1j. Minutes1
I
0
C'
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 24, 1994
Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf,
Councilman Mason, and Councilman Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Elliott Knetsch, Kate Aanenson, Todd Gerhardt, Bob Generous, Diane
Desotelle, and Jill Kimsal
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the agenda
adding a discussion under Council Presentations by Councilwoman Dockendorf regarding item 1(c). All voted in
favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the
following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
b. Resolution #94 -110: Amendment to City Code Approving the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP),
Second and Final Reading.
c. Request for Time Extension to Negotiate an Organized Collection Contract.
d. Resolution #94 -111: Accept Utility Improvements in Minger Addition, Project No. 94 -13.
f. City Code Amendment Concerning Restriction on Temporary On -Sale Liquor Licenses, Final Reading.
g. Approval of Bills.
h. City Council Minutes dated October 10, 1994
Public Safety Commission Minutes dated October 13, 1994
i. Petition to Clean Out a Stormwater Pond South of Penamint Court.
j. Resolution #94 -112: Approve Change Order No. 1 for Johnson/Dolejsi/Turner Project 92 -5.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1(A). MISSION HILLS DEVELOPMENT, TANDEM PROPERTIES.
Al Klingelhutz: I'm not asking for not approving item 1(a) but I would like to have one extension in there and
that's for discussions on the easement through Al Klingelhutz' property. I picked up a copy of the agenda on
Thursday. It was the first knowledge that I had that this easement was supposed to be donated to the city on all
the land, not even part of the Mission Hills application. It really took me by surprise because I do have two
other copies, one dated September 20th I believe and one October 4th. There's no mention of this in it. And I
have not at this time even seen the diagram of where that easement is supposed to go. There was some
discussion about a year ago and we agreed on one portion of this. It was supposed to sever some of my land
down to the section line and I proposed that they should stay along the Highway 101 and that was the only thing
l
I L -1
L�
1
we agreed upon. And I read in this report, I believe it's on page 10, that I refused to give an easement on that
plan and to me that's a damn lie, excuse my language. Whoever wrote this report don't remember what was put
in the Minutes. I'm a little angry. I call up to City Hall today and asked to speak to one of the engineers. I
find out one is on vacation and the other one took the day off. It seems odd to me that at least one city engineer
couldn't be in this office to provide information to someone that needs information at any time when you've got
2 or 3 of them on staff. A copy of the agenda was picked up by me on October 20, 1994. And once I saw that
the water easement was to be given to the city through my property without any complication. As of this date I
have not received any information or description as to exactly where this watermain is being located. Until such
time as I see this, I will not even negotiate with the city on giving an easement or any compensation for that
easement. I'm really surprised that the city should request that easement should be donated to the city when no
portion of my property even comes close to the Mission Hills property on Highway 101. I understand that this
is a trunk watermain and ... serving the Mission Hills property but it extends all the way from the Hennepin
County border, Lakeview Hills ... along Riley Blvd. serving all of the homes on Riley Lake. All of the homes on
Lyman Blvd. Connecting onto TH 101 on the south side of my farm. Following TH 101 to the Mission Hills
project and then continuing all the way up to Highway 5. If this is not a public improvement, I don't know what
is. It's serving a lot of areas. If the city could guarantee that every one of those landowners along that property
will give a free easement, I would probably consider doing the same thing. But a thing like this happened to me
one time before when they figured we would save a lot of money to put the sewer line in by Lake Susan. I had
3 parcels of land I had to give easements for. I gave... dollars. Twelve other people did the same thing. Two of
the people held out. One of them got $3,800.00 for the easement and the other one got more than the actual
assessment cost. So what happened is the 12 other people and myself actually paid for these two other people
sewer assessment and they could put cash in their pocket besides and I don't think that's the way things should
happen. If this would have been talked about at the time of preliminary plat, at the time of the two other reports
that came out and all of a sudden, just before it should come before the City Council... and then not having an
engineer to even discuss it with prior to the City Council, I think things could have been solved probably before
this. And I was really surprised this afternoon. I don't think Gary Fuchs from the attorney's office called me
about 3:30 this afternoon and said Al, I'd like to come out and talk to you about the easement. I said well can
we do it this afternoon. It's going before the Council tonight. It's part of the agenda. It's part of the approval
of final plat and I'd like to get it settled. But he couldn't come out today so we're meeting tomorrow morning
at 11:00. 1 wish that the city would consider approving the final plat and probably not having it signed until
such time as this easement situation can be figured out. That's it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you Al. Kate, can you maybe shed a little light on this.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Mr. Klingelhutz was advised of the situation. We had a meeting with the people from
Mission Hills on October 13th and that's when the situation first arose so there has been some time that he's had
an opportunity to meet with engineering so I don't want it to appear that this all of a sudden came up in the
report on Friday. We met with his specifically about this outlot and he was told about the easement requirement
on that day that we met, October 13th. It's a condition that the engineer puts as a standard condition when
development is asking for improvements, because it's development driven. It's not a city initiated project.
They've asked for the utility services to develop their project. That as a requirement of that, we ask for a utility
easement to be dedicated so that's a standard condition.
Mayor Chmiel: In other words what you're saying, other areas that development has been, we, the city,
normally don't pay for those kinds of easements with that development.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Al.
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilman Senn: Al, while you're getting up, if I could just a clarification to Kate. When you say we usually
don't pay for them though, aren't those easements generally on the property being developed?
Kate Aanenson: He's part of this process. He's splitting off one of his pieces that he's not developing but the
utility, this utility still has to go across past his portion to get into the Mission Hills development.
Councilman Senn: Well I understand that but do, and I'm coming back to the same question then. But do we
normally require the easement across other property not in the area being developed?
Kate Aanenson: All I can answer, the best I can is the way Charles put it in the staff report on page 10 and
that's the fact that Mr. Klingelhutz did petition for the utility services ... part of his property which is receiving
benefit, this is all pointed out by the engineering department as part of their staff report and it's the normal
course of benefitting as part of this...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well what would the situation be if Al didn't own that piece of property next to it
that it has to run through?
Kate Aanenson: A lot of these are engineering questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councilman Wing: Al, if I can just interrupt. I'd just like to move approval of item 1(a) with the removal of
item number 34 which addresses this and that this is, I would move approval contingent on a satisfactory
conclusion to all parties of condition number 34 which has to do with the payment of that. So rather than us
debate with Al and staff tonight and not being up on it ourselves perhaps, I have no problem approving this but I
think item number 34 is the one in question and I would approve this contingent on a successful conclusion to
all parties of that issue. Give Al a chance to address it. Give staff and management a chance to address this.
Al Klingelhutz: I'd like to wait until you call for that motion, if somebody's going to second it, but I do want to
say one, I have one statement after this is voted on.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. There is a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn: Just a question. From a process standpoint there's something about it bothering me. It's
kind of like saying, go fight it out in a room and if the four parties can't agree, this whole thing blows up and
that's what bothers me about it. I mean either it's an important enough issue to pull out and stand on it's own,
or the whole thing can sit until the thing is done.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that depends too upon the applicants themselves and all the parties connected to it. If
they feel that that is not a given problem, maybe they want to pick up that easement segment for it or pay that.
I don't think, and I don't disagree with Al. I don't think that one person should pay and the others shouldn't.
On this particular case, that land is also going to be developable in the long run and having that there is going to
be a benefit directly to that property as well. And do we pay for that once it's going to benefit the adjacent
property? That's another question but I would think that with the motion that Richard has brought up and
3
C
0
C
L
f
C
L
I
r
F
I
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
discussion that can be done by the parties that are involved in it, they should address that particular issue. So
with that, Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Just one more comment. My understanding is if they can't come to an agreement,
it negates our passing the motion tonight and it comes back to us.
Mayor Chmiel: I would think that would be correct. Yeah, okay.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Final Plat, Development Contract
and Plans and Specifications for Missions Hills, Project 93 -23 contingent on a satisfactory conclusion to all
parties of condition number 34. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Chmiel: You wanted to make one more statement Al.
Al Klingelhutz: Thank you for approving it with the one exception. I don't like to call Kate a liar and I don't
Re to be called a liar either. The statement that I made tonight was factual and if Kate informed me of this, I
do not recall. Going a little further. I just received some information that just recently came down from the
Supreme Court June 2, 1994 ... does not constitute conditions, the government may not require a person to give up
their Constitutional rights here. The right to receive just compensation for property that's taken for public use in
exchange. I'm not yelling for a lot of compensation. I'm yelling to be treated fair. I'd like to see what, where
the line is going and how it's going to cross TH 101 and how it's going to cross ... and how it's going to cross
86th Street and I have not seen any of this up to this time. I think if any of you were having an easement
...temporary easement going across your property, you'd like to know exactly where it's going to go before you
agree to anything on it. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks Al.
1(E). APPROVE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT WITH LAKEVIEW HILLS INVESTMENT
COMPANY AND LAKEVIEW HILLS INVESTMENT GROUP, PROJECT 93 -32.
Mayor Chmiel: I just have one question regarding item number 9 of that and I asked Elliott to sort of look into
this this afternoon and come back with some kind of an opinion on this. In looking at this particular line, in
relationship to the special assessment agreement with Lakeview Hills Investment Company item 9 reads, neither
the developer nor their respective partners, agents or employees shall be personally liable or be subject to any
recourse for the payment of any special assessment or interest described herein. The point I brought out was the
mere fact that if the developer were to go in and he has 20 lots, and he put in 15 of those 20 lots and decided,
because of some specific reasons the balance of those lots were bad. The soils were poor. That he could just
pick up and walk away from that and that would automatically mean that that would be taken from that point
and whoever decided to pick this up, knowing whether or not the soils were good or bad or indifferent, would
then pick up those additional assessments. At the same time that developer will walk away with dollars in his
pocket knowing he can just kick this away and what I wanted Elliott to do was to come up with something in
regard to that or the language that would be better than what is existing here.
Elliott Knetsch: I have looked into it since this afternoon Mr. Mayor and I've also had a brief opportunity prior
to the meeting to speak with the representatives for the applicant. I think that we haven't had sufficient time to
work all any specific language to give to Council tonight. Roger Knutson from our office and the applicant's
attorney did spend considerable time on this agreement and I know Charles and Mr. Mitchell from OSM also
4
J
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
spent a lot of time on it. What I would suggest, if it meets with everyone's approval is that, if it meets with
everyone's approval this agreement could be approved tonight contingent on the various parties getting back
together and addressing the concern that you've raised and once that's done, if there's going to be new language,
that would have to come back to the Council similar to the last item. But if this language is sufficient, given the
specifics of this application, then it could be signed by the Mayor. I would say though that again, our office has
recommended that this is a legal document. It meets all tests as to form and the engineering department is
recommending it's adoption. There's give and take in any document. We're getting a specified level of
assessments. We're getting a guarantee that those assessments will not be appealed in District Court where the
city would incur the cost of litigation and appraisers and so forth so there is give and take in any document.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Rather than just to have me see it, I'd like the rest of the Council to also see what
that might be. Dave Mitchell, do you have anything that you would like to discuss regarding some errors that
might be in here?
Dave Mitchell: It was brought to my attention this morning that staff's report, I guess the second page, second
paragraph, the last sentence reads. The right -of -way taking occurs, and what this refers to is...subject parcel and
the three separate parcels and again the sentence reads, if the right -of -way taking occurs prior to the expiration of
this 10 year period, the assessments will come due and the exact assessment amounts will be based on
established rate adjusted based on any deviations from the remaining area proposed at this time. What that refers
to is a parcel at the north end of the subject property ... TH 212 being brought down as a possible ... so we cannot
fully define that specific area. The concern with the staff report tends to indicate that the assessments may be
due. Once MnDot has come to that determination. That is not what we agreed to within the agreement. The
agreement is for the ... parcel given the time that it may take MnDot to actually acquire that right -of -way. In
reading the same sentence and looking at it a little bit further, what I believe Charles was trying to do with that
sentence is to say that the property that MnDot would take, the assessments would be provided for ... time, which
we all know would be forgiven at that time. Or MnDot would pay for them at that time. But the subject
property retained by the investment, or the Lakeview Hills Investment Group, would be deferred to that ... period.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don.
Don Ashworth: I guess what we're saying is, the agreement that you have in front of you is correct. I mean
that is what we're asking you to approve. It's just Charles' cover memo could be misunderstood as to what the
agreement is really saying. The other part is that if they would propose to develop that northerly parcel, those
assessments would become immediately due at the time that they tried to develop it. Anyway, we're
recommending approval and the Mayor's suggestion that we relook at that one sentence, that's fine. We can do
that.
Councilman Senn: Elliott, a question. Is this an issue because, well group isn't defined in here. Is this a
partnership or something? Is that the reason? I mean because if this is a corporation of any form, one with
liability or otherwise, it's a non issue.
Elliott Knetsch: The development is a corporation I think, or I could perhaps have them speak to that issue. I'm
not really sure on that but I think the Mayor's concern was that the assessments would only be running with the
property and there would not be any individual, whether it be a corporate entity, group or partnership, that they
L
I
Ll
7
d
r
C IS '
C
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
be individually responsible for payment of the assessments in the event of a default in the taxes on those parcels
or the assessments were not paid.
Councilman Senn: And if they weren't and it were a corporation, they wouldn't be personally liable anyway.
Elliott Knetsch: If it's a corporation, that's correct. But that would be similar to other corporations where you
get a personal guarantee from shareholders or owners of the corporation. You might ask for that. When you're
dealing with a corporate entity where there is no person who is individually liable.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
John Thiel: Mr. Mayor, my name is John Thiel and I'm an attorney and I'm here representing Lakeview Hills
Investment Company, a contract for deed purchaser of the property. That entity happens to be a partnership.
We don't really feel that what kind of an entity it is is particularly important. We're just asking to be treated as
all taxpayers who, when they get a special assessment on their land, they are not personally liable for it.
It's a lien against their property. If you don't pay the special assessment, you lose your property but it isn't a
personal obligation... We were just trying in this agreement to make it clear that we would be treated as
everybody else in that regard.
Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you.
Councilman Wing: So the issue is personally liable versus.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. So with that I would make that as a motion. Is there a second?
Councilman Wing: Second.
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the special assessment agreement between
the City of Chanhassen, Lakeview Hills Investment Company and Lakeview Hills Investment Group dated
October 24, 1994 contingent upon the parties clarifying and agreeing upon the language in item 9. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
1(K). ACQUIRE PARCEL ON GALPIN BOULEVARD FOR PARK FROM OTTOMARTUNG, UPPER
BLUFF CREEK UTILITY PROJECT.
Councilman Senn: Todd's not here. I don't know if Don you can answer it or not but how much of the parcel
is developable? Do we know that?
Kate Aanenson: Phil Gravel ... he can probably answer that.
Don Ashworth: That's a good idea.
Councilman Senn: Do you know? Colleen.
Phil Gravel: Colleen's actually right that the parcel is about 80 to 90 feet wide ... long.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, why don't you come up to the mic so we can get this on.
E
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Phil Gravel: The parcel, Outlot B ... is located on the west side of Galpin Blvd and it's a remainder parcel. It's
left over at the time of that plat ... the road right -of -way separated this. It's between 80 and 90 feet wide and the
westerly 50 feet or such is wetland ... and the easterly part is slope.
Don Ashworth: But Phil, the very northerly part of that, and assuming sewer and water were put past there, you
could probably get 2 or 3 lots out of that most northerly part.
Phil Gravel: 2 or 3 house lots?
Don Ashworth: Yes.
Phil Gravel: I don't think so.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I don't think so either.
Don Ashworth: The map that Todd Hoffman had showed me had shown that that northerly part was higher than
the road.
Phil Gravel: That's ... the northerly part is adjacent to ... it's out of the wetland. It's still restricted by that 90 foot
width.
Don Ashworth: Correct. I guess my point though is, the overall value being paid does recognize, we don't
really care to see it developed but hypothetically it could be.
Councilman Senn: Well I understand that. I guess the reason this caught my eye was, I really objected to the
rationale in here that we should do this because we should really be paying $20,000..00 to $22,000.00 an acre
for this property and quite honestly I think that's hogwash. It shouldn't even be in the staff report. And then to
turn around and say well, we should pay $24,000.00 for all of it, which is roughly $10,000.00 an acre because
it's so cheap, come on. I mean do you think it's worth $10,000.00 an acre. Come on. It's non - buildable for
anything as far as I can see. I don't know. I just really question what, why we're even paying 10 for it.
Don Ashworth: Potentially Gary is the one who wrote the report. But I guess I would, it would not be in the
city's best interest to see one or two lots developed in the very northerly portion of the property. But from a
value standpoint, that potential for being developed justifies a $24,000.00 value for the entire piece in staff's
opinion.
Phil Gravel: There's enough high...
Don Ashworth: I don't know about, if we've used the right phrase in the justification but I feel that it's there.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Do you want to move that?
Councilman Senn: No.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a motion to move item 1(k)?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll move it.
F]
1
1
n
0
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It has been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Richard.
Councilman Wing: Mark, you're holding on your position that that's over valued?
Councilman Senn: Way over valued. Even if you follow the rationale, I mean with you following the rationale
of $24,000.00 and you've got an acre worth of buildable property there. I'd love to see ... that squeezes out of
that parcel.
Councilman Wing: Is it worth tabling for a meeting and having that reviewed more formally?
Don Ashworth: Phil, does it hurt if this is tabled for 2 weeks.
Phil Gravel: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Good answer.
Councilman Senn: I guess what I tried to say is, I'd like to see the additional parkland, don't get me wrong.
But it seems to me like this is a situation where we're rushing in and trying to grab something in the haste of
getting additional parkland but we shouldn't be at the same time be paying a couple times what it's worth to buy
it.
Mayor Chmiel: How long have we been looking at this particular project now?
Phil Gravel: Gary's been working on this...
Councilman Senn: But we weren't looking at purchasing it for the park. I mean that was a whole new notion as
far as I knew. At least I've never seen anything come to the Council before on it.
Phil Gravel: The meetings from the get go and as we took an easement and this 70 to 90 feet ... we took the 30
feet or so necessary for the utility and roadway project. That would leave the remaining ... so we knew that
that...I think Gary has known about this ... 4 to 6 months.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I just had some discussions with Don and what he's saying may right now make sense
but would you repeat it to Council.
Don Ashworth: Well, you're going to be approaching those kinds of dollars in acquiring an easement across the
whole thing. And then when you get done with the sewer and water there, you're going to have a potential for
houses like that's on the very north end where the houses are right adjacent to the roadway and do you really
want to take and see potentially 1 or 2 houses right on the edge of the roadway there? I mean sure, they have to
be 30 feet back but I mean that's going to be a 4 lane roadway. You wouldn't want to have driveways coming
out onto that roadway and for what I call the small additional cost, to have an ownership in the parcel. To own
the thing regardless of what you call it is much better for the city. I mean Todd feels that it will fit into the
overall park plan area because that's a, well it's quite scenic in that whole area. He firmly believe that there will
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
be a trail system that will go all the way around that wetland that is part of this parcel. But again, if you acquire
an easement at this time for sewer and water in the front and then came back at a later point for an easement to
be able to go around the wetland area, by the time you got it done, you spent the same amount of money. The
only difference is in one instance you own it and the other instance you just paid payments to owners and it just
didn't make any sense to us. We can work a deal with these owners before the sewer and water goes in. Let's
do it and get the thing done with.
Councilman Senn: What you're saying makes sense. I guess it'd be nice to see that in the staff report next time
rather than.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. So with that we have a motion and a second.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to acquire the parcel on Galpin
Boulevard for Park from Otto /Hartung, Upper Bluff Creek Utility Project. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS.
Don Ashworth: Attached are a copy of the delinquent sewer and water billings. Under Minnesota Statute the
City does have the right to certify those for collection with literally the next year's tax statement. There is a
significant penalty which is added to delinquent accounts. During the course of the year, it's 10% on each
quarterly billing and then before certification we add another 20% to that. I have no idea why these people
continue to show up on this listing year after year. But they are paying a significant penalty for doing it.
Approval is recommended.
Mayor Chmiel: I don't know if this is something where this goes on the county assessment roll and it shows on
their tax statement as deductible from their income tax. I don't know.
Don Ashworth: They cannot legally deduct it. Whether or not they illegally deduct it, that's another question.
Councilman Senn: And it just rolls to the next tax...
Mayor Chmiel: Are many of these repetitious?
Don Ashworth: Very many of them. I would say 30% or more.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do we contact them by phone as well?
Don Ashworth: No. I think they get a first notice on the billing itself and then they get an individual letter type
of thing, to the best of my knowledge. Some years the Council has asked that this listing appear in the local
newspaper as sort of, we want everybody to know here are people who don't pay their bills. We've talked
about shut -offs. Shut -offs are really difficult, especially where shut -offs get to be 10 -15 years old. Many of
them don't work. Some properties, especially commercial properties may have water running from one business
to another so if you shut down one and you end up shutting down the wrong one. And again, with an
0
n
i
CI'
C
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
approximate 70% penalty in there, I just don't understand why people would do that. I'd be much cheaper to get
any kind of a bank loan than to pay 70% this way.
Councilman Wing: Some of these are brand new homes. I mean like Country Oaks that's.
Don Ashworth: I don't know of that to be true or not true.
Councilman Wing: Would it pay us to do a phone survey of what's occurring and why? I remember discussion
that some of these are intentional last year. I realize it's quite a list but maybe if somebody needs to be assigned
to just go down this list and contact and get the reasons for each one.
Don Ashworth: Well where you have new parcels, I wouldn't doubt that in those instances the developer, the
builder needs the water and sewer as a part of the building process. If he's not able to sell right away, he knows
at the time of closing that that will be added onto at the time of closing so he'll just let it ride. I feel more
comfortable saying you'll get your money on those more so than maybe some of the other ones.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Is there a motion?
Councilman Wing: Move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: Sorry, I'm moving too fast. I would like to close that public hearing.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Resolution #94 -113: Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Certification
of Delinquent Utility Accounts. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: VACATE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND ESTABLISH A WETLAND
EASEMENT AND TREE PRESERVATION EASEMENT LOCATED WITHIN THE PLAT OF THE
MEADOWS AT LONGACRE, LUNDGREN BROTHERS.
Kate Aanenson: ...vacation of conservation easement. This is the first ... and that phase, what we did is we had
one conservation easement that included the wetland and tree preservation. ...second phase we separated those
two out. Both of those easements, conservation easements have different standards and we felt it was more
appropriate to leave them separate, which we've done in the future phases. So we are recommending that we
vacate the original one. What we're doing is still having the same lots with the same easements. What we're
doing is separating out one wetland and one tree preservation. So we are recommending approval. The
attorney's office when they reviewed their documents had one concern which we had raised on ... and all they're
saying, on that, they just want to make sure that it's clear. Modify ... to make sure that it's ... and that would be
mostly the wetland easements where we have to put them over the sewer lines ... we would recommend approval
of the lots outlined in the staff report.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to address this at this time? If seeing none, can I have a
motion to close the public hearing.
10
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994 1
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and ,
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I have a motion for that vacation of conservation easement. '
Councilman Senn: I move approval.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #94 -114: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the vacation of the
existing conservation easements on the plat for The Meadows at Longacres and amend by adding the
following:
The tree preservations shall be placed on the following:
,
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Outlot B
Lot 1 Lot 1 Lot 1
Lot 2 Lot 2 Lot 2
'
Lot 3 Lot 3 Lot 4
Lot 6 Lot 10 Lot 5
Lot 11
Lot 12
The following lots will have a conservation or wetland easement:
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4
Block 5 Outlot A
Lot 1 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 2
Lot 1 Outlot B
Lot 2 Lot 2 Lot 4 Lot 3
Lot 2
Lot 3 Lot 3 Lot 5
Lot 3
Lot 6 Lot 10
Lot 11
Lot 4
Lot 5
Lot 12
Lot 6
Lot 7
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
AWARD OF BIDS: LAKE LUCY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 92.12. '
Bill Engelhardt: Mayor and members of the Council. On October 20, 1994 six bids were received for the Lake
Lucy Road Improvement Project 92 -12. The low bid was received from Northdale Construction at an amount of
$530,154.17. The engineer's estimates for the project was $585,000.00. The low bid is about 10% below the '
estimate. Northdale Construction has performed satisfactorily on previous jobs with the city to recommendation
to award the bid to Northdale Construction in the amount of $530,154.17. Included in your packet with the bid
tabs also showing the other six bidders. They were relatively close. Second bidder was $578,964.00. High bid
was $641,901.00. But the difference between the second bidder and the first bidder was approximately
$60,000.00 is not too bad on a project of this size. Also Northdale Construction was the contractor for the force
main that was laid along TH 41 so he's very familiar with the terrain and the project location. ,
11
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there any discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess this is the piece through Gestach and Ryan's parcel?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Why are we approving a bid when we haven't laid the road yet? When we haven't
decided on the alignment.
Bill Engelhardt: This is the section from TH 41 to their cul -de -sac.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay, just through the Gestach - Paulson piece, alright.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? If seeing none, is there a motion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Senn: Second.
Resolution #94 -115: Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Senn seconded to award the bid for
the Lake Lucy Road Improvement Project No. 92 -12 to Northdale Construction at a total contract amount
of $530,154.17. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
REZONE 37.92 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL_
SINGLE FAMILY; PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 37.92 ACRES INTO 47 SINGLE FAMILY
LOTS AND 2 OUTLOTS; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT; LOCATED AT THE
INTERSECTION OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND PROPOSED LAKE LUCY ROAD EXTENSION,
6730 GALPIN BOULEVARD, ED AND MARY RYAN, SHAMROCK RIDGE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Neal & Debbi Wunderlich
6730 Galpin Blvd.
2725 94th Avenue No, Brooklyn Park
6681 Galpin Blvd.
6950 Galpin Blvd.
6640 Galpin Blvd.
6621 Galpin Blvd.
6620 Galpin Blvd.
120 So. 6th Street #1512, Mpls
7011 Galpin Blvd.
12
Ed & Mary Ryan
'
Chuck Plowe
Lynn Rothberger
Jerome Carlson
'
Peter Davis
Marlie Johnson
Nancy & Sam Mancino
'
Tom Owens
Neal & Debbi Wunderlich
6730 Galpin Blvd.
2725 94th Avenue No, Brooklyn Park
6681 Galpin Blvd.
6950 Galpin Blvd.
6640 Galpin Blvd.
6621 Galpin Blvd.
6620 Galpin Blvd.
120 So. 6th Street #1512, Mpls
7011 Galpin Blvd.
12
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Kate, or Bob, I'm sorry. Tell us what happened at our last meeting that you had with Planning
Commission.
Bob Generous: In September the City Council returned this item to the Planning Commission for further
investigation and review of the plat based on some changes that were made. In the interim the city has hired, or
hired William Engelhardt and Associates to review the grading plan and provide us with some type of
presentation ... material to look at so we can get a better idea of what is happening to the site. In addition we
requested that he look at alternatives for the road ... Planning Commission they affirmed their decision to
recommend denial of this plat based on the environmental concerns that they had on this site. Specifically they
were looking at the steep slopes on the western third of the parcel. Mr. Engelhardt's alternative basically
reiterated what staff said. That there are other ways to develop the western third of this site that would preserve
slopes and be more environmentally sensitive.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. I'd like to just establish some parameters here this evening. I think Council
has gone through and have read staff reports and the Minutes from the previous meeting. I would like to ask
you to provide new information at this particular time, because I think everyone here has had that opportunity to
look, read and come up with some conclusions. And if there is something new, I would like to have you please
come forward and present that at this specific time. Ed.
Ed Ryan: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Members of Council. My name is Ed Ryan. This is my wife Mary. We're
the owners of the property. We are pleased to present to you this evening a more detailed look at our plat and
to address the issues that you raised at our earlier Council meeting. We were asked to develop a model or
computer graphic that would clearly demonstrate the land use and what the project would look like when it was
completed. We have prepared a two dimensional representation of our plat and have also constructed a 3
dimensional model to provide a visual view of the neighborhood once completed. As you know, the road
alignment has been the significant issue regarding our plat. As we discussed in our last meeting, the Council
over a year ago specifically provided for flexibility in the Lake Lucy Road placement. Providing for a northerly
alignment as detailed in Bill Engelhardt's supplemental feasibility study and consistent with the comprehensive
plan. Our northerly alignment, as you can see, through the process of numerous staff meetings and planning
changes, have been moved 105 feet south of the north property line and incorporates a large outlot to provide
scenic views and act as a buffer against future growth. This alignment preserve the tree line and requires no
construction of a major roadway abutting a wetland and provides a safer roadway that rolls through the
neighborhood. The three southern alignments that have been proposed have consisted of the following. The first
was a southerly alignment outlotting the western section of our property. Referred to as the third alternative in
the staff's October 20th memorandum. The City Attorney has stated that the City could not require this area to
be outlotted. The second was a southerly alignment with northern cul -de -sacs. After our Council meetings and
detailed letter from Kate, Bill Engelhardt was hired by the city to lay out a southern alignment with northern cul-
de -sacs. This was to compare the plan to our northerly alignment of Lake Lucy and review the grading plans.
In point number 3 of the city memorandum, dated October 13th, it states that this southerly alignment does not
work to preserve the slopes. Our northerly alignment was found to be a better alternative, as the staff has
indicated in their original report. The third is a southerly alignment developed by Bill Engelhardt and I think it's
included in your packet. I have an 8 x 11 here. I know you can't see this too well. Does Council have a copy?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes we do.
Ed Ryan: Okay. This rough draft encompasses our property as well as the Mancino and Carlson properties.
Combining the three properties into one development. This plan illustrates incomplete road access to several
13
r
L
1
n
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
lots. Fronting lots on Lake Lucy Road and Galpin Blvd and invading the three lots to the north. We have
worked many long hours together with staff for more than 4 months to design a plan that is balanced and
sensitive to the many important features that this site has to offer. In Chuck's presentation we will demonstrate
why our plan is preferred over this new third plan. There have been some statements made that our plat does
not comply with city ordinances. Our attorney, Frank Kelly, has written a response which you have before you
which clearly shows that in working with staff, all city codes and ordinances have been observed There also
have been statements made that we have maximized the intensity of our development. As we have detailed at
the last Council meeting, our plat density is almost identical to those plans that have been approved by Council
in our neighborhood this year and our design averages over 23,000 square feet per lot. Now briefly I'd like to
have Chuck walk through with you the neighborhood and detail the issues I've summarized that is according to
some new information that we have here today. If we could, we'd like to put a model that we just completed
of Chuck's up near your area here so that you can view this.
Chuck Plowe: Chuck Plowe, the project engineer for Ed and Mary Ryan. You've all read the Minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting. There's a lot of things... repeat them again. We talked about the first plan, the
second plan and the plan that we have today. At the last meeting you did ask for a visual and we just finished
this Friday night. Hopefully this will give you a better feel for what we're going to end up with when the
project's completed. It's on a 1 inch is 50 scale drawing. Or model rather. So the vertical scale is not
exaggerated. It's in proportion with the horizontal so if you're looking at, try to look at it from the downward
angle view, you can kind of picture the elevation changes and so on. One of the best ways to look at it is to
look at the homes up on the ... part of the model. Viewing it, how much higher it is. This street is at a 7 or 8, 7
1/2 % grade. There's about a 20 foot difference in elevation from here to here. It doesn't look like a drastic
change but in fact it is quite a big change because this is in relationship to the vertical horizontal so there's no
exaggeration included. This is the area that we have the outlot. Provides an excellent buffer between Lake Lucy
Road and the Mancino property. The existing trees that are being preserved are shown with this type of a tree.
Whatever you want to call it. There's some along here. Some in here. This small cluster here. Around the
existing home. And of course the wetland is a mixed variation of different kinds of brush and trees and so on. I
did look at the aerial. There was a question on the existing trees in this area behind the existing building and in
fact it did go a little bit further than what our grading plan showed. I did look at that so, other than that the tree
plan is pretty accurate. One thing I want to point out is also the open space. If you take a look at this street,
Jennifer Way and Alcove, they're spaced quite far apart. The back yard there is quite large. Along with a lot of
other spaciousness that you see within the model. The steepest slope on the grading plan is right along this area
here and that's where the existing row of trees is. Now if you look at this plan, we're looking at the potential of
let's say Lake Lucy Road was built along the southerly alignment. This ... rolling farmland as it is, is not one of
the ordinary. We have some scattered trees but basically it's farmland, rolling farmland with some... so the
grading that's taking place that's shown on the plan is not out of the ordinary. I really have no other comments
unless there's any questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Does Council have any questions? Thank you.
Chuck Plowe: Ed would like to complete with the...
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Maybe what we could do is to take this and set it there, where. That's a good question.
In a location so that the other people could view this and take a look at this.
Chuck Plowe: Ed would like to close.
14
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Sure, Ed.
Ed Ryan: Thank you Mayor.
Mayor Chmiel: If any of you would like to just take a look at that, feel free just to get up and take a look.
Ed Ryan: That presentation I hope has clarified issues that have been raised at our initial meetings. The
recommendations of staff and our neighbors have been helpful in providing thoughtful and respectful plans which
have resulted in a better design for the neighborhood. It's very important to note that after detailed review of
our plan by staff and outside consultants, staff states in their memorandum dated October 20th that they stand by
the analysis and recommendations contained in their report recommending approval of our plat subject to the
conditions listed in their original report. Our plan has met and will meet all the conditions staff listed as
required for approval. We request the approval of our plat consistent with staff's recommendations. Thank you
very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Ed. Is there anyone wishing to add anything new to discussion than what has been
previously, and if so, please just state your name and address and who you're representing.
Tom Owens: Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers, my name is Tom Owens. I'm a real estate lawyer in
Minneapolis and I'm appearing tonight on behalf of six adjoining property owners that are now trying for the
first time to get a quick look at this model. The property owners whom I represent are Jerome and Linda
Carlson, Peter and Mary Davis, and Sam and Nancy Mancino. We also were able a couple of days ago to get a
copy of the revised grading plan and have prepared a model that we would like to show to the City Council.
But I'd like to begin by commenting on the applicant's statements. Ladies and gentlemen, I have to be a little
blunt in my comments here. The applicant said that when they last appeared before you with their team that you
requested information. Computer graphics or a model or something about the topography and the grading.
Ladies and gentlemen, this presentation tonight makes a mockery of the planning process as outlined in the city
ordinances. You asked and directed that this matter return to the Planning Commission for thorough
consideration and you asked, you pleaded and you begged, you did everything but require the applicant to stand
up and pledge allegiance and provide and swear that he would provide more information to the Planning
Commission and the staff. The applicant has done so. This isn't the eleventh hour. This is 59 1/2 minutes past
the eleventh hour. And the model that the applicant has brought to you does not answer the questions that you
asked. Those questions were, what does this do to the topography and the grading as it exists? The applicant
has prepared a wonderful model of what this may look like some day but he hasn't shown you what this does to
the present topography. And that is the key issue. Not road alignment. That's a subsidiary. A related issue.
The key issue here is steep slopes and whether this property owner should be permitted to dramatically and
seriously degrade the steep slopes on this property. You've heard lots of testimony from property owners, from
staff, from commission members and council members about how beautiful and wonderful this area is. And in
fact this is the turf where the City of Chanhassen is going to decide whether it lives up to it's ordinance or not.
A couple of years ago the city updated it's ordinance to include steep slopes within the key considerations for
development. It did so on the basis of the 1991 comprehensive plan. That plan didn't just accidentally drop in
it the word topography or steep slopes somewhere. It shows up repeatedly in that comprehensive plan. Under
section after section after section. About the beauty of the city in relationship to it's transportation plan. In
relationship to land development. In relationship to what the aesthetics and the future of the city should be
about. That concern was reflected in a new ordinance which said, and you have all the information right before
you. You've had it cited for you many times. This isn't new. This part isn't new. This development seriously
degrades the steep slopes, and'I want to be careful about coming on too strong at this point but ladies and
15
I I
I
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
' gentlemen, what I told the Planning Commission I have to underscore. This is a warning bell. If you set the
precedent of approving this development in this form, you are going to have real estate lawyers back here at this
podium representing developers 3, 6, 12 months from now saying to you, ladies and gentlemen of the Council.
Let me remind you about the plat of Shamrock Ridge. And the steep slopes in that beautiful area of the city.
The steep slopes which you permitted the developer to dramatically and substantially cut into, fill and degrade.
Now I want to clear up one other matter before we bring out our model, and that is that the 6 people that I
' represent are some kind of crazy nimby's who think that this area that the Ryan's own should be turned into a
nature sanctuary. Nothing could be farther from the truth. My clients acknowledge and understand that at some
point in time the Ryan property will be developed. They also understand that it is, because of the comprehensive
plan and precedence set by this City Council, that it's almost certain be rezoned as RSF. So they are not here
begging you not to rezone or to make this 5 acre minimums or somehow to impede progress or require the
Ryan's to dedicate this property for development in 5 or 6 or 10 lots only. No, my clients want to see you as
the foremost representatives of this city, uphold the city ordinances, the comprehensive plan and see that this
' property is developed. Whether it's next year or the year after or whatever. That it's developed in accordance
with the city ordinances. If that means 45 lots instead of 47, so be it. So my clients are here to protect the
steep slopes. They're here to remind you that the staff hasn't recommended this project. And I just have to
' quote to you, somehow the staff has been misrepresented as if they're completely in favor of this development in
it's present form. On page 19 of last update of the city's staff report, we find this sentence. While alternate
designs may provide additional protection of natural resources, the proposal has been revised to lessen the
impacts of the development on this site. That's hardly an endorsement. And a little bit further down on that
' page it says, and this is a comment that has carried forth from the very first iteration of this report. The steep
slopes on the western half of the development make the development of this area problematic at best based on
the ultimate proposal due to the severe slopes. We're here to answer your questions. I'm happy to do so. We
' would like to show you a model that Sam Mancino has developed based on the grading plan of the applicant,
last revised and submitted to the city one week ago. And Sam, maybe you could stand up here and give a brief
explanation of what you've done and what these different colors show.
' Sam Mancino: What we heard last time here was that you'd like a better representation visually of what was
going to happen to the grading. Because it's, as you've seen in this model, difficult to evaluate height in this
dimensional scale without making the model 12 feet wide, that is built exactly under blueprint. It is 1 inch
' equals 60 feet width and length. This 1 inch equals 30 feet on the height to give you an idea of the contours
there. The red area indicates cuts where they're taking the tops of hills off or they're cutting into the steep
slopes on the western part of the terrain. The blue part indicates fill and most of those areas of fill for example,
' anything that's looking like it's a half an inch to an inch there in thickness is probably thick enough to bury
Jimmy Hoffa in a Cadillac so it's a relatively large scale. You'll notice that moving the road up to the western
slopes there, the high part of the slope, is primarily done to be able to get enough fill carved out of the hill to be
able to replace the fill, necessary fill in the... It's not really because that's the only place the road can go. Then
' in fact they're taking the tops of the hills off right now to be able again, to get that much fill. So again, this is a
major piece of grading.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Are there any questions at this time? If not, thank you.
Councilman Wing: Bill could you, if this is a model acceptable to the Ryan's for description, could you show us
' where the north and the south roads would go and how they would both impact here. I don't quite see where
the layout would be. If Ryan's, if they'd like to participate, I think would be fair.
Bill Engelhardt: The southerly alignment would go through right about here ... so we would be.
16
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilman Wing: And where's Galpin? Yeah, follow it in from Galpin.
Bill Engelhardt: This is the Gestach - Paulson plat.
Councilman Wing: Right. Start at the east and follow the road across.
Bill Engelhardt: Okay. So as you're coming in from Lake Lucy Road it would be directly across from this
point where they're entering Lake Lucy Road. As you're coming through, they're doing some fill. There's
some fill. There's some cutting. There's a cut through here and this is the knob that would be cut. On the
southerly alignment, this is basically about the same... feasibility study we left a lot of flexibility for Ryans and
we said we'd work with them however they wanted to work so there's major cuts here for the road... In any
event, this point I suspect it would come through. The southerly alignment would go through this area where I
think we're talking about, according to this plan probably a 6 to 8 foot fill for the roadway versus the fill that
they're showing of maybe 8 to 10. If you look on the plan that I developed, the red and blue contours, what we
had... what we did is we took their grading plan. Essentially what they have in their model and then ... put their
model and Sam's model would all be about the same ... overall but in the same thing. Chuck's model doesn't
show the proposed cuts. It shows what it's going to look like when it's done. What this shows you is the
amount of grading that has to be done on the site. The blue contours are fill. The red contours would be cut.
The brown contours are the zero lines. The zero lines would be... The important thing is that you're looking at,
this is fill, this is fill, this is fill, this is fill, this is fill. The red are the cuts. Now the first plan that came
through they, when we ran it through our analysis we felt they were short material. There was a significant
shortage because they had this roadway pushed up. There was more fill in here. There was more fill here.
Down here there was more fill in here. The way you take care of that to balance the site is you increase your
cuts and you decrease your fills. So the second plan they developed brought in a relatively good balance in the
materials. Still 140,000 yards of excavation.
Chuck Plowe: That was focusing on the ... to reduce the fills.
Bill Engelhardt: That was focusing on the ... right. But what this plan shows you in this particular area, right here
there's a 10 foot fill. Right here there's a 6 foot cut. Here's a 10 foot cut. A minus is a cut so through this hill
there's a 16 foot cut. Down here there's a 12 foot fill. 14 foot fill and then it tapers off down to zero. This is
a 16 foot fill down here. So you can see that, and again I'm not saying this is a bad plan. I'm just telling you
what the facts, what these contours show you is that when you're, in order to build this project, this is the area
that's going to have to be disturbed in some way or another. Either cut or fill. The only areas that don't show
disturbance would be up in this area, along this ridge, down in the wetlands, in this wetlands, and here's a zero
mark through here.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. So if it were a southerly alignment, that's through here and the difference in fill
would be approximately?
Bill Engelhardt: Oh probably, here you're talking about 16 and 12 foot fill. With the southerly alignment I
think we were looking at about a 6 to 8 foot fill.
Chuck Plowe: I think that Bob and I talked about that a long time ago and it was more like 10 to 12. You need
to get the elevation of the roadway up ... get here otherwise you can't.
17
i
L
I City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
' Bill Engelhardt: When we drew our plan, again it's a preliminary alignment and we had a 5% and a 4% grade
coming up. We can steepen that grade up to 7% so we could have, you know we can reduce this speed. It's not
' been designed, in no way shape or fashion was it designed.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. But the difference could be as much as 8 feet?
1 Bill Engelhardt: Right.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. And would you need the cuts up here to achieve that?
I Bill Engelhardt: You wouldn't.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I mean would you.
' Bill Engelhardt: No. No, we would not be on this hillside. Then the other thing we looked at as part of staff
direction on the second go around, is could you take these cul -de -sacs and flip them to the north and that's what
' Ed was talking about. If we had Lake Lucy Road to the south, flip these cul -de -sacs and this private road to the
north, could you do that? My opinion is that you could not do that. That you would really be ripping into that
slope and you'd have a tremendous cut all the way along through here trying to get those roadways coming up.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Even with private drives?
Bill Engelhardt: Private drives are a little bit tricky because you would then still have steep private drives and it
' would have to be very carefully detailed on how you get those private drives up. Now what I did a sketch plan,
and that's all it was was a sketch plan for this development and what I thought what you could do is bring in a
private drive across the top and then have large lots. If you had large lots coming down to Lake Lucy Road
with the southerly alignment. That would work because they need to preserve those slopes and you'd keep your
houses on the top or set your houses into the slope and you would have no access coming off. You'd reduce the
amount of cut that you would have to make up in that slope. You'd be coming in from the top.
' Chuck Plowe: We looked at several variations of the southerly alignment and trying to, as Bill has indicated,
using the private drives or cul -de -sacs, we need to come in ... because it involved a lot more extensive grading
then what you're looking at with this plan. We tried to work private drives up off and then around and it didn't,
' it just ended up disturbing as much or more than what you see here.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What if you brought it off Jennifer Way?
' Chuck Plowe: Well we are doing that of course—and going beyond that, we're allowed 4 lots on a private drive.
That would be the maximum. So we couldn't really serve that property.
' Sam Mancino: You couldn't do a private drive system like this?
Chuck Plowe: Well I guess that's a totally different scheme and I guess it appears as though that's, I mean you
' could do a lot of different things. It's just that this isn't at all the scheme that we're looking for. This is the
southerly alignment with real large lots and you can do a lot of different things. I don't know if this would
work or not. I can't tell you.
1
18
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Bill, if we were to take Lake Lucy on the eastern part and bring it to the south, just
to avoid that knob could we, if it comes up here and then swings up here, is that too much of a serpentine
movement? For engineering purposes.
Bill Engelhardt: I think we could make it work. We need a 30 mph curve through here and we've got enough
distance that you could get it through here but I don't know what that would really achieve because either they
need the dirt or we need the dirt, one way or the other. I guess basically they would need the dirt more than we
do. We could bring the road through here and we'd have less of a cut through here but then when they started
to make their cuts for their development, they would be short material because they need these knobs up here to
get that dirt off. He balances right now. The first go around and you know, granted I think sometimes the first
go around you don't look at it that detailed but the first go around they were significantly short. But this one he
balances so if you're going to develop this property like this, this is what you have to do. This is what's going
to happen.
Chuck Plowe: And I think, you know. I've looked at this Lake Lucy Road quite a bit and I know that in order
to avoid a large cut in here you do need to fill. You do need to start bringing your grade up and maybe you
could you know make a curve in here and minimize that a little bit but realistically I don't think you're going to
want to do that with Lake Lucy Road. I just, that would in effect be real detrimental to the plat as well. No
matter how you did the plat, whatever you do with Lake Lucy Road is going to affect the plat.
