and
the Developer and his engineer shall submit a written statement to the City Engineer certifying that the
project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The appropriate
contractor waivers shall also be provided. Final acceptance of the public improvements shall be by City
Council resolution.
11. Claims. In the event that the City receives claims from laborers, materialmen, or
others that work required by this Contract has been performed, the sums due them have not been paid,
and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking payment out of the financial guarantees posted
with the City, and if the claims are not resolved at least ninety (90) days before the security required by
this Contract will expire, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action
pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the
letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the claim(s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the
Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any
further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that
the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees.
12. Park Dedication. The Developer shall pay full park dedication fees in conjunction
with the installation of the plat improvements. The park dedication fees shall be the current amount in
force at the time of final platting pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinances and City Council resolutions.
13. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with Plan D. Unless
otherwise approved by the City, trees not listed in the City’s approved tree list are prohibited. The
minimum tree size shall be two and one-half (2½) inches caliper, either bare root in season, or balled
and burlapped. The trees may not be planted in the boulevard (area between curb and property line).
In addition to any sod required as a part of the erosion and sediment control plan, Plan B, the
Developer or lot purchaser shall sod the boulevard area and all drainage ways on each lot utilizing a
minimum of four (4) inches of topsoil as a base. Seed or sod shall also be placed on all disturbed areas
of the lot. If these improvements are not in place at the time a certificate of occupancy is requested, a
financial guarantee of $750.00 in the form of cash or letter of credit shall be provided to the City. These
conditions must then be complied with within two (2) months after the certificate of occupancy issued,
except that if the certificate of occupancy is issued between October 1 through May 1 these conditions
GC-4
must be complied with by the following July 1st. Upon expiration of the time period, inspections will
be conducted by City staff to verify satisfactory completion of all conditions. City staff will conduct
inspections of incomplete items with a $50.00 inspection fee deducted from the escrow fund for each
inspection. After satisfactory inspection, the financial guarantee shall be returned. If the requirements
are not satisfied, the City may use the security to satisfy the requirements. The City may also use the
escrowed funds for maintenance of erosion control pursuant to City Code Section 7-22 or to satisfy
any other requirements of this Contract or of City ordinances. These requirements supplement, but do
not replace, specific landscaping conditions that may have been required by the City Council for project
approval.
14. Warranty. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by it
pursuant to this Contract against poor material and faulty workmanship. The Developer shall submit
either 1) a warranty/maintenance bond for 100% of the cost of the improvement, or 2) a letter of credit
for twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the original cost of the improvements.
A. The required warranty period for materials and workmanship for the utility contractor
installing public sewer and water mains shall be two (2) years from the date of final written City
acceptance of the work.
B. The required warranty period for all work relating to street construction, including
concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks and trails, materials and equipment shall be subject to two (2) years
from the date of final written acceptance.
C. The required warranty period for sod, trees, and landscaping is one full growing season
following acceptance by the City.
15. Lot Plans. Prior to the issuance of building permits, an acceptable Grading, Drainage,
Erosion Control including silt fences, and Tree Removal Plan shall be submitted for each lot for review
and approval by the City Engineer. Each plan shall assure that drainage is maintained away from
buildings and that tree removal is consistent with development plans and City Ordinance.
16. Existing Assessments. Any existing assessments against the plat will be re-spread
against the plat in accordance with City standards.
17. Hook-up Charges. The Developer also acknowledges overall sanitary sewer and
water trunk availability to the site and the hook-up charges established by the City as reasonable
compensation for oversizing costs previously incurred, as well as, long-term maintenance. Said hook-
up charges are collectible at time of building permit unless a written request is made to assess the costs
over a four year term at the rates in effect at time of application. If paid with the building permit, the
party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of these fees.
18. Public Street Lighting. The Developer shall have installed and pay for public street
lights in accordance with City standards. The public street lights shall be accepted for City ownership
and maintenance at the same time that the public street is accepted for ownership and maintenance. A
GC-5
plan shall be submitted for the City Engineer's approval prior to the installation. Before the City signs
the final plat, the Developer shall pay the City a fee of $300.00 for each street light installed in the plat.
The fee shall be used by the City for furnishing electricity and maintaining each public street light for
twenty (20) months.
