CC Packet 2006 05 22AGENDA
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, MAY 22, 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.
A. Emergency Management Exercise.
B. Update on Water Treatment Plant/SEH Change Order to Engineering Contract.
C. Lease Arrangements for Old St. Hubert's Church and Old Village Hall.
7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance)
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
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 May 8, 2006
- City Council Summary Minutes dated May 8, 2006
- City Council Verbatim Minutes dated May 8, 2006
- Board of Review Summary Minutes dated May 8, 2006
- Board of Review Verbatim Minutes dated May 8, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated May 2, 2006
- Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated May 2, 2006
- Park and Recreation Commission Summary Minutes dated April 25, 2006
- Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim Minutes dated April 25, 2006
b. Approve Quote for Upgrade to Lift Station No. 15.
c. Approval of NPDES Phase II Revised SWPPP.
d. Item Deleted (Approval of Sub-Lease with the Salvation Army, Old St. Hubert’s
Church).
e. Item Deleted (Approval of Lease, Old Village Hall).
f. Accept $1,500 Donation fro the Family of Donald & Harriet Elmblad for
Construction of an Entry Monument, Chanhassen Pioneer Cemetery.
g. Chanhassen Rotary Club: Approval of Two-Day Temporary On-Sale Liquor
License, Chanhassen Fourth of July Celebration.
h. Lotus Lake Slow-No Wake Ordinance: Approval of Summary Ordinance for
Publication Purposes.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE
2 a. Sgt. Jim Olson, Carver County Sheriff's Department
b. Chief Gregg Geske, Chanhassen Fire Department
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Request for an on-Sale Beer & Wine License, Frankie's Pizza, Pasta & Ribs, 7850 Market
Boulevard, Bruce Foster Restaurants Las Vegas, Inc.
4. Consider Automatic Slow-No Wake Ordinance for Lake Susan and Consider Summary
Ordinance for Publication Purposes.
AWARD OF BIDS
5. Award of Bid, 2006 G.O. Improvement Bonds.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
6. Liberty at Creekside, 1500 Pioneer Trail, Applicant: Town & Country Homes:
Request for Rezoning of Property from A-2 to PUD-R; Subdivision with Variances of
Approximately 36.01 Acres into 29 Lots, 5 Outlots, and Public Right-of-Way; Site Plan
Approval for 146 Townhouses; and a Conditional Use Permit for Alterations within the
Flood Plain and Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
NEW BUSINESS
7. Galpin Crossing Twinhomes; Located North of West 78th Street and West of Galpin
Boulevard; Applicant: Epic Development XVI, LLC, Planning Case 06-13: Request
for Rezoning from Agricultural Estate District (A-2) to Planned Unit Development-
Residential (PUD-R); Preliminary Plat Approval Creating 13 Lots and One Outlot with a
Variance for a Private Street and More than 4 Homes Accessing a Private Street; and a
Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
8. Arboretum Business Center; 2970 Water Tower Place (Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum
Business Center 5th Addition); Applicant: Steiner Development; Planning Case 06-
16: Request for Site Plan Review for a 25,300 sq. ft. Office-Showroom-Warehouse
Building on 2.69 Acres of Land Zoned Planned Unit Development.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
9. Update on Field Allocation Policy (verbal).
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.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, Director of Public Work/City Engineer
DATE: May 22, 2006
SUB: Water Treatment Plant: Update
Project No. 04-08
Staff is planning to have a PowerPoint presentation updating the Council on the
progress of the Water Treatment Plant. The presentation in general will include
work completed to date, schedule update, and review plant start up and public
notification.
g:\eng\public\04-08 wtp\052206 ws update.doc
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Leases OVH and St. Hubert.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager
DATE: May 15, 2006
RE: Lease Arrangements for Old St. Hubert’s Church and
Old Village Hall
Both the Old Village Hall and Old St. Hubert’s Church are currently vacant. The
Chamber of Commerce moved out of Old Village Hall this month, and
Homestead Church vacated Old St. Hubert’s Church in December. At this time,
staff is ready to find suitable tenants for both buildings. One of the best ways to
ensure that older structures avoid further disrepair is to maintain a daily presence
in them.
Staff recently placed an advertisement in the southwest newspapers soliciting
office renters for Old Village Hall. We received several inquiries, and began
negotiating a lease with an interested party. Unfortunately, we could not come to
terms on the lease, so right now we are again looking for a suitable tenant. Other
ideas regarding the building have been suggested, and they range from operating a
historical museum to a senior art gallery.
Earlier this year the City was approached by the Salvation Army, who was
looking for a location in Chanhassen to provide services to their clients. Staff
toured the church with Salvation Army representatives, and they indicated that
they would be interested in subleasing the property from the City. Staff and the
Salvation Army have agreed on terms for a sublease agreement if this is
something that the City Council wishes to proceed with. Representatives from the
Salvation Army will be at Monday’s work session to discuss their operations if
the council has any questions.
Staff is looking for direction from the city council on how they wish to proceed
with both these buildings.
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
MAY 8, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the work session to order at 5:40 p.m..
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Lundquist, and Councilman
Peterson. Councilman Labatt arrived at the end of the work session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Tjornhom
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, and Todd
Hoffman
DISCUSSION OF PLANS FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE LAKEVIEW HILLS
PROPERTY.
John Holdenbacher with Sienna Corporation introduced his team which included Steve Mangold,
John Harriss with Harriss Architects, and Steve Obermueller with Wooddale Builders. Mr.
Holdenbacher provided background information on the property, and introduced their proposal.
He presented a color rendering showing the PUD with different type of housing units, park and
trail system, and beachlot area. John Harriss explained the condominium concept being
proposed for Buildings A, B and C. Councilman Lundquist asked how the proposed townhouses
compare with the Twinhomes currently on Bearpath Golf Course. Councilman Peterson asked
for an explanation of the price point for the condos. John Harriss stated they expect the condos
in Building A to be approximately $300-$340.00 a square foot. Councilman Lundquist asked
about the fencing around Bearpath and how the public and private trail systems will be
connected. Kate Aanenson stated staff will work with the applicant to deal with the
private/public connections to the trails, beach and grading. Councilman Lundquist asked for an
explanation of the timeline associated with demolition and construction. John Harriss explained
the scale of the 4 story apartment building B in relation to the North Bay development. Steve
Obermueller outlined the layout, size and price point for the Wooddale Builders townhome units.
John Holdenbacher presented the Charles Cudd townhomes and addressed the beachlot zoning
requirements which would exclude 30-40 units in the development. They will be asking the City
Council to consider requesting beachlot access to all units in the development. Kate Aanenson
clarified the zoning on the site and in order to accommodate the mixed housing types versus a R-
12 vertical unit, staff would support the request for mixed use and access to the beachlot. Mayor
Furlong asked for clarification of the private streets versus public street, traffic flow, drainage
and response from the North Bay residents. John Holdenbacher stated they will be holding a
neighborhood meeting with the North Bay residents prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
Todd Gerhardt asked the applicant to look at connecting the trail system with the North Bay
development, and to study the road improvements and traffic study regarding access into the site.
Mayor Furlong thanked the applicants for their presentation and told them to keep up the good
work. Kate Aanenson noted that staff and the applicant were looking at June 20, 2006 for
Planning Commission review.
Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session at 6:20 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
MAY 8, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:25 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Lundquist, Councilman
Peterson and Councilman Labatt
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Tjornhom
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Paul
Oehme, Todd Hoffman, Lori Haak, and Don Asleson
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Jennifer Riggs 9064 Briarglen Road, Eden Prairie
Mitchell Faber 7387 Ontario Boulevard, Eden Prairie
Debbie Larson Planning Commission
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s
recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated April 24, 2006
-City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated April 24, 2006
-Board of Review & Equalization Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated April 24, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes
-Planning Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated April 18, 2006
-Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated March 28, 2006
b. Resolution #2006-32: 2006 Street Improvement Project 06-01: Call Assessment
Hearing.
c. Hidden Creek Meadows: Approve Development Contract Assignment.
d. Resolution #2006-33: 2005 MUSA Project 06-05: Approve Change Order to
Engineering Contract.
City Council Summary – May 8, 2006
2
e. Approval of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, Softball Tournament at Lake Ann Park,
June 24 & 25, Chanhassen Lions Club.
h. Approval of Extension to Variance 05-10, 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard, Laura Cooper.
i. Resolution #2006-34: Approval of Moving the Polling Location for Precinct 3 from
Discovery United Methodist Church to St. Hubert Church.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
1(G). CALL FOR SALE, 2006 G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS.
Councilman Lundquist asked for clarification on what was included in these improvement bonds.
Resolution #2006-35: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to
approve the Call for Sale of 2006 G.O. Improvement Bonds. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: STATE OF THE AGENCY REPORT, SOUTHWEST
METRO TRANSIT, LEN SIMICH.
Len Simich gave a slide presentation showing Southwest Metro Transit’s past achievements and
what’s planned for the future. Councilman Lundquist asked for comparisons of other growing
communities in the nation that are similar to Eden Prairie, Chaska, Chanhassen. Mayor Furlong
asked for an update on the current and future number of parking stalls that will be added at the
Highway 212/101 park and ride site. Todd Gerhardt asked if ridership has increased due to the
cost of gas rising.
PUBLIC HEARING ON LOTUS LAKE AUTOMATIC SLOW-NO WAKE
ORDINANCE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Doug Bitney 6645 Horseshoe Curve
Shelly Strohmaier 80 Sandy Hook Road
Steve Donen 7341 Frontier Trail
Greg Fletcher 7616 South Shore Drive
Bob Ayotte 6213 Cascade Pass
Dave Howe 400 Santa Fe Trail
Patti & Dave Preves 106 Sandy Hook Road
Bill Kirkvold 201 Frontier Court
Don Asleson gave a power point presentation outlining the results of the meetings held by the
Lotus Lake Slow-No Wake Task Force and a draft of the proposed ordinance that resulted from
City Council Summary – May 8, 2006
3
those meetings. Councilman Lundquist asked if the Sheriff’s office had been included in
discussion on enforcement of the ordinance. Mayor Furlong asked if staff has been working with
the DNR and their response to the draft. The public hearing was opened. Debbie Lloyd, 7302
Laredo Drive, a member of the Sunrise Hills Association, stated she believed the committee
worked really hard to come up with something that was agreeable both to lakeshore owners and
non-lakeshore owners. The public hearing was closed. Councilman Labatt asked staff to make
sure there was an exemption for emergency personnel water traffic included. Mayor Furlong
questioned whether the penalty for violating the ordinance as a misdemeanor was excessive and
if it should be considered a petty misdemeanor. Roger Knutson, the city attorney explained the
difference between petty misdemeanor and misdemeanor violations. Councilman Labatt asked
staff to clarify that there is sufficient signage.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve
the ordinance amendment including the statement, watercraft utilized by resource
management, emergency and enforcement personnel acting in the performance of their
assigned duties shall be exempt from the provision of this ordinance, and amend City Code
to read as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 6-49 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended
to include the changes listed in bold to read as follows:
“Sec. 6-49. Slow--No wake areas.
(1) No person shall operate a watercraft in any marked slow--no wake areas in excess of slow--
no wake speed. Slow--no wake areas shall be marked in accordance with the applicable
regulations of the state department of natural resources. The location and boundaries of each
slow--no wake area established are shown on that certain map entitled Water Surface Use Zoning
Map of Chanhassen dated July 11, 1983, on file in the city hall. The map and all notations,
references and data thereon are hereby incorporated by reference into this article and shall have
the same force and effect as if fully set forth and described herein.
(2) Emergency slow-no wake areas may be established by resolution of the city council and shall
be marked in accordance with the appropriate regulations of the state department of natural
resources and posted at all public accesses.
(3) Special Slow-No Wake Restrictions
(a) Lotus Lake:
All persons shall operate watercraft at a slow-no wake speed on Lotus Lake whenever
the water elevation exceeds the 100-year predicted level for Lotus Lake of 896.8 MSL
as set forth in the 1994 Surface Water Management Plan. The slow-no wake surface
zoning shall remain in place until the water drops below the 100-year predicted level of
896.8 MSL for 3 consecutive days. Upon the placement of a slow-no wake restriction,
notice will be given:
1. On a sign posted at the public access.
2. On the City of Chanhassen Web Page.
City Council Summary – May 8, 2006
4
3. On the City of Chanhassen Clean Water Hotline.
4. On the Community Cable Access Channel.
5. In an e-mail format to known representatives on Lotus Lake.
6. To the Carver County Sheriffs Department.
7. To the public by other appropriate means determined by Council. ”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
GREEN GARDENS, 850 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, APPLICANT KEITH WERNER:
REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO INTERIM USE PERMIT 96-2 FOR
EXPANSION OF THE WHOESALE/RETAIL NURSERY USE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Skip Cook Eden Prairie
Keith Werner 850 Flying Cloud Drive
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Mayor
Furlong asked staff what could be done to eliminate another occurrence of the incident he
observed of a truck maneuvering into the nursery site and blocking traffic on 101. Skip Cook
noted he observed the same incident and that the truck was not entering the nursery site, but
turned around and went north.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approve Interim Use Permit #96-2 allowing the expansion of the wholesale/retail nursery use
on property located in the Agricultural Estate (A-2) District at 850 Flying Cloud Drive, as
shown on the plans prepared by Jeff Zeitler of Green Gardens dated March 31, 2006, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit vehicular use area measurements.
2. The applicant shall install landscape islands or peninsulas based on the overall area of the
vehicular use area.
3. The applicant shall install overstory trees in the parking area in quantities as required by City
Code.
4. Bufferyard plantings will be required along Highway 212 to screen the parking lot.
5. Bufferyard plantings may be required in front of the stone sales area and mulch bins
depending on the visibility of these areas from Highway 212.
6. Landscaping, storage and disposal activities shall be prohibited within 50 feet of the drainage
way which runs along the northwest corner of the property.
City Council Summary – May 8, 2006
5
7. The accumulation of nursery waste shall not be permitted on site.
8. Drainage in the Highway 212 right-of-way and Highway 101 right-of-way shall not be
modified or changed as part of the IUP amendment activities.
9. If active grading, earthwork or landscaping activity exceeds 1 acre of the site leaving
exposed soils, the applicant will need to obtain an NPDES permit as determined by the
Pollution Control Agency.
10. If a NPDES permit is not needed, the applicant shall be responsible for controlling erosion
and sediment from their property. Upon inspection, if erosion becomes a problem on site, the
City may require the applicant to make corrections and stabilize soil.
11. All drive lanes shall be surfaced with a Class V gravel base or similar material to minimize
erosion potential.
12. Applicant must fill out the aboveground storage tank installation permit application.
13. An aboveground storage tank installation permit must be issued by the Chanhassen Fire
Marshal before any type of work on tanks and dispensing equipment is started.
14. Acceptance test on the aboveground storage tank must be conducted by the installer and
witnessed by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal.
15. Building permits must be obtained for proposed structures and all must comply with the
Minnesota State Building Code.
16. Construction of the third storage shed shall be of compatible design, materials and color to those
of the existing storage sheds.
17. The applicant will be allowed to utilize the trailer through November 30, 2006. The trailer must
be permanently removed from the property no later than December 1, 2006.
18. Use of the temporary office trailer shall cease within 30 days following the issuance of
certificate of occupancy for the third storage shed.
19. Area 4 shall not be used for the storage of equipment, materials or vehicles associated with
the nursery. Storage or display of nursery stock is permitted in Area 4.
20. A 50-foot setback shall be maintained from all property lines for the storage of materials,
growing ranges and parking, except that the existing display area adjacent to Highway 212 and
Highway 101 (southeast corner of the property) may continue to be used for these purposes. No
materials or displays shall be placed within the right-of-way or obstruct the view of the traveling
public. The storage of materials over three (3) feet in height shall be prohibited in the site
triangle of Highway 101 and 212.
City Council Summary – May 8, 2006
6
21. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. The sale of seasonal merchandise consisting of pumpkin
and Christmas tree sales shall be permitted from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
22. Exterior light sources shall be shielded.
23. No outside speaker system shall be allowed.
24. The use shall terminate one year following the availability of public sewer and water service.
An annual review shall be made to determine compliance with the attached conditions.
25. The applicant shall work with staff to develop signage that will comply with city ordinances.
26. Stop signs shall be erected at the intersections of the driveways at Highways 101 and 212.
27. No equipment or vehicles shall be stored on the site with the exception of employee vehicles
and equipment necessary for the operation of the nursery.
28. No outside storage of equipment and materials unrelated to the nursery business shall be
permitted.
29. Storage structures shall not be used for retail purposes. A portion of the proposed storage
structure may be allocated as office space to service wholesale customers. Storage of equipment
and materials is permitted in these buildings.
30. No grading of the property shall be permitted unless a grading permit is obtained from the City.
31. The applicant shall work with MnDOT in examining the possibility of relocating the access
point on TH 212 further to the west and providing a deceleration lane along westbound TH 212
in conjunction with the Highway 212 improvements.
32. All loading or unloading should be done on site and not blocking either Highway 212 or 101.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
THE PRESERVE, 1630 LYMAN BOULEVARD, APPLICANT THE PEMTOM LAND
COMPANY: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM A2 TO PUD-R; SUBDIVISION OF
APPROXIMATELY 80 ACRES INTO 156 SINGLE FAMILY CLUSTER LOTS; SITE
PLAN REVIEW; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE
BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT AND ALTERATIONS WITHIN THE FLOOD
PLAIN; WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR CROSSING BLUFF CREEK; AND
VARIANCES.
City Council Summary – May 8, 2006
7
Public Present:
Name Address
Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
Marcy Hillerman 7699 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie
Gayle & Lois Degler 1630 Lyman Boulevard
Justin Larson Westwood Professional Services
Allan Klugman Westwood Professional Services
Cory Meyer Westwood Professional Services
Dan Herbst 7640 Crimson Bay
Dan Cook 7697 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie
Kate Aanenson presented the details of the plan and what makes this plan different from other
developments in the 2005 MUSA area, and presented an update from the Planning Commission
meeting. Paul Oehme reviewed the road issues and asked the developer to provide a brief
synopsis of his plans and potential impacts with other access points, specifically by Lyman. Dan
Herbst with Pemtom Land Company introduced Gayle and Lois Degler, owners of the property
and his team of professionals. He reviewed the planning process and spoke to the e-mail he
received from Mr. Dorsey which suggested a different road configuration than the one being
presented. Cory Meyer talked about how this type of development pattern is suited specifically
for this type of site. And two, how this development pattern is going to create a unique
neighborhood for the city. Mayor Furlong asked if a hammer head or turn around could be
added to the end of Street F. Councilman Peterson asked what portion of the open space is
buildable property. Councilman Lundquist asked the applicant and staff to address parking.
Allan Klugman addressed the traffic circulation issues raised by Mr. Dorsey and their impacts on
this development. Brian Sullivan with Ryland Homes spoke to the product type, price point and
floor plans. Councilman Peterson asked for clarification on the color palette and textured garage
doors. Mayor Furlong invited Rick Dorsey to speak to the council. The council and staff
discussed options for road access associated with different zoning options. Mayor Furlong
questioned the setbacks for corner lots and impervious surface regulations. Councilman Labatt
asked about the width and potential parking problems on the private streets. Councilman
Lundquist asked for clarification of the park facilities for the new residents of this development.
After council comments the following motion was made.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve
the Rezoning of the land within the Plat for The Preserve from Agricultural Estate District,
A2 to Planned Unit Development-Residential, PUD-R; approval of a Conditional Use
Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and alterations
within the flood plain; and approval of the Preliminary Plat for “The Preserve” creating
155 lots, 15 outlots and right-of-way for public streets, plans prepared by Westwood
Professional Services, Inc., dated 3-17-06, subject to the following conditions:
1. The drainage and utility easement over the northern portion of Lift Station #24 must be
vacated and filed upon final approval of the final plat.
City Council Summary – May 8, 2006
8
2. 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.
3. Prior to City Council consideration of the final plat, the applicant must provide
documentation indicating that the proposed right-of-way for Lyman Boulevard meets Carver
County’s requirement.
4. The grading plan must identify the existing and proposed 100-year floodplain.
5. Due to the anticipated timing of the final plat with respect to the timing of formal approvals
from FEMA, the proposed lots that are within the current floodplain may be preliminary
platted subject to FEMA approval of the LOMR.
6. Any grading within the floodplain will require a Conditional Use Permit.
7. Catch basins on each side of all public streets must be no more than 300 feet apart.
8. The proposed outlet for Wetland A must lie along the edge of the wetland.
9. The storm sewer from Pond 1 must outlet to the wetland north of Pond 2 in order to maintain
hydrology to the wetland.
10. Storm sewer within Street J must be rerouted through the sideyards within Block 3 and outlet
to Pond 2.
11. Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat submittals.
12. The legend on the final grading plan must identify the lowest floor elevation.
13. All buildings must be demolished before the second phase.
14. The final grading plan must show the top and bottom of wall elevations.
15. 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.
16. The developer must work with staff to find the preferred sanitary sewer alignment west of
Block 3 prior to City Council consideration of the final plat.
17. The plan must be revised to show an 18-inch diameter watermain on the south side of Lyman
Boulevard to the east property line.
18. The developer’s engineer must submit a separate cost estimate for the watermain oversizing
along Lyman Boulevard with the final plat submittals.
City Council Summary – May 8, 2006
9
19. 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.
20. The lowest floor elevation of each unit must be shown on the utility plan.
21. The existing well and septic system must be properly removed and abandoned during site
grading and utility installation.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. The development is subject to the arterial collector fee, which must be paid in cash with the
final plat.
27. Streets F and K must extend past Lot 6, Block 13 and Lot 1, Block 17, respectively to
provide adequate space for a vehicle to back out of the driveway and turn into the street.
28. Curbs on public streets will be high-back; curbs on private streets will be surmountable.
29. The sidewalk along the north side of Street H between Street A and Street I, and along the
north side of Street E must be eliminated.
30. Sidewalks adjacent to private streets and within privately owned outlots can be used by the
public.
31. The applicant will work with staff to discuss eliminating Lots 1 and 2, Block 11, and Lots 1
through 5, Block 1.
32. The applicant shall revise the plan design to ensure adequate hydrology for Wetland 4 in the
post-development condition.
33. If the applicant wishes to pursue an exemption for impact to Wetland A, the applicant shall
furnish information to substantiate the exemption request. The applicant is advised that, even
City Council Summary – May 8, 2006
10
if impacts would be exempt from WCA, they may not be exempt from the requirements of
the Army Corps of Engineers.
34. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 16.5 feet shall be maintained around all wetlands
and wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in
accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge
signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per
sign. All structures shall maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. The plans shall be revised to provide a lower EOF for Wetland A and a path to the west for
excess water that will not threaten proposed structures.
38. The EOF path for Pond 1 shall be revised to provide a more direct EOF route from Pond 1 to
Wetland 4.
39. 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
2.
40. The outfall from Pond 3 shall not outlet upslope of the proposed trail.
41. The applicant shall clarify the avoidance of the drainageway to be preserved during the
construction of Pond 4 and, if possible, redesign the pond to provide additional storage and
treatment in lieu of avoiding the drainageway.
42. Pond 5 shall be constructed prior to the construction of all the areas that drain to it.
43. 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.
44. 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:
City Council Summary – May 8, 2006
11
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.
45. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
46. 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.
47. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $242,760.
48. 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.
49. The applicant shall demonstrate that the outlet pipe installation and elevation will not impact
the wetland.
50. If recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission, park fees shall be paid as per City
ordinance at the rate of final platting.
51. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for
preservation and/or at the edge of proposed grading limits.
52. A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to
construction.
53. No burning permits shall be issued for tree removal. All trees removed on site shall be
chipped and used on site or hauled off.
54. A turf plan shall be submitted to the City indicating the location of sod and seeding areas.
City Council Summary – May 8, 2006
12
55. Buffer plantings shall be installed along the east property line in the rear yards of Lots 7
through 16, Block 3 and Lots 1 through 5, Block 10.
56. Applicant shall remove Emerald Queen Norway maple from the planting schedule. The
applicant shall substitute another species with approval from the City.
57. A conservation easement shall be recorded over Outlot A.
58. The developer shall work with staff to develop and install appropriate markers at lot lines to
demarcate the primary zone.
59. The applicant shall submit a plan for the revegetation of any areas of grading within Outlot
A. The plan shall incorporate native plants and be consistent with the City’s Bluff Creek
Natural Resources Management Plan Appendix C. Special attention should be paid to areas
with steep slopes (greater than 3:1). Staff recommends that the Hill Prairie planting list be
used for the restoration.”
60. The applicant shall provide all design, engineering, construction and testing services
required of the “Bluff Creek Trail.” All construction documents shall be delivered to the
Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer for approval prior to the initiation of each
phase of construction. The trail shall be 10 feet in width, surfaced with bituminous material
and constructed to meet all city specifications. The applicant shall be reimbursed for the
actual cost of construction materials for the Bluff Creek Trail. This reimbursement payment
shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and receipt of an invoice
documenting the actual costs for the construction materials utilized in its construction.
61. Outlots A, B, L and N be conveyed to the city as public property by warranty deed.
62. The following items are to be addressed at final plat:
· Attention to garage door facades including n percent of doors with windows
· Color palate ( 4 minimum)
· Private streets and sidewalks,
· Percentage of future boilable area,
· Setbacks on corner lots
· Turnarounds at the end of private streets.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: None.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. Mayor Furlong noted the change in library hours.
City Council Summary – May 8, 2006
13
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 10:25
p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 8, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:25 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Lundquist, Councilman
Peterson and Councilman Labatt
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Tjornhom
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Paul
Oehme, Todd Hoffman, Lori Haak, and Don Asleson
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Jennifer Riggs 9064 Briarglen Road, Eden Prairie
Mitchell Faber 7387 Ontario Boulevard, Eden Prairie
Debbie Larson Planning Commission
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s
recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated April 24, 2006
-City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated April 24, 2006
-Board of Review & Equalization Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated April 24, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes
-Planning Commission Verbatim and Summary Minutes dated April 18, 2006
-Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated March 28, 2006
b. Resolution #2006-32: 2006 Street Improvement Project 06-01: Call Assessment
Hearing.
c. Hidden Creek Meadows: Approve Development Contract Assignment.
d. Resolution #2006-33: 2005 MUSA Project 06-05: Approve Change Order to
Engineering Contract.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
2
e. Approval of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, Softball Tournament at Lake Ann Park,
June 24 & 25, Chanhassen Lions Club.
h. Approval of Extension to Variance 05-10, 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard, Laura Cooper.
i. Resolution #2006-34: Approval of Moving the Polling Location for Precinct 3 from
Discovery United Methodist Church to St. Hubert Church.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
1(G). CALL FOR SALE, 2006 G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Gerhardt, on those G.O. bonds, is that part of our, I’ll call it the loan
program from the State? It’s part of all that work.
Todd Gerhardt: No, this is for the east/west collector road and sewer and water.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, so that’s the part of it of that that is not associated with the State
program. That’s just the 2005 east/west?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. There’s also.
Councilman Lundquist: As far as that, so the assessments from that are those benefiting property
owners there and this is our portion.
Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you. That’s all I have Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a motion to approve?
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Resolution #2006-35: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to
approve the Call for Sale of 2006 G.O. Improvement Bonds. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: STATE OF THE AGENCY REPORT, SOUTHWEST
METRO TRANSIT, LEN SIMICH.
Mayor Furlong: If you’d like to address an issue, please come to the podium. State your name
and address and we’ll be happy to listen to your comments. If no one this evening, we do offer
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
3
visitor presentations at each meeting so anybody is welcomed to come at that time. Move now to
our next item on our agenda which is presentation by Len Simich from Southwest Metro Transit.
Good evening Len.
Len Simich: Good evening Mayor, members of the council. Pleasure for me to be here this
evening. It’s been a few years I think since I’ve been over here to kind of give an update on
what we’re doing at Southwest Metro and an overview of the agency. As I understand it, the
slide show that I have here this evening has been provided in your packet, so I’m just going to
kind of cover some of the high points and then give some time for you to be able to answer, or
ask any questions since the next couple years are going to be big for Southwest Metro again in
the City of Chanhassen. Okay, first and foremost, this is our 20th anniversary of the agency,
Southwest Metro Transit. Again starting in 1986. Seen a lot of changes. A lot of growth. Both
not only in communities that we serve but in the agency itself, and we really look forward to
serving the 3 communities and potentially expanding in the future. Later on this year we are
going to be doing something formal in terms of the celebration, which you all will be invited to,
and we have a few other plans in store in terms of changes as we move forward, so we look
forward to that. Here we have a slide of our existing commission. As you may recognize some
of the members. The two Chanhassen members, our Chair Councilman Peterson as well as
Vicky Ernst. And each community that we serve, Chanhassen, Chaska and Eden Prairie has two
representatives on the commission, as well as one rider rep that is selected by the commission.
Some of the highlights for 2005. Again we had another growth year. We had a 10% increase in
our overall ridership. This falls on the heels of 2004 where we had a 20% increase so 30% in the
last 2 years is phenomenal growth. And our biggest issues have been really trying to keep up
with that demand, both in terms of our capital. In terms of our vehicles as well as the park and
ride stalls that a majority of our customers use. Last year we topped over the 800,000 mark in
terms of our total trips. We also provided over 42,000 rides to Minnesota State Fair. Again
another record for us. The last thing I want to note on this slide is some of the performance
targets. We set a number of performance targets for the overall agency, and that kind of gives us
that report card on how we’re doing and something we’re very proud of is the, our on time
performance where we exceeded 99% in terms of our overall agency on time performance, and
our road calls per mile. That is when we’re...to fetch a mechanic out to actually do a road call
because as a vehicle is traveling in service. Last year we were over 1 road call for 16,000 miles.
Industry standards about 1 for 5,000, so we’re very pleased on both of the efforts of our
maintenance staff, and in terms of preventive maintenance that they do on a daily basis. As well
as and I will admit we have been very successful at bringing in a lot of new equipment, so that
has helped us overall with the liability, but again that’s a major factor because if you’re not
reliable, not on time, we’re not going to be able to attract as many people to our system as we’d
hoped. Staying with 2005, the shot up there is, the top shot on the right is our 1947 silver sided
bus. Some of you may have seen this at the 4th of July celebration. I think we actually won an
award in one of the categories when it was entered. It was pretty much the exterior that had been
completed. Now we’re totally complete. It’s been brought back to the time period of 1947. It
was on display last year at the Minnesota State Fair, and anywhere it goes it gets rave reviews, so
this is kind of our flag ship. We use it, not only in parades but it will get out on service from
time to time as well as we use it for a lot of other promotional effects. A couple other things.
You may have heard that we were very successful in obtaining some federal, as well as state
funding over the past year. A lot of that state funding is, and general funding will be going right
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
4
here in Chanhassen with the expansion at Market Street. We’ll be putting our parking ramp at
that location, as well as our new development along Highway 212 and 101, which I’m sure
you’ll have some more questions about. We also secured additional state funding for that 101
development, and we secured some additional property in Chanhassen really as a fall back, not
knowing what was going to happen at Market Street so we have additional 5 acres down
towards, and across from Prince’s studio basically. In terms of new vehicles, again to meet up
with that demand, we purchased 9 new vehicles and they’ll be going into service here shortly.
Speaking a little bit about our project on 101. We will be back in front of this body here in June
seeking our final approvals. We’re going this week back to the neighborhood, rolling out our
plan. The Planning Commission will hear it the following week, and again we’ll be back in front
of the City Council. We’re very excited about the plan. It’s a total mixed use, transit oriented
development. Has townhomes. Some retail and of course our parking ramp and station. We
think it’s going to be a very nice addition to the city. We’re also doing something similar in the
city of Chaska, so you can see our system, we’re trying to really gear itself for future growth.
Some of the current projects that we’re working on. We’re doing a lot of, in the planning phases,
both with the city of Eden Prairie as well as Carver County in terms of a comprehensive plan.
We’re doing our own transit development plan and really trying to gauge 5, 10, 15 years out,
what the demand, what the needs are going to be and really try to mirror our funding and our
service to meet that demand. Finally one of the other things that we gauge or kind of are our
report card is our customer satisfaction and we do an annual survey of all of our riders. We get a
very high response rate, and last year we had over 97% customer satisfaction rating, which again
we were very pleased with but in this industry it’s very unprecedented to get something that
high. Any time you’re dealing in transit and public services, there’s a lot of things that can go
wrong. Luckily we have been staying ahead of the curve. We put a lot of time and effort into
our customer service. Our reliability factors and so forth, and here’s where it really pays off for
us. So that kind of concludes. I did also want to point out, I do believe our annual report was
sent out to each of you and we’ll talk about the 20 years and the bottom there’s kind of a running
total of some of the highlights. I won’t go through that now but be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Simich.
Councilman Lundquist: Len when you look across either or Minnesota the region or nation, do
you have any peer groups that are in similar circumstances? You know growing communities
like Eden Prairie, Chaska, Chanhassen that you can compare yourself to on ridership increases or
any of that? Is there anybody out there in that situation?
Len Simich: There are a number. Both here, metro wide. There are some other similar type
services. Maple Grove. The Minnesota Valley Transit. They operate similar type service,
primarily express to downtown markets and that is our core. Downtown and the University of
Minnesota, which is our fastest growing market. If you go across the country, a lot of suburban
areas have similar service, or starting similar services. How we rank out is very favorable. 2004
we were awarded the National System of the Year primarily because, and they look at all these
measurements and we ranked higher than any other suburban transit provider out there. Besides
customer satisfaction, road calls per mile and so forth, overall growth of your system. The
strength financially of your systems and so forth. So we have done very well.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
5
Councilman Lundquist: So now that Peterson’s the Chair, that will stay.
Councilman Peterson: I was in 2004.
Len Simich: He was the Chair then as well.
Councilman Peterson: Nice transition because I have one thing to add that Len touched on a
little bit and we’ve got 10% growth. Obviously you can rationalize that by saying gas prices and
road congestion is certainly some of that, but I think that 90% plus is Len and his staff and the
contracting drivers make that 97% customer satisfaction. I mean it’s a nice experience to ride
downtown on their buses, and that’s what makes this organization successful is because his team
really works well with the riders and makes it a positive experience so absolutely.
Mayor Furlong: Well I think because of that, you know we’ve got 2 park and ride. One park
and ride right now. You’re looking at adding another one in the 101/212 area. And how many, I
know the plans are coming through soon you said, but how many additional spaces will be there
at this point are you anticipating?
Len Simich: Well Mayor, members of the council. At 101 and 212 we will go up to 800. Now
that might be a two phase process. We’re hopeful that we’re able to go right off the bat with all
800 but it may be a two phase process. And then we’re looking at possibly another 500 stalls
here at the Market location.
Mayor Furlong: And right now we’ve got 120, and that’s all we’re using, correct? Is the 120 in
the Market Street area. For the record.
Len Simich: For the record, but.
Mayor Furlong: It’s obvious the demand is there, or you’re seeing the demand is there for more
spaces than what we have.
Len Simich: It is, and today we actually met with Clayton Johnson at Bloomberg Development
Corporation, and we are going to be expanding on the service yet this year at that location. Part
of the problem we’ve got in Chanhassen is the amount of service. We always hear we want
more service from the residents. The problem is we have no place to put them, so come fall,
that’s when we start seeing the build with the new riders, we will have some additional space.
Probably another 100 at that location. While they’ll be temporary until we can get a ramp built,
it will give us some ability to expand here.
Mayor Furlong: Do you track the homes of your riders? Do you track where they originate from
or where they live? The ridership information.
Len Simich: Not so much the whole but the intersection location. The closest intersection and
that’s through our annual survey and we get that information, yes.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
6
Todd Gerhardt: Len, in the last month have you seen an increase above the 10% for ridership
with the price of gas? Has that increased more than your average 10%?
Len Simich: We have seen an increase and it’s what’s more surprising, this is the time of year
when you start to see the decrease overall in ridership. We’re not seeing a decrease. We’re
actually still seeing an increase, so we’re probably up this year alone about 13% over the
timeframe we were last year. And to give you an example, I went by Market today and that was
full and so…to really judge but I went by the Super Target in Chaska, and had to take a double
take because we have grown incredibly at that location so yeah, overall we are seeing that. As
well as our Eden Prairie. There are days at our Eden Prairie facility that there’s no spaces
available. So it’s a good problem to have. Nonetheless it is a problem, but it’s a good problem
to have.
Todd Gerhardt: Thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Well to…Councilman Peterson’s comments, we appreciate your efforts and
those of your staff. They’re obviously doing a great job based upon the customer service and
we’re very grateful for it.
Len Simich: Well thank you. Pleasure to serve.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING ON LOTUS LAKE AUTOMATIC SLOW-NO WAKE
ORDINANCE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Doug Bitney 6645 Horseshoe Curve
Shelly Strohmaier 80 Sandy Hook Road
Steve Donen 7341 Frontier Trail
Greg Fletcher 7616 South Shore Drive
Bob Ayotte 6213 Cascade Pass
Dave Howe 400 Santa Fe Trail
Patti & Dave Preves 106 Sandy Hook Road
Bill Kirkvold 201 Frontier Court
Mayor Furlong: Task force was formed a short period ago and they’ve had an opportunity to
meet and this is the report back to the council so, we’ll start with the staff report and then receive
comments from the public. Good evening.
Don Asleson: Thank you Mr. Mayor and council members. This evening we’d like to update
you on efforts of the Lotus Lake slow-no wake task force, as well as city staff effort resulting in
the automatic slow-no wake ordinance proposal for Lotus Lake. Staff is requesting solicit public
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
7
input prior to making a determination on the proposed ordinance. So first off what is slow-no
wake. If you want, we do have print out’s if you’d prefer those of this slide show. But it’s
basically operating the watercraft at a minimum speed to maintain steerage and avoiding the
creation of wake. So why amend the ordinance? Well as a result of the heavy rain events on
Labor Day weekend, September 6th and October 3rd. On the September 6th event we had about 6
inches and the October 3rd we had about over 4 inches. Council had enacted an emergency
recreation for the Labor Day rain event and instructed staff to develop an automatic ordinance on
Lotus Lake during times of high water. Mainly because of the emergency resolution process this
council had to go through to get those ordinances in place. Heighten awareness on lake levels on
Lotus Lake. It’s a good time right now to address these issues. So why amend it? I think we
talked about that a little bit but the automatic ordinance will eliminate the need to interpret when
a slow-no wake condition is needed on Lotus Lake. The emergency elevation was defined. It
will also eliminate the emergency council meetings needed to enact a slow-no wake resolution
on the lake. It will also improve the response time for slow-no wake enactment and create a
standard method for notifications so that lake users can check to see if there is a slow-no wake on
the lake. The task force was appointed by council with 7 members, lake users, geographically
selected around the lake. The geographic selection was used to generate input from around the
lake from riparian users and non-riparian users, and task force members all agreed to attend 3
meetings to determine the slow-no wake ordinance. During the 3 meetings, the first meeting was
basically an introduction to get them up to date with the details of the lake as far as the lake
levels and some background information. The second was kind of the details. They worked
through the details of what the proposed ordinance would be. And last, they kind of came to
conclusion on a recommendation and a summary for council, which I believe is Attachment #2 in
your packet. Additionally during the meetings they reviewed other lakes in the metro using
slow-no wake surface zoning. Considered one big thing for the task force was the recreational
use of Lotus Lake, and it was very important for them to understand the consequences of any sort
of ordinance amendment for the recreational user of Lotus Lake. Additionally they identified the
residents do have the need to protect the shoreline for ordinary water level fluctuations, but the
city should take an opportunity to protect the shoreline for extreme water level fluctuations
during high water events. One thing that was very interesting is the second meeting the task
force came together. The first meeting I didn’t sense too much consensus but by the second
meeting, 15 minutes into it we had complete consensus on the proposed ordinances and what
levels that would go after that, and the duration and the notification on it so that was very
encouraging.
Councilman Lundquist: Ayotte strong armed them before they got there.
Don Asleson: Rationale. Just kind of the rationale for the task force and staff as well both
wakes during times of high water may decrease public safety. Not only for dock sections
floating off and creating hazards but when we get those extreme rain events it does wash logs or
twigs or other debris out into the lake, and users of the lake you know, wake boarding or skiing
could potentially hit that debris. That could also increase property damage. With the increase in
water level, boats rise up and they can get thrust against their moorings and damage that or
structures that are near the lake can get damaged. Increased shoreland erosion. Anything above
the protected kind of ordinary fluctuation of water level does increase the susceptibility for
shoreland erosion. And last but not least, impact to public infrastructure. One thing that we
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
8
were concerned about is the sanitary sewer around the lake, because if the water gets too high, it
does increase the inflow and infiltration into the sanitary sewer system. We do take preventative
measures to ensure we minimize the amount of inflow and infiltration into the sanitary sewer.
Sand bags and I…speaking with our utilities superintendent, he said that they put like rubber
gaskets underneath the manhole lid just to try to minimize on that. As far as task force results.
They came up with an automatic slow-no wake ordinance proposed with the following details.
Zoned automatic slow-no wake above 896.8 above sea level. Restrictions will remain in place
until the water level drops below 896.8 for 3 consecutive days. And then the standard methods
of notification were the signs at the access. Clean Water Hotline. City web page. Cable channel
8. And e-mail to association representatives and other known interested individuals. So
basically how does this ordinance work. Well, if a rain event will push the level above 896.8,
staff has verified the level at the gauge to make sure that it is above 896.8. Slow no wake will be
declared. Public will be notified. Three consecutive days after that level comes back down
below 896.8, the restriction will be removed. As soon as it does get enacted, Carver County
Sheriff’s Department will be notified, and will enforce that ordinance. Penalty for violation.