Bill Engelhardt: I think one thing though you have to remember on Lake Lucy Road is we're not building a
super highway. It's a collector street but it's a residential collector street so it's not like we want to be Point A,
Point B, straight away with no curves in it. Everybody goes. Sometimes it's advantageous to have a little...
Chuck Plowe: I think too that the idea of this knob here, it is a knob. It's not a massive, it doesn't cover a big,
big area. It's right there and we need to get from Point A to Point B so there's going to be a big cut there. It's
going to happen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: What did we achieve by Richard's suggestion to lessen the width of the road?
Bill Engelhardt: We can't do that.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Why not?
Bill Engelhardt: Well first of all cutting the size of the width of the road is not, from 36 to 34 does not
significantly decrease the amount of cut. You still have the slope. The second thing is that the State Aid
standards want us to have a 30, dictate that we have a 36. The reason we were able to move down in some of
the other roadways in the width is because we met different conditions versus the open field. We were going
through existing residential areas.
Councilman Wing: Along that line, if we're going to go with 36 through here, we can't have an east Lake Lucy
situation that Mike and myself dealt with over years where we've got residential homes and driveways going
onto this major collector road. As I'm looking at this right now, that doesn't exist. The road is left intact.
There are no houses abutting it.
Bill Engelhardt: Yeah, this one they've got all of the driveways, except for the private drives here, off of
secondary streets.
19
I
C
L
L
C
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And by the same token, we don't want it a straight away either and are going to
encourage that speeding that we have on the east side.
Councilman Wing: Only if we're looking for a parkway effect...more curves in this than that.
Bill Engelhardt: To a certain extent that's true, yeah. Aesthetics.
Mayor Chmiel: To a certain point.
Tom Owens: But it was that parkway effect and the aesthetics that led to a major factor in the staff's and
consultant's recommendation for the southerly alignment. Was that the citizens and people driving along would
have the benefit of the wetland.
Chuck Plowe: They're almost going to have it now because they're sitting quite high above these homes.
They're going to almost be looking over the cul -de- sac...
' Bill Engelhardt: I think when we originally were looking at the Lake Lucy Road alignment, the Ryan's at that
point didn't have any intent of developing. Lake Lucy Road drove that development and what we were trying to
do is hang to the south to leave as much of the property open as you could. The other criteria was that we
' needed to get this particular point...we have to hit that point so we said, well let's stay south but our philosophy
and their philosophy differs in that I think that you feel that the lots abutting up to the wetland is more valuable
than turning it the other way but I don't...
' Ed Ryan: Well I think our philosophy from the start has been, what is more pleasing to the neighborhood that
we're in and looking at the curvature of the road is very important to us. We are on a very straight, flat road
right now on Galpin and people blow by our house at 70 mph. People move by, I travel Lake Lucy east to
' work. On the straight always they're moving and I like the design of the roadway so it accommodates the
people who living in the neighborhood. And this has been a driving force for us in terms of our plan so.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think, I appreciate your explanation of this and...
' Jerome Carlson: May I just comment?
7
Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. But if you'd go up to the podium so we can get this on tape. Thank you.
Jerome Carlson: My name is Jerome Carlson. I'm a neighbor at 6950 Galpin. Just a quick comment on two
things. One I label as value and one I would label as values. There is a perspective, and perhaps it's just mine
but it's never been discussed or even mentioned here. And because this is the eleventh hour and 59th minute, or
it could be, I feel compelled to ... just a couple remarks. First of all I don't think that the city staff has even
abandoned their number one preference to the southerly alignment. If they had their druthers ... discussed ad
infinitum. Number two, I don't feel that it's the city's obligation to find a way to maximize the number of lots
on a given piece of property which the city did not create. Now I don't know how long the Ryan's have lived
here exactly but I suspect 10 or 12 years. I bought some of my land from the same very reputable individual
that they bought their's, and he's sitting here tonight. Mr. Klingelhutz. I do have some rather accurate
indication of what the value of that land was and what was paid for that land, including the house at the time it
was purchased. Not that long ago. And just as a point of information and perspective, if the lots on this
property were reduced to 40, we're not talking about trying to throw the plan out. Trying to get rid of
OR
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
development. I'm a landowner. I want to keep my rights. But if they were reduced just to 40 and retain the
steep slope, make it an outlot if necessary. Guess what? 10 -12 years ago that property, approximate payment
for that property was less than $200,000.00 or there abouts. I know that property right today with only 40 lots
would be worth at least $950,000.00. Is that a hardship? Is that enough to cause the city to preserve the values
that are outlined in the comprehensive plan? Or are we obligated to go further and develop the steep slope? So
in terms of values, I think the comprehensive plan, several years asked citizenry what do you value? What is it
that you want these people as elected officials to be the guardians of and I think you listened. I think you did a
very excellent job of receiving input and we were a part of that. And here we are. Now it's time. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Yes.
Chuck Plowe: Just one quick comment regarding the slopes. We all know this is hilly, rolling farmland but the
steep slopes, I guess if we talk about the steep slopes. Let's look at where the slopes are the steepest, if I don't
get my tongue tied up. Can you see where I'm pointing right here? The steepest slopes are right there. Those
are gone whether we develop it this way or whether you put in the southerly alignment. They're gone. They're
filled. These are not severely steep. The steepest is right there. If we're talking about the western portion of
the site, those are the facts. That's where the steepest part of the...
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Okay. I think it's time that we bring it back to Council and come up with some kind
of a conclusion this evening. Mark.
Councilman Senn: I don't know. I guess the easiest thing that I could say is that I've looked at this last time
that it was in here. I thought it looked like a good project. The underlying element is we can't stop
development. I think the Ryan's are very well aware of that. In fact I think this plan's being driven more by us
and roadways and development happening around it than it is by Ryan's. It's kind of a time they'd better act or
everything around them may determine everything for them later routine. Since last meeting what I tried to do is
I took this project and I stacked it up I'm going to say against most of the subdivisions we've approved in the
last year. Stacked it up side by side. And almost without exception I could not find one single project that
adhered to the standards that this project adheres to. I would love someone to show me that that's wrong but it
isn't. This project has met every standard we've ever set and it's setting a number of new ones in terms of
residential subdivisions. And I think that becomes the simple reality or the fact here of this project. I know the
road alignment issue has come up time and time again. If you want to look oat it purely on the basis of a road
alignment, which I really don't like looking at it on that basis, I'd say personally I'm going to favor a northerly
alignment because I think the southerly alignment's going to have, I think a fairly detrimental impact on the
wetland and I think it's going to also have a worse impact on the landforms. Because at that point you're going
to be forcing the Ryan's not to develop it as they're proposing but basically around the road. I think they've
come up with a good plan that doesn't work around a road per se. It works around a project of the whole area.
I can't help ... but basically I look back at everything that the staff has kind of put together on this and I think the
staff's done a good job of doing their homework and I think the staff has done a good job of kind of trying to
stay neutral but at the same time pointing out the relevant issues. I guess I'd still love to ask the staff for one
reason or another what they really think because so far I've heard everybody else say what they think they think.
I'd like to you know, I'd really kind of like to hear your own opinions straight forwardly.
Kate Aanenson: It's on the record. It's on the record. We said obviously our fast alternative is to wait until
the Mancino's develop and come off the north. That was rejected by the City Attorney who said if there's
another alternative, then you must pursue it ... and we came up with a compromise. Obviously this isn't our fast
choice and it's not their first choice—but we felt like this was an acceptable alternative. It buffers the Mancino's
21
C
u
n
I
I City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
' piece. Yeah, I wish they could wait until development occurred and we had to come off the top... significantly
large lots—that's up to you to decide whether... Council's call. It's not our first choice but again this plat isn't
' their first choice. We've already compromised...
Councilman Senn: But let's put the timing behind us okay. Let's accept the City Attorney's premise that we
can't make this development conform to the time line of everyone around it, okay. Let's look at this standing on
' it's own, okay. Is this or is this not what you feel is the best alternative given this project, standing on it's own
or not?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, we recommended that this would work based on the conditions in our report.
Councilman Senn: Well, that's what I thought but I mean like I say, I keep hearing a lot of other comments or
opinions as to what that is and I didn't think I was misreading what was in there. I'm sorry to put on the spot
that way but I thought it was important that I think everybody understand it. With that I think we should really
you move towards going ahead with what I think is one of the more well thought out and responsible projects
that we've seen and again, I'm going to bring that right back to our own table because that in comparison to
' everything else we've done in the last year. And I don't think it's at all fair to now develop a whole new
standard, that I'm not sure anybody can meet as I listen to some of these points, unless we want to start
providing some type of underlying subsidy against the property because we're going to take all their value out of
it. Like requiring more super sized lots or whatever. So I'd like to see us just get on with it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
Councilman Mason: I agree with Mark in that I don't think we can stop development. Well, we can't but I do
think we can nudge it in directions we would like it to go. And I think we're doing that with this project. I'm
not convinced that it's there yet and I'm not convinced that we have the capabilities to get it there. Let me back
' track a little bit now. I don't totally agree with Mr. Owens. I guess I don't view this as Waterloo or
Armegendon or the Battle of Leningrad. This is an important issue, make no mistake, which leads me to what
Mark was saying about putting this development against others. I see his point and I agree with that. However,
as I think most of us agree, this is one of the nicer areas in the city of Chanhassen right now. And because of
' that, whether it's right or not, I think we do, or at least I do, tend to raise my expectations some. You know we
hear that, some of the stuff, some of the discussion I think has been good. Some of it I've been a little
dismayed at because it's become you know, A versus B and they're doing this. Oh no, we're not. We're doing
that and I personally don't think that's the point. I have heard staff say that the best alternative is to wait until
Mancino's develop. I think that can be flip flopped too. Maybe because of the sensitivity of this area, people
don't want to develop but maybe they should because the Ryan's development will be better. So I'm throwing
' that out. I'm not accusing of anyone. I have no intention of doing that but I think an awful lot of stuff is
coming to bear on the Ryan's that I'm not sure is right. I'm concerned that some of the, it appears that some of
the alternatives have been rejected out of hand about what can be done to save some of the steep slopes. To
save what's there. If that hasn't all been looked at, I think it's sad. I really do. Although to be honest, a cord
' was struck with me just a moment ago when Jerome was talking about values. I think that's a point we all need
to deal with on this issue. Is the cost of land 10 -12 years ago. The cost of land today. Regardless of how
many homes go there, rightfully so, there will be a sizable profit. Staff, let me ask very quickly, and if this
' isn't fair, let me know. Just say, you know. If it were to be 40 lots instead of 47, could some significant
grading be not done?
22
I
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Kate Aanenson: Well I think there's a couple of things that would really... If it wasn't Ryan's today, say they
sold the property to somebody else had bought the property, that wouldn't even be an issue... Lundgren or
Roulund or somebody else had ... we wouldn't be talking about that because they've already paid that increase
increment. So we don't even look at that at the staff here. As far as the number of lots, certainly the number of
lots can be reduced and Mr. Engelhardt's plan ... off the top by Mancino's and ... Another was to do a PUD. Have
larger lots there and put the smaller lots, you'd have the same number of lots. Just spread it out across the
property... Now, they have chosen to go forward with this plan. We tried to ... the plan that they have chosen to
go forward with. This is the plan that they want to do. Did that answer your question?
Councilman Mason: Yeah it did, thank you. Well I've also talked before about I try to get my brain and my
heart together on these things and I know some of you are laughing about that right now, and I guess I don't
blame you. I can only be a mug wump so long I guess. A little history of the mug wump part but that's neither
here nor there. I'm uncomfortable with parts of this plat but in terms of my job as a council representative for
the city of Chanhassen, and based on what our attorney says, this, that and the other thing, I think we have to
move with it. But I would sure hope that all possibilities have been exhausted before we start moving hundreds
of thousands of cubic feet of dirt.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'm still trying to decide which side of the fence I should sit on. Let me explain
both. First allow me to just ... a couple of points that Mark and Mike brought up. In terms of let's view it in the
context of what we've done in the past. To me that means status quo is okay and let's never change. I think
this piece of land does deserve some additional consideration and I have been upset with what we've done in the
past in terms of slopes. I look at the school site and granted that serves a higher function but I'm disappointed
with that grading. I look at the hill over here and the barracks on top of it and I'm disappointed with that. So I
don't know if this is the point to say we need an ordinance not only to deal with cliffs, or whatever which one
we have, but also deal with slopes and get some definition as to what a significant grade is. Anyway, so my
point is, I'm not viewing this in the context of what we've done in the past because I think it is, although I agree
not to the point of Mr. Owens' contention, it does set a precedent. In terms of the financial considerations,
that's neither here nor there. Not part of my review at all. Okay, let me get to what I really think. To be
honest now that I think of it, I like the fact that with the northerly alignment we are showing some curvature to
the road. We've had a lot of problems on east Lake Lucy with people screaming down it because it's a fairly
flat, straight away. And regardless of the speed limit, people will exceed it and we've had several complaints on
it. The southerly alignment would make it another straight away on this side. However I can't deny Planning
Commission's 7 to 0 vote saying that this plan does not work for this slope. There have been some alternatives
shown. I'm not happy with any of them, to be honest and I realize Bill it was a rough sketch. But there's got
to be something different. Something more acceptable. And to be honest I'm also concerned that even if we do
come up with a different grading plan and we approve it, it won't work like the one that Bill analyzed and we
came up hundreds of cubic feet short so I'm concerned even if we say well this cut should only be 4 feet, when
it's said and done and the Cats are out there, that's not going to be the final product. And I don't know if we
ever checked that on any of our other plans that we approve. Can I be a mug wump? I guess there has to be an
alternative for the western portion for me to approve it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing: I've got my thoughts and my notes spread over 4 different pages. That's how my mind
works and if I talk that way we're going to get nowhere here. I really hate it when it starts down at Mark's end
23
�1
r
n
n
t
1.1
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
and he goes um, because I realize it's a complex issue. His mind's ticking and it isn't going to be a simple
answer. Mike and Colleen haven't helped. I sat at the Planning Commission meeting until 1:30 in the morning
with the Ryan's, who were very patient. They had to sit through a lot of garbage to get their thing on and I
can't believe how patient everybody was. But it's the first time I've ever seen the Planning Commission be truly
decisive and they just, words like tampering with the land and not good, and the road. I mean the road
alignment's, I'm almost, like Colleen mentioned, that north one maybe makes sense with the curvature. They
brought up the comp plan and density and slope protections and it's not the future of Chanhassen and we can't
take the density. I just kept taking notes saying, it's unusual. I guess I'd like to start by asking staff and the
attorney a couple questions. First of all, who's got what rights here? The Ryan's are developers. Land owners
and they certainly have the right to develop. And it seems to me they have the right to come in here with a
standard subdivision of 15,000 square foot lots and not say much about it. So that's one issue. And we keep
talking about these gray areas on the comprehensive plan and the ordinances where the intent is to preserve our
city's topography, it's landforms, etc, etc, etc, etc. And I think that's wonderful and it sounds great and it's
where I stand. I'm a large lot man mainly because densities upset me and no one wants to talk about density.
The only way I can deal with density then, without more intellectual discussion is simply larger lots. Means
fewer homes. Means less traffic. Less damage to the land. And over development has an impact on the land.
So I'd like to see larger lots here but it's not zoned larger lots. We don't have ordinances to protect the slopes
other than this gray intent so Elliott, who's got what rights here? What rights do I have as City Council to
address these issues and what right does the developer have? And we keep talking about this intent of
preserving and protecting. Does that really mean anything other than it'd be really nice? And we have been
rubber stamping development after development. We've been getting more and more comments back from
members of Council saying, what are we doing? To me it's becoming alarming to the point where I've
suggested we get an emergency review of our comp plan together and start looking at our land and what we
want to do with what's remaining. This happens to be one of the most sensitive areas in the city as far as I'm
concerned in terms of topography and wooded, but when we run a 36 foot road through there, we've alienated
that land enormously at that point. Somebody, before I get to the major points here, could you explain who's
got what rights here and where these gray areas in the ordinance apply or don't apply?
Elliott Knetsch: Well I'll try. You could spend a whole year in law school perhaps on that, on your question
but the property owner has a right to develop his property consistent with our ordinances. If you see a plat in
front of you that meets all of our ordinances as far as minimum lot sizes, setbacks, and so forth. Requires no
variances. The streets are well laid out and safe for traffic and so forth. Then we have very little discretion to
turn it down. Perhaps none. Where our ordinances provide standards that a plat must meet, it's up to the
Council to determine if the plat meets those standards. Here we have a standard in the ordinance which says we
are to protect, among other things, steep slopes. And that's the issue you've been grappling with. Does this plat
or does it not protect steep slopes. I think reasonable arguments can be made on both sides of that question.
Reasonable people could disagree on that issue. Whether it does or it doesn't. I can give you some more
information perhaps or maybe that addresses your question.
Councilman Wing: Do we have any legal right to say we only want 40 lots here?
Elliott Knetsch: I don't know to the extent that that's an arbitrary number, no. To the extent that we can
document how that would protect slopes and address the other concerns that have been raised by staff and some
of the neighbors, then yes. If that results in a reduction in the lots, and we can pin point and state specific
reasons and point to ordinances that back us up, then yes we could ask for a reduction in the lots.
24
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilman Wing: I think planning is very wise and we've repeatedly at this Council level not addressed the
Planning Commission concerns and issues and what's come back to us from them, an example is, they
specifically. And maybe I digress here and I'll apologize... they stated that do not put a lighted sign on the east
side of Byerly's because it's going to impact everything we do here enormously and they gave them a little brick
sign in lieu of that. Well, Council overrode that and every time I look to the west out of the windows of City
Hall, I look right into this enormous billboard and I say, boy I wish we had listened to Planning Commission.
And Planning Commission has gone through this hours and hours and hours and they don't like it. I don't
dislike it. The only thing that remains with me on issues is reducing lot sizes and preserving these knolls if you
will, or these knobs. We still have the large hill to the north. All we're going to be, we're going to be losing
some rolling terrain here. Both sides have commented that there's both sides of this. I mean I look at this and
move a little fill here, and this gets cut here but I see the whole thing disturbed regardless. So talk about being
on the fence. I'm really, I think all of this Council are staunch environmentalists and my problem is that we're
in the decade of the 90's and the decade of the 90's is the decade of rethinking and redesigning and replanning
and that's where these battles and fights are coming from because we're all struggling to elevate ourselves to this
higher level of design and standard that we haven't know here before. And so these battles occur because our
ordinances don't say to the Ryan's, here's the rules. Come in and live with them and then we apply them
evenly. We're trying to take our ordinances and I'm not hiding behind them. Whoa be to any city planner or
Council person that is going to hide behind ordinances to the city's best interest. I don't think we're doing that.
I think we're trying to stretch them as far as we can here to our new standard which isn't clearly defined. So do
we penalize the Ryan's or do we penalize the city? There seems to be a neutral point here right now where the
neighbors have been heard and their issues are real. Ryan's have really tried to compromise I think and come up
with something that shifts things around enough to get this thing through. Have I said a thing?
Councilman Senn: I think so.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes you did.
Councilman Wing: I would like to see the issue of the 40 lots is an arbitrary number. I'd like to see if the lot
reduction in fact did resolve some of the grading issues. I'd like to see all of these models go back to the
Planning Commission. Planning Commission sit down in a flexible manner and decide, is there anything that
can be done better or is this the best we're going to get and go with it. Bear in mind that the Ryan's do have
rights as owners and developers that we can't deny and we don't have the ordinances to say you can't do this.
Would there be some compromise that the Planning Commission would back off? That Ryan's might come this
way a little bit. Come to the Council with a clean package here that in good faith we can pass—the developers
coming in after these folks because we've seen the light. Do I support this? I'm undecided.
Mayor Chmiel: You've got it...okay, thanks. I guess as I, there's a lot of things I could reiterate here but some
of the things that I looked at was basically what the Planning Commission did come up with. I had been on the
Ryan's property and I agree too that they have every right to develop this. As long as it's consistent with the
requirements that we have within the city and the proposed subdivision as it presently stands and as the Planning
Commission has indicated, that it does not meet the requirements of an ordinance. Ordinance number 18- 60(d).
And it states that lots...be placed to preserve and protect natural amenities such as vegetation, wetlands, steep
slopes with emphasis on water courses and historic areas. And then of course the subdivision does not meet the
intent of the comprehensive plan. That's another part of it. And of course one of the other things too with that
southerly alignment and I'm concerned too with those steep slopes as to how that can be eliminated. Or at least
addressed accordingly and that southerly route would probably provide that from what Bill has indicated with the
scales as they have in front of us. As well as what we had seen previously. So I guess I know where I'm going
25
7
u
I
F1
e
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
with this. As much as I'd like to say yes. Put this in, I guess I'm looking at, yes. Put this in but I would like to
see some of those changes incorporated into what I basically have just said and I think it's being consistent to
what the basic votes were within the Planning Commission and I guess that's where I'm at. Any other
discussion?
Councilman Wing: What's the time line on that direction? What does that do to this?
Kate Aanenson: ...the 120 days it expires, is November 3rd. So if you are making a motion tonight that it needs
to follow ... the City Attorney would like an opportunity to comment on those. If your motion is... approval, that
we would have a special meeting set for the Council on November 1st to give you an opportunity to pass the
findings but we have to make a decision by November 3rd. That's 120 days. Unless there was concurrence
from the applicant allowing...
Mayor Chmiel: Elliott, would you like to elaborate a little bit as to what Kate has said?
Elliott Knetsch: There is a legal issue. We have to act on this within the 120 days. That's going to end I think
the staff reports are sufficient to lay out findings if your motion is for approval. If your motion is for denial, we
would recommend that you direct staff to prepare findings of fact consistent with denial to bring to you at your
meeting. The special meeting on November 1st. If you want to in essence table this and refer it back to
Planning Commission to try to address some of the concerns raised, we would need the applicant's consent to
that.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Alright, let me ask questions of the Ryan's. I know that there has been some
discussions within the community as to the City Council tabling a lot of things. I don't agree with that statement
and the reason why many of our tablings do develop is that sometimes there's not sufficient amount of
information that's provided to us and we don't just sit back to table items. We sit back to look at it and how we
' can justifiably put it through and make sure that it's right accordingly to what the requirements are as far as the
city is. Let me ask Ed and Mary, if we were to table this, would you be agreeable to a tabling and come up and
see if there's another alternative from what you've heard here this evening from Council. You can either address
that or not. I mean feel free but I'd just like to pose that question to you.
' Ed Ryan: Do you want me to come forward?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, if you would please.
Ed Ryan: We appreciate the consideration of our plat and we feel we've been down a long road. I think Kate
knows that. I think what we have before you is of value. Obviously we wouldn't want to present anything else
than what we felt very strongly about. I guess I would ask that the Council approve our plat but add the specific
direction to perhaps the westerly portion of the property whereby we, our plat is approved but subject to a
reviewal by staff, by Bill and by Chuck, our engineer, to look at this issue as you specifically address one more
time.
Councilman Wing: Is the primary issue here grading? Is that what I'm hearing?
Councilman Senn: I don't agree that it is. From a simple fact that if you go out there and any way you start
drawing that line for that road, it's all going to equal out. I'm sorry, I've gone out there and looked at it enough
times, I just don't see that changing. So in my mind I don't think that's the real issue. I look at it in terms of
26
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
an overall project and how they design it and I love that model. I mean that is going to be one of the more
attractive neighborhoods in Chanhassen. Given everything else we're looking at, I think it's way, way ahead of
a lot of the other stuff we're doing. I think we can argue here all night and we can continue it, we can do
whatever over the grading issue and the grading issue isn't going to change. The road goes through there, the
grades are going to change. You're going to have cuts here, you're going to have fills there. No matter where it
goes. You're going to be moving about the same amount of soil no matter what. And if Mr. Engelhardt
disagrees with that, I'd like to hear it but I think that's what he said.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And if we kept the road alignment as it stands and change lot sizes, that's not
going to solve anything because it's the road that's causing.
Kate Aanenson: Well no. Unless you put that road to the south and came in like he showed it on his
representation ... road to the north, maybe a private drive. That and outlotting the lot. That would be one way...
off of Mancino's. But what you're doing is you're reducing the number of lots on that portion of the plan.
Bill Engelhardt: It doesn't make any difference on that particular plat with the grading.
Mayor Chmiel: Would you get up to the microphone please.
Bill Engelhardt: I think everybody is pretty much in agreement that we're really talking about this. The easterly
portion of it, whether we put this cul -de -sac down or up a little bit isn't too much difference. This is really kind
of a mutation. What we're talking about is this area right here. In order to create the number of lots that they
want to create in this area, you need to fill anywhere from 12 to 14 feet. And then butt it up against the
wetlands. Now if we do the, and then here it hits, you're also then cutting these fills back up in here. So you're
taking dirt off of here. You're putting it down in here. You're essentially taking the dirt out of the middle and
putting it here and here. You're going to cut those knobs off no matter what. If you put the road to the south,
and what Ed was, or Chuck was saying, the steep slopes are in here. We're talking about the road being more
down in this area. I can see those steep slopes...you don't want to get too far into those steep slopes. You can
build a small retaining wall and there's things you can do to avoid cutting this hillside. You could, by putting
the road down here, avoid cutting in this hillside other than just the road being down here. And then the issue
becomes the number of lots because now you've got 9 lots down here. You maintain the slopes and bring in
from the top, you're talking about 4 lots. So really what you're really, and what it really boils down to is about
5 lots. The whole ballgame. And whether you want to.
Councilman Senn: Well you're saying from a grading standpoint it comes down to 5 lots.
Bill Engelhardt: Grading, that's right.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, because I think a lot of.
Bill Engelhardt: From an economic standpoint it's, you know it's 9 versus 5 too.
Councilman Senn: Well where the more sensitive part of the site is too I think makes a difference too.
Mayor Chmiel: That's exactly right.
Councilman Senn: That's to the south.
27
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Jerome Carlson: Do large lots sell for more money than small lots?
Bill Engelhardt: I can't answer that.
Jerome Carlson: Well I guess I'm going to...
Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to come up here Jerome. We'd like to get that on the microphone. The only
reason I ask that because we get a void in the tape.
' Jerome Carlson: I'm sorry. The comments would lead one to think that if you go from 9 to 4, that you are in
fact giving away the equivalent value of 5 full lots and I don't think that in this community that's accurate. I
think that there are lots of folks that have paid a great deal more money for the advantage and for the serenity of
having a somewhat larger lot. Therefore I don't think that's a ... offset. I don't need to repeat my earlier
' comments about the finances. I think that the trade off would not be that far and that would be an alternative to
preserving that steep slope and still providing some lots. Thank you.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'll let you make one more comment and then I'm going to bring it back to Council. I
think it's time we come to a conclusion.
Chuck Plowe: Talking about the number of lots. Essentially we'd end up with 4 lots up here. We already have
3 there now so the net loss wouldn't be 5, it'd be more like 8. Also this steep slope that Bill's looking at the
placement of the road here and I think if you want to stay out of the wetland, the wetland does have a point but
it comes up quite far and I've looked at this so I've looked at this too many times actually. The roadway comes
' up to the north with the southerly alignment such that that fill will in fact encroach into those slopes. Even
with...
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Good. Okay, I guess we have 3 different ways to go with it. Either approve it. If we
don't, we have to go through the process of Findings of Fact. Or the last of it, which is to table it and have it
go back to the Planning Commission to come back with lesser amount of lots.
' Councilman Senn: I'll move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? Is there a second?
' Councilman Mason: Yes. I'll second it.
Mayor Chmiel: Motion on the floor with a second. Any other discussion?
Councilman Wing: Kate, is there a way that we can approve this existing plot and the northerly road alignment
and in the process of, I recognize the motion on the floor but would that in effect, certainly we could take the
existing plot. The northerly road alignment and somehow come up with a compromise to minimize some of that
topography changes and the grading which may mean giving up a lot or two or an Outlot C or D having to be
formed here at some point.
' Kate Aanenson: We've been trying to do that. I understand what you're saying. I wish we could get
concurrence. I wish somebody would... They have lost 5 lots since this has come in so we've worked on it, but
28
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
that doesn't mean they can't drop all 4 lots. I don't know how you'd motion. Maybe Elliott can help. The
motion is something to say that we could look at...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But isn't it, excuse me. Isn't it the road alignment that determines the cuts? I
mean even if those southerly, I mean the cul -de -sacs and the private drives coming off of Lake Lucy to the west,
even if you made those lots bigger, it's not going to change the slope.
Kate Aanenson: No. But the option is that you can come off a private drive to the north...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: But Richard is saying keep the northerly alignment and change the lot size, aren't I
you? That's not...
Kate Aanenson's statement could not be heard on the tape.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion?
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Case #94 -3 Rezoning 37.92 acres from
RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family and approving Preliminary Plat #94-7 subject to
the following conditions:
1. Revise the lot lines for Lots 1 through 4, Block 1 to provide a minimum of 90 feet of frontage for Lots 1
and 4.
2. Submit revised utility plans for approval of fire hydrant locations. Fire hydrant spacing is 300 feet
maximum. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for details.
n
7
3. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, '
NSP, NW Bell, Cable TV, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located
and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Section 9 -1.
4. A turn around acceptable to the city's Fire Marshal shall be provided at the end of the private road off of
Jennifer Way.
5. The common portion of the private roads shall be signed "No Parking Fire Lane ".
6. Either a monument sign or street sign shall be provided for the private roads to aid in the location of
homes on private roads for emergency vehicles.
7. Submit turning radius and cul -de -sac dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval.
Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10- 204(d) and 10.203.
8. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance.
9. An 8 foot bituminous trail shall be constructed parallel to Lake Lucy Road. The construction will be
incorporated into the Lake Lucy Road extension project. The developer shall be reimbursed for the full
cost of said trail from the city's trail fund if the developer constructs said trail as part of their project.
29
1
�I
I City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
10. Obtain demolition permits for any buildings to be removed before their removal.
11. A landscape buffer shall be required along the length of County Road 117, Galpin Boulevard, and along
' both sides of the Lake Lucy Road extension, Section 18- 61(a)(5). This buffer landscaping shall be
developed as part of the preliminary and final plat submittal for city approval. Appropriate financial
guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required. A woodland management plan must also be prepared
' as part of the platting process. A landscape plan including the landscape buffer, forestation and
replacement planting must be prepared and approved by the city. The landscape plan and woodland
management plan must be prepared by a landscape professional.
' 12. Prepare baseline canopy coverage calculations and estimated canopy coverage removal area. Overlay the
tree plan on the grading plan in order to verify tree preservation.
13.
Boulevard trees along Lake Lucy Road, Jennifer Way, James Court, and Anna Alcove must be diverse
with no more than two trees of the same species in a row. Mary Bay may be planted with one species
considering the trees may provide a theme for the short cul -de -sac.
'
14.
Non - deciduous evergreens shall be incorporated into the tamaracks on the north side of Lake Lucy Road
and the west side of County Road 117. A minimum of nine non - deciduous evergreens shall be used to
create diversity, provide additional screening, and add interest. The evergreens planted on the south side
'
of Lot 1, Block 2, shall be extended east to the rear lot line.
15.
The landscaping plan requires an additional 42 trees based on staff's analysis of the tree preservation,
forestation, and replacement requirements for a total of 284 trees. Staff recommends that the additional 42
'
trees be incorporated in the landscaping plan as follows:
a. Nine trees staggered for a windbreak along the western property lines of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1.
Windbreak trees shall include spruce (Black Hills, Norway, White).
b. Five trees grouped near the corners of Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1; 10 trees grouped along the rear lot
lines of Lots 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Block 1; and 18 trees in groupings along the rear lot lines of Lots
'
2 through 11, Block 3. Rear yard tree selection shall be River Birch, Ohio Buckeye, Catalpa, Silver
Queen Maple, White or Bur Oak, Hawthorne, Aspen, Arborvitae, and Balsam or White Fir.
16.
The following tree conservation and forestation areas shall be dedicated as part of the final plat: a 30 foot
easement along the northern boundary of the site; a 30 foot easement along the western lot lines of Lots 1
and 2, Block 1; the southern 100 feet of the eastern 30 feet of Lot 4, Block 1; the southern 30 feet of the
'
western 30 feet of Lot 5, Block 1; the northern 70 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot 6, Block 1; the
eastern 30 feet of Lots 8 and 9, Block 1; the western 30 feet of Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 1; the eastern
30 feet of Lots 2 through 7, Block 3; and the western 30 feet of Lots 8 through 11, Block 3.
17.
To provide slope stabilization north of Lake Lucy Road on Outlot B, Sumac shall be planted 7 feet on
center. Such plantings shall be staggered to provide better stabilization and aesthetic appeal. Additionally,
'
this area must be seeded.
18.
The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and
provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface
30
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide
detailed pre - developed and post - developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events. Normal
water level and high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations
between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being
utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
19. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity user fee of $63,360.00 assuming 32
acres of developable land. Water quantity and quality fees may or may not be assessed dependent upon
the Lake Lucy Road improvement project assessment methodology. These fees will be negotiated based
on the developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water quantity and
quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications to the
fees, they will be changed prior to final plat.
1
20. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during construction. '
Drain tile shall be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer.
21. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance
with city and/or state codes. The existing house on Lot 14, Block 3 shall be connected to the new
sanitary sewer line within 30 days after the line becomes available. The well may be utilized as long as
the well is on the lot and functional. Once the well fails or the property is sold the property owners shall
connect to city water.
22. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated for all utility lines outside the plat. The minimum
easement width should be 20 feet. Maintenance access to the ponding areas shall be provided. Slopes
shall not exceed 4:1 over the easement areas.
23. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements and compliance of the
conditions of approval.
24. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility construction plans and specifications
shall be submitted to staff for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final
plat consideration.
25. The applicant shall apply for an obtain the necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR,
Department of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions
of approval.
26. Upon completion of site grading, all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood
fiber blanket within two weeks of completing the site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All erosion control measures shall be in accordance to the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
27. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the
public right -of -way and.drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership.
31
u
I City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
'
28.
The existing home shall change it's address to be compatible with the City's addressing system once the
street has been constructed adjacent to the house.
29.
The grading plan shall be revised as follows: (1) provide for 2% boulevards and 3:1 side slopes adjacent
to all streets in accordance to the City's typical street standards; (2) berming shall be prohibited from all
street right -of -ways; (3) the proposed pond between Gwendolen Court; (4) grading in the rear yards of
Lots 4 through 8, Block 2 shall be revised to drain rear to front; (5) an interim sediment pond shall be
provided on Lot 12, Block 3 until Lots 1 through 12, Block 3 are fully revegetated; (6) storm ponds shall
be designed and constructed with a 10:1 bench at the normal water level (NWL) for the first one foot
(depth) of water and then 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 slopes overall; (7) the proposed berm west of the westerly
'
private driveway shall be relocated westerly to improve sight distance on Lake Lucy Road from the
private driveway.
'
30.
Lake Lucy Road shall be designed and constructed to meet State Aid standards.
31.
Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon utilities being extended from Brendon Pond
unless other feasible alternatives are provided to the City for review and approval.
32.
Lake Lucy Road shall be realigned southerly to be compatible with the intersection proposed in Brendon
'
Pond (Lake Lucy Road and Pondview Court).
33.
Direct driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road shall be prohibited. A private driveway shall be required to
access Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 4 in accordance to the City's private driveway ordinance.
'
and
also approve Wetland Alteration Permit #94-3 subject to the following conditions:
1.
Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The
city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20.00
per sign. The proposed buffer strip shall be shown on the grading plan.
' 2. The applicant shall submit mitigation plans as required as a part of the State Wetland Conservation Act
(WCA) and Wetland City Ordinance specifically replacement plans, wetland delineation report, a map with
wetland data points, at least one data sheet for each wetland identifying upland areas and a map of the
soils.
Councilman Senn and Councilman Mason voted in favor of the motion. Mayor Chmiel voted in
' opposition to the motion. Councilwoman Dockendorf and Councilman Wing were silent. The motion
carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Chmiel: With the vote that is taken and no comment coming back, those two silent votes are considered
' as a yes vote.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's fine.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion passes 4 to 1. And my reasoning of course is yet trying to meet the
requirements of our ordinance, which is ordinance number 18- 60(d).
32
r
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilman Wing: My silence is the indecision and gray areas in those ordinance that we weren't able to
address tonight.
Councilman Mason: If I could.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Michael.
Councilman Mason: If I was not up here, I know this sounds odd, but if I was not up here, I would not have
voted for it. But I think with all the information we have before us, whether I like it or not, it is a subdivision
that works. And I also think, rightly or wrongly, and I think everyone here knows how I stand on environmental
issues. But I do think that, like I said, rightly or wrongly, the fifth generation of people who live in Chanhassen
after this are probably going to say that's a very nice development. Now I don't know whether that's right or
wrong but I think that's also something we need to take into account.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Don.
Kate Aanenson: Clarification on the motion.
Don Ashworth: Yeah, point of clarification. Staff will take the interpretation that that vote included both items.
The rezoning and the.
Mayor Chmiel: Three items. Rezoning of the property from RR, Rural Residential. To include the preliminary
plat and also the wetland alteration permit.
Don Ashworth: Exactly as shown on the agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: That's correct. All three of those respective items. Okay? Thanks for coming.
AUTHORIZE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR STAGE II IMPROVEMENTS TO LYMAN
BOULEVARD AND LAKE RILEY AREA UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 93 -32B.
Public Present:
Name Address
Mr. & Mrs. Bailey Janssen 500 Lyman Blvd.
Gary Skalberg 510 Lyman Blvd.
Leland & Laurie Wyman 400 Lyman Blvd.
Mayor Chmiel: Let me just inject something here, and I think this is something that we had on item 1(a) on a
consent. This should, or excuse me, 1(e). This should be consistent with that decision making on item 1(e).
Okay. Who's going to, thank you.
David Mitchell: This project has a history dating back to a number of months. On May of '94 Council received
the actual feasibility report, ordered the public hearing on June 13th which was continued to July l lth. On the
July 11th meeting, two property owners expressed concern with the project. Asked Council or staff to go back
33
r 7
L�J
1
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
and review possible phasing or staging of the project. We did that. Came back to Council on July 25th at
which point Council ordered plans and specifications for Phase I, which has been bid and awarded and will
likely begin construction in the next couple of weeks. Phase II takes in account the remainder of the portion that
was discussed back on June 13th and the subsequent meeting for those portions totaling approximately $3 1/2
million in improvements. We can certainly go through that. I don't know if Council really cares to do that at
this point. As was mentioned, there was a previous item on tonight's agenda that also is part of this and... we
ask that Council authorize preparation of plans and specs contingent upon the successful execution of that
previous agenda item. The acceptance of both Lakeview Hills Investment Group and the City.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. Thank you David. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time? If seeing none.
Mark, any questions?
Councilman Senn: Nope, no questions.
Councilman Mason: None on my part.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. None? Richard.
Councilman Wing: No sir.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'd like that motion to include the fact that this is consistent with 1(e) and that both of
these should be considered when this approval is going to be done. Or be taken at this time. Can I have a
motion on the floor for approval.
Councilman Senn: So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Resolution #94 -116: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to authorize the preparation
of plans and specifications for the Stage II improvements to Lyman Boulevard and Lake Riley Area
Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -32B contingent upon approval of item 1(e). All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously.
CITY CODE AMENDMENT INCREASING CITY COUNCIL SALARIES, FINAL READING.
' Don Ashworth: This item has actually appeared on two previous agendas. The last time City Council asked that
the item be published one additional time showing more clarity as to exactly what it was City Council was
doing. And that a separate notice be posted or put into the Villager itself alerting citizens to the fact that City
' Council would be considering increasing salaries up to the average for cities of similar size to ourself. This
office is the one who had carried out that analysis and we recommend approval of second reading of the
compensation ordinance as attached to the City Council packet. I should note that what that does is modifies so
' that a City Council member, all Council members would receive $400.00 a month and in addition, for the
additional duties associated with the Mayor's position, an additional $100.00 per month would be paid to the
Mayor. Again, approval is recommended.
90
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address this? Okay. Any discussion? Dick.
Councilman Wing: Just a question of Dean Trippler, being he's in the audience tonight. Do you feel that
you've had adequate media coverage for this Dean?
Dean Trippler: Yes....
Councilman Wing: Time frame is adequate? Okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, I don't have anything.
Mayor Chmiel: Mike.
Councilman Mason: No comment.
Mayor Chmiel: Mark.
Councilman Senn: I feel much better now.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good. If you feel better, I feel better. Is there a motion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I will move it.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? ...is there a second?
Councilman Mason: Sure.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve final reading of City Code
Amendment concerning the compensation of the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE RELATING TO THE CONTROL AND PREVENTION OF DUTCH
ELM DISEASE AND OTHER ARBOREAL DISEASES WITHIN THE CITY, FIRST READING.
Jill Kimsal: Good evening Mayor... Council members. I'm Jill Kismal, the forestry intern. At the last Council
meeting held October 10th of the diseased shade tree ordinance was tabled. Council had three... concerns with
this ordinance. Number one, specification of the full or part time status of the City Forester... Secondly, special
assessments for cases of hardship. And thirdly, the establishment of a community wood chipping site. For the
first concern, the words the full or part time has been added to Section 13- 28(a). That should take care of any...
Item number two is ... cost of removal would be a hardship for people 65 years or older or retired and/or disabled.
As indicated, there would be no financial assistance given by the city. Rather a deferral of the cost would be
granted based on the... Thirdly, the wood chipping site will be looked into further this winter. At this point
anything is a possibility for that. It's definitely a good idea. I know that city staff... Staff has reviewed the
ordinance and made the necessary changes. Staff recommends adoption of the diseased shade tree
ordinance—answer any questions you may have.
35
J
J
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: Good. Thank you. There's just one thing I'd like to suggest or have open for discussion.
Under that Section 13 -28, Forester. I called around to quite a few cities and find that they really don't have a
full time foresters. What I would like, and also a few counties as well. What I would like to do is suggest that
the, have that read the position of a part time intern city forester or tree inspector is hereby, is within the city.
Because we have so many winter months that there's nothing that can be done with trees or knowing what's
happening with them. You can go through the process as we've done before in going through the University and
bringing someone in on a part time basis as an intern I think should be, because there's many things that can be
looked at during the spring stage and throughout the summer as we can find enough time for those people to do
as we've done right now. So that would be one of my suggestions in making that particular one change.
Councilman Wing: You're saying the position of a full or part time and/or intern?
Mayor Chmiel: No. The position of, and scratch full or, and just put part time intern. City forester or tree
inspector is hereby created within the city.
Councilman Senn: The way we treat this now, isn't it kind of like a full time job?
Kate Aanenson: In the summer months.
Councilman Senn: In the summer months, correct.
Kate Aanenson: That's kind of how we felt that this... It's certainly not our intent to ... but the part time also
qualifies.
Councilman Senn: I think Don's comment's a good one though.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there any other discussion?
Councilman Senn: I had one point still going back to (f) on 13 -35. I think we've gotten most of the way there
but I'd like to just one addition. Where we say the assessment may be deferred on homestead property if the
owner is a person 65 years of age or older who is retired and/or by virtue of total or permanent disability. I'd
like to insert at that point, or a person who can demonstrate severe financial hardship. Because that's kind of
what I think I asked last time but we're, this new language is limited to disability or basically retirement and I'd
like to leave that other door open.
Councilman Mason: I'm just curious. Does that first sentence include that or not? Council may consider
deference for hardship. You want something more than that?
Councilman Senn: Well the thing that bothers me about that is, Council may consider deferments or hardship
and then it's like it's going on to define it. Okay. And then it closes it off again. That's why I thought I'd like
to have that inserted if we could. Does that bother you at all?
Kate Aanenson: No, I think that's fine. This was made by...
Councilman Senn: That's fine. If he's comfortable with it, that's okay.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussions? Richard.
36
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I was just going to ask if I could usurp Mr. Ashworth's authority and hire Kim.
think it's an outstanding report. You've done a great job. I said that facetiously.
Mayor Chmiel: Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well Council under (f). We're pushing wooded lots and plantings, preserving the trees
we've got and I look at my neighborhood and on any given time I could lose 6 maples or 6 oaks. The neighbors
could lose the same. Enormous trees right next to the houses. $1,500.00 a piece to take out. And I simply right
now, with my income, may choose or may not be able to afford that and I would simply say, forget it. If the
city wants to stop the spread of this, I think we need to have assistance and when we start saying disabled or 65,
that's irrelevant. I think it could be anybody at any point in their life with any number of kids of any position
that's suddenly on a wooded lot could have a disaster befall them that is second to none. They'd have to
mortgage their house to get those trees cut down and get out of there. I think that to pick up on what Mark
started on here, his concerns for cost. I like everything that's been said but I think we need the ability to
provide city assistance. If maybe 1 tree, 2 trees, but when you start to get beyond that, people just simply may
need the city to come in and help out, for the best interest of the city. And I don't want anything deferred. I
don't want, that does nothing. Frankly I want my trees out of there right now and I don't want no trees because
I don't want to take a chance having to have this thing deferred on. I like what's done but my opinion is, we
need to have a way to offer public assistance to all the community should they beset by a disaster, which could
happen on any wooded lot.
Councilman Senn: But we do that by deferring the special assessments see. I mean that is the city assistance.
That's why I asked that that language be put in there. It basically comes back up to the heading there which is
special assessment deferral.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: So deferral meaning set aside?
Councilman Senn: Yeah. It means we pay.
Councilman Wing: Wait. Okay. Oh, explain that.
Kate Aanenson: Kind of the history of what we did when we originally had ... we had the Dutch Elm Disease.