19. Signage. All street signs, traffic signs, and wetland monumentation required by the
City as a part of the plat shall be furnished and installed by the City at the sole expense of the
Developer.
20. House Pads. The Developer shall promptly furnish the City "as-built" plans indicating
the amount, type and limits of fill on any house pad location.
21. Responsibility for Costs.
A. The Developer shall pay an administrative fee in conjunction with the installation of
the plat improvements. This fee is to cover the cost of City Staff time and overhead for items such as
review of construction documents, preparation of the Development Contract, monitoring construction
progress, processing pay requests, processing security reductions, and final acceptance of
improvements. This fee does not cover the City's cost for construction inspections. The fee shall be
calculated as follows:
i) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is less than $500,000,
three percent (3%) of construction costs;
ii) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is between $500,000 and
$1,000,000, three percent (3%) of construction costs for the first $500,000 and
two percent (2%) of construction costs over $500,000;
iii) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is over $1,000,000, two
and one-half percent (2½%) of construction costs for the first $1,000,000 and
one and one-half percent (1½%) of construction costs over $1,000,000.
Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall deposit with the City a fee based upon
construction estimates. After construction is completed, the final fee shall be determined based upon
actual construction costs. The cost of public improvements is defined in paragraph 6 of the Special
Provisions.
B. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for all
costs incurred by the City for providing construction and erosion and sediment control inspections.
This cost will be periodically billed directly to the Developer based on the actual progress of the
construction. Payment shall be due in accordance with Article 21E of this Agreement.
C. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from
claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat
GC-6
approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for
all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims,
including attorneys' fees.
D. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for
costs incurred in the enforcement of this Contract, including engineering and attorneys' fees.
E. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations
incurred under this Contract within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the
City may halt all plat development work and construction, including but not limited to the issuance of
building permits for lots which the Developer may or may not have sold, until the bills are paid in full.
Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year.
F. In addition to the charges and special assessments referred to herein, other charges
and special assessments may be imposed such as, but not limited to, sewer availability charges
("SAC"), City water connection charges, City sewer connection charges, and building permit fees.
G. Private Utilities. The Developer shall have installed and pay for the installation of
electrical, natural gas, telephone, and cable television service in conjunction with the overall
development improvements. These services shall be provided in accordance with each of the
respective franchise agreements held with the City.
H. The developer shall pay the City a fee established by City Council resolution, to
reimburse the City for the cost of updating the City’s base maps, GIS data base files, and converting
the plat and record drawings into an electronic format. Record drawings must be submitted within four
months of final acceptance of public utilities. All digital information submitted to the City shall be in
the Carver County Coordinate system.
22. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to
be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall
promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given
notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This Contract is a license for the
City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the
land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost
in whole or in part.
23. Miscellaneous.
A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on-site construction trailers and temporary job
site offices shall be approved by the City Engineer as a part of the pre-construction meeting for
installation of public improvements. Trailers shall be removed from the subject property within thirty
(30) days following the acceptance of the public improvements unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
GC-7
B. Postal Service. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of postal service
in accordance with the local Postmaster's request.
C. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this
Contract. The City is not a guarantor of the Developer’s obligations under this Contract. The City
shall have no responsibility or liability to lot purchasers or others for the City’s failure to enforce this
Contract or for allowing deviations from it.
D. Breach of Contract. Breach of the terms of this Contract by the Developer shall
be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. The City may also issue a
stop work order halting all plat development until the breach has been cured and the City has received
satisfactory assurance that the breach will not reoccur.
E. Severability. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or
phrase of this Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portion of this Contract.
F. Building Permits. Building permits will not be issued in the plat until sanitary sewer,
watermain, and storm sewer have been installed, tested, and accepted by the City, and the streets
needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface and the site graded and revegetated in
accordance with Plan B of the development plans.
G. Waivers/Amendments. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a
waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall
be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's
failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release.
H. Release. This Contract shall run with the land and may be recorded against the
title to the property . After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Contract, at
the Developer's request the City Manager will issue a Certificate of Compliance. Prior to the issuance
of such a certificate, individual lot owners may make as written request for a certificate applicable to an
individual lot allowing a minimum of ten (10) days for processing.
I. Insurance. Developer shall take out and maintain until six (6) months after the City
has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering
personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of Developer's
work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them.
Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than $500,000 for one person and $1,000,000 for
each occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less than $500,000 for each occurrence; or a
combination single limit policy of $1,000,000 or more. The City shall be named as an additional
insured on the policy, and the Developer shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior
to the City signing the plat. The certificate shall provide that the City must be given ten (10) days
advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance. The certificate may not contain any
disclaimer for failure to give the required notice.
GC-8
J. Remedies. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is
cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, expressed or implied, now or
hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and
every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to
time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the
right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy.
K. Assignability. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written
permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and
effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it.
L. Construction Hours. Construction hours for required improvements under this
contract shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays
with no such activity allowed on Sundays or any recognized legal holidays. Under emergency
conditions, this limitation may be waived by the consent of the City Engineer. Any approved work
performed after dark shall be adequately illuminated. If construction occurs outside of the permitted
construction hours, the Developer shall pay the following administrative penalties:
First violation $ 500.00
Second violation $ 1,000.00
Third & subsequent violations All site development and construction must
cease for seven (7) calendar days
M. Noise Amplification. The use of outdoor loudspeakers, bullhorns, intercoms, and
similar devices is prohibited in conjunction with the construction of homes, buildings, and the
improvements required under this contract. The administrative penalty for violation of construction
hours shall also apply to violation of the provisions in this paragraph.
N. Access. All access to the plat prior to the City accepting the roadway
improvements shall be the responsibility of the Developer regardless if the City has issued building
permits or occupancy permits for lots within the plat.
O. Street Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for all street maintenance
until streets within the plat are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be placed by the Developer
when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on same and directing attention to
detours. If streets become impassable, the City may order that such streets shall be barricaded and
closed. The Developer shall maintain a smooth roadway surface and provide proper surface drainage.
The Developer may request, in writing, that the City plow snow on the streets prior to final acceptance
of the streets. The City shall have complete discretion to approve or reject the request. The City shall
not be responsible for reshaping or damage to the street base or utilities because of snow plowing
operations. The provision of City snow plowing service does not constitute final acceptance of the
streets by the City.
GC-9
P. Storm Sewer Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for cleaning and
maintenance of the storm sewer system (including ponds, pipes, catch basins, culverts and swales)
within the plat and the adjacent off-site storm sewer system that receives storm water from the plat.
The Developer shall follow all instructions it receives from the City concerning the cleaning and
maintenance of the storm sewer system. The Developer's obligations under this paragraph shall end
two (2) years after the public street and storm drainage improvements in the plat have been accepted by
the City. Twenty percent (20%) of the storm sewer costs, shown under section 6 of the special
provisions of this contract, will be held by the City for the duration of the 2-year maintenance period.
Q. Soil Treatment Systems. If soil treatment systems are required, the Developer shall
clearly identify in the field and protect from alteration, unless suitable alternative sites are first provided,
the two soil treatment sites identified during the platting process for each lot. This shall be done prior
to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Any violation/disturbance of these sites shall render them as
unacceptable and replacement sites will need to be located for each violated site in order to obtain a
building permit.
R. Variances. By approving the plat, the Developer represents that all lots in the plat
are buildable without the need for variances from the City's ordinances.
S. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations. In the development of the
plat the Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations of the following authorities:
1. City of Chanhassen;
2. State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and commissions;
3. United States Army Corps of Engineers;
4. Watershed District(s);
5. Metropolitan Government, its agencies, departments and commissions.
T. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall furnish the City with evidence
satisfactory to the City that it has the authority of the fee owners and contract for deed purchasers to
enter into this Development Contract.
U. Soil Conditions. The Developer acknowledges that the City makes no
representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the property or its fitness for
construction of the improvements or any other purpose for which the Developer may make use of such
property. The Developer further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its
governing body members, officers, and employees from any claims or actions arising out of the
presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants on the property, unless hazardous wastes or
pollutants were caused to be there by the City.
V. Soil Correction. The Developer shall be responsible for soil correction work on the
property. The City makes no representation to the Developer concerning the nature of suitability of
soils nor the cost of correcting any unsuitable soil conditions which may exist. On lots which have no
fill material a soils report from a qualified soils engineer is not required unless the City's building
GC-10
inspection department determines from observation that there may be a soils problem. On lots with fill
material that have been mass graded as part of a multi-lot grading project, a satisfactory soils report
from a qualified soils engineer shall be provided before the City issues a building permit for the lot. On
lots with fill material that have been custom graded, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils
engineer shall be provided before the City inspects the foundation for a building on the lot.