Even though last year I know there was a lot of warnings but the penalty is considered a
misdemeanor punishable up to 90 days in jail and up to and/or $1,000 fine. Just to kind of give
you an idea of where we were at last year with our water levels. This is kind of a historic water
level. On the far left hand side is around 1970 I believe. And the red level is, the red line that
goes across the top is 896.8, so that would represent where that automatic slow-no wake
ordinance would be enacted. The blue line is the ordinary high water level, and that’s about 6
inches, well it is 6 inches below the 896.8. 2001 to 2005, if you take a look at that, there’s only
actually 3 rain events that actually pushed it up into a no-wake condition. I believe it’s ’91 and
then two events in 2005. And then just to give you a better idea of what happened in 2005, we
did get a lot of rain on Labor Day weekend. That’s that first peak, and then the second peak is
actually October 3rd. The reason there’s not so many peaks, or points on the October 3rd one is
that we didn’t take as many monitoring points because we didn’t enact an emergency resolution,
so there wasn’t a great need to monitor that as it came back down. In addition to the
recommendation for the automatic ordinance, the task force did want the council to at least
consider a graduated fine schedule and ask the city attorney to maybe work with the county
prosecutor to develop a graduated fine schedule for violation of the slow-no wake. Also, they
also would like to see, the task force reconvene if there is any proposed change to the ordinance
in the future. In addition there was a concern that maybe the staff should send out some signs via
e-mail for the associations to post at their beachlot, and I think you know as far as notifying with
the e-mail, they can definitely do that. Okay, so upon approval of the ordinance, the DNR will
basically have the last say. They have up to 120 days for approval and once the ordinance is
approved by the DNR, we can publish it. I have heard from the contact down at the DNR that it
shouldn’t take 120 days. But realistically that’s the amount of time they have to review so it
could take as long as that, so finally staff recommends the City Council solicit public comment
during the public hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment, and recommend the ordinance
as written in the staff report and I’d be more than happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff?
Councilman Lundquist: Don, have you had, you or Lori or anyone on staff had any discussions
with Sergeant Olson or anyone on the sheriff’s department regarding enforcement?
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
9
Don Asleson: Yes we did. We actually included Sergeant Olson in one of our task force
meetings so the task force members and staff were able to talk to him about the slow-no wake
ordinance.
Councilman Lundquist: And his response and/or level of commitment to that was?
Don Asleson: He’s basically what they said was, they will dedicate as much service as they can
to Lotus Lake when it’s in slow-no wake. They do have other lakes in the county but if they
notice that there’s violations that residents can call the Carver County Sheriff and they’ll
dispatch the boat as soon as possible.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions. You mentioned the DNR. You’ve been working with them
already?
Don Asleson: Yes we have.
Mayor Furlong: And informing them of the process that we’re going through.
Don Asleson: Yeah, we’ve actually had them take a look at the draft ordinance prior to bringing
it here so they’ve seen it. They’ve made kind of some tweaks to it and.
Mayor Furlong: Are those tweaks included in what we’re looking at?
Don Asleson: They’re included in what you’re looking at right now so I don’t see any hang up’s
at this point. They do want to see the public comment though.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Very good. Any other questions for staff at this time? If not, there
may be others that come up during public comment. Alright, very good. Thank you. At this
point I’ll open up the public hearing and invite interested parties to address the council on this
matter. Please come to the podium. State your name and address. Well with the public
comment we got when we were appointing the task force, one would think that somebody would
be interested in commenting. Mrs. Lloyd, how are you tonight?
Debbie Lloyd: I’m great, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Good.
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I’m a member of Sunrise Hills Association. I
attended a recent Lotus Lake Association meeting. A newly formed organization which the City,
and I probably have the wrong name. Clean Water Organization. Lotus Lake. Anyway, I think
the committee worked really hard to come up with something that was agreeable both to
lakeshore owners and non-lakeshore owners. I think it sounds very reasonable and I just wanted
to voice the publicly to be here on record so that’s what I’m saying, thank you.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
10
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Other comments. Nobody? If not then we’ll close the
public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion. Seeing nobody, we’ll bring it back to
council for discussion then. Thoughts and comments.
Councilman Peterson: Seems well thought out. I would certainly support it and move ahead.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other thoughts.
Councilman Lundquist: Glad that we had a mix of, as Ms. Lloyd stated, users, or lakeshore
owners and non as well and that there was consensus among that is a good thing and that we also
used the science behind that as something that seems reasonable. So again I think it’s definitely
required a good outcome of that task force so comfortable moving ahead.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, I like it. I’m not going to be opposed to it. I think just from my
background, I think enforcement’s going to be an issue when the Carver County Water Patrol’s
in Lake Waconia and there’s a boat zipping around. Getting that person off Waconia can be a
problem. But I guess I would hope that there’s be enough signs and revocation that there
wouldn’t be that problem. I quickly read through the ordinance. Was there an exemption for
emergency personnel water traffic?
Don Asleson: Yeah, I do believe that there is an exemption for that. Listed in the DNR rules.
Councilman Labatt: But what about in our ordinance? I mean if we have a water emergency on
there and we’ve launched the Chanhassen Fire Department Rescue Boat and they zip across the
lake, I don’t want somebody calling up and saying well there’s a Chanhassen Fire Boat out there.
Why are they ignoring the ordinance?
Todd Gerhardt: Roger’s checking it. I think there’s something in there.
Mayor Furlong: Well let’s make sure. Any other thoughts right now or comments while they’re
looking at that?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Furlong: Then we’ll come back to you.
Councilman Labatt: No, I think my question was, I’ve heard from staff was, you know how are
we going to get the word out? I mean if have to enact this on Saturday morning after a huge
rainfall like last year, how do we get the word out, and I think staff has pretty much covered that
with the exception of launching a balloon and dropping leaflets. I mean I guess the way you
know, well I can see it sometime that some person, whether they didn’t read the sign or didn’t
get the leaflet dropped on them by a balloon and gets a ticket for it and says well I wasn’t told.
You know ignorance is not an excuse for… I think we’ve done our due diligence to try to get the
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
11
word out and I’m really happy with what staff and the committee came up with here. So I think
just one thing with the exemption and.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess maybe while they’re looking at that, and to that point too. First of
all I’m going to start out by saying that, after the first meeting I think it was mentioned tonight
by the staff, I received some e-mails and calls from residents wondering how this task force was
ever going to come to any conclusion and whether or not they represented the interests of all the
residents involved. And I replied, and I said you’ve got to give them a chance. They’ve only
met once. I’m not a process for process sake person but I’m a process, I do support a process to
come to a good conclusion. I think here, this is a very good conclusion in that I think it is
reasonable. It’s fair. It’s balanced between the property owners and the users of the lake as a
key component that we were looking at, and I think there were perhaps, I don’t want to speak for
them but perhaps some of the people even on the task force who were here at the meeting when
the task force was appointed, they were very concerned that any agreement could come to place.
So this is a good level. It should create a no wake situation on an exception basis, not a rule,
which is what I believe is correct. And yet I think it’s something that is fair and just for
everybody. I think, I know that, I understand that the city has tried to do this in the past with
limited success, and after receiving a number of e-mails last September, while the emergency no
wake situation was in place with a variety of recommendations from people on when it should
come off. What everybody concurred with is that there should be some point at which a no wake
goes on, and if we can take advantage of the opportunity, which I think we’ve done here, of last
fall’s events to bring people together to come up with a conclusion and consensus, we’ve seen
that here tonight. There are a couple things that I’d like to suggest to the council that I think
addresses the first additional recommendation on the task force and that is this graduated fine
issue. When I saw that somebody violating the no wake could get up to $1,000 day fine and 90
days in jail, that to me seems a little out of place with what on the street would be called a
speeding ticket. And so one of the things that I guess, as I understand it, most of our ordinances
are misdemeanors by their nature. As I understand a petty misdemeanor, which would be more
akin to a speeding ticket, would provide up to, is it $500, is that right Mr. Gerhardt?
Todd Gerhardt: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: No potential jail time, but also that there are other laws in place that if there is
an egregious situation, such as, what I’m, in my humble relationship is comparing a speeding
ticket to a reckless driving. Clearly that’s a different situation. The penalties are more severe and
there’s nothing by creating this as a petty misdemeanor that prohibits the authorities from giving
out other citations on the same event. And to the extent that they are warranted and that avoids
us having to start including in our ordinance what I could refer to as sentencing guidelines here.
Bring it down to a petty misdemeanor by ordinance that would give also the courts the idea of
what we’re looking for here. We’re looking for, to control behavior and I think this will do it. I
think it will do it reasonably but also I think that a petty misdemeanor be more akin to, as I said,
a speeding ticket on a road which going fast in a no wake by definition is speeding on the lake.
And probably more in line with what the task force is saying is that, you know the first violation
could be up to $1,000 and 90 days in jail just seems to be a disconnect, and I think that might be
a good way to accomplish what this first recommendation of the task force. I do also agree that
reconvening the task force at some point in the future would be a very effective tool. I
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
12
understand that that’s also come tonight as a recommendation on our Lake Susan task force over
a period of time, and I guess not that I want to clarify but to suggest staff and to the council is
that maybe after 2 or 3 times that this ordinance has been triggered, if we go forward and pass it
tonight, which I assume we may, that we reconvene the task force to review how it’s working,
rather than just leaving it in there. I wouldn’t want to do it after the first event because it’s going
to be new to everybody, but after a couple or three, and not a magic number but I think
reasonable would say hey, let’s get back and look at it and make sure it’s working the way we
want it to. So I would recommend that and that we proceed with that which again is one of the
recommendations so, those would be my thoughts. But the one thing in terms of the change is, is
stating it succinctly and Mr. Knutson I’ll ask you how do we do that? If the council’s in
agreement to move it to a petty misdemeanor from a violation standpoint, if there is agreement
on that.
Roger Knutson: Then you just add a section to the draft ordinance saying violation of this
ordinance is a petty misdemeanor.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Labatt: My only question to that is Tom is, a barking dog violation is a
misdemeanor by virtue of the 90 days in jail or up to $1,000 fine. I think we would just for
consistency sake leave all violations the same for city ordinance violations, of which this would
be, and then the fine schedule can be set accordingly by the city.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s fine. I’m just, that part of it I just, I struggle with…
Councilman Labatt: …struggle a little bit too but I mean you know, you’re not going to get a
judge in the metro area county to slap a $1,000 fine on a boater. I mean you can go out and get a
drunk boating arrest and get a $300 fine. You know…your generic boiler plate a misdemeanor
sentence is punishable up to $1,000 fine.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s fine. I’m trying to recognize the recommendation coming from the
task force here and I think that would be one way to try to accomplish it versus going with a
graduated scale here. So I’m interested in other thoughts. I would not be opposed to keeping it
the same or not separating it but those are my thoughts. Other comments or you’re comfortable
going forward Councilman Peterson?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, as it is. I mean I think to Steve’s point, there’s a bunch of them
that need to be changed and that’d be another night perhaps.
Mayor Furlong: Well maybe we should do that, is review because if a barking dog is, you know
it’s a level of egregiousness.
Councilman Labatt: False alarm ordinance. You know the more and more we get, the more and
more you…and I think that the graduated schedule, I mean just like a regular speeding ticket in
some counties, the faster you go the more you pay. So I mean the more times you’re caught,
fine. We’ll just give you a fine the first time and double it the next time, however.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
13
Mayor Furlong: And that’s fine. I guess I’m looking to maybe Councilman Peterson’s point that
there may be others in our ordinance that we want to look at there. That was the one that, and
even the task force clearly by their statement, struggled with a little bit and I was looking for a
possible solution there. But I could certainly go with leaving it as it is.
Councilman Lundquist: I’m with you. I think that the intent is not to make it you know 90 days
in jail or anything but the other thing, but I’m with Steve. I think leave it up to the courts for
consistency at that point, and I’m hoping that because it’s only happened 3 times in the last 15
years, that there will be another…that we won’t have to have it so.
Mayor Furlong: So I think that’s everybody’s hope. The fact that it did happen, and it happened
twice last year I think is, I’m glad we’re moving forward now and I’m glad we brought people
together to get this done. Are you comfortable on your emergency vehicle?
Councilman Labatt: No, I was asking Roger. We have to add it.
Roger Knutson: We should have an exemption for law enforcement personnel.
Councilman Lundquist: Law enforcement or emergency.
Roger Knutson: Watercraft utilized by resource management, emergency and enforcement
personnel acting in the performance of their assigned duties shall be exempt from the provision
of this ordinance.
Councilman Lundquist: What he said.
Todd Gerhardt: It’s in the packet.
Mayor Furlong: Is it in there?
Roger Knutson: Yeah, but it should be added to the ordinance.
Mayor Furlong: It should be, okay.
Councilman Labatt: The old one predated the new one. What about Lori, excuse me. As far as
signage at the access. I mean a guy coming in from Hopkins that’s going to go crappie fishing,
is there signage going to be pretty clear and visible right there?
Lori Haak: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: We did that last year, did we not? When it in place last year.
Lori Haak; Yes we did.
Mayor Furlong: The sign went up.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
14
Lori Haak: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: So and I think as you said Councilman Labatt in terms of notifying through e-
mail and providing the associations should get notices up on their own lots as well and it sounds
like they were going to do that so. So that’s good.
Councilman Lundquist: One last point Mr. Mayor. I’d just like to thank those 7 members of the
community who volunteered their time and, to come together and to do that so that’s appreciated.
Mayor Furlong: Absolutely, thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: We’ll send out a letter. With the Mayor’s signature.
Mayor Furlong: Any other thoughts or comments? If not, is there a motion to approve the
recommended ordinance with the addition of the language exempting law enforcement and
emergency vehicles that will be added in.
Councilman Lundquist: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Moved and seconded. Any discussion on that motion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve
the ordinance amendment including the statement, watercraft utilized by resource
management, emergency and enforcement personnel acting in the performance of their
assigned duties shall be exempt from the provision of this ordinance, and amend City Code
to read as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 6-49 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended
to include the changes listed in bold to read as follows:
“Sec. 6-49. Slow--No wake areas.
(1) No person shall operate a watercraft in any marked slow--no wake areas in excess of slow--
no wake speed. Slow--no wake areas shall be marked in accordance with the applicable
regulations of the state department of natural resources. The location and boundaries of each
slow--no wake area established are shown on that certain map entitled Water Surface Use Zoning
Map of Chanhassen dated July 11, 1983, on file in the city hall. The map and all notations,
references and data thereon are hereby incorporated by reference into this article and shall have
the same force and effect as if fully set forth and described herein.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
15
(2) Emergency slow-no wake areas may be established by resolution of the city council and shall
be marked in accordance with the appropriate regulations of the state department of natural
resources and posted at all public accesses.
(3) Special Slow-No Wake Restrictions
(a) Lotus Lake:
All persons shall operate watercraft at a slow-no wake speed on Lotus Lake whenever
the water elevation exceeds the 100-year predicted level for Lotus Lake of 896.8 MSL
as set forth in the 1994 Surface Water Management Plan. The slow-no wake surface
zoning shall remain in place until the water drops below the 100-year predicted level of
896.8 MSL for 3 consecutive days. Upon the placement of a slow-no wake restriction,
notice will be given:
1. On a sign posted at the public access.
2. On the City of Chanhassen Web Page.
3. On the City of Chanhassen Clean Water Hotline.
4. On the Community Cable Access Channel.
5. In an e-mail format to known representatives on Lotus Lake.
6. To the Carver County Sheriffs Department.
7. To the public by other appropriate means determined by Council. ”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
GREEN GARDENS, 850 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, APPLICANT KEITH WERNER:
REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO INTERIM USE PERMIT 96-2 FOR
EXPANSION OF THE WHOESALE/RETAIL NURSERY USE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Skip Cook Eden Prairie
Keith Werner 850 Flying Cloud Drive
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, council. This item before you tonight is to address changes
to an interim use permit that was granted in 1996. The nursery itself has changed hands a couple
times. In the fall of 2004 and spring of 2005 staff found that they’re in non-compliance with the
interim use permit and therefore have worked to try to get it back into compliance. And the
applicant has requested some changes to that interim use permit. The Planning Commission did
hold a public hearing on April 18th to review the proposal and did recommend approval 5-0 for
the amendment. And the staff is recommending approval of the changes to the interim use that’s
found on page 9 and 11. I’d like to go through the project and the…interim use. On your staff
report on page 2 it talks about the applicable regulations. The interim use follows the conditional
use standards and there is standards for wholesale nursery and the intent… The intent of that is
pre-existing retail nurseries. Again the history of this, this goes back a number of years. This
goes back to 1972 when it was kind of a farmers market and has changed kind of the use and the
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
16
characteristic of that site. But the intent of the interim use is to establish the fact that they are
non-conforming and provide reasonable use of the property. While we recognize that over time
that it will go away, so the difference between a conditional use and interim use is that there’s a
definite end, and we believe that at the time that sewer and water’s down there, that this use will
go away because as proposed, the nursery itself doesn’t meet architectural or screening, outdoor
storage and the like. So therefore the interim does allow for the use of the property. On this
colorful site plan before you, we’ve identified in the staff report, and I’m not going to go through
a lot of that. Just briefly the changes. In the interim use analysis on page 3, we identified the
four areas as shown on the map…and those area really a future storage shed, supplementary
office. In the area 2, more display garden and storage bins. Again people come and get rocks
and stones and that sort of thing. Mulch. Future greenhouse. Future parking and that’s where
most the changes have occurred. Again a concern too was with the grading and the change in
that area, and then area 3 which is the most northerly portion would be again some hard goods
storage, it’d be rock storage bins. …today that there is some backing of trucks backing in this
way, which we don’t want to have happen. Any loading should be on site and we want to put
that as a condition of approval that they use appropriate circulation, that they’re not backing up.
Councilman Labatt: Did you say we need to add that?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we should. That they need to come in so they’re not blocking 101. That
they shouldn’t be doing any loading or storage in that area, and just the flat safety of the traffic
flow for that area.
Mayor Furlong: Do you have language that you want to add or will when we get to that?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. On section 20, I’m on page 7. Section 20-383. We did go through the
interim use standards in there. Again providing the drop dead date. Again a date that we put on
there is at the time that we’re down there for sewer and water would be the termination of this
site itself.
Councilman Labatt: What number is it?
Kate Aanenson: Page 7. Yeah the conditions that start there. Requirements that they need, so
the actual date under the findings would be the termination of the date…sewer and water so even
though we’re down, if we’ve identified the staging area, just because that comes in doesn’t
necessarily mean that sewer would be available then so at the time that we come down with
sewer and water. And then the findings that we’ve committed are also discussed because there
are some non-conforming signs originally on this site. So with that we’re, on page 9 we do
recommend the conditions of approval, that the City Council, it says Planning Commission…
City Council. Then I would add condition number 32 that would say, all loading or unloading
should be done on site and not blocking either Highway 212 or 101.
Mayor Furlong: I guess to that point, because this was a, one of the things that I observed when I
was driving on 212 the other day was a semi trailer driving down 101 south. When the light
turned green on 212 so the people on 101 south could go, he pulled in forward into the motel and
then jockeyed a few times backing up onto the, into the property without, I don’t know that he
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
17
was necessarily loading or unloading to do that. He was just maneuvering his vehicle off the
state road so that it would be easier for him once he got onto the property and so I guess, they
need to have access onto the property, but I think all vehicle maneuvering should be done on the
property as well because it occurred while the light was green and everybody coming south on
101 had to wait through at least 1 extra signal change. Fortunately it was in mid-morning but if
that had happened at 4:30 at night, it would have caused a lot of problems so, is this going to
cover it or is there language we could, all the loading or unloading actually needs to be done on
site but I think you know that there’s, how do we deal with that jockeying on the state highway
and obstructing traffic while they maneuver, position their vehicle? They need to have access.
Can they just go straight in?
Kate Aanenson: Right, that’s what I’m saying, right. Exactly.
Mayor Furlong: We need them to go straight into the site and whether it’s off 101 or 212.
Kate Aanenson: And all the turn movements.
Mayor Furlong: And then maneuver on the property.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, all turn movements to either load or unload should be on site. Is that
adequate? All turn movements for loading or unloading storage should be accommodated on site
and not on the state highways.
Roger Knutson: I think that’s as best you can do.
Mayor Furlong: …from an observation standpoint. And you know it’s a state road so I mean
they need to be able to come on and off, and they’re going to have deliveries and that’s their
business and that’s fine.
Kate Aanenson: But I think to your point, if it’s operation or setting up that they can’t do that
way, then they need to make some changes on site, and that would be kind of the tie back, that
nexus that if it’s, the way it’s orientated right now requires that they back in, then they need to
change something on site. So that doesn’t occur, and that would be our tie back.
Mayor Furlong: To avoid the obstructions?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Yep. Okay. So what was your recommendation then on that addition? All
turning movements.
Kate Aanenson: All vehicles turning…or turning movements be completed on site. And then I
don’t know if it’s clear just to say to, if internal changes need to be made.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
18
Councilman Labatt: Excuse me Kate. Would it be easier…to say you know truck routes. I
mean they tell the truckers that are coming into the business where to unload or load. This is the
road you have to take to avoid it. Can we just.
Kate Aanenson: I would think some of it’s probably communication issue and also…
Councilman Labatt: …designate a certain entrance. Where you go off of 212 as a truck route
because I mean could you.
Kate Aanenson: I don’t know if that’s the problem. I think it’s more just trying to get better
access to, when there’s a lot of stuff stored out there.
Mayor Furlong: Do you think it’s only that they need their truckers to come in off 212 instead of
101, they should put up a sign that says don’t come in off 101. Come in off 212. I think what
we need to do, we can’t restrict their access of the road, unless they can tell us that it has, that it
can’t comply.
Councilman Labatt: Well I don’t know…public safety issue. Let’s just say if there’s a truck
maneuvering back and forth…
Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. It was an obstruction.
Councilman Labatt: Very slick road and all of a sudden a truck’s coming down 101 and wham.
Mayor Furlong: And my point.
Kate Aanenson: …property is that, he saw that truck and he didn’t believe that was part of their
business operations.
Skip Cook: When I saw, I witnessed the exact same thing and the truck did not, I was totally
shocked…blocking the lanes. It was ridiculous but he ended up going back north on 101.
Jockeying around right on the state property right across from the entrance on 101…
Mayor Furlong: So it may be a non-issue. He said he wasn’t delivering anything?
Skip Cook: …but that was an issue with the truck not knowing where he was going. He was not
coming to the nursery but, so yeah. If the DOT was there like normal, he would have been…
Kate Aanenson: But I think to your point that it probably still was good that we just observed
that the site is set up in such a manner that it doesn’t force instances to occur. It appeared like it
probably is, but we can check on that too.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, good.
Todd Gerhardt: You should also know that that is a traffic violation from the state level or city
level or county level so.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
19
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, that would be a misdemeanor…
Councilman Labatt: Well, is he creating a wake?
Mayor Furlong: He was not creating a wake. He wasn’t go fast enough to do that. Okay, any
other questions for staff at this point? The applicant is here. Any comments you’d like to
address to the council? You don’t have to but certainly want to give you the opportunity. Okay.
Any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, with that I’ll open up discussion at the council
level. It seems fairly straight forward with the added condition 32. Sounds like, it certainly
meets their needs as well so any other discussion? If not is there a motion to approve?
Councilman Labatt: Move approval on the staff recommendation subject to conditions 1 through
32. 32 as the amendment.
Mayor Furlong: Recommended by staff this evening?
Councilman Labatt: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: With regards to turning movements on the site.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion?
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approve Interim Use Permit #96-2 allowing the expansion of the wholesale/retail nursery use
on property located in the Agricultural Estate (A-2) District at 850 Flying Cloud Drive, as
shown on the plans prepared by Jeff Zeitler of Green Gardens dated March 31, 2006, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit vehicular use area measurements.
2. The applicant shall install landscape islands or peninsulas based on the overall area of the
vehicular use area.
3. The applicant shall install overstory trees in the parking area in quantities as required by City
Code.
4. Bufferyard plantings will be required along Highway 212 to screen the parking lot.
5. Bufferyard plantings may be required in front of the stone sales area and mulch bins
depending on the visibility of these areas from Highway 212.
6. Landscaping, storage and disposal activities shall be prohibited within 50 feet of the drainage
way which runs along the northwest corner of the property.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
20
7. The accumulation of nursery waste shall not be permitted on site.
8. Drainage in the Highway 212 right-of-way and Highway 101 right-of-way shall not be
modified or changed as part of the IUP amendment activities.
9. If active grading, earthwork or landscaping activity exceeds 1 acre of the site leaving
exposed soils, the applicant will need to obtain an NPDES permit as determined by the
Pollution Control Agency.
10. If a NPDES permit is not needed, the applicant shall be responsible for controlling erosion
and sediment from their property. Upon inspection, if erosion becomes a problem on site, the
City may require the applicant to make corrections and stabilize soil.
11. All drive lanes shall be surfaced with a Class V gravel base or similar material to minimize
erosion potential.
12. Applicant must fill out the aboveground storage tank installation permit application.
13. An aboveground storage tank installation permit must be issued by the Chanhassen Fire
Marshal before any type of work on tanks and dispensing equipment is started.
14. Acceptance test on the aboveground storage tank must be conducted by the installer and
witnessed by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal.
15. Building permits must be obtained for proposed structures and all must comply with the
Minnesota State Building Code.
16. Construction of the third storage shed shall be of compatible design, materials and color to those
of the existing storage sheds.
17. The applicant will be allowed to utilize the trailer through November 30, 2006. The trailer must
be permanently removed from the property no later than December 1, 2006.
18. Use of the temporary office trailer shall cease within 30 days following the issuance of
certificate of occupancy for the third storage shed.
19. Area 4 shall not be used for the storage of equipment, materials or vehicles associated with
the nursery. Storage or display of nursery stock is permitted in Area 4.
20. A 50-foot setback shall be maintained from all property lines for the storage of materials,
growing ranges and parking, except that the existing display area adjacent to Highway 212 and
Highway 101 (southeast corner of the property) may continue to be used for these purposes. No
materials or displays shall be placed within the right-of-way or obstruct the view of the traveling
public. The storage of materials over three (3) feet in height shall be prohibited in the site
triangle of Highway 101 and 212.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
21
21. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. The sale of seasonal merchandise consisting of pumpkin
and Christmas tree sales shall be permitted from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
22. Exterior light sources shall be shielded.
23. No outside speaker system shall be allowed.
24. The use shall terminate one year following the availability of public sewer and water service.
An annual review shall be made to determine compliance with the attached conditions.
25. The applicant shall work with staff to develop signage that will comply with city ordinances.
26. Stop signs shall be erected at the intersections of the driveways at Highways 101 and 212.
27. No equipment or vehicles shall be stored on the site with the exception of employee vehicles
and equipment necessary for the operation of the nursery.
28. No outside storage of equipment and materials unrelated to the nursery business shall be
permitted.
29. Storage structures shall not be used for retail purposes. A portion of the proposed storage
structure may be allocated as office space to service wholesale customers. Storage of equipment
and materials is permitted in these buildings.
30. No grading of the property shall be permitted unless a grading permit is obtained from the City.
31. The applicant shall work with MnDOT in examining the possibility of relocating the access
point on TH 212 further to the west and providing a deceleration lane along westbound TH 212
in conjunction with the Highway 212 improvements.
32. All loading or unloading should be done on site and not blocking either Highway 212 or 101.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
THE PRESERVE, 1630 LYMAN BOULEVARD, APPLICANT THE PEMTOM LAND
COMPANY: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM A2 TO PUD-R; SUBDIVISION OF
APPROXIMATELY 80 ACRES INTO 156 SINGLE FAMILY CLUSTER LOTS; SITE
PLAN REVIEW; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE
BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT AND ALTERATIONS WITHIN THE FLOOD
PLAIN; WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR CROSSING BLUFF CREEK; AND
VARIANCES.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
22
Public Present:
Name Address
Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
Marcy Hillerman 7699 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie
Gayle & Lois Degler 1630 Lyman Boulevard
Justin Larson Westwood Professional Services
Allan Klugman Westwood Professional Services
Cory Meyer Westwood Professional Services
Dan Herbst 7640 Crimson Bay
Dan Cook 7697 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The applicant, Pemtom is requesting to rezone a property that’s
been zoned A2 to PUD-R. For the approval of 155 lots and 15 outlots. They also approved a
conditional use permit to work within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and alterations of the
flood plain. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this project on April 18th, 2006
and did recommend 5-0 to approve the plat. There’s quite a few things approved in the
attachment, but what I’d first like to do is, instead of going back through some of the comments
is to talk about the zone. How the zone got picked and how we came to the staff recommending
approval of this project. Subject site. Just south of Lyman on the Degler property. The entire
property as stated in the staff report, approximately 80 acres. And looking at the entire 2005
MUSA, and what has been approved to date. I did include in your packet a summary of what we
put in the AUAR and what’s been built to date. Just kind of to kind of tie that all back together,
so we anticipated approximately 1,500 units and if this project was to be approved with 155,
we’d be at approximately 800 units. So there was still over 700 units left available for the
development of the two remaining parcels. The other parcels in the area that are not guided
residential would be the Degler property and then included in the AUAR was some of the
Laurent property. So in looking at this and looking at the whole 2005, the goal from the
beginning was to try to preserve the creek corridor. That was the overriding planning principle
was to preserve all this green space, and do something different that we hadn’t used in the past in
the city to preserve creek space. So looking at the land uses that, other developments that had
come in already and trying to come up with something, a different style of housing. The
developer went with the smaller lot. So with that, the challenge then was to, how to make that
work and you know we looked at twin homes. Fourplexes and tried to accommodate something
different on the site. Ended up with this single family lot size. And it’s different application.
Outlined in your staff report, just take a minute to take a look at, if it’s possible, because it is
zoned low density, medium density. Low density. There are several zoning options that could
be applied to the property. One being the 15,000 square foot lot. A very traditional subdivision
lot. PUD-R single family and that we have also in the city. 15,000 square foot average. Excuse
me, 15,000 square foot average. Yeah, average. 11,000 would be the smallest. We have some
subdivisions that use that…most recently seen on the Sever Peterson property. Again that’s a
9,000 square foot single family home, or 72 for twin. R-4 which would allow the 15,000 square
foot single family or a 10,000 for twin. The R-8 which would be a medium density, 7,500 square
foot twin home or 5,000 for a townhouse, so that would be another appropriate zoning. Or the
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
23
PUD detached, which is what this project came where there’s no minimum. So if you look at the
average lot size that we put in your staff report, just under 8,000. The smallest lot being in there
just shy of 7,000. You see that they’re really far within the range of some of these other medium
density zoning, so again you’ve got that choice. So again trying to find a different type of
housing product meeting a different nitch if you look through the comprehensive plan, in looking
at the different zoning options and now I’m on page 3 of the staff report. Talking about the
zoning. What they propose on development compatible with the surrounding land uses. Again
this property is similarly zoned, or excuse me, similarly guided with the property immediately to
the west and the southwest. This would be the different zoning. The buffer, transition buffer
you have for the industrial is the creek bed itself and that expanse across the creek. So with that,
you know when we looked at providing again diversity for housing and, again I’m on the top of
page 4 now just talking about the fact that we’re trying to preserve that creek corridor. Rather
than letting the lots go right up to the creek floor, we backed those off. Provided additional
buffers outside the overlay district and putting that forward. So with that, this is actually north. I
don’t know if that’s more helpful. With that we worked on putting together a plan, and there’s
actually a lot of iterations to this plan in itself. One in the fact that because it’s a PUD-R, and
now I’m on page 5 of the staff report going through. Put in here all the design standards or the
requirements or code for 0, or excuse me. For a small lot, subdivision. Now this again is the
first application. While we’ve had this in our code, the 1991 code was approved, we haven’t
applied this yet. We have used, and I included in your packet, out on North Bay, which was a
Rottlund project. The lot sizes and in there they averaged 3,500 and the difference between this
project and the North Bay project is, those units don’t really have a yard. It’s all common space.
They have the property that their house sits on but there’s not the common space. Then the next
iteration of that was Walnut Grove. Again another Rottlund project. That’s been well received,
where they did the two different sizes with smaller lots. Again those are a little bit bigger but
again they don’t have individual lots where the house sits on the, the property rights fit along the
house. There’s not the, everything else is really common. So this takes it to a different level
where we have a smaller lot but you actually have a back yard, and talk about that. So with this
project you have a 2 car, with the option for a third stacked in, and a side yard, but you have a
bigger lot. You do have your own space to put additions on. Now in the PUD itself, and again
I’m on the bottom of page 5 for the setbacks or the setbacks from Lyman. Also from the eastern
property line and then you’ve got a letter that says it meets a 100 foot, these are similarly guided
properties, so the setback only needs to be 50 feet, but they’re the same ultimate guiding. Not
current zoning, so it does meet city code. So then the question was…taken from your comments
on the RLM and what was 5, excuse me, yeah the 5 and 10 to get the setbacks. They’ve also
taken the corner lots and provided an opportunity for the side loaded garage. So there is room
for expansion on these lots which is different than the ones in the Rottlund project where you
probably wouldn’t see any additions…opportunity for some porch or deck or even an
opportunity for a swing set or those sort of things in your back yard. There’s enough impervious
surface. Again with this type of lot capitalizes on this project is that it takes the opportunity of
the impervious surface outside of the Bluff Creek Overlay zone so you can balance that across
the whole project, so that’s the application of the PUD and what we said when we did the Bluff
Creek Overlay District is we would apply that as a tool, so what that does is allow for the smaller
lots to use those areas that are left in common open space to increase the impervious. So with
the setbacks, the only other challenge is on the front yard and the side yard to get that look from
the street, and the street profile itself, there are public streets just to get the access via the
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
24
collector boulevard. We hopefully we’re going to bid here shortly, and then this is a public street
so this would be a typical 60 foot right-of-way and then this is also a public street. The
sidewalks will go along both sides of the public street and they’re looping. All these sidewalks
that are shown on this one, I think there’s a little bit of excess sidewalk. We do have an
improved modified sidewalk plan. We thought it was a little too intense. One of the other issues
that came up at the Planning Commission and I know we discussed earlier at a work session on
another topic is, when you have public space and you have a private space, excuse me. A private
street getting access through a public trail, so we want to make sure that we work that out with
the association, the covenants and that sort of thing so we do allow, especially for the high
school, that there’s an opportunity if people want to go through that neighborhood to provide that
access.
Mayor Furlong: Could you clarify that again? That issue. Where it…
Kate Aanenson: Well really, we’re going to have a structure coming across the creek.
Mayor Furlong: A trail crossing?
Kate Aanenson: A trail crossing, right. So if you wanted to get somewhere else on the site and
this, and some of this is coming through a portion onto a private street, that these would be
public trails to allow people to get through to public access, so we’re working through that in
their covenants that we’ll review and we want to make sure that that’s something that wouldn’t
be amended in the covenants. It’d be a condition of approval. That it’s just be in the
homeowners association covenants that they would ultimately someday in the future
eliminate…cluster that.
Mayor Furlong: So are those part of the conditions of approval or is it part of the…
Kate Aanenson: Yes. It’s part of the conditions.
Mayor Furlong: You have it in the conditions. One of the conditions.
Kate Aanenson: …there’s a couple of little…like that and we want to make sure that we
understand what the homeowner’s association covenants and Planning Commission had a good
discussion on and that’s fencing. You know one of the things where you’ve got those small lots,
that we don’t have a lot of fencing…what does that do? Certainly when you have a private lot,
maybe have a dog, there may be opportunities for that so that’s something we want to give some
careful consideration to too and so they’re working on that. How they want to address that.
Whether they’re more opaque type fencing or especially when you…just important to look at the
fencing and certainly people that have to walk…take that opportunity also to see that. So those
are some of the things that we’re looking at. As I mentioned the public streets are all 60 feet
right-of-way with a 32 foot pavement width of 31. The private streets will actually be a 40 foot
right-of-way and 28 feet paved. This is again the first application of this type. Use of a private
street at this width. It does allow on street parking. Again that was one of the considerations of
working with the developer. We worked the city engineer and myself worked a lot of different
zones trying to figure a looping system where we had a public street that was a continuous loop
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
25
but that gives us in there for snow plowing and it gives a way in, a way out. And with that you
go off the private streets, which would allow at that width. And then we also looked at spacing,
kind of city wide we looked at the spacing. The feel. The closeness and the feel. Certainly
they’re going to be closer side by side but we looked at the other projects that we had in the city
that have those narrow lot lines and we wanted to get a sense from the street, so one of the
discussions that we had is that we wanted to have, again there is now with the PUD it’s kind of
contractual. We have gone as close as 20. We didn’t want to do that. We’re actually at 25 feet
from the garage. That was a requirement they all be 20 feet. The only place there’d be 20 is if
it’s a corner lot. The other corner where you don’t have a garage would be 20. But that gives
plenty of depth for parking and then also you would have… As I indicated a third car garage…
So with that, some of the things that we worked out. There is a trail. The park commission did
review this project. One of the things that they recommended was that this play area be larger
and there were two lots shown on there. The other thing that we’re talking about is, there’s 5 lots
up in this area, so it’s really topographically separated from the plat where they have some nice
views. It’s really not part of the association. Kind of a different feel. This road also goes into
the industrial park. We don’t want to kind of be just a hanging neighborhood that may not…so
we are working with them. The park commission recommended a trail head. One of the things
the city engineer was looking at too was additional storm water pond that could be…benefit. So
this is Audubon, so this would be that pond coming out and that would provide some additional
storage for…of Lyman. So the issue there, which hasn’t been completely resolved is obviously
they’d like to get those plats and legitimate lots is kind of working out some of the compensation
for eliminating these lots so that’s still in discussion and we haven’t resolved that yet and that
would be something that we work out between now and final plat. The Planning Commission
also discussed at their meeting, because of the garage, we talked about the feel from the street,
that they were pleased with their looks and I’ll let them go through all the different iterations of
their architecture that was arrived with each product there’s different views. But they wanted to
make sure that the garages were all, not just the standard flat garage but it has an architectural
relief to them, windows and those sort of things so they were high standard because it was a big
presence out on the street, and to accommodate that. There are some steep areas that would
require retaining walls, and most specifically in this area. Shown on the project is also some
storm water ponding. There’s also some wetland replacement that they are providing. The
applicant is providing for wetland replacement for the Bluff Creek Boulevard and then just
providing outside for, that would be actually the wetland that’s going to be right in the middle of
the round about between Sever Peterson’s property and Town and Country piece. So with that
I’ll just take a minute and I did get, just want to comment that, and I’ll let the city engineer talk
specifically about some of the engineering comments… I’m on page 2. There was a question
regarding the 100 foot buffer. Again when we saw these properties had a similar land use, so
therefore it doesn’t require a 100 foot buffer.
Mayor Furlong: Eventual land use.
Kate Aanenson: Pardon me?
Mayor Furlong: Eventual land use?
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
26
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Now what they’re zoned today, right and if it was to be anything besides
low or medium on the property to the west, you’d have to go through a land use amendment
which would have to be approved by the City Council.
Mayor Furlong: Property to the east.
Kate Aanenson: Excuse me, to the east. Property to the east, yeah. So right now we also have
medium and low, so it’s similar. So you want to go to a higher use. Commercial industrial, or
go to a lower use, large lot and that would still…The cul-de-sac lane. This would be the end of
the cul-de-sac lane… Also talks about on page 3 that, I’m not trying to answer that but that’s if,
it makes this property unbuildable if this project’s approved, again there’s somewhat of a guided
zone. I’m not sure whether that comment is true. They both had the same opportunity to come
in at a similar, or higher. Again I went through all the zoning options that I presented to you. It
could be something more vertical. They could do something clustered. There’s a lot of zoning
options for the Dorsey piece. So with that I’d like maybe Paul to take a few minutes to maybe
go through the road issue, but I just did want to comment there was a couple corrections. I’ll just
go through this quickly. On page 23 of your staff report, this is the end of the conditions. Just
for clarification. Number 60. It says depicted as Lot 1. It should says Lots 1 through 5, Block 5
and that’s this area up in here that we’re talking about. We’re talking about the trail head. I’m
not sorry, they’re not on the screen. That’s this area up in here where we’re talking about where
the trail head is. And then number 63 should be Outlots A, B, L and it should be N, not H.
Yeah, because H is a private park and we don’t want to take ownership of a private park. So
with that you have our findings of fact included and all the conditions. Otherwise I’ll turn it over
to Paul.
Paul Oehme: Thanks Kate. Mayor, City Council members. In review of the development we
do have one cul-de-sac, I think it’s to the 700-800 foot long cul-de-sac. We do have public
streets that are 60 feet wide. 31 foot road width. 60 foot right-of-way and then on some private
streets as well, but I guess for access purposes and for traffic access and routes, I think I’d like to
turn it over to the developer and maybe if he could just give a brief synopsis of his plans, and we
had also talked about some potential impacts with other access points, specifically by Lyman.
Maybe if we could have the applicant address some of those internal ones, I could hit the access
points on Lyman a little bit later after he brings up his issues I think internally.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, any questions for staff at this point? There may be some. There may
be some later.
Councilman Lundquist: I think I’ll wait until the presentation.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, any questions at this time? If not we’ll reserve the right to ask more
questions later. At this point the applicant is here I know. Good evening.
Dan Herbst: Honorable Mayor, members of the City Council, professional staff, ladies and
gentlemen. My name is Dan Herbst at 7640 Crimson Bay in Chanhassen representing Pemtom.
Also wanted to introduce some other people here this evening. I think you probably know Gayle
and Lois Degler. The owners of the property are here this evening. We seldom can get Gayle’s
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
27
father here. Any time there’s a Twins game on, we kind of lose him… On Gayle’s left is Lois
and on Lois’ left is Justin Larson. Planner, engineer with Westwood Professional Services. On
Justin’s left, I’d like for Allan Klugman to come up a little later and speak. Allan’s a
professional traffic engineer who represents both public and private interests throughout the
state. On Al’s left is Cory Meyer who is a landscape architect and planner with Westwood
Professional Services. And behind him is Dan Cook, my partner and also on Dan’s left is Brian
Sullivan from the Ryland Group so if you have any specific questions on the home cost points,
market, he’ll be happy to come up and answer them. Anyway we want to thank you very much.