The city hooked into special money just for that ... budget next week. We've got some monies in that budgeted
for that program too. It's certainly something we could put in.
Councilman Wing: Okay, define deferred then Mark. That's where I missed you.
Councilman Senn: The Council has the right to defer the assessment. I mean that can be any period of time,
including indefinitely. Which means the city picks up the cost then.
Mayor Chmiel: I know in some other cities, excuse me. Some other cities I know where they have people
come in and just cut the trees down and take them for firewood and they go out and use that to sell them. But I
don't know what our liabilities might be on having ... if they fell a tree and it went on a house. They would
probably, more than likely have to carry insurance. If they didn't, we'd be liable.
Elliott Knetsch: We'd make sure they have insurance. The maximum that an assessment can be deferred under
Chapter 429 is 30 years from the date it's adopted.
37
l�
J
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilman Senn: So it can't be indefinitely?
Elliott Knetsch: Well it can be up to 30 years.
Councilman Senn: But does that mean that whoever owns that property in 30 years has to pay it then?
Elliott Knetsch: Normally the deferral ends when the hardship ends. The hardship typically ends if it's based on
age 65, when they sell the residence.
Councilman Senn: So it's not something that survives that is what I'm trying to say. It doesn't survive that
current ownership?
Elliott Knetsch: No, it does not. At that time it would become due, the hardship would be over.
Don Ashworth: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Don Ashworth: I think the Council should be cognizant of the fact that the primary benefit of this is the Chapter
429 process where if you've got a number of trees that have to be removed and it's $5,000.00 - $6,000.00 and you
don't have that money, by going through the 429 process you're allowing that to be assessed over a 5, 8, or 10
year period of time and bringing that cost down to $500.00 per year. Something that's reasonably affordable.
The hardship area comes in here, it provides then the Council to take that one step further and say alright. In
this particular case, because the applicant doesn't have the amount of money, we'll allow that deferment to go
out. It really won't start until 5 years from today or until the property is sold or until you know, whatever. You
can make up whatever the kind of conditions you want.
Councilman Senn: It leaves it open, right.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilman Wing: I still feel that if Mark Senn is reasonably wealthy on a large lot with a large home and has
a number of major trees go down, I'm not so sure I don't limit your liability. From the city standpoint, big
picture.
Councilman Senn: You don't Dick but at least, as I understand what we're creating here is, I then have the
option in that case to come into the city to make a request for assistance.
Councilman Wing: But I'm assuming you could afford to do this, but you know when you hit that $10,000.00
mark I'm saying, boy.
Councilman Senn: Well I start to wonder but then the city's got to evaluate each one of those as they come.
Councilman Wing: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion?
in
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilman Wing: I move approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, there's a motion on the floor with the recommendation of changes that we had.
Councilman Wing: Are those clarified? I didn't write them down.
Mayor Chmiel: Pardon me?
Councilman Wing: Your change to the wording of the deletion and Mark's addition to the item (f) is clarified.
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Senn seconded to approve the first reading of an amendment to the
City Code relating to the Control and Prevention of Dutch Elm Disease and other Arboreal Diseases with
the city as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER REQUEST FROM LUNDGREN BROTHERS FOR VARIANCE IN WORK HOURS FOR
THE WOODS AT LONGACRES, PROJECT 93 -28.
Don Ashworth: Fortunately the Mayor did get me to relook through this and there is an error with the
recommendation. At least I'm assuming that. We start out saying that the request is to extend the normal hours
on Saturdays from 7:00, by 2 hours. From 7:00 am. to 5:00 p.m. Currently it's 7:00 a.m. to.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: 9:00 to 5:00.
Don Ashworth: Yeah, 9:00 to 5:00. The ending part of the report though says 8:00 am. to 6:00 p.m. and
that's not what the applicant is requesting. They are requesting the 7:00 am. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, correct?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Councilman Senn: Kate, but you had cited that the neighbor wanted the 8:00 am. I thought that's why maybe
you came up with the 8:00 a.m. and moved it to 6:00 or the 6:00 was an error and could be 5:00. I don't know.
Kate Aanenson: That was my understanding.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That's why I was, he did mention the fact that 8:00 from one of those that did give a
response but you're right.
Don Ashworth: So maybe.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe it is right. Maybe it isn't and as it read, I didn't read it right.
Councilman Senn: My only question was did you mean the 6:00 to be 5:00 and just extend an hour in the
morning but I don't know. It seems like if the neighbors only comment was 8:00 a.m., we've got everybody
happy, let's just do it.
Mayor Chmiel: Anybody to address this issue this evening?
M
I City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
' Don Ashworth: Mike, could you clarify what? Did you talk to Dave on this item?
Mike Pflaum: No. I make the request for extension of time 2 hours earlier. The ordinance I understand is from
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. We requested from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Mayor Chmiel: That's what you're requesting?
' Mike Pflaum: That's what we're requesting. I wasn't aware that somebody...
Councilman Wing: Where's Terry? We're used to working with Terry.
Councilman Senn: Maybe that's why he's here. So is 8:00 to 6:00 okay?
' Mike Pflaum: Did somebody request that it ... 8:00 on Saturday?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
' Mike Pflaum: That would be fine.
Councilman Wing: I'd move that.
i Mayor Chmiel: 8:00 to 6:00.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf: 8:00 to 5:00.
Mike Pflaum: 8:00 to 5:00.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, 8:00 to 5:00.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: It gets dark at 6:00 anyway. It will be...
' Mayor Chmiel: I guess I wouldn't have any problem with that but in the event that there are some neighbors
who are concerned with that, then we'll have to talk to you one more time.
' Councilman Wing: So the agreement 8:00 to 5:00. So moved.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve a request for waiver from Standard
Work Hours for site grading at The Woods at Longacres by Lundgren Bros Construction to 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT BETWEEN NORTH STAR RAIL AND THE CITY TO ALLOW A
' PASSENGER TRAIN TO DEPART FROM CHANHASSEN.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I rode this train from Chanhassen to St. Paul and I accordingly am very biased
and will have to excuse myself from the voting.
40
fl
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilman Mason: Oh sit down.
Mayor Chmiel: No, the worst part of it is, is where they were dropped off. In a railroad yard and how he could
get a ride back home.
Councilman Wing: Boy was that a lonely night at 2:00 a.m. up there.
Kate Aanenson: Based on that train ride, that raised some issues that we had. The intersection was blocked at
Market for about 10 to 15 minutes. And there was some complaints about all the whistle blowing...
Councilman Mason: Wait, wait. They let him drive that thing?
Councilman Senn: Now I see why he's excusing himself from the floor. He's the whistle blower.
Kate Aanenson: ...we did have concerns about the—loading of the train so we've asked for—to look if there
isn't a mechanism... put together a special use permit. They are looking at two train trips on October 29th and
30th. These dates are Saturday and Sunday so they'd be using the existing city parking lot. They would be
boarding and unloading and again, the concern that we have is that we don't block the intersection so we have
requested that they remain between Market Boulevard and Great Plains. That the stacking remain between those
intersections so we're not blocking traffic. The other issue that we had was to make sure that people are parking
and safely walking across... The Attorney's office has prepared a special use agreement outlining the conditions
that we would have. Right now, it's my understanding—one time operation. ...they are looking at other uses in
the future.
Elliott Knetsch: Well his permit would run for a year.
Kate Aanenson: After a year, okay. We are looking at other dates. The dates that we're talking about ... but they
are looking at maybe 4 or 5 times a year. So based on the special use agreement... We would recommend
approval.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I look at this as a boost to the businesses within downtown bringing in x number
of people within the community. And hopefully it will cause a little stimulus with the business district, and I
think from that standpoint, it's good. The only thing that I was going through here and I'm looking again. How
many total cars will be on that train? Connection.
Richard Cesario: Parked on the train?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Total number of passenger cars including the engine and the tender.
Richard Cesario: I'm Richard Cesario with North Star Rail. We have 7 passenger cars, an engine, tender.
There may be a supplemental water car but then there would be a tool car, which is a crew car where the tools
are kept in case there's a breakdown. And then there is a baggage car which is a concession car. So I wasn't
counting as I went but it's probably about 12 cars and that would fit between, we worked the measurements out
so that will fit and still leave about 400 feet between the two intersections. So it's not going to be even close
with this configuration of this train for this coming weekend.
41
�j
I City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
' Mayor Chmiel: And also upon selling those tickets, you will notify each of those recipients who are going to
travel on that train where to park so they're not.
Richard Cesario: Yes. And we'll have signs out directing train parking and we'll have people preventing the
public from parking at the bank so that knowing that it's going to stay all day, is going to park in that lot and
take up space for the local business.
Mayor Chmiel: That's my concern, right.
Richard Cesario: With this trip, the number of passengers... park and ride lot will more than handle the cars that
we expect to come into the area.
Councilman Wing: Is there any attempt to break the train while it's stationary? Is there any intent to break the
' train at Market Boulevard if it's stationary for a while?
Richard Cesario: No.
' Councilman Wing: You're going to try to keep it intact.
' Richard Cesario: We will pull it all the way past the intersection to make sure that the last car is past Market
when we stop.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I believe I have the floor here. I love this idea. Why do we don't do it 4 -5 times
a day instead of 4 or 5 times a year? I'm serious. We would like, the Southwest Metro Commission who runs
the bus service in Chanhassen, Chaska and Eden Prairie, are looking into the idea of starting a passenger train as
a commuter service. Where does it run? I mean does it start here and where will it go to?
' Richard Cesario: The questions you raise or issues you raise are just a can of worms when you start getting into
the various railroads and their willingness to have passengers on the railroads. I know that there is a commission
I think with a number of towns west of here looking into the possibility of commuter traffic into Minneapolis. I
don't know if that's 10 years away or 20 years away but if you're going to do something like that, you're going
to have to get a railroad commission put together that will cut through the various lines, this interest in having
passengers. We would love to run a lot more trips to a lot more locations but some of the major roads don't
want passengers. It's a real problem. So it just isn't as simple as saying let's run this train from here to there.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Oh, that frustrates me so much.
Richard Cesario: Well, it frustrates us a lot too.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And my second question, where can I get a ticket?
' Richard Cesario: Actually I don't have any tickets with me.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: You'll be advertising for it locally?
Richard Cesario: We've been advertising in the Star Tribune for.
42
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf. But not the Villager? I suggest that you do the Villager. You'd get a lot of local.
Richard Cesario: We did one in the Villager.
Councilman Wing: It leaves the 28th, right?
Richard Cesario: 29th and 30th. Saturday and Sunday.
Councilman Wing: Okay, and the dinner is $100.00 something.
Richard Cesario: The first class is $179.00.
Councilman Wing: Okay, per ticket. And then the coach was?
Richard Cesario: The coach is $79.00. And there's a family plan. And there's coach tickets for children at
$39.00 but a family plan you get four, two adults, two children for $199.00 which saves you the cost of one
child's ticket.
Mayor Chmiel: So you're saying I can bring my family along? My other four Council people.
Councilman Mason: Oh thanks dad.
Councilman Senn: Where is it going?
Richard Cesario: It's going out to Hecktor -Bird Island area. Different trips have a little different...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Oh, so it's going west?
Richard Cesario: It's going west. It's going west.
(There was some conversation going on at this point in the discussion pertaining to Councilman Wing's previous
experience on the train ride into Minneapolis)
Councilman Mason: So this Saturday the train is going to be in town so I can bring my kids to take a look at it.
Richard Cesario: It will be here in the morning and it will be back in the late afternoon.
Councilman Senn: I guess it sounds like this is something that's going to happen and maybe possibly keep on
going and growing, which I think would be wonderful. Great idea. The only thing I'd like to see is maybe
some type of a, since we're going to really be furnishing the parking and stuff, I'd like to see some type of a fee
associated to the city where we get some recoup for refurnishing that parking because we do have to follow the
lot. We do have to pave it. We do have to maintain it. We do have to clean it. In fact we will have to do the
trash clean-up you know from the people and stuff going so I think it'd be nice to just have that squared away
up front so to speak and set some type of a flat fee per time or something like that. If this brings in 300 cars,
there is going to be additional city expense, or I should say Southwest Transit but they just turn around and bill
us anyway, right? Are we paying for it?
43
I
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilwoman Dockendorf. No, we pay our taxes and then they give half to Minneapolis.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think Mark's point deserves some discussion.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that's what I'm opening it for.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I would consider looking at that next year if it continues
but at this point I think drumming up the business is worth the expense.
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to see if this thing grabs on as well. If that's the particular case, then I think we
should then look at it the following year for some additional cost. What does it cost to clean it up? It depends
on who you're using, right? If I go out there and pick it up.
Don Ashworth: I look at ... Southwest to plow, to sweep, to maintain. Their usage, in my own mind, is no
additional cost. But if you now were to say, okay. Let's take all of the players and then divide costs between
them, then yeah. There may be some of the cost we incur maybe should go this other direction. Then I think
we'd have to measure 365 days a year. Well, how many times Southwest uses it versus how many times they
maybe use it.
Mayor Chmiel: Well I think what we should do is just take a look see and see what happens the first two times
and see if there's that need and then go from there.
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I guess I would like to leave that open. I mean if you're making this a year's permit
rather than say it won't be reviewed until a year, I'd like to leave it open and look at it at least after a couple
times and see what.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a motion?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would move the special use permit.
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Special Use Permit
agreement for North Star Rail, Inc. with the terms proposed in the agreement drafted by the City
Attorney. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilwoman Dockendorf. I talked with Bob during the break. We had received from Aagard several weeks
ago a package of alternate ideas and I was just wondering if the rest of the Council had had a chance to look at
that.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes I did.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And what their opinions were.
City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
Councilman Senn: ...hasn't seen it. Council did.
Bob Generous: Oh really. I got a copy but they wouldn't send it...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: My inclination is to continue the negotiations with the time extension. Wanted to
know if anyone has any ideas on the topic in general.
Councilman Senn: Well we already gave the extension, right?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah.
Councilman Senn: I don't know. I like the way they're proceeding with it...
Mayor Chmiel: And let them come in with that finalized...
Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's all I wanted to know.
Councilman Wing: The question I had of Council on this same issue, and I was going to pull it. I guess I felt
some lobbying on this issue that I haven't liked. Is the Council's intent, when I talked to the individuals who
have their viewpoints, is it the Council's intent to proceed with this program and this is a serious issue. I mean
is this going to fall apart or has the Council made a decision? Has the majority of Council made a decision to
move ahead on organized collection and it is the direction that we're going to go? If this is just, we're sort of
well.
Councilman Senn: I thought we were all committed to that by next spring, with the time line we set. We want
to be active.
Councilman Wing: So the decision has been made that we are going that direction and it's not an if or but
anymore. You don't have your options to think well, maybe why are you addressing this. The issue is it's a
done deal. Now how can you make it better so that's really where we're down to then.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right. And I wanted an affirmation of that.
Mayor Chmiel: Motion for adjournment?
Councilman Wing: Can I just, would you entertain one comment from the agenda this evening?
Councilman Senn: No, because you didn't change the agenda
Councilman Wing: I didn't know I was going to comment on this until after a comment was made about the
city.
Mayor Chmiel: Stine, go ahead.
Councilman Wing: The city, in an issue that's coming up at the candidates meeting that I won't be at but is the
city tabling too many things? Is the city moving too slowly? When I started 4 years ago it drove me nuts. But
when a city is developing this'fast and there's this many changes occurring, I think we owe it to the community
45
1 City Council Meeting - October 24, 1994
' to go slowly. To table. To take our time. Government and big business move slow and I think it's for a reason
and I'm comfortable with that and I think the people that are uncomfortable with it have different goals than I do
so. I find this acceptable to be tabling and frustrations—because we're in an enormous turn over period right
now.
Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
' motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Submitted by Don Ashworth
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
1
46
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
' OCTOBER 19, 1994
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. He gave a brief description of the
' role of the Planning Commission and asked each of the Planner Commissioners to state their
interests and reasons for being appointed on the Planning Commission.
' MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Ron Nutting, Nancy
Mancino, Ladd Conrad and Jeff Farmakes
1 STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Planner II; John Rask, Planner I; and Dave Hempel,
Asst. City Engineer
PUBLI HEARING:,
C RI G.
t AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE, ARTICLE XXVI, REGARDING THE SIGN
ORDINANCE.
' Public Present:
Name Address
' Randy Herman
2791 Piper Ridge
Scott Danielson
U.S. Bench
Leonard Thiel
U.S. Bench
'
Kaye Benson
2211 Sommergate
' John Rask presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Good. Thank you very much for your report. Comments or questions from the
commissioners please.
Harberts: Can you give me a definition of what you refer to as a bus bench.
' Rask: Yeah. The ordinance doesn't really contain a definition. What we're trying to I guess
prohibit here is just a proliferation of bus benches for advertising purposes.
' Harberts: Well what's a bus bench? Are we speaking benches that may be in error
considered a bus bench? What's your definition of a bus bench?
Rask: Well I uess right now the ordinance just prohibits advertising on bus benches.
g g J P g
' They're not looking to define a bus bench necessarily. I guess a bus bench could be anything
1
whether it's outside of Festival or Byerly's or the parking lot. I guess the ordinance, the sign
ordinance is prohibiting advertisement on these benches.
' Harberts: Would it be correct to clarify that the ordinance is referring to benches that are
outside? I think it's in error to refer to it as a bus bench.
' Rask: Certainly that we could look at changing. The wording of that.
Harberts: Yeah. I'm just, bus bench doesn't clarify what we're speaking of but I think what
' we're speaking about is benches that are located outside and I would just offer that as a
suggestion to consider because I believe a bus bench is certainly misleading because I think
it's just a name or a label that's been in error assigned to a bench that may be sitting next to
the street or something.
n
J
Mancino: Excuse me, I have a question on that for Commissioner Harberts. In the Park and
Ride glass buildings, there aren't benches in there, are there? The ones I've seen have chairs.
Harberts: No. In the park and ride location within the shelter, there are benches located in
the shelter as well as passenger benches located outside the shelter.
Mancino: Thank you.
Scott: Any other questions or comments?
Mancino: A question John. One of the things that we asked as we were reviewing this was
in the section when it got to be the total square footage of signs for different buildings in
certain zones. We asked to see some visuals there so it would show to us what is 15% of the
600 wall areas in square feet and to have some actual visuals here in our ordinance. At some
point.
Rask: Yeah. We were still working on the diagrams... some of the definitions. We reserved
spaces that we're going to insert diagrams and because of the short timeframe we weren't
able to get all this.
Mancino: Will we do it?
Rask: Yes, we will do it.
Mancino: Can you tell me looking at the, we have a new building up, the new Byerly's
building with a new Byerly's sign up in front that faces 78th Street. Where is this in the
general business district and central business district?
Generous: In the general.
2
n
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Mancino: So it would be Section 20 -1303. And which category would that particular
building in that wall sign.
Generous: It's the highest ... up to 230.
Mancino: Is that about the size of the Byerly's sign?
Generous: Of the Byerly's sign, yes. The total size on that I believe is 840 with the Fine
Foods, Open 24 Hours, and Wines and Spirits.
Mancino: So then this 40 number only stands for one of the signs or?
Generous: No. It would be for the entire front of that area.
Mancino: Okay. But that one's bigger than 240.
Generous: Right. They requested a variance.
Mancino: Okay. So any business can, if they want to, come before us and ask for a
variance?
Generous: They always have that option. Whether or not we grant it is another thing.
Mancino: Thank you.
Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments? This is a public hearing so if I could have
a motion to open the public hearing, I'd appreciate it.
Mancino moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: Anyone who would like to speak at the public hearing please, yes sir. Step up.
Introduce yourself and give us your address and let us hear what's on your mind.
Leonard Thiel: Gentlemen. Members of the Planning Commission. My name is Leonard
Thiel. I live at 6643 Green Circle Drive, Minnetonka, Minnesota. I'm here representing U.S.
Bench. Mr. Danielson, the President, wanted to be here. He got mixed up and we thought
the meeting was going to be two weeks ago ... out of town and he apologizes for not being
here. However, his son Scott is here if you've got any questions of him... I'd like to make a
few comments if I may relative to these are benches. U.S. Bench is operating in
3
1
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
approximately 90 to 100 communities in the metropolitan area and operate only at bus stops.
They also, most cities have a separate ordinance for this and it's not incorporated in their sign
ordinance. Most of them have separate ordinances simply because, as interpreted some time
ago by the Attorney General that, and may I read from that to kind of further clarify our
position. I did speak before your group but I don't know if I, I must have done a fairly poor
job and didn't explain myself too well. May I read partly from this is the Attorney General's
opinion and this opinion came out of the result of taxing a sign. I think the question has to
be analyzed in terms of what is the primary purpose and function of the bench because
clearly the bench is serving... It seems to me the primary purpose or function of the property
is to provide a place to sit or waiting for bus transportation. It's secondary purpose is that of
advertising for the retailer who places the bench there. ...to matchbooks...bags and numerous
other items distributed for public convenience. Even though advertising is placed thereon, I
don't think anyone would deny that the primary purpose or function is to provide matches,
litterbugs and so forth. Often times people do not even notice the advertising but merely use
the property for it's intended purpose. I think too, with waiting benches there it is an aspect
of assistance to the public which should be encouraged. The retailers could place a normal
advertising sign, billboard on the corner and it would be the ... but providing the small
advertising signs as an item of public convenience. Not only are billboards eliminated but the
public expenditures for ... are assured by the retailer. This should be encouraged by
recognizing the primary function is to provide the waiting benches and only secondary as an
advertising function. If you want a copy, I will certainly provide you one. The governor,
then governor quite some time ago wrote a letter too. As Governor of Minnesota I commend
the U.S. Bench Corporation for the 25 years of public service they have rendered our state.
This firm has provided courtesy benches at bus stops and it is a fine example of private
companies helping the community in cooperation with city officials. This locally owned
Minnesota corporation has provided the much needed public service without cost-for a
generation. The importance of mass transit cannot be minimized in today's society. The
service the transit company provides a necessary component of a successful transit system. I
noticed in, it referred here, the Attorney's opinion and what have you it refers to in the...
planner here. I have copies of that and actually I think it does make it confusing if it's a part
of the regular sign ordinance. I noticed also that the purpose of signage of your ordinance,
which is a good one by the way and I do want to, I think you're in an exciting period. Your
city is growing. I spent—part of the city to grow from 1959. Spent 18 years in a city
growing and it's an exciting time and a challenging time for you and I compliment that for
your enthusiasm to be a part of the city and always remember as a worthwhile thing to do. I
noticed on your purpose and findings. There isn't anything here, anything... belabor it too
much. There isn't anything here that is in conflict with U.S. Bench. There isn't anything in
conflict. U.S. Bench will not take advertising for liquor, tobacco, or political. They also
restrict florescent colors and reflective material. U.S. Bench has their benches at bus stops.
Only in bus stops and between 90 and 100 metropolitan communities. Many of these
n
W
1
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
communities have a separate ordinance for bus stop benches and I think that's an important
item because I think it isn't, as I pointed out before, it doesn't quite fit into the sign
ordinance because it is a multi use. And many of these cities, they charge a license fee for
the bench. The cities charge a license fee and pay a license fee to the city. In various
amounts. One example for instance is Bloomington which has a lot of them, may charge
$1.00. U.S. Bench also has a million dollars of liability on them. Insurance policy for
which the city is named as an additional insurer. And as you know in today's society, it's
not uncommon to have lawsuits come up over nothing and so the city would be protected for
of U.S. Bench's that would have. That may create a problem. And also do the maintaining
of these benches which, and I have some pictures I'll show you in just a minute. It's also an
economically way for the local small business person to advertise for a reasonable cost. It's
also a way for the small businessman to supply a service to the community and small
businesses are the heart of the city. They encourage, as you well know, they encourage
residential development... small businesses for residential development and commercial
development, which let's face it, helps you maintain the tax base that's healthy and good for
the city. I think that I would like you to seriously consider a separate ordinance or
recommendation for a separate ordinance just for that. There's a lot of examples of any
number of cities I can get from any city you want and what they use as an example and it
wouldn't require a lot of your time to work one of those out and I certainly would
recommend that to you. As I look through this and I think it would be the easiest way for
this to be handled and then it would not be conflicting with what your planner brought up
with what the City Attorney said. There'd be no conflict there. I'm sure of that. I have a
picture here that I think you'll find interesting. This is at 50th and France in Edina. Next to
a bus stop and a shelter and we have a special, for certain areas U.S. Bench has a special
bench that they put out ... and then I have one that's regular. May I pass that around?
Scott: Sure.
Leonard Thiel: I think I've taken quite a bit of your time and I thank you for your kind
attention. If you have any questions of either myself or Mr. Scott Danielson, why we'd be
glad to try and answer them.
Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments? Well thank you very much. Would anyone else
like to speak at the public hearing regarding the sign ordinance?
Randy Herman: My name is Randy Herman. I live on Piper Ridge Lane in Chanhassen.
I'm the sole representative tonight of the Chamber committee that worked on the sign
question, as you can probably see. I'm really here I think to ask a favor and that is, since the
notice came out last Thursday we have been unable to meet as a group to review the final
draft. Part of it is our own fault. I was the only one that was aware that it was on tonight's
E
J
n
J
u
7
J
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
agenda and we had a very brief opportunity just before the meeting to kind of quickly go
over it. I realize you want to move forward with this. If it's possible, we would like to ask
to be able to have until the next Planning Commission meeting to review it and to prepare
our comments. In our quick glance over tonight, the overwhelming feeling was that it looks
really good. We made a ton of progress I think in the weeks that we met. There were a
couple issues that we'd like to look at a little harder. I don't know if that's possible or not
but that's the request I'm coming with. If not, I guess we'd prepared those comments and
address them at the City Council level. But again, I guess the overwhelming feeling that we
talked briefly tonight was we've come a long way on both sides. We made a lot of progress.
A lot of it seems to make a lot more sense when you do it. And it seems thinner to me. I
don't know if that's true or not.
Scott: No.
Randy Herman: That was one of the goals...
' Scott: Good, thank you very much. Ma'am.
Kaye Benson: Hi. I'm Kaye Benson. I live on Sommergate in the city of Chanhassen. I
' wasn't here for this issue but ... In your ordinance for the signs, will you be addressing any of
the issues relating to traffic? In particular my experience has been, the intersection. It would
be the northeast intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin Blvd. It's kind of a depository for
' signs and I drive a fairly low car, a Honda, and there are times when there are so many signs
that it really does obstruct your vision of the traffic coming, especially from the east. Is that
being addressed anywhere?
Scott: Yes, there's a section and I'm not able to quote the exact numbers but I'm sure that
John will find it before I get done with my sentence. But we've noticed that too. We've set
up an area, a triangular area at an intersection where there can be no more than 4 signs of a
certain size and shape and that's exactly right. As a matter of fact that very intersection was
brought up several times at our work sessions. But yes it has been addressed and I think
John probably can find it. But we're looking at limiting those kinds of areas to relatively
small signs and then the larger ones for development and so forth are usually at the entry
points to those. But yes. The answer to your question is yes and if you'd like, maybe when
somebody else is commenting, John can show you the actual section of the sign ordinance so
you can review that for yourself. Good, thank you ma'am. Would anybody else like to
speak at this public hearing? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing
please.
N
I
Ij
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Farmakes: I missed some of the presentation and the public hearing. I have some general
comments that I think ... in particular I think that I'm still uncomfortable with some of the
philosophical issues and how they translate to what we do. I use a case in point to the
Byerly's building that was passed over here. I think that the issue is well pointed out is the
unnecessary duplication of signage. That he's facing front and we argued about that for quite
some time and I think rather than deal with each specific building, there should be a
philosophical intent of what we want to end up with, and I'm not sure even their intent
statement here covers the issue of unnecessary duplication of signage. It is always good to
have more in business than less than what you need, and I suspect in this case, there still
seems to be some confusion even after reading this of what we're going to end up with. Do
we want 20 foot pylon signs down 78th Street? Even if it happens to be a big development.
It seems to me that some of the direction that we started out with with reducing those signs
and making them more monumenture signs down 78th to try and keep the small town feel.
We're not arriving at that here. Striping on some of these buildings, on the Taco Bell. The
issue of what constitutes a sign and what constitutes a building. 'I don't think that we've
defined that quite yet here. I think one of the ways that we approach that, perhaps in this
ordinance would be to incorporate the square footage of all this banding and the bright colors
around the building to bring that in with the overall square footage of the sign and that would
be a way to monitor it. Again, I get back to what is the intent of what we want to wind up
with and it seems to me that our intent is to provide opportunity for the business persons to
advertise their goods or services and locations and at the same time moderate what we wind
up with so that we have an uncluttered city. There's a lot of bad retail advertising done and
a lot of it is ineffective. There are several members in this commission that I think combined
maybe have 60 years in advertising. And the fact is that there's a big difference in an
environment that is created by signage and it sneaks up on you. Especially in a developing
town because we start multiplying the effect. You start adding more and more retail
buildings. More and more banners. More and more outside clutter. More and more window
displays. And once it's done and it starts adding up, it creates an image. The image of
downtown Lake Street is different than the Oxboro development in Edina. It has a different
image. Other than it has to do with signage. A lot of it has to do with clutter. A lot of it
has to do with what the community wants to wind up with in the end. And getting back to
some specifics say on the bench advertising. I guess since I don't see Chanhassen as being a
huge bus operation, I'm going to support the staff on that. I don't think that's a huge issue in
front of us. I don't think that it's there yet. I think this is maybe 90% there. There's still a
couple of issues that I think are still, to me, important and not addressed here. And although
we've discussed them, I think some of the verbiage, even just getting back to the intent
statement. Talking about the right to advertise. Equitable opportunity to advertise. I think
7
P
i�
u
1
C
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
the intent to me is not to advertise goods or services but signage should be identify location
of the goods and services being offered. There's a difference and we've argued about that
infinitum. Again, I think it goes back to the beginning, the intent. Is it to locate and
advertise for the consumer the location of the building or is it to tell them that they have beer
for $12.69 a 6 pack. I don't think for instance on the window display advertising...yet
thought out correctly. There's been a case in point made that if the Riveria is being
penalized by the original approach that we took on that because they have a 6 foot window
space. Whereas MGM has 70% of their front surface is glass and they have a much larger
capacity so therefore if you take a percentage of that window space, MGM winds up with a
much greater percentage of space than somebody by the Riveria. And so anyway, I'll pass
on. I'd vote to table this. It needs some more work.
Scott: Okay, Ron.
Nutting: I guess from my perspective, the sign ordinance has a significant impact on the
business community and I guess we took the extra steps measure to hold the work sessions
with the chamber and other representatives of the business community to try and work
through some of the issues here. I would move to table also for- the purpose of hearing any
additional or final comments so we have a chance to work through those issues in the same
spirit of cooperation that we attempted to achieve at those work sessions.
Scott: Okay, Nancy.
Mancino: Well I have some discussion points and I'd actually like to hear other
commissioners opinions on that are in the ordinance and would be fine to again table this and
listen to the Chamber's. Have them participate in it too. But certain big areas that I have are
in the height of the pylon signs which is on page 16, which is Section 20 -1303. And it's not
whether I'm for or against pylon signs but I think that tying the height of a pylon sign to the
square footage of the principle structure just doesn't make sense for me. I think that the
height of a pylon signs should be, you know where the road grade is and where the grade of
the building is and whether it needs to be like Target. Be maybe a little taller so that you can
see it from the road. But when you have the same grade of the road and as with the building
is, then I think that 10 feet is tall enough. So I would like to revisit that area in the pylon
signs and how tall they can be. And I would like to hear other people's comments on that.
Couple other areas would also be, one that Jeff brought out on page 12, which should be
general location restrictions which is Section 20 -1265 on window signs. Again I don't think
that we're being fair to people who do not have windows at all. And I think that windows
are as much an architectural element just like a brick. Just like another rock surface and
we're not allowing signs on those. So what is the difference and how can we be equitable to
businesses who do have windows, glass surfaces, and those who don't. And I'd like to
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
rethink that. Another area, and I think that Kaye Benson brought this up. On page 8 under
off premise directional signs (c)(2), and I think the Chamber did bring this up and I'm not in
agreement with it. They wanted us to remove "there shall not be more than 4 signs per
intersection ". Now these signs we have increased from 24 feet to 32 feet, because they have
asked us to do that. But whether it's 32 feet or 24 feet, I think the same premise that she
brought up. When you get to Galpin and Highway 5, you have not limited how many signs
can be on that poor intersection. This statement clearly says that we have taken away a
number maximum and I would like to rethink that. Retalk about that and put in a maximum
number of signs per intersection. I would also, on page 6, 9(g) under temporary development
project advertising signs, I would like us to decide at the very bottom. Such signs shall be
removed when the project being advertised is completed. I would like the word completed to
be defined very specifically. Or after 3 years. I'd like to add the phrase, or whichever comes
first. And the last area that I'd like to, when we talk about at a work session when we meet
with the chamber is on page 9(2). I'm sorry, page 10. Number 5. When we talk about
search lights. I would like to make sure that we have hours set on search lights so especially
when there is a neighborhood commercial area, etc, that they cannot be on late at night for
the adjoining neighbors. I think it's just intrusive and invasive, and I'm not even sure I like
the ideas of search lights to tell you the truth. Because I'm so concerned about
neighborhoods. So those are my areas of concern and I could, I would like ... those areas.
Scott: Good, Matt.
Ledvina: As it relates to the benches, I guess I would support staff in terms of their
recommendations regarding the report. I wanted to ask Diane if the Southwest Metro, I mean
do you contract with U.S. Bench to have benches installed or how does that, is there a
relationship there or no?
Harberts: We don't have any relationship with U.S. Bench or any other sign company or
bench company. Currently it's the policy of Southwest Metro Transit that we do not allow
any advertising at our park and ride sites or bus stops or even on our buses. But it is an area
that we are reviewing because there is revenue opportunity and I think one of the comments
brought up in the public hearing was the fact, and I guess I'll just kind of sum it up as a
partnership between public and private. It gets to be a significant cost savings to a
government entity when they can go into partnership with a private company and both in a
sense accomplish their goals together. And I'll certainly speak to that in a little bit more
detail when it's my turn.
Ledvina: Okay. Alright. I guess some of the things that Jeff had talked about as it relates to
the duplication of the signage. I think that we could perhaps have more discussion of that.
That seems to be a reasonable thing to add into the intent statement. The way I see it and as
E
Ll
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
it relates to color bands being defined as part of signage I think, I don't know. That seems to
be a very touchy kind of thing and a very difficult thing to define. I'm not saying that I'm
against something like that in terms of trying to get a handle on that but I just think that's an
area that can be very difficult. I don't know how we deal with that. I think we can have
more discussion on it as it relates to that. I guess that's the extent of my comments. I don't
know how we want to handle it in terms of dealing with these issues but if it means that
another work session is appropriate, I don't know. I mean because there are some
philosophical things that we're looking at too and I mean, re- opening issues like window
signage and, I mean those are some things that took a lot of time to even get where they are
right now so I don't know. I don't know where we go from here to be honest. I can sense
that we're tabling it. That we will likely table it but maybe somebody, someone else can
provide some more direction.
Scott: Okay. I will. Ladd.
Conrad: I think we should table it, and simply because I want to hand the City Council a
pretty good package because I don't want you to go through what we've gone through. And
that's very honest. I don't know if we're going to make much of a difference as we dissect
this again but I think we should let the Chamber come in and Randy, I'm real disappointed in
the Chamber. We've worked 3 or 4 sessions and spent a lot of time and not to have you able
to have the Chamber respond it's sort of a disappointment.
Randy Herman: Were we wrong in thinking that we were going to get a copy of this before
it hit the public hearing?
Randy Herman: Well nobody did. I picked up my copy at the city...
Conrad: You should. You should have.
Conrad: Yeah, I would have liked to have you had that copy because I do want your input.
We worked real hard with you. I think we made it a workable sign ordinance. It's maybe
not as pure as some people would like but on the other hand, it's probably better than what
we've had. And I think there's still a few issues out there that I think we should talk about.
But on the other hand, talking about it doesn't mean that we're going to, you know I think if
we do have issues, I think the Planning Commission should come prepared to talk about those
issues and not just throw them up. That you come with specific proposals because we'll
never get this off our desk. And my perspective is, we're not going to improve signage in
Chanhassen a whole lot more. So we're splitting hairs and we have to move this through and
some of us have spent a lot of time working on this and again it's not perfect. But I think it
supports the business community. It also supports the residents of Chanhassen in terms of
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
helping to develop a decent community in terms of the signage so, not belaboring the point.
There are some issues I still have with it. I think if we all picked out own little issues,
nobody would pass this ordinance on. There's some things that I really don't like. Being in
advertising, there's some things that I really, you know they're restrictive. But on the other
hand I think so far it's turned out to be a little bit of a compromise. I think we should come
back and take a look at it. I really don't want a special work session. I think we should be
able to handle this right here and with proper direction of staff, to either explore something
and bring it back or does somebody come in to the next meeting and say, this is what I want.
Case in point. I don't know if window signage 33 %, you know we could talk about window
signage for the rest of our lives and still wouldn't get to the bottom of it. And I don't want
to. I really don't want to do that. Window signage can be real offensive but so far nobody
in Chanhassen, I've been here a while, nobody's talked to me about window signage. Really
haven't. I think more people have talked to me about maintenance of signage. How big is
our maintenance section in here? It's two lines. And who's out there checking our
maintenance? But it'd certainly be easier to go out and check how much window signage
we're going to have per square foot. You know again, let's make sure our priorities are right
here. I think the ordinance is pretty good. I think the Chamber of Commerce believes it's
getting better. I'm going to make a few quick points and I would hope that staff would
follow them up so when it comes back one more time, that we can talk about it. Permit and
variance fees. Page 2. I think our intent was to make sure that it said it covers the city cost.
It wasn't trying to be prohibitive of taking out a permit. It was trying to cover the cost of
managing permits. A lot of us had a concern about permits in general but I think generally
we felt let's keep them but not have them be so big. So again, I'd like an intent in there
saying what we're trying to do in terms of the cost. I don't want a cost in there because
they're going to change but I think we need an intent statement. When we say bench signs
are prohibited, that's okay right now but transit and transit shelters need to have the
opportunity to advertise. I don't have a problem with a bench sign being prohibited but I
think, if I interpret, because we don't have a definition in here, I don't want this generalized
to transit in general. So I'm comfortable with the way it reads but that's only because we
don't have definitions, which means it's a bad ordinance.
Scott: Or that part is bad.
Conrad: For that part, thank you. Thank you Joe. I've worked too hard on this to mean the
whole thing is a bad ordinance. I'll tell you, we're not going to do that anymore. Totally
agree with Nancy's opinion on search lights and the hours of operation. Absolutely. I don't
know how we missed that. Under maintenance and repair, there are 4 lines. Geez. Maybe
we haven't thought it. We've tackled all the numbers in here but maybe we haven't tackled
the issues that really are significant. You know I didn't see anything that said the
Chanhassen Bowl sign will be improved. Maybe we don't want it to be or maintained but the
11
7
n
L
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
words rotted, unsafe, deteriorated, defaced. Does that mean faded? Does that mean flaked?
Does that mean, what does that mean? You know I'd really like staff to make sure that
there's some teeth into maintenance of signage. Same page 13. I really don't buy the 15%
of the sign display area for corporate logos. I don't get it. Now maybe that went over my
head in all those meetings but Byerly's sign is a logo. Target's sign is a logo. So I don't get
the 15 %. I don't have a clue how to interpret that. Other than that, heard some other
comments from commissioners. I think we should revisit those but again, if not just to kick it
around, I think it's bring in something. Be ready to talk about it. Give us some specifics and
let's react and Randy, I apologize if you didn't get the ordinance ahead of time. You should
have. We really want, I want to hear what the Chamber is thinking about where we are today
so that's why I would like this tabled.
Mancino: And I'll add onto that specifically you'd like to hear from the Chamber. If there
are areas, you would also like to hear very specific solutions.
Conrad: Yes. Yeah. Thanks Nancy. When we come back Randy, it's like here's what we
want. It's not like we don't like this, and I think you've done a nice job of doing that in the
past but the next time we meet, I think we just have to say. This is what we're
recommending and we just have to, unless the Planning. You know I'm just speaking for
myself but I honestly, I've watched the sign ordinance over many years and it's really tough
to come to a conclusion. It really is. There's so many different cuts at an ordinance. It's the
toughest ordinance that the city has to write and we'll never get to the bottom. And really,
the Chanhassen signage is not all that bad. But we're trying for some improvement and
that's okay but it's never going to be perfect.
Scott: Okay, Diane.
Harberts: I would just basically to my comments earlier, as well as agree with Ladd's
comments with regard to transit. I'd like to, I guess my feeling here is that there's a good
chance that this may be tabled and so this might give an opportunity for staff. Don't you
love that word, staff. Yeah, I know it It's a new 4 letter word. 5 letters. To maybe revisit
the element of bench signs as it's then refers to transit, and I guess the question is, is it so
much the problem of signage or perhaps where sometimes the benches are placed. You know
I'll take for example in Chanhassen I'm aware of only two transit related passenger benches
which are located at the park and ride location at Paulys Road there. Those are the only two
passenger benches associated with Southwest Metro. I'm aware though of numerous other
benches in the community though that may have an advertising that may be questioned as to
their location. But I've also seen these same other benches used by the general public. I
know one instance the bench that's located at Laredo and 78th Street. It's in that thing of
trees and plantings. I noticed a walker or runner, whichever, was using the bench as a place
12
n
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 '
to rest. And so I uess as long as this is being tabled, I would certainly encourage staff to
g g g Y g
perhaps review some of the other ways that the other communities handle this. It would be
interesting to know that Chanhassen is, would be the only community that I'm aware of in the
'
metro area that wouldn't allow any signage whatsoever. Maybe it's just a matter of revisiting
that. I said there's a lot of benefits that can be achieved for the general good of the public, or
for the benefit by having a partnership so maybe it's just a matter of better defining what
'
we're talking about, what we're speaking to. Is it indeed signage? Any kind of signage on a
bench or is it perhaps the location of a particular bench and how it looks, whatever. I'm not
advocating for U.S. Bench. I do not have a, there's no professional or business relationship
'
with them between Southwest Metro Transit and them but I'm just speaking from my
experience in the bus industry. The transit industry and from a revenue generating
perspective, it's very advantageous to transit and basically what it allows is the transit
,
revenue dollars be put into more operating of buses rather than for anywhere from find a
bench to maintaining. Even to the liability of it so I would just suggest that perhaps staff
might be able to talk to other communities and I'm sure Southwest Metro would certainly be
'
available to assist you with that. My thoughts.
'
Scott: Okay. I'm going to try to, I guess for staff's benefit, I'm going to go through some of
the notes that I've taken to make sure that we've covered... If I happen to miss an issue that
some of the other commissioners have brought up please, I don't have to ask you to speak up
because I know you will. Obviously Diane's question about a better definition. Originally
we wanted a better definition of a bench, vis a vis it's transit capabilities. Additional
diagrams that spell out relative size of signs to building. Wall surfaces. Something in the
intent statement to reduce duplication of signage, i.e. banding or striping with corporate
colors. In 20 -1252, purpose being to cover the city's administrative cost for permit and
variance fees. Application fees. On, this is now 20 -1255, Section 9(g). Better definition of
'
when a project is completed, and then there's a section, after 3 years, whichever comes first.
Now in Section 10(c) of the same area, item number 2. Off premise directional signs. Put in
some limit. Right now we're, there shall be no more than 4 signs per intersection. Have that
'
included again. The search light section. Set hours of operation. Let's see. I'm not going
to say anything about window signs. And then also some additional definition as to
maintenance of signage. And then in Section 20 -1303. Have some work done on, instead of
,
relating, the height of the pylon size to the square footage of the principle structure. Have
some sort of relationship with the distance from the roadway. Perhaps the classic roadway,
i.e. the speed limit and then the difference in grades between the roadway and the base of the
'
sign. What did I miss? I'm sure I missed something.
Mancino: Ladd's 15% of sign display.
'
13
�
u
u
C
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Scott: Oh okay. Where their sign is a logo. That's 100 %. Okay. Any other comments? If
not, then I'd like to have a motion please.
Conrad: I move to table the sign ordinance.
Scott: Okay, is there a second?
Mancino: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table the sign ordinance. Is there any
discussion?
Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table the amendment
to the City Code, Article XXVI regarding the sign ordinance. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Scott: And if you could add Randy Herman, Moore Sign, would you like that delivered to
your office?
Randy Herman: That'd be great. And I'll get it distributed to the others.
Scott: Okay. That will go out with our, we usually get the Planning Commission packets on
Saturday? Friday?
Generous: They come out on Thursday.
Scott: Thursday or Friday, something like that so you'll be getting your's just after
Halloween.
Rask: ...same time you received it so if possible we will try to get it to him earlier this time.
Scott: Good. Thank you all very much for coming for that item.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 1.87 ACRES INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT
6330 MURRAY HILL ROAD, HOBENS WH D WOOD FARMS 1ST ADDITION,
HOBEN CORPORATION.
Public Present:
14
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Name Address
James Hoben
Perry & Pat Harrison
Charles Spevacek
David McFarland
Paul & Betty Burkholder
Kaye Benson
Peter & Lisa Staudohar
Robert & margaret Cristofono
Lynda Kuzma
Richard Herrboldt
Keith Boudrie
Hoben Corporation
2221 Sommergate
6474 Murray Hill Road
6341 Murray Hill Road
6370 Murray Hill Road
2211 Sommergate
2204 Sommergate
2210 Sommergate
2241 Sommergate
6464 Murray Hill Road
6482 Murray Hill Road
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Questions.