W. Haul Routes. The Developer, the Developer’s contractors or subcontractors
must submit proposed haul routes for the import or export of soil, construction material,
construction equipment or construction debris, or any other purpose. All haul routes must be
approved by the City Engineer
X. Development Signs. The Developer shall post a six foot by eight foot
development sign in accordance with City Detail Plate No. 5313 at each entrance to the project.
The sign shall be in place before construction of the required improvements commences and shall
be removed when the required improvements are completed, except for the final lift of asphalt on
streets. The signs shall contain the following information: project name, name of developer,
developer’s telephone number and designated contact person, allowed construction hours.
Y. Construction Plans. Upon final plat approval, the developer shall provide the
City with two complete sets of full-size construction plans and four sets of 11”x17” reduced
construction plan sets and three sets of specifications. Within four months after the completion of
the utility improvements and base course pavement and before the security is released, the Developer
shall supply the City with the following: (1) a complete set of reproducible Mylar as-built plans, (2) two
complete full-size sets of blue line/paper as-built plans, (3) two complete sets of utility tie sheets, (4)
location of buried fabric used for soil stabilization, (5) location stationing and swing ties of all utility
stubs including draintile cleanouts, (6) bench mark network, (7) digital file of as-built plans in both .dxf
& .tif format (the .dxf file must be tied to the current county coordinate system), (8) digital file of utility
tie sheets in either .doc or .tif format, and (9) a breakdown of lineal footage of all utilities installed,
including the per lineal foot bid price. The Developer is required to submit the final plat in electronic
format.
Z. As-Built Lot Surveys . An as-built lot survey will be required on all lots prior to the
Certificate of Occupancy being issued. The as-built lot survey must be prepared, signed, and dated by
a Registered Land Surveyor. Sod and the bituminous driveways must be installed before the as-built
survey is completed. If the weather conditions at the time of the as-built are not conducive to paving
the driveway and/or installing sod, a temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued and the as-built
escrow withheld until all work is complete.
Rev. 3/31/06
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: June 16, 2006
SUBJ: TH 212, Project 03-09: Approve Agreement with Zumbro River
Constructors for Grading and Restoration in City Right-of-Way.
REQUESTED ACTION
Approve agreement with Zumbro River Constructors for grading and restoration
work within City right-of way.
BACKGROUND
Zumbro River Contractors (ZRC) is the contractor the TH 212 Improvements. The
project has excess soil material that is suitable for screening berms. Jeff Reitan,
8900 Quinn Road and the adjacent property owner Richard Chadwick,
9530 Foxford Road has requested a berm be constructed to help screen their
property from the TH 212 Improvements.
The MnDOT plans for TH 212 did not include any noise mitigation or screening in
this area because the existing properties did not meet the requirements for
mitigation under the noise modeling. The back of Jeff Reitan’s house faces the
TH 212 westbound exit ramp to TH 101. Headlight spillage onto the Jeff Reitan
property may be a problem, especially in the winter months when the foliage is
gone. Also traffic noise from the ramp may be a future problem. Mr. Reitan and
Mr. Chadwick have been working with ZRC to design a screening berm to help
screen their properties from TH 212.
The proposal is to construct approximately a 17 ft. high berm mainly in MnDOT
right-of-way for screening. The berm would be half the size of other berms being
constructed in Eden Prairie. Due to the grades in this area, the grading and fill
would need to extend past MnDOT right-of-way and onto the adjacent properties
including City right-of-way. City Code 7-33(3) does not require ZRC to apply for a
grading permit since the TH 212 is a state project. However, the city has reviewed
this work from an engineering perspective and finds it acceptable. The City forester
has also reviewed the project.
The low depression on the adjacent properties and City right-of-way would be filled
and leveled. Trees in the grading limits would need to be removed. The City right-
of-way contains mainly low value trees and brush. ZRC is required to work with
the City to try to save some trees from the private property and establish new trees.
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
June 16, 2006
Page 2
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
ZRC would be responsible for constructing the berm to MnDOT specifications.