You know more so than I do, this has been a long process for all of us. I think it was in 2003 that
you approved the AUAR but before that I know you put tons of time into the comprehensive
plan. Authorizing the AUAR. Going through the whole process and your staff has done a
wonderful job on making it a lot easier for our type of people, the development community to
come in and have you prepare all that work for us ahead of time. Transportation, wetlands. The
Bluff Creek corridor and all the things that you spent considerable time and money on that
process. It was deliberate. It was open. It was diligent and I commend you for all the work and
your staff I know has done a wonderful job. Along with that we have had discussions with the
Degler family. Dan and I probably going back over 15 years. Kind of watching this process and
what makes the best sense for this piece of land, as to what else was evolving in the, so our
vision for the property basically took in all the elements of your AUAR. Topography, the land,
the wishes of the Degler’s and then we also took a look at the marketplace and Chanhassen has
got some wonderful estate type developments. Many executive type neighborhoods that we did
with Lake Harrison and Settlers West. You also have a full mix of townhomes and detached
homes with common lots. And you have coming on, as we were watching carefully, a lot of new
townhome products that Town and Country and others are bringing on the marketplace. So
looking at all the elements of the land we wanted to do something unique. We wanted to do
something that’s not been offered in Chanhassen before. Many of you have been out to
Hennepin Village. We are doing a number of mixed products out there but our single family lots
out there are substantially smaller, in fact 50% less and we were targeting a certain type of buyer
in that entire mix, and probably when you watch the Planning Commission presentation and look
at some of our notes from the Planning Commission meetings, that was, that Hennepin Village
really evolved about from the Mayor, who’s deceased. Mayor Harris coming to me and saying,
Dan. We know you can go out there and do a Settlers Ridge or…and make the same amount of
money but we have about 11,000 more jobs in Eden Prairie than we have households and we
want you to target for that working person. Not affordability, although we have 8 affordable
housing units in there, and so we cut our lot size down to 4,000 so we have 5 different products
out there. But we wanted to introduce to Chanhassen something very unique. So we doubled
that lot size. Brian went to the drawing board. He came up with a housing product that solves
the lot problem with townhouses and smaller single family homes and is adding their own yard.
Adding some additional storage in the garage. If they want to they can actually have a 3 car
garage, and I’ll let Brian cover that if you want. So that’s kind of was our vision for the
property, and as you know you have your bluff overlay. You’ve got wetlands on the site.
Topography and the trees, and I don’t know, the more you want to take time to study this site, I
think the more you’ll appreciate the site itself. After you include your rights-of-way, your public
streets, excluding our private streets, and you look at the bluff overlay. Bluff Creek overlay,
almost 50% of the land will end up being in the public domain when that is all done, and that’s
extremely unique. Not only for the City to have, but for the residents to have. So I always, when
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
28
I drove over the hill and I looked at that property and I said something special has to be done
here, so we didn’t push the limit and try to maximize density with townhouses, which would be
permitted under your guide plan. Your comprehensive plan. We wanted to do something
different with our cluster housing plan. We wanted to do something different with a type of
product that is unique to Chanhassen, and if you want to we can spend some time with Cory
Meyer who worked very carefully with all of your staff and if you want him to spend 5 or 10
minutes, Cory’s a planner and landscape architect. I’d like him to talk briefly about how he
worked very carefully with your staff to come up with the plan that we have, and we’re planning
for. A couple of interesting items that I want to talk about relates to some comments I received
by e-mail from Mr. Dorsey. In my 36 years in this business, this is the first time I’ve had a
neighbor, after we were already down the road with a plan, come to us and come to you with an
idea to actually change our plan without having a plan himself. And I will have had, we’ve
worked well with neighbors in the past. We have a wonderful history of doing that. This kind of
put us in a different position so I didn’t want to stand up and defend that. I took all of his
comments and I handed them off to the entire staff at Westwood and I told you I wanted to look
at this from traffic. I want you to look at sight distance. I want you to look at our plan and I
want Al Klugman, as soon as Cory Meyer is through answering any questions you have on how
our plan evolved, to address I believe all the issues that are in the Dorsey memo to you and to
me. Another interesting thing in the memo I think talking about not paying our fair share of fees,
and I am a strong proponent of that. I always believe, as I told you before and anytime I’ve
come before you, I’m never looking for a subsidy. We want to do the right thing or we want to
be an asset to the community. Now if you look at what this site is generating, and I won’t go in
detail but just the fees and assessments, our fees, there’s over $3 million dollars in fees that are
going to be paid to the city to pay for the streets. To pay for their SWMP fees. The MUSA
AUAR…and also $900,000 in park fees. In addition to this traffic will generate, using today’s
dollars which will increase…about a million, $100,00 and $300,000 in additional building fees
so our total is about $4,200,000 in fees. If you want to put that on a per lot basis, that’s almost
$27,000 per lot that each one of these owners are taking back in the form of paying for their own
streets and paying for the park and paying for all the requirements that you have to work through
to approve this project and approve these building permits. Further, the site has a number of
private streets and those private streets will not be the responsibility of the city to maintain. So
in addition to all of the cost added benefits of this site, all the private streets will be maintained
by the homeowners and association with added savings for the city. So unless you have any
questions I would like to have Cory Meyer come up and briefly talk about the planning process
and then I’d like Allan Klugman to address the specific issues of Mr. Dorsey.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions at this point?
Dan Herbst: Okay, thank you.
Cory Meyer: Good evening Mayor, members of the council. My name’s Cory Meyer, as Dan
alluded to. I’m with Westwood Professional Services. I’m a landscape architect and planner and
I worked diligently with staff and Pemtom and Ryland to put together this plan. And what I
want to take the opportunity tonight is to just touch on a couple of key design elements of the
plan. First, the main two elements are issues I want to talk about is how this type of
development pattern is suited specifically for this type of site. And then two, how this
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
29
development pattern is going to create a unique neighborhood for the city. So first off, how is
this development pattern specifically tailored for this site. What we’ve done, as Kate mentioned
is we’ve taken a modified type cluster approach where we’ve taken a normal single family
house, which would in other parts of the city typically be on a lot that’s about twice the size.
What we’ve done is we’ve taken that excess lot size, if you will. Taken it. Shrunken it down
and placed it in common areas associated with the Bluff Creek Overlay District. What we were
tempted to do is basically minimize the development footprint as much as possible. What
minimizing the development footprint allows us to do is again preserve key areas associated for
Bluff Creek Overlay District. Some additional wetland areas that are found on site. Some
wooded areas. Just generally the natural environment kind of benefits as a whole specifically on
this site by doing the cluster type approach. Tied in with the cluster type of approach is how we
treat the roadways. We have private and public streets. Emphasizing the connectivity of them.
We don’t want to create dead end’s more so than necessary. That things logically flow. You’ve
got a sense of people visiting a neighborhood and a unique sense of how to navigate through the
neighborhood. Things are laid out logically. Using public and private streets also allows the,
our development to kind of flow better with the land and we’re able to adapt better to the
topography that’s found on the site. How this development pattern is also specifically tailored
for this site. As was mentioned, the city regional trail that’s going to follow along the Bluff
Creek Overlay District. What we’ve taken that opportunity to do is to bring the sense of a
walkable community to this project. Where we’ve provided connections down to that trail. It’s a
unique opportunity that we want these future residents to take advantage of. And I also talked
about the preservation of the wetlands and the wooded areas on the site. Again minimizing the
development footprint allows us the opportunity to avoid those key environmental areas. So in
the second part of that is how is this development pattern going to create a unique neighborhood
for the city? As Dan talked about, we feel that the site of this topography and this character, that
single family homes are the best fit for that. They evolved, are easily adaptable to the
topography that’s found on the site. We can also achieve, by doing the cluster approach, we
achieve the density goals of the city without necessarily needing townhomes. So we made a
strong effort in how we lay out the site to utilize it’s character to the maximum. If you were to
overlay the topography on our project, how the street pattern is laid out relates exceptionally well
to the topography. The roads follow that. We’ve tried to maximize the number of homes that
back out to the open space and embrace it, and where that’s not the ability for those homes to
back out to the open space, we’ve again created that walkable community so there’s strong
pedestrian connections so even people on the inside are easily and, easily adaptable to get down
to the trail. As Dan mentioned, 50% of the site is in some sort of a public open space. That’s a
strong proponent of a cluster type of approach. Again minimizing the development footprint for
houses to dedicate the amount of land area. So I guess in summary again, just to touch on those
two key points that this development is tailored for this site. The environmental preservation.
How we laid out the homes and the streets was done with careful attention to the land. This
development is going to be unique neighborhood for the city. Given that the city’s going to meet
their density goals. They’re going to gain single family households. The city’s going to achieve
the preservation of the Bluff Creek Overlay District which is so strongly in your comprehensive
plan. And the future residents we believe are going to appreciate the sense of place that we’re
creating here. That this is a totally unique neighborhood and are going to be able to enjoy with
thoughtful consideration how we’ve gone through tonight. So with that I’ll turn it over to Mr.
Klugman, unless you have any questions for me.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
30
Mayor Furlong: Any questions at this point? And I don’t know if this would be a question for
you from a planning or streets, but just a question I guess with regard to some of the private
streets. It seems that most of them of them have a hammer head or some sort of turn around
except is it Street F. And I was curious, I know we’ve had an issue in the past and these are not
as small as some of the private driveways we have but nonetheless being able to have a service
vehicle or other vehicle turn around without pulling into somebody’s driveway. Was there a
reason that’s omitted or is that something that could be added easily enough?
Cory Meyer: We have turn around’s located on this street, this street and this. I guess this is the
one you’re referencing?
Mayor Furlong: Yep.
Cory Meyer: I guess in my opinion, that would be not that dissimilar from a typical dead end
townhome type common driveway that I think there’s like a magic number out there like 150 feet
that a fire hose will extend to. So our thought is that, what we could do is just, that the fire truck
could basically be at that intersection and still give, service the home at the end of that street.
Mayor Furlong: And part of it’s for convenience of the residents and also on Street J there’s
even less of a distance and you put a hammer head up there.
Cory Meyer: We can look into that. If there’s, what we’re trying to do is work with the
topography as much as possible. We can look into that issue.
Mayor Furlong: See council’s been presented with issues in past situations in the past so. So
let’s take a look at that and correct it.
Cory Meyer: We’ll take a look at it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Probably just a little one. There may be other questions but as long as
you’re talking about layout I thought I’d bring it up now. Any other questions at this point?
Councilman Peterson: One of the questions that I’ve got on the Bluff Creek Overlay District,
when you articulated and we’ve got about 50% open space on the site. When you use 50%, are
you using the buildable site or the whole land in itself?
Cory Meyer: The whole land of itself. I mean if you look at our entire project is 80 acres
approximately. Whether it’s buildable or not, but at the end of the day the residents that are
living there aren’t going to really know if it’s buildable or not. They’re just going to know it’s
open space, and enjoy it as such so, that’s our, how we like to phrase that as, it’s open space.
Kate Aanenson: It’s probably closer to 15 acres that would be buildable.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
31
Councilman Peterson: So that being said, walk me through, just point it out on that map or
another one, inside the buildable part of the site, and give me some sense as to what you’ve left
open.
Cory Meyer: I don’t know if it shows up very well on the camera here but what you’ll see, the
white dashed lines here are the Bluff Creek, the primary district for the Bluff Creek Overlay
District. So there’s a maximum area, I think the exact number that escapes me right now but in
all this area, outside this area is essentially outside of the Bluff Creek Overlay District that a
normal development would likely utilize more than what we’ve found here with the cluster type
approach.
Councilman Peterson: …the first dashed one. You lost me when you said, alright. Between
there and there?
Cory Meyer: I mean you have all this green area. Basically where the trail goes through, they’re
putting the city regional trail and then our developable area for the most part.
Councilman Peterson: Okay.
Cory Meyer: And Kate might have the exact number.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Yeah, it’s closer to like 15 to 17 acres. Again the tool to, and go back to
how we acquire within the Bluff Creek Overlay District is allowing you to transfer it out.
Otherwise, so if you look at. These are, the houses in yellow are all the lots that abut a private
street. It’s just shy of 50%. And from what I showed him here…but this darker black line is
actually the creek itself. So the…but the overlay district is actually…so with this big gap that
cuts through here, that’s…And this other areas are topographically separated…Does that answer
your question?
Cory Meyer: Any other questions?
Councilman Lundquist: Parking. On the private streets. In this condition I didn’t see anything.
I’m assuming it remains as no parking on those.
Kate Aanenson: No. You can’t park on those. Another example where we have parking on
private streets would be Villages on the Pond. Those are all private streets. And at one of our
first meetings with the city engineer was what we were going to require for…on street parking.
Now as I mentioned before, the public streets are the 60 foot wide with a 30 foot, and those will
have the high back curb. And the distinction on the private streets, they’ll have 28 foot wide of
pavement width, even though 40 foot right-of-way and they’ll have the surmountable curb, and
that will allow parking at 28 foot. The city engineer recommended that that would be
permissible for on street parking.
Councilman Labatt: On one side of the road or both sides or how are we going to?
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
32
Kate Aanenson: That’s kind of how we do it now. If you have 2 people parking on a 31, it can
be a problem, depending on the size of the vehicle, so I mean most people use good judgment on
that but school buses trying to get by, that may be an issue but in evaluating this, the city
engineer recommended that that would be adequate. Again that’s how we looked at some of
those.
Councilman Lundquist: Paul, do we have streets existing, public streets that are 20. Didn’t we
just go from the standard changed a couple years ago from 28 to 30? I remember from
Highover, didn’t we have something, I think the streets up there are 28 or yeah, something.
Paul Oehme: There are streets in the city that are 28 feet, public streets. Parking on both sides.
An example of a street that we just reconstructed, just off Laredo. That street is 28 feet wide too.
We had to shrink those streets down to compromise with the residents out there to get a good
product so.
Councilman Lundquist: So when we talk about private streets, I mean I’m envisioning some of
our town house things where we’ve got the narrower, okay. So this is.
Paul Oehme: Typically those other developments, the townhouse units are 20 feet or 24 feet
wide. Not the 28 that we’re recommending.
Kate Aanenson: Let me just add a clarification. In the PUD itself, in the parking section, when
you do in the R-8 zone, it does require a wider street. If this was, back to your question for the
townhouse, just like Paul indicated, the ordinance does allow you to go smaller. Typically that’s
what we see because we don’t allow parking. Because we do allow parking, we’re forcing them
to do a wider pavement.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Yep, that’s fine. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this point? Okay.
Cory Meyer: I’ll turn it over to Al Klugman who will address some of the issues that they have
with the Dorsey memo.
Allan Klugman: Good evening. Again my name is Allan Klugman. I’m with Westwood
Professional Services. I’m a registered civil engineer. Within the civil engineering I mainly
work in the transportation area. In addition to being a registered engineer I’m a certified traffic
operations engineer so kind of my specialty. One of the things that we did hear, and I hope this
will show up. As Dan mentioned, we did receive a sketch from the Dorsey people, and although
it was a very rough sketch, we felt that we would give it the serious…and try to respond and see
what it would do to our site, and I believe...great detail went through some of the issues that
quickly…what I’d like to do tonight is go through that memo. Certainly not word for word but
on many of the key points I’d like to…the way I understand it. Although you can certainly draw
a line on a piece of paper and say that’s the road, I think when we look at it in any degree as we
can, we see in a hurry there’s numerous causes…impacts on the site, and both Dan said in the
introduction and I think Cory in his detailed comments, we really put a lot of work into this.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
33
Coming up with the street lay that fits this site and fits the topography, and I think you’ll see in a
hurry that trying to comment on the plan that the Dorsey people put forward, it just… So I’m
just going to cut right to some of the points and if you have any detail questions. I’m going to be
rather brief… We labeled them, the points with letters to just kind of highlight what we’re
talking about. And just right off the bat we looked at, when we looked at the proposed
north/south road, this east line here, right, it’s a very difficult intersection we labeled point A.
…boulevard at about a 45 degree angle instead of a perpendicular intersection we could establish
with to the east with a regular alignment there, so right off the bat you see some problems. In
addition…site layout in the business district… Just kind of going along the lines there, we then
get to the point where introducing, or trying to introduce a road like this immediately gives us
some double loaded houses with streets on both sides, which is really not what we’re trying to
achieve. And then we get into, and again I’m just going to keep talking quickly here. We get
into some issues that you know upon careful look just come up right away that doesn’t show
up… There’s significant wetland issues that would arise from this location. Point C here,
there’s wetland on this site that’s shown right through there. D represents the intersection of the
north/south connector proposed with this street. You have wetland and I don’t even think that
that intersection could be built so, it’s just, it’s not something that’s practical at all. And then
among the other things that this would do too, is it would impact the private park that we have
showing as Point E, which would be the extension in this area. And then maybe a bigger point,
stepping back a bit, it just takes away from the entire concept for development of clustering the
houses. Reducing the impervious surface and the whole character of this development that
we’ve been looking at. And then kind of going along even into the development, when we get
away from some of those specific things and start looking at the lay of the land and the
topography, those type of lots and it’s a little bit away from my…traffic engineering to site
layout, but when we get into what we’re labeling…G, the houses are well suited to be walkout
lots would just be lost with this type of plan, so you can see kind of the domino effect…all the
care and planning that went into creating this special site would just be taken away in a hurry.
Finally as we looked to what would happen if we tried to accommodate a road like that as it’s
shown. As a connector road with the higher volumes, it’s a little bit different design standards.
It seems more…those issues caused by the wider road and design standards. And then finally
moving up mostly north of this site. By introducing the roads here, you’re then left with…at that
intersection that’s very well spacing…do some more intersections than we’d like to see. It also
takes away from our ability to do the type of housing Cory was talking about with the garages
and driveways to the side, so it wouldn’t be appropriate for this character. So again, taken away
from the character and the site plan. And then finally I guess one more technical detail that
wasn’t addressed in the Dorsey memo. The touch down point for this is probably about the exact
wrong place of where you want to put that due to the grade differential to lining it and the
amount of fill it would need to accommodate that road so…it goes on to say that, there’s many,
many points that on a very, you know very initial look at that, many things jump up and say that
road isn’t going to work there. It doesn’t fit at all with the character of the development, and we
just thought we’d start by… Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Paul, did you want to make, did you say you wanted to talk about
some city perspective now? Do you want to do that now?
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
34
Paul Oehme: Yeah, I think I emailed out Westwood’s background last weekend on the layout
that Allan just talked about. One other item that, in terms of access to, yes I think that access
point right on the property line between Dorsey and Degler’s is approximately about 1,200 feet
away from Audubon and that is approximately a quarter mile spacing that the county potentially
could allow. But in my estimation that’s not a good location for an access, a collector road
access. Potentially 1,800 units, 1,800 trips on this roadway winding at that particular location is
approximately at a 5% grade. And with a turn lane at that location, could potentially have
problems in wet and snowy conditions. Stop conditions. The future roadway, Lyman Boulevard
is, will be at 50 miles per hour design speed so coming down a hill at a 5% grade could
potentially be concern for the residents accessing at this particular location so. The other issues
with that access point, I think I’ll just leave them go for now. I can answer, stand for any
questions too that you might have about the access or traffic in general for this development but.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I mean the underlying question here is where should the north/south
connection be between the east/west collector and Lyman Boulevard, so I think we’ve heard
from the developer how that would affect their development, but I think from the city standpoint,
you know.
Paul Oehme: Well it potentially could work there I guess but it’s not the preferred location in
my estimation. We had Mr. Dorsey and I did have a conversation a week ago or so, 2 weeks ago
now, about potential other locations and what I got out of that conversation was, and from a staff
perspective, there is another location for that north collector.
Mayor Furlong: There is or is not?
Paul Oehme: There is. And that would be at Sunset Trail. T’ing in at that location. From a
traffic perspective, you always want to limit and consolidate access points. That allows us to do
that tight T’ing at an access point. You know I did have a site visit out there. Took a look at it,
and then I did have, and we did, the city did spend some time and some funds looking at that
intersection too from a sight distance perspective to what we could, with the improvements to
Lyman Boulevard, make a quality intersection function with improvements to Lyman Boulevard
to meet that sight distance requirements. We do have Lyman Boulevard and we are continuing
to work with the county on upgrading that section of roadway so, so we do have in our CIP I
think for 2009.
Mayor Furlong: In terms of matching up, Audubon comes down from the north. That’s not at
the eastern property line of this development? It’s shown on the west?
Paul Oehme: That is on the west side, yeah. Audubon is on the west.
Mayor Furlong: To get to that line we’d have to cross the creek if we were coming up on this
side.
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: You have a picture?
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
35
Paul Oehme: This is a drawing showing the traffic where the roadway alignment is, was
proposed in AUAR back in 2003. The access point that you were referring to Mayor was at
Audubon and it has always been envisioned that to serve the property west would T into
Audubon at that location and a wrap around to Lakeview Drive there so. You know all the other
access points to in this area are T’ing into other roadway, residential roadway or collector
roadways to the east, or to the west we are, the east/west collector road, we’ll be tying into
Butternut to the west or you know we’ll be tying into Powers Boulevard in the off ramp to 212
and to the south. That road will now tie into Bluff Creek Drive, T’ing into the south there, so all
the roads we’re proposing right now would be tying into.
Kate Aanenson: I just want to clarify too, because it’s difficult to show but there is a creek, the
creek and we looked…so that’s why this road has to stay on this side of the creek.
Mayor Furlong: Show where the creek is.
Todd Gerhardt: Why don’t you show this map that shows the details. The fourth page in in the
report.
Mayor Furlong: We need about 3 more maps.
Kate Aanenson: It doesn’t show the road on it but this is the creek. So what they’re showing is
stopping short, so here’s Audubon. So you have to stay on this side of the creek. This is where
the lift station is. It’s just on the east side of the creek so, what we’re trying to avoid, because we
talked about all the projects in here, is minimize creek crossings. That’s been the goal. So we
have…with the boulevard. The other point I wanted to make when we talked about similar
densities, you know the AUAR recommended this and this, a connection point on Lyman. One
additional connection point, so the other thing is we don’t know what’s happening on the
property, these two properties, so for example if it came in low density, then we would re-
evaluate. Maybe there doesn’t need to be a connection if it comes in low density. If there’s a
request to do something different, higher density, then we’d have to evaluate that but right now,
based on the fact that it was intended to show maximum development, that’s what was built
under the maximum for the lower end of the density and that’s something that we would
certainly evaluate and maybe similar to this one, that that connection would need to be made.
But since we don’t have a plan in front of us, we can’t make that…but we would certainly look
at it. Again…using the traditional single family subdivision for example. If it went less than
that, as I indicated before, it’d have to come back for a comp plan amendment.
Mayor Furlong: When we were working through the AUAR, if I recall, there were a few things
that were established when we approved that, and one of those were the touch down points or the
intersections for the east/west collector. Both on Audubon and on Powers Boulevard. Was there
a similar type of texture in terms of where the alignment to the east/west collector on the north or
Pioneer Trail to the east/west collector?
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
36
Kate Aanenson: Right, I mean you saw this connection but as we saw when Pioneer Pass came
in, it moved. They worked it into their development to provide access. They built, that’s a
minor collector. 80 foot wide. They’re building that then as a part of development.
Mayor Furlong: But that moved and.
Kate Aanenson: Yes it did, yeah. To work in the development.
Mayor Furlong: And to align with Bluff Creek Drive.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, to change again so there’s that flexibility so again we can look at that too
if it came in on the low end of the density.
Paul Oehme: And just for the record Mayor, council. Zach did look at the access point at Sunset
Trail too and basically this is the access point that the Degler site is right here. And the east
property line to the Degler’s is currently right there. You know to provide proper profile for
sight distances at a 50 miles per hour road, the access point at Sunset Trail would have to be
lowered approximately about a foot, so it’s not a big impact to the roadway or to the connections
to the south to make that, to make that intersection function properly.
Councilman Lundquist: How far is it Paul from Sunset to what will be Powers extension?
Paul Oehme: 1,250 feet. Not quite.
Mayor Furlong: And what’s your standard of what you’re looking for, for a minimum?
Paul Oehme: 1,200.
Mayor Furlong: It’s 1,200? Okay.
Councilman Peterson: Go back to the previous map if you would Paul. Do we remember what
the rationale was for that placement where it is now?
Paul Oehme: You know the AUAR I believe it just stated that there should be an access point
from Powers Boulevard over to Audubon. I think just kind of picked halfway inbetween. I don’t
think there was really any significant.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, the design speed, as Paul indicated before. Lyman’s going to be faster
than the Bluff Creek Boulevard, so they wanted to get those spacings between, kind of more
equal distance because of the speed and the volume on Lyman so. With those traffic counts.
Councilman Peterson: Is the, and I don’t recall. The Plowshares development that’s going in
just about north of where that road is now. That will or will not have access to Lyman.
Kate Aanenson: Will not.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
37
Councilman Peterson: So that’s going through the Lake Susan Hills?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Osprey Lane.
Paul Oehme: Yep, and stubbing a street to the east.
Kate Aanenson: Providing a stub street to the property to the west of that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Appreciate the information.
Dan Herbst: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Herbst.
Dan Herbst: If you would like any questions directed to the Ryland Group as to product type,
target market, floor plan, I’ll bring Brian Sullivan to the podium.
Mayor Furlong: I think so.
Brian Sullivan: Hi, I’m Brian Sullivan. I’m with Ryland Homes. We’re thrilled and excited to
be here. Ryland Homes has been in the Twin Cities market for about 10 years now and to my
knowledge we haven’t been in your fair city, so we’re very excited about that. We’ve been
working with Dan and his group for quite a while on the concept plan that we’ve come up with
here and the concept plan and home style we’re proposing here is something that we’ve been on
for about a year now with the type of homes that we’re proposing here. What we’ve been doing
is, through our market research and realizing where land prices are and what people want and
what people don’t want, we see that there’s a shift in the market a little bit. And one of the
things that we realized is that everyone wants a 3 car garage. And then we go to the city people,
like talking with Kate and Kate looks at a 3 car garage as across the front of the house and she
goes, that doesn’t look very good. Just having 3 car garage, 3 car garage, 3 car garage, all down
the street here, so we started you know…so what we started doing as we’re thinking about this
issue as to how best present our homes to the city, how to have the direct land cost continuing to
escalate and how to best address and some internal, some issues that people have on the interior
of the homes. We started re-thinking our product mix a little bit. What we did is we came up
with this cluster home here that has been redefined on the inside. One of the things to mainly
address issues with the city was how do we…the appearance of our homes from the street as
you’re going through the neighborhoods, and what we did is, we designed a home that has a 3
car garage but the, from the front side of it, it looks like a 2 car garage. What we’ve done is
we’ve stacked one of the garage stalls behind the other and what we’ve learned from our, kind of
market research is that people want the third stall but they don’t need to use it every day. They
use it for storing their bicycles and their toys and the boat. The summer car. It may be a summer
car…winter car so it’s not something that you need to have every day, that third stall, garage
doors open up to another bay. So when we came across that realization we were like well geez,
we can go with a little bit narrower house, which means we have a little bit narrower lot, which
means we can pay…and see if we can come up with what is a fairly nice, nice looking
subdivision here. And if you look at it, it’s kind of a typical streetscape here. You can see what
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
38
we’ve done is we have about 8, we have 8 floor plans. Eight home styles that we’re, 8 floor
plans we’re proposing here and each of those floor plans has 4 or 5, 3, 4, or 5 different elevations
on the front of them. Some of them have brick on them. Some of them have stone on them.
Some have just a porch out front. Some are prairie style…there’s lots of different options so as
home buyers come through, they can…here this may be close to what you’re thinking about here
and we have a floor plan that goes inside that and…offering to the home buyer and have a very
unique… The other thing that we’ve done is if you look at the corner, corner lots here. We’ve
designed a house that’s been designed for a corner lot there and, what it is, it’s a, the garage on
that is around, off around the back side of it there. So the garages are side loaded off the corner
of the street there. What that does is it just helps, it also diminish the number of, the number of
garage doors that are on the street there also. And if you go through our development here you’ll
see a fair number of corners there that we can use to put these on. We also have some of these
other homes with the 2 car garages, will also fit on these garage corners because we have some
setback issues we need to work with so there are, there is an option that will be…garage doors
facing the front. So that’s kind of how we designed the homes there. We started looking at this,
at how we can, we’re looking at narrow lots. Somebody said well how do we get the narrow lots
to work, and we ended up designing houses specifically for the narrower lots. It’s not like we’re
trying to squeeze a bigger house onto a smaller lot…trying to get the site plan to work here and
help with…real unique neighborhood. As far as price point here, we’re probably in the low, or
actually I should say high $300’s. Low $400’s is kind of the base, starting point. Then they’ll
go up to 5-6. Maybe 6 when people start loading them up with sun porches and marble in
kitchens and stainless steel amenities and things that people like to have so. We’re kind of in the
middle of things there and looking for a nice market segment. Sever Peterson’s property to the
south of us, he’s got the large lots that are more of an executive style home. Town and Country
stuff which is the lower level home for multi-family type of product. We’re looking at
something that’s kind of inbetween the two… Not the real pricey guys. We’re not the real cheap
guys as far as the type of homes… So that’s what we have, if you have any questions, I’ll be
happy to answer them.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions.
Councilman Peterson: Do you have any sense of how many different color palettes you’re going
to use when you drive through the neighborhood and is it going to be half a dozen or…
Brian Sullivan: There are probably about half a dozen different color palettes there. A lot of the
color will come from when people put brick and stone on the front of their house there. The
siding tends to be in the earth tone colors. We’ve gone a little deeper on which way we call it
deeper colors back there so we’ll have some contrast between our lighter color and darker colors.
See them popping out more as you go through here. One of the comments the Planning
Commission had was about garage doors and the whole issue of whether or not they, were they
going to be flat or…one in the illustration here with, I had to go back and say no. We’re
showing raised panel doors here and plain doors with windows. Basically all of the garage
doors, they have the texture of some paneling to them, and then as an option to kind of look at
the elevation to go with some of the garage doors and windows…so that will also be a, one of the
components.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
39
Mayor Furlong: And I guess following up on the question of color, and looking at this picture
here which I think is up on the table. And it’s hard to differentiate the, I mean there are two that
are the darker brown, and then the others look to be grayer or some sort of tan or something. Is
there, are there more differentiating colors than what we’re seeing on this plan?
Brian Sullivan: ...that’s probably a pretty close representation of what will be out there as far as
colors. We’re looking at, I’m trying to get some, there are some darker blues and there’s some
kind of reddish colors that we’re looking at introducing here and I don’t think you see those up
there. There’s also some greens also. But.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Any other questions for Mr. Sullivan? No? Very good, thank you.
Councilman Peterson: Probably just one of staff as we’re talking about garage doors. I know
that staff is a proponent of adding character to the garage doors. Can we put in the approval that
a certain…
Kate Aanenson: Sure, and I think we want to follow up with some color too. A percentage of.
We’re comfortable with the mix we’ve got and looked at the…but I think it’s always better to be
more restrictive so I think that would be when they come back for final plat that we ask for a
color palette and that certain percentage. I think Planning Commission struggled with that too.
And the standard one, when we do townhouse projects, we always ask for and it’s our opinion
that those add better value in a townhouse project. If this is a single family, typically we don’t.
All that’s required, but I think it’s fair because it’s the PUD to ask…
Mayor Furlong: I agree. I think asking for more on the colors. I guess my question is when do
we do that? Can we defer that…
Kate Aanenson: We can put in a condition then it comes back at final plat. That they show you
the color palette.
Mayor Furlong: That they work with staff.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. And then we could stick with the same, I think he’s clarified that
he has at least 4 colors and I think what we want to see is we’re kind of moving right now
towards the deeper colors to the lighter and I think that’s…want to see the deeper greens and
the…more of a golden color. It’s just deeper, richer colors.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, I think it’s variety as much as picking colors but okay. So that’s
something we can include. To work with you to.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay, any other questions at this point? Okay, Mr. Herbst, is that it
from your side?
Dan Herbst: We want to thank you.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
40
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, any follow up questions at this point for staff?
If not, Mr. Dorsey requested to address the council and I’d certainly be interested in hearing his
comments at this time.
Rick Dorsey: Mayor, members of the council. I appreciate the time to speak with you this
evening. My primary concerns, as you all know, have dealt with transportation. Access to the
area. It’s been a big part of it. The plan that’s put forth, and can you zoom in on that please a
little bit for me. Little more. The whole area here is what should be looked at. We’re not
looking at just one individual point. Concern with traffic flow. Mitigation of traffic on the
eastern end of the property is something I’ve talked about numerous times. And while I haven’t
met with Mr. Herbst other than when I was notified his plan was going to come in front of the
city, I’ve been very vocal in front of the council and I think you would go and find out the
information as far as my concerns with that. The proposed alternative road that just showed up
here this last week. I haven’t seen this before. But I have looked at the option. Comes right
across through the middle of my property. It will be a collector road. Last meeting at the
Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission said it wouldn’t be acceptable for a
collector road to go through the middle of the Pemtom property when it was brought up as an
option over there. Likewise my property is zoned, or not zoned but guided similarly. I would
expect that it wouldn’t be acceptable to come through the middle of my property either. In
addition to that, there will have to be, because there’s not adequate road services provided in the
plan for the Pemtom property, they have one access point at this time on the east/west collector
with a 1,700 foot cul-de-sac. The way around that is if a temporary access point through my
property. Somewhere about this point so you’d have to put another equivalent of a connector
road coming across there to connect up with the connector. This doesn’t really leave me with
very desirable area of land to work with. For anybody who’d want to be a resident in this
property. In the future and as far as having flexibility to design and plan building around
collector roads, like I say. Planning Commission as well as staff made note of it. It isn’t
acceptable in any other project so, you know similarly I’d expect the same thing. Now
traditionally, well before I go to traditionally. Let’s go back to, this was planned for the
east/west collector that the staff supported. The City Council approved final plan for back in
August of 2005. Note the north collector’s location. Is on the Pemtom project property. So it
has moved since that point in time. No discussion had with myself whatsoever from the
developer. When I found out about the possible move of it, about late October, early November,
I discussed it with Paul and said that wasn’t what we were anticipating, nor anything to the desire
of what we might have. Now back at that time, why there’s a problem today with the access
point onto Lyman if at that point in time there wasn’t a problem with it. In doing a little bit of
research here, as far as distances. From the standpoint of location to nearest intersection, Paul
had mentioned about 1,200 feet. I went out and measured it out. It was 1,185. And this one up
here is actually 1,150, depending on at what point you stop at on a curve point there. They’re
similar distances. So the distance of, to one intersection or the other doesn’t have an impact on
the location. Now, the concern that I would have from looking at the whole picture, if I go back
to this drawing here is, from the internal standpoint, the traffic, the location that’s most central to
the whole 2005 service area is right here. With that being the center point of the development, it
would encourage mitigation of traffic because people coming out here, they’re actually closer to
Audubon than they are to Powers, which would encourage those going to Highway 5 to consider
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
41
Audubon as an alternative. Likewise if they’re going to downtown Chanhassen, they wouldn’t
have to put all the pressure on this intersection over here. This particular drawing here, coming
out here, is only 1,200 feet from this intersection. This will be probably the busiest intersection
outside of those on Highway 5 in the city. To try to mitigate some traffic away from that
intersection would be prudent I would believe. From the standpoint of internally to my property
there’s also natural features there that provide limitations as far as future development. This is a
fairly steep hillside along this side with low ground in here. The area along the road here is
actually an embankment coming down onto my property which limits the access point to
probably only this location as well. The one that’s on, if it wasn’t down here. As well the pond
that’s right here, from the house there’s actually a hill. There’s no land. There’s probably about
25-30 feet maybe right down by the wet ground, so there’s really nothing between here and here
that’s any further useable, so you’d have a little pocket here and two little pieces here that are of
significance with this option. And it’s not that something couldn’t be built there but from the
standpoint of a collector, you’re not going to be able to build houses and have them back out of
their driveways onto it. You’re going to have to figure out another configuration. From the
standpoint as well, while I don’t purport to be an engineer, I trust that engineers have talents and
skills and creativity and could come up, they can come up with a solution for darn near anything
if you put the challenge to them, and enough money. And my drawing that I provided Paul with
and he forwarded across was conceptual. And the idea there was to say how can we look at
another alternative that keeps the bulk of this land here. The Fox and Dorsey parcels open and
flexible so that development can happen. The idea, the exact locations matching up to those on
the Pemtom plan, you know that is not necessarily what I was suggesting. I’m not sure actually
how he’s going to build those going down the hill here without some sort of major grading or
retaining wall, but I’m sure it can be done. In any case the idea there was to utilize the collector
as a buffer between properties. Very common. You have different types of usages and with
different types of usages, you create senses of neighborhoods for those developments that are
built. The issue of, the other issue that’s there is in not having it here you preclude the
opportunity for potentially, and while it’s not part of the AUAR, a second intersection up at this
point to provide access to the Fox property which is virtually landlocked at this point because
they have a small segment right here that’s a possibility. The rest of Lyman is not a possibility.
All the way down Powers is not a possibility to get into their property, and if you come across,
let’s see. As you come across what was proposed for the east/west collector, the soonest
intersection you could create coming off of Powers in this property is right about here which this
is a wetland or proposed, considered to be a wetland. It hasn’t been delineated yet. Providing
very difficult access to that property. So precluding that one forces one here. So then where
does the traffic go from the Fox property as well. Some of it maybe can come out this way. I
have a significant asset sitting on the top of that hill, as many of you know. It’s significant and
it’s something that I don’t say that we’re just going to give up. I would say that there’s a good
chance, depending on what goes on with the rest of the area around me, still single family could
be an option. And with single family that could be 1 to 4 units an acre. 1 to 4 units per acre is
different intensity. I’ve got use on this site and I don’t know what it’s going to be. It may be
that. It may be higher. I don’t know. There’s no plan in place at this point. I’m at least 6 years
out because of it being in the ag preserve. So in any case I would like to have opportunities.
There’s, it’s reasonable to be able to put such a road along the property line. With the plan that’s
proposed by Pemtom today, I can’t even put a road adjacent to my property line because the
houses are backed up against it with a road on the other side of them, which would make 2 roads
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
42
on either side of those properties. So this is kind of a one sided situation right here. I believe
precedent was set in dealing with Sever Peterson’s property and Town and Country property
when they originally had the road coming across Sever Peterson’s property and put it across the
two properties and split it down the middle. Splitting it down the middle does two things. It
shares the amount of land that either party has to give up, and both parties will benefit from that
road. It also shares the cost of that road, which probably will be in excess of a million dollars.
So from the standpoint of in the future a road being needed, certainly if I never develop my
property there’d be a problem with the Pemtom property. They’re under serviced with roads.
And so there would be a requirement or need for them to have some sort of access to another
collector road. The opportunity is there to provide it. I’m not here to try and hold up their
project but I do think it’s fair and reasonable, if he was on the other side of the table, he’d be
right here saying the same things I am to you, that fair and reasonable would be splitting it down
the middle and both parties would benefit and both parties can contribute to it. One other note
here, I also went and measured off on Powers Boulevard just to have an idea of distances
between intersections and if you go up to the street here, starting up here at the, I believe it’s
Lake Drive West. From this point here to this point here at Lake Susan Hills is 960 feet. To go
from that point to Powers Court is 800 feet. And then 1,160 between these two, so on country
roads it’s not unprecedented to have smaller segments between them. It’s maybe what we would
like to see is larger. Quarter mile is actually 1,320 feet so neither of the locations on Lyman
would meet that criteria. The other issue that was there when I was looking at it and researched
this was that sight distances are an issue today. Right now the first sight distance coming down
is at that point, so from a standpoint of safety issues, that’s the first point where you could put a
road. Perhaps Lyman will get re-graded or rebuilt. It’s been on the plans I believe since the
90’s. Early 90’s. Hasn’t been built yet. I anticipate it probably will be built sooner than later
but at the same time if I get to the table in 6 years and it’s not built, what does that mean?
There’s no access point to Lyman Boulevard for me because I can’t meet the state guidelines.
Without rebuilding Lyman Boulevard. So in fairness, and I’ve heard that said many a times and
I do believe that that would be the intention of all involved would be to look at it and say, from
the benefit of the whole community, bring the traffic up to this point to help mitigate the traffic
going through these neighborhoods would be something that should be certainly considered. To
look at the area around this area here and trying to get some of the traffic away from it, and make
sure it’s not just instantly going to be a problem would be to look to again centralize it over here.
So that’s what I have to say right now. Again, I would look to the council to look at it fairly and
I guess there’s one other item dealing with ordinances. Again difference of opinion perhaps but
the way the ordinance reads is if one property has a higher, intense use than another, and I have
two dual guided uses. While they’re the same, this property selected the higher usage. I still
have dual guidance. It could be the lower. It could be my decision. Could be the city’s
decision. I don’t know that. In any case I feel that my property should be protected to provide
that. One other quick issue dealing with the buffer there, or the road being there. It does provide
an ability for somebody to enter into one neighborhood or the other and have monuments and
knowledge you’re going into a different neighborhood. And as well, in the interim, until my
property is developed, it is agricultural. There will be agricultural equipment operating on it.
Chemicals being sprayed. Fertilizer being put on the ground, and a buffer of a road would
certainly keep children from going across and into the field like it’s their back yard. So those are
the points of concern I have at this time. Any questions, I’d be happy to answer.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
43
Mayor Furlong: Any questions for Mr. Dorsey? No? Okay, thank you. Comment for staff or,
follow up comments.
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor. Just a couple real quick points here. We are trying to allow,
the most flexibility in these designs. It’s just hard to plan for flexibility when there’s no design
that we have in front of us, and we don’t know exactly what to plan for. Let’s see. Actually the
north collector roadway that we had you know shown on this drawing here, again it’s only
approximation or it’s our best stab at what potentially could develop. I think Mr. Fox or Mr.