Mancino: Yeah, I have a question. Bob, I didn't get a completed packet. I didn't get a
grading plan. I didn't get where the housepads would be. I didn't get where the private road
will be. It doesn't show that. I didn't get anything in my packet that shows those things.
Generous: We didn't get a final grading plan either. However, on reviewing the site, there
won't be a lot of grading because it is so flat. The roadways... proposed 30 foot easement.
There is a location of the housepad that could be—the setbacks and conservation easement
along the north property line ... I think the applicant has...
Mancino: Sure, that's fine. I just want to say Mr. Chair that I don't, because my packet was
not complete and I do like to have the time to look it over and to see where things are. I will
probably move to table this until we get a completed packet and have that time to do that.
Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments for staff? Okay. Mr. Hoben, would you
like to make a presentation.
Jim Hoben: Sure. This is the...
Scott: Excuse me sir. Because this is videotaped, probably what we should do is if you can
put that up on the easel and we can get a camera on it for the folks at home and maybe a
piece of tape or something on the top and that should be picked up on that camera there.
W
L
I I
r
n
I Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
I Harberts: Or just hold it in front of the stand.
' Jim Hoben: Very quickly I probably should mention first, because I was asked by several
people, my name is Jim Hoben. Hoben Corporation. I've been a developer for 35 years.
Commercial, office buildings and warehouses and stuff like that. The Wayzata First National
' Bank in Wayzata. The Citizens State Bank. I've been building and developing residential
since the mid 1970's. I'll pick that up in just a second. Since the mid 1970's. We built in
the Deephaven ... property. I've developed the Hollybrook Townhouse they call it up in
' Wayzata which is 60 some units over there and we've built homes in Orono, Plymouth,
Wayzata, Deephaven and then in Minnetonka and areas such as that. In looking for land in
which to do an neat little development, this came to me, which we're always on the lookout
' for. We came upon this nice wooded property up there. I've been working with the staff as
to what the requirements are and we have put together... approximately half acre lots. I don't
know if anybody's familiar but basically something like the Villages which Fazenden did over
' in the north part of Plymouth—but that's generally what we're doing. Putting in this with we
established a private road with the 4 residents that facing in on it. I'm using setbacks greater
than the required. The 40 feet which Mr. Generous spoke of is shown on there and it's being
used. We also used a more than 30 feet, which is I think is the requirement. We've gone to
about 40 feet as this property backs up to the Burkholders which are on the other side...
We've met and exceeded I think the requirements as to the lot size. As we pointed out the
' utilities are all there. The grading plan as I understood it would be there before the final plat
which... There isn't that much grading on this road to be done as he said with this plat. We
' acquired the outlot or the means to acquire the Outlot B which abuts Sommergate Road and
having, in doing that, that 40 foot setback allowed him which we also were able then to move
the intersection, private road over so that the trees that you spoke of is not getting touched.
' We talked about that large cottonwood tree. That's off to the left hand side now and we've
got a problem. I'm ready to answer any questions that you might have.
Scott: Okay. Any questions from commissioners? None. Do you have anything else, any
other comments you'd like to make?
' Jim Hoben: No. I think none that I'm aware of. I've tried to work with the staff to meet
the requirements and I think we've done so.
' Scott: Okay, good. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing and if I could have a
motion please to open the public hearing.
I Harberts: Can I ask some staff questions first?
Scott: Sure.
CG
Ll
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Harberts: This might be a Dave question. With this private driveway agreement, I'm
guessing that's that blue. Is that actual.
Jim Hoben: You turn it sideways. This is Murray Hill Road. This is the private road.
Harberts: Okay. Is it a road or driveway?
Hempel: It'd be a 20 foot wide private driveway.
Harberts: And so it would be a private driveway to at least 3 parcels, if not 4, is that correct?
Hempel: No, that's not correct. We currently serve up to 3 homes. There's one home that
would maintain existing driveway access off of Murray Hill. I believe it's Lot 4. They right
now have a horseshoe type of driveway.
Jim Hoben: That was not stated ... all entrances would be off this road.
Harberts: Well it goes back to my original question. Are we talking a road? You know in
reality here, or is it in a sense just a driveway?
Hempel: It is just a driveway.
Harberts: Are we going to be, if it's the only access point to the homes that are proposed,
am I correct on that so far? Is the 20 foot going to allow for 2 way traffic? You know if
someone's coming in and someone wants to come out, is 20 feet big enough for that?
Hempel: It would be, yes.
Harberts: Okay. And did public safety, in terms of the fire department and all those people
take a look to concur that 20 feet was okay?
Hempel: That's correct. That's your normal, standard driveway width.
Harberts: And how does the, at least the public safety vehicles go in there and turn around?
Hempel: That was asked by Mark Littfin, the Fire Marshal, and he tells us the length of this
road is not long enough to warrant a turn around for the fire truck vehicles.
Harberts: Even if they turn in there by mistake? I don't know, I'm just asking.
17
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Hempel: That question I guess has not been answered or addressed by Mark Littfin. Mark's
comments were that he didn't feel that it was appropriate to require a turn around for this
length of driveway.
Harberts: Okay. And it seems to me based on some other proposals that had come forward
in terms of, we didn't call them private driveways. They were like shared driveways. I think
that's what it was. And I always, it's my feeling that that was one of those things that
Chanhassen didn't feel very comfortable with unless there was some unique situation so I
guess I'd be interested to, do you recall any of that conversation that took place at the
commission level here Dave?
' Hempel: No, I don't think I do but the ordinance does state that if we are saving vegetation
or reducing grading and so forth by doing a private drive, then it would be warranted. I think
in this case, as Bob Generous indicated earlier, there are some significant trees on this site.
' Some maples and walnuts and also the 50 some inch cottonwood that are going to be saved
as a result of the narrower pavement width.
Harberts: Right. I just wanted to just kind of remind people on that. I guess the only other
question I have with regard to, there was a couple of letters or one letter in here with regard
to the local residents raising concern about the, that perhaps the integrity or that there would
' be a change within the environment. If I'm correct, I think I read in here in one of the
findings that this is within the zoning allowed for the area in terms of having 4 homes there.
' Generous: It exceeds the minimum requirements.
r]
Harberts: So they're meeting the code or the zoning requirement?
Generous: Yes.
Harberts: Okay. That's it.
Scott: Good.
Jim Hobert: Dave when you say driveway, I've got a townhouse development where the
blacktop is 20 feet for 220 or 225 feet width and there's plenty of room to...
Harberts: Just one more, and maybe this is a Bob question. I know it said somewhere in the
staff report about some kind of cross use agreement would be.
Generous: That's required under the...
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Harberts: And if I recall, that includes maintenance understanding, all of this.
Generous: Exactly. Maintenance, snow clearing...
Scott: Okay, good. Could I have a motion to open the public hearing.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: Public hearing is now open and we invite members of the general public to step
forward and let us know who you are. Let us know your address and go from there. Yes sir.
Paul Burkholder: Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the commission. My name is Paul
Burkholder and I live directly to the south of this property, 6370 Murray Hill Road. I moved
to Chanhassen about 6 years ago after living in Deephaven for about 10 1/2 years. One of
the reasons I moved to Chanhassen, and in this particular area, was because of the large lots
and the mature trees and the fact that ... and it was just a very nice... Our neighbors next door
was the Grautmans. An older couple who loved their yard and planted lots of things and...
environment for wildlife and birds and their garden and it was a very nice place. They've
passed on and a few years ago the property was sold. On my lot and on their lot there were
things like woodchucks, raccoons, well there's raccoons all over, but all kinds of squirrels. In
my yard there's black walnut trees. I think in the yard in the subject property there is
perhaps 6 or 8 black walnut trees. There is this magnificent cottonwood tree right in the
middle of the yard. And fruit trees, there are wild flowers. What Mr. Hoben is proposing is
totally out of context and out of character with the neighborhood. It is basically a cluster
home concept. One driveway and I agree with Commissioner Harberts that it's a driveway. A
shared driveway by 4 houses. I say to myself, after looking at Mr. Hoben's plan, if this
property were allowed to be developed, what would happen on Thanksgiving and Easter,
Christmas time when all 4 of these homes decided to have a gathering and all of them had 6
or 7 cars and a fire started in one of these homes? Again, I didn't hear any clear answer
whether this proposal has been run past the Fire Chief and how he feels about getting a fire
truck or emergency vehicle here in a situation such as that. I'd like to know about that.
Secondly, we have a problem with the topography is rather flat. The southern end of Murray
Hill Road is higher than the rest of it so the water flows northward in heavy rains. When we
first moved into our property and the heavy rain, the water would come down our driveway
and make almost a small lake. We had the city, when they were out doing some blacktop
repairing, we asked them to put a little tiny, 3 or 4 inch curbing to direct the water a little
further down. Now Murray Hill Road, for those that live there, every time it rains there's a
torrential amount of rain that goes down that hill and they're constantly trying to fix it up
down there. It's a terrible little winding country road. Now we're talking about in this
19
C
0
C
C
L
L
C
L
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
particular situation, of bringing in another 8 to 10 cars with 4 homes. There's another site to
the south of me with 2 1/2 acres which I believe will probably, someone will be appearing to
try to develop that one too. Using this property, this particular situation as precedent to
squeeze as many possible homes on this site as they can. Mr. Scott, the Chair at the meeting
here, he mentioned Lake Wobegon where everything is perfect and that Chanhassen is
growing and I know that and you're going through these sorts of problems and I realize that
the people next door to me are attempting to maximize as much money out of their property
as they can and perhaps this is a way to do it. Try to cut it up into 4 small homesites. I
know that they meet the requirements but I am very much against it. Again I'm going to be
redundant and say it will change the total character of our neighborhood. If one looks at the
plat map, you can see the lots are much larger than what is being developed in some of the
PUD developments currently in Chanhassen. And nobody is making a lot of moves. I know
over, just recently over on Hummingbird Road. A lot of property was sold by the Rainey
family. They did not go in there and try to maximize that property and cut it up into as
many small lots as they can. They sold them in big, large, over an acre piece of property
maintaining the integrity of the trees and everything that's in that area. Again the 4 homes on
this particular property I think would create a real water problem. We're going to have a lot
more water runoff from these properties. The soil will no longer be able to absorb the rains
up there and it is flat. I get water in my basement even though I'm on top of the hill. I
mentioned that I lived in Deephaven for 10 1/2 years. I don't mean to compare Deephaven
with Chanhassen but Deephaven back in 1973, facing somewhat, I think problems somewhat
similar to what Chanhassen is facing now, changed their zoning requirements in some of the
older areas... requirement at 20,000 square feet. And out in Northome, they raised it to
60,000 square feet and in the area where I lived in the 10 1/2 years, I built two homes there,
the lots were 40,000 square feet. Mr. Hoben I'm aware ... during that time and he did build
them in a 40,000 square foot area but I'm not saying that 40,000 square feet is the ideal site
but it does make for lovely home sites and the kind of homes that come in the price range of
the homes are certainly at an addition to the community in general. I guess I don't have
much else to say about it except I'm here to object to this cutting up of this property into 4
sites. I would have no objection to it being 2 sites. I know when the Grautman's, when Mrs.
Grautman passed away and I thought that the property was going to be offered for sale in the
open market, I checked with the city here and found out there were two sewer stubs put into
this property when they installed the sewer and water back in the late 70's, or early 70's
rather. So I thought possibly at that time probably the thinking was that that site at some
time would be developed into two sites and that seemed reasonable to me. Four sites to me
seem unreasonable. It's a cluster home type situation. I'm concerned about the private road.
I'm concerned that these houses will be facing out on Murray Hill Road or onto Sommergate
like the rest of the homes are and I guess thank you very much.
OU
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Scott: Well thank you. Dave, if you could just address the public safety issue and then Bob,
if you could talk about the zoning of the adjacent property lot size and so forth.
Hempel: Sure Mr. Chairman. Again I did look through the staff report. There is a sentence
or two in there that says something about there should be a turn around acceptable to the Fire
Marshal and I think that that got put in by mistake, to be honest with you because I did have
conversations with the Fire Marshal in regards to hydrant placement as well as the turn
around. He felt that the driveway length of approximately 180 feet long which did not
warrant taking a turn around on behalf of the fire truck scenario so. Then I'll just touch on
one other point that Mr. Burkholder had concern with on the drainage in the neighborhood
there. Certainly it's always a concern. With developers and such increasing impervious
surface for the private driveway which is a narrower street from a city street, the adding of
the two home sites would not dramatically increase the amount of runoff on this parcel of
land. The runoff from this development does flow north to Sommergate where it is picked up
with storm sewer system and conveyed to a storm water pond on the north side of
Sommergate ... the runoff along Murray Hill Road is a maintenance problem with the city...
Generous: This area is zoned residential single family which permits lot sizes down to
15,000 square feet. The development has an average lot size of 20,402 square feet. All of
the lots are over 20,000 square feet. The development immediately west of this, Eight Acre
Woods is 16 lots. Their average lot size is 20,744 square feet. From that standpoint it is
very consistent with the area.
Mancino: Well it is for those west but for those across the street that are east of it and the
old parcels are much bigger that really abut this property also. And that are south of it. That
is one part of that whole area, which I live very close to, has a very open, old mature tree,
very narrow street, old neighborhood feel. And it is something for us to be considerate of it
and I think you have been too. Staff has been too.
Scott: Okay. Sir.
Keith Boudrie: I just have a question.
Scott: Oh, please step up to them microphone and identify yourself.
either.
0
7
l
L�
I I
I
I don't like to do that
Keith Boudrie: I may have more questions but my name is Keith Boudrie and I live at 6482
Murray Hill Road. We've been there for a little over 10 years. We were the first residents
of the new homes that have gone in in that area. My question is, you keep referring to a
subdivision and I'm not sure I know which one that is.
21
F_
L
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
I Generous: It's the one off of Sommergate Road.
Keith Boudrie: The one off of Sommergate Road?
Generous: Yeah. Now that's the access for it.
I Resident: At the end of the cul -de -sac.
' Keith Boudrie: Oh, okay. So it's the Sommergate development?
Mancino: Yeah.
Keith Boudrie: Thank you.
Scott: Good. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir.
Dick Herrboldt: My name is Dick Herrboldt and I live at 6464 Murray Hill Road, which is
directly south of this, right close to the Boudrie's and the cul -de -sac that's south of this
proposed development. I'd like to address a little bit the concept of the trees that are in that
area and what provides for the neighborhood. These are all mature trees and one of the
' things that drew myself and my wife to the neighborhood. We've lived now in the area for 7
years. We love it up there. We love the peace and the quiet, but most of all we like the
trees. And as I looked around my cul -de -sac, or the cul -de -sac that I live on and my lot, after
' the construction process in the development, you're going to lose trees. I, myself have lost
about 5, even though we spent a substantial amount of money treating the existing maple
trees. When I look around the cul -de -sac, all of the houses have lost magnificent trees that
have resulted from the construction. If you start driving earth moving equipment, trucks, etc,
over surfaces of land where there's mature trees, you're going to lose them and I would
suspect, I haven't looked at the plat that closely but I would suspect that if you do
construction in this area where this cottonwood tree is, after a couple years, you're going to
see that cottonwood tree go. That's one of my major concerns because we're looking at an
' area in Chanhassen that's a mature residential neighborhood with magnificent trees and you're
going to substantially change that environment by allowing a high density development to go
in. The other concern I have is Murray Hill Road, which is a very narrow road. Maybe
' many of you have not been on that road but again times of family gatherings, I don't see that
these houses are going to have adequate parking. What you're going to wind up having is
traffic flowing over on Murray Hill Road. Parking. Blocking other vehicles and again in the
' case of an emergency, which was brought up, I don't know how a large fire truck or other
safety equipment would be able to navigate up Murray Hill Road. So I'm concerned about
the overall environment and what a project of this type would do to that area. Again there's
' 22
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
a lot of wildlife. There's a lot of birds up there. You're going to lose, you're going to
change the entire environment so those are my comments.
Scott: Okay. I think I can respond to a couple of those. And I don't know when your home
was constructed. My guess 5 years, 10 years ago.
Dick Herrboldt: Probably about 7.
Scott: 7 years ago. One of the things that we've recently done as a Planning Commission
and as a City Council is have a very restrictive and very detailed tree preservation ordinance.
The old way of doing things is you'd wrap the trunk of the tree with snow fence and then
hope that if somebody ran into it, it would be okay. And at that time that was state of the
art. What we've done now is we've, because we have a forester on staff now, we're
concerned about not allowing any compaction around the drip line. So now we have snow
fence going around the drip line of the tree. In the case of a cottonwood, from my
understanding, that is one of the species of trees that is the most tolerant to compaction and
also to severance. That's obviously, the staff report had a paragraph on that particular tree
and what we're trying, we're not trying to manage on a tree by tree basis. We're looking at
it as the overall canopy coverage. But I think the commissioners would agree with us, we've
gotten a lot better at tree protection and understanding the needs of various species and so
forth. So I think from the tree standpoint, that's a major issue in the project. I guess from
what staff has told us and from what I've seen of the property, I think that's obviously going
to be an amenity that is going to allow this development to be a lot more profitable for the
developer. So that works both ways. From what I'm looking at where the house pads are to
be positioned and from a, I'm concerned about public safety. One of the things I think that,
the way it looks here is that there are going to be driveways extending off of this common
drive which usually in houses, these are probably going to be 2,500 square foot houses. In
that roughly, 2 to 3 car garages. My guess is, at least at my house, we can get 4 cars in our
just parking area so my guess is, you'd probably have to have 4 simultaneous, pretty huge
parties before you'd even back out onto that private drive. That's my sense but hopefully
those comments will assist you. If anybody on city staff, if you've got some other comments
to make, that might help. I think the way this is laid out, it is, the lots are 30% larger than
what is required by the ordinance and it appears that the public safety and the vegetation
concerns have been dealt with. I personally feel fairly well. So I mean if there are any other
comments from staff on there or commissioners on that would be appreciated. Okay. Thank
you sir. Yes sir.
Chuck Spevacek: Good evening. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is
Chuck Spevacek and I live at 6474 Murray Hill Road. I'm Mr. Herrboldt's neighbor and Mr.
Bourdrie's neighbor and pardon my voice. I'm fighting a cold that my children have had for
23
u
r
0
0
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
' months that they've just gotten over and I've picked up. I echo the sentiments of the other
residents in the neighborhood that have spoken, which I understand will continue to speak
tonight. I do believe that the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the spirit and flavor of
' the neighborhood. What we have now is a blend of large and small homes in an open,
natural setting and what we're proposing is a parcel of property with 4 homes, sitting 2 deep
with the front or facing houses having their sides facing towards the street serviced by a
common drive. And while the lot sizes themselves might have enough square feet to meet or
exceed the zoning codes, there is nothing in the vicinity remotely like this development. And
I know that the reference has been made to the houses on Sommergate. That if you just want
' to compare square foot to square foot, then we're talking apples and apples. But if you want
to talk the way the homes are situated on the site and how they present themselves to the
neighborhood and the community, what's going on in Sommergate is really totally different
' than what's being proposed for this development. Despite the size of the lots in this
development, the property itself is very narrow and the lot size comes from the property's
depth. Thus the proposed development is one that gets it's lot size by stacking the houses 2
deep off of the street. Servicing them with a common drive and again having the front facing
houses not presenting themselves to the street but presenting their side yards in the side of the
house to the street. And while the lot sizes are large, this type of arrangement is inconsistent
with the character of the neighborhood and is more attune to the type of cluster type homes
you see in an urban setting where land is at a premium. Now in addition, and as I've
indicated, this proposed development is inconsistent with the type of development that has
recently taken place in this neighborhood. Both the Sommergate Addition, while lot sizes are
similar, they present themselves to the neighborhood much differently and much more
consistently with the spirit and flavor of the neighborhood. That's particularly true with the
Melody Hill development or the cul -de -sac at the end of Murray Hill on the south side where
my house is. There are some extremely large lots. There are some more modest lots but
again, in that situation we don't have a situation like you'd expect to see ... where you have 4
home sitting 2 deep off of the street serviced by a narrow cul -de -sac. I'm convinced that
anyone driving through the neighborhood will reach the same conclusion that the proposed
' development is inconsistent with the spirit and flavor of the way ... now. I understand, and can
trust me I have done my own independent check on this where the proposed development is
not inconsistent with the present zoning ordinances. And therein lies the fundamental
' problem I think for myself and the remainder of the people who live in this neighborhood.
Because what this is telling us is that the zoning code doesn't reflect the character of how our
neighborhood. It may be a zoning code that has applicability to the vast majority of the city
' of Chanhassen. But the vast majority of the city of Chanhassen isn't our neighborhood and
our neighborhood is a neighborhood of mature, developed foliage, trees, homes. Again, that
gives one the flavor of a mixture of modest and substantial homes in an open, natural setting
and one where a subdivision where you're stacking homes 2 deep off the street is inconsistent
even if the lot sizes meet the technical requirements of the zoning code. Two homes on this
1 24
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
parcel would be consistent with the precedent set by recent development. Sommergate came
in by the development on Murray Hill. I truly think 4 homes on this parcel of property,
despite it's ability to accommodate large lots because it's a deep, still shadows that precedent
because of the way that they present themselves. Finally, while I understand this issue is not
directly before this commission, I trust that the commission bases it's decision not just one
any particular parcel it's dealing with but also what the effect might be on other potential
development in the neighborhood. There is another parcel of property just on the other side
of the Burkholder property at 6398 Murray Hill Road, the Woida property, which has been on
the market for sale and as I understand, although this is pure hearsay, that the Hoben
Corporation has an option to purchase and develop this property contingent upon the success
of the present development. And that might not be true. But regardless of whether that's
true or not, this is a 2 1/2 acre site. It sits at the corner of Murray Hill and Melody Hill.
Right at the entrance to the Melody Hill subdivision that Mr. Boudrie and Mr. Herrboldt and
I live in. No more than 50 yards from the subject property, and if the approval of this
development is in any way deemed to be precedent for what must be allowed on the Woida
property, or the property at 6398 Murray Hill Road, we're talking about someone coming in
and saying I want to stack 6 homes in this property and telling this committee that in terms of
pure square footage, it meets the zoning regulations. And those .of us who live here will
think more than ever that the zoning regulations don't reflect what the nature of our
community and what our neighborhood is for putting 6 parcels of property on that piece
would truly destroy the ambience of the homes that are at the south end cul -de -sac on Murray
Hill. And I know that the county or the city or whoever is in charge of this must think
highly of the ambience of the homes on the south cul -de -sac of Murray Hill because in the 2
years that I've lived there without making substantial additions to it, my assessed valuation
has gone up over $60,000.00 and that would truly reverse if you toss the 6 homes on the
Woida property. To conclude my remarks, I understand that technically there's enough lot
size to sustain this development. But technically that exists only because you have a property
that's narrow and deep. You can look around this neighborhood and you will not see
anything at all remotely resembling what's being proposed for this property, and in this case
the zoning ordinances do not reflect the character and nature of the neighborhood we live in
and we believe our neighborhood will be diminished by allowing more than 2 homes on this
parcel. Where we live now is an above average section of this community and this proposed
subdivision is truly average and it will not help bring us up any. It will do nothing but bring
our subdivision down to a level where it hadn't been before. Two homes is consistent with
what we've established and what other developers have tried to do here ... thank you.
Scott: Thank you. Would anyone else, yes sir.
Peter Staudohar: Good evening. My name is Peter Staudohar and my wife Lisa and I live at
2204 Sommergate. As David referred to, the drainage area there happens to be my front yard
25
J
�I
J
f
n
u
n
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
so I'd rather refer to it as my front yard rather than the drainage area. I'm right here. I'm
sorry, right here if I'm understanding this correct. I have a couple of questions and then I
have a couple of comments. The outlot is a concern of mine. I live directly across from the
outlot and I'd like you to address the issue of what will happen to that if it's acquired by the
corporation.
Generous: It will be designated as a tree conservation easement.
Peter Staudohar: Which means what?
Generous: The trees that are there will stay there.
Peter Staudohar: In it's present form?
Generous: Yes. Should maintain...
Peter Staudohar: Okay. If I am assured of that, that helps some of my concerns a little bit
but my wife and I moved into this area in March of 1994 and one of the express purposes of
moving into this neighborhood was, as the gentlemen mentioned earlier, the aesthetics. The
way it presents itself and the development that you're suggesting presents itself completely
different to the surrounding area. I can say without any hesitation, because we looked at an
awful lot of houses. An awful lot of new developments. We wouldn't have moved into this
neighborhood in March of 1994 if the proposed development were in place at that time.
Without question. And I think if you went around the room to the other people that live on
Sommergate, their comments would be the same. If they would have known 5 years ago, 4
years ago, 3 years, 2 years ago when they built their house, they would not have built a house
in a neighborhood that was going to have a development across the street that has a cluster of
homes. I'm not very excited about getting up in the morning and walking out my front door
with the dog and going for a walk and looking at the back of 2 houses where there now is
woods. Or in the winter, at the very least, there's a little red, attractive farmhouse that my
wife and I happen to fall in love with when we moved into the neighborhood and would have
probably gladly purchased it and updated it if it would have been for sale at that point in
time. I'm confused about one other item. We keep referring to the development west of the
proposed development and you suggest that's the houses on Sommergate, on the south side of
Sommergate?
Generous: It's that whole development. It's called Eight Acre Woods.
Peter Staudohar: Okay. Because that area was referred to as north of the development
earlier. Sommergate being north of the development. David, I do have another question for
26
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
you. I'm a little bit concerned about the drainage. If you would have been at my house
during a few of these rains, you'd been a little bit nervous as to the level of the water. It's
crept up dramatically as the summer's gone on and that concerns me. If we put 4 lots in
there, we're taking away some locations for the water to settle into the soil. What's going to
happen to my front yard or my drainage area based on your guesstimates?
Hempel: The drainage area in your front yard has been sized to take on the neighborhood
drainage from this area. The increase of 2 additional homes ... common driveway. If you have
4 separate driveways, there's more impervious surface. Therefore a common driveway makes
more sense from an impervious surface standpoint. Those calculations for the storm water
are going to be supplied to us with the final plat just to verify that we will not exceed the
capacity of that ponding area for the storm sewer system down the street. We don't
anticipate any problems with the additional 2 lots which are being created with this proposal.
Peter Staudohar: One last issue that may or may not be appropriate to bring up at this time
but the gentlemen before you mentioned the appreciation on his property based on
assessments. Based on the tax bill. I've had the same benefits as I moved in in March. I'm
very happy to see that for a lot of reasons. My question and concern is, what is this cluster
of homes going to do to my home value and I'd like to briefly have the gentlemen proposing
the development speak to the size of the homes. He said 2,500 to 3,000 square feet and
values of the home, which is extremely important to a lot of people concerned. Thank you
for your time. I appreciate it.
Scott: Would you like to answer that question Mr. Hoben?
Jim Hoben: I'd be glad to have an opportunity to answer that. One of the main reasons we
chose this site to go ahead and do this, I can't imagine that anybody's houses will be
depreciated from that standpoint because I'm looking at an entrance coming in here where
we'll call this Woods. There will be a little brick thing on the inside and it is. You call it
cluster homes. Well cluster homes sometimes is a phrase used to demean a development and
that's not the case here. These homes will be in the neighborhood of $300,000.00.
$310,000.00 - $315,000.00. That's the idea. It's not, I don't build and have not been and I
think even Mr. Burkholder knows that. Go in and build low end housing. If I didn't think
that we could go in here and build homes in the neighborhood of $300,000.00, which is... the
studies that we've made of the homes both on the cul -de -sac where Curt Osterman built and
where the other gentlemen built up on the other cul -de -sac and also with the Eight Acre
Woods, I wouldn't be interested in the site. So again, we would go in the trees that were
attractive to the area. We'd work with the staff. It's not my intention to go in and knock
down trees indiscriminately. We will save all the trees that are possible and I think planning
27
n
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
' showed most of the trees being saved there, except for the ... pad where the house will sit
because that's what will add value to the ... to the homes so in no way will we be demeaning,
setting down the value of the homes for surrounding.
' Harberts: Mr. Hoben, I have a question for you. Will you, your firm be acting as both the
developer and the builder?
' Jim Hoben: Pardon? Will I be the builder as well as the developer, yes.
' Harberts: And I'm ignorant in this area. So if someone comes in and they choose a lot.
Will they be able to choose the type of home they want to put on or will you already have
that established. Is it like a package deal? Is it like a package deal? You get this lot and
' you get this house or do you buy the lot separately and then decide separately on what house
you put on there? And I'm really ignorant in this area, sorry. I apologize.
' Jim Hoben: We will have 2 or 3 home plans that will fit on these sites. I mean is your
question that you have to take this house?
' Harberts: Well is it a package deal when they go in there? Do they buy the lot separately
and then they buy the house separately or do they, if they're interested in purchasing, do they
' buy the house and the lot at a given price?
Jim Hoben: Yes, because that's what we'll be doing but they will have a choice of a couple
' of different plans to put on that.
Harberts: Alright. Well you know based on my experience when I was looking, we were
' looking around for a home, you'd go out and buy your lot for x thousand and then you'd go
and find a house and then they'd have a builder. Or you bring your builder in so I was just
wondering if that was the case.
Jim Hoben: No, you won't bring your builder in here. I will have 2 or 3 plans ... would look
at and this has been done in Plymouth and so forth. Again, I go back to the word cluster.
' Cluster homes and doing this intently with the idea of pointing them into themselves so that
they have their own identity.
' Harberts: So is it, so am I understanding that these probably will not be custom homes?
You know an individual's choice.
I Jim Hoben: Yes, they will be custom homes. Absolutely.
28
L
CJI
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Harberts: But I'm understanding you to tell me that you're going to have 2 or 3 different
designs and they can pick from one of those to put on there. When I'm speaking of a custom
home, they bring in their plan or their idea in terms of their dream house. This is what I'm
asking.
Jim Hoben: If you brought me, for example, if you brought me in a plan that would fit on
that lot and the square footage of it was such that after I constructed it, it would be in that
price range, compatible with what I'm talking about, yes. You could do that. I'm not going
to ... somebody you've got to take this plan, if that's your question.
Harberts: Well it's more the question.
Jim Hoben: You would have to conform to the.
Harberts: I understand that. It's more the question is, is it a package deal or do you buy
your lot separate and then the house is another separate transaction in a sense, or whatever.
Jim Hoben: No, it's all one transaction. The lot and the house would all be.
Harberts: No, that's fine thanks.
Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak? Yes sir.
Perry Harrison: I'm Perry Harrison. My wife Pat and I live at 2221 Sommergate. Just down
the road from Peter. And some of my fears have been allayed here through this discussion
but I guess I still have two primary ones and I guess they both focus around what this
gentlemen so eloquently said about the integrity and nature and the ambience of the
neighborhood. As he so well pointed out, this is "cluster" or whatever you want to talk about
the layout of these homes is totally different than our area. Having 4 homes positioned there
that have most, all but 1 home facing the two major roads of that intersection, which is
Sommergate and Murray. And I can envision and I assume other people on Sommergate
would be acceptable to having 2 homes where they be both sitting at the west end of the
property facing Murray Hill. Therefore having minimum exposure to the sides or the backs
of their houses to either Sommergate or Murray Hill. Otherwise right now, the way it's laid
out, you're going to have 3 homes with their backs or sides of both facing the road. Every
home in that whole area, 5 or 6 lots in a mile or two circumference around that area, has their
homes facing the main road. There isn't a single house that has a side of their house facing
one of those roads and it just establishes the integrity of the neighborhood and the naturalness
of the neighborhood. We're now looking at the back of somebody's house or deck or an
undeveloped barren back yard. Now the other part of that I think is you can't help but tear
29
1
I
1 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
down a whole lot more trees with 4 houses than 2. I mean you just can't fit for the 2 and
there's some big, beautiful trees on that lot and I can't envisioned where you'd keep this
' many trees as the 4 would do, so that was...
Scott: Would anybody else like to speak for the first time, and if we're clear there. Sir, if
' you've got another comment you'd like to make.
Keith Boudrie: Well I just want to come up. Keith Boudrie again, 6482 Murray Hill Road.
' I really only had one question earlier. I wanted to hear what everyone had to say. Again, I
don't think there's an objection at all by any of us to having change on that lot. It is a cute
little red farmhouse but I think we all realized coming in there that, even 10 years ago when
' we built there, that someday that would probably change. The indication and what we were
told by Mr. Curt Osterman at the time, was that lot was set up with 2 stubs and would
eventually be 2 homes in the future. And apparently we relied on that explanation as opposed
' to looking into it further. I think that you're hearing objections here and I think technically
we have nothing to object to. I think emotionally and I think that there certainly are more
taxpayers sitting here that are concerned about it than potentially taxpayers that are coming in
' on these 4 lots. We're here because we love it here. We like it here. We've invested in the
neighborhood. The developer's coming in strictly for profit and he's coming into the area on
the basis that our homes are there. Our homes are going to help attract potential buyers that
' he's looking for. I think the price range of the homes that he's building are fine. I think the
square foot of the home that he's building is fine. My major objection is the stacking.
Cluster was used. It's an obvious ... to be able to get 4 homes in place of where 2 should go.
' That's my objection. We've lost 5 large trees on our front yard. Maples about this big
around and we did everything possible to try to protect them and not lose them and 2 -3 years
after the home was built, the damage shows up. So I think in every effort that he makes to
' save these trees, I would be willing to guess that 80% of them will probably be lost. I think
that's been the experience of the neighborhood. I think Dick Herrboldt can speak to that. I
can speak to that. Jeff can speak to that. We all made every effort possible to save the trees
and even with our efforts, we lost them. The comment was made before hand, two homes
probably fit more logically on that lot. That's all I have to say.
Scott: Okay, good. Is there anybody else who would like to speak?
' Kaye Benson: I'm Kaye Benson again from 2211 Sommergate. My neighbors and people in
the neighborhood have spoken very eloquently of all the issues associated. My husband and I
live in the property that is directly adjacent to this development and I just thought I should at
' least stand up in front of you and say that our feelings are certainly echoed by everybody that
has been in front of you tonight. I think in a little bit broader perspective, the next agenda
item is going to be another huge development that's just south of us. Just off of Galpin
30
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Boulevard and that too is going to change the whole nature of that particular area, which is
really country. So I guess if this is only 4 houses, and the next one's only 37 and then the
next one's only 37 but it all adds up and impacts people that are there and they impact our
future.
Scott: Good, thank you. We'll have one final comment from this gentlemen then we'll close
the public hearing.
Chuck Spevacek: I had a final comment and then I had a question. The comment I think
after you were having to hear a lot of the people in the neighborhood criticizing what's been
proposed, and in particular of the planners, I guess I want to say something positive. We do
appreciate the work that the city has done to preserve the trees. To see that the outlot that
was along Sommergate would be set off as a nature area and not be developed. I think this
shows a true sensitivity on the part of the city and it's planners to a lot of concerns of what is
there. The fact is, that doesn't change that we still think there are 2 more houses that are
going to go on this lot than there should be ... central character of our neighborhood doesn't
change but I wanted to express, at least from my standpoint, our appreciation of the steps that
were taken to address some of these concerns. The last concern however wasn't addressed
and that is that 4 homes stacked 2 deep is really inconsistent. I also know that the planner
who was responsible for this isn't here today but I spoke with Sharmin on the phone about
this and I was very impressed by her dedication to her work and the effort that she put in on
this so I don't think any of us here want to let you think that we're unappreciative of the
efforts that you took. And I think that you understand, as well as we do the purpose of
something like this is for us to express areas where we still have concern and this is a very
serious area of concern. That's my comment. My question is now for the developer.
Whether there are going to be restrictive covenants on this property that will specify the
minimum square footage for the house size or is the idea of the 2,500 to 2,000 square foot
house the initial hope that would economic factors or perhaps the... Is there going to be a
square foot minimum restrictive covenant put on the property?
Jim Hoben: ...restricted in the way that I build them, yes...
Chuck Spevacek: But if there are.
Jim Hoben: The restrictive covenants will be as required by the city and obviously even
from my part ... to the road. The maintenance and up to the road which would be... Other than
that, the individual homes can do their own watering of the grass and cutting of the grass and
all that sort of thing. In fact it's a little bit different than a townhouse development where
they don't—and that's in a townhouse development. This is a single family. But it's the
31
u
Ll
1
0
1 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
' same type of concept that I'm proposing here and actually I think this is in character in my
opinion...
' Chuck Spevacek: I guess my question was whether there's going to be some sort of
guarantee with the development by the developer that there be a restrictive covenant on the
1 property that would require homes of a minimal square footage or whether this is just a
developer's hope that if there are no takers of that size ... And I guess what I'm hearing is the
guarantee that we have now of larger homes, which obviously if I'd rather be for, I'd rather
much have them be four $300,000.00 homes on this property than three $150,000.00 homes
on this property. It's dictated by economics. If they can sell four $300,000.00 homes, then
we have our guarantee. If not, then I guess we don't know what ... Thank you.
' Scott: Good, thank you very much. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Harberts moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
' Ledvina: Well I have, I did not receive the grading plan and apparently one was not
available so that, and that's one of the things that I like to see when I'm evaluating a plat. I
feel fairly strongly that even though we're looking at somewhat of a flat parcel, I think it still
' in every case it warrants knowing where the dirt is being moved so from my perspective I
feel that I haven't evaluated it entirely without that plan. Listening to the neighbors, I can
certainly understand their concerns and in general I agree that a development with this density
' is not in character with the neighborhood. I think, I can't argue that point whatsoever. I
think that if this plat would go through as it's laid out with the 4 homes, or the 4 lots, I think
' potentially what could be done would be to provide some more screening or buffering along
the property boundaries here to maybe isolate it somewhat and typically we see landscaping
plans with our subdivision plans. But saying that, I don't know if that would actually work
' in this instance. That that can work in many times in terms of providing the buffering but
when we're talking about relatively smaller lots and relatively larger homes, there's not much
area to do the buffering and still space physical distances does become important. So I feel
' that can be used as a factor to help mitigate some of the concerns as it relates to the
surrounding property owners. The proposed driveway, I guess I would agree that that makes
sense from a grading perspective and impervious surface. I don't know, I guess I'm still a
' little bit concerned about the safety issue and Dave, did you mention that the Fire Marshal
has looked at this in terms of specifically from a safety perspective and in terms of getting
emergency vehicles in there?
32
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Hempel: Mr. Chairman and commissioners ... access standpoint. Access the site—have to go
into that driveway with a fire truck. The other thing is that... sheriff's or paramedics or the
fire chief himself who responds to the site as well ... as far as access goes.
Ledvina: Okay. That's the extent of my comments.
Scott: Okay. Ladd.
Conrad: Unfortunately I didn't go out and tour the site. This does meet all the specs that the
city requires and I've been sitting up here trying to understand or trying to determine is
there's some good rationale, good logic to change it from 4 to 2. And I'm struggling with
that. I've heard what the neighbors said. I empathize with what they say. I've gone through
that many, many, many times in my neighborhood. I think the staff report is good. I think
the staff is preserving what we're trying to preserve. It's hard to fault what they presented.
The one issue though is, what I haven't done and that was to visit the site and if I thought
that this was really out of character with the neighborhood, then I think I'd have a reason to
change the density. At this point I don't because I haven't been there. So if this gets tabled,
I will make a point of going out there. But at this point in time, not looking at the site,
knowing the area however. I'm not unfamiliar with the area. I just haven't looked at this, I
think the plat as presented is acceptable.
Mancino: Mr. Chair, can I ask Ladd a question?
Scott: Sure.
Mancino: I think you raise a very good point and should we table and go out and look at it.
But my question is, I mean I hate to see it. However, this is going to come up again in that
neighborhood. It may come up in other people who own larger lots. Acre, 2 acres or 3
acres. I don't have an answer to this. I'd like to say to the neighbors, be mindful of who
else is selling and go and get your money together and buy the lots and keep it that way. But
it will keep coming up and I think it probably will in this neighborhood. We've seen it for
the last, I mean even thought of us who lived in a neighborhood when Sommergate came up.
That was a big deal.
Conrad: Major deal.
Mancino: A major deal so, and it will keep coming up.
Conrad: And everybody that's here tonight has that opportunity to subdivide their lots. If
they're bigger, they can do that. When we've gone out to ask the public for input on lot size
l]
0
Ll
1
33 1
r
1
F�
I I
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
and we've tried to zone larger, we've never had enough public support to zone larger. We've
tried to do that. So it's not that we haven't looked at those issues. We haven't seen a
demand of people beating the development to the pass, so to speak. Where you come in and
say our area, we want a different zoning. You haven't done that so on the one hand we've
looked at zoning. We've paid attention. We've suggested some 40,000 square foot zoning
blocks but I don't think the public's ever come in and said yeah, we endorse that. What we
have today is 15,000, which is still decent. This is 20,000 which is 30% more than decent
and it's always an issue. It's always an issue when it's in your neighborhood and you're
looking at it I don't particularly care for smaller lots but that's really a very practical thing
and every one of you has that opportunity and unfortunately you say no, I won't do it but we,
those of us who have been around for a while, the people who said no, we won't do it. They
come back. They want that right to do it so. Hard to restrict development. But in this case
it's hard for me to hook onto something. I think what we try to do is preserve what we've
got. Can't preserve density very much, other than using our standards that we have but we
can preserve the natural surroundings. We can preserve some of the slopes. This one doesn't
have any. We do have ordinances in place to preserve the natural assets of Chanhassen. I'm
real comfortable with that. I think the staff has prepared a report that looks like we're
preserving. Tree coverage of about 6,000 square feet of trees or canopy coverage is taken out
but I think some of that is put back in. It's a better proposal than a lot of things that we've
seen. That doesn't satisfy you but there's some good elements in it and partly that's because
staff I think has done a pretty good job on this one. That still doesn't say that I agree with
the 4 however. I haven't seen the site. I haven't seen how it fits into the neighborhood and
that's the only key thing that I think the neighbors have said to me that I guess I just need to
take a look at. Now if everybody else has taken a look at the site and feels comfortable that
it's out of character, then I think we have something to hang our hat on and to change
density. However boy what, I'll listen to what you have to say.
Ledvina: Can you say it's out of character and say oh, then there should be 3 lots? I mean
is that a basis for...
Conrad: In my mind it is. In my mind we're trying to fit things into a neighborhood and not
destroy, the people who live there really, I think we cater to as much as we can. They are
there. We want this to fit in their surroundings as much as we can. I think we have that
control. But there's a lot of definitional things. What fits? You put a 20,000 next to a
30,000 square foot, does that fit? Or is it 20 to 40? So definitionally it's just real tough.
And usually when you look at it you can really tell what fits. I think we're going to have
another, well we'll have some other exercises in what fits tonight after this warm -up. So
anyway.
Scott: So your thought is to.
34
J
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Conrad: I don't know. I'm interested in what everybody else. If you've seen the site, I
think you should respond to what the neighbors are saying. Doesn't fit. Out of character.
But I don't think you can use square footage as the factor here. It's does it really, has it
changed the neighborhood. Has it changed the character? Not square footage wise but in
what that neighborhood is now. Is it changing? You've got to tell me.
Scott: Okay. Diane, tell Ladd.
Harberts: I would certainly support a recommendation to table it. And my feeling is one, I
guess the other commissioners noted they didn't feel that they've had a complete package and
it certainly is our responsibility and our task to look at the package completely and then pass
it up to the Council. If we pass it up without doing our job. Well if we pass it up to the
Council in this form, I don't believe we are doing our job. Second, I would be interested in
looking at where the proposed house pad locations would be. Also with regard to the, I
don't know where the potential drawings are for the particular homes that would be available
for this site. Just to publically share then what type of houses are being considered for this.
So if that's available, I'd certainly like to see that in terms of the sketches or whatever. I'm
still uncomfortable, from a safety perspective, with the private driveway. I certainly support
the ordinance. The intent in terms of saving or hearing the integrity of the vegetation and
things like that around there so I can support, I'll support the public driveway in that sense.
One question Dave. Is there a stop sign? When you have a public driveway, can you put in
traffic control signs like that on that type of location? Is that to be determined?
Hempel: It's really no different than a single driveway access I guess. Some certain ... we
have added stop signs.
Harberts: So it can be added?
Hempel: They can be added.
Harberts: Traffic control or safety things can be added. Well and I guess if this gets tabled,
see again going back to design. Are we talking 3 car garages? Are we talking 4 car garages?
I mean what's the average, I'm a single person at my house and I have 2 vehicles. That's
what I'm saying.
Scott: $100,000.00 a garage.
Harberts: Yeah, well that's what I'm saying. I guess I'd like to see what we're dealing with
and with regards to that private driveway, and should we extend the concern or the covenants
or the restrictions or whatever within the city that they have for private driveway agreements
35
u
I
n
C
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
that perhaps we restrict to some or no parking of any vehicles on that driveway simply
because of the limitation and size. Because I'm guessing, because of the limitation in size,
that any parking that's going to be on the vegetation and isn't that what we're trying to be
considerate of? So I guess if this is tabled, I'd like to extend a potential restriction or
whatever. A condition of the agreement that there is no parking on there unless it's public
safety or the city vehicles or whatever purposes. I don't know if we can do that but again
also with regard to traffic or public safety signs or whatever is needed. I'm not too familiar
with the amount of traffic on Murray Hill Road so that's where I raise the concern about stop
signs. And is it going to, depending on how dense it is, with the turning traffic, from what
I'm hearing from the residents and from what I've seen it is a narrow road, are we causing a
lot of traffic problems perhaps with turning in and out? I don't know that. So again that's
part of my justification to table this until I get a little bit more information on that. Is that
clear Dave?