The drainage has been reviewed by the City and MnDOT. The Watershed District
has also reviewed the plans. There are no wetland impacts associated with this
improvement.
The agreement between the City and ZRC establishes working requirements for the
work in City right-of-way.
Attachment -Agreement
c: Tim O’Dell - ZRC
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Oehme, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: June 26, 2006
SUBJ: Revised Grading Plan Clarifying the Retaining Wall Height for
Stonefield Development, Project No. 06-07
During the retaining wall permit review Staff noted that the notes showing the height of
the top and bottom of the retaining wall on Lot 9, Block 3 were incorrect. The
following summarizes the notes and grading contours shown on the plan approved by
City Council on April 10, 2006 and the clarification submitted to the City on June 14,
2006:
Plan Date
Noted Top of
Wall
Elevation on
Lot 9, Block 3
Noted Bottom
of Wall
Elevation on
Lot 9, Block 3
Contour
Shown at the
Top of Wall
Contour
Shown at the
Bottom of
Wall
April 10, 2006 930.00 ft 926.00 ft 930.00 ft 922.00 ft
June 14, 2006 930.00 ft 922.00 ft 930.00 ft 922.00 ft
The contours on the original grading plan show that the wall will be 8 feet high at this
location, however the notes for the top and bottom of wall elevations are incorrect.
Retaining walls are necessary for this development due to the large grade difference
between the east and west property boundaries and to preserve the trees on the west
side of the property.
Staff recommends approving the revised grading plan.
Attachment: Corrected grading plan.
c: Nathan Franzen, Plowshares Development
G:\ENG\PROJECTS\Stonefield\06-26-06 retaining wall clarification.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Gregg Geske- Fire Chief
Sherri Walsh – 1st Assistant Chief
Randy Wahl - 2nd Assistant Chief
Mark Littfin- Fire Marshal
Ed Coppersmith – Training Officer
DATE: June 16, 2006
SUBJ: Monthly City Council update
Fire Department Overview:
Staff is at 46 active firefighters as of June 15, 2006, allocation is 45 PTE’s.
As of June 13, 2006, we are at 214 calls for the year, down 10 from 224 at the same time 2005. Since
our last Council update we have had one structure fire due to a lightning strike. We responded to
Eden Prairie, Excelsior, and Chaska for mutual aid and received mutual aid from the Edina Confined
Space Rescue Team with Minneapolis and Minnetonka assisting for an accident at the water
treatment plant.
We are planning to assist for the kiddie parade and be involved in the parade for the Chanhassen July
4th celebration. Planning is also beginning for National Night Out on August 1st.
The Women’s Fire Service Expo Day held on June 10th at the West Metro Training Facility in
conjunction with Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Hopkins and Bloomington Fire Departments was very
successful. Women who live or work in any of these suburbs were able to attend and learn more
about firefighting and about how they can become a volunteer firefighter. In addition, they had the
opportunity to meet and talk with women firefighters from these communities, hear about their
experiences and get some hands-on experience. There were 46 women attending and we had
representation from the Chanhassen area.
Fire Training:
During the month of May the Fire Department conducted training for existing and new engineers as
well as ladder training with the aerial truck. A refresher class on SCBA (self-contained breathing
Todd Gerhardt
June 16, 2006
Page 2
apparatus) use and maintenance was also held. Members of the rookie company went to the
Minneapolis Training Facility and conducted live burn training.
Fire Marshal:
The house fire mentioned above caused by a lightning strike destroyed a good portion of the roof
along with water damage on the 2nd floor. The homeowners will be displaced for approximately four
months.
Fire Inspections:
New construction projects in the city are the Emerson expansion, the Minger building located off
Galpin Court, the townhomes at Liberty on Bluff Creek and the water treatment plant. The restaurant
inspections are almost complete. Other existing buildings are Camp Tanadoona, Summerwood of
Chanhassen, Instant Web companies, along with a number of re-inspections from this past spring.
Fire Prevention:
We will be assisting the Park and Rec department this summer by visiting playgrounds with a fire
truck. Usually with weather permitting, the kids get a chance to spray water with a fire hose and then
get cooled off. It’s a huge success and the kids just love it.
Todd Gerhardt
June 16, 2006
Page 3