Dorsey had indicated an access point close to this location so we just kind of put something in
there so. You know it’s all flexible. We’re not saying this is where it needed to go. We’re
recommending putting it there. I mean we’re allowing that to be dealt with in the future and to
have the property owners, the developers look at where a road potentially could best serve their
development. The information that we had received from the Degler’s and the Fox’s.
Mayor Furlong: Dorsey’s.
Paul Oehme: Dorsey’s, I’m sorry. Had, you know this is one of the concepts that we had
received and you know the access point that we had shown here before with the north collector
roadway access from the adjacent property owner here, plus the access point someplace at Sunset
Trail too so. We’re trying to look at all these access points. Where do we tie these
developments in that are being proposed at this time, plus try to plan for the future so we’re, you
know from a staff’s perspective, we’re trying to do our best and try to see what, plan for the
future and try to accommodate the property owners and developer’s wishes on how they think
they can best develop their property. Let’s see, one last point again with the, I’m showing on
this drawing here. You know putting the north collector roadway where Mr. Dorsey had
preferred it to go would go, is again it’s at a 5% grade. I think from a staff’s perspective and the
traveling public you know, turn lanes on collector roadways at 5% grade, left turn lanes, it’s not.
You know there’s other locations for those type of access points. Those are the type of access
points that we should look at alternatively from steep grades like that, just from a safety
perspective.
Councilman Peterson: So 5% grade would be pre, pre Lyman reconstruction?
Paul Oehme: Pre and post.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, what did you say? Pre?
Paul Oehme: Pre and post. What we had looked at was sight lines at Sunset Trail and down to
Powers Boulevard and where it potentially could tie into existing grades too. You don’t want to,
try to keep the grades at where they are because it just drives up the cost to change the grades.
Todd Gerhardt: How much would you have to cut down from the hill if you were to try to
eliminate the 5%?
Paul Oehme: Significantly.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
44
Todd Gerhardt: I mean can you point on there where you’d have to.
Paul Oehme: Well, you know the existing grade is 5% right there. I mean I don’t know what the
magic number is to put in the access point there. 3% maybe that’s the recommended grade for a
50 miles per hour collector roadway for turn lane. I don’t know, it would be significant to make
that access point work. Another issue that Mr. Dorsey had brought up too again was, maybe just
going back to this map real quick. Putting an access point here would encourage more traffic to
go up Audubon Road. Audubon right now is a city owned collector roadway. Powers Boulevard
is a collector roadway. Four lane divided. That’s where you know in staff’s recommendation,
that’s where the traffic should be going out on the city collector roadway. Those are.
Kate Aanenson: I just had one other thing to add, because I want to go back to the land use
issue, and that’s again we indicated if that came in, we believe we’ve interpreted the code
correctly, as far as the buffer because it’s similarly guided. Again if we would evaluate the same
thing and Mr. Dorsey came in with a less intense and again the AUAR made assumptions based
on the higher end because we use the most amount. We evaluate that and maybe a street
wouldn’t need to be connected to Lyman if they chose to go with the low end, and that’s a
possibility and we’d certainly evaluate that. So that connection wouldn’t need to be made.
Councilman Lundquist: Paul, Kate, if I heard you correctly before. Is it an accurate statement
that the impact of the Pemtom development on the property to the east is a connection to public
street. Whatever that one is coming across there, and then the east/west collector that goes
through.
Mayor Furlong: East/west collector, yeah. If I’m not mistaken, that is on the Fox family
property.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. West, okay. But the property to the east of this development,
and so really the east/west is our deal. That’s the city driven so the public street going across
there, connecting to the east from the Pemtom development.
Kate Aanenson: Are you talking about this one?
Councilman Lundquist: That one right there, yep. And then everything else to the east is
essentially up to grabs, depending upon what happens.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilman Lundquist: So Kate, if I heard you before, depending on what goes on that property
to the east, we may not ever have to make a connection to Lyman if it didn’t want it or
depending on what the use or what that ended up being. So is that?
Kate Aanenson: That’s fair.
Councilman Lundquist: Fair that that could be anything?
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
45
Kate Aanenson: Well right now it’s guided low or medium and if it was to come in something
large lot estates, it’s not guided for that. You’d have to do a land use amendment. Right now if
it came in with low or medium, that’s consistent with the comprehensive plan. If it came in for
commercial, industrial, that again would take a land use amendment. At those two options,
commercial industrial, they’re probably more than confidently require that that connection be
made. If it was to come in consistent with the comprehensive plan, low density, say single
family lots, more than likely you could make the internal loops. You’d still…all the access,
because the volume wouldn’t be so great on this street. It’d all be…
Councilman Lundquist: When we talked about the AUAR, did we talk about how many
connections it was going to be to Lyman?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, the one additional one besides.
Councilman Lundquist: Besides that little loop street there.
Kate Aanenson: This one here that… that ties back down. And then there’s another connection
in the AUAR that shows it approximately, yeah.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, so if in the future that one didn’t happen, what would be the
consequence there?
Kate Aanenson: Well the AUAR said, based on traffic modeling, if you went underneath that
model, which is what he’s saying it may be a possibility, then we would evaluate that. More
than likely it wouldn’t be anything.
Mayor Furlong: Would we have to redo the AUAR, amend that?
Kate Aanenson: As long as we stay under the model. You know as we look at that, I’m pretty
confident based upon the future of single family home. If you look at what we’ve got with 5
units an acre here. We’ve got 155. Similarly number you’d probably be way under that. Maybe
80 lots. I can’t imagine that…
Councilman Peterson: Well that’s one of the issues we talked about at Town and Country Phase
II is that, some of us, if not most of us were concerned about the intensity or density of all…so I
think we’ve already proven that we’re already going over our number of density. So I think if
we do less, I don’t think that’s going to be an issue.
Kate Aanenson: Right, yeah.
Councilman Lundquist: So then back to, so really the impact on this project to the property, well
for that matter to the west and to the east is one residential street.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
46
Councilman Lundquist: We’ve got the part of that loop that will go from Audubon going to the
west. And you’ve got this public street to be determined name going to the east. And those are
the two connections and other than that the roadway’s unaffected.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. I just feel compelled to say something else for the record and that’s,
you know because when the city initiated the McComb study to look at, to be proactive, and the
one thing we did learn in that, and I just want to put this on the record, is that if a lifestyle center,
some additional commercial wants to go here, that developer is going to want that access. We
feel it’s prudent that we provide that opportunity on this site… We’re trying to give them the
flexibility.
Councilman Lundquist: I want to make sure that we’re not spending our whole evening talking
about what might be on property to the west or the east with regard to this. My concern is,
what’s the you know, I don’t want to hamper the property to the west or to the east for some
future, and I think that by essentially putting one connection in each one, that’s about as
minimum, I mean zero is the only other choice, which doesn’t seem likely that you’re not going
to connect them somehow, so to have one property, I just want to make sure that’s just to clarify
that. Okay. And then one other about the, I think what is Mr. and Mrs. Degler’s driveway now,
that, where that is a hammer handle down there. That not being a connection point just because
it’s too close to Audubon. Is that what the driver is there?
Paul Oehme: Right, and it’s a private street proposed.
Councilman Lundquist: Ah yeah, okay. But primarily that one, I mean we can make it 3 feet
wider but that would be it’s just too close to Audubon, is that why you chose to have a hammer
head there?
Paul Oehme: Too close to Audubon and it’s not recommended.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Just one clarifying question with regard
to and I may have the applicant come back up. There was the issue, or Ms. Aanenson. We
talked about setbacks. You made mention in your report that it’s 25 feet setback from the right-
of-way. Whether it’s private right-of-way with a 40 or a public of 60.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah it’s the garage side.
Mayor Furlong: On the garage side. Except for the corners where it’s 25 and 20.
Kate Aanenson: And 20. 20 would be the non-garage side.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Because it gets very punitive when you’ve got that small a lot. It basically
would eliminate that lot.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
47
Mayor Furlong: And I guess my question then is, as I thought and maybe this is a question then
for the applicant. It sounds like some of the property, some of the corner lots were going to have
a side garage.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: As opposed to the front. So are we going to see a differential between on that
corner lot with that house 5 feet out in front…
Kate Aanenson: That’s what he indicated we’re trying to work through those to see how that,
there will be some differentiation on that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, which is usually along the…okay but then the front of that house would
be 20 which would be 5 feet closer at a corner than all the other homes on the street. Is that what
we want?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Well, I think you know we’re going to have to look at that
carefully. Where those placements are and that’s what I think what Brian was talking about too.
Is how to address that because we want to encourage that, the side loaded, so looking at those
lots, it’s always our goal, the goal here is try to limit on this street here, try to get those interior
streets. So we’ve shown those driveways that have access onto the public street, there’s
opportunity to the corner.
Mayor Furlong: And maybe that’s going, first of all how many are we talking about and second,
you know I kind of like the idea of a side access as well, but I’m not.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I know what you’re saying. There could be one house that’s sitting
closer.
Mayor Furlong: And it’s right at the corner. Where you going to have naturally more traffic,
more cars.
Kate Aanenson: Well and I think too, the design speed on these streets, because that was one of
the things that we, you know you looked at too. It’s a quite neighborhood. So you don’t have
long stretches where you can pick up the speed. I’m not sure how many exactly we have for the
corner lots.
Brian Sullivan: It’s like 16 or 20 or somewhere in that range.
Mayor Furlong: So about 10%. Little over. About 10%.
Kate Aanenson: I understand what you’re saying and we can look at that to see how we can
work those through.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
48
Brian Sullivan: We’re on this main road here. You know we have like a corner lot like right
here. These corner lots, you’re not going to have the corner house on those because we’re going
to have, these are going to be more a traditional road because they’re going to want to have a 3
car garage. This kind of the main road into our development here so you don’t want to have a lot
of 3 car garages on the main drive as we.
Mayor Furlong: So you’re saying that would be an example where you would have the side
garage?
Brian Sullivan: Where I would not have the side garage. Because the 3.
Mayor Furlong: Oh, that lot facing towards the.
Brian Sullivan: Yeah, 3 garage doors would be facing toward the street. I wouldn’t want that
there so, there will be situations mainly along this road. These corner lots along the main road
that I don’t, that we won’t, we might want to have the, I wouldn’t want to have the corner house
on those lots there.
Mayor Furlong: Are any of those then, are any of those situations where the, it’s on a private
street that it’s going to be the 20 foot setback?
Brian Sullivan: Yeah, on a private street the front of the house would be 20 feet.
Mayor Furlong: From the 40 foot right-of-way?
Brian Sullivan: From the 40 foot right-of-way. And with your garage on a corner would be the
25 feet. 25 feet. 25 feet from the right-of-way.
Kate Aanenson: That was I believe one of the drawings in the perspective that showed the
corner. I believe this one with the private street…
Brian Sullivan: This right here would show what the.
Kate Aanenson: So that would be the side loaded on the private. But what you’re missing in
context is I’m pushing forward on the other one. I think that’s something that maybe we
can…and then when it comes back for final plat, you can see how that. I understand…one
sticking out there.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and I just want to clarify because I understand the concept but what does
that mean when we apply it is what I’m trying to get my arms around.
Kate Aanenson: Right…along the street.
Mayor Furlong: So we’ll take a look at that.
Kate Aanenson: Yep.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
49
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Impervious surface coverage. Overall it’s limited to 30. We’re taking
advantage of the open space in the Bluff Creek corridor as part of that 30, and if I read the data
information correctly, it said 27 is the current coverage ratio.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: On the lots themselves, did that calculation include that 600 square foot…
Kate Aanenson: That’s a good question. I’m sorry I missed that when I gave my presentation
but we tried to come up, and that’s something else we wanted in the homeowners covenants
because if everybody maximized their lot, which we don’t anticipate, but what we want to come
up with and I put this in the staff report. We looked at there’s approximately 600 square feet so
if everybody used that 600 square feet we’ll still be under it. It appears so. If they want to put,
what we’re asking them to put, also I talked about fences. Dog houses. We also want that to put,
go into their association rules and.
Councilman Labatt: And covenants?
Kate Aanenson: Well restrictions too, that there’s a certain percentage that they can maximize.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess that’s it. If 600 square feet for each of the homeowners is
allowable and they still meet the overall coverage.
Kate Aanenson: Yes, we believe that’s kind of what we did for the math.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Obviously we want to avoid is variance requests on impervious surface
because it’s smaller lots to begin with. So is there, how are we going to deal with that? Is there
a limit on a lot itself?
Kate Aanenson: That’s what I’m saying. The 600 per lot basis.
Mayor Furlong: Is going to be the implied.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Additional amount. So some of the footprints of the homes are different, are
they not?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes. So not everybody’s going put a deck on right away. Everybody’s
not going to have a dog run, those sort of things, so we’ll have to evaluate that. What we’ve
asked them to do is kind of come back with that minutia and we kind of worked that into the
system so there’s kind of a set rule that, how much square footage you can add on. To stay
within that percentage.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
50
Mayor Furlong: Without adding complexity, I think we should try to take a look at that now so
that we have those rules there, and if it’s in there…
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I did review that in the staff report but we’re asking them to put that also
in their bylaws and we’ll put that in as a condition of approval so it’s quantitative and
prescriptive so people know what they’re buying into. How much they have for additional yard
space.
Mayor Furlong: Another work with staff condition. Very good. Those are my questions. Any
other questions at this point?
Councilman Labatt: I’ve got one. Kate, the parking on the private streets. These are 28 foot
wide streets.
Kate Aanenson: Paved, yeah.
Councilman Labatt: 28. And if a neighbor has a party, and they have 20 people over and they
all come 2 per car, so we’ve got 10 cars parked out there. If they park on both sides of the road
you’re telling me that we can still get a vehicle through there?
Paul Oehme: Yes. I mean you can’t go in two directions but in one direction you’ll be able to.
Councilman Labatt: What is they park in both directions, then there’s no way for an ambulance
or a fire truck or a car to get through.
Paul Oehme: You can get one through but not two. Yeah, you can get one through.
Councilman Labatt: They can get one car through but if they park on both sides of the road.
Mayor Furlong: If they get 8 feet to a car.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, 8 foot to a car approximately, 10, 11 to 12 feet for a drive aisle.
Todd Gerhardt: Parking stall’s 9 by 18.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, so 9, 18, so 10 feet.
Councilman Labatt: So we’re okay with that?
Paul Oehme: 28 feet is a standard in some communities too for public streets. We happen to be
31 feet.
Mayor Furlong: Now our public streets in this development will be subject to the same no
parking rules.
Paul Oehme: That’s correct, right.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
51
Councilman Labatt: But the private streets aren’t.
Kate Aanenson: That’s something we may want to look at.
Councilman Labatt: What’s to say if there’s a problem here and there’s private streets.
Enforcement wise there’s no, we have no stake. There’s nobody that can go on there and ticket
the cars and tow them other than the homeowners association.
Mayor Furlong: Well and I guess the question is, what do we do elsewhere in the city?
Councilman Labatt: I think we have a private, now don’t get me wrong. I like what I see. I’m
just.
Mayor Furlong: It’s something to look into.
Councilman Labatt: This is only preliminary right?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, and again some of the stuff we put in that we need to look at for the next
level that we talk about are some of those details.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, can you look at it?
Kate Aanenson: Yep. I think that’s a good point, yeah. And again, that’s going to be the
association that’s going to plow those streets but they’re also going to want to get people off so
they can get to their houses but we can put a time period that they get it plowed and all those sort
of things.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then my only other comment is, I’m with you Brian on your
thinking on this. That it’s a great subdivision. It looks like. It’s laid out nice. It does a nice job
to preserve things. At the same we should think what’s the entrance to the east. And I look at
going back to what we went through last year with Yoberry Farms where we had Longacres
coming in and Highover coming down and they both had touchdown spots so we had to
maneuver things and I mean we’re not reinventing the wheel here.
Councilman Lundquist: This is longer than my cul-de-sac.
Councilman Labatt: So those are my comments. You know, it’s, the parking thing I wanted to
talk about and.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other thoughts, comments.
Councilman Lundquist: Todd, you’ve been over there all night. How about approximate
distance from let’s say the middle of the development which is about where the totlot is to the
park that’s down on Peterson’s project.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
52
Todd Hoffman: Approximately half a mile.
Councilman Lundquist: You wouldn’t happen to have a map, somebody wouldn’t happen to
have map that shows the whole area. There you go. It’s the yellow area. Okay.
Todd Hoffman: This would be the public park and approximately half of the Preserve
development is within the one half mile service area to that location.
Councilman Lundquist: And then the other half will be to the school when the school gets built.
Todd Hoffman: To the school or utilizing the association facility.
Councilman Lundquist: And then we have a trail connection from this development down to the
park there?
Todd Hoffman: Yeah, you’ll either take the street trails or the creek trail, and then down to the
park.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And are you guys getting nervous as we continue to put these
private parks in there, that we’re going to be in a Johnson situation someday where the hoa’s are
going to get tired of taking care of them and we’re going to have to absorb them?
Todd Hoffman: That has occurred on occasion. Not in the recent past but there’s a couple parks
in the city that have been that way. This small a size, probably something that we wouldn’t
consider taking over at a future date.
Mayor Furlong: Something we probably would not take?
Todd Hoffman: Would not. They would have to go ahead and resolve that conflict internally. If
it ever arises.
Mayor Furlong: I am responsible for the weeds.
Councilman Lundquist: And mulch too.
Councilman Labatt: And mulch inspector.
Mayor Furlong: That’s right. Okay. Other thoughts or comments on the overall development.
Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: I think as Mr. Herbst stated, that it’s been a process as we go through
and it’s been, you know each one of these has it’s unique issues and because they’re developing
kind of one at a time, rather than all together and things have gone, that there’s always going to
be some conflicts and some other things going on, but either with not knowing exactly what’s
going to happen to the east or to the west. We’ve talked a lot about you know Mr. Dorsey has
done a nice job of presenting his issues and obviously we’ve been talking about a lot of that and
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
53
Mr. Fox to the east. You know to the west we’ve got a property to be developed eventually as
well too, that we’ve got to be cognizant of, so I’m looking at that also. And as Mr. Labatt said
before, I think we’ve done a good job there of trying to minimize those physical constraints of,
because obviously to the east and to the west now, if we approve this layout, then that is a touch
down point that will have to be matched regardless of what that development looks like. But in
terms of restriction, that’s about it right now and I think Mr. Dorsey makes some fine points of
you know possibilities and potentials but right now, we did the Peterson and Town and Country
piece on the property line because we knew that Peterson was there. We saw the preliminaries.
We had the design. We had a chance to look at that, and you know not knowing what’s going to
happen on that east property, I’m not comfortable saying let’s put a road anywhere on that east
regardless of what happens there now because I wouldn’t be comfortable putting it on the
property line now because that may not only affect the Pemtom but it might affect what goes on
to the east in the future as well, not knowing that, so I think I’d just as soon minimize the impacts
to the east and the west, which this does with that one physical point there, and look at that. I’m
glad to see the, something other than a townhouse. I mean these are still houses on a small lot
but it preserves a lot of stuff so that’s good to see and you know this is an area, it’s still going to
be very nice when we get down with all that open space so, I like that as well, and I like the
difference in architecture too. It’s also nice to see some break up there rather than boxes where
we change a few small things here and there so, I’m with Councilman Peterson and Mayor on
let’s look at some, you know when we get further into the details on some of the color stuff and
some of the you know, those architectural things to preserve that, but I’m confident that Mr.
Herbst will do, and Ryland will do a good job there. Dan’s got a good track record. I’m sure he
wants to preserve that so, overall I think I’m in favor. I’m glad that, I think we’ve gotten to this
stage on one of these where we might get it through on the first time instead of having it come
back in 2 or 3 weeks and go after it again so. Not without issues certainly, and as we go forward
with the rest of these, to the east and west, no doubt we will have similar issues going along with
it. Hopefully I think we’re kind of learning as we go what to watch out for and what to look out
for so, there will be things coming up obviously to the east and west. We’ll deal with them when
they get there but again this one, about all we can do to minimize the impact on the surrounding
properties, so I’m comfortable at the stage we’re at.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: I don’t have much to disagree with Councilman Lundquist’s perspective.
I think that my adjective was the what if’s. We’re dealing with what if’s tonight and there’s a
point where you just can’t, you have to make a decision, and there are so many what if’s on the
east side yet that for us to step back and say we have to leave everything to the east and you
know, or let me put it differently. For us to decide, I came in tonight thinking well we have to
decide where the north/south goes and I was uncomfortable with that, and clearly what I’ve
heard tonight is we don’t have to, nor should we. There’s an inference now that there’s a
plausible space connecting to Sunset. I’m not at all convinced that’s the right place to put it, but
I don’t have to make that decision tonight. And to that end, if the north/south collector I think
will be back on another night deciding where that would go, if it goes, and I think that is better
left for another night. To build that south, you know I’ll rewind a bit. Again I am concerned
about density. I think this is, what makes me feel about this site is, you know it is somewhat
unique to the area and it’s not a huge development. It’s not 500 of these, and that makes me feel
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
54
a lot better in the size and scope of it. And I think if we address some of the minor things that we
already talked about on some of the architectural and colors and that, that will relieve many of
my concerns so I’m comfortable moving forward with this, being sensitive to the issues already
discussed so. With that said I’d look for other comments.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anything else?
Councilman Labatt: Well I said mine. I just would agree with Brian and Craig with their
comments and it is a nice development and it’s, I think it’s, it’s going to be a nice addition to our
city in the south end.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I won’t repeat the comments made. I concur generally with
those of councilman, all of them. Councilman Lundquist, Labatt and Peterson. And I will say
that when I was first presented or saw this development a number of weeks ago, maybe even
months ago now, I guess what I would best describe my reaction is guarded. It was not
something from a density standpoint. Mr. Gerhardt’s nodding his head up and down. We’ve had
more than one conversation on this as we try to understand what’s really being proposed here,
and in looking at and listening and taking into account, not only the presentation tonight but what
occurred at the Planning Commission. This is something that I’ve gained good comfort with. I
think there’s issues. We’ve talked about them tonight and setbacks, densities. Those are things
that we talk about all throughout this area. But in terms of the product that is being proposed
here, it is unique. I like uniqueness from a standpoint that it’s not more of the same, and I think
that’s where this council struggled a little bit recently, and but doing something different is
helpful and it makes it easier in the end to be able to move forward with it. I think that the layout
here, in terms of the roads, Councilman Lundquist I think said it best. The points at which this
development is touching other neighboring properties, we have one point I think with each of the
neighboring properties, but for the Peterson property to the south, and that point on the east is
clearly to be able to gain access to the Jeurissen property I believe it is over there. But a minimal
impact but nonetheless something that this city has done many times over the years. Recently
with Plowshares that was mentioned up to the north. We did it with Plowshares development on
the old Mancino property. In fact it was a development that went through with the extension of
Lake Lucy Road. Manchester if I’m not mistaken, that was stubbed up to that property that then
created that connection. That was something that the developer had to deal with and they
connected it and having driven through that connection the other day, just to see how things were
going, it flows. So it’s something that happens. I think running a road along the entire border,
Councilman Lundquist I think said it best, would be more restrictive to the development to the
east than a single road going in. And for reasons stated tonight here by the staff, in terms of
where the best place is, we don’t have to decide tonight but I can understand why there are
arguments that say the best place is not at this development here so. I’m comfortable moving
forward with trying to create a long list of work with staffs that we can enclose in here and to
make sure we’re all comfortable with that and get that included at this time. But I’m confident
based upon the experience that we’ve had with Mr. Herbst and Pemtom that that can be a long
list but it’s nothing on there that’s generally not be accomplished and so that provides some trust
and confidence there. That these issues, minor in the overall picture, can still be addressed. So
I’m comfortable with moving forward tonight, as we put something together and I think that this
will be a unique development. It’s a nice neighborhood within our city, to compliment the other
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
55
developments that we’ve already approved and those that we will likely see going forward. Any
other comments or discussion? The motion I believe starts on.
Councilman Lundquist: 46.
Mayor Furlong: Page 46 and just for clarification here, there’s a couple of items, and Ms.
Aanenson, to make sure I get these correctly. The motion, or condition number 60 should include
Lots 1 through 5, not just Lot 1.
Kate Aanenson: I’d like to get some clarification on 60, 61 and 62. And that’s the park
commission’s recommendation and we have in our condition of approval, 31 that says that we
work with the staff to discuss eliminating 1 to 2. I think there’s concurrence on that but we’re
negotiating on those outlots 1 through 5.
Mayor Furlong: So we want to keep, so you’re saying that there’s some conflict with those?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, because the other one says they’re eliminated and you know, so if you
eliminate it, then we’ve kind of…
Mayor Furlong: 31 provides better.
Kate Aanenson: Right, so I think 31 works better, right.
Mayor Furlong: So what do we have to do? Which one is that?
Kate Aanenson: I think right now, if we just take 60, 61 and 62, and 63. Let’s see. Those are
just recommendations.
Mayor Furlong: Do you believe that they’re covered already…
Kate Aanenson: They are covered. We already have full park and trail fees in there already, and
then clearly if we want to leave in 63, because we do want those conveyed as public property,
and that would be A, B, L and N, those outlots. We would want those conveyed as.
Mayor Furlong: So strike H and insert N.
Kate Aanenson: Yep. And then if we just put 60.
Mayor Furlong: So you’re saying 60, 61 and 62 are already covered in the other conditions?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. I think we should just strike those out because they conflict with our
ability to negotiate to get that. 61?
Todd Hoffman: The trail.
Kate Aanenson: Oh, the trail construction, I’m sorry. 61 is probably not.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
56
Mayor Furlong: 61 is.
Kate Aanenson: Yep, so you want it in, correct.
Councilman Lundquist: So you want 60 and 62 out.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. And that gives us the ability to negotiate with the developer
right now. And then just one other point of clarification. Just so, the things that you wanted us
to add and this may be 64. Maybe you were just going to do this Mayor, but what I’ve got from
my notes is attention to the garage facades, including percentage of windows with color palettes,
a minimum of four, that they come back with those. That we discuss private street, parking,
maintenance and parking.
Mayor Furlong: And winter parking?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, winter parking. Areas of future buildable area. That those be covered in,
not only covenants but in the development standards itself. And then setbacks on the corner lots.
And then the hammer head at Outlot, or the end of street.
Mayor Furlong: Yes, and I just had turn around on all private streets…
Kate Aanenson: That’s fine, then we’ve got it covered.
Mayor Furlong: Whatever the, yep.
Kate Aanenson: Is that what you had?
Mayor Furlong: That was my list. Anybody else have anything to add to that? That would be
condition.
Councilman Lundquist: 64.
Councilman Peterson: But we’re deleting, this would be.
Councilman Lundquist: It still has to be 64.
Todd Gerhardt: It doesn’t have to be.
Mayor Furlong: We can do anything, right Roger?
Roger Knutson: That’s right Mayor.
Todd Gerhardt: Not that it would be successful.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
57
Mayor Furlong: That’s out of order. Let’s move forward now with the motion. Would
somebody like to state a motion please.
Councilman Labatt: Mayor I would recommend that we approve the rezoning of the land within
the plat for The Preserve from Agricultural Estate, A2, subject to the following plans dated 3-17-
06, and the conditions 1 through 64 with deletion of 60 and 62. And 63 should be amended to
changing the H to N. 64 will be the motion or the condition that Kate just stated with the list of
to do’s.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Roger Knutson: Mayor? That also includes approval of the conditional use permit?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Roger Knutson: And adopting the findings of fact as presented by the Planning Commission as
your own findings.
Councilman Labatt: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? Questions or
clarifications. Hearing none, let’s proceed with the vote.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve
the Rezoning of the land within the Plat for The Preserve from Agricultural Estate District,
A2 to Planned Unit Development-Residential, PUD-R; approval of a Conditional Use
Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and alterations
within the flood plain; and approval of the Preliminary Plat for “The Preserve” creating
155 lots, 15 outlots and right-of-way for public streets, plans prepared by Westwood
Professional Services, Inc., dated 3-17-06, subject to the following conditions:
1. The drainage and utility easement over the northern portion of Lift Station #24 must be
vacated and filed upon final approval of the final plat.
2. 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.
3. Prior to City Council consideration of the final plat, the applicant must provide
documentation indicating that the proposed right-of-way for Lyman Boulevard meets Carver
County’s requirement.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
58
4. The grading plan must identify the existing and proposed 100-year floodplain.
5. Due to the anticipated timing of the final plat with respect to the timing of formal approvals
from FEMA, the proposed lots that are within the current floodplain may be preliminary
platted subject to FEMA approval of the LOMR.
6. Any grading within the floodplain will require a Conditional Use Permit.
7. Catch basins on each side of all public streets must be no more than 300 feet apart.
8. The proposed outlet for Wetland A must lie along the edge of the wetland.
9. The storm sewer from Pond 1 must outlet to the wetland north of Pond 2 in order to maintain
hydrology to the wetland.
10. Storm sewer within Street J must be rerouted through the sideyards within Block 3 and outlet
to Pond 2.
11. Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat submittals.
12. The legend on the final grading plan must identify the lowest floor elevation.
13. All buildings must be demolished before the second phase.
14. The final grading plan must show the top and bottom of wall elevations.
15. 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.
16. The developer must work with staff to find the preferred sanitary sewer alignment west of
Block 3 prior to City Council consideration of the final plat.
17. The plan must be revised to show an 18-inch diameter watermain on the south side of Lyman
Boulevard to the east property line.
18. The developer’s engineer must submit a separate cost estimate for the watermain oversizing
along Lyman Boulevard with the final plat submittals.
19. 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.
20. The lowest floor elevation of each unit must be shown on the utility plan.
21. The existing well and septic system must be properly removed and abandoned during site
grading and utility installation.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
59
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. The development is subject to the arterial collector fee, which must be paid in cash with the
final plat.
27. Streets F and K must extend past Lot 6, Block 13 and Lot 1, Block 17, respectively to
provide adequate space for a vehicle to back out of the driveway and turn into the street.
28. Curbs on public streets will be high-back; curbs on private streets will be surmountable.
29. The sidewalk along the north side of Street H between Street A and Street I, and along the
north side of Street E must be eliminated.
30. Sidewalks adjacent to private streets and within privately owned outlots can be used by the
public.
31. The applicant will work with staff to discuss eliminating Lots 1 and 2, Block 11, and Lots 1
through 5, Block 1.
32. The applicant shall revise the plan design to ensure adequate hydrology for Wetland 4 in the
post-development condition.
33. If the applicant wishes to pursue an exemption for impact to Wetland A, the applicant shall
furnish information to substantiate the exemption request. The applicant is advised that, even
if impacts would be exempt from WCA, they may not be exempt from the requirements of
the Army Corps of Engineers.
34. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 16.5 feet shall be maintained around all wetlands
and wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in
accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge
signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per
sign. All structures shall maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
60
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. The plans shall be revised to provide a lower EOF for Wetland A and a path to the west for
excess water that will not threaten proposed structures.
38. The EOF path for Pond 1 shall be revised to provide a more direct EOF route from Pond 1 to
Wetland 4.
39. 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
2.
40. The outfall from Pond 3 shall not outlet upslope of the proposed trail.
41. The applicant shall clarify the avoidance of the drainageway to be preserved during the
construction of Pond 4 and, if possible, redesign the pond to provide additional storage and
treatment in lieu of avoiding the drainageway.
42. Pond 5 shall be constructed prior to the construction of all the areas that drain to it.
43. 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.
44. 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
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
61
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
45. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
46. 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.
47. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $242,760.
48. 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.
49. The applicant shall demonstrate that the outlet pipe installation and elevation will not impact
the wetland.
50. If recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission, park fees shall be paid as per City
ordinance at the rate of final platting.
51. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for
preservation and/or at the edge of proposed grading limits.
52. A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to
construction.
53. No burning permits shall be issued for tree removal. All trees removed on site shall be
chipped and used on site or hauled off.
54. A turf plan shall be submitted to the City indicating the location of sod and seeding areas.
55. Buffer plantings shall be installed along the east property line in the rear yards of Lots 7
through 16, Block 3 and Lots 1 through 5, Block 10.
56. Applicant shall remove Emerald Queen Norway maple from the planting schedule. The
applicant shall substitute another species with approval from the City.
57. A conservation easement shall be recorded over Outlot A.
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
62
58. The developer shall work with staff to develop and install appropriate markers at lot lines to
demarcate the primary zone.
59. The applicant shall submit a plan for the revegetation of any areas of grading within Outlot
A. The plan shall incorporate native plants and be consistent with the City’s Bluff Creek
Natural Resources Management Plan Appendix C. Special attention should be paid to areas
with steep slopes (greater than 3:1). Staff recommends that the Hill Prairie planting list be
used for the restoration.”
60. The applicant shall provide all design, engineering, construction and testing services
required of the “Bluff Creek Trail.” All construction documents shall be delivered to the
Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer for approval prior to the initiation of each
phase of construction. The trail shall be 10 feet in width, surfaced with bituminous material
and constructed to meet all city specifications. The applicant shall be reimbursed for the
actual cost of construction materials for the Bluff Creek Trail. This reimbursement payment
shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and receipt of an invoice
documenting the actual costs for the construction materials utilized in its construction.
61. Outlots A, B, L and N be conveyed to the city as public property by warranty deed.
62. The following items are to be addressed at final plat:
· Attention to garage door facades including n percent of doors with windows
· Color palate ( 4 minimum)
· Private streets and sidewalks,
· Percentage of future boilable area,
· Setbacks on corner lots
· Turnarounds at the end of private streets.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: None.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
Mayor Furlong: It was good to see library hours being expanded.
Todd Gerhardt: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: They’re open now I believe on Sundays as well.
Todd Gerhardt: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: They’re open and more stable hours on the rest of the days of the week too so,
that’s good. Also good to use the usage. Any other discussion on the correspondence packet? If
City Council Meeting – May 8, 2006
63
not is there any other business to come before the council this evening. Seeing none, is there a
motion to adjourn?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 10:25
p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN BOARD OF
REVIEW AND EQUALIZATION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
MAY 8, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m..
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Lundquist, Councilman
Labatt, and Councilman Peterson
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Tjornhom
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, and Roger Knutson
COUNTY ASSESSOR PRESENT: Steven Clay, Carver County Assessor’s Office
FINAL ACTION ON APPEALS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF REVIEW AND
EQUALIZATION.
Mayor Furlong reviewed each of the appeals with the assessor’s initial recommendation and final
recommendation and asked for citizen comments. Sally Horstman asked for clarification on the
process. Daniel Hectorne asked for clarification on how his value compares to a property that
recently sold on Brule Circle, and how tax rates are established.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to adopt the County
Assessor’s recommendations for items listed in the staff report, excluding the Horstman
and Hectorne properties. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a
vote of 4 to 0.
The council held discussions on the valuation of the Horstman property at 7343 Frontier Trail
and the Hectorne property at 111 Choctaw Circle.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adopt the Assessor’s
recommendation of no change for the Horstman property at 7343 Frontier Trail. All voted
in favor, except Councilman Lundquist who voted in opposition, and the motion carried
with a vote of 3 to 1.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Mayor Furlong seconded that the 2006 assessment, taxes
payable in 2007 remain at the previous year’s level of $690,300 for the Hectorne property
at 111 Choctaw Circle. Councilman Lundquist and Mayor Furlong voted in favor.
Councilman Peterson and Councilman Labatt voted in opposition. The motion failed with
a tie vote of 2-2.
Board of Review and Equalization Summary – May 8, 2006
2
Councilman Peterson made a motion to accept the County Assessor’s recommendation of no
change for the Hectorne property at 111 Choctaw Circle. After discussion and Steve Clay
indicating he would go along with last year’s valuation of $690,300.00, the following motions
were made.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table Councilman
Peterson’s motion to adopt the assessor’s recommendation of no change. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the 2006 assessment,
taxes payable in 2007 remain at the previous year’s level of $690,300 for the Hectorne
property at 111 Choctaw Circle. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously
with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Mayor Furlong seconded to adjourn the Board of Review
and Equalization meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a
vote of 4 to 0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN BOARD OF
REVIEW AND EQUALIZATION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 8, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m..
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Lundquist, Councilman
Labatt, and Councilman Peterson
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Tjornhom
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, and Roger Knutson
COUNTY ASSESSOR PRESENT: Steve Clay, Carver County Assessor’s Office
FINAL ACTION ON APPEALS SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD OF REVIEW AND
EQUALIZATION.
Mayor Furlong: This is a continuation of our Board of Review, which follows our initial Board
of Review meeting on April 24th. I understand, based upon our packet of information that the
assessor’s office has had a chance to contact most of those property owners that contested their
assessment at the last meeting and had the opportunity to actually visit some of the properties,
schedules permitting. What I’d like to do just from a process standpoint here tonight, to make
sure we have an opportunity for everybody to be heard is to just continue to take information,
public comment on each of the properties in order that they’re listed in our packet, and make sure
that we have all of the information. And then at the end, if there’s additional public comment
that people want from other properties, they can do that as well so, just try to follow through in
the order and make sure that we hear from everybody and if somebody’s not on this list, doesn’t
preclude them from speaking. We’ll just pick that up at the end of the list. So with that, what I’d
like to do is start with the first item, 6991 County Oaks Road. Understand from the staff report
that that protest has been withdrawn. Is that correct Steve?
Steve Clay: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: So I will ask if there’s any additional public comment to be made on that
property by the property owner or other interested parties. Hearing none, move on to address
311 West 77th Street. The Shorba property. Understand from the staff report that the assessor is
recommending no change from the initial recommendation, is that correct?
Steve Clay: Yeah, I’ve had some difficulty trying to get a hold of them and finding a time to
inspect the property. For senior citizens I think if they were any busier they’d have to hire help,
but last Thursday their daughter had a baby so they had to go up to Duluth to help out with that
and wouldn’t be back. I got a message from her on my phone. She said that I guess they’re just
going to let this go for now and she’ll get back to me later this summer when they’ve got some
more time.
Board of Review and Equalization – May 8, 2006
2
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Is there anybody that, property owner or other interested party that
would like to make any public comment on this property?
Councilman Labatt: Steve, is there a typo on the middle section where it says 2006 assessment
land value $73,400 and then the next one down it says the recommendation is 734,000?
Steve Clay: Yeah, that’s a typo.
Mayor Furlong: It’s a decimal point…
Councilman Labatt: Well it’s a comma placement.
Steve Clay: Right off hand I don’t know for sure. I think it’s probably…neither.
Mayor Furlong: It looks like the land value you have an extra 0 there. If I’m looking at it
correctly.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, I wouldn’t think it’s.
Todd Gerhardt: $73,400 should be the.
Steve Clay: $149,600 is the correct number.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, so I mean so we should.
Todd Gerhardt: Then if you take the $73,400 for land. $76,200 for building adds up to
$149,600.
Councilman Labatt: Right, so there’s just an extra 0 over there on that one.
Todd Gerhardt: Yep.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Steve Clay: You guys could pave a whole new road in town for that.
Councilman Labatt: We could have.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, the next property is 1010 Pleasant View Road. Steve Beddor is the
property owner. There your recommendation is no change between the initial and final?
Steve Clay: Yeah. He has been out of town the last week or so and I just had a chance to sit
down with him today and go over this stuff. I am recommending a reduction on one of these
properties, the vacant lands that are south of Pleasant View Road. There’s 3 lots. One group of
appraisals and separate one for a single stand alone lot. He’s not contesting those values after we
have a chance to go over these properties.
Board of Review and Equalization – May 8, 2006
3
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, did you have a chance to meet with Steve Beddor did you say?
Steve Clay: Yeah, yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, and so on 1010 Pleasant View, what was his comments to your report?
Steve Clay: Let’s see, which one was 1010?
Mayor Furlong: 1010 Pleasant View, Steven Beddor.
Todd Gerhardt: 678.
Mayor Furlong: You’re recommending no change between initial and final.
Councilman Labatt: No, I think what Steve’s saying though, you are on.
Mayor Furlong: There’s one lot with his house on it.
Councilman Labatt: PID 25.87101…
Steve Clay: Yeah, he’s withdrawing that one.
Mayor Furlong: He’s withdrawing?
Steve Clay: Yeah. That one and the other two lakeshore lots.
Councilman Lundquist: The ones that are behind the one with the house?
Steve Clay: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s, which PID’s are those? That would be PID.
Steve Clay: 25.1140010.
Mayor Furlong: Sorry. 0010 or 0050?
Councilman Labatt: Both of them.
Steve Clay: Both of those. So one’s 2150050 and the other is 1140010.
Councilman Lundquist: That makes about one big monster lot.
Steve Clay: Yeah, and also the one with the house on it, which was.
Mayor Furlong: 1010 Pleasant View.
Board of Review and Equalization – May 8, 2006
4
Steve Clay: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: Yep, so your meeting with Mr. Beddor today, he’s withdrawing his appeal on
all 3 of those?
Steve Clay: Those 3, yes.
Mayor Furlong: That’s fine. I guess I will ask if there’s any public comment on that from the
property owner or other interested parties. Okay. Then we move onto the next items. Or the
next two I think you looked at together, is that correct?
Steve Clay: There’s 3 I looked at together. Those are 3 lots on the south side of Pleasant View.
Mayor Furlong: Those are the next 3 on your list?
Steve Clay: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: 25.8710190, 8690130 and 8700062?
Steve Clay: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And you’re recommending a change only on 25.8710190. Based on
your analysis? That’s the lot on the south side of Pleasant View I believe.
Steve Clay: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: The vacant lot on the south side of Pleasant View.
Steve Clay: There’s a reduction that we’re recommending on that one. That’s unchanged so
we’re still recommending a reduction.
Mayor Furlong: Question for you. The property just to the east of there, which has a new house
on it. Based on the GIS system at Carver County, that was acquired in 2004 and the house was
built in 2004. Was that a lot purchase or were there already improvements on it, do you recall?
Or did you look at that?
Steve Clay: I did use it for a comparable. I believe that lot had been owned for quite a while, or
a number of years before they.
Mayor Furlong: It had some small improvements on it?
Steve Clay: I believe it had an older house on it that was torn down and then they built another.