Mancino: Want me to go ahead?
Scott: I was just waiting. Are you finished ma'am?
Harberts: Oh yeah.
Mancino: Okay, a few points that I'd like to make. First of all I think that staff has done,
Sharmin has done a very good job of looking at the site. Of asking for a 40 foot
conservation easement on the northern side of the property. It is the whole north boundary
line of Lot 1 and 2 and I hope that the neighbors know that. That that steep slope that goes
into Sommergate will all be kept natural. That that means that nothing can be taken out of it.
Now there is Bob, in the conditions, it does say under condition 2 that all healthy trees over 6
inch caliper, 4 feet height shall not be permitted to be removed. I would like that line taken
out and just no removal of any vegetation so that some of our second and third generation
saplings can grow and mature and become healthy big trees. So that we're looking ahead to
the future. But Sharmin isn't here tonight but I would say that, and she also worked with the
applicant on another conservation easement bordering the Lot 2 and Lot 1, 55 feet to preserve
that area too. And I would say that I have a little different view than some of the other
commissioners about the private drive, and I think the private drive is also used to, and has
been stated to preserve as much of the environment as possible. That there won't be any
driveways coming up to Sommergate that will go and will obliterate and damage that steep
slope. That you will have the visual screening there and it will be there all year round. Now
one of the things that we may want to add is year round coniferous trees to that screening
from Sommergate. But I think that her efforts, keeping it somewhat narrow. The 30 foot
right -of -way and having 4 houses come off of it, was a very good plan. And I think it will
keep the integrity of the neighborhood much, much better. I do have the same concerns Ladd
36
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
does about how compatible it is for the rest of the neighborhood. I would favor tabling it so
that everyone gets out there and looks at it and comes back and talks about it next time. And
I also favor tabling it because I really, as I said earlier, would like to receive completed
packages and that is with grading, with house pads so I can see exactly which trees will be
removed and which ones won't. So I would like to see it again and take into account all of
what the neighbors have said.
Scott: Good, Ron.
Nutting: I can keep my comments brief because I think most everything has been covered. I
guess to get to the issue of density, I need to understand where the house pads are going to
be. How things are situated and then to look and say, okay here's what it's going to be here.
Dealing with the issues of being compatible with the surrounding development. I haven't
been around here that long but I do know that we have given that issue serious consideration
with other developments here and for me it's a struggle. You've got the density of the
residents who spoke here tonight and then you've got the 2.1 per acre to the west and where
do you bridge the gap when those developments come together. And does that mean that one
wins and one loses or is there some compromise to bring it together so it flows a little bit
better. There's no way for everybody to be a winner on the density issue. Someone has to
give somewhat but I am hearing positive comments to the, if the development does fall in the
$300,000.00 plus area, that that in and of itself is not so much the concern. It's just the
number of units per acre and how that visually impacts the amenities of the area. So I'd like
to see it back with the details that Nancy spoke of and Matt spoke of and then assuming we
get our package next Thursday, or Thursday -Friday before the next meeting, have a chance to
then go out and lay out the map and say okay, here's how it's going to be so I would move
to table and go forward on that.
Scott: Okay, Jeff.
Farmakes: I don't have much to add. You can table this but it's still going to be 1.8 acres.
It's still going to be a square. And it's still going to be smack dab in the middle of a bunch
of large lots. There is no solution for this. As Ladd said, earlier in the 80's Chanhassen
toyed with the issue of having a second single family zone for large lots. I think it was 2
acres or higher or something like that is what they were throwing around. There are
pressures on the opposite end of this, and I don't know if our citizenry knows that because
they have large lots and they're not perhaps watching as closely but there are a lot of
pressures on municipalities to reduce the size of lots, both from the funds that they get from
the Met Council, from County and the State, which pays for your utilities and so on. Their
pressures are to make as many people as possible fit in the least amount of land as possible
because these things are such enormously expensive. And developers come in here constantly
J
37
I I
1
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
and say that 15,000 square feet is ... developers come by and buy small acreage that may crop
up in the middle but also some of your neighbors may sell the property. I think the average
piece of property in Minnesota is owned 7 years. So what may happen is that your neighbor
may sell and the person who comes by to purchase that property, if you don't, may finance
that property by looking at subdividing it. And over a period of time, that's going to happen.
You don't see a lot of 5 acre lots in Edina and that area developed after World War H. You
don't see a lot of big lots even in Eden Prairie anymore. There's a reason for that. Because
eventually they get divided up to the minimum requirement and I'd like to see the hobby
farms, because I'd like to see those open spaces. I've lived in Chanhassen a long time and
I'd like to see that kept but the only way that's ever going to happen is for the city to look at
a larger lot, and as Ladd said, there's been very little support for that. In fact there's been a
considerable amount of support in the opposite direction to not only allow I think developers
who would like to see always the maximum allowed of housing on a piece of property as
possible, but also there's a move afoot now to lower the price of housing. To have cheaper
housing in Chanhassen. And land and the cost of housing are, you can't separate it. So
especially in Chanhassen. The price of our housing's going up and the comments that you
asked, we can't sit here and ask the developer what's the price of the house. That's not legal.
That's not something that we should be doing. We can't say well, there's a $300,000.00
house here and therefore we're going to legislate that you're going to have to have an
equivalent cost house next to it. We deal with minimums. Whether that's fair or not that's,
the ordinances deal with the minimum requirement. And then it's up to the developer and the
economics of the marketplace to decide what's going to go in there. And I don't know if
that's going to be solvable by making that 3 houses on a square lot. I'm not sure that that's
going to solve anything other than to say making a compromise. I would like to see 2 houses
on there but I have nothing to grab onto and say that that's what it should be. Again, if it
was a larger scaled development I could say, well let's see more of a buffer here like we
have in some other developments. But it's so small that it's difficult to hang your hat on
these days. As to the driveway, 20 feet isn't that much. Are we putting parking restrictions
on that driveway at all? Are we going to get parking on both sides of the road if there's a
party or construction?
Hempel: I believe the ordinance does cover parking lots and...
Farmakes: Okay. The developments that I've seen like this, the square I'm thinking of is the
one on Lake Lucy Road and CR 17. I don't, there are 4 houses and there's a driveway
splitting it in the middle and you see delivery trucks or something and it blocks the whole
road going in there. Whether that's temporary or not, it doesn't look very nice. These are
somewhat bigger lots but the road's about the same size. So as I said before, I don't know if
there's a solution to this is going to solve the problems for the neighborhood but I empathize
with the fact that if I had a 4 acre hobby farm, I wouldn't want to see ... city density in the
middle of our hobby farm area. And I'm not opposed to the city to look at trying to maintain
W.
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
that. It seems to me that some of that may be spitting in the fact of the other direction that
it's going but on the other hand, looking at the comprehensive plans, that does maintain
somewhat the character the people profess here that they want to see so I'll leave it at that.
Scott: Can I have a motion please?
Ledvina: I would move that we table Case #94 -15, which is the Hobens Wild Wood Farms
1 st Addition.
Conrad: Second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table the development. Is there any discussion?
Mancino: No, the only comment I was going to make was, I don't know if there was a
neighborhood meeting with the neighborhood and the applicant. That might be a good idea
too between now and then.
Scott: Another comment too is that if there's one of the neighbors could identify themselves
so that when the next package that the Planning Commissioners get be sent to one of you
folks. You can just speak with Bob Generous and get the address and then you'll have it the
same time we have it and then we can run the process at the same time.
Resident: When is the next meeting?
Scott: It will be I think the 2nd of November.
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the
preliminary plat for Subdivision #94 -15, Hobens Wild Woods Farms 1st Addition. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Scott: The motion is tabled and the reasons behind it has to do with needing more
information. Grading, drainage and also tree inventory and house pads and so forth. Thank
you all for coming. Landscaping. And one of the things that I wanted to mention just briefly
is that before a development gets to the point of public hearing, there's a tremendous amount
of work that goes on so the form in which a development comes to the city sometimes does
not resemble what it is at this point in time and sometimes it does not even resemble what
our friends at the City Council will see. The final decisions are not made here. We make the
recommendation to the City Council so please follow, continue to follow your issue and I
have a feeling you will. Thank you all for coming.
J
1
r
39 1
I I
L
1
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
(Diane Harberts left the meeting at this point and was not present to vote on any of the
remaining items.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
REZONING OF 39 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2 TO RSF, PRELIMINARY
PLAT TO CREATE 48 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS, WETLAND
ALTERATION PERMIT FOR MITIGATION OF PONDING AREAS, AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF AREAS WITHIN A FLOOD
PLAIN ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF TWIN CITIES & WESTERN
RAILROAD TRACKS, WEST OF BLUFF CREEK AND EAST OF TIMBERWOOD
ESTATES AND STONE CREEK, HERITAGE FIRST ADDITION, HERITAGE
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY.
Public Present:
Name Address
John Dietrich
Michael Duffy
John Dobbs
RLK Associates
30E 7th Street, St. Paul, MN 55101
450 E Co. Rd D
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item and asked if there were any
questions from the commission.
Mancino: Bob I do, just a couple. Just to help me remember a little bit of what came to us
before because quite frankly I've forgotten. What I want to know is why staff has changed
it's mind about the placement of the roadway and not wanted the road closer to the wetland
which would reduce the grading in that northern third of the steep slopes and it would also, as
you say, give it more of a public kind of a roadway and in looking out at Bluff Creek and the
whole area and we're very concerned with Bluff Creek and having it be a community area.
So why is it that the staff has said this is okay instead of keeping the road alignment the way
it was and pulling off cul -de -sacs. I don't understand what we're getting for giving that up.
Generous: We'd rather have the diversity and the ... trail on the rear of those lots to give the
public access to the wetland complex and then have the dedicated land in that forested area.
40
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Mancino: But couldn't we still get, have the forested area and move the road closer to the
wetland and have the trail on the other side of the road?
Generous: I suppose that's an option. I don't know...
Mancino: Okay. I just wondered background.
Generous: We still think that we give a lot of the same benefits. We will have view
corridors between the housing pads so that people can see into that. We believe with the
access that will be provided to the trail easement... We wanted to have the sewer system go
through the, either along that corridor and the city road because of the soil conditions down
there and so we believe in looking at this development, that curvalinear street does have a lot
of benefits to it...
Mancino: Instead of going straight through it. Now we are buying, the Park Board is
buying these lots, correct?
Generous: Well they would buy the land in excess of the dedication requirement. They have
to provide 2 acres of dedication.
Mancino: So we are paying for it. It's not being dedicated to the city.
Generous: Right, for the excess.
Mancino: Yes, okay. Thank you.
Scott: Okay, any other questions or comments.
Ledvina: The NSP easement along the west side of the property. How far does that go into
the property?
Generous: I believe it's a 40 foot easement.
Ledvina: Okay, so there's 40 feet in Timberwood and 40 feet in Heritage, is that correct?
Applicant: According to our research, it is an 80 foot easement.
Ledvina: Okay. Has there been any measurement of EMF that you're aware of? Okay,
maybe I'll ask the developer to review that when he does make his presentation. The Outlot
D area, what's the fate of that? What's the rationale for that? It's toward the southerly.
41
7
I Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
' Generous: 1.47 acres? That was a ... provided as part of the Stone Creek development...
' Hempel: That's a water quality and treatment project which was developed with the Hans
Hagen Stone Creek development. It will also provide some treatment for a portion of this
development.
' Ledvina: Okay, so it's adjacent to the wetland then?
' Hempel: That's correct. I believe Outlot D does cover the wetland and the storm pond.
' Ledvina: Okay. Thank you.
Scott: Any other comments or questions? Okay, thank you for the staff report. Would the
' development team like to make a presentation? Please identify yourself and let us know what
you have to say.
' Michael Duffy: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, good evening. My name is Michael Duffy and
I'm an attorney with... I'm here representing Heritage Development. Also on behalf of
Heritage Development is Mr. John Dietrich. Specifically he is the land design architect with
RLK and Associates and Mr. Dietrich has prepared the plat that is before you this evening.
Also on behalf of Heritage, Mr. John Dobbs. Mr. Dobbs is Director of Development with
Heritage. First off I'd like to express Heritage who'd like to express it's appreciation for the
staff acceptance of the road realignment and express it's appreciation for the staff's
recommendation as this preliminary plat... approved. Mr. Dietrich and I however have a few
comments with respect to the staff report. After Mr. Dietrich and I have made our comments,
' we are going to ask that the staff approve the plat as submitted this evening... With that I'm
going to step aside and Mr. Dietrich is going to give his comments with respect to the
conditions set forth in the staff report and then I will be making some more comments after
that.
John Dietrich: Thank you. My name is John Dietrich, RLK Associates. I would like to
' briefly talk a little bit about the history of the site and then go into some of the details and
the characteristics and components of this site that we are pleased to present in the
preliminary plat format. In order to do that I will be walking between the overhead projector
' and the microphone... can be heard well enough from the overhead projector, I'm going to just
stand there. As Mr. Generous had mentioned, is that loud enough?
' Ledvina: That's fine.
42
J
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
John Dietrich: Had mentioned, the site itself is a 39 acre parcel and it's bounded on the west
by the Timberwood Estates. On the north by the property that's currently defined as
Chanhassen Corporate Center. On the west, or excuse me, on the east by a large extended
wetland that does go into the site. And on the south, Stone Creek Subdivision essentially on
the southwest corner. Along the southern border is the Twin Cities and Western Railroad
tracks. Approximately in a location parallel with the north/south line along the west is the
underpass under the railroad tracks that is to be included as a part of the comprehensive trail
corridor for the city of Chanhassen. It is the intent of this subdivision to meet the
requirements of the comprehensive plan and subdivision ordinance for the site as it would be
rezoned from A2 to a residential single family. The lot minimum for residential single family
is 15,000 square foot lots. The lots that are proposed average 21,000 square feet. That was
very important that we wanted to increase that size based on some of the comments when we
received when this came through in the preliminary PUD last spring. Just to redefine some
of the edges. Timberwood Estates is along the edge with tree cover and large single family
lots. They currently do not have sanitary sewer located in this subdivision. Bluff Creek
comes down and forms the northerly border as well as the eastern tributary of Bluff Creek
and then the creek runs along the eastern property edge. The red line identifies the delineated
wetlands that are existing on site. The green area identifies an area of overstory mature
growth which principally occupies the southern one -third of the site. There's a cluster of
overstory trees in the center and one isolated wetland up in the top portion of the slope. This
entire area has been pasture land and is currently farmed for a portion of it. The development
will have the opportunity to meet the storm water ponding and wetland protection so the
opportunity for Bluff Creek and the entire Bluff Creek corridor includes water quality will be
greatly enhanced through the development of this 39 acres. Lastly, this little wetland to the
south will also be protected and there is currently a pond down on the very southwestern
corner that will take runoff from approximately the lower portion of the site and the Hans
Hagen site into that pond, pretreated before it would be discharged into the wetland.
Secondly, there will be a pond area to the east of the wetland area which the majority of the
site will flow into and that again will be pretreated according to the city's standards of Best
Management Practices before discharging into the wetland corridor. We propose a storm
water pond north of the creek to handle the northern portion of the site and that would also
be developed in conjunction with the development to the north of Bluff Creek. The roadway
system will extend from Stone Creek and through the site so that the roadway system will
extend from Stone Creek subdivision, meander through the site. Have two public cul -de -sacs
and then it's proposed to extend north across the creek into Chanhassen Corporate Center to
the east/west frontage road which is currently under development by the city. That will be
serving the school site and discussions as to how far east that will be extended will impact
the timing and development of this roadway connection to the north. If I may briefly touch
upon the comprehensive plan. This site has utilized the comprehensive plan as it's basis.
This year 2000 land use plan, taken from your ordinance, identifies the site outlined in red. It
43
L
7
7
J
n
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
is scheduled for residential single family density of 1.2 to 4 units per acre. Our development
is proposing a net acreage or net density of 1.6, which is close to the lower end of the
residential range. The designated open space development principally lies entirely east of this
site, except for this northern knob, the entire site is programmed in your comprehensive plan
to have residential single family on it. And the park and open space development will occur
to the east. As part of our development we are proposing that the parkland dedication extend
the comprehensive trail system from the south, under the underpass and would allow trail
access around the site to bridge an area between the wetland, the ponding and the residential
single family development. It is our proposal that that 2 acre park dedication, as it's
identified on this site plan in green, complies with the ordinance and meets the objectives of
the park dedication requirements. It will also protect the slopes that are along the steep
corridor of Bluff Creek while providing a sense of variety of spaces ... open space, ponding
areas and along the wooded areas to the south of the site.
Mancino: John, could you give me a description of that park dedication area as far as
physical as elevation. What people would do there, etc.
John Dietrich: In terms of the park dedication, the topography has a low point at the
southwest corner. Comes across the wetland and then we would anticipate it raising up in the
range of 8 to 10 feet along the southern, southeastern corner. Coming back down along the
east side of the creek and then from this point it is in the wooded area. It would then be
fairly flat as it would go through the ponding and wetland area. We anticipate it to be a 8
foot trail within a 20 foot buffer area that would have wetland and ponding along side. It is
this segment of the trail that would be fairly flat. It would have a rise of a couple of feet as
it would need too to have access up to the north/south roadway. And as it would start to ring
around the site to the northeast, the elevation has an opportunity to go up along the slope or
follow the creek which is quite a bit down the side of the slope. There are very steep slopes
along this side and we would definitely want to work with the city and Park and Recreation
Director to place that trail appropriately. We have even talked at one time that we would
suggest a trail physically crossing the creek in this location and move the trail on the other
side of the creek. You may have an opportunity for a better trail here. In terms of the site
itself, the city would be looking at grading the northern portion of the site and taking that
down. We are concerned about the Timberwood Estates and the transition that will occur
between them. The large lots to the west would allow those items to have very little impact
from this development. By taking the slope from the property line down, we would allow the
views from Timberwood Estates to basically remain as they are today. The pads coming west
of the north/south roadway would have elevations of anywhere from 20 to 25 to 50 feet
below the elevations that are currently on that knoll. We are taking this hill down and
anticipating moving it south so that we have an undulating roadway experience. As part of
the contours that are anticipated to be shown on, we've put together a 3D model of the site.
44
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
This is looking at the site, essentially a bird's eye view if we are southeast of the site. With
this it would allow the existing knoll on the north and it shows how the bank is running
through the site. The proposal with the roadway wrapping through would maintain the
western edge. Hopefully come down and we will have a bench for the homesites. Roadway.
Another bench for the homesites and then the slope would project a bit closer to the wetland
on the northeast corner and then taper back in around the ponding area and as we would
reach the tributary to Bluff Creek, which extends up into Timberwood Estates, we would try
to match grades as close as possible and as we would move into the wooded area on the
southern one -third of the site, we will keep grading to a minimum so that it will have a
minimal impact to the trees. There will be trees removed on this site. We understand that is
part of the development process. However we want to make sure that we have the correct
number of trees calculated when this roadway project goes in ... and we will work with staff to
make sure that we compensate any tree removal according to the woodland management plan.
With the site itself, we are looking forward to an approval that would talk to the merits of
this project. The sensitivity that we are providing for this site and the opportunity of
providing 48 home sites in the Bluff Creek corridor while maintaining a public presence with
the trail which comes along the east side of the road. East side of the homes and the public
nature of the wetlands and the ponding area. Both on the east and on the west side.
Mancino: John, could I ask you a couple more questions?
John Dietrich: Certainly.
Mancino: First of all I'd like to thank you for presenting this and having it for us. I'd just
like to ask a couple questions on it and make sure I'm looking at it right and understanding
it. As I go from the existing view to proposed view, where you're putting the road north and
south, you're actually building up a ridge, especially towards the middle and going north, that
the road sits on and then on each side are walkouts. Is that correct?
John Dietrich: Not on each side.
Mancino: Just on the wetland side?
John Dietrich: Walkouts would only be on the east side of the roadway.
Mancino: Okay. So that's why the ridge is, you kind of built up that area?
John Dietrich: Yes.
Mancino: You filled in.
45
1
r
0
I
I
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
John Dietrich: We have filled in east of the roadway in that northeast section. Not on the
north side where the steep slopes are from the Bluff Creek but as we start to round. As we
begin to round the site more to the east, this area is fill. Along the north we are making the
grades match for those walkouts because.
Mancino: It works that way?
John Dietrich: We need to stay 50 feet away from their center line from the creek for
grading and 100 feet away for any structure and this plan achieves that.
Mancino: When you get up to the northern edge of a property and to the west of that road it,
to me, looking at the existing view, it looks like mountains you know and then when I look at
the proposed view, it looks like there aren't too many mountains to the west there anymore.
Are you looping off, how many feet? 20 -30 feet of those slopes?
John Dietrich: We are taking the slope down approximately 20 feet in a couple of locations
and on the average it would probably be in the range of 8 to 12 feet across that.
Mancino: And have you done anything to protect and preserve those? I mean have you
' thought about instead of going in with regular sized cul -de -sacs? Doing private drives.
Placing the lots a little differently.
John Dietrich: We have gone through a number of design alternatives. We previously have
looked at a plan with the private drives trying to service the lots so we would have an
opportunity to have the steeper slope going up the hillside. That was basically rejected by
staff when we discussed it previously. We feel we have looked at the alternatives. We have
tried to work with the slopes. Work with the engineering department to have the slope as low
as possible for the sanitary sewer but yet try and minimize the cuts and fills on the site.
Mancino: What's the balance? I mean what is cut and fill? What do you come up with over
the whole project?
John Dietrich: Over the whole project right now we are a little long. When I say we're a
little long, we're in the range of I would say 20 to 25,000 yards long. We anticipate trying to
work with the grades along this center portion. Bring those up a little bit so we can have a
balanced site.
Mancino: Thank you.
46
J
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
John Dietrich: It's getting late here. I'll try to quickly go through a few items that I would
like to touch on. The items that were, that begin on page 23 of the staff report, that being the
conditions of approval. And for the most part we are in agreement with a great majority of
them. However I... To begin with on page 23 of the staff report. Number 1, Michael will
address that one on his closure. Number 2, we will definitely attempt and retain the natural
character of the slopes and the site wherever possible. We will have to work with the grades
to make this site balance. Especially on the north side. The woodland management plan will
be provided. We have submitted a landscape plan that staff has counted and said we are
maybe about 30 trees off in terms of replacement. We will work with staff to make sure that
we are in concurrence with that woodland management plan for the tree removal. In order
for that roadway to go through, there will have to be trees removed. In order to have home
sites in the wooded area, there will be trees removed. We would like this woodland
management plan to be comprehensive and address even the individual lots and right -of -way
so that when this plan is finally approved, those individual lots will already have the
calculation of trees that would be anticipated removed when the private development moves
forward on this. Item number 4. The revise the grading plan. We will not have a problem
revising the grading plan to try and keep a balance site. We will also make sure we identify
each and every floor elevation according to the City of Chanhassen Code. We use a different
numerical numbering system... Item number 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, we would have no problem
with. Item number 11. The applicant shall revise the plat to eliminate Lot 25, Block 3 and
bring the total number of lots to 47. For an overall site plan I'm going to show a detailed
area of this area that talks about Lot 24 and 25, that are essentially along the tributary of
Bluff Creek. As part of the approval or the plan that was submitted did not identify
easements for the tributary of the Bluff Creek and the property line was defined by this line
here. Staff has recommended that the property line center along the Bluff Creek tributary
center line, which is this heavily dashed line. The red hash areas would represent a 30 foot
easement centered on the tributary center line. The green line represents a 50 foot setback
from the center line of the creek that has been suggested to be added as a buffer to the
tributary for water clarity issues. The Lot 25 is this shape with a private drive coming in.
We suggest that based on the tree survey, there is an opening of significant trees in this area
of Lot 25. We previously had identified the house pad within this area. We would propose,
without changing the property lines up to the center line adjustment, the home pads could
move to the south and still have more than 4,000 square feet of space for that house to be
placed. It would be a bit askew. However, we would anticipate any of the home sites within
the woodland area would be of a higher quality and individually placed within the site.
Additionally Block 24, had the opportunity to move that home pad 60 feet to the south and
still be well within the boundaries and setback requirements whereas also Lot 26 could
possibly shift down... By adjusting the home sites within this wooded area we feel we still
have the opportunity to have those floor elevations. A minimum of 3 feet above the flood
stage and still have adequate home sites without unduly, or without sacrificing the natural
47
1
I
C
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
amenities that this creek corridor does have and we would also not lose any other significant
trees by maintaining these two sites.
Mancino: Would you be custom grading those?
John Dietrich: Yes. These would be custom graded and also, for example Lot 24. I identify
3 trees that are within that 60 x 60 foot pad. I also know the right -of- way... identified this
cluster of trees to be removed. We would work with staff so that any trees within the home
pads and access to them would be included as part of the woodland management plan to
allow a development to proceed and we would anticipate that would be a worse case scenario
on these individual lots and ideally as they would be initially graded and designed, more of
the trees could and would be saved. Such as the home site could wrap around the site and
definitely save these... Those would have to be addressed on a lot by lot basis but we wanted
you to have the tree calculation figures into the final plat of the process.
Scott: How would that lot be serviced? Would that come off of, would it be a driveway off
of the private drive?
John Dietrich: Lot 24 would come directly off the access. They would have to have their
own driveway. A private drive only allows one lot to be served. This is really not a private
driveway. It's almost like a flag lot. So only one residential unit may be served to
accommodate the flag lot.
Mancino: That area isn't covered in our grading plan.
John Dietrich: On the grading plan that is part of the package, we did not put the grades on
there.
Mancino: So we can't tell how many of the trees will stay or go.
John Dietrich: At this time, in order to make a calculation we would say the trees that are
within the designated home pads that were put into the calculations as removable.
Generous: That's what my estimates come from...
John Dietrich: If I could continue so we can get out of here. Item number 12, Mr. Duffy
will address. Item number 13, the site plan does identify the 100 foot setback from the center
line of the creek and all structures will be beyond that 100 foot setback line, and that is
identified both the 50 foot setback for grading and ... setback on the site plan. Items number
14 and 15 we will happily comply with. Item number 16 we will comply with and the pond
48
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 '
has been designed to provide slopes of 10 to 1 at the high water ... proper water elevation. I
need my engineer to tell me those and with the remainder at 3:1 slope. Item number 17 will
be fine. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 we will all comply with. Item number 24. Individual
'
grading, drainage and erosion control plans will be required for each wooded lot prior to
issuance of the building permit. We will show a grading plan that will be minimal for those
lots. We want those trees to be saved wherever possible and work with the contours that are
in there. We will include the potential for those individual home buyers to know what trees
and the conditions of development are on those individual sites instead of leaving that up to
'
the individual home buyer after the site is... The 60 x 60 pads is probably a worst case
scenario. That's 3,600 square feet. If we start building homes that are 3,600 square feet
floor area, it's going to be tough. We anticipate these to be two story homes and the floor
,
plan be quite a bit less than 3,600 square feet. Item number 25 and 26 and 27, we will
comply with. Item number 28, the southerly cul -de -sac shall be re- evaluated for a private
driveway. We have looked at a private driveway in an earlier submission that we did pull
'
because of items that were not fully addressed. One of the issues staff brought up was the
number of units that were serviced off the private drive access and serviceability to fire
safety. We have not redesigned this site to incorporate public drives in both of the cul-de-
sacs so that we will have a better and we feel the best plan that tan be put together on this
site. The public service and fire safety and not meeting conditions of approval or
encumbrances and cross easements, will make this a much more sellable and attractive
'
subdivision. Item number 29. The applicant shall be required to extend an 8 inch sanitary
sewer line to the westerly edge of the plat along the Bluff Creek tributary. If I could go back
to this item. The Bluff Creek tributary is centered right here. There would have to be
,
significant tree removal along this easement that's outlined in red in order for that sanitary
sewer stub to be taken to the eastern, western property line for potential servicing of the
Timberwood Estates development. The need for moving the lots and home pads on Lots 24
'
and 25 was to retain the natural character and amenities and tree cover along this tributary. It
is our desire that sanitary sewer not go in for the disruption that it would put on that area and
we feel that the trees that would be removed will not grow back easily. The trees that will be
'
removed, they have to be replaced with smaller trees and that's why we're trying to minimize
the number that we would have on this site.
'
Scott: Dave, on that particular point. Is the rationale for that stub, is that to service another
or future development?
'
Hempel: Yes Mr. Chairman, that's one of the viable routes to provide gravity sanitary sewer
service to the Timberwood Estates development at some future date when those larger lots
'
reconfigure down into smaller lots. Short of installing a lift station or two in that area to
service it, which is a great cost and maintenance problem for the city. That would be the
alternative. I
49 1
I Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Mancino: Dave, we've done that though in other areas like Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition
because of the preservation of trees and other things. We went in and did a couple lift
' stations.
Hempel: I am not recalling any off hand. I can use an example of the sewer line, one of the
' existing street areas. In fact there's one in the Bighorn Shadow Ridge development which you
couldn't even tell that we were in there. That was done about 6 years ago.
' Mancino: But how long does it take to get back natural? I mean is that a 5 -6 year? I mean
it's not really natural.
C
Hempel: The life of the sanitary sewer is determined in the field based on the existing trees.
They can be, the sewer line doesn't have to go perfectly straight. It can meander along there
to avoid significant trees if it stays within this corridor. The depth of the sanitary sewer line
will be relatively shallow. Less than 10 feet because we don't need the great depth that we
put in...
Mancino: The shallower the less wide you go.
' Hempel: That's exactly right.
Mancino: What about coming up from Stone Creek? I mean why wasn't there, when that
' was developed.
Hempel: We did explore that avenue as well. There are two low points on ... drive where
' sanitary sewer would actually daylight with the gravity system. Short of the lift station... We
did look at, when Hans Hagen was developing Stone Creek and felt the only other alternative
was this corridor through this tributary to service it.
t Scott: Okay, thanks.
' John Dietrich: Item number 30, we will definitely show grading contours for the storm sewer
plan proposed in a temporary fashion on the north side of the creek and we will also look
closely at the need for the elevations of that crossing in order to accommodate a storm sewer
' as it would cross the creek in order to maintain the proper flow. The extension of, number
31. Extension of the north/south street be extended through to the frontage road within 3
years. We would have no problem with that condition on that the city has also extended the
' roadway to that point and to the east. Currently that roadway is not there and we would need
a roadway to hook up into. But it is our desire to have that as an access for the anticipated
traffic flow and circulation for this entire area. Number 33, the trail alignment around the
50
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
wetland along the Bluff Creek corridor. We would definitely work with staff to have that
placement within the defined park dedication area that we are proposing. Item number 34
we will concur with. Item number 35 we will use retaining walls. We anticipate they will be
field stone quality from boulders and rocks unearthed during the excavation. And item
number 36, we would adjust the property lines along the Bluff Creek tributary as we had
shown on the overhead as necessary. And we still feel we have the opportunity to maintain
that number of lots and maintain the natural amenities and significant tree population for
those two lots. And lastly I'd like to point out the sketch plan that was identified in your
planning commission packets was a discussion of the plan that Heritage Development
presented to the city a number of months ago for discussion only. That plan was never
officially submitted and the plan that we are proposing at this time we feel is the best plan
that is available and meets the objectives of the subdivision code and the concerns that the
Planning Commission did address when this was initially proposed as a concept PUD plat.
And conditional use permit and wetland permit alteration, items number 1 and 2, we will also
concur with. And with that I'd like to turn it over briefly to Mr. Duffy for a couple points in
closing.
Michael Duffy: Thank you John for your presentation. Members of the commission, as
you've heard from Mr. Dietrich's presentation, this preliminary plat complies with ... with all
code requirements and ordinance requirements that have also been established by staff in the
staff report... There are a number of things however, and conditions that the staff has set forth
that are not requirements set forth in the subdivision ordinance which I'd like to go over at
this time. The first one of these set forth is number 1 on page 23. This is the condition that
the staff has put with respect to approval of the plat. This is in respect to incorporating
design components for the proposed Bluff Creek watershed plan. It's Heritage's position that
simply put, it's Heritage's position that it is unreasonable for Heritage to have to comply with
a watershed plan that is not yet enacted. It's unreasonable. We do not know what the
watershed plan is so for us to agree to comply with this plan would be unreasonable. We do
not know what the plan is. It does not exist and in fact would be retroactive. In effect
requiring us to comply with this would be retroactive application of law. Another condition
I'd like to refer you to is condition number 12 on the next page. This is in respect to the
condition that the staff has asked for that more property be dedicated for park purposes. At
this time as Mr. Dietrich has explained, the plat as it has been submitted to you does comply
with subdivision ordinances... ordinances such that Ordinance 18- 79(i). The formula there
when you apply that formula it requires that there be 1.92 acres of dedication in this
subdivision. As Mr. Dietrich has explained, there are 2 acres that have already been
dedicated. If the city so desires to buy the property that the staff has recommended be
dedicated, there is nothing that Heritage can do to stop the city's powers of eminent domain
but Heritage will not agree to dedicate any more than what is required by the park dedication
ordinance. I'd like to turn your attention lastly to condition number 32. This is a condition
51
I
I
!I
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
that states that the developer and any property owners will waive any and all procedural and
substantive objections in respect to special assessments for the city's public improvement
project #93 -26, including claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property.
Heritage is willing to pay it's fair share. Fair and equitable share with respect to these
assessments but is unwilling and is unreasonable without knowing what these assessments are,
to waive rights, especially when those assessments may exceed the benefits to the property.
In this case this is unacceptable to Heritage. In sum, these 3 conditions that I talked about
are conditions that are not required by the subdivision ordinance. They do not have a
rational... with respect to approving the plat that is before you today. What we ask that you
do this evening is approve the plat as submitted in accordance with the comments that both
Mr. Dietrich and I have made. We hope that you're prepared to approve the plat tonight as it
has been submitted. The one thing that we ultimately ask is that this not be tabled this
evening. You have a couple of proposals in front of you. You have a proposal with
conditions from the staff. You've heard our comments in respect to the staff conditions and
the way we would like it approved. And we hope, I think that's enough information for you
tonight ... and we respectfully request that you would make a decision this evening. If you
have any further questions, I have nothing further. Thank you.
Scott: Any questions or comments?
Mancino: I have a couple questions, unless somebody else does first. To Bob. It must be
getting late... Explain to me again, and I'm looking on sheet 2 of 7. Do you have that in
front of you? Okay. I see in the eastern, northeast corner it says park dedication, 2 acres.
And it's also Outlot C also?
Generous: No.
Mancino: Would you take a few minutes and explain to me where this strip goes and what
Outlot C is? Outlot C becomes a NURP pond?
Generous: Yeah, that's a ponding, storm water pond.
Mancino: Okay. And the park dedication starts at the northern tip of the roadway and comes
all the way around to, it ends at, between Lot 11 and Lot 1. Correct? Lot 11 of Block 1 and
Lot 1 of Block 2.
Generous: No, it actually ends at the western property line in the southeast corner.
Mancino: Oh okay. But, you can access it between those two lots.
52
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Generous: Between 11 and 1, yes.
Mancino: And how wide is that? Again is it.
Generous: I don't know.
John Dietrich: It's a minimum of 20 feet.
Mancino: Thank you. Make sure I understood that. Thank you very much.
Scott: Any other questions or comments?
Ledvina: As it relates to measurements of EMF from the NSP line, has there been any effort
to do that or can you comment on concerns that you would have as it relates to the power
lines in that area.
John Dobbs: My name is John Dobbs, Director of Development for Heritage. I have ... we'll
probably do it in the course of— extremely high tension lines that we've asked for and
received a number of issues from NSP supporting that but we'll probably do it subject to the
people who will consider moving there ... We'll probably do it as part of the marketing...
Ledvina: Okay. But in terms of the voltage that's going through those lines, what are you
looking at there for voltage?
John Dobbs: I have no idea what the voltage that runs through that particular set of lines. I
know that the ... from 345,000 volts ... and also they had a number of different levels of lines
that go back. The amount of voltage is not necessarily a geometric ratio to the amount of
EMF that comes out of that.
Ledvina: It's the current essentially.
John Dobbs: Height and as well the current...
John Dietrich: If I may add commissioner. The larger, I'm going to say the larger
transmission lines, the ones that have holes that run along the tracks, comes to the site and
then heads south, north of the tracks is a much lower voltage line. It is on wood poles,
double standards that come all the way up to Highway 5. So I know the larger ones carry
much higher, greater number of lines but the ones along the western line are of lower caliber.
53
J
u
J
n
n
i
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Scott: Anything else? Would anybody from the development team wish to add anything
else? Okay. This is an item for public hearing. Is anybody here from the general public
wish to speak about this project? Seeing none, can I have a motion to open the public
hearing please.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Farmakes: I missed the meeting where this was at before. Can you explain to me in regards
to the park why that particular site was considered the 2 acres up above. I believe it was 2
acres for the park. To the exclusion of the wooded area down below by the wetland ... the
south end.
Generous: Because the applicant wants those wooded sites for home sites...
Farmakes: So this is the area that we're considering?
Generous: The city would have the wooded land. He wants to dedicate the land along the
wetland.
Farmakes: Is that discussion at a state of maturity or are you positioning here?
Generous: Well the Parks Commission wants to have more land.
Farmakes: Okay. So is the city's position aggressive in pursuing that, I guess that's my
question.
Generous: Yes.
Ledvina: Can I follow up on that? Is it a trade off between the trails or that other wooded
area to the south? Is that what we're looking at? I mean could you say.
Generous: Well that's what we were looking at. That trail—roadway alignment as proposed
in this plat ... and we would do the dedication of the parkland in the southeast corner.
Ledvina: But as it exists now, they're dedicating that strip as, and that's where the trail is
going to go, is that correct?
54
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Generous: Yes. That's, they're dedicating that for their 2 acre requirement...
Ledvina: Okay. But we could say that area is not acceptable and not have the trail in there
and then get the 2 acres in that southerly portion. Is that the other option? I mean would
that, I mean we have a question of the ordinance here in terms of the amount of dedication.
Am I making sense?
Generous: Yes. I don't know how to answer. I don't know if, we would like to have an
easement for that on top of the drainage and utilities ... so we can have our trail system down
around the wetland corridor and into...
Ledvina: Okay, so what we're requesting that the developer do is not dedicate that strip
along the corridor as a park but get us an easement to build us a trail in that area.
Generous: Correct.
Ledvina: Okay.
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Scott: That was my concern too. Is the difference between easement for a trail and a park
and I see what you're saying. So this is not as aggressive as we would like to be to develop
that resource.
Ledvina: But if we did it that way, then we would, the city would be in accordance with
their ordinance in terms of the park dedication. But at the same time we have the ability to
have them provide an easement for that trail. Okay.
Scott: Do you have a question for the development team?
Farmakes: I still have another question in regards to the park. Does this encompass all of
Block 2 or is this a portion of Block 2?
Generous: It's just those lots. The area where those 4 lots are.
Farmakes: That would be Lots 8, 9, 11 and 10?
Scott: 9, 10 and 11.
Farmakes: ...24, 26 and 25?
55
I Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
I Mancino: Just east of the road.
' Generous: No, along the east side of the road. 8, 9, 10 and 11. And we would require,
whatever the code requires in dedication and the city would purchase the remainder.
' Farmakes: Okay. Then so, in looking at the pads then for everything to the west of the road,
then they would follow, those trees would be removed then, correct?
' Generous: Yes.
Farmakes: There isn't a distribution of quality of the trees in the report that are on the
' schematic here. It doesn't talk about percentage is oak or elm. Not being a forester, the
quality of the woodland there.
Generous: Is very good.
Farmakes: It's very good or are we talking more oak than box elder then? I would
' encourage the city to pursue that to fall in line with what's going on with Bluff Creek and
I'm not sure, not having benefitted from the presentation of the developer in the past
meeting... making judgments based on the staff report, other than the issue of parkland. I'll
' pass on the rest.
' Scott: Okay, Ron.
Nutting: I guess some of my questions with regards to the park dedication have been
' answered. Is the city able to, listening to the developer's comments, I'm not sure if I heard
them saying that the maximum they are required to give up by ordinance is 2 acres?
I Generous: Yes. 1.92.
Nutting: And what is the Lots 8 thru 11 encompass?
I Generous: I believe the park ... is 2.7 in that area.
Nutting: So the city is proposing that they would purchase the additional .7 thru whatever
means. Condemnation if necessary. Okay. I'm not sure, in terms of the issues that the
applicant is not in favor of in staff recommendations number 1. Incorporating the design for
' the proposed Bluff Creek. Again, I'm a little bit of a novice of this game but I've listened
to us incorporate this as it relates to the Highway 5 corridor. As it relates to Bluff Creek. As
it relates to numerous other issues that are in progress. I don't know the legalities of that but
56
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
I don't think I would depart from our present approach in terms of making sure that we have
developments that doesn't incorporate the future planning that's going on right now. Number
28. I don't know Bob, I'm hearing the developer say that they had originally proposed a
private driveway concept which staff was not in favor of. And now staff has turned around
and said give us a private driveway. Where does that all fall?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman and commissioner, maybe I can address that. That came out of my
staff report. I don't think it's the same, exact location or the same number of lots being
serviced by the cul -de -sac. I do recall trying put the... previously but I think this is a different
scenario. This has two of the lots, the house pads back into the wooded areas which results
in tree loss. My thought is to try and eliminate the tree loss as well as help reduce cost... the
developer, some of them prefer actually the private driveway versus the public street as well
so it provides some diversity out there on those lots. I thought it was a win/win/win solution
but maybe I'm not hearing that from what the developer is saying so I guess I'm open just
from the standpoint that this is the—save us some additional trees and pulling those house
pads down from the wooded...
Generous: ...this vicinity. The other one the housing...
Nutting: I'm not an attorney. I'm not going to touch number 32. Where that one goes. I
guess I'd like to listen to the comments of the other members before pulling together my final
thoughts.
Scott: Nancy.
Mancino: I have a few questions. Bob, in your report on page 2 you have a couple of
sentences that I'm reading here. Paragraph 2, sentence number one. This plat meets
minimum code requirements for a single family development but falls short of ordinance
requirements for the preservation of site characteristics including topography, creeks and
scenic views. Can you talk about that a little bit?
Generous: That's part of the conditions. The 100 foot setback and the 50 foot setback as a
buffer area. With the recommendations in the staff report—that's primarily what we were
looking at.
Mancino: And are we doing mass grading on this?
Bob Generous' answer could not be heard on the tape.
57
1
fl
0
u
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Mancino: And how are we preserving topography? If we're doing mass grading and
especially in the northern part where there's steep slopes.
Hempel: Commissioner Mancino, I'd be happy to address that one. The variety in
elevations... balance earth work to develop house pad elevations. And also provide streets that
meet our city code for street ... Or provide a bench for a house to go on and...
Mancino: But if we have said in our ordinances that we're preserving and protecting—those
areas, shouldn't be less densely developed? Isn't that how you preserve and protect?
Hempel: That would be one alternative to it I guess.
Mancino: Is there any other alternative?
' Hempel: By trying to reconfigure the street alignment through there would be one method
but again... increase the grade elevations.
' Mancino: And haven't we gone to 10% street grades for special areas like this?
Hempel: In some areas we have. I haven't felt the need to do that to this road. To maintain
a variety of slope...grading plan, they are still trying to reproduce the rolling terrain effect that
you have out there today. Not to the extent that you have out there...
' Mancino: Would that northern cul -de -sac do less grading if it were a private? I mean if it
were a smaller. Would that help at all Dave? Because that's where you have some of the
steep slopes on that northern area.
Hempel: The driveway grade, or I should say the street grade already is proposed at
' approximately 7 %. 10% street grade ... little bit of elevation off the top of the hill there but I
don't know if it would be significant enough to warrant a private driveway.
Mancino: Okay. Secondly Bob, oh I'm sorry. I have another question. Bob on that same
paragraph. You said while staff believes that the road alignment for the project should be
adjacent to Bluff Creek corridor in order to provide the community and the future home
' buyers in this development a shared sense of ownership. Is that still the thinking of staff?
That is the preferred route? That is still the preferred route, okay.
u
Generous: We are compromising to get this to move forward.
Mancino: So we're compromising really where we want the road just to move it forward?
WN.
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Generous: And take a good look. We also want to work it out so, the developer's agreeable
for our parkland dedication area.
Mancino: But the developer isn't.
Generous: We'll find out.
Mancino: But according to what I see in front of me the developer isn't.
Generous: What you see in front of you and what the conditions of approval are aren't the
same thing.
Mancino: Okay. My last few points, questions are, when we saw this before on page 3 of
the staff report we asked for 4 things. Or the Planning Commission denied it. It was just I
think the sketch plan. On 4 points and I just want to bring those up again. Number 4 was,
we wanted them to minimize grading. Topographical disruptions and working with and
maintaining some of the steep slopes. Number 5, provide a transition from Timberwood to
Heritage. We were concerned about lot size directing abutting Timberwood. 6, we were
concerned about the overall density of the development and we were also concerned about
minimizing tree loss. And I have concerns about all 4 of those and actually whether they've
been done with this new plan. The minimizing tree loss, we have a road going through the
only place where we have trees. Mature trees. And we have lots going in there and I think
this is pretty much what we saw the first time that we looked at it so I don't see a big
improvement on that area. Overall density. Bob, what has that done?
Generous: What did we do? I don't remember what it was the last time. Under the concept
plan for the PUD they were able to go down to 11,000 square feet and average 15. They are
averaging 21,000 now so.
Mancino: So that has happened.
Generous: Yes.
Mancino: Good, good. And the lots that abut Timberwood, have those also increased in
size?
Generous: We believe so. They have the flare now back sides on the cul -de -sac.
Mancino: Okay. Those are all my questions. Thank you.
59
I I
r
r
C�'
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Ledvina: On the plan, let's see sheet 2. Looking at Lot 1, Block 1. We have 100 foot
setback from the creek and I see the line and it essentially cuts right through a buildable area
on that lot and I'm wondering can we still get a house pad in that area?
Generous: Yes.
Ledvina: Okay. So you can get in a 60 x 60 foot area into that?
Generous: At this time ... about 4,000 square feet.
Ledvina: 4,000 square feet within the triangle? But people don't build houses in a triangular
form.
Generous: They can make it L shape. They also don't have to build a 60 x 60 house.
Ledvina: No. That's true but that's the standard for providing the house pad. Okay. So
you're satisfied that we can meet the requirements and also provide a buildable area in that
lot. Okay. I guess I would like to hear from the developer specifically as it relates to the
park situation. You mentioned you were anxious to make a comment and I'll let you do that
now John if it's okay with the Chairman here.
John Dietrich: Thank you commissioner. In regards to the park dedication area, we are
proposing we'll meet the intent of, we will meet the code requirements of the 2 acres which
will essentially be a minimum of a 20 foot buffer strip running along the entire eastern side
of this development to provide access up to the east/west roadway and then run along Bluff
Creek to the southern portion of the site and then west along the southern boundary of this
development towards the underpass. Go to your comprehensive trail plan, which is stated,
your trail would be in conformance with the comprehensive trail plan. That is the area that
we proposed for park dedication and we feel meets the most closely intent for the comp plan.
Secondly in terms of, if I may address a couple of the other issues that were also brought up
in terms of this private drive. We will propose to maintain the public drive access in order to
have proper frontage and access that would be of a public nature. We feel it would be best
for all citizens and homeowners in this area to have public driveways. Or public cul -de -sacs.
The 50 and 100 foot setback is met on every lot north and south in terms of grading within
50 feet of the creek and the structure setback within 100 feet. In order to preserve the
topography of this site we are not grading along the entire northern area of the site where the
steep slopes are along Bluff Creek. We anticipate there would not be any grading within this
area so that steep corridor will be maintained in a steep nature and present condition. The
slope will be projected out along this area and we will maintain the elevations along the
entire rear of the property. In terms of transitions to Timberwood, the existing plant material
141
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
will provide a buffer that is already on the site and would be stepping down. We will have a
transition so that the homes will not be right back up against the property line. With the NSP
easement of 40 feet, we will be at a minimum of 40 feet. Most cases more than 40 feet off
of that property line.
Ledvina: Thank you. The area along that north high point, have we evaluated those areas in
relation to the bluff ordinance and do they need any requirements there?
Generous: The closest point is in the northeast corner of the lot along the trees.
Ledvina: Okay. Okay. I did want to speak to some of the issues that were raised as part of
the conditions. I guess number 1. Condition number 1. Generally I feel that we want the
developer to deal with those elements of the design but I can definitely see their point in
terms of making them accept something that doesn't exist and I guess I wouldn't support
condition number 1 as it reads in the staff report. Maybe we can soften that to say the
applicant shall attempt to incorporate design components. I don't think we should make it a
definite condition and I think the developers have worked to provide some amenities and be
sensitive to the Bluff Creek in their design as it exists right now'. Especially with the
setbacks. I think that they've demonstrated that so I don't know that we should hold their
feet to the fire as it relates to that. So I see some nodding heads over there that that maybe is
a way to go with that.
Mancino: Matt, what if we put a date on it and said that in the next month or two, if this
plan is done with and they're still in the preliminary going to the final, they could incorporate
it. And have it some way.
Ledvina: Well, if there's something that we have as a standard and that we can look at and
compare it to the plan that we have, then I would say yes. But I don't like these interim kind
of things. I realize that that's a transition but I don't think that that works for me. I feel
that that trail should be looked at in terms of an easement and I believe that the city is
justified in that perspective. And the specific parkland dedication should be as the staff has
indicated in terms of that southerly area so I would support that. Going to, let's see there
was another here as it related to the assessments. Can you speak to that Dave in terms of
asking them to waive their due process on something that doesn't exist yet.
Hempel: The project has actually been petitioned by the property owners. Feasibility study's
been looked at and I was going to touch on that a little bit ... Without the extension of the
trunk sanitary sewer lines the development doesn't have sewer capability so we've left it
optional for the developer. If he wishes to proceed extending this trunk sanitary sewer line to
the development, then we'd reimburse him the cost of the lateral line and the trunk line. The
61
n
J
J
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
city has to put it in. We have to go through... public hearing and ordering the project, calling
for plans and specs and ordering and so forth. What happens in the process, the property gets
platted. It gets 40 some lots out here. You've got 40 some potential owners that could be
closing on the property at the time we're holding the assessment hearing and where the
language comes from is from the attorney's office. All these new property owners weren't
notified of the public improvement project before and—problem with the public hearing
process and the appeals and so forth that would occur from it. The project would not proceed
ahead without a feasibility study that laid out the assessments for these parcels. The
assessments may vary but they can only vary at a rate of 10 % ... So that would probably clarify
what...
Ledvina: Well essentially it's for the developer's good, right? To benefit in terms of keeping
things moving.
Hempel: Yes. From that approach, yeah ... I think this came from the hearing standpoint...
Ledvina: Alright. That's the extent of my comments at this time.
Scott: Okay, Ladd.
Conrad: Bob, tell me about the transition between Timberwood and Heritage. ...Last time we
talked about what's the transition. We're concerned with it and I see all the vegetation and
the landscape plan going on the road. I don't see anything going between the two areas so
obviously you must feel that we don't need a transition. That's taken care of. I don't...
Generous: Except ... for all the additional landscaping...
Conrad: And we don't have that? We don't know what that is.
Generous: We don't know...
' Conrad: So we're moving from 8 houses in Timberwood as I count to 14 houses in Heritage
that they abut each other, and I guess that's okay. But I am specifically concerned about
houses that are close. I see a couple close houses in Timberwood that I'd be concerned with
' and I just don't know that we really got a good buffering plan. Maybe it is Bob. Maybe in
the future it is. I don't see it right now. That's an issue that I'm concerned about. We
talked about grading and that was a concern we had and it looks to me like we're really
' doing a lot of grading here. Balancing the site. Dave says that that's what we've got to do
to make it usable. Boy. Bob, what's the Bluff Creek watershed plan? What is it and where
is it?
62
1
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Generous: It's still in the process.
Conrad: And who's doing it?
Generous: The city ... We lost out on the grant money to pay for...
Conrad: So it's not even close to being done?
Bob Generous' answer could not be heard on the tape.
Conrad: What could the potential impact of that plan be on this?
Generous: Larger setbacks. Maybe they'd say 200 ... We don't know.
Conrad: So it's really we don't know. Okay, then if we're not even close. Usually
developers that we work with are usually pretty, even though we're doing things in the future
we want them to support what we're doing and if, you know I think it's just a good
cooperative spirit. I didn't notice that when you were talking. But on the other hand if we're
not close, there's nothing that you can pay attention to so I guess I have to take number 1 out
and that's not what I thought I was going to do. But if we're not close, I'm not going to, I'll
test this plan on other issues and not waiting for something that's really not close to
finalization. The difference really from the concept stage to the sketch stage is, we've
reduced some houses and we've curved the street and staff is hopeful that we'll get a park out
of the thing. Do we know what trees are going down? We don't know what trees have to be
cut at this point in time, do we. We know what trees are there but.
Generous: Approximately. We estimated it ... reduce their building pads in that wooded area...
Conrad: So how sensitive is this plan to the trees that we have there? Is this the only plan
that will work Bob?
Generous: The alignment of the road in the southern end... Then the rest of the site ... there's a
stand of trees in the middle. Whether or not they can or can't save those. Even under the
PUD we want to show...
Conrad: Nancy, I agree with all your comments. I don't know, I don't think our comments
from the first go around have been really incorporated and maybe we were just sort of being
real nice and philosophical. Practically speaking there's got to be a road going through there.
Scott: Where do you think that road should go?
63
1
n
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Conrad: Well, I don't know. There's trees down there and you've got to bring a road
through and I just don't see any solution.
Scott: I'm thinking once it gets to the point when it's the wooded area, and I was quite taken
by the initial kind of thumbnail sketch of having that road go along the Bluff Creek area and
then having the grading effect of that road be very close to the 100 foot setback. Something
in that. Roads are rarely amenities. But if they can be placed in proximity to a natural
resource. So you do have the views and it performs it's traffic function and a trail can be
incorporated. I mean that was kind of what my vision was of this particular piece. And now
it's...
Mancino: It's kind of like going down Lake Lucy Road and being able to see the view
because of the wetlands. You know one ... going from Galpin east and then the closer when
you get to Powers. One of the nice parts about that is that you have some wetland views.
And this is such a gorgeous area.
Scott: I'm not going to speak for the Parks Department, parks group. Just a thought that
there seems to be a lot of push and pull at the parkland dedication as a trail. And maybe one
of the points we could discuss, not at this forum. Okay, if it's going to be 2 acres, talk about
relocating the road and then have that dedication right along side the road and they'll have
their, they'll be able to develop the higher buck lots down in the wooded area. The roadway
I think would, that would be pretty spectacular and even as a thought process but I was, you
take a look at where the road is now and I'm kind of going, well. We can do much better.
Mancino: Which is what staff came up originally.
' Scott: Yeah. So that's my. What do the other commissioners think about the road position?
Nutting: I guess I'm just trying to resolve staff getting from the original proposal to where
we are now. I hear staff saying, or in the report it says to compromise to obtain the easement
for the trail. Is that.
n
u
Mancino: For the parkland.
Generous: Park dedication.
Nutting: But then staff says in the next sentence they're going to, that parkland is it
regardless. Whatever means is necessary.
64
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Generous: We looked at the idea, we can't get... We want our 2 acres in the woods. Let's
push the road back over. The developer is not willing to work with the city. Then we have
our public access for the ... roadway alignment and the sidewalk going along there. But they
were willing to compromise that and let him get his walkout in the Bluff Creek corridor...
Nutting: The only other comment I have is I would amend my original comments with
regards to number 1. Perhaps it's the hour but as I sit and think about the Highway 5
corridor, we at least had a document which had some direction. It wasn't finalized. It has
been approved by Council and I guess I, sitting and listening to Matt and Ladd, I'm saying
yeah. I mean I don't see how I can suggest that we put restriction number 1 in this
document.
Conrad: What's our vision of Bluff Creek? It's a, who knows. What is Bluff Creek? I
don't know what it is. I honestly done. It's too bad. It's hard to tell whether the plan's
good or bad when you don't know what the... The amenity is that you're trying to preserve
and what you're trying to do with it and I don't know what that is. You know if Bluff
Creek, we're just going to have a trail down there. I really wish we had a view, a vision of
this or maybe somebody, I wish I had it. I don't. Therefore it's hard for me to preserve
something that I don't have that vision for.
Farmakes: Some of that is covered though Ladd in the preservation ordinance...
Conrad: Tell me what Bluff Creek is? Do you envision Bluff Creek as a public walkway?
Farmakes: Probably a part of that is presentation when we're talking about that. We're
talking about trails going to the north/south. The creek goes down to the Minnesota bluff
area.
Conrad: Do you envision it as an isolated experience or one with traffic next to it?
Farmakes: Well as I understood it, with the trail going through it, obviously there's public
access to it. And again, that trail system coming up from the south crossing over TH 5 and
coming into the north. It's been a while since we went over that stuff. As I understood it,
the slide show was brought in here and they went through the trees and so on and the locale
and obviously it gets wilder as it heads down towards the river. But at some point in time it
seems to me that that is where the trail is.
Conrad: And who endorses this concept? Is that Park and Rec? Is that their vision right
now?
65
r
' Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
' Farmakes: Well it's MnDot's vision. We've got a connection going under the highway
there.
' Mancino: A wonderful bridge culvert.
Conrad: I don't want to drag this out any further but I'm looking for, so Park and Rec
basically said they want a trail going through there. They didn't say they cared if there was a
road next to it or not.
' Mancino: And the roadway I can see, you know I don't know what happens down south but
it meanders and it can come close to it at times and other times you know ... so it's more of a
trail in the woods effect.
' Farmakes: From what I've seen in some of the more wild areas of that creek, some of it you
never can put a road next to it. Some of it just goes down vertical for a considerable ways
' so.
Conrad: Okay. I'm having a tough time dealing with it because I don't know if it's an
isolated experience where you try to get somebody away or you're just having a trail next to
a little stream so I'm not sure what it is. I'm going to stop talking. I guess I don't have a
real good feel for this project. It looks like moving a lot of earth around. It didn't seem like
' we were real sensitive to the environment. The developer on the other hand has reduced the
number of lots. My only issue right now, I think in terms of the staff report. Number 1's
' got to be out. Number 32, which the developer had some problems with. I don't have a clue
how to handle that one. Again, it seems like something that, if I were them, I'd want it out.
I don't know how they can run their business with the way that was worded. Maybe there's
a better way to express it. My biggest concern is transition from Timberwood. I don't know
what it looks like. How it's done. I don't know how certain houses are protected. I think
somebody should know that.
' Mancino: Do you want to see it back again?
' Conrad: For that one issue, I don't know. I guess if there are other issues. For that one
issue, I might be able to say send it to City Council with a staff recommendation or a report.
If it's just that one issue. If there are issues tagged on to that that we're concerned with.
' Road alignment maybe. Park. Maybe we want to see how the park works or something else.
Maybe if there are other issues, then we should table it and bring it back. We haven't passed
anything tonight yet. I see no reason to change it. Just work until 2:00 in 2 weeks. If there
' are other issues, then it should probably come back.
..
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994 '
'
Mancino: Yeah, I think there's some specific issues. I mean I don't see compromising the
road alignment. I'd like to see it come back and move the road alignment. What the staff
had originally asked for. And it would be meandering and follow the bluff line. And also I
share Ladd's comments, which I kind of brought up earlier too about the Timberwood
transition. And I'd like to see also if that can minimize some grading.
'
Scott: Can we have a motion?
Conrad: Joe, where are you at on the street? I don't want to send something back and
,
screwing around with if we're not going to move it someplace.
Scott: My major issue was the road alignment. And I was, there's intent of ordinances with
'
regards to park dedication and then there's the letter and my thought is that, I think when
most people think of a park dedication, they're thinking of something that is not straw
shaped. I think when the Park and Rec or when that ordinance was put together, I think we
'
were thinking of something kind of like a square. Something that was contained so I mean
that to me looks like a by the, very by the book interpretation of our parkland dedication
ordinance. Which is perfectly legal. Perfectly legal. But to me'that doesn't seem like that's
'
the intent. I think what the Park and Rec people were looking for is more the intent. It's an
amenity and it's very nice to see them as, they've moved I think in the last two years I think
that I've personally been working with them, moved from thinking of parks as an active
'
scheduled, flat situation and now they're looking very seriously at doing what we see here as
preservation of wooded areas and so forth. And I think that's the intent of that particular
,
ordinance. So I'm looking at those two things are my major issues. Then also too, we were
just looking at our bluff ordinance. In the two pages that I see here, I don't see anything in
here that says 30% slope over 25 feet.
'
Ledvina: Because that's the old version.
'
Scott: This is the old version, okay. Well that makes sense. So I took a look at a couple of
areas up here on the hill and there's a number of areas in a 25 foot stand. There are 8 foot
changes and I'm just, I'm looking here at the topographic map. The thing that was very
'
striking to me was to see that 3 dimensional view and so yeah, I have a lot of-what I believe
from looking at the topographic map. From doing the measurements and using the scale
provided me and using the bluff ordinance, there are bluff areas in the northern part of this
'
thing and somebody's going to have to prove that I'm incorrect before I'm going to move off
of that point. So that's where I'm coming from. And we've got another 2 hours tonight so.
That's where I'm at. ...that based upon our bluff ordinance, cannot be graded. Plain and
,
simple.
67
n
e
fl
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Nutting: When are we going to move this forward? I mean your comments about the park.
Staff has made recommendations which are supportive of your direction. It comes down to
the issue of the road, is the biggest one I'm hearing which throws this whole thing back to
the drawing board basically.
Scott: My major concern is the major topographic changes up on the north side and I think
that some of those areas are protected by ordinance.
Nutting: But staff, Bob you said you have looked at that?
Generous: Yes. When I was using the 30% and 25 ... elevation change.
Scott: Yeah, I was doing the same. I was using an 8 foot change in a 25 foot span and I
came up with.
Generous: You've got to have a 25 foot change in...
Scott: No, I was just using the 25 foot span and the 8 foot change. So it's basically 33% or
32 %.
Generous: That's not far enough down. It's not a large enough change that way. It has to
be a total of 25 feet in...
Scott: Alright.
Nutting: So if that addresses the bluff issue, then we're down to the road.
Mancino: Well and transition between Timberwood. I move that we table.
Michael Duffy: Excuse me. I'm sorry to speak out of order.
Scott: Excuse me. Public hearing is closed. We're considering a motion so.
Mancino: We can say no to it.
Scott: Yeah, which we can say no to. So, it's been moved that we table this. Is there a
second?
Farmakes: I'll second.
.:
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table. Is there any discussion?
Conrad: Yeah, the road issue. Nancy, what would you expect back?
Mancino: I would expect back to see a different road alignment and one that meanders with
the bluff, the natural topography and it's something that I think the staff has and the applicant
talked about, meandering through here and seeing what kind of development proceeds from
that. Actually I ... on page 2 of what the staff has written for the advantages to that.
Conrad: So you would ask the developer to move the road next to?
Mancino: I haven't seen it, yeah. I mean I'm sure that they have done some of this. While
the staff believes road alignments of the project should be adjacent to Bluff Creek corridor in
order to provide the community and the future home buyers in this development a shared
sense of ownership of Bluff Creek and the open space to be created in the wetland complex.
I think the only, the sense I got from Bob was the only reason that they were still behind this
and still think it's the best road alignment.
Scott: Then also too, I think that road alignment in conjunction with the park dedication
along that road alignment, I think it would be a good trade off versus having the dedication
of the wooded area plus having the city buy 7 /10ths.
Nutting: So you're saying give up the south area then?
Scott: I think that would be.
Ledvina: I wouldn't support that. I would like to see that area incorporated as a park. I
think that's important for this development. Just my thoughts on the road is, as I look at the
road, there aren't a whole lot of opportunities to change the character of the road. We do
have ordinances as it relates to the maximum grades and such that we have to deal with here
so I don't think that there are a lot of options with this road. I know we want to be sensitive
to topography in that instance but if you're going to put a road through it, you're going to
have to grade it.
Mancino: But don't you have to where it is now too?
Ledvina: Pardon?
Mancino: You're saying there would be a difference between putting it along here versus
where it is?
WE
n
I I
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Ledvina: Not much of a difference.
Mancino: Okay. Grading wise.
Ledvina: That's what I'm seeing from some of the topography that I'm looking at here.
Mancino: So it couldn't change fairly easily.
' Ledvina: No.
Mancino: Oh!
I
Ledvina: It can be changed but you're still going to have the grading to meet the slope
requirement. So the value.
Mancino: It's more of a community value.
Ledvina: Yeah, right. That's the kind of thing you're looking at. It's not an and or, it's not
a real clear cut option in terms of put the road down here and you don't grade this area.
That's not the trade off. So I guess it gets back to, what does the road do in this area. I
mean does it provide a scenic view off to the east of the bluff area which is quite, goes quite
steeply down and then steeply back up so what do you see. I mean I don't know. You don't
see that much. In terms of being able to view the whole bluff. I mean I don't, it's not, it
doesn't have a real good visual for me right now in terms of seeing exactly how the road.
Driving along this road in it's easterly position is going to be such a huge amenity.
Mancino: It won't have a natural amenity to it. I mean much like you would.
Ledvina: Well the area from the other side of the, the areas on the other side of the bluff
won't be developed.
Mancino: But again, that will be 100 feet away so you have a couple hundred.
Ledvina: Yeah, 200 feet actually. Right, but you're not going to have a vista type of
situation.
Mancino: It won't go on and on.
Ledvina: Right. So I guess I see the trail as providing that experience with the bluff area
and the Bluff Creek area and I don't know. As I look at the site, I see that the position of
70
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
the road as reasonable. In terms of that view amenity or whatever we're considering there.
So that's my thought on it.
Nutting: Unless you've got views of substance that are coming from that road, it's going to
be a local amenity as opposed to one that's an attraction. You know that's going to
bring ... the trail or the road I guess is where I'm coming at it. I think if we've got the trail, if
we have the trail and we also have that park down to the south. The trail through the
easement with the staff's conditions. I guess I'm not having as much of a problem with that
as maybe some of the other members. Maybe...
Scott: We've got a motion on the floor. Discussing a motion. Do you want to?
Conrad: Yeah. Well this is important because if we don't know where we're going with this
road, then there's no point pulling it back. The developer doesn't want to change it.
Obviously he's not going to. If we had that vision of what we wanted, then we could stick to
it. Joe you're concerned with bluffs and grading. Was that tempered by anything or are you
still concerned with the bluffs and grading at the north end of the project?
Scott: It concerns me. I think that's, if there's anything I think we're real clear on is
preservation of features, topographic and vegetation and that's a concern. However you have
to ... that the developer and staff have worked hard enough to come up with the best possible
solution so what we can do, why don't we vote on the motion and see where that goes and.
Conrad: Well again, I'm trying to understand if we have some real valid things that we can
send staff back to do. I know they can show us, and the developer can show us the transition
stuff. We need that. I don't know, you're working next to the biggest area subdivision
we've got. I don't know why this place isn't packed. They've been packed for every other
thing that we've done close to them. They've been here. They're not here tonight so maybe
it's because it's 10 after 12:00 but again.
Mancino: Was there a neighborhood meeting?
Conrad: I'm just amazed that they're not concerned and maybe they've worn me down after
all the public hearings but you know, I think that's significant and maybe this is just fine but
we don't know right now. I don't have a clue on it.
Ledvina: Can I just say something to that? I think one of the things with the grading in this
area is that you take the pad elevations down and the Timberwood people are seeing well
over these roofs and it's not affecting them.
71
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
u
Conrad: Yeah, see I think that's true. I think there's some real validity to that, but I don't
know. Again that's one of those, I don't know.
Ledvina: And also, with the NSP line in there, I think that creates a buffer. It's a strange
buffer but.
Conrad: Just don't walk under the power lines.
Ledvina: Yeah. Well it's there and there is that easement and it does create a separation.
Mancino: Matt, how do we know that? How do we know that they can't see because these
things go up 35 feet? 20 feet.
Ledvina: The houses? Two levels is what?
Mancino: Yeah, but most peaks of the roofs have ... so I don't know what Timberwood is.
' Ledvina: Well okay. Most of these buildings are at 950 or roughly. The northern one half
of this lot in here and well, we can be looking at probably 930. I don't know. I guess you're
right. You can't really say but you know that there's 20 feet of difference and if you have 20
' feet, that's quite a bit in terms of providing a visual buffer and also a physical buffer too.
Combined with NSP. I don't know. I just feel that the separation issue is there. It's been
addressed by this plan.
' Conrad: Might be.
' Ledvina: That's my thoughts.
Conrad: Yeah, might be. I don't have a clue. I see some houses that are real close. And
' here they've got 2 1/2 acres and we've got a house going up to, 2 or 3 in fact abutting that.
So Joe you're still concerned about the bluff grading. That's still a valid issue. You want
' Bob to be going back and looking at that?
Scott: Yeah.
' Conrad: And then street wise, you want a different plan?
Scott: Well I think in my mind that would be preferable to have a different street location.
Conrad: Putting it next to the creek?
' 72
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Scott: Yeah.
Conrad: Your intent is not to reduce the number of houses. Your intent is to move.
Scott: No, I don't have a problem with the density at all. Especially because they've got
larger square footage lots on the western side. But we have a motion on the floor to table
and let's vote on that.
Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission table the Rezoning,
Wetland Alteration Permit and Conditional Use Permit for Heritage First Addition. All
voted in favor, except Ledvina who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to
1.
Scott: The development is tabled. Now specific directions for staff and the developer.
Zeroing in on the transition plan. Very specifically what do you want to see?
Conrad: I just want to see the transition between the two areas. How they show it.
Scott: What about when Byerly's was in they showed the top of the Byerly's building. The
development behind. Something like that.
Conrad: We need some kind of schematic.
Scott: Yeah, cross section to say here's the houses in Timberwood. The closest house, how's
it going to line up. Because that's, something like that's a quick view.
Nutting: From my perspective that's the issue from my support of tabling, that's the one
issue that I guess I could come to terms with is saying we're giving that a lot of consideration
for other developments that are coming through. I think it's only appropriate that we give it
the same here.
Scott: Yeah. My major concern is the grading on the north side. You talked about private
drives and so forth but that seems to be custom grading private drives are about the only tools
that we have.
Mancino: Steeper grades.
Scott: Which as far as the cul -de -sacs, I know that, of course it's mostly the south cul -de-
sacs or streets that run north and south, we're more willing to allow steeper grades because in
73
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
' the winter and so forth. The way this property is set up, I don't think we quite have that
opportunity so.
' Mancino: I think we were all in consensus on parkland. We really feel that that area should
be incorporated into it.
' Conrad: And I think Bob and staff should review points. The ones that the developer has
cared about. Point number 1. It just shouldn't be there when this comes back unless there's
something on the horizon. Number 32 should be taken care of.
' Scott: Now if there's something with the Bluff Creek group that is to the form that the
Highway 5 document was, that was something that people could use very, very easily but if
' it's not there, it doesn't make sense.
' REZONE 37.92 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO
RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 37.92
ACRES INTO 47 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A WETLAND ALTERATION
' PERMIT LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND
PROPOSED LAKE LUCY ROAD EXTENSION, 6730 GALPIN BOULEVARD, ED
AND MARY RYAN, SHAMROCK RIDGE.
' Staff Present:
' Name Address
' Martin Kuder 6831 Galpin Blvd.
Jerome Carlson 6950 Galpin Blvd.
Peter Davis 6640 Galpin Blvd.
' Sam Mancino 6620 Galpin Blvd.
Tom Owens Minneapolis
Bill Engelhardt Engelhardt and Associates
' Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
' Scott: Now do we have another grading plan that was submitted today?
Generous: Yes. The applicant's engineer provided that ... We did hire Bill Engelhardt to
' review this...
1 74
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Scott: Did he review, have a chance to review this?
Generous: He reviewed the previous plan and this one...
Scott: I'm sorry. Has he reviewed the one, October 17th?
Generous: Yeah, the one you have tonight.
Scott: Good. I'd like to note for the public record that Commissioner Mancino is stepping
down and will not be participating in, as a Planning Commissioner on this particular item.
Thank you. I don't know, I'd be real interested in hearing Bill Engelhardt, if he's still here.
I'd like to hear your comments and appreciate the cut and fill drawing that you did for us was
very, very helpful. But unfortunately that doesn't apply to this plan I understand so.
Bill Engelhardt: Just briefly, for Planning Commissioners that don't know me. I'm Bill
Engelhardt. I have an office over in Chaska and do some work with the city and we also do
private development work. The City asked me to take a look at this. They had three basic
questions that they asked. They wanted to know how did the site balance. How did the cuts
and fill... They wanted to see a rough sketch of how the property could possibly be laid out in
a different fashion... grading and then the balance of the ... so what we did is we prepared the
drawing that you have with the residue contours on it. And what that does is it takes the
grading plan that Mr. Charles Plowe, their engineer or designer developed, and accentuates
the cut areas and the fill areas. The fill areas are shown in blue. The number inside the
contour line, that number is basically the amount of fill. The elevation and the amount of fill
that would be going in those areas and the contour lines ... amount of cut in the area. So when
you look at the plan that was originally prepared, they have ... various fill. One was called the
northeast cul -de -sac. Southeast cul -de -sac and a line along their north/south road and the
very southerly edge where you see the blue contours, that was fill. And then their major fills
were along the south side of the Lake Lucy alignment to just south of their Outlot B. The cut
areas are shown in read. There's some knobs here. Some fill that are on the property and
they were using that as their... The first plan that I reviewed and that you were looking at for
the last month or so, really balanced the site. In other words, tried to equal the cuts and fills
and the amounts of material. Our calculations came up that they were over 100,000 yards
short of material. There's two ways of dealing with that. One is that you can adjust the
grade of the site by lowering it. Lowering the amount of fill required and lowering the cut
areas. The other way that you can adjust the site is to ... grade it. The later one is a very
expensive proposition when you're talking about those kinds o£.. We did receive on Monday,
we received another grading plan where they had done adjustments to the grades and we went
through and did the same analysis on that one that we had done on the first plan and that
particular plan did balance. They had dropped down so if you want to compare plans, where
75
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
L
I
in the let's say James Court or the northeast cul -de -sac, that particular location the maximum
fill was 16 feet. The new plan and the maximum fill is 10 feet so they reduced that. Then if
you go down to the very south portion of the property and the red contours where they're
cutting, they're mass cutting that area ... and now the maximum cut is 20 feet so you can see
how you could balance the site. You drop it a little from here and put a little over there...
over the site. They're still moving 140,000 yards of material... As far as how could you look
at this piece of property in a different fashion to reduce those cuts and fills. We did a rough
sketch plan and I think you've got that. I didn't do a grading plan. You've got to understand
this is a very limited review or very limited sketching of this piece of property. It's a very
difficult site. It would have taken a lot more time and a lot more effort to get a real good
plan but I think what I did do was to show you you could develop the site. Pull your roads
up in the grading plan and then using the natural terrain as your walkouts. My plan's not
100% perfect... roadway which probably wouldn't work real well. The bottom line is that you
could make this site work a little bit better from the grading standpoint if you could use the
existing contours a little bit better and you would lose lots. That's the bottom line. If you
try to maximize the site, try to generate as many lots as possible, we've got to do the grading
and that's really simply the nuts and bolts of this. And the approach they took was they're
going to get as many lots as they can on it. When you do that, you have to grade. They're
showing their Lake Lucy alignment farther to the north. I did the original feasibility study
for the city on Lake Lucy Road. I always wanted to keep it south. But we left enough
flexibility in that alignment so that if the Ryan's were to develop their property and were to
come up with a plan for their property, that flexibility was there so Lake Lucy Road could be
moved north or south. It could work both ways. My preference in my feasibility study was
to stay south. So what I also did is where Lake Lucy Road connects into the west into the
Gestach- Paulson property, that's where the steeper slope is and what I did in that particular
area on my plan kept Lake Lucy Road south. And these large lots ... the slope area, intended
to keep the house on the top of the slope and using the private drive on top of the slope
coming... It does not work to come off of Lake Lucy Road and go up into those sites with a
cul -de -sac. There's going to be just as much grading that way... Other than that I'll be happy
to answer any questions. You will see another drawing. The brown line is the zero line and
the zero line gets a little bit crazy in some areas... The red ... that does show you where the
Scott: Good. Any questions?
cuts are and where the fills and it tells you how much to do.
Conrad: Who's is this?
Bill Engelhardt: That's mine.
Conrad: That one's your's, okay.
76
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Bill Engelhardt: We also took the liberty of doing everybody's property around it.
Conrad: Why not. It's easy to put the lines down there.
Bill Engelhardt: That's exactly right and you have to understand, it's very easy to put the
lines on. What we tried to do is just see how things would fit and approximately how many
lots would we get.
Conrad: Yeah, I like your plan very much.
Scott: Bill, let me ask you. This is more of a computer related question. This, for me is
extremely helpful. I can visualize exactly what's happening to it. My guess is that, how
prevalent or how widely installed, or first of all. Which software package does your firm use
to generate this?
Bill Engelhardt: Well we have an auto cad system that does the drawing work and then
inside the auto cad is a civil engineering program that's called ... Softdesk but I know it as
BCA. And I think Chuck uses the same ... same capability. In order to do this kind of stuff
you have to have the earth work module of the BCA and unless you're doing a lot of dirt
projects, it's very expensive to buy that module. So to do some of these things, you may
have the BCA program but you've got to buy the extra module to give you...
Scott: Yeah, I was just trying to get a handle on how widely installed this is because if it's
something that developers who regularly do this kind of work would have, this might be
something, and I'm thinking from a potential ordinance standpoint. We talked about the
visuals and so forth. I would like to, and I think everybody else would concur, that I'd like
to direct staff to at least do a little bit more investigation to see how often this tool is
available and I think this would cut the time that some of our developers spend in front of us
if we could see something like this that shows exactly what happens. This would be very
helpful so, you may be the only engineer that has it.
Bill Engelhardt: Oh there's quite a few. This is not—relatively fast. We did do it faster the
second time because Charles gave us a disk that we loaded right into our system here and
was compatible. But the first time around and we actually had to digitize the contours and
that takes a lot of time. I like this from a design standpoint. I don't want to keep you too
late but from a design standpoint, we use it to determine how to balance our sites. Where
we're getting out of line as far as cuts and fills. So we run this out on all of our grading
plans and then we look at them and say, oh geez. This doesn't look too good. We've got a
20 fill. Maybe we'd better adjust it, but we know where to adjust it. Charles can do the
same thing...
77
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
' Scott: Okay, good. Questions, comments. This is not technically a public hearing but I
think I'm going to take the lead of our City Council. This was not a public hearing at the
last City Council meeting either and what I'd like to do is if each, if we could have a
representative from the applicant speak for, how much time would you like to speak? I'm
just trying to balance this off so we can.
' Charles Plowe: It will be fairly brief.
Scott: Okay, 10 -15 minutes. Is that going to work? And more with questions. Okay.
' Conrad: Mr. Chairman, before you do, I have to leave. I've got a meeting in about 5 hours
so I'm just not going to stick. Just want to make some comments and I don't think we're
voting on anything tonight but just for the record and maybe the City Council person that's
here. My position really hasn't changed. Lake Lucy Road should still be where it is. Where
we asked it to be, to the south. I think we're tampering. This development is not a good
development as it stands. It's real clear. As we take a real beautiful piece of Chanhassen,
and this is one of the prettier pieces. I think we're really tampering with it. I think our
' ordinances support not allowing it to be graded to the extent that we're seeing in the plans. I
said that before and I'm just as committed and convinced of that. We've talked about some
marginal other areas tonight but this one is dust an extremely pretty area and I don't think the
plan has taken into consideration the natural amenities. So I'm going to leave on that note.
I'd sure, you know the plan that Bill showed us, sure it doesn't give as many units but it sure
treats the land the way it should and definitely the part to the north somehow should be
connected to the Mancino's development or property for future development. So anyway,
those are my comments but I'm real, I wanted to leave you with those and hopefully this
doesn't come back to us again. I think we've seen it enough. I think we were pretty clear
' the last time. It's more definition to what we're seeing in terms of grading but bottom line is,
things haven't changed.
Scott: Okay. We'll wrap this at 1:00 so if you'd like to pass on some new information and
then we'll have new information and go from there.
' Chuck Plowe: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Chuck Plowe.
Project Engineer for Ed and Mary Ryan. Most of you have seen this plan enough where I
don't have to go into a lot of detail. Everyone that's here today has seen the plan before.
' Was present at the last... As you know we've adjusted Lake Lucy Road a number of times
and we're here to try and work with this topography and to work with the tree line and so on.
And the thing that wasn't on the plan the last time that you had seen it. We shifted it an
' additional 30 feet to provide us a wide bench for the collector road boulevard, and to give us
a comfortable 3:1 slope up to the tree line stopping short of the tree line. In doing that you
' 78
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
also had to adjust this cul -de -sac street that was there for pushing it southerly to the point
where it became too tight with the edge of the wetland. So working with staff we came up
with the 4 lot private drive system there taking out one of the lots in the cul -de -sac. I believe
in addition to that we moved this private drive down out of the trees. The tree area which we
had previously showed it in the tree area. It's been reviewed and agreed by staff that the
southerly alignment versus the northerly alignment with the cul -de -sac or private drive
scenario as we're showing it, the northerly alignment is preferred and they in fact have
recommended approval of this alignment based on a number of conditions. I've mentioned
this before and I guess I could mention it again about the alignment of Lake Lucy Road
having some gradual curvature to it. I feel it does provide actually a safer road as far as
speed is concerned. This is a long ways from here to there and a straight wide road does
tend to make the drivers speed. It will tend to happen frequently. I'm sure you've probably
done it yourself. This does tend to alleviate that a little bit so potentially it's a safer roadway
as well. We've done a number of things to maintain the sloping character of this site with
the design in grading. For instance the use of private drives. Increasing the slope here with
the private drive to reduce the fills. And also placing Lake Lucy Road where you see it
rather than pushing it further north, you get more room and more lots. We've pretty much
resigned to the fact that this is the best alternative allowed this area ... normal flat area would
probably amount to four lots you know but it's an outlot. It's not going to be developed and
we realize that and we think it's a good plan. We did maximize the grades on the street to
reduce the fills which I'm trying to accommodate the existing topography as much as
possible. I just want to ... the plan that you're looking at that Bill presented. It's been
previously discussed. The Ryan's are really not interested in waiting for another development
to happen before they develop their land and they are interested in developing, not ... piece of
property. So the plan that's you know the sketch plan that was done does not really not fit in
with what they're proposing. It includes the large lots which is you know not consistent with
what the Ryan's want or is not consistent with the city's land use plan for this area. And
we've got to keep in mind too that the grading of Lake Lucy Road is going to, Lake Lucy
Road will be constructed whether the Ryan's develop or not and the grading of Lake Lucy
Road along with the other plan that you were looking at, the grading of Lake Lucy Road does
involve a big part of the total site grading. If you look at the cut fill plan that Bill had
prepared, there are 16. Is this the current one Bill? There are 16+ foot cuts going through
the high ground on Lake Lucy Road. So you can see that the cuts and fills you're looking at
are involved in the Lake Lucy Road alignment and that we're looking ... a good part of the
grading of the site happens with Lake Lucy Road. I guess if the Ryan's are going to receive
a collector street through their entire plat, which is the long way, you know whether they
want it or not, it's going to happen. So I guess they kind of feel that they have the right to
utilize that street with the plat that meets all the requirements and that's a sensible plat and I
think we have worked hard with staff to come up with a plan that are actually over sized lots
that equally... plan. The concept that Mr. Engelhardt prepared really I guess I don't feel that
79
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
it works. With or without the adjacent plat developing with it, there are some problems. The
lots fronting on Lake Lucy Road would require a variance, which we were denied the
variance. The lots fronting on the county road would not be allowed because the county does
not allow that if there's an alternative and they'll want one access... I know Mr. Engelhardt
hasn't spent a lot of time in detailing all that stuff out but these are things that obviously we
looked at the plan right away. The existing house doesn't have a lot of...but that's just a
note. The cul -de -sac street on the north property line that goes up the hill, that would be a
temporary cul -de -sac until... That would be just, there's no grading that's been calculated on
this plan so but in looking at that, that's the highest part of the site so it will be difficult for
that street to be constructed without some substantial grading and also some loss of
substantial trees in that same area. I guess I don't feel that we've maximized the lots on
here. Like I said, we could have narrower lots. We could have a lot more lots on it. We
have most of them are well above the minimum area so we worked with the topography and
we've worked with the area the best as we can and we have a lot of open space. We've got
a lot of separation between homes and I think we've done well as far as keeping the plan
together that we best utilize the property and definitely did not maximize the lot counts. I
guess I didn't recall Mr. Engelhardt talking about the, one of the things that he was going to
look at for the city was alignment of Lake Lucy Road up here versus staying down here and
using the same scenario that we ... plan in developing this particular area. But his findings
were such that the roadway being down here did not work. Having cul -de -sacs go to the
north... I guess I really don't have any other comments. Ed, did you have any comments?
Are there any questions of me first?
Scott: I was just going to toss something out. It seems like a lot of the major fill that goes
on is probably caused by the cul -de -sac. The cul -de -sac. I'm just looking at James Court
and Alcove and so forth. Just it appears that you've used private drive very effectively to
service 4 homes off of what, I don't know if that used to be called Mary Bay, no. I'm sorry.
Chuck Plowe: This one?
' Scott: Yeah.
Chuck Plowe: Gwendolyn Court.
Scott: Does it make any sense at all to do the same sort of a treatment on the other cul -de-
sac serving the 4 lots at the end? Or do we get into public safety concerns about having turn
arounds. I'm just thinking, it seems like that's where the big filling is going on and it may
be caused in part by the grading necessary to put a cul -de -sac turn around. And I don't know
if we're causing ourselves problems, or I'm causing problems by suggesting this but it seems
80
I
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
like we can put 4 homes off a private drive. Private drives tend to have less impact from a
grading standpoint.
Chuck Plowe: I think if you look at the, we've reduced the fill in this area from the previous
plan. That's one of the big things we did too.
Scott: Yeah, see I'm looking at this other one.
Chuck Plowe: Yeah, so you don't know what we did as far as how much less fill...Is this the
correct one?
Scott: That's down 6 feet.
Chuck Plowe: ...so we've tried to accomplish some of the same things that were of the
concern, along with the balancing of the site. As Mr. Engelhardt has pointed out, we were
sort of material. I was aware of that but to the extent that we were short, I guess I wasn't
quite aware of that.
Scott: And then you just balance that by cutting more.
Chuck Plowe: Essentially the biggest change in the balance was reducing the fill here and
reducing the fill here and actually I see your computer, I have to plot one of those out in
black and white. I don't have the nice color. Showed a large cut over here and there's a
glitch in it somehow so—but it shows like at the 24 there ... but anyway, we did really improve
the situation here from what was on the previous plan and the glitch we had... has been
reduced by 6 feet. Actually we exceed the maximum grade which is allowable.
Scott: Okay, good thanks. I just thought...
Ed Ryan: My name is Ed Ryan. I'm the owner of the property. My wife Mary is here
tonight and I guess I'll be very brief because I know that we've all been working hard
tonight. I just want to make a very brief comment and that is that when we subsequently
worked with Bob and Kate and subsequent to our City Council meeting, they instructed us to
try to clarify, try to identify the project better so you would have a better understanding and
so would the Council. We received a call that said, why don't you hold up on it. We're
going to have Bill take a look at the plan in detail, and which you have before you today.
The instruction from Kate was specific. It stated that the layout, the two alternative layouts.
The southern alignment that you saw before and the northerly alignment should be compared
looking at the southern alignment with the cul -de -sacs. Then we should make a comparison
with the grading. Also look at the grading issue from our preliminary plat to see what kind
81
r
I I
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
of improvements we can make. And from that let's look at the site in terms of balance and
see what kind of balance exists and if there are inequalities, let's make sure that's addressed.
The first issue was addressed and Bill recognized that the northern alignment is preferred. Is
better than the southern alignment. He stated that. Is that unclear to anyone here?
Planning Commission: Yes.
Ed Ryan: Okay. Bill looked specifically at the southern alignment with northern cul -de -sacs
and found, as the staff did, that our alignment is preferable. Is that not true?
Bill Engelhardt: No. That's not...
Ed Ryan: Okay. Let me go to the script then because, I'll go back to the, I have copies of
all the script and the findings from what Bill has completed is that, from an engineering
standpoint the proposed development prepared for the Ryan's is a feasible alternative.
Meaning when Bill looked at that comparison with the southern alignment to the northern cul-
de -sacs, it didn't work as well. Am I wrong? That's what you specifically stated in the
meeting that the staff meeting that was held several days ago. Am I?
Chuck Plowe: I think number 3 Ed.
Ed Ryan: Yes. The extension of the roadway to the north from the southerly alignment does
not work to preserve the slopes. That was the conclusion you drafted.
Bill Engelhardt: If you put cul -de -sacs in there.
Ed Ryan: Right. The comparison was.
Bill Engelhardt: You have to understand Ed that what I'm saying is you're going to lose
some lots and that's the bottom line as far as my analysis goes. I like the southern alignment
with large lots on the slope with no disturbance to the slope. When the question was asked,
does the southern alignment work with cul -de -sacs to the north, I answered no and the reason
for that is because instead of filling that slope, you would now be cutting the slope. So it's
got to be ... so you're kind of twisting around a little bit where I'm saying the northern
alignment is preferable. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying the southern alignment is what
is preferable to me with some other concept on how you do the lots to the northerly
alignment.
Ed Ryan: Well, I'll certainly apologize if I'm misstated you Bill because I certainly wouldn't
want to give that.
82
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Bill Engelhardt: I just told you is exactly what I said.
Ed Ryan: Okay. So I guess my reading of the study that was done by staff and Bill was
that, when they flipped the situation around, they found that our northern alignment was
preferred and I think that's true because the cul -de -sacs don't work. But Bill is saying, I still
like the southern alignment because of larger lots. Is that correct?
Bill Engelhardt: I'm saying I like the southern alignment with a different concept for the lots
to the north. How you do that, I'm not the designer of the plat. I'm not going to design
your plat.
Ed Ryan: Okay. You're not going to design it.
Bill Engelhardt: I like the southern alignment. If you can do something with the lots to the
north to preserve the slope.
Ed Ryan: Okay. Specifically returning to what Kate had indicated that Bill should look at. I
guess we were surprised to find that there was a new design for our development. That
included the Mancino property and the Carlson property. I guess that was something that was
a surprise to us in that we were not aware of this kind of a development being considered
where the 3 of our parties would be as one. And this is something that Mary and I have
never even considered because our primary concern was to develop a plat that would work
with the road alignment and be pleasing from a neighborhood perspective. And I guess that's
what I believe we've accomplished. So I guess those are the comments I wanted to make and
I'm certainly happy, or Chuck is certainly happy to answer any questions you may have. I
know we want to keep it very brief but I felt it was important to share that. Thank you.
Scott: Sure. Questions or comments? Pick one person and.