Mayor Furlong: So essentially it was a lot, okay.
Board of Review and Equalization – May 8, 2006
5
Steve Clay: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay. Is there any public comment on any of these 3 items? These 3
parcels from anyone. Okay. Next item on the list. I don’t know, were these handled together as
well. The 2 remaining Beddor properties.
Steve Clay: Which 2 do you have?
Mayor Furlong: This is 25.8700063. That might have been with the prior one. And then
25.8690130.
Steve Clay: Yeah, those 3 were combined into the.
Mayor Furlong: The last 3 were combined into one. Those were then…
Steve Clay: Yeah, and he’s okay with those values also.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry.
Steve Clay: He’s fine with those values also.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Beddor, Steve Beddor is?
Steve Clay: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Is he withdrawing or just okay with them?
Steve Clay: He’s okay with them.
Mayor Furlong: Any comments, public comments on these properties? These last 3 on our list.
Or excuse me, last 3 of the Beddor properties. Okay. Next one then is 7343 Frontier Trail. The
Horstman property. Mrs. Horstman is here so there may be some public comment but you’re
recommending no change.
Steve Clay: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: From your initial. Okay. Alright. Any comments that you’d like to give us in
addition to what you’ve told us last time?
Sally Horstman’s comments were not picked up on tape.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, very good. Any other final comments on this property?
Sally Horstman: When the next, I guess I don’t really understand what.
Board of Review and Equalization – May 8, 2006
6
Mayor Furlong: Sure, no. That’s fine. What we’re doing is just trying to get through the list
and get rid of the ones, which objections are being withdrawn or that sort of thing. Now what we
will be doing is, once we get through this list we’ll ask for any additional, I mean the council
chamber’s vacant here but for you 2 and those of us. But if anybody else wants to contest their
property, we’ll give them that opportunity. We’re then going to close the public hearing and that
will be the last opportunity for public comment to be made, so this really is the last opportunity if
there’s anything you want to add. Once we close the public hearing, then it will just be back to
the council in terms of sitting as the Board of Review to make decisions on each of the
properties. Okay. So that’s the process. I’m trying to get some order to it so that we don’t
bounce around.
Sally Horstman: Thanks for that clarification.
Mayor Furlong: So with that, I guess at this point if there’s any additional things that you want
to say, now would be the time. And if not, that’s fine too.
Sally Horstman: I’m good.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good. Thank you. Appreciate that. Next item would be the
Hectorne property. 111 Choctaw Circle. And there you’re also recommending no change from
your initial. Okay, thank you.
Daniel Hectorne: Can I comment on that?
Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. This would be your time. You just beat me to the request.
Daniel Hectorne: I’d like to find out from Steven what the taxes were on the Brule property that
sold for $700,000. Now in addition to that, Choctaw Circle and Brule are one in the same thing.
It’s 86 homes in the subdivision. There’s homes that are, were valued at half as much on one
side of me, and the Brule were sold for, I believe they must have had an addition Steven because
I don’t know. You were the one that gave me the information on what it sold for. It sold for I
believe $700,000. What are the taxes on that?
Steve Clay: I couldn’t tell you. I don’t have that information.
Mayor Furlong: Do you have the property address?
Daniel Hectorne: No I don’t.
Steve Clay: The address on Brule Street is 6805. It’s comparable number 2 I believe is the one
he’s referring to.
Mayor Furlong: 6805.
Daniel Hectorne: Now again on that property on Brule, on either side of that house are houses
that are valued at that price. So I mean, it’s just very frustrating to be in an environment where
Board of Review and Equalization – May 8, 2006
7
the homes are, and in the Brule property, I mean I’d be surprised to find out if the Brule property,
which is valued and similar to my home, which sold for $700,000 in 2005 I believe, is that
correct?
Steve Clay: July of ’05.
Daniel Hectorne: Okay. Now what did the Brule property be appraised at for this coming year?
Steve Clay: I would guess somewhere in the $650 or higher.
Daniel Hectorne: If it sold for 700, you’re saying it’s worth less than, is that correct? If it sold a
year ago for $700,000, how can it be worth less?
Steve Clay: Our assessments are typically, the State requires us to assess values at market value.
And how they define that is that you have to show the State Revenue Department that on average
your valuations fall within a range of 90 to 105 percent. When you look at sales that actually
took place in the city over the past year, actually it goes back a year and a quarter and the sales
ratio study runs from October 1st through September 30th. So we’re behind, little bit behind
the…as far as the sales…and plus we usually go for an average that’s somewhere closer to 95%
so it’s not unusual for us to be a little bit less in our values than the actual sale prices that took
place. And I guess I’m not here to talk about taxes payable as much as values, market values of
properties.
Daniel Hectorne: What about the taxes due on that property? Would you have that?
Steve Clay: Not here right now.
Daniel Hectorne: So I can assume though, if the values of the property are approximately the
same, then the taxes should be approximately the same, is that correct?
Steve Clay: Yes.
Daniel Hectorne: Alright. Okay, so my contention is that, if the Brule property is substantially
lower than mine, and there shouldn’t be an issue there. Number two, my property is a 3
bedroom, 2 story. It does have an indoor pool that accounts for 1,600 square feet. Nobody’s
living in that room. As you can tell from my physical girth, it doesn’t get used a lot by me but
it’s there and I have to maintain it. I spoke a month ago you know about the valuation of the
properties. Interest rates going up as far as home ownership. I was just down in Phoenix 3
weeks ago and $650,000 home and the property taxes are under $2,000. Now I’m not here to
profess that I know all about Arizona state taxes and how they generate their revenue and
everything like that, and everything here and Steven’s been very, you know good about giving
me the information that I’ve requested, and I’m not even, I just think that the tax situation is
going, and the property next to me is worth half as much so what are his taxes?
Councilman Lundquist: All of that information is on Carver County’s website. You can type in
an address, any address in the county and look that up.
Board of Review and Equalization – May 8, 2006
8
Daniel Hectorne: Okay, so if the Brule property, which is valued at similar to mine, wouldn’t
they have similar property taxes?
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, can I address that one?
Mayor Furlong: Please.
Todd Gerhardt: If the Brule property just sold, it’s usually a 2, maybe 3 year delay before it
comes on for full taxes. If your’s is valued at 700, Steve may have that valued at 550 on there.
What you’ve got to do is go to that web site and see what they have for an estimated market
value for tax purposes. That’s going to be how they calculated the taxes. Say it’s $500,000, it’s
probably going to be around $5,000, give or take a couple hundred dollars. And if your’s is
valued at $700,000, you’re is going to be around $7,000. But now that he has sold and showed a
true market value for that.
Daniel Hectorne: Well my taxes, according to my statement, which we have to pay on Monday,
is $7,928.
Todd Gerhardt: And what’s the estimated market value?
Daniel Hectorne: I believe it.
Todd Gerhardt: It should be on there.
Mayor Furlong: It’s right there. It will say 2006 payable or.
Daniel Hectorne: 2006, $690,000.
Todd Gerhardt: It’s a little over, you know about 1 1/2 % times your market value is what your
total tax is going to be. Little less than that.
Daniel Hectorne: Anyway, I guess if I’m just looking at a 3 bedroom household.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, his will jump up to the $700,000 range my guess is the next 2 years.
There’s a 2 year delay.
Mayor Furlong: Quick question Steve. Time period for doing your assessments or your
estimates for, you look at sales and I’m not going to cut you off. You’ll have a chance to
respond but, if you look at past sales across the city and use those as a basis for adjusting
everyone’s assessed values, is that your statement?
Steve Clay: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: We’re establishing these property values on January 2, 2006 for taxes payable
for next year. What was the look back period for sales?
Board of Review and Equalization – May 8, 2006
9
Steve Clay: For the estimated market value on January 2, 2006.
Mayor Furlong: Which is what all these assessed values are, right?
Steve Clay: Within from October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2005.
Mayor Furlong: Through September 30, 2005, so you would have had this property, this Brule
property. Brule Circle property as one of those properties?
Steve Clay: As one of the 450-500…
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Because you know the assessed value going forward for that property is
significantly less. Well I shouldn’t say significantly less. It looks like payables are at about 415.
Steve Clay: Is there a limited market value?
Mayor Furlong: There may be, but that would not show up. Well this is just the total payable
2007…
Daniel Hectorne: No, it backs up to 101.
Todd Gerhardt: …might not be a limited on that.
Daniel Hectorne: It isn’t a lake property. There’s lake, the whole association is lake access.
Mayor Furlong: Right, but none of the properties are actually lake front. It looks like there’s a
common beachlot across the front, is that correct? Does your property go down to the lake?
Daniel Hectorne: My property goes down to the lake. But I can’t put a dock out. So if you can’t
put a dock out, you know it means nothing.
Mayor Furlong: Because it looks like there’s an outlot or a beachlot along the entire lakeshore
for this development that’s owned by the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association.
Daniel Hectorne: That’s correct. They have an easement or a permit from the city to put 12
docks out and have a beach area.
Todd Gerhardt: One dock and 12 boat slips.
Daniel Hectorne: There’s 12 slips for the 46 homes and the people that, they do a lottery system
and usually you get 10 days in, 10 days out.
Mayor Furlong: But what I’m hearing is your objection is the value relative to the homes in the
neighborhood, is that one of the…
Board of Review and Equalization – May 8, 2006
10
Daniel Hectorne: That’s correct. That’s the only thing I can base it on. I mean I can argue taxes
all day long but it’s not going to change anything.
Mayor Furlong: Well and do we talk a little bit about this last time. The way property taxes
work. We don’t establish a tax rate. The State establishes an income tax rate so whatever you
make, that’s what the rate is of your tax. What we establish is what’s called the levy. We’ll do
that in December. That’s how much money, total taxes we’ll collect and then that’s allocated,
based upon property values, across all the residences.
Daniel Hectorne: Well the 6805 property that sells for $700,000, I mean that means that, I mean
I’ve seen that house from the outside. I don’t know if it’s lined with gold on the inside but,
everybody in Chanhassen’s house is worth $200,000 or $300,000 more than that. And I believe
that’s not true.
Steve Clay: Which is why we don’t ever base it on, our estimates on single sale.
Daniel Hectorne: Right.
Steve Clay: We want to look at all the sales.
Daniel Hectorne: And I guess my one question I have, and then I’ll let you continue is, is that
you know I don’t want to be foolish here because I plan on selling the house in the next couple
years, and people are going to take a look at the market value and assessed value and the whole
ball of wax, but they’re also going to look at the taxes as part of hey, I’m going to be paying you
know, $700 a month in taxes to live in that home, and what do I get out of that in relationship to
being in a similar house for $4,000 or $5,000. You know and what is the value of the house and
what you’re going to see, what’s happened with homes and as they’ve gone up in price, it’s no
big secret. It’s a reflection of what is your average monthly home cost P&I. Principle and
interest. If you have lower interest rates, people can afford more. If you have interest rates than
we have now, they can afford less.
Mayor Furlong: And part of our challenge here is to try to, from an assessed value, look for
fairness across the assessment rolls because if everybody is equally assessed at the same
percentage below their market value, then there’s.
Daniel Hectorne: And that’s true but you know it’s like I’m being assessed, I mean most people
that I know that are on the lake, that I think have a very nice home, and pay less property taxes
than I do, and I don’t have access to the lake. I have lake access, I’m sorry. I can’t put a dock
out.
Mayor Furlong: Understand. Understand. Okay.
Daniel Hectorne: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Appreciate your comments. Alright, we’ve completed the list that
was in our packet. At this point I would invite anyone else that would like to participate or
Board of Review and Equalization – May 8, 2006
11
contest their property values as a part of this hearing under the Board of Equalization to come
forward now. State your name and property address. Seeing none, are you here for the Board of
Review ma’am? Or for the council meeting. You’re welcome. Come on in. We’re just not
there yet. If there is nobody else that would like to come forward then as part of the Board of
Review for public comment, is there a motion to close public comment.
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to close public comment.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Let’s move on now. We’ll have the Board discuss these. I guess for sake of
ease, it appears that there are only the last 2, the Horstman property and the Hectorne property
that are contested at this point. Is there a motion to adopt the assessor’s recommendation for the
first 10 listed in the staff report, but not any decision at this point, before we discuss them, on the
last 2?
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to adopt the County
Assessor’s recommendations for items 1 through 10 listed in the staff report, excluding the
Horstman and Hectorne properties. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Let’s go now to 7343 Frontier Trail, the Horstman property. Clearly
there’s a disagreement here between the property owner and the assessor. Open for thoughts and
comments. From the members of the Board.
Councilman Peterson: Well I think, essentially what I’m looking at is nothing that’s compelling
that says that, that the assessor is inaccurate in what they’re doing. I think it’s bittersweet. It’s
always nice to have property values go up, but inevitably you have to pay taxes on. Everybody’s
property is going up in Chanhassen. I think what Steve has presented is a reasonable review of
what’s actually happening in the market and I don’t see anything in that, or what’s been
presented that says that it is inaccurate or not factual in his presentation so. I look for something
compelling and I can’t see it.
Board of Review and Equalization – May 8, 2006
12
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other comments?
Councilman Lundquist: Well I guess I would, it’s hard to say. When I look at this, it’s hard to
say. I mean assessments being, or an appraisal being that far off. I mean Steve’s got one
opinion. That assessor, or appraiser had another opinion. They’re so far apart is what concerns
me. And I mean as we know, as we just talked about before when the last gentleman was up
that, just because something sold for a price, doesn’t mean that that’s necessarily what it’s, you
know I guess that one, but this one is tough because it’s, they’re so far apart. In the past we
talked about you know, in cases like this but then what I struggle with is where do you put it? I
mean you can’t really just pick a number halfway inbetween and say that’s where it is. You’ve
got 2 appraisals and then you know, let’s just pick one inbetween. That seems a little bit
arbitrary to me so. So I guess with that, I’m not sure who to believe necessarily.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Labatt: I tend to err on the side of Mr. Peterson and Steve here. What’s been
presented here in the comparables to the Horstman property, I tend to believe that the property is
valued at what the assessor is saying.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I guess perhaps the question to Steve. There were improvements to this
property during the last year. That was one of the reasons that the appraisal was obtained by the
property owner. How much, what portion of the ’06 assessed payable ’07 is attributable to the
improvements? How much in terms of total dollar value of the full assessment? Do you have
that number?
Steve Clay: No, I don’t.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And if I’m looking at the information correctly on the system, this is on
the GIS, the County system GIS for property taxes. There seemed to be a significant increase in
this property, which I assumed was part of that, those improvements. Because absence that, the
percentage seem to be significantly higher based on the building, again if I’m, and what I’m
doing here is looking at, so correct me if I’m wrong but I’m looking at the web site and on the
web site it’s giving us the land and building payable on ’07, which would be the ’06 assessment
of your $1,541,000.
Steve Clay: Can you go back to the previous year?
Mayor Furlong: Well if I look at the tax statement for 2006, that’s giving me a total estimated
market value of 765. So it’s approximately about 245. The land.
Steve Clay: In the previous year, with new construction always coming on, that’s always a
separate item under new construction…
Mayor Furlong: And what I’m guessing is that’s not, you’re saying it might be on this statement
here?
Board of Review and Equalization – May 8, 2006
13
Steve Clay: It’d be on the tax statement.
Mayor Furlong: See I don’t know whether the improvements are included in that.
Steve Clay: Yeah. Well this tax statement would be, you’d have ’05, pay ’06 numbers on there.
Mayor Furlong: This is, yeah. Payable ’05 taxable market and then ’05 and then ’06. And ’05 it
was 561 and ’06 it was 645. But now that may be limited by market value, so maybe market
value limitations on that number, so that’s not a full assessed value.
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, because it’s showing assessed in ’05, estimated market value 765
and taxable market total 645.
Mayor Furlong: Right. Let me just ask. What were the total value of the improvements that you
made to the property? You did some additions, is that correct?
Sally Horstman: Yeah. Are you asking me what we spent or what’s listed on this yellow sheet?
Mayor Furlong: What yellow sheet are you looking at?
Sally Horstman: The notice that came to me.
Todd Gerhardt: The Truth in Taxation.
Mayor Furlong: The Truth in Taxation, or the. What I’m trying to understand is the assessed
value. What his office came out with. It showed a significant increase between last year and this
year. We know there were improvements made to the property. I’m curious how much of those
improvements could attribute some of that increase.
Steve Clay: The answer to your question is yes.
Sally Horstman: Sure. Sure, it would increase some because of the improvements.
Mayor Furlong: Do you know how much approximately?
Sally Horstman: How much I spent? Is that what you’re asking?
Mayor Furlong: To the improvements to the property, yeah.
Sally Horstman: I’m not sure about, I mean it cost a lot more to add on to the property than the
value that comes out of it. I mean…
Mayor Furlong: Understand. And that’s pretty typical that the value of the improvements is, or
the cost of the improvements is more than what that attributes in terms of increase in market
value. I guess, I’m sorry.
Board of Review and Equalization – May 8, 2006
14
Sally Horstman: And that will help you for me to tell you that?
Mayor Furlong: I guess it will help me understand because right now there’s a significant
increase and not knowing that, I have to assume that that’s capturing the value of those
improvements, I guess is my concern.
Steve Clay: What I do have is a copy of the building permit in which the building department
here placed a value of $120,000 on the addition portion for building permit fee purposes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I mean I guess at this point I don’t have enough information to say one
way or the other. With the comments that the other members of the board have made on what to
do on this so I can’t, I’d like to take a look at it but I’m also troubled by the significant difference
between the appraisals and, but I don’t have sufficient information to understand what might
explain those differences.
Steve Clay: Mr. Mayor, I just found printout, field print out that lists the pay ’06 value. In
breaking out the new construction for taxes payable last year…estimated value, $166,500 was
attributed to the physical addition to the house and the changes to the house. And I apologize.
We have 2 other meetings tonight and we have 2 laptops to share so I was odd man out.
Councilman Lundquist: Practice your rock, paper, scissors for next year.
Steve Clay: Huh?
Councilman Lundquist: Practice your rock, paper, scissors for next year so you win.
Mayor Furlong: Well I guess that explains over half of the difference of the increase. That 166
so, at that point like I say, I, it’s concerning that there’s a, such a wide difference between the
two appraisals. Whether that was for the reasons stated or not, I don’t know. One would assume
that if it was an independent appraisal it would be conducted appropriately so.
Sally Horstman: Can I just answer that? The appraisal that we had in the fall did include the
cost of the improvements.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright.
Sally Horstman: And we took that into consideration.
Mayor Furlong: Which adds even more discomfort with the difference between the two. So, but
at this point again I’m struggling I guess to find where to go so, I guess it sounds like the rest of
the board is comfortable with going with the assessor’s recommendation. Is there a motion to
that effect or is there additional comments on this?
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Board of Review and Equalization – May 8, 2006
15
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adopt the Assessor’s
recommendation for the Horstman property at 7343 Frontier Trail. All voted in favor,
except Councilman Lundquist who voted in opposition, and the motion carried with a vote
of 3 to 1.
Mayor Furlong: Next item is the Choctaw. 111 Choctaw. Here I’ve got a question here in, the
property values throughout this entire neighborhood seem to be significantly below, which was
the issue that the resident was raising. Seem to be significantly below this property and you
attributed approximately $225,000, if memory serves, to the pool.
Steve Clay: Both the pool and the structure that encloses it.
Mayor Furlong: Structure that encloses it, okay. And I guess I’m trying, and maybe I’m
opening comments here, or interested in other people’s comments. Is there that, there seems to
be a difference between the rest of the neighborhood from assessed value and what this one is.
Even without the pool, this one seems to be higher so, I guess other thoughts on this one.
Councilman Lundquist: That was going to be my question Mr. Mayor, was what’s the pool
worth because that seems to be the big difference. Or a big difference. I guess I don’t know, just
speaking antidotally. If you, you know live on the lake, albeit you can’t put a dock out and
there’s some parts of Lotus Lake that aren’t the greatest swimming anyway but you know what’s
a pool worth if you live on a lake I guess so. I struggle with this one as well, and the, for the
reasons you just stated. That that value, and especially comparable to others in the
neighborhood.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, did you want to respond?
Steve Clay: If you like. I have the same concerns that Councilman Lundquist expressed. You
know indoor pools are by themselves fairly unique in this market area, and to have an indoor
pool, lake access lot, or lakeshore lot is, makes it even more unique. It is a fairly large structure
that’s enclosing this pool. So what I was trying to find some market data to tell me you know
what would this pool probably be worth, you know regardless of what tit would cost to build but
someone who would market my home, such as this, what would they see as a value for it, which
is, the only thing I could find was this one that had an indoor pool on Lake Minnewashta that
sold, and I did an analysis saying that if this house with this pool, which is fairly similar in size.
1,610 square foot structure that the pool is in…about the same thing. Making adjustments for
finding 3 lakeshore sales compared to the subject that had that pool, and making adjustments for
differences in house size, lot size, land value, things like that, came up with a, that pool portion
and building representing a value of somewhere between 193.3 and 251.7. So I just want to say,
and again one sale that is not necessarily a good indicator of what the true market is, but was the
only thing out there so I did a study on it so I could provide some sort of information to help
support that value.
Board of Review and Equalization – May 8, 2006
16
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Not right now. If we can try to work through this, okay. Excuse me,
thank you. Does that answer your question? Are there any other thoughts?
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, it’s.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Peterson, your thoughts on this one?
Councilman Peterson: That was kind of paraphrasing…I don’t see anything compelling that I
can really argue with, that I can offer as more informed than the assessor.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: …statement on the first, on the Horstman property and trailing Mr. Peterson
and the County Assessor.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Yeah, my thoughts here are simply that this property, while I’m looking
at the GIS system, is significantly head and shoulders on an assessed basis, above all the
properties in the neighborhood, and yes that pool is there, and that’s an amenity and it should be
higher for that reason. But I’m having trouble getting there in terms of the significant difference
between the two. Especially with the property owner, I think it was 6805 Brule Circle that sold
for 700, which was mentioned by the resident, but is assessed in the 400’s this year, which it
sounds like it was in the look back period, so my thought here would be, just because of the
difference with the rest of the homes in the neighborhood, to look back at where it was assessed
last year, which if my information is correct, it was assessed at 694,300. Total increase was
about 4.7%. With the other homes in the neighborhood coming up, trying to create some
equality going back to, holding the assessment the same from 2006. Not that I disagree that the
pool shouldn’t add value, but to Steve’s point, it was one market. It gives you something to look
at and I think the analysis was valid in terms of looking at something. But it would make sense
if there are other homes in the neighborhood that absent that, it was similar assessment. I think
it’d still, it just looking at the other homes in the neighborhood, it doesn’t seem to be squared
even with that difference so I guess my recommendation here would be to hold the assessment at
the prior year’s assessed value of $694,300. Simply because of the relative assessed values
across the rest of the neighborhood. I guess I’d be interested.
Councilman Lundquist: 694 was that number Steve? I see one that says 690,300 but 694 is the
number?
Mayor Furlong: Let me verify what we have for a street address here. 111.
Councilman Lundquist: 111 Choctaw.
Mayor Furlong: This system is showing the 727,200, which is the current one. I’m looking at
the one with property taxes shows, the system shows an estimated market value of, I’m sorry. I
pulled up one for 690,300.
Councilman Lundquist: Yep. Yep, okay.
Board of Review and Equalization – May 8, 2006
17
Mayor Furlong: It was 643 from Brule so. So I guess it would be my recommendation, again
not that there isn’t a difference because of that pool there. There clearly is. I’m looking at the
rest of the homes in the neighborhood and trying to be a little more comfortable there. Holding
this to no increase would allow to pick up about a 4%, 4 1/2% pick up this year. And that would
be my thought. Open to other thoughts or comments on that approach or, line of reasoning.
Councilman Lundquist: I would concur.
Councilman Peterson: How comfortable are you that it’s the majority of the houses around? I
didn’t go through and check each house obviously.
Mayor Furlong: You know it wasn’t a scientific sample. It was looking at the property, if I can
get my computer to work here right when I need it. Well we just lost our connection. I was very
comfortable. Councilman Peterson, in fact I think Councilman Labatt and I just a minute ago
were looking at those. I don’t know if you have it up but, let me see if I can select it here. The
property immediately to the east has total payable in ’07 of 369. Property immediately to the
west is total payable of 409. Property across the street has total payable on ’07 of 374.9 and as I
glance through the rest of the neighborhood, that trend seems to be consistent. Even the
property, excuse me Councilman Peterson. The property that sold for 700 on Brule Circle, the
system shows the last sale on July of ’05 i a qualified sale for $700,000 and the total payable in
’07 as 415.8. So they seem to be in that range throughout most the neighborhood.
Councilman Peterson: So Steve, as that being said, how did this one get above, put down what
you did for the pool, how did this one get above all the others from your perspective?
Steve Clay: Well it’s a large house. It’s mostly the pool, and the site has a little bit more value
than the interior lots. And some of those numbers, taxes payable that you’re looking at are
generated from estimated market value or a limited market value, if there is one. And then I
think that’s sort of a, I think as an arbitrary lower number that taxes are based on…
Mayor Furlong: I understand. I’m just going with the best information I’ve got so, but to your
point, that may not be the total assessed value.
Steve Clay: If you wanted to move, was it 694.5?
Councilman Lundquist: 690,300.
Councilman Labatt: The size of the homes are quite different though too. The one on Brule was
only 1,600 square feet, according to, and you’re at 2,400 square feet. You’re in a much larger
house.
Mayor Furlong: I understand.
Steve Clay: There’s also a fairly wide range of quality within that neighborhood, which is not
uncommon for any lakeshore or lake access community. You tend to see a wider range of
Board of Review and Equalization – May 8, 2006
18
qualities because the focus is on the lake rather than what kind of homes are being built in your
neighborhood.
Mayor Furlong: Yep. And again, difference in values here. You know I’m just looking at 135
Choctaw, which is a residential of about 2,300, did you say? And that’s the total payable and
again this may not be completely accurate because of limitations. There’s 637.
Councilman Labatt: Which one?
Mayor Furlong: That’s 135 Choctaw. There just seems to be a wide discrepancy here and I’ve
got to assume that a significant portion of that discrepancy is because of the specific features of
the property, including the pool.
Steve Clay: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: I’m just, I’m trying to look at this and be fair and deal with what we can and
with the information that we have so. I guess those are my thoughts. Anybody else or other
comments there?
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor I would move that the property at 111 Choctaw be
assessment ’06, payable ’07 remain at the previous year’s level at $690,300.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? I would second that. Is there any discussion on that motion?
Or other thoughts or comments before we reach a conclusion here. If there’s no discussion, we’ll
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Mayor Furlong seconded that the 2006 assessment, taxes
payable in 2007 remain at the previous year’s level of $690,300 for the Hectorne property
at 111 Choctaw Circle. Councilman Lundquist and Mayor Furlong voted in favor.
Councilman Peterson and Councilman Labatt voted in opposition. The motion failed with
a tie vote of 2-2.
Mayor Furlong: That motion fails. Is there another motion? Or additional comments.
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve as submitted by the assessor.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Can I ask a question here as a part of the discussion. First
of all, is there any other discussion on this motion?
Councilman Peterson: And the reason why I would go with nay was I think to the assessor’s
point, I think for us to go and look at just square footage and prices on a lake area, I’m not
comfortable doing that. It paints a good story by numbers but it doesn’t speak to the quality and
quality of construction and the general feel of the house and what the real worth is. Particularly
when comparing ones that are off the lake. Even though it’s not a dock, you’ve got the lake
Board of Review and Equalization – May 8, 2006
19
views, etc, etc are significantly more valuable than the inland lots. So I don’t disagree with your
thought process. But that’s only half of the story. The other half is the quality of construction…
Mayor Furlong: What’s the, mechanically what’s the process here this evening in terms of, Mr.
Gerhardt?
Todd Gerhardt: Typically we have to send some type of direction to the Carver County Board,
and if we don’t make a decision on it, it goes up to them as presented by the Carver County
Assessor’s Office.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, as an appeal or as the property owner, whatever the Board does here
tonight, the property owner, there’s a next step in the appeal to the County?
Todd Gerhardt: Oh yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So is, I’m sorry.
Steve Clay: I’m just thinking, there’s probably a limited market value on this property anyway
that’s in effect. I, you know if you want to bring it back to the 690,300 for this year.
Councilman Lundquist: It’s not going to make any difference anyway?
Steve Clay: I can live with that.
Todd Gerhardt: What is the limited on it? You don’t have that? So the issue’s going to come
back again next year, is you’re going to recommend the higher value again next year, plus
whatever market.
Steve Clay: I can’t say that at this point. I might be seeing other market data, maybe there’s
some other, another pool sale will come up and that will give me to further consider the value.
Mayor Furlong: I guess at this point I would ask either Councilman Peterson or Labatt, if they’re
comfortable going along with the assessor’s recommendation at this point, or want to continue
with the motion that’s on the table?
Councilman Peterson: I’m comfortable with the assessor’s recommendation.
Mayor Furlong: Okay so, is there a motion to table your motion, since that’s been made and
seconded.
Councilman Peterson: That is affirmed.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, there’s a motion to table. Is there a second to that motion to table?
Councilman Lundquist: To table?
Board of Review and Equalization – May 8, 2006
20
Mayor Furlong: To table Councilman Peterson’s current motion which was to go with the.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Just getting through it folks. Motion’s been made to table Councilman
Peterson’s motion.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table Councilman
Peterson’s motion to adopt the assessor’s recommendation of no change. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: That motion’s tabled so now we’re back to no motion on the table. The
assessor here is saying that 690,300 was acceptable. Is there a motion to that math?
Councilman Lundquist: So Steve you’re saying because of the limited market value you’re
comfortable?
Steve Clay: I’m comfortable either way.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Steve Clay: I know you guys want to get to your meeting. We’re not talking about a big
difference here.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: And again is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the 2006 assessment,
taxes payable in 2007 remain at the previous year’s level of $690,300 for the Hectorne
property at 111 Choctaw Circle. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously
with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Is there any other matter to come before the Board of Review this evening?
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to adjourn.
Mayor Furlong: The motion’s been made to adjourn the Board of Review. Is there a second?
Second.
Board of Review and Equalization – May 8, 2006
21
Councilman Lundquist moved, Mayor Furlong seconded to adjourn the Board of Review
and Equalization meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a
vote of 4 to 0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
MAY 2, 2006
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, Kurt Papke, Dan
Keefe and Kevin Dillon
MEMBERS ABSENT: Deborah Zorn
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator;
and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Debbie Lloyd 73-2 Laredo Drive
OATH OF OFFICE. Chairman McDonald administered the Oath of Office to Debbie Larson.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: PUBLIC HEARING ON UPDATED PLAN
(CONTINUED FROM 4/4/06).
Lori Haak reviewed the public hearing process on the surface water management plan update.
Commissioner Papke asked for an update on any specific projects planned with the surface water
management plan. Chairman McDonald asked where clean-up of the city’s storm water ponds
falls in the plan. The public hearing was opened. No one spoke and the public hearing was
closed.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the Surface
Water Management Plan update until the June 20, 2006 meeting. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
GALPIN CROSSING TWINHOMES: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT A2, TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,
RESIDENTIAL, PUD-R; PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL CREATING 13 LOTS
AND ONE OUTLOT WITH A VARIANCE FOR A PRIVATE STREET AND MORE
THAN FOUR HOMES ACCESSING A PRIVATE STREET; AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT
ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET AND WEST OF GALPIN
BOULEVARD, APPLICANT EPIC DEVELOPMENT XVI, LLC, PLANNING CASE NO.
06-13.
Planning Commission Summary – May 2, 2006
2
Public Present:
Name Address
Gerald P. Wolfe 7755 Vasserman Trail
Tom Ernst 7749 Vasserman Trail
Charles & Gail Gelino 7729 Vasserman Trail
Larry Martin 7725 Vasserman Trail
Bonnie Anderson 7732 Vasserman Place
Mark Magnuson 7715 Vasserman Trail
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked staff to
elaborate on their comment in the staff report which states, under a perfect scenario the use for
open space and storm water ponding in conjunction with the southern parcel allowing us to get
an intensification of the use on the parcel adjacent to Highway 5. He also asked for clarification
on issues such as snow removal related to the narrow strip of land between the private and public
street, design standards, the cul-de-sac intersecting with the property to the south, boulevard tree
spacing, and enforcement of the statement that says storm water ponding must be constructed for
the additional post development runoff when the property to the south is developed.
Commissioner Dillon asked for clarification of the condition regarding cross access and
maintenance agreements. Commissioner Keefe asked for clarification of the setback
requirements, raising the lowest floor elevation, and sidewalks. Commissioner Larson asked for
clarification of the wetland buffer requirements. Commissioner Undestad asked about access
onto West 78th Street and intersecting with access to the southern parcel. Chairman McDonald
expressed concern with the density and what the city was getting in return for that density,
clarification of the impervious coverage requirements, and design standards. Mark Scholle,
representing Epic Development addressed issues brought up by commissioners. Commissioner
Dillon asked the applicant about the target price range of the homes. Commissioner Undestad
asked if fill was needed on the site. Chairman McDonald asked about guest parking. The public
hearing was opened. Larry Martin, 7725 Vasserman Trail addressed the issues of density, the
issue surrounding the private street, the landscaping and tree situations, and the power line issue.
Gerald Wolfe, 7755 Vasserman Trail reiterated his concern about removal of the willow trees,
that all the soil borings were done on the south side of West 78th Street, not the north, the high
water level mark, the 5 foot setback between the private street and trail, density and the
association costs needed to maintain the property. Chairman McDonald closed the public
hearing. After commission discussion and comments, the following motions were made.
Keefe moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
Planned Unit Development Rezoning the property within the Galpin Crossing Twinhomes
project from A2, Agricultural Estate District to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development
Residential incorporating the development design standards contained in the staff report.
All voted in favor, except Commissioners Larson, Papke and Undestad who voted in
opposition. The motion failed with a tie vote of 3 to 3.
Keefe moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
Preliminary Plat creating 12 lots and 2 outlots with a variance for the use of a private street
Planning Commission Summary – May 2, 2006
3
and for more than four homes accessed via a private street, plans prepared by Ryan
Engineering, dated March 16, 2006, revised April 19, 2006, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Designate Lot 13 as Outlot B.
2. A cross-access and maintenance agreement shall be recorded over the private street.
3. 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.
4. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be
removed from site or chipped.
5. 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.
6. Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an
approved area for turning around fire apparatus. Submit turn around designs to City
Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code
Section 503.2.5. (Exception: the code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150
feet where the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic fire sprinkler
system installed in accordance with Minnesota State Fire Code Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2
or 903.3.1.3).
7. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protections 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.
8. 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.
9. The new proposed street will be required to have a street name. Submit proposed to street
name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3.
10. An additional fire hydrant will be required. Maximum spacing is 300 feet. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of required additional fire hydrant.
Planning Commission Summary – May 2, 2006
4
11. Accessibility will have to be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the
units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State
Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements.
12. The buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system if they are over
8,500 sq. ft. in floor area. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not constitute
separate buildings and the area of basements and garages is included in the floor area threshold.
13. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the
Building Official.
14. A final grading plan and soils report must be to the Inspections Division before building permits
can be issued.
15. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire-resistive
construction.
16. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
17. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to
discuss plan review and permit procedures.
18. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around Wetland 3. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in
accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge
signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per
sign. All structures shall maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge.
19. The grading plan shall be revised to eliminate grading within the first 20 feet of the setback
from the primary corridor. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the
primary corridor. The plans shall be revised to show that the structure on Lot 12, Block 1 meets
the required 40-foot primary corridor setback.
20. Outlot A shall be protected in perpetuity through the dedication of the outlot to the City of
Chanhassen or by the recording of a conservation easement, to be approved by the City, over the
entire Outlot A.
21. All perimeter controls and inlet protections shall remain in place until 70% of the area is
permanently protected by vegetative cover.
22. All area disturbed within 200 feet of Bluff Creek shall be stabilized within 3 days.
23. The plans shall be revised to show all areas with 3:1 slopes or steeper that will be blanketed.
Planning Commission Summary – May 2, 2006
5
24. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the ponds shall be provided. The EOF could consist
of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf re-enforcement mat (a permanent erosion control
blanket). A typical detail shall be included in the plan.
25. Energy dissipation shall be provided for all inlets and outlets within 24 hours of installation
26. Wimco-type or other comparable inlet controls shall be used and installed within 24 hours of
installation of the inlets.
27. Typical building lot controls shall be shown on the plan in a typical detail. 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 Certificate of Occupancy
(CO).
28. The proposed storm water ponds shall be used as a temporary sediment basin during mass
grading. The pond shall be excavated prior to disturbing up-gradient areas. Plans shall show
how the water will be diverted to the temporary basin. Berms and/or ditches may be needed
to divert water to the pond, and temporary pond outlets are needed. The outlet could be a
temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. The plans shall be revised to include a detail
for the temporary pond outlet.
29. An adequate easement for pond access for maintenance purposes is needed and shall be
shown on the plan.
30. The proposed silt fence along Wetland 3 shall be Type 2 silt fence, as specified in Chanhassen
Standard Detail Plate 5300. Type 1 silt fence may be used for the remainder of the site. The
grading plan shall be revised to show the proposed silt fence following the grading limits for the
site, including the 20-foot grading setback from the primary corridor. The perimeter controls
shall be inspected by the city and the SWCD prior to grading.
31. The grading plan shall be revised to show the location of the proposed rock construction
entrance.
32. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
33. The estimated total SWMP fee based on 2006 fees, due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording, is $28,670.
34. The owner/operator of the proposed development 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), Minnesota Department of Transportation,
Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval.
35. At least one tree is required in each front yard.
Planning Commission Summary – May 2, 2006
6
36. A landscape plan denoting areas of sod shall be submitted to the city. Common areas must be
sodded and provided with irrigation.
37. Native plantings will be required along the northern edge of the development parallel to the
wetland and Bluff Creek. These plantings shall be species selected from the Bluff Creek
Management Plan planting list. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to final plat
approval to the city for approval.
38. Applicant shall increase understory plantings with the bufferyard areas to meet the minimum
number of plantings required.”
39. The developer must obtain permission from MNDOT before performing any work within the
MNDOT easement.
40. The developer must obtain permission from Metropolitan Council to perform the proposed
grading within the sanitary sewer interceptor easement.
41. Prior to final plat consideration, the developer must show the overhead utility easement on the
plans.
42. The building footprint must not lie within the overhead utility easement.
43. The developer must comply with any setback requirements the overhead utility company
imposes.
44. The lowest floor elevations for Lots 1 through 4 must be raised to a minimum elevation of
963.1’. This condition may require a different housing type (SE, LO, R).
45. The lowest floor elevations for Lots 5 through 12 must be raised to a minimum elevation of
958.5’. Developer must modify 100-year elevation for Bluff Creek.
46. The final grading plan must identify an emergency overflow location and elevation for the
proposed pond.
47. The grading plan must be adjusted so that soil grades are minimum 2%.
48. The proposed grading north and west of Lot 12 must be adjusted so that the drainage swale will
not direct runoff toward the backs of Lots 11 and 12.
49. The six foot high berm on the east side of the private drive must be shifted to the east to provide
minimum five feet of boulevard space.
50. The developer must ensure that the final grading plan does not include driveways sloping
towards the homes on Lots 11 and 12.
Planning Commission Summary – May 2, 2006
7
51. Driveway grades must be between 1.5% and 10% at any point within the driveway.
52. The developer must submit existing and proposed drainage maps.
53. 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.
54. Prior to utility installation the developer must obtain a permit from Metropolitan Council to
connect to the interceptor sewer.
55. The storm sewer installed with this project shall be privately owned and maintained since it
does not serve public property.
56. Advanced warning and traffic control measures required during the watermain connection must
comply with the latest addition of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
57. The developer must submit a financial security with the final plat to ensure the restoration of
West 78th Street and the bituminous trail.
58. 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.
59. The lowest floor elevation of each unit must be shown on the utility plan.
60. Snow removal from the private drive must not encroach into the public right of way.
61. Storm sewer manhole at west driveway entrance should include a 3' sump.
62. The developer shall pay full park fees in effect at the time of final plat recording.”
Dillon voted in favor, the rest voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 1 to 5.
Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Conditional Use Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The grading plan shall be revised to eliminate grading within the first 20 feet of the setback
from the primary corridor. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the
primary corridor. The plans shall be revised to show that the structure on Lot 12, Block 1 meets
the required 40-foot primary corridor setback.
Planning Commission Summary – May 2, 2006
8
2. Outlot A shall be protected in perpetuity through the dedication of the outlot to the City of
Chanhassen or by the recording of a conservation easement, to be approved by the City, over the
entire Outlot A.”
Dillon voted in favor, the rest voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 1 to 5.
The commission discussed on how to proceed with this item regarding density, PUD versus
straight R-4 zoning and private street versus public street. Chairman McDonald suggested that
the applicant work with staff to address the issue of density and either resubmit something or he
has the option of going forward to the City Council as an appeal.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ARBORETUM BUSINESS CENTER: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A
25,300 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE-SHOWROOM-WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON 2.69
ACRES OF LAND ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON LOT 1,
BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 5TH ADDITION, 2970 WATER TOWER
PLACE, APPLICANT STEINER DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING CASE 06-16.
Public Present:
Name Address
Joe Smith 3610 County Road 101 South, Wayzata
Jeff Conkling 3610 County Road 101 South, Wayzata
Todd Mohagen Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked for
clarification on architectural detailing and signage. Commissioner Keefe asked for clarification
of the sidewalk location. Commissioner Larson asked for clarification of the parking plan. Joe
Smith with Steiner Development addressed the issues of signage, parking, and roof top screening
of HVAC units. The architect, Todd Mohagen further explained what they had planned for roof
top screening. Chairman McDonald opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public
hearing was closed.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Planning Case #06-16 Site Plan, for a 25,300 square-foot, one-story office-showroom-
warehouse building, plans prepared by Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group, dated
March 30, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. A separate sign permit will be necessary for each sign.
3. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
Planning Commission Summary – May 2, 2006
9
4. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
5. Air-test required on that portion of storm sewer within ten feet of building or water service.
Permits and inspections required through Chanhassen Building Inspections Division.
6. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete plans are
submitted.
7. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
8. The applicant shall obtain permission from the property owner to the north prior to silt fence
installation. If permission is not obtained, the plans shall be revised to accommodate all
sediment control measures on-site.
9. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
10. The owner/operator of the proposed development shall apply for and receive an NPDES Phase
II Construction permit prior to beginning construction activities.
11. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a permit from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District and comply with their conditions of approval.
12. The Black Hills spruce near the building shall be moved east to serve as screening for the
truck area. A narrower species of evergreen shall be considered for planting in this area.
13. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before building permit approval.
14. All lighting fixtures must be shielded with a total cutoff angle equal to or less than 90
degrees.
15. A professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans.
16. The applicant will be required to submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10-year, 24-
hour storm event with a full size drainage area map prior to building permit issuance.
17. The applicant must verify with the City Building Department if the site connecting to the
existing 8-inch watermain on the east side is adequately sized to handle the two lots’
consumption.
18. As the eastern access will service the two lots, cross-access easements will need to be
obtained and recorded against the lots.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Planning Commission Summary – May 2, 2006
10
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 18, 2006 as presented.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 2, 2006
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, Kurt Papke, Dan
Keefe and Kevin Dillon
MEMBERS ABSENT: Deborah Zorn
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator;
and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Debbie Lloyd 73-2 Laredo Drive
OATH OF OFFICE. Chairman McDonald administered the Oath of Office to Debbie Larson.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: PUBLIC HEARING ON UPDATED PLAN
(CONTINUED FROM 4/4/06).
McDonald: We had started at our last meeting to start the review process for our Surface Water
Management Plan and we had held an initial public meeting at that time, and this is an ongoing
part of that process. We will pick up and begin to review again the surface water management
plan, and with that I would ask staff to come forward and start the discussion.
Haak: Chairman McDonald and Planning Commissioners. On April 4th, 2006 the Planning
Commission opened a public hearing on the agency review draft of the city’s second generation
surface water management plan. That document is here. We received comments from two
members of the public at that time, and verbatim minutes were included in the staff report. The
Planning Commission then continued the public hearing to this meeting. And so that’s why
we’re here before you again this evening. Comments will continue to be received until the end
of the agency comment period on May 30, 2006, and at that point city staff will work with the
consultant, SEH on responding to those comments and incorporating any germane comments
into the surface water management plan. The draft plan is available on the city’s web site as well
as at city hall and the Chanhassen Library during regular business hours, if members of the
public would wish to review that. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive any
additional public comment on the second generation surface water management plan at this time.
Upon receipt of comment from all persons present wishing to address the matter, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission close the public hearing and then the commissioners
would make their comments at that time and following the receipt of all those comments, the
commission would table action on the surface water management plan until it can be reviewed.
Those comments incorporated and then it would be brought back to the Planning Commission.
Staff anticipates that that item would appear on the June 20th Planning Commission agenda. But
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
2
of course that depends on the number and severity, if you will, of the comments received. So
again we recommend that you move at the end of the public hearing and the Planning
Commission comments to table action on the plan until the comments can be incorporated. With
that I’d be happy to take any questions you might have.
Papke: When we met jointly with the City Council, the mayor was quite insistent about getting a
set of specific projects into this surface water management plan. Do you have any updates since
then as to the status of any specific projects that have been entered into the plan or are being
considered for such?
Haak: That’s one of the things Commissioner Papke that will be addressed in the next, when we
come back with the response to those comments. The consultant did take a shot at that, but staff
is still not really comfortable with the level of detail in that, so that will be one of the comments
that’s submitted. Actually what we’re kind of looking for, and what staff has suggested that the
consultant include is kind of a top 10 list of the top 10 things that we really need to focus on, and
that is still in the process of being developed.
McDonald: Anyone else have any questions? I guess I have just one question that had been
brought up before. I’m a little unsure, where do the ponds within the city fall into, the ponds that
we have for water collection and those types of things. Where do we look, again silt
accumulates in those and at what point do we look at cleaning those out so that they become
effective again?
Haak: One part of the request for proposals Chair McDonald was actually the development of
inspection criteria, and them maintenance criteria and maintenance procedures for these ponds.
One of the things under state law now actually, and a permit that the city has received within the
past couple of years is that 20% of our infrastructure needs to be inspected every year, and so
one of the, again one of the things in the RFP for the consultant, and that actually is not included
in this draft, is an inspection schedule and then kind of a check list of how you might determine
whether a facility needs maintenance or not. And so those will also be included, and that’s in my
comments on this particular draft.
McDonald: Okay, thank you very much.
Haak: You’re welcome. No one else on the council has any comments, I guess I would open it
up. We go to public hearing at this point. I would open up the podium to the public and anyone
wishing to make comment on this plan, we would ask you to come forward and make your
comments. Okay, I guess everyone’s here for other items. At that point we will close the public
hearing on the matter and I guess what you’re requesting us to do is to bring it back to the
council and to table the issue until the next meeting?
Haak: Yes, if the Planning Commission has any comments on the plan, if you’ve had a chance
to review it and do have comments, we’d appreciate, staff would appreciate those at this time so
that they can be incorporated before that final consideration by the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
3
McDonald: Does anyone on the council have any comments they wish to feed in? Okay. There
are none. Then I would accept a motion from the council at this point to possibly table this issue
until June the 19th.
Haak: It would be the June 20th meeting.
McDonald: June 20th, okay.
Papke: Mr. Chair, I’d make a motion that the Planning Commission table the public hearing for
the surface water management plan until such time that all comments are reviewed, which was
June 19th?
McDonald: 20th.
Papke: 20th.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Keefe: Second.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the Surface
Water Management Plan update until the June 20, 2006 meeting. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
GALPIN CROSSING TWINHOMES: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT A2, TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,
RESIDENTIAL, PUD-R; PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL CREATING 13 LOTS
AND ONE OUTLOT WITH A VARIANCE FOR A PRIVATE STREET AND MORE
THAN FOUR HOMES ACCESSING A PRIVATE STREET; AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT
ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET AND WEST OF GALPIN
BOULEVARD, APPLICANT EPIC DEVELOPMENT XVI, LLC, PLANNING CASE NO.
06-13.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gerald P. Wolfe 7755 Vasserman Trail
Tom Ernst 7749 Vasserman Trail
Charles & Gail Gelino 7729 Vasserman Trail
Larry Martin 7725 Vasserman Trail
Bonnie Anderson 7732 Vasserman Place
Mark Magnuson 7715 Vasserman Trail
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
4
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone on the council want to start with questions?
Papke: I’ve got a couple. Page 2 of the staff report describes, there’s a paragraph in there, under
a perfect scenario the use for open space and storm water ponding in conjunction with the
southern parcel allowing us to get an intensification of the use on the parcel adjacent to Highway
5. Could you provide a little more color and background to that? I mean it sounds like we’re
settling for something other than the optimal.
Generous: Right. Unfortunately the developer has chosen to split these two projects. While the
site is developable, they’re not taking any of the density credit that they could have or
impervious surface credit out of this thing so right now we propose only to look at this one so we
have to look at first, what’s the appropriate zoning on the property and whether the subdivision
that’s proposed complies with that zoning.
Papke: Okay, so to kind of sum it up in my own brain here, the developer has a choice of either
developing the plat on the south side of the frontage road very high density and then leaving this
open, or kind of spreading out the density between the two and he has chosen to do the later.
Generous: To do the residential along on the north side and then, they have a concept plan for an
office park on the south side…impervious cover on density of development.
Papke: Okay. It was kind of in the staff report about the narrowness of the, the area between the
private street and the public street and issues with snow removal and not banking up. Are we
well within all of our design standards for the width of that strip of land between the private
street and the public street? Are there any issues or concerns with that or any precedent on
something of that size? I mean it looks pretty darn close to the public street.
Fauske: Commissioner Papke. The ordinance doesn’t specifically stipulate that back from right-
of-way to public, pardon me, to a private street. Staff’s intent was just to bring this to the
developer’s mind that this is an issue in staff’s mind and that they need to accommodate snow
removal within their development. Typically in a development like this they will be trucking the
snow off the site just because there’s the constraints of the site that they have right now. We just
wanted to make sure that that was just a concern staff had and to have a plan in place for snow
removal.
Papke: Okay. On page 4 of the staff report, under the rezoning it mentions an exchange for the
enhanced flexibility. Your expectation will result in a higher, significantly higher quality
standard. Where, can you comment on where do you feel we are gaining this equality on this
particular development? Where are we getting the up side?
Generous: Well the up side we believe is the providing of the design standards that the
individual units would have to comply with of stone, brick and access material on the front…
they have windows in the garages.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
5
Papke: Okay, and are all those things stipulated in what we’re reviewing tonight or are any of
these just things we’re going to hopefully.
Generous: Well under the development design standards which begin on page 5 and 6 and
they’re under building materials.
Papke: Okay. We don’t have any examples of what they’re doing or anything at this point?
Generous: Not at this point because they’ve not given a site plan so we were trying to develop
what we’d like to see as a part of this as opposed to, to the subdivision…
Papke: Okay. Page 6. Streets and access. First paragraph. We have this interesting little cul-
de-sac right off the, you know that makes up part of the private street off the main street. Is it the
intent that there will be an access into the office industrial area directly across from that when
that is developed and what’s in place to make sure that that happens?
Generous: That’s being hampered by what’s in place that as part of our review will require that.
Papke: Okay. Question on page 8 of the buffer yards. I didn’t quite understand where you state
in the report that the applicant has submitted less boulevards but the spacing is preferable to 30
feet. Can you explain why 50 foot spacing is better than 30 foot spacing? It seems counter
intuitive.
Generous: What I got from Jill as to why the, in the median areas to be filled with understory
type growth as part of this development proposal rather than just having…tree every 30 feet
versus our standard boulevard design. It was more natural feeling and worked through the whole
development. Especially what’s required that they provide additional native plantings in the rear
of the site.
Papke: I’m not quite following that because in the proposed column of the table, all of the
understory numbers are well below the required numbers, so I’m not computing how that adds
up. How you’re saying, you know you’re saying that we’re getting more understory stuff but all
the numbers don’t add up to looking like that.
Generous: And I knew they’d have to, they’re going to have to bring up those understory
numbers to meet the minimum for that.
Papke: Is there, I don’t recall, is there a condition in here to stipulate that?
Generous: Only that they provide the revised landscaping plan.
Papke: Okay. So only another.
Keefe: Well the 30, which was the applicant shall increase understory plantings with the buffer
yard areas to meet the minimum number.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
6
Papke: Okay, okay. So that’s it.
Keefe: Condition 38.
Papke: Okay. But I still, even if they bring it up to the required amount, I don’t see how just
making the required amount offsets the increased depth between the trees. I’m still not.
Generous: I believe Jill’s thought is, you know move space between the overstory trees you’ll
get a healthier and larger tree as it grows because they won’t be crowding each other. Our buffer
yard requirements can be pretty stringent, especially if you confine it to a narrow area.
Papke: I’m just not used to having less trees being better. Okay. We’re going to have to come
back to that one at some point. I think this is my last one, hopefully. Page 9 of the staff report.
The last sentence here says that storm water ponding must be constructed for the additional post
development runoff when the property south is developed. Who does that? How do we
guarantee that? How does that happen?
Generous: Well the developer would be required to provide ponding on the south side of the
road when that develops that would not allow, increase the impervious runoff to the north.
Papke: So the storm water ponding would be on the south side. It kind of reads like you’re
expecting more ponds to go in on the north side when that’s developed on the south side. It’s
just kind of, am I just confused how I read it?
Fauske: I apologize Commissioner Papke, you’re correct. That should have read that the storm
water ponding must be constructed on the south parcel for the additional runoff under post
development conditions. Thank you.
Papke: Okay, got it. That’s all I’ve got.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Kevin.
Dillon: Yep, under the recommendations number 2, a cross access and maintenance agreement
shall be recorded over the private street. What are the usual, what are the terms of that? Or what
would.
Generous: Specifically that the benefiting properties are responsible for snow plowing and
maintenance of the path and they share the costs over the…property. Or over the entire
development.
Dillon: So that means that the city would require that, the developer with the owners of the
property?
Generous: Well the only way they would as part of their agreement, as part of purchasing their
property they’d enter into the association and they be responsible for all the maintenance with
that. But then it also gives them the rights to use it…across the common open space.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
7
Dillon: Okay. And there’s going to be 12 homes accessing the private road. What’s the usual
number that you get from just like one per driveway? Is that the?
Generous: Well under single low density you get single family homes, we have 4 and that’s part
of the application…because we treat twin homes like single family. So they have 12 total
coming into this. If we go to townhouse development, then there’s no such prohibition and you
can have as many…the development has proposed in there within reason to get…under, even
though we consider a lot…
Dillon: So on the private road, and they’ve got an agreement in place. How does the, you know
years from now, when the road might be needing repairs and stuff like that, how do we ensure,
how does the ensure that it’s properly taken care of even though the city residents wouldn’t
necessarily be driving on it every day. It could be an eye sore or something like that if it wasn’t.
Generous: Primarily it will be the association responsibility but the city does have a property
maintenance ordinance that requires that if things are left in disrepair…and the city will be able
to go tell them that there’s too many potholes there. But primarily the association would give
them, when you’re in an association you pay a fee into your association for maintenance and
upkeep. Part of that is for capital replacement costs.
Dillon: That’s all.
McDonald: Okay.
Keefe: I just had a couple. The PUD-R, there’s a trade-off of setback. Relaxation of setbacks
for increased design. What will that allow us to do on that? I’m not sure.
Generous: Well yes, because under the PUD they don’t have to make the lot meet a specific
rectangular area so they’re just platting around the unit and creating more common open space.
Under a typical zoning and subdivision like for R-4 you need 10,000 square feet per unit or
20,000 square feet so you create a rectangle that’s 20,000 square feet of that and yes, what they
did is they… Right now we have a 50 foot setback from West 78th Street to the structure and
under that you would be able to do…
Keefe: Okay. And then what we get back is a better design.
Generous: And we believe that will give a higher quality structure.
Keefe: Okay. The condition 44 and 45 address the grading, you know and raising the lowest
floor elevations. I think 45 it says, the developer must modify the 100 year elevation for Bluff
Creek. What is the 100 year elevation for Bluff Creek, do we know what the number is?
Generous: No. They need to verify it.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
8
Keefe: I’m just a little concerned that we don’t know what that elevation is and that what if it
comes back at 965 now? I don’t know what the number is. I mean does it need to be at 30 feet
above the high, 100 year?
Generous: When that’s…final plat they have to verify that.
Keefe: So I’m just wondering if these zoning, instead of stating the actual number in there, does
it need to be 3 feet above the 100 year elevation?
Generous: Well we believe the 100 year elevation is lower from that. We’re going from the
wetlands…
Keefe: Yeah. I’m just wondering what this site, and it’s a fairly, you know all the way across it’s
kind of low. You don’t have a lot of and so, you know I presume they’re based against the
lowest elevation, you know 957 it looks like. Are we going to have a water issues particularly in
light of what we saw last summer? And even here the last couple of days. I don’t know if we
got just as much in the last couple of days as we did in September, but I guess, so…it has to be
above the 100 year.
Generous: Well our ordinance already states that. They need to meet a 3 foot separation. That
is based on our current information. I believe 958.5 will satisfy the…
Keefe: Okay. I think, isn’t there a sidewalk going across the north side of this? Is there a
requirement to replace that or how does that?
Generous: Yes if they destroy it…
Keefe: Is there room to do that give you know where we’re at here? I mean it looks like the
private street goes, it looks like a bituminous path is there already. I just want to make sure that
we’ve got. It just seems like there’s a lot going in but it does look like… If we state in the
conditions…that they need to replace the pad. I’ll look for it while we…find it.
McDonald: Okay, Debbie.
Larson: Well I just have one, because I think pretty much everything else has been covered.
Regarding the, oh are you done?
Keefe: Yes.
Larson: Oh I’m sorry. Wetland buffer listed on page 9, towards the bottom. Talking about the
16 ½ to 20 feet must be maintained around Wetland 3, and then I’m looking and I’m not clear
on, it looks as though, now is Wetland 3, is that the one that’s the most north?
Generous: Yes…Outlot A.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
9
Larson: Okay. Then there’s a pond that’s just adjacent to Lots 3 and 4. Does that not apply to
that, because it looks so close to those two units. And I can’t see.
Generous: There’s no buffer requirement from storm water ponds. We did push for…as part of
their revisions…was our concern that the unit was getting too close to the storm water pond.
Larson; Okay.
Generous: Yeah, then ponding next to the wetland, we do that all the time because that’s the
recharge for that too so…overflow and this would go right into…
Larson: Okay. That was the only concern I had.
Undestad: I’ve just got one question for you Bob. The southern parcel on there, how many
accesses onto 78th in that?
Generous: They only have one onto West 78th, and I believe one onto Galpin.
Undestad: And will that line up with the one?
Generous: Yeah, we created…
McDonald: Thanks Mark. Dan, do you want, what you wanted to ask?
Keefe: He answered it.
McDonald: Okay. I’ve got a couple of questions for you. When this originally came before us
and we were shown some preliminary drawings there and everything. There were fewer units.
We’ve increased the density on this particular site, and I know that was one of the concerns we
had before was even with the numbers that were presented before, we thought that may be, it’d
been crowding it but again because it wasn’t any kind of final drawings we withheld judgment
until we could see some detailed plan. Now it comes back and there’s more units and you begin
to look at this and it does look as though you’re trying to fit 5 pounds in, or 10 pounds into a 5
pound box and what’s the trade-off for us? Why, I mean is it the design standards? Are they
allowed to do this per the ordinance or what’s the thought process here of allowing this to
increase in density?
Generous: Under the concept plan you are correct, they did show 10 units. 5 twin homes.
However there was no approval on the number of units there. The conditions were show that
…appropriate but show that you can comply with all the ordinance requirements. …and it looks
like it complies with the ordinance except for some changes to the elevations.
McDonald: Okay, because I guess I’m really concerned about, you get to Buildings 3 and 4, the
way that they’re in there next to you know Buildings 1 and 2, and that got me starting to the
thing about setbacks and everything. How does this begin to meet those? What are the
requirements there for spacing between homes?
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
10
Generous: There’s nothing specific in the ordinance on that. It’s more a building code issue
from, if you’re within 3 feet of a property line and you have…If this is platted, this individual
lots under R-4, you’d have a 10 foot side setback…10 foot separation. Basically we responded
to the applicant’s proposal, given that the criteria we had…Bluff Creek Overlay District and the
West 78th Street, and meeting the 50 foot setback from West 78th Street. And this is what..
McDonald: Okay. Okay, you may have kind of answered my next question because you said
something about the impervious surface area and that if we looked at the entire lot, I think you
said they were only at 27%. Is all of this kind of one lot? I mean we’re not looking at putting a
percentage of hard surface on a particular area? Are there lots here for these twin homes or are
they really kind of shared one lot?
Generous: Each of the units would have it’s own lot around it, but then they have Lot 13 which
we’re proposing they designate as Outlot B would be a common lot. And that’s where the
majority of the driveway is. So it’s averaged over the entire project. Like I stated currently,
they’re under I believe 23% right now. As they’re proposing it with all the house pads and all
the driveways that they have, including the minimum 25 foot deep driveway, and my analysis
was, if they were to fill each of these lots fully, 100%, they wouldn’t meet the 30%. They
wouldn’t reach the 30%.
McDonald: Okay. And then you said one of the things that we were doing as far as going along
with this is that we get a say in design standards. Then you mentioned about windows in
garages. We had a discussion last week with a builder that was in here where we tried to get
windows in garages put in there and we couldn’t do it. Why now can we do it with this
development?
Generous: Because that’s the design standards we’re proposing. He can accept it or not.
McDonald: Okay.
Keefe: Part of the zoning.
Generous: Yeah, this could become the design standards for the zoning for this property…
McDonald: Okay. Thank you for your answers. I have no more questions. Does anyone else
back on the commission have anything before? Then at this point I guess we’d like to hear from
the applicant. If you’d come forward and state your name and present your case.
Mark Scholle: Good evening commissioners. My name is Mark Scholle. I am the engineer on
the project and I’m here representing Epic Development tonight and basically I took some notes
on some of the questions that were brought up and I can kind of clarify some of that stuff from
my standpoint, and then from there if there’s any other questions, I’d be willing to take them
after that. One of the concerns that was brought up was the grading and the adjustment in the
low floor elevations on the units. We have taken a look at the grading plan scenario and we are
planning on making those adjustments. The high water level elevation on the Vasserman Ridge
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
11
project is known, and we actually tried to find out what the high water level was for the Bluff
Creek corridor and we were actually told it was the 955 elevation, so that’s why the low floor
elevations on those units are up at the 958.5, so that’s where that came in. The question on snow
storage. We did lay out, even though the way the site is platted doesn’t really clearly show the
different setback from, or the minimum widths for the private street or setback from that. We
incorporated the setbacks that were in the concept staff report, or the standards that were set with
that staff report with a concept approval, so we incorporated all the conditions that were in that to
do this layout. There was a question about you know why did the developer choose to bring the
north side versus the south side. Really I’m kind of speaking for the developer here so I hope
I’m correct but I know that the developer wanted to bring in both at the same time. However,
due to the city wanted to undergo a market study, city wide market study so we were asked to
hold off on making further submittals on that to see what the results of the market study would
be. So we proceeded with the north side since it was residential. Since we were proposing
residential and it met the zoning. Other than that, I think if there are any other questions I’d be
happy to answer.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Papke, do you want to start? No questions?
Dillon: What is the target price range for the homes that will be put in here?
Mark Scholle: I personally can’t really answer to the target price range on the homes but I do
know what is planned to be put in. The type of unit that would be put in there would be similar
to what’s over on, to the west on Vasserman Ridge, but I can’t, I guess I can’t speak to the
pricing of the units.
Dillon: Okay.
McDonald: Dan? Debbie? Mark?
Undestad: I’ve just got one for you. Raising all those units, you know some of those 5 feet or 4
feet down there. Do you have material on site to balance that out or is that, you going to bring in
a lot of fill on that thing to raise those up?
Mark Scholle: Well I anticipate that we’ll be bringing in some material to not only bring up the
units a little bit but also there’s going to be some correction involved with that site anyways.
There’s some, there is going to be possibly some excess material on the east side of the site that
we can bring now into that area, but I would anticipate that we’re going to be importing material
to bring that in.
Undestad: Okay.
McDonald: I’ve just got maybe a questions for you. One of the concerns about the private
street, and the way the driveways and everything come off of that is, what do we do for guest
parking? Has any of that been accommodated in the plan?
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
12
Mark Scholle: Well I know that the, we have laid the plan out in regards to the standards that
were set. The width, I think what the plan would be for that is a guest could park in the
driveway.
McDonald: Could guests also park across the street then? Would that be part of, and then walk
across?
Mark Scholle: Yes.
McDonald: Okay. That’s going to be all the questions I have at this time then too. At this point,
with no further questions we would now throw this open for public comment. We would invite
members of the audience to come forward. State your name and please address the commission.
Larry Martin: Chairman Keefe, commissioners. My name is Larry Martin. I live at 7725
Vasserman Trail. On your diagrams there I am Lot number 8 in Vasserman Ridge. I want to
speak to four items tonight. They are the density, the issue surrounding the private street, the
landscaping and tree situations, and also the power line issue that I think is severe. In my
comments I will be referring to the finding of fact items and I will be relating each of my items
to a finding of fact item where you can interpret the situation to the finding of fact. First let’s
talk to density. As Bob talked earlier, this area is guided for low density. R-4 would be 10,000
square feet. RLM 7,200. These are numbers that are in your report there. And the proposed is
3,750 square feet per unit. So you can see each unit is substantially below what the zoning
things would be and I agree that PUD-R is probably the right classification for this and in order
to go forward with it, but the density is very high. This is a 6 acre site, but if we look at some of
the spaces, if I can have this put up here. The peak units there, actually occupy about 1 acre of
the 6 acres. The outlot, area outlined in yellow is another what, 2-2 ½ acres or so, and the green
area is another 2 ½ acres or so. So I don’t know how you do the math and things like this.
There’s probably standards for doing that in the industry and in development and stuff like this,
but it looks like you’re putting 12 units on 1 acre. That is a substantial density. We think that
the spacing on those units is not consistent with adjacent units, and I’d refer you to finding of
fact items 7(j) and 5(b) to refer to that. On Vasserman Ridge I’m blessed to have a larger unit. I
have 17,500 square feet in my townhome unit. I don’t think there are any under 10,000 in
Vasserman Ridge, so when we’re looking here at 3,750, it’s also the way these units are placed.
When you place the air conditioning units and other mechanical units outside of them, you’re
really going to be putting things together. Some of the drawings that you have show you what
the blacktop pavement into the garages are. If you look at that, you’ll see that substantially all of
that area in front is blacktop. There isn’t much room for grass or plantings or other things. So it
would give a very what? City feel to it. A downtown Minneapolis feel to it or downtown some
city. We think that the density on those is overly crowded. As Chairman McDonald brought up,
the original was for 10 units. We’re now at 12 units. Another item I’d like to address is the
private street. As you know the guideline for that has been stated is no more than 4 homes.
There are 12 units put on this private street. We hope that there will be a homeowners
association there, and I’d like to suggest that as part of the developers agreement, the covenants
for that homeowners association be included so that this snow removal doesn’t get to be a
problem. It was brought up by, I think it was Commissioner Dillon there that the distance
between the street and the homes is minimal. Keep in mind what we’re going to have here is
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
13
we’re going to have a boulevard. We’re going to have a trail system. We’re going to have
another separating item. We’re going to have a street, and then driveways and the homes. The
driveways will be substantially smaller than driveways in adjacent places so, there might be, well
there will be an opportunity to park one car in there, but you’re right. There is no opportunity for
guest parking. The private street here that they’re putting in is 1 ½ football fields long. About
450 feet. That’s a long street. For snow removal you can imagine that overnight if we had a 10
inch snowfall, the person who’s living down there in Unit 12 is going to have quite a difficult
time getting from their townhome unit out onto the street. The way they have designed this little
cul-de-sac going into the unit, looks like a round bubble going into there. If we did put a
development across the street, and I think that is proposed, that’s probably going to have
medians and turn lanes in it. Across the street here you’re going to have another unit that’s this
bubble that’s going onto there that people can go, so the traffic isn’t channeled very well as it
goes into there. Also I can foresee that when that office complex goes in, some type of traffic
control might have to go in there. Be it a 4 way stop or whatever. I think those considerations
should be looked at and should be taken care of as part of the initial plan here. The amount of
blacktop I think on the driveways and on the private street would have very little aesthetic
appeal. Let’s see. We have up at Galpin Boulevard and 78th now a U turn problem, and I know
when we talked about the office complex, your right-in/right-out, left-out’s and everything,
they’re going to all get confused and so there’s going to be a substantial U-turn situation that’s
created there and that would be opposite this street into the townhouse. The landscaping,
presently there are 4 to 5 large willow trees on the west hand side of the park property. My
understanding is, and I could be corrected, the object is to come into the site and clear cut the site
of every tree. That’s going to have to be done because of the filling and things that they’re going
to have to do. We’re happy that as part of the agreement they are looking at landscaping on the
west hand side there, but the other thing which concerns me is the whole landscape maintenance
in what’s now Lot 13 and also Outlot A there. On the west side of the property is a power line.
If you look at Unit 3 here, I believe that power line, the roof of that would be about 20 feet from
the power line. Somebody could reach up with a long pole and touch the power line. Don’t
know what Xcel Energy’s requirements are for that. They have the easement under the lines
there but I think that this is being crowded into that power line. The private street, I would refer
you to items 6(d) in finding of fact. We talked about that. Also item 4(f) and item 7(h). In
conclusion, I feel that granting a private street here of this length is problematic and in the years
to come it will, we would look back and see that that is not probably the best way to go. As far
as the density is concerned, I feel these units are right on top of each other. They talked about
the raising of the units up 3 to 5 feet or whatever works out. If you look at your plans you’ll
notice that the pad heights on the first floor of the home are now about 4 feet above the street, so
in 50 feet or so we’re going to be raising up 4 feet or so. It was talked about for some of the
units, I think 1, 2, 3 and 4, that they might have a different architectural design on there. Well
there goes the benefits of our PUD out the window if they’re going to have different architecture
there and different architecture for the other units. I think that goes out the window so. In
conclusion, I think the density is too high for the site. It’s not consistent with the area. It’s not
consistent I don’t think with Chanhassen’s neighborhood communities. There is no
neighborhood of these townhouses. They’re just units that are put there. I don’t know where
children would play. I don’t know how families would get together. There’d just be blacktop in
front. A private street is problematic. I’m not happy that they want to clear cut those existing
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
14
willow trees that are there. And I think the power line issue needs to be looked at further before
any approval is granted. Thank you for your time.
McDonald: Thank you for your comments. Does anyone else wish to get up and address the
commission? Okay, seeing no one else.
Gerald Wolfe: I’m Gerald Wolfe. I’m on 7755 Vasserman Trail. Lot number 2 that’s even with
the property. I think I’d just like to reiterate what Larry said for the most part. I do, I’m
concerned about those willow trees. If you’ve been out to the site at all you’ll realize they’re
probably 30 feet tall, if not taller than that. Whatever they replace them with, it will be 25 to 30
years before we’ve got trees that size again and I probably won’t be around to see them. There’s
a statement here under grading and drainage on page 8 that says the soil bore reports says there’s
approximately 2 feet of peat that exists south of the wetland and that that’s all going to be taken
care of. We had the benefit of snow on the ground, what little bit of snow we had this past
winter, when they did these soil bores so we saw where the truck drove around the area when
they did the soil bores. All the soil bores were done on the south side of West 78th. There were
no soil bores done on this property. That I was aware of. If they did them, they did them very
lightly on their feet, because there were no marks from trucks. I question where the high water
mark was in the 1987 super storm. Did we go above the level that they’re planning to build these
basements? Let’s see, what else did I write down here? Oh, the setback, the 5 foot between the
private street and I suppose the trail. I find it hard to believe that you can plow snow and only
have it be in a 5 foot width. And hauling out of there is going to be extremely costly to an
association of only 12 units, and I am also upset about the 12 units since we had a 10 unit
proposal in November. I work with a person who lives in a oh gosh, is it 12 or 14, no 10 unit.
She lives in a 10 unit townhouse complex over on Mitchell Road in Eden Prairie just, or Baker
Road actually. Just north of Valley View Road on the east side. And they’re very nice
townhouses. They sell in the $450,000 bracket right now. And I asked her today about their
association. And she has lived in it since it was brand new. They did not until this year, and
that’s like 15 years now. This is the first year that they are now starting with their association to
build up a reserve. In the past they have not done it at all, and even without that, their
association dues are $230 some dollars a month. And for the most part they individually take
care of all the sealcoating of their driveways. They take care of all of their own personal
landscaping. Pay for anything they want done to that, so none of that is included in their
association dues. They just do that all above and beyond so this could become a pretty costly
association for these people in my opinion, so that’s my piece. Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you very much for your comments. Does anyone else wish to get up and
address the commission on this item? Okay, at that point then I will close the public meeting and
I will bring the issue back before the commission for a discussion and a vote. Mark, would you
like to start the discussion?
Undestad: I think the densities seems to be an issue all the way around. Although with a PUD
you know they’re allowed to, we get the clustering of the homes in order to spare the green area
elsewhere on there, and it sounds like even if they did hard surface on everything out there,
they’re at what, 21, 27 percent. They do look like they’re jammed in there a little bit though. I
mean I don’t know if things were looked at with the applicant going back to a 10 unit
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
15
development back there, but it might be something to take a peak at. There are some issues in
there. The snowplowing and the maintenance issues. The minor green area between the walking
trail. I mean you can kind of get an idea of how that might take place and it’s going to go off the
driveway, off the green area and the next road over is the walking, the bike path trails in the
winter time on there. On the other hand I have to go back to, it’s being created as a PUD so the
standards that have been set in the negotiations with the city and the developer as the PUD then,
I’m okay with those. I think the only issue I’d have maybe is possibly looking at that density
yet.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Debbie.
Larson: Okay, I’ve got a couple things. Who was the first gentleman that stood up? Mr., thank
you. I was also somewhat concerned about taking out all these willow trees, especially if they’re
as large as they are and I don’t know if there’s any way getting around that. But that would be
something that I would like a little bit of looking into. He also pointed out that there was no
green on the front but the way I’m looking at the picture, it looks like there’s green inbetween,
unless I’m looking at this wrong. Are the driveways in the middle or are they on the sides? And
I was under the impression that the driveways are on the sides of the units, with the exception of
1, 2, 3 and 4, but the other ones tend to look like they’re on the side so that would look like a
green area inbetween, to me. Let’s see. And the other thing is, are there any things put in place,
ordinances or whatever or would it be just at the discretion of the owner to put trees in the front
yards of any of these because it doesn’t look like any of those trees, other than the ones
inbetween units 6 and 7 are out front. So I can understand how it would, we’re going with not
much in the way of planting in front of the buildings and is that something that can be considered
or?
Generous: There is a condition that each unit have a tree in their front yard.
Larson: Okay, because I’m not seeing it on here.
Generous: No it’s not on the plan. It’s a condition of approval.
Larson: Oh I see, okay, okay.
Generous: So they’ll revise it. They’re supposed to revise it…
Larson: Alright.
Generous: To incorporate any conditions in the final plat documents, construction plans.
Larson: Okay, but is there any way that we can save any of these willows? I’m sure if they’re.
Generous: That would be grading.
Fauske: Yeah. In that area it’s really area it’s really a challenge. I believe, and I apologize. I
just have the small plan set but I believe the willow trees are on the west side there on the
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
16
property line. And that’s really a challenge when you look at the grading operations. They also
have a storm sewer proposed through there, and in order to build that site up for the 5 foot match
in at the property line, get your storm sewer and that, tree preservation is certainly one of the
most difficult things along those areas so that was the challenge I believe.
Larson: Okay. I mean because willow trees, I mean I have some that grew from, I think I
sprinkled some pussy willow seeds probably 7-8 years ago and it’s quite large in my back yard
now. I didn’t realize that’s what it was. But I think they grow a little faster than 30 years to get
up to the height you’re talking but. Anyway, that was all I had.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Dan.
Keefe: Bob again, just a couple questions for you. One of the questions that was brought up was
the length of the private street and the number of houses that can be on a private street. Is there
any limitation associated with that?
Generous: The length of streets are generally the fire marshal’s concern. He didn’t have an
issue on this. Especially that they’re going to be sprinklering these.
Keefe: And it’s right along 78th so.
Generous: Yeah, accessibility wasn’t an issue as far as the fire marshal was concerned. It was
more aesthetic. We were concerned with…and that’s also one of the reasons we made them redo
the landscaping plan to show that buffer yard in there.
Keefe: Yeah, but there’s no, nothing zoning about the number of houses which can be on a
private street?
Generous: Our ordinance was recently revised to allow a maximum length to 800 feet. For cul-
de-sacs.
Keefe: Right. It looks between building 3, 2 and 3, there’s like, I don’t know what the distance
is between those two buildings. It looks like you’ve got, I think it’s a zero setback between
buildings or something in there.
Generous: Two property lines, it’s, the way it’s…we’re saying is there’s zero setback on the
individual lot. There is separation requirements though for the lot to the house like you get in the
fire codes and stuff.
Keefe: That’s what I was wondering in regards to those. Do those meet, do they meet by the fire
marshal?
Generous: Yeah, as far as he could at this level.
Keefe: I don’t know how you navigate in there.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
17
Generous: Also the lot lines look a lot different than the actual structure because they’re actually
separating their structures from the lot lines because remember they’re building from the
common line out.
Keefe: Right. Okay. And other requirements for an association that we could add as part of the
PUD, is that typical?
Generous: Well it would have to…directed towards the association. Because the development
contract conditions go with the property.
Keefe: Just in terms of comments. I just feel like this is, I think it probably meets, well from our
perspective it probably meets what we have to approve but I’m uncomfortable with just how
tight the site is and all the various issues. Private street. Easement associated with electric. The
low condition of the site. Access to the site. Willow trees coming down. I’m just generally
uncomfortable with it but I don’t know that we can, if it meets the conditions I guess we’re in a
position we have to approve.
Generous: It’s a planned development so you do, your interpretation could be that. What our
expectation is different than this… What I drafted in here is a starting point and I wanted
everyone, including the developer, is acceptable.
Keefe: Right.
Generous: Do we need to be more stringent? Less. I thought they were pretty good with
developments over time, but they’re…changing technologies have evolved. Market conditions.
Things change.
Keefe: Right. Okay.
Dillon: My only comments are, I’m still just curious as to what the target price is going to be
and who the target market is going to be and just you know someone to answer the question why
would they buy a home in this development versus some other one. I just, maybe that’s not the
role of the commission so much but just a bit of curiosity that I have is, and it just helps to go
into the decision making process so, the next time around if someone could answer those
questions, that would be great. And also just to comment on a couple of comments on, you
know it does seem like a pretty long street. Not that many houses. You know I think the owners
will just have to have their expectations set properly. They probably won’t be inexpensive in
terms of a local fee to keep that thing, but that’s again probably not necessarily the concern of, as
a commission member but we, I am concerned about the overall, if we do this, the overall
marketability of the project. That people will be able to, you know won’t, they’ll go buy it and
just won’t sit there and sell.
McDonald: Kurt.
Papke: I’m really struggling with the density of this one. In a lot of cases the Planning
Commission is kind of getting to what Commissioner Keefe was alluding to before, our hands
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
18
are tied when we don’t have much discretion when the developer meets all the setbacks and so
on. I want to make sure I understand what our discretion is. What discretion the Planning
Commission has in this case to accept your recommendation of the PUD-R. I’m concerned
we’re giving this developer a diesel power shoe horn to fit a dozen tiny little lots on this very
small, wet site that’s bellied right up to 78th Street in perfect vision as you come down that street.
What discretion do we have in rejecting your recommendation for this zoning?
Generous: You can, the recommendation that this comply, it should be limited to 10 units. It
should be limited to 8 units. It should not be…PUD but straight zoning. Those are all options
that the Planning Commission has.
Papke: Okay. I’m tending, I’m feeling like in this case that we’ve settled for the lowest
common denominator here. When we saw this concept proposal before there were 10 units. We
had concerns with the density. We come back with 12. I don’t get it and we went the wrong
way. And like I said, we’re giving the developer a shoe horn with the PUD-R to put in anything
they want to, and it’s not, at the 3,300 or whatever the average density is, boy that’s, that’s pretty
darn tiny. So I’d, you know I’m an advocate of rejecting the PUD-R. I mean if we were, if our
hands were tied behind our backs, I’d say sure, you know. I think the developer’s done a good
job of meeting the constraints that we put down here, but you know we don’t have to accept this.
McDonald: Okay. Well I guess with my comments I’ll echo some of what you all have said.
It’s, I don’t see where we have a lot of discretion based upon this. It’s, we take this as it is or we
have to go the other way, which we can do and we’ve done before. I think based upon this plan,
I don’t see how you can do it without a private street. I don’t care for the private street in this
particular case because I think parking’s a problem. And again, City of Chanhassen has to
enforce parking problems when people start to call in. Yeah, you can park across the street but I
don’t think residents are going to do that so I do believe that there needs to be some fore thought
for the fact that people will have guests on the site, but again within the PUD-R it meets the
requirements so I would go along with it. The density, yeah I’m a little kind of concerned about
that too because it was, it was 10 and I thought it was a little bit packed at that point but again it
wasn’t a detailed drawing and we were going to work some things out because there were some
issues with the Bluff Creek Overlay area but everybody knew where that was at and we’d come
up with something. Looks as though we have again, I don’t know. You get into marketability. I
think to answer one of Commissioner Dillon’s comments about that. That kind of begins to put
us into a little bit of a design mode which we’re really not, but yeah it’s a good question to ask
but we really shouldn’t be setting price points. It’s up to the developer to take the risk of putting
something on a street such as this, and you’re right. I don’t think families are going to buy into it
because West 78th Street’s just going to become worst. I raised concerns before about the U-
turns down in the other outlot, but that’s not part of this development so I won’t bring it up, but
traffic is an issue and I think that we had given staff a directive, you need to look at Galpin
Boulevard as part of this whole development area. Yeah, if we’re going to have an access
directly across from this, what do you do? Is that going to be a traffic signal? Stop lights? I
don’t know but you know traffic becomes an issue. And it’s just, if I sum it up, the problem I
have with this is density. That’s it in a nutshell. I guess it’s up to the commission to decide what
they want to do about it but if we’re going to go along with staff’s recommendations. I do not
see where we have a lot of leeway because again they’ve met the requirements for this type of
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
19
development so it would be up to us to look at something else. With that I will now take motions
from the commission on this project.
Keefe: What do we have 3 motions? Take them individually or together? I’ll make a motion.
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development Rezoning
the property within the Galpin Crossing Twinhomes project from A2, Agricultural Estate District
to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development Residential incorporating the development design
standards contained in the staff report.
McDonald: Okay, do you want to take this one at a time and vote on it one at a time?
Generous: It’s up to you. Well depending on what happens with the rezoning with the rest of it.
McDonald: Okay. Let’s take them one at a time then. Okay, you’ve heard the proposal that’s
before us. It’s a recommendation A. All in favor signify.
Keefe: It needs a second.
McDonald: Oh, I’m sorry. Got ahead of myself. I need a second.
Dillon: Second.
McDonald: Okay. It is so seconded. We have before us recommendation A.
Keefe moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
Planned Unit Development Rezoning the property within the Galpin Crossing Twinhomes
project from A2, Agricultural Estate District to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development
Residential incorporating the development design standards contained in the staff report.
All voted in favor, except Commissioners Larson, Papke and Undestad who voted in
opposition. The motion failed with a tie vote of 3 to 3.
McDonald: Okay, I think that’s 3 nay’s and 3 aye’s. So tie 3-3. Okay.
Keefe: Move on, I take it probably a tie. Well, we’ll just take one at a time. Letter B. The
Planning Commission recommends approval of Preliminary Plat creating 12 lots and 2 outlots
with a variance for the use of a private street and for more than four homes accessed via a private
street, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering dated March 16, 2006, revised April 19, 2006,
subject to conditions 1 through 62, correct? Since you added one.
Generous: We added one.
McDonald: We have 62? Okay. Do I have a second?
Dillon: Second.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
20
Keefe moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
Preliminary Plat creating 12 lots and 2 outlots with a variance for the use of a private street
and for more than four homes accessed via a private street, plans prepared by Ryan
Engineering, dated March 16, 2006, revised April 19, 2006, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Designate Lot 13 as Outlot B.
2. A cross-access and maintenance agreement shall be recorded over the private street.
3. 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.
4. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be
removed from site or chipped.
5. 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.
6. Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an
approved area for turning around fire apparatus. Submit turn around designs to City
Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code
Section 503.2.5. (Exception: the code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150
feet where the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic fire sprinkler
system installed in accordance with Minnesota State Fire Code Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2
or 903.3.1.3).
7. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protections 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.
8. 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.
9. The new proposed street will be required to have a street name. Submit proposed to street
name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3.
10. An additional fire hydrant will be required. Maximum spacing is 300 feet. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of required additional fire hydrant.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
21
11. Accessibility will have to be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the
units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State
Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements.
12. The buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system if they are over
8,500 sq. ft. in floor area. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not constitute
separate buildings and the area of basements and garages is included in the floor area threshold.
13. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the
Building Official.
14. A final grading plan and soils report must be to the Inspections Division before building permits
can be issued.
15. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire-resistive
construction.
16. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
17. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to
discuss plan review and permit procedures.
18. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around Wetland 3. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in
accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge
signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per
sign. All structures shall maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge.
19. The grading plan shall be revised to eliminate grading within the first 20 feet of the setback
from the primary corridor. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the
primary corridor. The plans shall be revised to show that the structure on Lot 12, Block 1 meets
the required 40-foot primary corridor setback.
20. Outlot A shall be protected in perpetuity through the dedication of the outlot to the City of
Chanhassen or by the recording of a conservation easement, to be approved by the City, over the
entire Outlot A.
21. All perimeter controls and inlet protections shall remain in place until 70% of the area is
permanently protected by vegetative cover.
22. All area disturbed within 200 feet of Bluff Creek shall be stabilized within 3 days.
23. The plans shall be revised to show all areas with 3:1 slopes or steeper that will be blanketed.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
22
24. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the ponds shall be provided. The EOF could consist
of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf re-enforcement mat (a permanent erosion control
blanket). A typical detail shall be included in the plan.
25. Energy dissipation shall be provided for all inlets and outlets within 24 hours of installation
26. Wimco-type or other comparable inlet controls shall be used and installed within 24 hours of
installation of the inlets.
27. Typical building lot controls shall be shown on the plan in a typical detail. 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 Certificate of Occupancy
(CO).
28. The proposed storm water ponds shall be used as a temporary sediment basin during mass
grading. The pond shall be excavated prior to disturbing up-gradient areas. Plans shall show
how the water will be diverted to the temporary basin. Berms and/or ditches may be needed
to divert water to the pond, and temporary pond outlets are needed. The outlet could be a
temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. The plans shall be revised to include a detail
for the temporary pond outlet.
29. An adequate easement for pond access for maintenance purposes is needed and shall be
shown on the plan.
30. The proposed silt fence along Wetland 3 shall be Type 2 silt fence, as specified in Chanhassen
Standard Detail Plate 5300. Type 1 silt fence may be used for the remainder of the site. The
grading plan shall be revised to show the proposed silt fence following the grading limits for the
site, including the 20-foot grading setback from the primary corridor. The perimeter controls
shall be inspected by the city and the SWCD prior to grading.
31. The grading plan shall be revised to show the location of the proposed rock construction
entrance.
32. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
33. The estimated total SWMP fee based on 2006 fees, due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording, is $28,670.
34. The owner/operator of the proposed development 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), Minnesota Department of Transportation,
Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval.
35. At least one tree is required in each front yard.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
23
36. A landscape plan denoting areas of sod shall be submitted to the city. Common areas must be
sodded and provided with irrigation.
37. Native plantings will be required along the northern edge of the development parallel to the
wetland and Bluff Creek. These plantings shall be species selected from the Bluff Creek
Management Plan planting list. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to final plat
approval to the city for approval.
38. Applicant shall increase understory plantings with the bufferyard areas to meet the minimum
number of plantings required.”
39. The developer must obtain permission from MNDOT before performing any work within the
MNDOT easement.
40. The developer must obtain permission from Metropolitan Council to perform the proposed
grading within the sanitary sewer interceptor easement.
41. Prior to final plat consideration, the developer must show the overhead utility easement on the
plans.
42. The building footprint must not lie within the overhead utility easement.
43. The developer must comply with any setback requirements the overhead utility company
imposes.
44. The lowest floor elevations for Lots 1 through 4 must be raised to a minimum elevation of
963.1’. This condition may require a different housing type (SE, LO, R).
45. The lowest floor elevations for Lots 5 through 12 must be raised to a minimum elevation of
958.5’. Developer must modify 100-year elevation for Bluff Creek.
46. The final grading plan must identify an emergency overflow location and elevation for the
proposed pond.
47. The grading plan must be adjusted so that soil grades are minimum 2%.
48. The proposed grading north and west of Lot 12 must be adjusted so that the drainage swale will
not direct runoff toward the backs of Lots 11 and 12.
49. The six foot high berm on the east side of the private drive must be shifted to the east to provide
minimum five feet of boulevard space.
50. The developer must ensure that the final grading plan does not include driveways sloping
towards the homes on Lots 11 and 12.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
24
51. Driveway grades must be between 1.5% and 10% at any point within the driveway.
52. The developer must submit existing and proposed drainage maps.
53. 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.
54. Prior to utility installation the developer must obtain a permit from Metropolitan Council to
connect to the interceptor sewer.
55. The storm sewer installed with this project shall be privately owned and maintained since it
does not serve public property.
56. Advanced warning and traffic control measures required during the watermain connection must
comply with the latest addition of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
57. The developer must submit a financial security with the final plat to ensure the restoration of
West 78th Street and the bituminous trail.
58. 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.
59. The lowest floor elevation of each unit must be shown on the utility plan.
60. Snow removal from the private drive must not encroach into the public right of way.
61. Storm sewer manhole at west driveway entrance should include a 3' sump.
62. The developer shall pay full park fees in effect at the time of final plat recording.”
Dillon voted in favor, the rest voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 1 to 5.
McDonald: Okay, recommendation B fails 5 to 1. Next.
Keefe: For item C, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use
Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to conditions 1 and
2.
McDonald: Okay, do I have a second?
Larson: Second.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
25
Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Conditional Use Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The grading plan shall be revised to eliminate grading within the first 20 feet of the setback
from the primary corridor. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the
primary corridor. The plans shall be revised to show that the structure on Lot 12, Block 1 meets
the required 40-foot primary corridor setback.
2. Outlot A shall be protected in perpetuity through the dedication of the outlot to the City of
Chanhassen or by the recording of a conservation easement, to be approved by the City, over the
entire Outlot A.”
Dillon voted in favor, the rest voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 1 to 5.
McDonald: Now, we’ve been here before and I want to ask before I move on, what do we do
next? Do we need to make counter proposals to this or does it go back as far as we look at
things, or it goes to City Council?
Generous: …do you have a recommendation on how they should go forward?
McDonald: Well I thought A failed. We were in favor of the Planned Unit Development, or it
was a tie so you’re right. 3-3 so it in effect fails. Well the options are we can propose something
that we would like to see, and that can go forward along with our recommendations here to the
City Council. Or we can send strictly our recommendations forward at this point that we turned
this proposal down. I would look at from the commissioners, do we have any counter proposals
that we would like to put on the table? So we would substitute on A, instead of PUD, vote for an
R-4 is our recommendation for going forward. Okay. Does one wish to make a proposal? Or do
we wish to have discussion on this?
Keefe: Well I don’t think we necessarily have to propose anything. I think we can summarize…
so that they can go back and re-create…or they can take it to the City Council and over turn.
McDonald: I would ask you, because of what happened before, what we, we tried to send what
was a message in our proposals going forward. If we go with, we rejected this, as I see the
options, our options are to go to the City Council and do a review there. The City Council can
vote on it as a final say. Or we can propose what we would think would be a better use for this,
and then you and the developer, or the developer can then make up their mind which way they
want to go.
Keefe: It’s in their court.
McDonald: It’s in their court at that point.
Keefe: Yeah, we can just guide in terms of what we think and it’s in their court to re-propose.
We aren’t necessarily proposing…
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
26
Undestad: I think the PUD is still a good issue. I think it’s…as an issue of the…
Papke: R-4 or…more or less dense.
Undestad: But they still do a PUD and come back with a less dense development. PUD can
control the design standards.
Larson: In the PUD.
Generous: Other zoning R-4 would control lot area only. So yes, they meet the 10,000 square
foot per unit, and it’s possible they could come in with and show 12 units if they do that. I don’t
know, it’d be up to them. It gives them an idea how the Planning Commission feels. Also the
commission…
McDonald: I think the direction that we’re going ahead is lower density.
Papke: Less than 10.
Larson: But I like the PUD idea if we can have a little control as to what they put in it. How it
looks…
McDonald: I’m not sure that we can do that. That’s where I’m having trouble. Yeah, you can
control design, which is where we’re at now but we can’t control density, which is where we are
with the other, and then you lose the designs so.
Papke: What are you really getting, and that was my very first question. What were we getting
for the PUD? We’re getting a couple windows on the garages.
Larson: Okay.
Papke: I’m not dancing in the streets over that one.
Keefe: I think our issues are, is the density is an issue. We want to see fewer units on the site.
We’d like to see some consideration for the willow trees on the west end of the site. What were
some of the other items. The private street is a concern. Rear yard, well I don’t know…
McDonald: On this particular lot, that’s the only way that’s going to work. Unless you’re going
to create a real traffic problem with West 78th. I guess the only thing we would do, is we need to
look at giving guidance so that we would prefer lower density and then allow the developer to
come back at that point and show us a design based upon that. So I think what I’m hearing is,
we would need to go with an R-4 is our recommendation for this lot. And I think we would need
a motion for that.
Keefe: You could do PUD if they came in with fewer houses on it.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
27
Undestad: Aren’t we just providing guidance with what we want to see?
McDonald: Strictly as a guidance. Do we want to give guidance that we want to see lower
density? If we do, the only way I think we send a message, R-4. If you’re saying that okay, we
want to see lower density and we trust you. At this point, it doesn’t look as though we have a
good feeling with this developer because of what happened before. We’re shown 10 and we get
12.
Keefe: What if he came back with PUD and 8? With 8. With townhomes on it.
McDonald: Yeah, I mean it’s just something with lower density on this with the constraints
you’ve got would probably be more preferable than what’s there now.
Larson: Okay, can I make a comment?
McDonald: Yes.
Larson: As opposed to that. Bob had made the comment in his opening statement about it, there
is a bit of a transition going from Vasserman to this unit to Galpin. And getting closer to a busier
intersection, if you will, and I don’t see a problem with this being a little tighter as you get closer
to a major, an arterial road. And so I don’t know if that’s as big of an issue as if it were further
in where it’s not as close to things and so maybe I don’t have so much of a problem with the
density. I do somewhat because it looks like they’re touching each other but you know, I don’t
know if they really are. But I don’t know if that’s something to stop it from moving forward.
Papke: But the closest one…have you seen the one up on…and 41. We approved a year ago?
That’s no where near this kind of density… It’s right on 78th. Right at the intersection.
Larson: Except that this is two major streets versus one.
Papke: It’s right on 41 and 78th.
McDonald: I guess the thing is.
Larson: Oh, oh. I think, yeah.
McDonald: I guess the thing is…sufficient for the record that we have stated what our feelings
are. That the issue is density. How it is solved, it is at this point it’s up to the developer. He’s
got a choice to make as to which way he wants to go with this. Either go back, work with staff.
Address the issue of density and then resubmit something or he has the option of going forward
with the City Council as an appeal process for our decision at this point. So I guess with that, I
would close this case as far as the Planning Commission is concerned and it is now up to the
applicant to make a decision as to which way he wants to go. Our concerns are in the record.
The City Council will have those. They can make the decision at that point, or the developer can
make the decision to redo this. At that point we’ve met our requirements I believe. Okay.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
28
PUBLIC HEARING:
ARBORETUM BUSINESS CENTER: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A
25,300 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE-SHOWROOM-WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON 2.69
ACRES OF LAND ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON LOT 1,
BLOCK 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 5TH ADDITION, 2970 WATER TOWER
PLACE, APPLICANT STEINER DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING CASE 06-16.
Public Present:
Name Address
Joe Smith 3610 County Road 101 South, Wayzata
Jeff Conkling 3610 County Road 101 South, Wayzata
Todd Mohagen Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Commissioners, I’ll bring it back. Kurt, want to start?
Papke: Just one or two here. You mentioned, staff is proposing that parapets above the
entrances be raised to help define the entrances. Could you sketch on there what you’re
proposing? I’m not quite sure I understand what that is.
Generous: We were looking originally at raising this whole area up, but they’ve come back with
another, this alternative that they projected it out and then they revised the color so all we wanted
was to enhance those entrances on the building and so they really stand out and we think their
architect came back with a good plan. Additionally, above each of these doorways there are
canopies so you’ll really be able to notice it. This could be a multi-tenant building. It could be a
condo. It could be one user that takes it all. But right now this provides the most flexibility.
They can create each, two units at each door.
Papke: So that proposal for a parapet is a moot point? That’s been removed to construct, okay.
The only other question I had about signage. When we see a sign over the window per unit like
this, sometimes the developer comes back and says, we need another sign somewhere else
because we don’t have enough visibility. You know we just saw that down here by the theater
and with the bank and so on. Any discussions or issues with the signage here?
Generous: Not that I’m aware of. The applicant hasn’t specified anything. He’s pretty
confident, the west elevation is the primary visibility.
Papke: From 41?
Generous: They are permitted to have two monument signs on the property. One on 41 and one
on the Water Tower Place. Again, right now…
Papke: They’re not going to ask for a sign on the water tower or anything?
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
29
Dillon: I don’t have any questions.
Keefe: Just two quick questions. One, just following on the signage. Is it proposed to be
consistent signage package all the way across or do they vary from day to day, from. Do you
know what I mean? Do we take control of that? I mean I think it looks nicer if they’re kind of
consistent and so.
Generous: It’s more a management. We have our standard ordinance they have individual
dimensional letters on there but you know, that can be varied by tenant. It’s usually the
management company that has the most control…
Keefe: Alright. Where does the sidewalk go? I mean it comes down to the street and then?
Generous: Yes, and then on the south side of Water Tower Place there is a sidewalk that goes to
Century Boulevard and that connects into our trail.
Keefe: Alright, so that whole sidewalk is on the south side.
Generous: Yes, it will go down to Century right now.
Keefe: Okay, that’s it.
McDonald: Debbie.
Larson: Only one. Looking at page 6 where it talks about parking. For the park, it requires 76
and they’ve got 119. Is that normal? Okay? What?
Generous: They’re over parking the site but their assumption was.
Larson: Is that better I guess?
Generous: Well as long as they convert it all to office space, there’s more requirement for
parking for office in there. Right now they have certain assumptions that they’ve built in to
come up with that 70. We did come up with 76. I think they’re hoping some of their people they
talked to, that it may be more office. And if it is, they have to be able to meet those standards.
Larson: Gotch ya.
Generous: And what they don’t, they can lease them or sell it.
Larson: Okay, that’s all I had.
McDonald: Mark. I have no questions for staff at this time either so, is the applicant here?
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
30
Joe Smith: Hi, good evening. I’m Joe Smith. I’m with Steiner Development. We’re the
developer of the property. Just to address the couple questions that I heard. Signage. We built
several other buildings in the park and our signage has been consistent. It has been the block
letters. We don’t want different colored letters. Different fonts. Those type of things. We just
think it looks a lot better. It’s more consistent signage so that’s our plan. Occasionally we’ll
fight with tenants on that but typically we’ll adhere to those standards that we’ve got in our other
buildings. To the parking issue, it’s flexibility. We’ve over parked it just for the fact that we
don’t know who’s going to come in the door. It may be an all office user so we want to make
sure that we’ve got the adequate parking so we don’t have parking issues. Anybody have any, I
guess one other question. I saw in the notes about roof top screening, as far as screening roof
top, HVAC units. I know that in the past we have not had to do that. We’ve either painted the
cabinets or we’ve ordered the cabinets with kind of a camouflaged, so they blend in. And the
screening gets to be a maintenance issue. It’s very expensive to do on the front end. We would
prefer to either use low profile roof top units or go with a painted cabinet so they blend into the
roof of the building so we don’t have to go through the maintenance and the additional expense
of using screening materials. This is Todd Mohagen. He’s our architect.
Todd Mohagen: If I might interject a little bit. Todd Mohagen, 1415 East Wayzata Boulevard.
What we’re finding as a trend, the roof screening is becoming more and more unpopular just
because of the maintenance that’s involved with roof screening. They do tend to get damaged by
the wind. At times they do damage the roof. What you will find in a lot of city ordinances now,
that they are accepting painted roof top screening on the equipment itself. For me personally I
think it’s a cleaner look than having the screening that’s around there. Typically kind of that
charcoal gray is a nice color. It blends in nicely with the roof, especially when you have the road
that’s higher than the site itself right now. And then also from the ground, when you see the
charcoal, it disappears. It tends to just go away. You’d think blue would be the color but it
really is the charcoal color that works the best, so we’d like you to consider that.
Joe Smith: Any other questions?
McDonald: Any other questions from the commissioners? Mr. Papke?
Dillon: Who are the perspective tenants? I mean what type of customer would you have?
Joe Smith: Office warehouse users. Smaller office users. We are actually talking to a couple of
all office users for the entire building. Just a, they could be manufacturer’s rep type companies.
They could be small assembly type companies. It could be an all office type of a use.
Dillon: That’s the only question I have.
Keefe: Just getting back to your mechanical that goes on the roof, or at grade. So are you, in
talking about grade, both on the roof and on grade or just on the roof or?
Joe Smith: Our rooftop, our air conditioning and heat units are located on the roof.
Keefe: You wouldn’t have any mechanical units on grade level or?
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
31
Joe Smith: No, typically not.
Keefe: …on roof top. And then do have parapets on this building or not. I mean are there any?
Joe Smith: Yeah, it’s 9 inches probably.
Keefe: Alright. And so, it won’t, I guess one of the concerns is, you know as you’re kind of
walking up to it, I think one thing because you’re up so high, you know 41 is up so high, looking
down. I don’t know, typically how would you screen it anyway? Would it be fully boxed or?
Todd Mohagen’s comments from the audience were not picked up on tape.
Keefe: Right, yeah. Okay.
Papke: How much higher is 41 than the grade here?
Generous: Well it varies. It’s about 20 feet.
Papke: So you’re practically at the roof top there.
Joe Smith: But it won’t be 20 feet above the top of the building.
Generous: Right, no. From grade.
Papke: From grade.
Joe Smith: It’s 20 feet above grade.
Keefe: Right. I guess I could see you know screening from sort of grade as you come in to have
it being set back far enough where you wouldn’t really get a view of them. I mean I don’t know.
Joe Smith: From the grade you won’t see the units at all. From the road you will. But they will
never be fully boxed because there’s ventilation that has to happen, so they’d never screen the
very top. It’s just around the sides.
Papke: What’s that on the All About Lights building? What do we have there?
Generous: I think they have a higher parapet.
Keefe: So the point is, you can’t see it from grade. So I mean I think we get.
Joe Smith: The other 3 buildings that we built there and then the Vanger building, those units
are not screened.
McDonald: Okay.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
32
Keefe: But you’re open to that, painting?
Joe Smith:
Generous: Mr. Chairman, if I may. The design standards do specify either screening or
camouflaged…
McDonald: Okay.
Undestad: I think even metal flashing around there, you can get your units in that beige color too
can’t you? The low profile on each rooftop units and put them back far enough so that nobody
sees them anymore.
Todd Mohagen: Yeah, I mean I just found if you use the charcoal gray it really disappears.
Especially if we have a roadway that’s up higher. Typically the rock that’s used on the roof is
kind of a grayish tone so it works great.
Keefe: Okay.
McDonald: I think all of my questions were answered so I have no questions for you.
Joe Smith: Thank you.
McDonald: At this point I will open up the public meeting portion of this and anyone wishing to
make comment, please come forward to the podium. State your name and address and address
your comments to the commissioners. Seeing no one come forward, we’ll close the public
meeting and I will bring this case back before the commissioners for discussion, review and a
vote. Who would like to start? Kurt? Kevin? Dan no? Debbie?
Larson: It looks fine to me.
McDonald: No? And I have no comments either, so I think we’re ready. At this point I would
accept a motion.
Larson: Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the site plan adopted
by Chanhassen, oh that’s all. Is that it? No? I’m reading the wrong thing.
McDonald: Page 8.
Larson: Page 8? What am I?
McDonald: Well you must be on findings of facts.
Larson: Okay, what am I reading? Oh thank you. The Planning Commission recommends
approval of Planning Case Site Plan #06-16 for a 25,300 square foot, one story office showroom,
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
33
warehouse building. Plans prepared by Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group dated March 30,
2006, subject to the following conditions 1 through 18.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Undestad: Second.
Keefe: In regards to the mechanical equipment it says city ordinance requires it. Bob, kind of
looking at you on this. Can we put in a statement around that and the condition and say oh
something along the lines, we agree that camouflaging it with paint. That’s what I’m wondering,
do we add that or do we?
Papke: The report says…
Keefe: It’s just in the report? Okay. That’s what I was wondering.
Generous: …the design standards was that yes, that’s appropriate. You can add a condition that
it be charcoal gray and they use low profile…be specific.
Keefe: Right, okay.
McDonald: We don’t have to do anything.
Keefe: Yeah.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Planning Case #06-16 Site Plan for a 25,300 square-foot, one-story office-showroom-
warehouse building, plans prepared by Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group, dated
March 30, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. A separate sign permit will be necessary for each sign.
3. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
4. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
5. Air-test required on that portion of storm sewer within ten feet of building or water service.
Permits and inspections required through Chanhassen Building Inspections Division.
6. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete plans are
submitted.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
34
7. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
8. The applicant shall obtain permission from the property owner to the north prior to silt fence
installation. If permission is not obtained, the plans shall be revised to accommodate all
sediment control measures on-site.
9. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
10. The owner/operator of the proposed development shall apply for and receive an NPDES Phase
II Construction permit prior to beginning construction activities.
11. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a permit from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District and comply with their conditions of approval.
12. The Black Hills spruce near the building shall be moved east to serve as screening for the
truck area. A narrower species of evergreen shall be considered for planting in this area.
13. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before building permit approval.
14. All lighting fixtures must be shielded with a total cutoff angle equal to or less than 90
degrees.
15. A professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans.
16. The applicant will be required to submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10-year, 24-
hour storm event with a full size drainage area map prior to building permit issuance.
17. The applicant must verify with the City Building Department if the site connecting to the
existing 8-inch watermain on the east side is adequately sized to handle the two lots’
consumption.
18. As the eastern access will service the two lots, cross-access easements will need to be
obtained and recorded against the lots.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
McDonald: Okay, this motion passes 6-0. So the motion is carried and will go forward with the
recommendation to City Council.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 18, 2006 as presented.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 2, 2006
35
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
APRIL 25, 2006
Acting Chair Scharfenberg called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Spizale, Jeff Daniel, Anne Murphy, Steve Scharfenberg, and
Paula Atkins. Tom Kelly arrived late to the meeting.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Glenn Stolar
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; and Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Superintendent
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Murphy moved, Spizale seconded to approve the agenda
amended to include discussion of the skate park under administrative presentations. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Todd Hoffman reminded the commission about the upcoming
Arbor Day celebration on Saturday, May 7th at City Center Park.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Murphy moved, Atkins seconded to approve the verbatim
and summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission dated March 28, 2006 as
presented.
APPOINTMENT OF ANNE MURPHY AND JEFF DANIEL TO THREE YEAR
COMMISSION TERMS. Acting Chair Scharfenberg welcomed returning commission member
Anne Murphy and new commission member Jeff Daniel.
REVIEW PARK & TRAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRESERVE, 1630 LYMAN
BOULEVARD, A 155 SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION, APPLICANT THE PEMTOM
LAND COMPANY AND GAYLE AND LOIS DEGLER.
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Spizale asked for
clarification between private and public streets. Brian Sullivan with Ryland Homes, speaking on
behalf of the applicant, addressed the planning process involved with the site layout.
Commissioner Daniel asked about the trail along Audubon being extended in the future.
Commissioner Murphy asked for clarification of the trail head and trail connections.
Commissioner Atkins asked staff to point out the location of the new high school in relation to
this development. Commissioner Kelly asked for clarification of which trails will be maintained
by the city. The applicant, Dan Cook with Pemtom Land Company addressed their reasons for
wanting to keep the 5 lots in the northwest corner of the site. Commissioner Kelly asked for
Park and Rec Commission Summary – April 25, 2006
2
clarification on the trail location. Commissioner Daniel asked what amenities will be included in
the open space.
Murphy moved, Atkins seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
the City Council require the following conditions of approval concerning parks and trails
for the Preserve PUD:
1. The payment of full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final plat approval in
lieu of parkland dedication. Note: A percentage of park fees may be credited as a
portion of any future compensation for the acquisition of developable lands in the area
currently depicted as Lot 1.
2. The applicant shall provide all design, engineering, construction and testing services
required of the “Bluff Creek Trail”. All construction documents shall be delivered to the
Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer for approval prior to the initiation of
each phase of construction. The trail shall be 10 feet in width, surfaced with bituminous
material and constructed to meet all city specifications. The applicant shall be
reimbursed for the actual cost of construction materials for the Bluff Creek Trail. This
reimbursement payment shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and
receipt of an invoice documenting the actual costs for the construction materials utilized
in it’s construction.
3. Outlot H be enlarged through the addition of the land area currently depicted as Lots 1
and 2, Block 11. The resulting property to be utilized as a private association operated
recreational and open space site.
4. Outlots A, B, L and H be conveyed to the city as public property by warranty deed.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
RECREATION PROGRAM REPORTS:
2006 EASTER EGG CANDY HUNT. Jerry Ruegemer presented an evaluation on the 2006
Easter Egg Candy Hunt. While working at the coloring contest, Commissioner Spizale and
Chair Stolar came up with the idea of possibly selling a city pass that would allow you to attend
all city events.
2006 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION. Jerry Ruegemer presented the update on preparations
for the 4th of July celebration. Commissioner Kelly asked about the number of food vendors.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. None.
COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Hoffman presented an update on the skate
park and the discussion that was held at the City Council meeting. Acting Chair Scharfenberg
Park and Rec Commission Summary – April 25, 2006
3
asked for clarification on what action the City Council was looking for from the commission.
Commissioner Atkins asked how the bikes were working out in the skate park. Commissioner
Daniel asked what impact closing the skate park had last year and if the commission has done
any type of investigations of other monitoring alternatives.
Atkins moved, Kelly seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 25, 2006
Acting Chair Scharfenberg called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Spizale, Jeff Daniel, Anne Murphy, Steve Scharfenberg, and
Paula Atkins. Tom Kelly arrived late to the meeting.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Glenn Stolar
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; and Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Superintendent
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Murphy moved, Spizale seconded to approve the agenda
amended to include discussion of the skate park under administrative presentations. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Hoffman: Arbor Day celebrations are Saturday, May 7th I believe the date is. That’s a Saturday
in May. It will be taking place right here. If you have lots of groups, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts,
neighborhood groups coming down to pick up trash at a variety of the locations. Trees for sale.
They made the presentations last night at the council meeting for the poster winners, so look for
those items in the paper. If you want to help out, come on down. The contact here at the city is
Jill Sinclair.
Scharfenberg: Any other announcements? We’ll move on.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Murphy moved, Atkins seconded to approve the verbatim
and summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission dated March 28, 2006 as
presented.
APPOINTMENT OF ANNE MURPHY AND JEFF DANIEL TO THREE YEAR
COMMISSION TERMS.
Scharfenberg: Do we have to do anything Todd specifically with these appointments?
Hoffman: Just recognize that they’ve been reappointed and appointed.
Scharfenberg: And we welcome Jeff to the commission. His first meeting tonight. Welcome
and feel free to join in at any time.
Park and Recreation Commission – April 25, 2006
2
Daniel: I definitely will, thank you very much.
Scharfenberg: Alright.
Daniel: So appreciate and looking forward to it.
Scharfenberg: Good. And Anne, good to see you back.
Murphy: Thank you. Glad to be back.
Hoffman: Two terms. So there are term limits now on our commission so you can serve up to 2
terms and then you’re out so make the best of it.
REVIEW PARK & TRAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRESERVE, 1630 LYMAN
BOULEVARD, A 155 SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION, APPLICANT THE PEMTOM
LAND COMPANY AND GAYLE AND LOIS DEGLER.
Hoffman: Thank you Chair Scharfenberg and members of the commission. Apologize the
overhead went out last night so we’ll use a handout that you have in the packet and then both the
applicants and myself will step forward and utilize the board to run you through the
development. The property or the application called the Preserve is located in the 2005 MUSA
area. I think all of you are probably familiar with this area. If not, labeled as the 2005 MUSA,
maybe the AUAR study area. Maybe the farm field south of Lyman Boulevard. Maybe the
Degler Farm. All the things would be accurate. This is actually the Gayle and Lois Farm.
Family farm. Gayle’s father and mother owned the farm to the west which would be Dean and
Lois Degler. This is the fourth development that’s been proposed in this particular area. On the
front page of the report it talks about the summary of the request. The request being a PUD or a
planned unit development and site plan approval to build 155 single family homes. With a
conditional use permit for developing within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, as well as grading
within the flood plain. The next graphic shows part of the AUAR study indicating that the
number of units approved under the AUAR, or the AUAR assumption is 1,584 homes were
contemplated or approved that area. If you flip to page 2, the next chart indicates the 4 different
proposals that we’re working with. I’ll point them out on the overhead. Top one, Liberty at
Bluff Creek is the only one with final approval. It’s currently under construction. The grading
has commenced if you’ve noticed to the south on Audubon Road. And has 90 gross acres and
then 444 units townhome units in that particular area. As to neighborhood amenities, association
playground and then an association pool. Some green space that has been preserved as a part of
the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Has a trail connection down to the Bluff Creek trail on the
north side, and then it also has some internal trails to loop around to the neighborhood amenities.
Liberty at Creekside and it was reviewed by the council and tabled last night but it is generally
located in a little bit of an isolated location at the center or south central part of the MUSA
region. 146 units. Pioneer Pass, last night was approved by the council first go around and not
final plat. It has 81 single family homes. It also has the park that you took at look at and
approved, or recommended as a public park. 4.72 acres in this location. The Liberty at
Creekside is also proposing about a half acre totlot area at that location. And then the application
we’re looking at tonight, again gross acres, 80 acres. Net acres 31.33 and 155 units. Generally
Park and Recreation Commission – April 25, 2006
3
situated north and south on an 80 acre parcel. On this map what you’re seeing is again a private
association area. Staff is also proposing that these 5 lots be deleted from the plat and that area be
used for a combination of uses. Storm water pond, a trail head, a view shed into the area. The
applicant will talk about what they feel is that would create a hardship on their development, or
their subdivision application this evening so they’ll discuss that and discuss that issue with you.
And then the trail is really the premiere aspect of the entire Bluff Creek area, and this particular
application includes a…section of the trail. Bridge. It will have an overpass. Over the top of the
creek. And then as you move north, there will eventually be an underpass under Lyman
Boulevard at this location and when Lyman Boulevard is upgraded. Some questions on the
layout.
Scharfenberg: No park proposed in the Preserve area, correct?
Hoffman: In here? Yes. An association amenity right here.
Scharfenberg: Right.
Hoffman: And then this would be, as staff had proposed it a trail head for people to park and
have access to the Bluff Creek trail system. And then some ponding and just kind of a view shed
as you come down Audubon to look into the Bluff Creek area. But not a public park. The
comprehensive plan talks about parks and open space. I’m not going to go through all the, this is
pulled directly out of the comp plan. Parks are a good thing. Open space is a good thing. Parks
and open space acquisition and regulation. We obtain land for parks through a couple of
different methods. Acquisition and regulation. Acquisition refers to obtaining land through
easements, condemnation, donation or purchase. And then we also obtain land through zoning
or the subdivision ordinance where we can take approximately up to 10% of the land. It varies
depending on the density of the development, and our ordinance says 1 acre per every 75 people.
So that’s what we based our park acquisition plans off of. The proposed park and open space
acquisition in 2005, I’ve gone over them on the board. But they’re also on a chart on page 3, and
you look in public park, we talk about the 4.72 acres at Pioneer Pass. The Preserve with the 5
lots would be 2 acres plus or minus. The total of 6.72 in public park. Private park would be over
2 acres. They’ve added a couple of lots here and so it would be 2 ½, maybe 3 acres in the private
association type park. But then the thing that you really need to take notice of is the wetland
open space. You have 115 acres. It’s a total of 35% of the site and that is all the green and you
have this map in the back of your packet, if you want to look at it at your desk. So it’s the Bluff
Creek Overlay which really was designed to save those natural features within the corridor.
Granted it’s not an active park. We talk about in the report there’s a high school is that is
proposed north of here. Will be voted on most likely in November, so there’s access via the trail
system and the underpass at Lyman for future, let’s say you’re going to move in and you’re
looking for a tennis court or you’re looking for a very large athletic field to practice some
baseball or football with your children over the weekend. You can have direct access from these
neighborhoods by bike or by walking to that future high school if it’s something that is approved.
So there are a lot of features here. There is some may say a lack of real distinct neighborhood
parks, with the exception of the one to the south. And land cost has something to do with that.
The amount of open space in the Bluff Creek area has something to do with that. You just can’t
continue to consume land for parks and open space. You need to leave some of it for
Park and Recreation Commission – April 25, 2006
4
development as well. So those are the park and open. Let’s talk specifically about the Preserve.
We’ve been working with the applicant for a number of months and Outlot A, Outlot L and
Outlot N are proposed to be preserved in public ownership. Again that’s for the Bluff Creek
Overlay. A total of 34 acres on this property. We were talking before the meeting that you pay
for that land but then you need to, you know you’re not using it except for open space
designation and then it just about doubles the price of the remaining land that is potentially used
for development. Outlot H, as I noted was currently shown as a single lot. The applicant has
agreed to combine that with Lots 1 and 2, Block 11 into recreational space to enhance the value
to the neighborhood. So as you drive through the neighborhood, to and from your home, you
have a nice, commons area in the center where you could, they’re proposing a playground there
so for 15-20 minutes or half hour in the evening or on the weekend you can meet some of your
neighbors there with young children. Talk about what’s going on in the community. Become a
neighborhood and let your kids play in the playground. And then you also have some space if
you wanted to play some pick up catch games or something like that. There’s enough space in
there for those type of uses. And the applicant has expressed a willingness to accept that
recommendation. Some places like on this map it’s shown in all the pink. Other places it’s
shown as a single lot with still the two residential lots on it so don’t be confused by that. Staff is
also recommending again that Lots 1 through 5, Block 1 be eliminated from the plat. It’s that
property situated adjacent to Lyman, so you’ve got a sanitary sewer lift station across the road.
A future industrial park development connected to it. It’s physically isolated which some say is
good. Some say would not be good for a residential neighborhood, but again staff, and that
includes Community Development Director Kate Aanenson and our City Engineer, Paul Oehme
and myself, we’re recommending that those be acquired as public open space and again for a
variety of uses. We don’t underestimate view corridors in the community. Highway 5 has been
very successful in preserving view corridors into open space. That’s one of the values that our
community holds is as you drive around, you can see into these places. They’re not, the views
are not blocked. That’s one of the reasons we acquired the lot just to the north of that little lift
station. That’s a 4 acre parcel that was purchased in a past open space referendum to allow that
view to the north, that goes up to the new high school. As a ponding location for future road
improvements, you’re probably all familiar with the south half of Audubon is not upgraded as of
yet. The last time the north half was upgraded, council said you know it’s still a rural road and it
still needs to be upgraded now some 15 years later, and there’ll need to be additional ponding to
take the water off of that road from the curb and gutter down into a ponding area so this could be
one location for that ponding. And then also for a trail head, the Bluff Creek corridor, 4 mile
trail. 4 plus miles of trail throughout there going north and south, will be a regional and more a
local draw so people living off the corridor could drive to this location. Park at a trail head.
Look at a map kiosk and decide if they want to go north or south, and then take off on a bike trip,
either to Chaska to the south LRT or they could go north to Minnewashta Regional Park so they
would have a trail head in the center. Talking about trails, or continuing that conversation. What
we ask is that the applicant work on the design, engineering, the construction of the trail as a part
of their development. It makes it a more fluid process, and then we as a city and as a community
pay for the construction costs and materials, and they will absorb the cost for engineering,
construction as a part of their proposal. This practice has been done up and down the Bluff
Creek corridor and other areas throughout the city, and has worked really well for the
community. And then the applicant is also responsible to build a connector trails. Obviously
when you have this beautiful resource right next to your neighborhood, you want to connect
Park and Recreation Commission – April 25, 2006
5
people to it and so they’re currently showing two connectors, and we just missed a third. The
third is really north… We have one on the north coming through this area. One to the center.
We’re actually showing two on here. I think it’s the one at this location because of some grade
concerns in the center one. But then we need to go with this third one coming down here so it
can connect out to the street, actually the end of this street and then a connection up to the north.
To get people from the neighborhood down into the Bluff Creek trail corridor. So the
recommendations that we are giving the commission to consider, and to form some sort of a
recommendation to City Council are, one. The payment of full park dedication fees at a rate in
force at the time of the final plat. And then a note to that, that a percentage of those fees may be
dedicated, granted back to the applicant in the event that we do acquire the five lots on the north
side of the development. The northwest side of the development. Two, that the applicant shall
provide all design, engineering, construction and testing services required in the Bluff Creek
trail. All construction documents shall be delivered to the park director and the city engineer for
approval prior to the initiation of each phase of the construction. It may be built in a single
phase. It may be built in multiple phases. The trail shall be 10 feet wide, surfaced with
bituminous material and constructed to meet all city specifications. The applicant shall be
reimbursed for the actual cost of the construction materials for Bluff Creek, and that includes the
bridge and the other elements that go along with that bridge. And then this reimbursement
payment shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and receipt of an invoice
from the applicant documenting those costs. Three, that Outlot H be enlarged by the two lots.
Two additional lots. Lots 1 and Lot 2, Block 11. And that the resulting property be utilized as a
private association operated open space and recreational sites. And then finally that Outlots A,
B, L and H, the Bluff Creek open space area be conveyed to the city as public property by
warranty deed. And I’ll be happy to answer any questions that you have for staff. And then
would ask that the commission give the applicants a chance to speak as well.
Scharfenberg: Okay. Jack, any questions for Todd?
Spizale: I’ve got one. Why are some of these marked public streets and private streets?
Brian Sullivan: Hi, I’m Brian Sullivan with Ryland Homes. The development, you almost have
to kind of back up quite a ways to kind of get to the answer of that but as we were working
through the site planning and looking at the Degler property, and looking at different ways of
developing it. We looked at coming in here with townhouse type development and we looked at
traditional single family type of development, and as we’re studying the marketplace and trying
to determine what was the best fit for this piece of property, and looking at the Bluff Creek
Overlay zone and the wetlands that are on the property and all, kind of all these issues kind of
combined together. We came up with this concept that we’ve been working on in some of other
communities which is a little bit smaller, little bit smaller lot that still has all the amenities that
people are looking for so we had this whole issue with the public right now, they still want 3 car
garage but they don’t necessarily want a large yard with it and as we worked in other
communities, you start to look at what a 3 car garage does and what does the streetscape as
you’re driving through a community and what you’ll see is all garages, a lot of garage doors and
not much front of the house here so what we worked, and been working on is this concept of a
cannon stalled garage so we have a 3 car garage but one of the garage stalls is actually behind
one of the other cars so throughout most the development here you’ll see only 2 garage doors
Park and Recreation Commission – April 25, 2006
6
instead of 3 garage doors. So that was one of the kind of concepts that we’re working on here.
And then we’re also playing with this idea of clustering the development and clustering has to do
with this whole idea of trying to pull things away from the creek as much as possible. And one
of the ways to help minimize the size of the development and minimize the amount of impacts
under the creek as to cluster the homes, which is a little bit smaller lots that we’re proposing, and
also look at what we can do in the right-of-way and so working with the city staff we determined
where the public streets need to be and the right-of-way width that would have all the kind of
traditional sidewalks and traditional setbacks from the street that the city wants and something
that the city can maintain. Snowplows can go through easily and all that kind of stuff so, there’s
some public streets throughout the development there that are labeled as public. But then as
we’re working through parts of the, we developed these kind of loops off the public street that
are private streets. They’re still the same width as the public street. They’re the same width that
they’re asking for that meets the city standards for width of the street, but we have narrowed that
right-of-way width down. Instead of being I think it’s 60 feet, it’s actually 42 or 41 feet, so those
streets are a private street. They’re still within the, and it’s a private easement that goes over the
top of it as a private right-of-way but, and they’re maintained by the Homeowners Association
but the streets private streets instead of public streets and they’re maintained by the homeowners
association. So kind of a long winded answer as to how we got there but it has to do with trying
to pull back from the Bluff Creek overlay zone as much as possible. And trying to address some
of the needs of the buying public and trying to provide a nice nitch within the larger
neighborhoods here as to house style that’s, that provides something a little bit different than
what the larger lots on the Sever Peterson property and the stuff that Town and Country’s doing,
the multi family stuff there so. That’s how we kind of got to this.