Tom Owens: Commission members, my name is Tom Owens. I'm a real estate law
specialist from Minneapolis and I'm appearing tonight on behalf of 6 of the neighboring
property owners. As an initial point of order, you indicated a few minutes ago that we would
only be going until 1:00 and I need at least a couple more minutes.
Scott: Yeah, I think why don't you just take like 15 so we can kind of balance the time out a
little bit, like we're trying to balance the cubic yards of dirt.
Tom Owens: Thank you. I trust that will include some time for questions.
Scott: Sure.
83
7
I
fl
I
L
C
L
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Tom Owens: Sure... I'm here tonight representing 6 property owners. They are Jerome and
Linda Carlson, Peter and Mary Davis and Sam and Nancy Mancino. Usually in this position
I'm representing developers or people who want to intensify or alter the use of their land.
I'm taking a night off from that and representing some honest, hard working people. Your
citizens and taxpayers.
Scott: Well I'll pass on that comment. Not that I disagree but I don't think it ... very well for
the Ryan's so, I'll let that go.
Tom Owens: Alright. A very serious disadvantage that was just demonstrated by the little
contact that you had with the applicant. The applicant has very simply failed to heed the
recommendations, in fact the requests of the City Council to provide more practical, visual
information about the impact on the topography and landform that his plans will provide. In
fact, in just the last 48 hours, although now it's getting later enough that we're closing in on
72 hours, that it is that the applicants came forward with a brand new grading plan which we
haven't even seen yet. This one magically corrected a 111,000 cubic yard shortage or
imbalance in soils that otherwise had it not been discovered by Mr. Engelhardt and corrected
in the last couple of days, would have required the purchase off site and trucking them on
site. I understand that at 10 yards per truck, that would have required many thousand of
trucks to bring on site. I can't match the wizardry of these corrections that they've just made
but I do have a few comments about Shamrock Ridge and then we'll be happy to answer
your questions. I've got a letter I'd like to distribute to you. And two things should come as
no surprise to you tonight. One is the thoughtful and principled nature of the opposition of
my clients that you have before you tonight. The second is the great number of non technical
legal grounds that you have for recommending to the City Council to deny the preliminary
plat before you. I'd like to take you on a brief tour of those grounds, and if you will look at
page 1 of my letter at the bottom you will see, paragraph number 1. The very first reason for
denial is that this subdivision simply does not comply with the city ordinances because of the
mass grading and destruction of topography that it wreaks. At the top of the second page,
I've pointed out 4 very specific city ordinances that would be violated by this plat. These are
4 of the 7 necessary findings that the City Council must make in order to approve a plat.
Now the city staff has worked very long and very hard on this project for many weeks
generating a multitude of reports and revisions reviewing a myriad of documents and
revisions from the developer. They've really walked a tight wire here in trying to respond to
these ever changing plans but at every turn, in every report, the staff has ultimately criticized
and recommended against this plat because of it's impact on the topography and landforms.
And I'd like to quote to you from the very latest revision of the city staff report. That is
from page 19, and I just want to review a couple of sentences. Section 18 -60(d) of the City
Code requires that lots be placed to protect natural amenities such as vegetation, wetlands,
steep slopes, water courses and historic areas. While alternate site designs may provide
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
additional protection of natural resources, the proposal has been revised to lessen the impacts
of the development on the site. That's hardly a recommendation. A little bit further down in
the page you find this sentence. The steep slopes on the western half of the development
make the development of this area problematic at best, based on the development proposal,
due to the severe slopes. That comment has never changed throughout the course of this plat
and winding it's way from the staff to the Council to the Planning Commission and back
again. Let me also remind you that these terms that we've been ... about, topography and steep
slopes, appear several times in the city code and that they are usually related to their
preservation. In the last plat before you, you had a lively discussion about this so I won't
spend any more time there. But I would like to remind you that the City Code instructs the
Planning Commission and the City Council and in order to approve a plat, all of the
applicable City, County and regional plans must be complied with. Not just some of them.
And that all of the 7 findings must be made. Not just some of them or substantially all or
that the developer must come close. At the bottom of page 2 of my letter I cited a few key
provisions of the city's comprehensive plan. These goals and policy statements are why the
city has a more sophisticated and detailed set of requirements in it's city ordinance than many
other cities. The reason simply is to satisfy the desire of the citizens for a more aesthetically
pleasing community. Taken together the comprehensive plan and the city ordinances make it
very clear that the old fashion subdivision method of mass grading is a thing of the past in
the city of Chanhassen. On the next page of my letter I've indicated that the third reason for
denial of this plat in it's present form, and it's one that I have considerable professional
experience with. I've stated approval of the plat in it's present form would set a dangerous
precedent for future subdivisions. If this plat is approved in it's present form, it will come
back to haunt you. You will have other lawyers like me. You will have my colleagues in
front of you citing this plat 6 months, 12 months, 3 years from now as precedent for that
lawyer's and his client's plat, which ravages steep slopes and does not comply with the city
ordinances. I could almost guarantee you of this result. That's one of the jobs of a real
estate lawyer in representing a developer that's investigating the actions of the Planning
Commission or Council over the last couple of years to see what precedents have been
established. And the precedent clearly will be don't worry about steep slopes. The City's
already indicated that it's not dealing to preserving that. Now I made a couple of other
points there, items 4 and 5, indicating that this applicant could have asked for a variance or
could have gone through the PUD process. Perhaps it was a mistake. Hind sight is always
better than fore sight but frankly this maximization of the intensity of development of the site
has been the choice of the developer from the beginning. There were other avenues. It could
have been developed less intensely. It could have gone through the PUD process. A
variance could have been requested from the very start. Those things were not done. My last
reason for denial is that this proposed plat aligns the Lake Lucy Road extension contrary to
the comprehensive plan where you will find the maps drawing it in the southerly alignment,
as well as the recommendations of the City's consultants and staff. If you care to stay a bit
85
7
i
J
n
il�
u
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
longer, we have a sketch that we could show you. An alternative design for a southerly
alignment that reduces the intensity a little bit. We also have a couple of other props and
we'll be happy to show them to you, depending on how much time you want to spend and
your questions. One of them is a model that Sam Mancino has spent a tremendous amount of
time on and I think you'll, I hope you'll appreciate it as a very painstaking effort to do
something that this applicant has never done, and that is to demonstrate the actual impact of
this plat upon the land. Sam's model shows in cross sections and with a variety of colors,
exactly what is going to be cut out and what is going to be filled. I'll admit there's one little
problem with his model. He didn't have time to make a new one that shows exactly what the
new grading plan, which we haven't even seen yet, does. This is pretty dramatic. My guess
is that the new grading plan, while nicking a couple feet out of here and adding a couple feet
there, is not going to change very much. This is still a project in the old fashion, mass
grading, don't leave a clod of dirt unturned, style. Let me conclude by reminding you of our
two jobs tonight. I hope I've done mine by showing you that my clients are not just a bunch
of crazy nimby's running around saying no, no, no. There can't be any development. Had a
proposal come forward for 30 or 35 or 40 lots in a sensible configuration, they certainly
would have gone over it carefully and fine tooth combed it and undoubtedly had some
comments. But that's not what happened. I hope I've indicated to you that my clients
objections to the plat in it's present form are thoughtful, reasonable, based in law, and that
they're very strongly committed to them. The second job is your's and that's the most
difficult one. I hope and trust that you will recommend to the City Council that it deny this
plat because it's your job to enforce the city ordinances and because this plat is not what the
future of Chanhassen is about. Thank you.
Scott: Thank you everybody.
' Nutting: Mr. Chairman, what is our direction in terms of this tonight? I'm reading this page
here saying that rather than a denial, the Council would like specific planning for approval or
denial of the Planning Commission recommendation. So we're voting again to approve or
' deny?
' Scott: Yeah.
Nutting: And then detail reasons why.
' Scott: Yeah, I was at the City Council meeting where this came out of and they're basically,
there were two things. One was a feeling on the part of the City Council that they didn't
' have the tools in front of them to make a determination one way or the other. There were a
lot of concerns. Some of the same concerns that we have. And then also, because we had
me
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
just basically a quorum that day, they wanted to get input from the other commissioners. Off
the top of my head, all I can say is I was there. Matt was there. I think.
Farmakes: I was not there.
Nutting: Jeff and Diane were not.
Scott: Okay, and you were there. So I guess as a part of our charge to the City Council,
let's maybe start with some of your thoughts being in abstention the last time we reviewed
this matter.
Farmakes: Are we ending the public hearing?
Scott: This is not a public hearing. But it was, and it wasn't a public hearing at the City
Council but they chose to let them make comments.
Farmakes: My comments are, I walked the property. I decided readily apparent what was
going on here according to the city. The issue here to me is, the beginning issue is where
does Lake Lucy Road continue. And from there then comes the rest of this. The grading and
the site design. I agree with the city staff recommendations as I've read it. Hearing there's
different interpretations of this but as I interpret it, the southerly alignment, it makes sense all
around for this site based on both the City's existing criteria and I think our past practices, to
the greatest extent possible. And I'm going to vote to deny that and I'm going to vote to, as
far as information goes, tell them that I think that the southerly alignment of would it be
proposed on that property, for that road, is where it should go for a host of reasons. And I
think they've been listed here so far, and have been listed in the past. It was just a situation
that I think similar to the daycare situation. We've listed that out somehow that there's a
point in negotiation here where we communicate and the fact is, it takes two to communicate.
If you have a situation where you're discussing your concerns and the other party chooses not
to respond, they choose not to respond. So it seems to me as a commission you can point
those out, and then vote to deny it, as we did before. And pass it on. Not to pass it on
without information but it seems to me that the crux of this thing is the alignment of Lake
Lucy Road. And from there the rest of it falls into place. That's the end of my comments.
Scott: Okay. Ron.
Nutting: I can't say anything has changed from the first time. The last meeting. My
comments at that time dealt with the inconsistency of the development with the surrounding
area and part and parcel of that was the topography. It boils down to trying to maximize the
density. I think if this plan, I also agreed with the southerly alignment. Yeah, it's not going
M.
I
J
0
i
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
to work with the southerly alignment and the cul -de -sacs. I think that's been laid out here
from the grading but again, we're not trying to, I'm not trying to design it for them but if
we've got the southerly alignment as the preferred, then the question is, what works with this
side and what can you do. It would appear that it's driving the density down and the lot size
up, which then makes it more consistent with the surrounding development and it deals with
the issues of city code that have been addressed here in a more legal form but were brought
up very clearly in our last session so I can't change my conclusions from last time. I would
vote for denial and would be the exact same reasons. Now I'm looking at this letter saying
the Council is looking for recommendations on Lake Lucy Road alignment and proposed
pavement width. 36 versus 32. I don't recall a discussion on the width.
Scott: That was brought up I believe by Councilman Wing at the Council meeting.
Nutting: I'm aware of that. The question is, did we discuss that at all?
Scott: No.
Farmakes: There were earlier discussions on the leg of Lake Lucy Road that's currently
completed, that it was over built.
Scott: And that was how the discussion actually ended up at the Council meeting.
Farmakes: Yeah. That may be some hold over from that discussion.
Scott: Okay.
Nutting: So as it's presently laid out, is it at a 36 foot width?
' Bill Engelhardt: I can answer that. It's being bid and laid out as a 36 foot width to meet the
State Aid standards. There was some comment at the Council meeting about some other
roadways that were state aid roads but at a lesser width but the difference between this
' particular project and those particular projects is the area that we're going through. Whereas
the existing area, existing houses, existing front yards, the state aid will allow you to bring
your road width down. Where you're going through open fields basically, then you have to
' stay up to your 36. The other thing is that when you're looking at traffic volumes, I think
you can see very easily that 34 or 32 foot width is going to work today. It may work 5 years
from now. But it's a 20 year design life and in 20 years, that's where your traffic projections
' get up to their design levels and that's why you design your 36 foot road. Otherwise you'd
be going and rebuilding the road.
..
7
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Scott: So that's really not an option to reduce the width of the road?
Bill Engelhardt: No.
Nutting: Okay. So then the grading plan of the site, the amount of grading and including a
better visual presentation to assist in reviewing the proposed grade changes. So either we are
to come up with a better visual presentation or request that from the developer. Is that?
Ledvina: That was requested.
Scott: Yeah, it was requested and it came from a different source but.
Nutting: Okay. So the only thing we have to pass on right now is not something from the
developer. Do we deny but, you know and then it's up to the developer to come up with a
visual thing to, when it goes back up to Council?
Scott: I'm not concerned about the source of that tool, just as long as it's there, and I think it
is.
Farmakes: We got into this with that daycare center. Do we sit down and grab a pencil and
redesign it to achieve.
Nutting: Yeah, I don't see myself as playing that role. I shouldn't be playing that role.
That's not my, certainly not my training either so I don't want to venture into that. And then
the subdivision design relative to the natural features of the site. I think that's, I thought that
came through in the last meeting in terms of the natural features and the grading issue and
that's still coming through here tonight, although I can't say that I can completely evaluate
this last plan that came in, which balances but what I'm understanding in terms of the
balances, it's reduced one place and increased another so that the balance occurs. But it still
appears that the grading is extensive so it's just a question of does that change anything and
for me at this point it doesn't. So I'm just trying to read through and say what is Council
looking for and what can we give them to make their job easier. So that's the extent of mine.
Scott: Matt.
Ledvina: I would agree with the comments of the other commissioners and would offer a
motion. I would move that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the Shamrock
Ridge Subdivision for reasons as noted. The subdivision as proposed does not meet the
requirements of Ordinance No. 18 -60(d) which states that lots shall be placed to preserve and
protect the natural amenities such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, with emphasis, water
:•
r
7
1 Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
' courses and historic areas. Additionally, the subdivision does not meet the intent of the
comprehensive plan. Based on statements contained in the comprehensive plan which
' mention that variable topography, topographic diversity and rolling topography are essential
characteristics of Chanhassen. The City's expressed goal is to help assure that future
developments are designed so that they are sensitive to natural features. The City of
' Chanhassen will discourage the alteration of steep slopes and bluffs. In addition, the
proposed plat does not follow the preferred southerly alignment for the Lake Lucy Road
extension, which has been laid out initially when the plat was proposed and as well as
throughout this entire process.
' Scott: Okay. Is there a second?
Nutting: Second.
' Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we deny the subdivision. Is there any discussion?
' Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of
the Shamrock Ridge Subdivision for the following reasons:
1. The subdivision as proposed does not meet the requirements of Ordinance No. 18 -60(d)
which states that lots shall be placed to preserve and protect the natural amenities such as
vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, with emphasis, water courses and historic areas.
2. The subdivision does not meet the intent of the comprehensive plan. Based on statements
contained in the comprehensive plan which mention that variable topography, topographic
' diversity and rolling topography are essential characteristics of Chanhassen. The City's
expressed goal is to help assure that future developments are designed so that they are
sensitive to natural features. The City of Chanhassen will discourage the alteration of
steep slopes and bluffs.
3. The proposed plat does not follow the preferred southerly alignment for the Lake Lucy
' Road extension, which has been laid out initially when the plat was proposed and as well
as throughout this entire process.
' All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' Scott: There is a solution to develop this property. We just haven't seen it yet. But take it
through the process. Thank you all very much for staying up. For all your work and see you
later.
1
90
Chanhassen Planning Commission - October 19, 1994
Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 1:25 a.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
91
1
n
1
1�
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 27, 1994
Chairman Andrews called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Andrews, Jan Lash, Jim Manders, Ron Roeser, Fred Berg, Jane
Meger, and Dave Huffman
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director; Jerry Ruegemer,
Recreation Supervisor; Dawn Lemme, Recreation Supervisor; and Michelle Braun, Recreation
Intern
' VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
CONSIDER REQUEST OF SOUTHWEST METRO TRAIL ASSOCIATION TO
' UTILIZE SOUTHWEST REGIONAL LIGHT RAIL TRAIL ROUTE AS A
SNOWMOBILE ROUTE.
' Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Andrews: Before we move on to asking people from the audience to speak, I'd like to just
' take a moment here to again emphasize or re- emphasize what Todd said. If you have spoken
at our prior meeting and you wish to speak tonight, I wish you would keep your comments tc
an absolute minimum and summarize your position. I would not like to have a verbatim
' recitation of all the details, facts and figures because I don't think we need those. We have
those in our packet for us to read, which we all have done. If you are speaking for the first
time, please do feel free to come forward and state your name and address and state your
' viewpoint regarding this issue. At this time I'd like to ask if there's anybody who wishes to
step forward and speak.
' Brad Blomquist: Hi. My name is Brad Blomquist. I'm the trail coordinator for the
Chanhassen Club for the year '94 -95.
' Huffman: Quick question. Have we heard from you before?
Brad Blomquist: No.
Huffman: Okay. I mean I'm not trying to be rude about this but we've had 17 pages of this
' and Leroy's done an outstanding job and unless there is something brand new. And again,
I'm not trying to be rude but we have heard from everybody. And I apologize for this but.
Okay, but do you understand what I'm saying though?
1
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Brad Blomquist: Okay. I won't hash over what I think is.
Huffman: Because a lot of it's been hashed over. I mean I'm serious. And I'm just saying,
we've heard a ton so, I want to listen to it but we've heard.
Brad Blomquist: Okay. I'll skip a couple items then.
Huffman: Thank you. Skip a lot of items.
Lash: Stick to the new stuff.
Huffman: Yeah, because we've heard it.
Brad Blomquist: Has there been any discussion whether or not this is going to be designated
snowmobiling only, or not designated for cross country skiing?
Andrews: No. That has not been determined.
Brad Blomquist: Okay. I guess if it was designated for snowmobiling, I guess that's what I'd
recommend. I mean if people want to cross country ski, they can cross country ski but it
wouldn't be designated as a ski trail.
' Andrews: I don't think we're considering to designate it a ski trail but I also don't think
we're here to restrict it to snowmobiles only. I don't think that would be, I can't speak for
everyone but I don't think we could support an exclusive use situation here. I understand
' what you're saying though. But our intent is not to make it a groomed cross country trail,
no. It's not. It's not going to happen.
fl
Brad Blomquist: Okay. But yeah, if it was a designated ski trail, then that would be a whole
new ball game because that's kind of what I wanted to clarify.
Andrews: No, our intent was not to designate.
Brad Blomquist: Okay. That's all I had.
Andrews: Thank you.
Lash: That was great Brad.
2
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Huffman: Thank you. No, we want to give you that opportunity but honestly we've got 17
pages here and a 2 1/2 hour City Council meeting and if you've got something new, we'd
love to hear it.
Brad Blomquist: There is really nothing new.
Huffman: Alright. I'm not trying to cut anybody off but we've got reams of stuff. Thank
you.
Andrews: Thank you. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak? Is there anybody on the
commission here that wishes to state their viewpoint or any comments at this time?
Berg: I've got some questions. Maybe because I wasn't here when we took the initial vote.
Maybe my questions have been asked but I guess I have to ask them of the snowmobilers
and /or the neighborhood folks who are here. My first one. What is the closest the trail is to
a home? How close is the nearest home to the trail?
LeRoy Biteler: I can address that. I'm LeRoy Biteler. I'll speak for our club. It's
difficult... to figure that out. As I mentioned in the letter, there is no home that could be
legally any closer, to the best of our knowledge, than 80 feet from the trail. If I were to give
you an estimate, I would say most of the homes are 200 feet plus away from that trail.
That's being very realistic.
Huffman: But we don't know.
LeRoy Biteler: We don't know that, exactly.
Hoffman: Here they are. Those two are about the closest. This one and this one.
Berg: What's the scale?
Hoffman: This is 1 inch equals 100 feet. So 150 feet then.
Berg: Next question then in relation to that. The sheet that you gave us on the decibel test, I
don't recall. Was it 50 feet that these were tested? These 10 machines were tested. 50 feet?
LeRoy Biteler: Ah yes it was.
Berg: Okay, the closest is 80 feet. Can you give me the approximation of what the decibel
rate would be? How does it drop? Does it drop proportionately per 50 feet?
3
n
'I
Ll
I Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
' Andrew: No, it's . ex entionall
P Y
' LeRoy Biteler: It's what?
' Andrews: It's expenetionally. So it would be twice the distance is 1/4 the volume.
LeRoy Biteler: And if you look at the first information, piece of information, letter on
' decibel range contained in the Minnesota State Educational brochure. It says on there, clear
over to the right, after every so many distances it doubles or something like that. Do you
have that packet with you?
' Berg: Yes.
' LeRoy Biteler: Okay. I can show you that if you give me a second. This piece right here.
This is what you want to read. That's the only one I have. You'll have to read that
verbatim. I think that will help answer your questions.
' Berg: Well when I saw this, it didn't make any sense to me either and it doesn't make any
sense as I'm looking at it now. Maybe you can interpret it for those of us who aren't used to
' looking at such.
LeRoy Biteler: Okay. Let me get a copy.
' Berg: Here, you can have this one back. I've got mine too.
' LeRoy Biteler: Well I think you need to look at that while I interpret that. Let's take a look,
look prior 1972, the bottom of the page. Snowmobiles traveling at 20 mph had a decibel
rating of somewhere around about 80. Do you follow that off to the left? At 10 mph it had
a decibel rating of around 72. That's machines in 1972. I think we can jump, if you
understand that, you could jump right from 1975 and look at 20 mph. The decibels were
about 73. There it is. At 10 mph in 1975, snowmobiles from that vintage were 65. If you
' took that vintage of snowmobile at full throttle, decibels are by law not to exceed 78. Most
of them we see out there today are 75 and older.
' Berg: Most, 90 %?
' LeRoy Biteler: I'd say 90 %. Sure. That's almost 20 years old.
Berg: I don't know if you know the answer to this one but these 10 machines that were
' tested, were they in pretty good shape? Were they pretty finely tuned?
4
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
LeRoy Biteler: Absolutely.
Berg: And assuming that not every snowmobile on this trail is going to be as finely tuned,
what's the ratio then? How much decibels can we except if the machine is not tuned
properly?
LeRoy Biteler: Boy, that's like asking how many automobiles have poor mufflers on them?
Berg: A lot? A little? Could I tell the difference if I was up in a home 80 feet away?
LeRoy Biteler: I'd say you may have 10 %.
Berg: Okay. I think that's all the questions I have at this point.
Manders: I didn't have any questions but I had a couple brief comments.
Andrews: Okay.
Manders: My primary concern with this decision is a safety concern, and that's all I have to
say.
Lash: Safety for who?
Manders: Safety for the people on the trail and the crossing roads. So whomever's on the
trail and where they cross roads is, there's no, I mean it's Bluff Creek is the one I'm thinking
of that you can go straight through that and that could be a real accident potential there.
Depending on how it's set up.
Andrews: Any other comments? I have none.
Berg: I have a couple comments in addition to my questions, if I'm not out of order.
Andrews: Please.
Berg: My concerns are the curfew. I'm not sure that the 10:00 is something I'm comfortable
with. I'd like to see if we move to allow this open to snowmobiles, I'd like to see us talking
about a reduced speed limit through that area. Again referring to the decibel chart. I noticed
that on the newer machines, 4, 6 and 7 in particular, there's a considerably drop off in decibel
level when drop from 40,to 20 and I would be in favor of seeing that type of speed limit
there amongst these homes and have it well posted so there's no doubt about what it is that
10,
I Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
' we're expecting. And I have a question about the enforcement. To me the enforcement is
just as important from the safety point of view and the noise point of view. Is this
' enforcement only going to be on complaint only or can we expect that there will be regular
patrol, if there is such a thing, on this trail. Is there now any type of patrol system on these
trails or is just if someone calls in with a complaint?
Hoffman: ...club members might be able to speak more eloquently to this.
' Lash: I know there are DNR officers out occasionally.
Hoffman: Yeah, they set up an occasional check point but I would say the majority of the
' enforcement is on complaint.
Andrews: My question regarding enforcement would be, who's responsibility is it? I mean
' this is a Hennepin County project in Carver County being passed over to Chanhassen. So
who's going to be responsible for enforcement?
' Hoffman: City of Chanhassen.
Lash: So if the snowmobile club were to cooperate with the enforcement, would they, I mean
' they're citizens, they would not have, I'm assuming they wouldn't have the authority to
actually ticket anyone or do anything like that. Would we be able to provide public safety
' officers who could actually ticket people or how could we see that that enforcement is,
especially initially each season when people need to be reminded that there are restrictions.
Who would have the authority to actually give citations?
' Hoffman: A licensed police officer for the city of Chanhassen or Carver County Deputy or
an official from the Department of Natural Resources.
' Lash: And do you think that we could get cooperation from them to work with the
snowmobile club to provide enforcement each season?
1 Hoffman: I'm sure there would be cooperation...
' Andrews: I guess one point would be there that if a disturbance, you know it may not be a
snowmobiler so let's not say that but if somebody you know riding a mini -bike through there
in the summer, by the time an enforcement officer could get there, that person could be miles
away. Same would go with snowmobiles. If somebody calls at 3:00 in the morning.
C
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Huffman: We're going to have the same issue regarding, we've got dogs running through the
park...
Andrews: Yeah, I mean it's hit and miss at best.
Huffman: We can argue that 50 ways. You know it's in many cases everywhere.
Lash: Do you have more?
Berg: Well my concern I guess is not with the snowmobile club. I wouldn't want to create
that impression. My concern is with the road snowmobilers out there who aren't going to be
affected by the rules and regulations of the snowmobile club that seems to be pretty
conscientious. I guess my only last thought would be that if we can't be sure of the type of
enforcement that we think is appropriate, then this should be an issue that is looked at every
year.
Andrews: I had the same idea. That this perhaps could be looked upon as a conditionally
renewable privilege if granted. Any other comments? '
Lash: My only comment that I had was that in forming my decision for tonight, I used our
mission statement as my guide and just for the record, for anyone, any of the residents.
Either snowmobile club members. I think they need to be aware that our mission is to
provide quality recreational opportunities for all citizens of Chanhassen in a financially
responsible manner while preserving natural amenities and I used that as my guide.
Andrews: I'd like to have a motion.
Huffman: I'd like to make a recommendation, if it's alright, that the Park and Rec Board
recommend to the City Council the Regional Light Rail Transit Route running through
Chanhassen be made available to snowmobiles during the winter month. No other motorized
vehicles will be allowed. Signage, hours of use, speed limits and other enforcement rules will
be worked out with the Department of Safety officials. City officials and other pertinent
folks after City Council approval.
Meger: I would just add to the motion too that we put it on a one year trial basis.
Huffman: I remove my motion then and somebody else is going to have to say that. I want
to get this thing done and if we keep going back and forth, back and forth, what will
inevitably happen is that we will have more developments come in here and it will be gone in
3 years. I would like to see this really be put down. We're not asking to go through
7
n
I Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
' neighborhoods. They're not asking to move them through other areas and it will turn into
Eden Prairie. I would really like to see this happen. We could put enforcement, we can put
' speed limits and signage but if we keep putting conditions on everything in terms of a year's
time and a year's time, a year's time, we're going to go to these battles time and time again.
' Andrews: Okay. For the record then, that amendment is rejected by the maker of the
motion. Is there a second to the motion as it was originally stated?
' Roeser: I second it.
Andrews: Okay. With a second. Is there any further discussion of that motion?
Huffman moved, Roeser seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
' that the City Council approve the Southwest Metro Trail Association's request to utilize
the Southwest Regional Light Rail Transit route as a snowmobile route during the
winter months. No other motorized vehicles will be allowed. Signage, hours of use,
speed limits and other enforcement rules will be worked out with the Department of
Public Safety officials. All voted in favor, except Berg, Manders and Andrews who
' opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3.
Hoffman: It will go to City Council on October 10th.
Andrews: Thanks for being here to make sure this didn't go deadlock again.
' REVIEW RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCII. TO CONSIDER A 1995
PARK, OPEN SPACE AND TRAIL. ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT
REFERENDUM.
Hoffman: Mr. Andrews, I have nothing to add to the report. I'm waiting to hear from the
commission in this regard.
Andrews: Does anybody have any comments to add to this? If not, Todd do you need a
motion to support this recommendation?
' Lash: Wait a minute. I know I don't know what's going on. So we're just asking for them
to say yes to a referendum when we're not putting down clearly what it's for and how much
it's going to cost?
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Hoffman: Asking them to consider to investigate in 1995 which would include all of those
other things.
Lash: Okay. So we're just asking the City Council for what? To approve us to think about
it?
Hoffman: The recommendation is to recommend the City Council investigate a 1995 park,
open space and trail acquisition and development referendum of a scope yet undetermined and
proceed to appoint a task force to expedite this process.
Lash: You ultimately want them to appoint a task force to put together a package.
Hoffman: Right. And if you do not approve of that recommendation, you can pull out the
task force part and just ask that they investigate a 1995 referendum. They may, if they do
not feel totally comfortable with that, then they may ask that those facts, figures, numbers, be
drawn up but it does take a considerable amount of time, effort, to do that. So if you
know ... don't have the consensus to go forward, I'm not going to put that time and all the
other city officials... necessary to pull those things together to work prior to having a vision
sort of agreed to.
Andrews: I strongly support a task force because it will broaden support. Make it more
likely this may pass. The more people that are involved with the concept, I think the more
likely it is to develop support.
Lash: Now I would want the task force though to work through us, whether it has Park and
Recreation Commissioners on it or not. I was here when the task force for the community
center was working and that was just a separate task force and we had no, I really felt like we
had very little or no input into it and it just went from the task force to the City Council and
I think if it's something that affects us this directly, which it does, it needs to come through
us first. So if they're not tracking with the direction we want to go, we want to be able to
have some control over them before it goes on to City Council.
Andrews: Perhaps we could state then that the task force, the City Council would ask the
Park Commission to form a task force of citizens and park board members. That would help
take care of that.
Councilman Wing: I want to hear what was discussed before...
Andrews: This idea of a referendum?
9
0
C
C�
I
1
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Lash: I believe it was in the Minutes.
Andrews: I think it was, yes.
Lash: I think you know Dick to tell you my own personal feeling. I think there was
unanimous support and I think we're sort of feeling like we're in a position, or I feel like I'm
in the position that we can either ask for this and try to accomplish some things that we
would like to see get done, or they will never get done because we just do not have the
funding to do some of the things that we would like to do and this is the only route that we
have to do it. So it's sort of a pinch. I don't like the idea personally of a referendum but it's
the only way that I can see that we can get it done.
Councilman Wing: Well it's not a maybe. It's an absolute. The problem is this referendum
with the gravity appears to be ... south end because we're putting the pressure on increased
rules and development standards and quality and... everybody's really running your staff's to
get under the line and we're talking about re- looking at the comprehensive plan. So there are
going to be some major changes...Well for instance, the Ryan's out here on Galpin.
Gorgeous rolling and it's running into a real wall out there because the road's going through
and the development is going to destroy that land as the land develops. We're all of a
sudden waking up to the fact that every time we approve a development, we kind of smile
and put a stamp on it and go out there 6 months later and it's a disaster... That hill was
supposed to be preserved. It was one of our landmarks. And development occurs. We're
not even up to think that they're preserving our land. Look at what they did at that hill
behind Byerly's...so this land referendum is the greatest gift we can give our community. I
support it very enthusiastically. If you want to raise my taxes $300.00 a year, I'm... That's
the only thing we've got left to give to our community so I'm totally in support of that.
Maybe my point I'm saying is, I think it's been a really, if you're enthusiastic showing by
showing up at the Council meetings because when Planning shows up or 2 or 3 or 4 people,
it's Council and then they come up to the podium and they say well here's the game or here's
what we did and here's why we did it. Oh. Oh. Or somebody says, well we're going to
with this alignment of the road and then they come up and say, excuse me. Here's the facts
and all of a sudden, it keeps everything on line so what I would ask you to do, if you support
it and if you're enthusiastic, be there and speak up. Be there and support it or be there...
Here's where all the work occurs and all the taking occurs and then it gets up there but
you're not there to call... get off track and everything so I think there's a little bit... And
once I heard that task force, well why are you afraid? One of the ... task force to look into the
facts and numbers, and then make a determination so I at least want the enthusiasm up to that
point to get this thing off dead center. I'm really excited about it. I'm really pleased with
what Todd has done...
10
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Andrews: Thank you. Do we need to have a motion here to restate that the recommendation
should be to have a task force formed through the Park and Rec Commission? So I so move.
Lash: I second.
Hoffman: Can you clarify for me?
Andrews: I'm moving that our recommendation would be that the City Council authorize the
Park and Rec Commission to form a task force to be comprised of citizens and Park Board
members to investigate, where am I reading here from.
Roeser: Investigate the 1995 park, open space.
Andrews: Open space and trail acquisition and development referendum of a scope yet to be
determined.
Hoffman: That typically is the City Council, in a referendum type of process, is the body
that sets, establishes the task force. I don't know if we want to given that discretion, they
will certainly want to ... who you would like to see on it and then it's a very good idea to have
the recommendations of the task force be presented by the task force Chairperson before the
commission before it goes back to the City Council but I think the Council would like to
have that authority to go ahead and appoint the task force.
Andrews: If that were to be the case, then I would recommend that the Park Board be well
represented on that task force.
Huffman: Is it possible to have the leader or the head person a park board member of that?
So that's who's presenting it and that's who's leaving it and that's who's keeping their
thoughts up front.
Hoffman: Again, in the democratic process, the task force should establish who the chair
person is of the task force.
Lash: As long as they come back to us first, I don't care. I don't care who's on it and I
don't care who the chair person is. As long as everything comes through us first.
Andrews: Yeah, I agree with Jan. I don't want to have it be like that community center
when the first time we saw it was after it was already drawn up and they had hired a
consulting architect and it's like, geez. It'd be nice for us to get a chance to get our two
cents but.
11
C
1
C
I Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
' Berg: But on the other side of the coin, you don't want people saying well look at all the
people on the Park Commission who were on this task force, including the head. It's been a
' set up deal before we ever got started.
' Lash: That looks like a railroading effort going on.
Berg: Right, because they're going to assume everyone on the Park and Rec is in favor of
' this.
Andrews: I'll just try to walk the fence here. I'll just again restate that the motion that I
made is that the City Council appoint a task force and that they give due consideration to
proper representation by the Park Board and that they ask this task force to bring it's
recommendation to the Park Board for review and comment before it is presented to the
Council.
Lash: Second.
Andrews moved, Lash seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
' that the City Council appoint a task force, including proper representation of Park
Commission members, to investigate a 1995 park, open space and trail acquisition and
development referendum of a scope yet undetermined, and that the item be brought
' before the Park and Recreation Commission for review and comment prior to
presentation to the City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PROPOSED STOCKDALE LAND ACQUISITION.
n
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Lash: So we're losing that upper triangle on the left but we're getting a little triangle on the
right?
Hoffman: Correct.
Huffman: And people's back yards will move up right against the park in that area?
Hoffman: Yep. As depicted on the other handout you have in your packet.
Berg: Right up to the parkland or right up to the berm?
12
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Hoffman: It's up to the berm ... with the extra parkland so you get back lots ... to the front
property... original concept you would have is 6 rear lot lines... So the first couple of...is
whether or not the Park and Recreation Commission feels comfortable with a neighborhood
park. A neighborhood of 5 acres in size. The comprehensive plan states that 10 acres and
above and 25 acres specifically and where the city would like to place these neighborhood
parks in reference to size... statistics. Less than 6 acres in size, the park would be smaller
than Curry Farms Park. Those of you who have been at Curry Farms can visualize that. And
at present the city maintains... for neighborhood parks smaller than Curry Farms...
Andrews: Isn't North Lotus about 8 acres?
Hoffman: North Lotus Lake Park is 14.
Andrews: 14, okay.
Hoffman: So that is the first issue. A second issue concerns the ... of Lundgren Bros
acquiring and locating a berm that they would construct on the two properties, wholly or
partially on the city park property and Mr. Lundgren has directed that in his letter to the
commission so before you tonight I've asked you for action in those two areas... Is the park
size acceptable to the Park and Recreation Commission. Second, what direction would you
like to take in regards to ... Lundgren Bros totally or partially locate a berm in the property in
the city's parkland. And yet this map shows the approximate location and their map shows,
is actually a better representation because this map shows it on private property and their map
shows it being located, as prepared by Lundgren Bros, within the park property. The question
at hand is, is this construction of that berm for the public good as a whole, to separate the
park from the neighbors, or is it for the betterment of the individual lot owners.
Andrews: I have a couple questions about this berm. It appears as though the hill, or that the
elevation is dropping from the northwest to the southeast. Is there any definition of how
large, how tall of a berm would be necessary?
Hoffman: I don't believe we spoke about a specific height. 3:1 slopes on the side. Yeah,
we're going to be at the bottom of a hill. The bottom of the back yards. So it was discussed
that this ... so you cannot see into the park. It's just a physical barrier.
Andrews: I guess I have a couple of comments. One would be, if you have a walkout lot
that's running down into the park and you had a berm at the bottom, it creates some
interesting runoff issues about where the water's going to go. I made sort of a comment in
jest here to Mr. Huffman, about, that I would have no objection to a berm in our property if
we could put our parking lots on their property. But I guess I feel that the bluff or the berm
13
I Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
' itself has no, adds no value to our ark and we're looking for an active la area. I think it
P g play
' reduces our play area so I personally am against locating a berm on park property.
Lash: I'd like to back up to the first issue of the overall size. What was the intended or
' original size?
Hoffman: 6.4 acres.
Lash: And we have what now? No, I mean when we first started this whole thing. Is that
what it was? I was thinking it was like 8.
Andrews: I think we were in the 6 range to start with.
' Berg: Didn't we add things like a pump house and something like that too? It was larger
than 6.4 when we first started.
Hoffman: Yeah. I cannot recall the exact number. If we were talking about 7 acres. In the
area of 7 acres.
' Lash: Okay, so it came out at 6.4 and now we're down to what?
Hoffman: It'd be approximately 5.2, 5.1.
' Lash: And that's just because of this corner going and then the other little corner being
added on so we're losing overall in that. And why is it that we should give up that corner?
' Hoffman: It's the attachment we have in your packet indicates how the cul -de -sac, the
residential cul -de -sac will be configurated and in order to allow the construction...
' Lash: So are you saying, and I guess I'm confused why someone, a developer if he has a
map that shows where the park is supposed to be, would then put a cul -de -sac in a place
' where his lots won't fit. Where his lots end up being on part of the park property. If this
was designated before he laid that out, I guess I'm confused why he just went ahead and put
lots on our park property. I mean granted, it's not our park property yet but that was the way
it was designated on the map.
' Hoffman: The plan as a concept, their concept for the residential layout happens to lay out
nicer if they chop that corner off of the park property.
�
14
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Lash: So do we have, I mean can we say no? We're not willing to accept losing this corner
and losing more when it was lower than what we initially wanted to start with.
Andrews: I think one thing to remember here is that Mr. Stockdale had an interest in seeing
that western portion sold off and not become severed as a piece of developable property. One
of my concerns would be if we made this undesirable to the point where Lundgren wouldn't
develop it, then we lose the whole proposition. I know what you're saying Jan. I mean if
you straighten up the road on the Song side of the property and went straight down, you
could probably eliminate taking our corner of the park out there.
Lash: You wouldn't even have to straighten out the road. All you'd have to do is eliminate
two of the lots.
Commissioner: Put the road around the other way.
Lash: Well the park could go right up to the street and those two, you just wouldn't be able
to build on those two lots.
Hoffman: Developers don't like not using their street signs which they built and paid for and
put utilities along, they like to put houses along there. ...ask for it. They might even pay for
the street. Pay the assessments on the street frontage. There's no doubt that the residential...
if you wanted more acreage in the park.
Lash: Well I look at the corner that we're losing as being more usable space than this little
jet out by the street. I mean I just don't see a use for that. You know when you take out
part of our open play fields, and you have a little corner up along the street, I guess I'm a
little lost for what we would use that for.
Hoffman: It should be an addition to open space. The larger triangle being lost in this
concept is, in it's present state, a hill side. And so unless you have a large area around it,
which is ... you're not going to be able to—open space.
Lash: I guess it's kind of the principal of things. That's my frustration. Given the fact that
he had the area of the park and they chose to lay out the development this way, which
infringes on the park property, I guess is kind of setting a precedent for me to say to
developers, it's okay for you to lay it out the way you want it and if it takes some of our
park property, that's okay. We'll just work around it and that's okay. And that's not okay. I
think when something is established, then it's established and they need to make their
development work around that. And if that means making a street bend the other direction,
or that means eliminating two of the lots or whatever and if he chooses to put his street there,
15
I Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
' why should we have to pay because then we'd have frontage on the street. That just doesn't
even make sense to me. They did this after we laid out the park.
' Andrews: The plat to the north was already approved.
' Lash: Yes.
Andrews: So the street curving there, there are certain laws about how fast you can make a
' curve and things like that so to just say, why can't they just straighten that out. In order to
do that Lundgren's going to have to go back and have the plat all redone which would incur
' costs, which I can guarantee you they would want us to pay for.
Huffman: Or put it in the value of their houses.
Andrews: No, they'd want us to pay for it because those have come up before. Mr.
Stockdale, you have something. Oh, resting your hand. So I'm not sure that we can just say
' arbitrarily that we'd like you to straighten out that road and have it miss that corner.
9
Berg: I guess I agree with Jan to a certain extent though too. We're talking a principal here.
They did know what this looked like before they submitted this request. Is that not correct?
I mean had they seen this?
' Andrews: I guess the point I'm making though is the Song property was an approved plat
before this was ever really brought in any kind of form to Lundgren Bros to work with. So
that road was already designed with the curve turning towards the south.
Lash: No, the road to the north would have already been approved.
Andrews: That's what I'm saying. The road coming down from the north already had a turn.
Lash: But it stopped right, you can see right where it stopped. It stopped right there.
Andrews: That's right.
Lash: So I mean to me this falls under the category of this should not have to be our
problem. You know. I mean they're the ones who are developing this other chunk of
property. They knew where the park was going to be. They knew where the property lines
were. So they have the guys with all of the degrees on how to lay this stuff out, so you
figure out how to lay it out without putting it on our park property. Because if they do it, if
this developer does it this time, what's going to stop the next guy from doing it? It's going
16
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
to happen over and over. Word gets out that that's okay. You can do it however you want
and we'll just roll over and take it.
Huffman: May I ask a question? What is the amount, our usage or whatever, of the park
possible to go here.
Hoffman: How big a park...
Huffman: For our general formula that we use. How big a park do you look for on this site?
Hoffman: We'd like to be 10 acres or above.
Huffman: And we're already giving away 50% off the top.
Hoffman: Correct.
Huffman: I don't mind a berm at all. I think a berm's a wonderful thing separating a back
yard from a 10 acre park. I wouldn't have a problem with that. But why are we getting, I
mean we're going to have problems with the Rottlund development down on Highway 101
with that swamp park down there. Why are we giving up park space? I mean we're talking
about trying to get a referendum to save land in Chanhassen. I want 10 acres.
Lash: Well I don't think we can get 10 acres.
Huffman: I know realistically but I mean that's enough.
Lash: But we settled, we already settled for 6.4.
Roeser: I thought, yeah I agree with Jan. That's what we did talk about was the 6.4 acres
and why, I don't understand either why all of a sudden they stuck more lots in there except
they saw that hey this, we could make some money on these lots. Better than what we can
up on the road.
Hoffman: Again, what the commission needs to remember, we're not in the driver seat here.
We're a part of the process which included the City of Chanhassen, Mr. Stockdale and
Lundgren Bros and that little triangle sticking out there makes the remainder of this property
somewhat irregularly shaped, which would be difficult if you were the person sitting down
and drawing a potential plat on it. ...you would have some irregular areas on the plat. This,
from a residential plat, it makes good sense what they've done. Now if you want to change
the configuration and still try to get 6.4 acres of park, that would be an approach that you
17
n
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
could certainly take. To say that this right angle square is exactly what we want to see, may
not be the position that we would like to take.
Dave Stockdale: ...I'd just like to say a few things about what I recognize as the history of
how it got to this point. Maybe ... but this all started out I'm sorry, Dave Stockdale.
Lash: You live just to the north? Is this your homesite?
Dave Stockdale: Yes.
Lash: Okay. Just wanted to be sure.
Dave Stockdale: Alright. I've been sitting back watching things happening around me.
Across the street and to the north and I was sitting in on one of the Park Commission
meetings when a big issue was the private park that Lundgren was proposing and... the
apparent need to further upgrade for a park in the area. And there seemed to be a stumbling
block with the Lundgren's land...
Hoffman: How big it is? It's smaller than this. We measured it in feet.
Dave Stockdale: Half this maybe?
Hoffman: Yeah.
Dave Stockdale: Anyway, I kind of stuck my neck out and said well I'd entertain the concept
of possibly putting the park next to my house if in fact the rest of the land had some
marketable value to it. And Todd and I started dialogue. At that point I wasn't sure what the
needs and the space were. You know be it 10 acres or 2 acres or 6 acres. So I kind of set
that out for discussion but I do remember 6 acres being kind of a minimum as a early
conversation. How we ended up with the rectangle I don't remember if that was generated by
something I drew or something Todd drew but that kind of just sat there for a while. And
then the fact that Lundgren had said, well here's conceptually what the city is talking about
doing. At that time I don't think we had in fill of what the park, what the playground area
would be and all that. We just had... Obviously we weren't looking at the ... as an issue at that
point. We were just looking at 6.4 acres. I went to ... and said here's what's left. See what
you can do with it and get back to me and I think basically he just, I don't think it was lack
of respect for the city as much as developers do, optimizing their efforts to get the maximum
return, and so he came back with the slash across there. There's some logic to that in my
mind since it's following the natural contours. That triangle is in ... significant area, in three
dimensional reality, a sliding hill that may or may not have the value that it does for city
18
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
needs for what they want for the park. I understand the ... the fact that you have, what's the
word for it, sorry... You have ideals that you go for in the parks. It looks to me like, more
than acreage, it seems like you need to satisfy the needs for the space that you want for the
neighborhood. And whether or not the option that's created now does that, is to be
determined. It seems like ... it does. Yeah, it's an odd shape and it's less than 6 acres. I
personally am open to options. My overall property is ... 19 acres. What I've had drawn there
is that new angle which basically what my personal home status, that's the maximum
encroachment before it starts to impact my land. You know what my home, so what happens
beyond my homestead isn't as important to me singularly as it is... But the problem is, it
seems like it's somewhere inbetween. Inbetween doesn't work. It's either something similar
to what Lundgren has done to make it work for them or it doesn't work for them at all and
then we're back to the... Again, I got the impression you weren't after large acreage, just
because you weren't planning for a ballfield being formalized in there. ...trail land and all that
but it seemed like you weren't after real formalized space.