Spizale: So the public streets are going to have sidewalks?
Brian Sullivan: Yes. All the streets have sidewalks. Have sidewalks along side.
Spizale: The private ones too?
Brian Sullivan: Yes.
Spizale: Okay.
Brian Sullivan: And that was part of…too is to make sure it’s a very walkable neighborhood and
the sidewalks all connect to the trails, the private trails that lead down to the Bluff Creek trail and
all that so.
Murphy: Sorry to interrupt. Did you say sidewalks on one side or both sides?
Brian Sullivan: I think they’re on one side, yeah. The main public street might have sidewalks
on both sides but.
Hoffman: It does.
Park and Recreation Commission – April 25, 2006
7
Brian Sullivan: Yeah. There’s some recommendations by city staff to, some of the streets with
sidewalks on both sides. They said remove some of these and to be honest with you I’m not
sure why that’s being done but they had some engineering reasons for that. To remove some of
them.
Hoffman: Planning staff is recommending sidewalks on one side of the public streets. Or
private, excuse me.
Scharfenberg: Jack, any other questions?
Spizale: No.
Scharfenberg: Jeff.
Daniel: Todd, I do have one question. The trail coming down from, that’s on Audubon right
now. That stops off at I think Valley Creek North or South. Right at that point. Is that going to
be extended all the way down to?
Hoffman: It will. When Audubon is upgraded.
Daniel: Okay. So it is going to be. Alright. And with regards to some of the changes that we’re
recommending as far as with the, the lots that are off The Preserve right here. I’m just kind of
thinking things out as far as how that might have an impact on it obviously and so, I think that’s
about it. All I have.
Scharfenberg: Anne.
Murphy: Just a question on the trail connections and the trail heads. Are those the responsibility
of the city or the?
Hoffman: The trail head would be built by the city. The trail connectors, which are private
coming out of the development, are the responsibility of the applicant. And then the public trail,
which is down in the creek corridor, will be built by the applicant but we will reimburse them for
the material cost.
Murphy: So that’s included, the trail connector’s included in this recommendation? I just didn’t
see trail connector anywhere so.
Hoffman: Yeah, they can use those as trail connectors.
Murphy: Okay.
Scharfenberg: Paula.
Atkins: Todd, can you show me on that map where the high school would be built? The
general.
Park and Recreation Commission – April 25, 2006
8
Scharfenberg: Way up in that left hand corner.
Atkins: That’s what I thought.
Hoffman: Starting at this corner and, and the first debate will be whether or not this intersection
will turn into a full intersection or not. Or take people straight into the high school site right
here.
Daniel: Todd, where’s the entrance going to be? At least theoretically. Is it going to be at the T
of Lyman there or is it going to be kind of where that barn is right now?
Hoffman: Yeah, maybe one here. There might be one up farther… It would have two access
points at a minimum onto Lyman.
Scharfenberg: Tom, any questions?
Kelly: So it’s the city’s responsibility for all plowing?
Hoffman: The creek, comprehensive trail in the creek is the other one would not be. There’d be
plows as part of the private, and then the neighborhood, the private drives. Trails.
Scharfenberg: And would the applicant, do they have any? Go ahead.
Dan Cook: I’ve had a cold for the last couple of weeks so I’ll keep this relatively brief. My
name is Dan Cook with Pemtom and I think Chanhassen has a great deal to be proud of with the
parks and foresight of this beautiful Bluff Creek Overlay District. Todd and I talked today and I
think we both agreed that this is going to be a spectacular amenity to the community. And both
Pemtom and Ryland are very proud to be associated with this project and bring this vision to a
reality. One thing that, and I’ll keep this relatively short and then if you have any design
questions or things like that, I can…but we really had a challenge, and Todd brought this up
briefly and essentially the level of cost increased in assessments to this Preserve project since
November, 2005, which is about 6 months has gone up dramatically. And the projected
assessments of record for the new 212 and MUSA assessment increased from $1,486,879 to
$1,782,054 just over that period of time so that totals almost $295,175, which is a pretty big
upcharge. Along with that the storm water management ponding fees increased from $158,098
to $242,760, so that went up about $84,662, which again was a pretty big increase. And then
along with that, the park dedication fees increased from $4,500 to $5,800 per lot, totally
$899,000, and that’s paid at the recording of the final plat. So that increase was again another
$211,500. So with these three, just these three line items, and hopefully you know who knows
what the future brings but you never know, that increased the project in those 6 months over
$581,340, which brings an increase of about 40%. And you know we really feel that the project
is going to be really compromised by losing you know 5 lots, valuable lots. They’re narrow
walkout, south exposure lots off of Lyman, and we talked about that a little bit today. But I
guess what we’d like to pledge is we really worked hard with the city and we really want to
thank the staff for all the progress that we’ve made on this project, and we realize, as everyone
Park and Recreation Commission – April 25, 2006
9
does, this has really been a moving target for everybody. Todd and I talked about this today and
we’d like to solve you know these economic issues together and what we’re faced regarding this
project. I don’t know if…we talked today and Todd’s communication with the rest of the staff
regarding this. That’s not a surprise to anybody.
Scharfenberg: Tom, any questions for Dan?
Kelly: Not right now, no.
Scharfenberg: Okay, Paula.
Atkins: The lots in question are the ones right against Lyman? On both sides of that street or
just one side?
Dan Cook: Those are these 5 lots that.
Daniel: In the yellow up there, in the corner. You’ll see them.
Hoffman: Just on one side. The east side of that.
Dan Cook: Eventually we kind of reconfigured those lots several times with some of the staff’s
input on it to just make it better… This is guided industrial right now but they are looking at the
possibility for residential. Now whether or not that comes to pass, we don’t know but we also,
regardless of what happens we feel that this access is going to be valuable to some degree to the
people…regardless of what happens to this. Ideally from our standpoint, just because of the
topography of the land, we feel it would be an asset I think to possibly blend some residential
here and some industrial, but I think a lot of those decisions are going to be dependent upon what
happens to the Dorsey and Fox piece because they’re still kind of going through the process.
Kelly: If you could come back to me.
Scharfenberg: Yeah.
Kelly: I apologize. So your proposal is not to have that connector right there?
Dan Cook: Yeah, we want this here. I mean we are asking for this, along with there’s 5 lots
right in here as well.
Hoffman: If the lots stay, the trail would just go around them.
Dan Cook: And we talked about that. I mean maybe there’s a way that you know smaller they
can compromise but I guess we’re just kind of in the process of trying to get that to all work for
everybody.
Scharfenberg: Dan why, you said that the project would be compromised without those 5 lots.
Why would it be compromised?
Park and Recreation Commission – April 25, 2006
10
Dan Cook: Just because of the economics of it. I mean right now we absorb it. Ryland Homes
would absorb a portion of it. The City would absorb a portion of it. The bottom line is,
ultimately it gets down to the consumer. The end user and I think that that’s one thing that I
think we all have to kind of look out for. By losing those lots we have an attached value on
those…based on the other costs that we’ve already kind of incurred in a short period. And again,
I don’t think it was anybody’s fault. It was just something that happened. It really is…
Daniel: Dan is the, from what I understand of the development, is the average price of the home,
I guess cumulative around $400,000? $425?
Dan Cook: Yeah, I think it’s going to depend upon what the people put into it. They’re going to
be walkout. A lot of them are going to be walkouts. I think some of the ones that are on the
bluff, you can finish those lower levels. I think those are going to be, you know those can…
The nice thing about this project thought is even though it has a 2 car garage that faces the street,
it’s a tandem so there’s an extra garage so even people with snowmobiles or storage or whatever,
they’ve got the ability to do that. So it’s kind, it is. It’s a unique product right now. …anyone
other than…is doing a project similar to this down in Savage…So this is something that is, you
know I think with the baby boomers, some of them having a home here maybe. They want to get
rid of their bigger houses. Maybe have something smaller. They don’t want to live in attached
type housing. They want detached housing. I think that fits that market real well. And then first
time home buyers, I think empty nesters to some degree. People are looking for more of a low
maintenance lifestyle. People that you know…
Daniel: As I look at the 5 lots here in comparison to some of the other sizes, of lots, and based
off their isolation and the view that they have, I assume they’re going to be exponentially that
much more expensive, as well, not only the lot but also the home that’s on there?
Dan Cook: Yeah. You know that’s hard to say. Like I say, this has been reconfigured
now…reconfigured lots but there’s still 5 lots there. You know one negative thing is there’s a
lift station there, as Todd pointed that out, and we kind of go back and forth. If I were to buy a
place here, I’d really kind of like this because I like privacy and just having a few homes there. I
suppose if you had children who wanted to play with other kids and things, you’d maybe want…
I think there’s a strong market for that just because they’re south facing and they’re walkout lots
so…
Scharfenberg: Anne, you have any questions?
Murphy: For those 5 lots, you’re saying that you need the land? It’s not an issue where you
talked about any park dedication fees for those lots or, in lieu of the land itself.
Dan Cook: Well I think that this conversation really has to be kind of continued with staff and
you know hopefully come to some kind of…and we talked about yesterday and I talked about
with Kate... Hopefully we’ll get it solved right…part of the project economically and it’s really
been like a moving target for the city as well as us to try to make everything…
Park and Recreation Commission – April 25, 2006
11
Daniel: Actually, I mean based off of what’s gone on, and I’m strictly making assumptions and
mind thought process. Looking at the 5 lots and in comparison to what probably would be going
in there as far as the hallmark, again what you guys make because I think that will be about a
year from now. Housing prices will go up accordingly. If I do the math, that’s let’s say if
they’re half a million dollars, even $600,000 homes, it’s about $3 million dollars impact to the
overall cost of the project. Would that be a good statement, as far as just revenue? Not
necessarily in income but.
Dan Cook: Well I think yeah…but if we, depending on what happens with those lots, that would
be maybe the retail type of a thing. I guess what we’d like to do is end up with some kind of a
compromise and just look at it as a reality. What are we really losing and what’s the city going
to gain there? The other thing that’s notable I guess is that this project’s going to be phased in
three phases, and anticipate that somewhere in this area will be the first phase. Second phase and
then this will be the following phase, and our park dedication fees are all paid up front so those
will be paid in June or July… So that’s $900,000 in park dedication fees that we’re paying…
that we theoretically won’t be using for 3 years because I think Brian’s staff has kind of looked
at their absorption rate and how long it’s going to take to work through this project in scope. I
guess to answer you question, the…sit down and work with staff and get Ryland and
everybody’s input…
Daniel: My only concern would be on this particular project, if there were single homes there,
kind of similar to what I see on Kerber Boulevard and Lake Lucy Road.
Dan Cook: They’d be the same as these homes that you see here…
Daniel: Sure, but you know basically when you have a stand alone development, and this is
really what it’s going to be when you’re separated from the main community like that, and
there’s one house that McDonald Construction has and it’s been for sale for almost a year and a
half now, so if you’re, I see two things that are very similar in that situation. Number one, you’re
on a main thorough way. Lyman’s very much similar to how, as far as access to the city as
Powers is, with a 50 miles an hour zone. Number two is that you are leading up to a potentially,
and I don’t know Todd, is there going to be another access point off of?
Hoffman: Audubon.
Daniel: Audubon. So there’ll be two access points. So basically, you know as far as
commercial traffic going through there, depending upon what type of industry goes in, so those
would be my two concerns. Why, from your perspective I guess I’d take a look at what’s, what
other developments around the city there and where they’re having problems moving product
based off it kind of being isolated because that McDonald Construction project, and I might be
wrong but if you noticed, it’s not moving, and that’s because of the traffic. And it might have to
do with the design of the home. The lay of the lots. I’m sure there’s other factors.
Dan Cook: You know it’s kind of a..that’s a question that personally I wouldn’t have a problem
with it just because I like the privacy and I think just the venue of these lots, and I don’t know
the McDonald lots that you’re talking about but these are going to be spectacular…
Park and Recreation Commission – April 25, 2006
12
Daniel: Sure. Yeah, McDonald’s stare at Powers or a back yard.
Dan Cook: …it’s not bad so.
Scharfenberg: Jack, any questions?
Spizale: No questions.
Kelly: Could I ask one more about the… If you did have the lots, the trail would just come right
through? Right through that area but because of the lots you’re kind of forcing the trail to kind
of run parallel with the lots around, and taking a cut, is that the issue in terms of how these 5 lots
and the trail?
Hoffman: Yeah, the trail would look different under each scenario. The function would be the
same. Depending on how, if you take 5 lots out and you build a trail head and a pond, it depends
on where the appropriate location for the pond. Appropriate location for the trail head and then
how the trail would wind through there. Just to give you a little bit more information on this
touch down point. What’s likely to happen is that the trail will cross. This is shown on this red
line on that map. On the underpass. Then it will go across street grade, and then like it’s shown
on here, it can actually come in front and go through the lot. It could go down to the creek and
around. That will be a street crossing right here at this location so. The final design…
Kelly: You want to get something to link up with the trail that dead ends right at.
Hoffman: Audubon.
Kelly: Which is a great trail. You take that’s one of the nicer trails in the city. I think.
Daniel: Dan in terms of the amenities, the open space that you’ve got, is it just the totlot? Is
there going to be a pool included in there?
Brian Sullivan: The private park area would just have a totlot for now. There’s a gazebo being
proposed there also. And we’ve left the rest of the area open for active play. Pick up games or
tossing the ball around, that type of thing is what’s being proposed there now.
Daniel: So there is some open space in addition to the totlot?
Brian Sullivan: Yes there is.
Daniel: Okay.
Scharfenberg: Any other questions? Any discussion? We have a motion to accept staff’s
recommendation with respect to.
Brian Sullivan: Can I interrupt?
Park and Recreation Commission – April 25, 2006
13
Scharfenberg: Yeah, go ahead.
Brian Sullivan: Just one question about park dedication fees. Whether that could be, whether it
could be paid for when we pull building permits instead of at the, when we submit the final plat.
I don’t know if that’s a policy issue or not. Changing the recommendations that I’d like to
request, or to consider anyway.
Hoffman: The ordinance requires it at time of final plat. In the past the City has, the ordinance
had allowed payment of one-third at time of plat and then two-third, the remaining two-third at
the time of building permit. But it was an administrative nightmare. It has not, did not follow
that practice for a half a dozen years now and it continues to be an administrative nightmare as
we get rid of those lots that we are still collecting two-thirds of park dedication fees, which
change on an annual basis and so right now we have about 85 different rates for park fees that
we’re trying to weed out and get rid of so the answer is, from staff’s perspective is no, I don’t
think the council would approve that. It’s our current ordinance that it’s collected at the time of
final plat.
Scharfenberg: Does that answer your question?
Brian Sullivan: Not the right way.
Scharfenberg: Alright. Do I have a motion with respect to staff’s recommendation for the
Preserve PUD?
Hoffman: Back to the fees, the one bonus is then they don’t pay the increases for the next 2
years so that’s the off setting.
Scharfenberg: We need a motion.
Murphy: Motion to approve staff’s recommendation for the Preserve PUD.
Scharfenberg: Do I have a second?
Atkins: I’ll second.
Scharfenberg: Any further discussion?
Murphy moved, Atkins seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
the City Council require the following conditions of approval concerning parks and trails
for the Preserve PUD:
1. The payment of full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final plat approval in
lieu of parkland dedication. Note: A percentage of park fees may be credited as a
portion of any future compensation for the acquisition of developable lands in the area
currently depicted as Lot 1.
Park and Recreation Commission – April 25, 2006
14
2. The applicant shall provide all design, engineering, construction and testing services
required of the “Bluff Creek Trail”. All construction documents shall be delivered to the
Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer for approval prior to the initiation of
each phase of construction. The trail shall be 10 feet in width, surfaced with bituminous
material and constructed to meet all city specifications. The applicant shall be
reimbursed for the actual cost of construction materials for the Bluff Creek Trail. This
reimbursement payment shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and
receipt of an invoice documenting the actual costs for the construction materials utilized
in it’s construction.
3. Outlot H be enlarged through the addition of the land area currently depicted as Lots 1
and 2, Block 11. The resulting property to be utilized as a private association operated
recreational and open space site.
4. Outlots A, B, L and H be conveyed to the city as public property by warranty deed.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Scharfenberg: Thank you for, Pemtom for coming and addressing our questions and hopefully
you will continue to work with staff and iron out all those issues.
Dan Cook; Thank you very much.
Scharfenberg: You bet.
RECREATION PROGRAM REPORTS:
2006 EASTER EGG CANDY HUNT.
Ruegemer: Thank you Steve. Rest of the commission, good evening. Just wanted to go through
kind of an evaluation of the Easter Egg Candy Hunt that happened on Saturday, April 15th out at
the Recreation Center. This was the first year that we did have an admission fee for that of
$3.00. Our total kids registered was 283. 177 pre-registered and 106 the day of registrations for
a total of 283, which is down roughly oh about 115-120 roughly. We didn’t really have any hard
numbers from the past but those were just kind of estimates for that so they were down I think a
little bit. And was that associated with the fee? Was it a nice weekend and people did other
things? It’s kind of the question of the day. It was a beautiful day out. Held the candy hunt
outside after the performance by the Splatter Sisters and everybody certainly walked away with a
bag full of candy, which was fun to see the kids having fun out there. The festivities you know
take place within the recreation center, as far as the coloring contest. The performance by the
Splatter Sisters itself was in the gym, so the rec center really does provide really an ideal venue
for that. Has a lot of activity in room out there. It’s nice having the amenities outside to host the
candy hunt, which was a fun event. The Key Club members again did help out with setting up
and assisting with the coloring contest area. They dressed up in bunny costumes, which is good
so then I didn’t have to do that so, which was nice to see those young legs hopping around. The
Park and Recreation Commission – April 25, 2006
15
kids always enjoy getting some pictures and stuff with that as well. We also did, if those of the
commissioners that were at the Daddy Daughter Date Night, the trellis that was there, we did
decorate that up and have the bunnies take pictures with the kids at that area too to kind of have
something a little new for that so that was kind of well received. So the, again it was a nice
event. We did receive some Timberwolves tickets from the Minnesota Timberwolves for signing
up for a recreation program that’s going to be coming up here later on in the summer time, so we
gave those out to parents that were coming in, which was kind of nice to kind of give something
back to the parents as well so it was an all around, a real fun event. On the back side there’s just
some recommendations for next year again. The rec center’s an ideal place for that. We haven’t
put the candy, the start times on the candy hunt flyers and stuff for quite a while now, which is
smart to do in case people show up late and miss their time by age group so. Registration tables,
we certainly could work on a little bit to help the flow with that. We continue to hand out bags
of stuff for kids who didn’t have any so everybody had a bag there to collect their candy. And
Nate put on a 3 year old category for the coloring contest. I’ve seen the 3 year old coloring
contest and I don’t know that that’s necessary for next year but the commission certainly can
discuss that at length if they’d like to. And then also we would look to again next year at
securing some different entertainment for the show to try to you know kind of keep it fresh and
move forward with that as well. So kind of the total take for the revenue, we did take in $849 in
revenue that we hadn’t collected in the past, and that did help offset our bottom line of expenses
for the overall program. Certainly the money that we do take in from the sponsorship program
does go to help offset any types of expenses that we do have and we do incur from the overall
candy supplies and the entertainment and that sort of thing so, it’s been a long standing tradition
of our special events in town that people certainly do appreciate them.
Scharfenberg: Any questions for Jerry?
Spizale: Glenn and I were there and the people that, I thought we might get a couple complaints
as far as the fee. We had one person complain, was a grandpa with one child which really
surprised me, but people didn’t have any problem forking over the money. They thought it was a
great deal. There didn’t seem to be a problem there. Kids were really into the coloring contest.
I mean they were pretty proud, the ones that were handing them in to Glenn and I, they were
pretty proud of their work. That was kind of a neat thing, and as Glenn and I were sitting there
talking and it got less busy, we came up with an idea, and I don’t know if it would work or not
but we have different fees for different events in Chanhassen. Would there ever be a possibility
of selling like a city pass that say costs $10 or $15 where you could get into every event? As a
thought. Just some type of thing that’s good for the year and you could get into the ice fishing
contest. Get into the, anything that we have. Just as a thought. Something to think about, but it
worked really well. It was really fun. Perfect day.
Scharfenberg: Good, thank you for doing that.
Spizale: Yeah, it was fun.
Scharfenberg: Alright. Fourth of July.
Park and Recreation Commission – April 25, 2006
16
2006 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION REPORT.
Ruegemer: It’s kind of a heads up for the commission. We’ve been certainly, Nate and I have
been talking about the 4th of July celebration for quite a while now. Kind of getting kind of the
schedule of events and everything put into place. We’ve had a couple meetings already with the
Rotary in anticipation of this year’s Taste of Chanhassen parade. We met last week with Jim
Olson with Carver County Sheriff Department, representing kind of the public safety aspect of
that. Mike Wegler, our Street Superintendent, Nate, myself and a member of the Chan Rotary to
kind of go over the parade route and alleviate any types of problem areas, and that sort of thing.
Kind of get everybody kind of up to speed as far as traffic flow. Ordering signs and cones and
that sort of thing. Kind of get ahead of the game here a little bit because it will be here before we
know it. So we’re just trying to keep in contact with them. We have another meeting scheduled
for 2 to 3 weeks from now to kind of keep with the flow with our planning process. The parade
and that will be the same route as last year. We’re going to try to maybe re-work the staging
areas a little bit to help alleviate some of the, one of the front of the parade meets the back of the
parade and they haven’t left the gate yet so we’re trying to kind of alleviate some of the problems
that occurred a little bit last year with kind of the gaps and stuff that we’ve had in the parade and
that sort of thing so. The Rotary’s been real nice to work with again this year on that. Jeff
Anderson’s the overall 4th of July Chair this year. He’s been real nice to work with. Looking
ahead to our 3rd of July, obviously the commission has recommended approval for the CBO, the
Casablanca Orchestra contract and that is all secured and ready to go. Nate’s been real busy
talking with food vendors and other types of entertainment for that. We will be kind of working
on a little bit more now in detail, kind of the overall flow and layout again of the kind of, you
know whole kind of tent area. We’ve had some discussions on a staff level as to where
everything’s going to kind of go and we’ll kind of finalize that then and work through a lot of
those areas here in the near future. The fireworks contract was approved by council I believe
April 10th. We’ll meet with Melrose again which we’ve used for a number of years in the past
now. So Nate’s kind of working on a lot of the busy details right now, kind of getting everything
kind of put into place with contract with food vendors and entertainment and a lot of those types
of things and kind of he’s diving right in and rolling up his sleeves and we’ll have another great,
successful event again this year. If you look on the third page, it’s kind of a list of tentative
activities at this point. You know we’re just really kind of thinking ahead a little bit and trying to
kind of make everything a little bigger, a little better here. Just with expanded pony, the pony
ring and a couple water war games and other things that will enhance the flow of the event so.
We’ve been real busy with that and it will be another great event and certainly if there’s any
discussion items or suggestions that the commission would like to pass on to staff, we certainly
would entertain that at this time.
Kelly: How many food vendors did we have last year?
Ruegemer: I’m going to say about 9 or 10.
Kelly: I guess what was the reason for cutting down to 6.
Ruegemer: I don’t know if it’s cut down. We’re in the process of securing all those. I think at
the time when Nate wrote, I think we had confirmation from everybody except for one, so I think
Park and Recreation Commission – April 25, 2006
17
we’re up more than 6 at this point. And we’re certainly working with the Rotary as well and
adding some additional vendors from the community.
Hoffman: Some of the Taste of Chanhassen vendors will be serving food as well.
Atkins: Has the business there been, the time been increased on that a little bit?
Ruegemer: I know Nate’s had some conversations with the Chamber on that and you know, I’ll
have to, I don’t know the answer to that tonight but we certainly can find that out.
Hoffman: It’s 3 hours longer than it used to be.
Atkins: Yeah.
Ruegemer: Yeah, it used to be 2.
Atkins: That’s a lot of stuff for people to hand out that extra hour. But there’s a lot of people
that are there all the time too. We run out at stuff at the Park and Rec booth.
Murphy: We did run out kind of early last year.
Hoffman: We’re a public agency. We’re a little tight.
Scharfenberg: Any other questions for Jerry? Thank you Jerry.
Ruegemer: Thank you.
Scharfenberg: Just a note, Commissioner Kelly did show up here during the Pemtom
presentation so that was, comments were by Tom. Some of those comments.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. None.
COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Hoffman: Thank you Chair Scharfenberg, members of the commission. Last night the council,
specifically Councilman Lundquist wanted to have a continued conversation regarding the skate
park. Last Monday night, a week ago Monday at 6:00 we had a child from Chanhassen take out
a knife at the skate park and threaten another child at the park. Some of the friends of the child
that was threaten with the knife responded by walking over to city hall. Catching some of the
deputies at shift change and the deputies responded and they did arrest the juvenile for assault
with a weapon and so, that has alarmed at least one member of the council. Councilman
Lundquist and he wants to continue the community conversation about what we can do to make
sure that the skate park is a safe environment. As I think all of you are aware, it’s very popular
in our community, but we do, when you have oh, you know 300-400 kids a week attending your
Park and Recreation Commission – April 25, 2006
18
skate park, you’re bound to have some incidents. We’ve had in the past, by an large it’s a nice
facility. Widely attended and goes without incident. We do pick up trash on a daily basis but so,
you’ll probably see that written up in the paper this week. Wanted to make the commission
aware before you saw that in the paper. So we’ll see how the article comes out.
Scharfenberg: Todd with respect to that, in terms of recommendations. I know with a juvenile it
all depends on what they’ll do but can we make recommendations, I know we don’t have
anybody there on site but you know, ban this individual from the park for a year if he is there.
Hoffman: Yes. If the charges are upheld, we’ll go ahead and write that individual a letter and
you know restrict him from the skate park.
Scharfenberg: Okay. Forever or just for a period of time?
Hoffman: It could be a decision made on how the outcome of the charges come out.
Scharfenberg: Okay. Alright. Were you at the meeting last night?
Hoffman: Yes.
Scharfenberg: Council meeting. Is the council looking to us for any recommendations or when
you say continued talk with the community. I know we had last year we brought everybody in
and talked about different options and the fact that we can’t, is it prohibitive at this point to put
somebody there to monitor and then have to pay? I mean we don’t want to do that. We want the
parents to take ownership to some extent to watch and.
Hoffman: It will be scheduled at a council work session, and I’m not quite sure how it will, if
members of the commission will be present. Members of the public because probably right now
what I would think would happen is the council’s going to discuss it and then seek some action
and they would probably look back to the park commission again to hold another public meeting
if they felt that was appropriate and then we could continue on. We’ve talked about, if you put
an attendant there, who that has to be and it really has to be a deputy or at least a community
service officer at the very least. That’s expensive. If this community wants to get in the business
of you know, providing police service at the skate park so you can take over for the parents role
in our community, that’s going to be a 60, 70, 80,000 dollar issue on an annual basis. It’s pretty
expensive for a public park service so. I’m not quite sure where it’s headed as of yet but.
Scharfenberg: Other than this one incident, and I’m not going to say it’s isolated but since the
park’s been re-opened this year, how are the other issues of trash and those, is that continuing to
be an issue and language and that?
Hoffman: It seems to be a little bit better. Trash seems to be better. Sergeant Olson and I had a
conversation about language. We’re not quite sure, other than the fact that somebody assaults
you with language, that you can really do anything about swearing in a public park. You know if
a kid flips his board and he swears, it’s really not an offense. It’s a freedom of speech and if he
Park and Recreation Commission – April 25, 2006
19
turns to somebody else and verbally assaults them, then that’s an offense that they can be
charged with so.
Scharfenberg: Does anybody else have any other questions?
Atkins: How is it working out with the bikes in there?
Hoffman: No issues. Really not been a whole lot of use with the bikes. So no conflicts as yet.
I’ve seen just a handful of bikes over there since the spring we opened it up and allowing bikes.
Murphy: Just to refresh my memory. I apologize, how long did we close the park, the skate park
last year when it was closed?
Hoffman: Two times last year. Once for about 2 weeks and once about a week.
Daniel: What type of impact did it have? I mean what response did you get from either the
parents or the skaters themselves.
Hoffman: You know it’s hard to gauge, but I think if you study human behavior, if you have
people that are likely to behave in a manner that is not appropriate and they’re likely to do that,
whether you close the skate park down or whether you keep it open so, those kids who are you
know likely to go ahead and behave in that manner, if the park was closed for 2 weeks and
they’re going to show up and they’re going to say oh, now I’m going to stop because they’re
going to close the park again? I’m not quite sure that that’s the effect that we’re having. It
certainly raises the level of awareness of the issue in the community because it gets written up in
the paper. The park is closed and so you know we’re hoping that there’s some positive effect but
it’s impossible to measure really.
Scharfenberg: Jeff the response last year when we had this issue was that we had quite a few
people that came that night and spoke positively of the skate park and the benefits that it
provides the community and as you could imagine, it’s you know, 2% that ruin it for the rest of
the other 98% and so it’s kind of trying to deal with that 2%, and that’s kind of what we’re
struggling with. Because it’s a great opportunity for kids and a great park but we can’t let you
know, we can’t have threats or intimidation or you know people writing in graffiti and stuff like
that. That just can’t go on either so we struggle with what do you do when that’s been our
discussion over the last year.
Kelly: To be honest the kids, they…ask for a better outcome if someone had a knife come over
and getting the deputy. Getting it resolved just like that so I think the kids that were there did the
right thing.
Daniel: Yeah, I mean that’s kind of a testament to solving really what is a terrible situation.
That’s the absolute correct way. You couldn’t have done it any better if you said it. So I mean if
there’s any type of hope for correction to address the problem, I think that in itself by definition
seems to solve it. Have there been any other studies for deterrents are? Have we, has the
commission at all done any type of investigations of other monitoring alternatives?
Park and Recreation Commission – April 25, 2006
20
Hoffman: We’ve talked about a camera. We’ve talked about parent associations and have talked
about staffing it.
Spizale: I think for as many kids use that park, we don’t really have that many incidents. I mean
there’s kids there right now. They use it all the time so really we don’t seem to have that much
of a problem. When we do, it does get publicized.
Hoffman: Well your user numbers are very large. And business or any attraction when you have
large numbers, you have some incidents.
Daniel: How does that compare to Lake Ann?
Hoffman: Well we had, I think if you recall the deputy that testified that night said there’s
probably more incidents of record, more calls for service to Lake Ann than the skate park.
Daniel: Okay.
Hoffman: You have more robberies at Lake Ann. More incidents and Sergeant Olson last night,
he brought up a good point. If you’re the parent of a 10 year old child and you drop them off and
expect them to be unsupervised at the skate park? You know would you drop him off at Lake
Ann or Lake Susan and expect them to be unsupervised at those two parks. So there’s really
some need for, and it’s not always the kids that are in control out there. There are some parents
that do allow their child to go to the skate park, 4-5 hours a night. 4-5 nights a week and that’s
perfectly fine with the parent, and as a commission or as a community, you’re in a tough spot.
What can you do about that?
Scharfenberg: Any other, with respect to the administrative packet, anything else that needs to
be discussed?
Hoffman: Just, especially for Jeff. You’ll see the first item is a similar development review
from what we had this evening. It’s talking about Epic Development, but if there’s, if the issues
are generally administrative in nature, we’re not seeking any land acquisition. We’re not seeking
any trail development, I will present those administratively. This site is the north half of the old
driving range out on the intersection of Galpin and Highway 5. We have a park in the area.
Sugarbush Park and so I write those reports up administratively and then provide you with a
copy. And then you’re certainly always willing to comment or e-mail or talk to one of your
commission chairs, because typically when these go out, it’s at the preliminary approval and if
there needs to be adjustments or if you in fact would want to ever see one of these, we can come
down inbetween preliminary subdivision and final plat. If you’re interested in portable toilet
costs and numbers, they’re all there.
Spizale: Who knew?
Hoffman: Who knew we paid $22,000 for portable toilets, and we get more requests every year.
Park and Recreation Commission – April 25, 2006
21
Kelly: Actually I got a request from someone to see if they could be out there in the colder
months. I have a question on the administrative packet, and maybe it’s been gone. I know… an
update on the poured in place at Lake Susan.
Hoffman: The contract was awarded approximately 2 weeks ago. It needs to be done by May
23rd. So we received two bids. They were within $900 of each other and they were about $8,000
under budget. Earl F. Anderson will be the prime contractor on it and then they subcontract for
the poured in place material to be installed. Some sod has been put down. The fence is still up
and that will be up through the poured in place and then we’ll open it up, and I think we’ll meet
there as Glenn was talking just before your next meeting in May for a picnic supper and
discussion about how that project went and what else is, there’s other plans for Lake Susan. We
have expansion of the parking lots and new trail along it so we’ll talk about those and then
possibly we’ll be watching dozens of children playing on that new playground because we get a
call or two every week.
Scharfenberg: Have they started the parking lot yet?
Hoffman: Just a preliminary grading. We need to move the sand volleyball court. We need to
move some lights so we’re in the planning process.
Atkins: Is the Lake Ann parking lot being done this summer?
Hoffman: This summer after Labor Day. $395,000. The bids came in last, they came in last
week and GMH Asphalt out of Chaska will be the contractor and will not only be reclaiming a
majority of the beach lot, but then also overlaying the lots that go down to the boat access so, it’s
a long, overdue, overhaul of Lake Ann road. It will really dress up the community’s premiere
parks so we’re looking forward to that.
Daniel: Is there going to be changes done on the west side of the access point? Is that still
gravel, if I remember correctly?
Hoffman: West side?
Daniel: Of Lake Ann. It comes straight down.
Hoffman: To the beach?
Daniel: To the beach.
Hoffman: Yep, that will stay gravel. Just a gravel path.
Spizale: Say Todd, as I was looking at this, it kind of made we think of Prince’s property. Is
there any word on what’s going on with that?
Hoffman: None.
Park and Recreation Commission – April 25, 2006
22
Spizale: Because I know at some time in the future we had talked one time about doing a trail
around the lake.
Hoffman: It’s in the comprehensive plan and we’ve got properties that are subdivided and wait
for the opportunity to take ownership of the lakeshore and build that trail. Not even CJ knows
that.
Murphy: Todd, one more question off the topic but are there some changes coming to the City
Council? The make up of City Council. Isn’t Councilman Lundquist?
Hoffman: Councilman Lundquist will be running county commissioner.
Daniel: That’s public knowledge now.
Hoffman: It was written up in the paper.
Murphy: Okay.
Hoffman: And then I believe Steve Labatt’s term is up and will not be running and the Mayor
will be re-running for re-election. I don’t know if he’s publicly announced that or not, but I
believe it.
Ruegemer: You heard it here.
Hoffman: Don’t say anything.
Scharfenberg: Call CJ right now. Do I have a motion to adjourn?
Atkins moved, Kelly seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, P.E. Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: May 22, 2006
SUBJ: Lift Station No. 15: Consider Approving Quote for Improvements
PW055O
REQUESTED ACTION
Approve quote for Lift Station 15 Improvements in the amount of $37,357.84 to
Quality Flow Systems, Inc.
BACKGROUND
Annually, the City has considered improvements for lift station maintenance and
upkeep. These improvements are designed to make the sanitary lift station network
more reliable and reduce emergency calls and sanitary sewer backups. Currently, the
City maintains 30 lift stations in the system.
DISCUSSION
This year staff is requesting Lift Station 15 be improved. Lift Station 15 is located on
the north side of Lotus Lake off of Horseshoe Curve. Over the last six months, this
station has had several emergency calls. The main problem with the station can be
associated with the electrical panel that is over 30 years old. The panel can no longer
be maintained effectively and needs be replaced. Along with the panel, the pumps
and piping in the panel should be replaced. One of the pumps in the station has
broken down because of electrical problems. The other pump is also recommended
for replacement which is over 15 years old. Staff has also looked at the pumping
requirements for the lift station and it is recommended to increase the horse power of
the pumps from 7 hp to 10 hp.
Staff has received quotes for the lift station improvements as follows:
Quality Flow
Systems, Inc.
Braun Pump &
Controls
US Filter
Lift Station Panel $25,110.34 N/A $26,446.08
Replace Pumps (2
Each)
$ 9585.00 $11,076.00 N/A
Replace LS piping $2,662.50 $3,397.35 N/A
Total includes tax $37,357.84
Todd Gerhardt
May 22, 2006
Page 2
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
The City has now standardized the lift station panels with a Quality Flow Systems
panel. This is the same panel the City has standardized at the recently rehabilitated
lift stations 2 and 27. This is the same panel the City has in our standard plates for
new lift station installations. Standardization of panels is critical for ease of
maintenance and to reduce the replacement parts inventory. The quote staff has
received for lift station 15 is consistent with the other panels the City has replaced
recently.
Quality Flow submitted the lowest quotes for all the necessary components in the
amount of $37,357.84.
At this time, staff recommends approving the quote with Quality Flow Systems.
Attachment: SS-017
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Karen Engelhardt, Office Manager
DATE: May 22, 2006
SUBJ: Accept $1,500 Donation from the Family of Donald & Harriet
Elmblad for Installation of an Entry Monument to the Chanhassen
Pioneer Cemetery
The City received a $1,500 donation from the family of Donald &Harriet Elmblad
that they would like used toward the installation of an entry monument at the
Chanhassen Pioneer Cemetery. Installation of an entry monument is included in
the Capital Improvement Program and $25,000 has been budgeted.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the donation from the Elmblad family be accepted and that
the family be sent a letter of thanks.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Karen Engelhardt, Office Manager
DATE: May 22, 2006
SUBJ: Approval of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, Fourth of July
Celebration, Chanhassen Rotary Club
Attached please find an application for a temporary on-sale license from the
Chanhassen Rotary Club. The Rotary would like to sell wine, beer, and other malt
beverages (for example, Mike’s Hard Lemonade) during the Fourth of July
Celebration in City Center Park. Malt beverages would be sold during the business
fair and street dance on July 3rd and during the parade and other events on July 4th.
The Rotary has provided this service for the past few years without any incidents.
The Club is in the process of providing the city with a certificate of insurance for
the event.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Chanhassen Rotary Club’s request to sell wine,
beer and other malt beverages at the annual Fourth of July festivities on
July 3 & 4, 2006, contingent upon receipt of their liquor liability insurance
certificate. Additionally, it is recommended that the fee be set at $1.
g:\user\karen\liquor\rotary.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Don Asleson, Natural Resources Technician
DATE: May 22, 2006
SUBJ: Approval of Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes for the
Lotus Lake Slow-No Wake Ordinance
At the May 8, 2006 meeting, the City Council approved the Slow-No Wake
ordinance for Lotus Lake. A summary ordinance for publication purposes was
not included with the staff report at that time. Therefore, attached is the summary
ordinance for Council approval.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the attached summary ordinance is recommended. Action on this
item requires a simple majority vote of those Council members present.
ATTACHMENT
1. Summary Ordinance.
g:\eng\don\slow_no_wake\lotus lake\cc staff report 5-22-06.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE
This ordinance amends City Code Chapter 6 creating an automatic Slow-No Wake for
Lotus Lake. The ordinance will automatically be enforced when the lake level on Lotus Lake
exceeds 896.8 Mean Sea Level (MSL). The restriction will remain in place for three (3) days after
the water level drops below 896.8 MSL. Notice of the No-Wake condition will be posted 1) At
the Public Launch; 2) On the Water Quality Hotline; 3) On the City Web Page; 4) Community
Cable Access; 5) In an email to known Lotus Lake representatives; 6) To the Carver County
Sheriffs Department; 7) To the public by other appropriate means determined by Council.
A printed copy of the ordinance is available for inspection by any person during regular office
hours at the office of the City Manager/Clerk.
PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION this 8th day of May,
2006, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager , 2006)
g:\admin\ord\lotus lake slow no wake summary.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: May 15, 2006
SUBJ: Monthly City Council update
Fire Department Overview:
Staffing is at 46 active firefighters as of May 12, 2006, allocation is 45 PTE’s.
As of May 7, 2006, we are at 165 calls for the year, down from 184 at the same time in 2005. Since
our last council update we requested mutual aid from Shakopee for an accident/car fire.
We had a “black hat” ceremony for our rookie group A during our last business meeting. They will
be off of probationary status the first part of July. The ceremony was held now because our July
business meeting is cancelled because of the 4th of July celebration. We look to be adding 2-3
firefighters in our next rookie group. We held our annual banquet on May 5th and our firefighter of
the year was recognized along with a 35 year member and a 25 year member.
Fire Training:
The Chanhassen Fire Department completed the required Incident Management System classes
prescribed by the state during the month of April. The probationary firefighters are continuing to
attend school with the first group completing all required training this month.
Fire Marshal:
No fires to report.
Todd Gerhardt
May 15, 2006
Page 2
Fire Inspections:
Nothing new to report for new inspections. We have however been reviewing plans for a number of
buildings that are expected to start construction in the next few weeks. Existing building fire
inspections are almost complete on Lake Drive East and we will be starting restaurant inspections the
week of May 22.
Fire Prevention:
We will be making plans soon for Safety Camp and National Night Out and we are starting to receive
phone calls for firefighter visits to neighborhood block parties.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Greg Sticha, Finance Director
DATE: May 16, 2006
SUBJ: Award of Bid 2006 Bonds
BACKGROUND
At the May 8, 2006 meeting, the City Council authorized staff to issue General
Obligation Improvement Bonds related to the development of the 2005 MUSA
area.
Ehlers & Associates will perform the bond sale on May 23, 2006, and will
present complete information regarding the bidders and interest rates at that
council meeting. The City Council will then be asked to accept the bids after the
presentation.
Standard and Poor’s will be reviewing our current credit rating of AA- during
the week.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council award the bid for the bond issue to the
lowest responsible bidder as presented by Ehlers’ staff.