Lash: Can I ask you just to bring us up to date on one part of this deal? So who owns.
Dave Stockdale: I own all of it.
Lash: You still own all of it?
Dave Stockdale: Yes.
Lash: Okay. And so we have a purchase agreement out to you now for the park site laid out
as it's shown?
Dave Stockdale: I think it's vague.
Hoffman: Acreage to be determined.
Lash: Oh, okay. And then you have a purchase agreement with Lundgren Bros to buy the
other portion?
Dave Stockdale: Mutually... Yeah, it's complex because I can't, from my point of view I
need to sell part ... knowing how the other part was falling so Todd ... Roger Knutson and my
attorney got together and tried to hammer it out and that's when these issues started to come
into the forefront which probably says it's a good reason to...
19
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Berg: Help me with my memory too, if you can. Wasn't there something that was stated
earlier from Lundgren Bros that they had a minimum number of acres they needed to make it
so that they would develop. Or wasn't that ever stated.
Dave Stockdale: I can't remember hearing that one.
Andrews: I never heard that here.
Dave Stockdale: I think logistically something along this line where they get dual access.
The road is...
Lash: Okay, that kind of changes my position. I mean I guess I was more under the
impression that we were further forward in this process and that these things had been
decided and already cut and dried and then Lundgren was coming in and.
' Dave Stockdale: No, it's not that.
' Lash: Right.
Dave Stockdale: It's part ... work that's in the middle somewhere.
Lash: Not that kind of stuff doesn't happen. Because it does and that's why I get so
frustrated when I see this stuff because I know I've seen it before.
Dave Stockdale: No, I don't think they were absolutely stepping on boundaries that were
Y PP g
already red lined. I am open to however you want to approach it but ultimately I think, as
' you said, it's probably accurate at some level, if it gets too small then...
' Andrews: I guess one idea that just came to mind for me would be, it appears that most of
the property on the western edge that we had wished to have is quite sloped. One of my
ideas as an alternative would be to try to see if the city might be able to come to an
' agreement with you Mr. Stockdale personally, at such time you decided to sell your house
voluntarily, that you might sell it to the city so the city could then recover that flatter front
portion to add to the park property at some later date.
Dave Stockdale: With my homestead?
Andrews: Yeah.
Dave Stockdale: Have you been out there?
20
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Andrews: No.
Hoffman: I don't know that the city would want to.
Andrews: I don't know either.
Hoffman: Unless there's a real striking issue to go ahead and buy some of these houses out
and we can...
Andrews: Now how much, it looks like you've got a fairly good slope there along Galpin
there, right?
Dave Stockdale: Yeah, that's... pretty good incline to it and that...
Andrews: So you sit up like on a little knoll?
Dave Stockdale: Yeah, my house is on a knoll and what's limiting that new angle is there is
a wetland pond... There's a pond right in here... otherwise that would be an option too. I'm
not sure that that would fit. I can't judge that... I mean I think if the city really wanted
to ... go for it, I don't now if that's a possibility or not. The only other thing I'd say is, I'd
like to know what direction this is going because I've got other people who are hammering at
me to make some decisions.
Manders: I've got one question for you. Am I to understand then that you're basically in
favor of this configuration that's laid out? Or not.
Dave Stockdale: It works for me...
Manders: That's what I wanted to know. Okay. Because I mean you're as much in the
drivers seat as anybody.
Dave Stockdale: Right. My only concerns are that it doesn't encroach so much on my
homestead that it violates my privacy and that it doesn't encroach so much on the non
homestead leftovers that it makes it a dead zone. So beyond that I'm pretty flexible. It
seems to me that if acreage is an issue, again I'm sure Lundgren's pretty creative and they
can figure out some way. I don't think this triangle works for them at all. Just because it
cuts right into the road and if...gaining more acreage for either an absolute reason or for a
special use. They can probably address to that more than...
21
L
u
11
n
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Andrews: I guess the comments I'd like to make is that what we're trying to get here is
some active play area. In my opinion, for us to buy acreage that's on a sloped hillside,
although it may be nice for sliding and it may look nice, you know we are buying the
property. It's not going to be deeded or given to us as any kind of a dedication. I personally
don't feel that's a wise investment for us. Just a comment. So I guess, although I would
support having more land, it appears to me that's not a viable option here. With that being
the case, I would be willing to take this as it's proposed. That's my statement.
Lash: The site itself.
Andrews: Yep.
Lash: Are you including the berm?
Andrews: Oh, I'd want the berm on somebody else's land.
Lash: Yeah, I would agree with that.
Berg: You're accepting, I'm not sure. 6.4 or 4.9?
Andrews: Well the proposal as shown here by Lundgren to me I think is the best alternative
that we can hope for with this particular piece of land.
Huffman: But the berm is not on park property. That runs in their back yards.
Andrews: The berm is at the convenience of Lundgren and therefore should be on their
property.
Huffman: And that does not count as park property, is that what you're saying?
Andrews: That's correct
Hoffman: That's a separate issue from this.
Andrews: If they want to build a berm on their property, that's their decision.
Dave Stockdale: Kind of off the record, I don't know what it's going to do...
22
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Lash: They think it will keep people from running into people's yards. But I look at it as
being more of a benefit to the residents than the park users. Right. If they want a berm,
that's fine but not on the park property. So do we need to do a motion?
Andrews: Yes we do.
Lash: Okay. I would move that we accept the alteration to the original park configuration as
shown on this drawing, but that we would deny the request for the construction of the berm
on park property.
Meger: I'd second.
Andrews: Any further discussion?
Lash moved, Meger seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission accept the
alteration to the original park configuration on the Stockdale property as proposed, and
deny the request by Lundgren Brothers Construction for the construction of a berm on
park property. All voted in favor, except Huffman and Berg who opposed, and the
motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2.
Lash: Would you like to comment on your.
Berg: I'd like to have it go back to Lundgren Bros and work at a new configuration. I'm not
happy at all with giving an inch to a park that's already too small.
Huffman: I second Berg.
Andrews: Okay, noted.
Dave Stockdale asked a question that could not be heard on the tape.
Huffman: No, what I'm doing is now basically I'm voting principal. I mean there were
enough votes to let it carry. Therefore I can throw my no vote in and it means nothing. I
mean seriously, in reality that's what it means. I'm voting principal here because I would
like to see 10 acres. I would like to see a big park. I would like to see an area that is park
deficient follow the guidelines that have been established. There's been a lot of things that
have done before this point. I'm way too late in the process. I'm not going to stop anything
that I don't really know. But you know, you did a very nice job. Do you want to be on our
task force. No, I mean our votes are, yes we'd like to see something and Mr. Berg spoke
eloquently here but it's gone.
23
t
0
r:
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Andrews: Todd, who owns the property directly adjacent to the south? Is that Swings?
Hoffman: ...single family residence.
Dave Stockdale: ...
Hoffman: Very curious about what's going on. Probably not going to sell.
Andrews: Alright, very good. Let's move on.
OFFICIALLY NAME THE NEW CYI'Y RECREATION BUILDING BEING
CONSTRUCTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE NEW DISTRICT 112
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AT HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD.
Hoffman: Everyone has ... referred to this building as the community center. That including
the—put on the sign which was placed at the construction site. Then we started receiving the
calls, you're finally building that community center... Upon discovering what's in it, they're
not excited anymore. They're in fact disappointed so we need to refer to this thing
appropriately. I believe that Chanhassen Recreation Center is an appropriate name for it. I
would think then that future people would nickname it the Rec Center. Kids want a rec
center and we want a rec center and if the commission has other ideas, I'd be very open to
hear them...
Lash: I think that's a real clear, to the point name, although. But... Okay, I guess what I was
kind of thinking over the weekend, and I don't feel real strongly about this but I want to
throw it out. I just thought it might make it convenient, I mean who knows what the new
elementary is going to be named ultimately but maybe it would be convenient if it had a tie
in with the name of the elementary just for geographical reference. So if we do end up with
a community center eventually in another part of town, it would be, you know say the
elementary was called, I have no idea. Say they called it West Elementary or Galpin
Elementary or something like that. The name for the rec center would have also a tie in with
that.
Hoffman: If it's Galpin, it could be Galpin Recreation Center. Bluff Creek Elementary,
Bluff Creek Recreation Center.
Huffman: We're not putting the name on this thing forever are we?
Hoffman: Sure. You're going to put it on the wall.
24
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Lash: I guess that's what I'm, I don't know that I'm real comfortable putting a name on.
Huffman: We can call it next. Where are you going? Next door.
Lash: The gym.
Hoffman: The entire school district... Bluff Creek Elementary. The City of Chanhassen Bluff
Creek Recreation Center, or Chanhassen Recreation Center?
Roeser: Is that what the school is going to be called?
Lash: No, no. We have no idea.
Roeser: So we don't know. But it's not impossible to change it. What you're saying Todd
is you want something to refer to this so when you're talking about it, you're not referring to
it as the community center but as a recreation center.
Andrews: Is that a motion?
Roeser: Yeah. That's basically my motion. I think that's what we should do.
Hoffman: I think what you want is an interim name and postpone the official name of the
building until the school is named.
Lash: Yes.
Hoffman: Or do you want to go first?
Lash: They aren't going to care what we name the rec center. They'll choose what they
want so.
Berg: Yeah, and we if name it the same as the school, then it eliminates all questions as to
where it is.
Lash: Well, and if we don't like the name of the new school, we can go with whatever we
want but.
Andrews: Make a motion.
25
I Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
' Huffman: I make a P
ro osal that we refer to the lace as the Chanhassen Recreation Center.
P P
' Roeser: Second.
' Berg: Would you accept a friendly amendment that it would be ... on an interim basis.
Lash: Until the naming of the elementary school. Are you accepting that amendment?
' Andrews: He did already.
' Huffman: Yes sir.
Huffman moved, Roeser seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend
' that the City Council officially name the new city recreation building being construction
at the intersection of Highway 5 and Galpin Boulevard as the "Chanhassen Recreation
Center" on an interim basis until the District #112 names the new elementary school.
' All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ESTABLISH 1994/95 SKATING RINK PROGRAM.
1 Jerry Ruegemer presented the staff report on this item.
' Andrews: When's there going to be a light put in at North Lotus? One like the street light
type thing.
' Ruegemer: I know they're going to work up there presently and Todd would have to address
that. Hopefully there would be...
' Andrews: That's what we were going to do this year, yeah. Okay, any other comments?
Hoffman: Is there any other locations? We've often heard from residents in other
' neighborhoods that want a rink and the standard answer is that this is reviewed on an annual
basis by the Park Commission. They've approved this. You're not going to get one ... next
' year.
Lash: So who's asked for one?
' Hoffman: Power Park has asked for one. Curry Farms Park has asked for one. Pheasant
Hills Park has asked for one.
' 26
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Huffman: What is the cost of putting one in?
Hoffman: It's labor intensive.
' Andrews: And short use.
Lash: Well if we look at the requests, how about Chan Hills, haven't they asked for one?
Hoffman: Not that I recollect...
Lash: And that one, or Power Hill, maybe we need to discuss. The rest of them, Curry
Farms, there's one at Carver Beach. There's one at North Lotus. The same for Pheasant
Hills. There are some fairly close there but there are none on the south side of TH 5.
Huffman: Would this be something that would fit into a referendum? If they did not have
access to one again this year, that might spur the thought. Or it just doesn't make any
difference.
Hoffman: No, it's a general budgeting issue. What do you want your people to be doing.
Spending time making ice or doing other things. It's an allocation of resources.
Manders: Is there any idea or numbers on usage of the existing pleasure rinks? I mean is
there one of these that maybe could be phased out just due to low usage.
Hoffman: Minnewashta Heights has always been discussed if that should be phased out.
That discussion comes up...
Roeser: Well couldn't we afford like adding a new one every year?
Hoffman: Sure.
Roeser: You know put one down at Chanhassen Hills.
Huffman: What does it cost us for doing that? ...explain me the difference on the ones you
do versus the one we did down at Rice Marsh Lake. They bring the dozer down. Clean
circle the diamond out. It snows. They put water on the ground.
Hoffman: They're more than you think.
Huffman: But they're constantly sweeping and water.
27
7
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Andrews: I think we need one south of Highway 5.
Lash: Yes. I would be open to either Power Hill or Chanhassen Hills. I guess I would like
more information from you Todd as to which one you think would be more conducive to a
rink and would have better access and have good topography and also the population there.
If you think there are more homes in one area than the other.
Hoffman: We're going to have to deal with them separately because people from Power Hill
aren't going to run over to Chan Hills to use their rink. They're going to get in their car and
drive ... so what we're addressing is, we'll try to provide walks out to our neighborhood use.
In Chanhassen Hills you can probably do it. The access there is off of the trail. Off of either
the parking lot, that ... trail, through the park, past the playground and up the hill and onto the
ball diamond. So it's not real convenient to get there. Power Hill, there's really no location
there. The location in that neighborhood should be at Sunset Ridge Park and again, access is
a problem. At the current time we're looking forward to the point when the road goes
through and we have a parking lot and we have access directly into that spot which ... Sunset
Ridge Park for a future ice sheet, whether it be hockey rink or winter skating. So the
appropriate place in that neighborhood, which is Lake Susan Hills, is at Sunset Ridge. If we
start doing that this year, it's problematic to drive up and down to.
Andrews: It's also tough to take away a rink once you've started it.
Lash: I guess I'd be open to entertaining that putting one in at Chanhassen Hills this year
and then if Sunset Ridge was ready next year or the next or whenever, that's maybe, I'd try
one there. I look at them as being far enough apart that, and they don't have easy access to a
rink like a lot of the other people do.
Manders: The other thing with Power Hill is that probably is more along the lines of the
sliding hill that we've been thinking about anyway.
Berg: I have a question about Powers though. Is that the park that I asked you about that
most of it's up on the hill. I recognize that. Then there was that other parcel down below.
Would a skating rink fit in there?
Lash: It'd be hard to get to.
Berg: There's a trail right into it.
MI.
I I
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Hoffman: There's a trail inbetween two houses and then it drops off. It's such a significant
grade that driving a truck back out of there would be kind of difficult. Or very difficult. And
then in essence he would be flooding the rink in the back yards of 10 -15 people. So the
skating rink would be in their back yards.
Lash: Actually I wasn't even thinking about access for the truck. I was thinking about
access for people.
Roeser: The truck's got to get there though.
Lash: Yeah, I know. But even for people it would be tough. Is there a way that we could
put one in at Chanhassen Hills this year?
Hoffman: I'll let Dale—drive out there tomorrow and take a look at it. It's probably a 3:1
grade right at that berm so we may have to take ... I'll give Dale the discretion to make that
decision whether or not their trunk will service that location. Once they get up there, they
kill the grass on ballfields like any other location and then seed it next spring with a new
lawn grass.
Andrews: Let's try to do that. Let us know if it's not possible.
Lash: And then keep in mind the Sunset Ridge one as a future.
Andrews: Let's move on. Program Reports on Lake Ann Park and Concessions and
Equipment Rental.
Hoffman: Was there a motion on number 6?
Roeser: Do we need a motion?
Hoffman: Yeah...
Lash: Well I would move that we approve the skating program '94/95 as submitted by Jerry
with the amendment that we would investigate installing recreational or pleasure skating at
Chanhassen Hills.
Berg: Second.
Lash moved, Berg seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission approve the
1994 -95 skating program as proposed with direction to staff to investigate installing a
29
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
pleasure skating rink at Chanhassen Hills Park. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
PROGRAM REPORTS:
A. LAKE ANN PARK CONCESSIONS AND EQUIPMENT RENTAL
B. SENIOR CENTER FALL ACTIVITIES.
Lemme: Chairman and commissioners, item 7(a) and 7(b) are both mine and they're strictly
informational so if you have any questions, I'll...
Andrews: Are there any questions on items 7(a) or (b)? Hearing none, let's move on item
7(c).
n
C CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO BALLFIELD RESERVATION AND USE
POLICY REGARDING USE OF NEIGHBORHOOD BALLFIELDS AND WEEKEND
RESERVATION.
Ruegemer: Thank you Chairman Andrews. This is going to be a review ... we just finished
our busy season and now it's time to look ahead again. It'd be nice to make some sound
decisions regarding the 1995 outdoor facility usage for next summer and it'd be nice to take a
look at some policies and procedures for next year get ironed out before too long here while
they're still fresh in everybody's memory. We did take a look at the CAA, or Chanhassen
Athletic Association's program. Girls Softball program. Those type of uses are certainly
going to increase. For next year I think we need to be proactive in this ... take a look at some
of those uses. We've hashed over the neighborhood park issues before and then we all know
what a can of worms that is between cars parking, privacy, that type of thing. I think it's
important as a commission that we take a look at that type of use again and make a sound
decision in regards to that. We also need to take a look at reviewing weekend use for such
areas as our community parks and use for soccer practice, baseball practice, girls softball
practices and those types of uses. We will see some, a little bit of a breather. We did get
additional fields during the 1996 summer season, if the grass is developed by that time.
We'll know that after next year after the planting season. How that comes along but we need
to make some short term goals to get to that point in order to better serve our residents. We
need to take a look at neighborhood use for such ages. For instance 4th grade for T -ball.
For 2nd and 3rd grade softball program. Ragball. Pee wee programs. Those types of uses
that would have a maximum use of probably 2 or 3 months during the course of the summer.
We did take a look at that issue, and also we took a look at the issue on practices during the
weekends. We had Mr. Dick Brown come in from the Chanhassen Legion program with such
a request. I know those requests will be coming again next year again. I think it'd be in the
30
1
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
best interest of the commission to take a look at that. Make a sound decision. If we want to
take a look at entertaining that. To a certain degree limiting hours such as we do with Mr.
Brown, or eliminate that use altogether, or to ... because I know with the increasing populations
with those youth associations, there's going to be increased time and stress put on our
facilities. You know currently they are going for the most part 5 days a week, you know first
come, first serve on Saturdays for practices and that type of use so the fields are getting a lot
of use during those 2 to 3 months during the summer. So we need to take a look at that.
Possibly reviewing our first come, first serve policy and then taking a look at some of those
issues that arose over this past summer. It might make sense to limit those uses to our
Chanhasen community parks, just with the abundance of parking and being able to
accommodate those types of uses. I know picnics might be an issue. I know we need to take
a look at that and if we need to ... I've always made that available to people at Lake Susan. If
somebody does schedule a picnic, I always mention that there is a possibility that Mr. Brown
might be there and practicing during that scheduled practice time so that's just the policy
issue there. It certainly can be worked through in that case. So if the commission, it'd really
be very important to take a look at some of those issues and get that resolved while it is still
fresh in our memory from the past summer. We can discuss that type of policy for next year.
Andrews: Thank you. It sounds to me like you have really several different issues here that
need to be dealt with. Were there any problems with the field reservation with the ball team
that came in there?
Ruegemer: Mr. Brown?
Andrews: Yes.
Ruegemer: Chanhassen Legion. None that I'm aware of.
Andrews: Okay. I didn't think there would be and I'm surprised. I guess one comment I
would make and this is only based on my experience with soccer this year, which has been
almost 5, or 6 days a week. I would predict that soccer next summer will probably grow by
at least 30 %. Field space this fall there has been as many as 18 teams up at Middle School
West at one night. It's going to be a real crunch so we are going to be forced to deal with
this issue of prioritizing and reserving space. One observation I'm making is that these fields
just can't handle the beatings they're getting and I think we probably need to stick to our
guns and say that there are certain times that we're not going to reserve for organized teams.
I mean the fields are being destroyed and they'll be of no use to anyone if that happens.
Lash: I would, two of your comments Jerry that we would look at limiting weekend practices
and games to a certain number of hours, as we did with the Legion, so there wasn't a conflict
31
I
C
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
with people making reservations for those facilities. And also allowing activities at the
community parks and not at neighborhood parks. If you want to review the first come, first
serve policy, I'm going to throw out an idea. I don't know if it will fly but if it was a team
who wanted to have an ongoing scheduled time, that you would put out into all of the
literature at registration time that if they want to book every Saturday or every Sunday
afternoon or whatever, they would have to have all their requests in to you by a certain date
and you'd know every one who wanted to have a scheduled practice and then you could look
at that and try and figure out how you can spread that out equitably so everybody gets a little
time instead of just some people getting a lot of time. And then if there was one shot request
that say one team just calls up one time and they want to try and get in a quick practice, that
would be on a first come, first serve basis on something that you could find that's open.
Andrews: I guess I'd like to see certain, I guess the term I'll use is blackout times when, that
' we would not reserve space period.
Roeser: I think Sunday is the day to do that. Really. With use of the park, you're leaving it
' open for people that just want to pick up games or people that want to use the park. I don't
think there should be scheduled practices in the park on Sunday.
' Andrews: I guess I look at just pre -lunch til post dinner time is prime picnic time and I feel
that we should save that time for pick up or the walk in public.
' Lash: Okay, or noon to, what's the usual rental time for the park shelters?
Ruegemer: For the shelters itself. Depending on what size of the group but typically set up
' is no earlier than 10:00 or 11:00 a.m. Depends on what kind of a group. A lot of times it's
11:00 or noon until 5:00 or 6:00.
7
7
7
Lash: So say we said nothing, we wouldn't schedule anything between noon and 6:00 and
then that would kind of coincide with.
Ruegemer: We have to take a look at too what park you're talking about.
Lash: Well if you're looking at Susan and Ann.
Hoffman: That's one ballfield. I don't think you'd ever see 6 pick -up games on Lake Ann.
At a maximum fields 3 and 6 get the group use because the people are coming...
Andrews: That's fine. You could give us some guidance there but I think we should have
some fields that just are not reserved for those periods.
32
f
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Lash: Or maybe you even want to, if you want to try and pick up on Jim's comment about
allowing the field some down time or recovery time. Maybe you want to come up with a
schedule where you flip flop it every other weekend. You know 1 thru 3 and then the next
weekend it's 4 thru 6. I don't know. I'm just throwing out ideas here.
Ruegemer: ...the fields that are being used during the weekend would be number 1 and
number 2 ... for that 10, 11, 12, to the 16 age baseball program. They're not really coaching
into the...
Andrews: The wear and tear I'm seeing are the soccer fields. Right in front of the goals.
Unfortunately coaches don't have enough sense to pick up the goals and move them away
from the game goal areas and you can run a very effective practice out anywhere in grass. I
think that's something that the city needs to work with on the soccer program. Give them
some direction because that's just destroying a game field for no good reason and the fields
just cannot take the pounding that they're getting from these soccer programs. It's just
unbelievable.
Hoffman: The grass at Lake Ann Park with the irrigation that you, and the fertilization
schedule there is just...
Lash: Well if we throw out some of those times to you, does that give you some guidelines
to write up a policy to come back to us?
Ruegemer: Yes.
Lash: I guess I still feel firmly, or very strongly about not scheduling the neighborhood parks
for organized sports. And the other thing that's going to happen is.
Huffman: Are you talking about little kids and everyone too?
Lash: Everyone.
Huffman: I'd like to see it gone. Every one of them out. And the insidious reason for that
is, we almost force an artificial, I want the referendum to go through. People have to feel
there is a need in this community and if they say oh gosh, we can go down the neighborhood
park. No. That's not the use for that park.
Lash: What we're doing is putting a bandaid on a problem and then people won't vote for
the referendum.
33
I I
I
I
I
L
J
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Huffman: ...solved or not and I want them out. And have them call me. You know I've got
2 little kids too.
Lash: You know and it may only be 2 or 3 months out of the year but that's the only time
that people really ever want to use the park anyway.
Huffman: That's when I can go down to my park on Tuesday night and I can't go there.
Shorten it. Make it short.
Roeser: We do schedule them for games though, right? Neighborhood parks, you still do
that.
Lash: No. Rice Marsh.
Andrews: North Lotus you do.
Huffman: Yeah, what I'm saying is gone altogether. Create a shortage.
Lash: And as soon as the new elementary opens, I really think is a goal we want to get it out
of Rice Marsh totally.
Ruegemer: I'm trying to do that from year to year but just with the increase in numbers,
that's...
Lash: Well when we get these new fields, that needs to be looked at.
Huffman: Oh, I understand that but I mean if we keep making little solutions here for them
to accommodate, we're not going to get a referendum passed. I mean if they don't perceive a
need to have this, well do we really want to add so much money to our, well we can go to
Rice Marsh. We can really play down there. Or we can go wherever.
Manders: I think that is more of an education issue. I understand where you're coming from
on neighborhood usage but a lot of people are going to say that that park sits there empty and
nobody uses it. And they're telling us that we can't use that park. Why do we need a
referendum?
Roeser: Oh no, we're just saying we won't schedule.
Huffman: Yeah, you can go down there and play. If you want to take your two teams down
there and practice...
34
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Manders: But for scheduling purposes I mean they're going to be talking like that.
Huffman: I can guarantee you Tuesday at 5:00 to 6:00, from 6:00 to 7:00, from 7:00 to 8:00,
three T -ball games. Absolutely not.
Manders: And they're going to come back to you and say, well you're asking for more park
space.
Huffman: It's a neighborhood park.
Manders: And that's what I'm getting at. There just needs to be more education. And not
be so blunt about saying that you can't use it, because they don't understand why.
Andrews: I think we need a motion to do this. This is a dramatic change from what we've
done.
Hoffman: Yeah, I would like to add some comments as well. As far as Rice Marsh or
Carver Beach and maybe North Lotus Lake Park, the Park Commission has the political clout
to close those down. Meadow Green Park which, if you take a look at it, is additionally
being used by girls softball. I mean that's just their home field. That's their home practice
field. That's where they play their games and a park which is a large neighborhood park,
was laid out as ballfields. If you don't want ballfields, which now in neighborhood parks,
we're not building ballfields. Take the ballfield out of Rice Marsh or take it out of Carver
Beach. Short of doing that, not putting in new ones, which is good if you don't want that
actually to happen. Meadow Green, that's going to be a real nightmare.
Huffman: You say that's a bigger park.
Roeser: That's a lot bigger.
Hoffman: Well I'm picking a few of these, pick and choose. If you want to take the
neighborhood parks out, then Meadow Green is classified as a neighborhood park within the
city of Chanhassen.
Huffman: Well but am I running in the wrong direction. I'm saying let them bleed to find
out what the real need is. I mean yes, that's drastic. I'm asking is that too drastic. I mean is
that something that people are just going to scream...
Lash: I'm not saying that we need to alter what we're doing now. I'm saying I'm not open
to expanding it any further than we already have because all that's going to do is encourage
35
t
J
L�
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
that to happen more and more. Pretty soon it will be scheduled in every neighborhood park
and it's not what they were intended for.
Hoffman: ...over your head. And it's always been the intention of staff, because we've heard
the direction from the commission to, through ... get out of Rice Marsh, get out of Carver
Beach and get out of the neighborhood parks. But each time we bring on additional fields, if
you want to take them away, fine. If you want it to happen through attrition,then you have to
wait until the new school comes in.
Berg: I think we have to be very specific. Instead of saying neighborhood parks, be specific
with the park that we don't want this activity going on any more because it would be an
absolute sin to quit playing softball at Meadow Green.
Roeser: Meadow Green, yeah. That's true.
Lash: Well and again, it was set up more for that. I mean it's got the large parking lot.
You know Rice Marsh has no place to park.
Huffman: In all the neighbors yards.
Lash: Right. So that, I mean that's a nightmare situation and I'm not exactly, Carver Beach.
Manders: About the same way.
Lash: Okay, there's really not parking set up there either. You know and right now it's been
' kind of a stop gap measure for a few years and it's filled the bill and it hasn't been too much
of a problem.
' Manders: It's not going to get any better.
Lash: Right, but as the new fields come on, if we can get it out of those two particular areas
' where there's a parking problem and get it onto new fields, fine. But I'm not interested in
starting the problems in other places.
' Hoffman: Okay, we've been all over the board.
Lash: So okay, I think I can summarize how I feel.
Roeser: Would P
ou lease.
Y
36
1
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Andrews: And I'd like to summarize how I feel.
Lash: Okay. That we would not allow any scheduling of neighborhood parks for organized
sports, other than the ones that are being scheduled currently, and I think we named those
three. That the community parks would be scheduled and I don't know, what did you guys
think of the idea of putting in a request to Jerry ahead of time if you want an ongoing
permanent time. He'd have to come up with a schedule. I think that's reasonable.
Andrews: Yes.
Berg: Jerry, do you think you're going to get more requests than you have parks?
Ruegemer: For the.
Berg: For pre- ordained times.
Ruegemer: For the community park?
Manders: Yeah.
Ruegemer: In the past, they've been going out there anyway and having practices. I can see
that as we go through, and now they're talking about the new district wide program for next
year so I would anticipate higher numbers next year so it's hard to gauge how many requests
we're going to get...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Manders: They kind of wing it, isn't that easier?
Huffman: Or not show up.
Hoffman: And if they have to call the schedule in on Monday for the following week or by
Tuesday for the following week, then you can bet that if they make the reservation, they're
going to be there.
Lash: So just stick with the first come, first serve? That's what we've had.
Ruegemer: I think Todd was saying, just to have, they can do that...
Hoffman: Just to have reservations.
37
I Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
' Ruegemer: The first part of the week, like Monday or Tuesday they can call for that
Saturday. If you want to eliminate the Sunday use, I'd certainly...
Hoffman: Right now we're taking no reservations at Lake Ann. Except Dick Brown, who
g g P
' came in this spring. So what Jerry is asking, that people would like to reserve for games and
practices?
Ruegemer: In very dire straits in the past we've used that as a game for rain out make -up,
that type of thing. But if you'd like to permit that for game use. Primarily it's been used for
practices.
' Lash: Okay. So then what I would say is in the community parks, that we would allow
scheduled games and practices not, we came up with not the hours we wanted.
' Andrews: Black out hours.
Lash: Okay, with noon to 6:00 being blocked out for Lake Susan and should we just say half
of Lake Ann?
'
Roeser: Two ballparks.
Hoffman: Fields 3 and 4.
�
Lash: Okay, and Fields 3 and 4 for Lake Ann.
Huffman: May I ask a question? The three parks, three little neighborhood parks. What was
your recommendation there?
' Lash: That that would continue until the elementary opens.
Huffman: What happens if we stop it this year? What's going to be the repercussion? I
' mean if we look at it and we say no.
' Ruegemer: I'm sure you'd be limiting kids that can participate in sports. I don't know if
you decided to do possibly a split season.
' Hoffman: Rice Marsh plays how many nights a week?
,a
�
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Ruegemer: I believe it was 2 this past year. In the past they've done 4 but they've tried to
eliminate some of those with the Coulter fields right down here and then try to shift some
people around...
Hoffman: 6 nights of ball would disappear per week.
Huffman: And realistically, is there anyplace to put them?
Ruegemer: In a big back yard.
Huffman: I've got a path through my back yard, thank you.
Hoffman: Coulter field, they added two...
Huffman: But in reality, I mean if we zap them, there's no place for them to go?
Hoffman: Well they'll crunch somewhere else.
Huffman: But they'll crunch, that's the point. They'll crunch. They won't be...
Roeser: Well playing at Rice Marsh is a crunch to begin with.
Huffman: Yeah, you've got kids once they get up to the field, I mean it's a disaster getting
in and out. Once the kids on the field, they have room to run.
Hoffman: Currently we're initiating an investigation into a site at Rosemount for
private /public partnership for use of green space to the west of their building. At DataServ,
to the east of their building and then eventually at Instant Webb but that one would require
some grading. The soccer people want more space and the only place to look right now is to
private land which we could use...
Huffman: ...vote for the referendum.
Berg: Dave, I think if we go that way, we might be working counter productive to ourselves.
We might crunch to the point that they feel like, to use your words, they got hammered and
they might not want to investigate any further than finding out you took ball away from my
kid. And it might work in counter purposes for what we're trying to do.
Lash: And I don't want to hurt kids in this process.
39
7
' I
J
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Huffman: No. I don't want to slam them but I also somehow want to point out very clearly
that we've got a problem and this is...
Andrews: I think the solution is that all officials of the various organizations, you know
Chanhassen Athletic or Tonka United or whatever, that I think a memo should go out that
those fields will no longer be used once the school properties are there so do not expect that
we will have additional field space. You're going to have substitute field space so they can
continue to look for alternate space because I think the assumption will be that no only will I
retain Rice Marsh but now I've got 3 more fields to use.
Berg: That's a really good point.
Hoffman: Something else to think about is that, as you look forward to the potential
referendum, the date we have not identified... additional land for ballfield space other than
potentially along Highway 5. Up to the north there. The Fleet Farm property or else
alternately the Halla property down to the south but as we look forward and begin to push
people around as to where they can go, we'd better be in line to provide the space. When
you say get out of here, and you go somewhere else. Bandimere would be that location for
another 5 -6 fields but beyond that, we're probably coming up short of community ball space.
Andrews: Well let's hope it becomes more obvious to our citizens.
Lash: So given that information Jerry, do you want to write up a policy and we can review
that on a future meeting.
Andrews: Yeah, bring it back please. If you would please tell us what Jan said then we can.
We're going to move on. Administrative Presentations. Do you have enough to go on there?
Ruegemer: Yeah. Did you make a motion then?
Lash: Yeah, I guess I would call.
Huffman: Second.
Lash moved, Huffman seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission direct staff to
bring back a policy regarding scheduling fields for games and practices which would not
allow any scheduling of neighborhood parks for organized sports, other than the ones
that are being scheduled currently, and the community parks would allow scheduled
games and practices except on Sunday from noon to 6:00 at Lake Susan and on Fields 3
and 4 at Lake Ann. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
.x
w
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
A. TRAIL CONSTRUCTION REPORT.
Todd Hoffman updated the commission on this item and asked for any questions.
Andrews: Hearing none, let's move on to item 8(b).
Manders: I have one question on number 4.
Andrews: You had to do that.
Manders: Just putting that in. I mean I think it's great but how does that factor in with the
road?
Hoffman: Frontage road?
Manders: Yeah.
Hoffman: It will probably wholly or partially...
Manders: That might be a bunch of years down the road.
Andrews: Yeah, they're talking 2000 now so. The proper term is access boulevard.
Manders: And then the other thing, I thought this was a real interesting, informative
document.
B. RESTORATION OF DEGRADED WETLAND LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF
LAKE SUSAN IN CITY PARKLAND.
Todd Hoffman updated the Commission on this item and asked for any questions.
Manders: This is that beaver pond area that we went on the site visit?
Hoffman: Yep.
Berg: Where'd the beavers to?
41
I Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
' Hoffman: The beavers went to the other end of the lake and went up the creek which, the
bridge that goes over to Lake Susan Park. They dammed that up almost to the level of the
' bridge. Backed up the storm water retention pond and flooded the trail on the...
Andrews: They don't call them busy beavers for nothing.
' Roeser: Bring them down to Rice Marsh.
' Huffman: Bring them on down. We could use them.
Hoffman: ...like to offer our thanks to both Jan and Fred for helping out at the Septemberfest
' celebration. An idea that Dawn came up with on this park and rec trivia. It was a real kick
and you will see it continued at future celebrations. You spin and wheel. They get to win a
' prize if they can name, answer a trivia question. Jan and Fred ... tell us about your
experiences.
Berg: It was a ball.
Lash: It was.
' Berg: We had a lot of fun. Lot of kids.
Lash: It was really interesting. I think a lot of people thought it was kind of educational too.
You know whether they knew the answer or not, they ultimately got the answer. We
accepted first, second, third answer. After much prompting usually they could get it but I
' think they learned some things that they didn't know before and I thought it was really fun.
Hoffman: Excellent PR. In conclusion I would like to let the commission know that
' Michelle Braun is winding down her time with us as a Recreation Intern. Michelle has
performed excellent work for the City of Chanhassen, at a very reasonable price I might add.
Before leaving she will be concluding a very exciting project for both the city and the
department. That being a glossy, full color park, recreation and trail brochure. About a
$10,000.00 print job which will take place in January - February of 1995. It will show the
city's parks and city's trails. Where the future trails will be and describe our park system. It
' has some nice pictures. We have a local citizen who volunteered through solicitation in the
newsletter to take photographs. We had a professional photographer who's doing that for
free. Things are coming together and Michelle did a good job with that final project...
' you.
Andrews: Thank
d y
42
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Huffman: Are you going to stay in the park area now after watching all this?
Braun: You bet I am.
COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS:
Andrews: Are there any commission member presentations this evening?
Manders: Three questions. They're different, more informational questions. First one is on
Power Hill sliding area. Is that going to be open this year?
Hoffman: It will be open. The grass rooted very nicely. The ... is that the people will be
running out into private property ... and again, I don't fault anybody... when the cornfield
which is at the bottom of the sliding hill comes in for development—for this runoff. So we
will be condoning trespassing on this...
Manders: Okay. Second question is, I've seen some literature on Bandimere. Using that for
soccer field space this year. Is that happening?
Hoffman: No.
Manders: There's no planned soccer activity there?
Hoffman: No.
Manders: I didn't think there was but.
Hoffman: ...the soccer organization.
Andrews: Chuck Reinstra.
Hoffman: Chuck Reinstra came in... They thought there might be some money available to
go ahead and grade that thing out and build soccer fields there in the interim. When you get
right down to it, you don't grade things for the interim. It either works or it doesn't. At that
time we initiated the discussions...
Manders: And then the last comment was on Lake Ann pavilion. I don't know if that was in
one of the packets about usage of that pavilion and potential misunderstanding as to who has
it reserved and who can use it. Is there a possibility of putting a sign or something up there
as to who has it reserved or is that not necessary from your point of view?
43
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Hoffman: There's a sign on the trail down below.
Manders: In terms of who has it for that day.
Ruegemer: For all three sides.
Hoffman: Yeah. So a person can walk from the parking lot into the upper level and saunter
right in the middle of a reserved picnic.
Manders: But I think their only comment was, that there was something there that they had
reserved themselves. Okay, if that's there, that's fine.
Ruegemer: Jim, to answer that question too, as part of the 1995 budget process, we did
' budget for another sign to mount on the wall of the pavilion to try and prevent those
comments in the future.
t
I I
Andrews: I guess to follow up on that. That pavilion there. Are all the construction repairs
and loose ends all tied up on that finally? On the new park shelter.
Hoffman: The new park shelter. All the, it's all constructed. We've used it for 2 years.
The contract has not cleared up ... $10,000.00 on the building and the ball's in their court...
Lash: I was wondering if there was anything, besides what we talked about Septemberfest.
Just to give a quick overview of how you think it went. Overall.
Hoffman: You'll get a letter ... If any commissioners can make it... What we're doing is
inviting everybody in to see, because our comments from the Rotary and Lions is that they'd
like to see it go back to the evening. I heard some comments from some residents that they'd
like to go back to evenings. We thought the evenings were pretty slow last year but... The
other issues, we try to gauge these things so people can come out and try to take everything
in at once. Maybe that's the wrong approach. Maybe we go from 11:00 in the morning until
11:00 at night and you either choose if you want to come out for the morning events or
evening events. We'd like to hear from you because we had a steady crowd in my opinion
but there was an awfully lot to take in.
Huffman: There was also a weather issue that day.
Hoffman: Yeah, the weather issue.
Lash: Well it wasn't like it was.
,.
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Huffman: Well, it wasn't 80 and sunny.
Lash: No, but it was warm. Fred and I had on sweatshirts and we were kind of hot actually.
It was a little on the muddy side in some places but I thought the new activities were
wonderful. I just thought you had some great ideas and I think it was what, about 1:00 and I
turned to Fred and I said, boy this has really died out Everybody left and we turned around
and looked at the craft tables and there was like a thousand little kids working there just like
crazy and they weren't saying a word so that was very popular. I mean I thought it was very
well attended the time I was there. Maybe we want to try and keep it open during the dinner
hour. You know I hurried to get back up there again before 5:00 to get in on some of the fun
myself and it was already, a lot of the stuff was closing down well before 5:00 I think
because there was no one really there. But I guess I was mostly curious about the teen dance
and how that flew since that was sort of the big change.
Ruegemer: ...probably 50 to 60 people. 50 to 60 people were there. Some parents were
there. Enjoyed the music as well as chaperoning. That type of thing but like Dawn said, the
kids that were there did have a good time. I think Dominoes seemed to enjoy, have an
opportunity too as being part of our sponsor program... From a programming standpoint, sure
it wasn't the most well attended program we've done but I guess we're there to provide
different opportunities for kids of all ages. So we're certainly going to try to keep
programming for teenagers. We're not going to give up ... but looking through the course of
the summer with the teen trips and this type of dance, it's a hard age to program for but...
Andrews: I know dances like that, it may take you a year or two and the word getting out
that that was a fun dance last year and you'll get more the next year and kind of more the
next year.
Lash: Well it seems like on the 4th of July and the past Septemberfests, that kids stay.
Adults stay and kids stay and I wonder if because it was designated as a teen dance, that
that's just a turn off or something. Now I have the teen to interview on this and I guilted her
the most I could to get her to go and she went for 10 minutes and left because nobody was
there. And I said what would it take, and I asked a bunch of her friends. What would it take
to get you to want to go? I said what if we had Bingo at night, because they usually like to
play Bingo and we talked about that. You can't do that for money. You can do it for prizes
but they're very limited in what they would accept for a prize that would make it worthwhile.
You know I mean they're just a really hard group to try and figure out, and they can't even
verbalize what it would take.
Hoffman: Male teenagers cannot dance unless they're on their bike...
45
0
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Hoffman: Is that the same 3 guys that were cruising around for the July 4th Celebration too?
The same 3.
Berg: And they were just little kids. I mean they were 6th graders. There's not a junior in
that high school that's going to come up and go to a dance with a 6th grader. That's what's
scaring off the kids I talked to, that's one of the reasons.
Hoffman: I heard, talked to some parents...
Lash: But then the kids don't want to come. I mean that's one of the fears is that it's going
to be too overly supervised.
Hoffman: We thought about a concept of having a tent which is almost... exclusive to teens.
So it'd be like ... to get in. So you could have the whole festival going on just as we have in
the past, and set up a separate tent where the disc jockey and... Other comments from the
Rotary was not... Initially we did hear from the snowmobile people that they did no better
than any other year but the stuff that we offered did well financially.
Lash: Well maybe we need to think about something, try to continue the old way at night
' and then also trying to provide something for teens. I think if teens are going to come,
they're going to come whether it's designated teen or not and maybe we even used to have a
better turnout when we didn't. I mean my kids always went before.
' Lemme: Last year we had a great band and we have probably 100 people were there.
Lash: Last year?
Ruegemer: Yeah, last year I spent $1,500.00 for that great band and you have to weigh,
you've got to balance everything. Is it worth it to spend that kind of money and get a bad
turnout. That's why we thought with the night thing, this isn't going anywhere. The Lion's
even commented last, boy is this dead. Why are we doing this?
Hoffman: We're a changing a community.
ingrained tradition in the city of Chanhassen
didn't expect this ... this is really hick.
We do not have, this thing does not have a
We had a couple of people who said man, I
Lash: They should have stayed in Edina then.
Huffman: Is this the proper time or place to talk about the $5.00 fee to the entrance to Lake
Ann?
46
0
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Lash: No.
Andrews: Not yet.
Lash: That will be in January.
Andrews: Okay. I've got one more here.
Ruegemer: Are you looking at the picnic evaluations?
Huffman: No. That's just some little tiny nugget in my brain.
Ruegemer: We went through those too. Every picnic evaluation would come back
referencing the parking fee.
Andrews: That will be coming up what, December? You've got that one booked in.
Ruegemer: Yeah.
Lash: January.
Andrews: I received a letter from somebody quite young, and I can't. It says Dear Mr.
Andrews. My mom won't let me ride too far on my bike because there is not enough space,
spelled spase, on the road for bikes. So I am asking if you could make bike trails going to
places such as Lake Susan bike path and to Chanhassen Elementary School. I live on Lake
Riley Boulevard and I know the other kids in my neighborhood would use the paths too. But
anyway, it's just basically a comment about again, the TH 101 corridor being a problem for
kids to travel safely. This happens to be to the south but the same issue.
Huffman: Where's our overhead bridge?
Hoffman: The contractor...
Berg: And thank whoever it was responsible for getting rid of all those cars. That was nice
to see.
Andrews: Any other presentations?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
47
Park and Rec Commission - September 27, 1994
Lash: I believe the meeting Minutes from July 26th were approved already previously.
Hoffman: I'll check.
Lash: I think it's in the 23rd Minutes that we approved them. I think so.
Hoffman: Yep, you're right. August 23rd only. August 8th are still outstanding.
Andrews: Any corrections to August, additions, corrections or deletions to August 23rd?
Berg moved, Meger seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation
Commission meeting dated August 23, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Roeser moved, Lash seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Recreation Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim