CC Packet 2006 08 14AGENDA
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, AUGUST 14, 12006
CHANHASSEN MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
5:30 P.M. - CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
Note: If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the
remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda.
A. 2007 Street Improvement Projects.
B. Discuss Next Steps for 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update.
C. Discussion of Preliminary 2007 Budget & Levy.
7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance)
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will
be considered as one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is
desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City
council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for
each staff report.
1. a. Approval of Minutes:
- City Council Work Session Minutes dated July 24, 2006
- City Council Summary Minutes dated July 24, 2006
- City Council Verbatim Minutes dated July 24, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated July 18, 2006
- Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated July 18, 2006
- Park and Recreation Commission Summary Minutes dated July 25, 2006
- Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim Minutes dated July 25, 2006
b. Chanhassen West Business Park, Project 05-15: Approve Addendum B to the
Development Contract.
c. Approve Quote for Lake Ann Ball Field Improvement Project.
d. Liberty on Bluff Creek 2nd Addition:
1) Final Plat Approval
2) Liberty on Bluff Creek 2nd Addition: Approval of Plans & Specifications
and Development Contract
e. Bighorn Drive Emergency Sewer Repairs, PW419: Approve Quote.
f. Approval of Resolution Appointing election Judges for the Primary/General
Election & Setting Rates of Pay.
g. Item moved to #4.5.
h. TH 101 GAP: Approve Resolution Dispensing with Statutory Requirements
Authorizing Conveyance of City-Owned Property to the State of Minnesota,
Project 04-06.
i. East Water Treatment Plant, Project 04-08: Approve Change Order No. 2 for
Modifications to Well Nos. 2, 5 and 6.
j. East Water Treatment Plant, Project 04-08-5: Approve Quote for Security
System.
k. Approve Resolution Creating a Land Use Study Area at the Southwest Corner of
Powers Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard.
l. Accept Resignation from Councilman Steve Labatt.
m. Approve Change Order for Turn Lane on Powers Boulevard Project No. 03-09.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Chanhassen West Business Park, Waytek, Inc:
a. Vacation of Drainage & Utility Easements
b. Request for Site Plan Review Approval for a 100,000 square-foot One-Story
Office Warehouse Building (Not a Public Hearing).
3. Consider Vacation of Right-of-Way, 3715 Hickory Road.
4. Consider Vacation of Drainage & Utility Easements, 6541 & 6561 Minnewashta Parkway.
AWARD OF BIDS
4.5 Award of Bid - Fire Department Pumper.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5. Longacres Homeowners'/Developer's Proposed Changes to the Highcrest Meadows
Stormwater Pond Design, Grading and Landscaping in the Area, Project No. 05-07-1
NEW BUSINESS
6. LOREN VELTKAMP, 6724 Lotus Trail, Planning Case 6-25: Variance Request for
Relief from 30-ft. Front Yard Setback Requirement for the Expansion of the Second Level
of a Home with Non-Conforming Setbacks. Two Setback Variances will be Required
Because the Property is a Corner Lot Zoned Single-Family Residential.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
7. Discussion of Council Vacancy.
CORRESPONDENCE SECTION
ADJOURNMENT
A copy of the staff report and supporting documentation being sent to the city council will be
available after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. Please contact city hall at 952-227-1100 to verify that
your item has not been deleted from the agenda any time after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday.
GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting. In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City
Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. That opportunity is provided
at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations.
1. Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor.
When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the
City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City
Council.
2. If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson
that can summarize the issue.
3. Limit your comments to five minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If
you have written comments, provide a copy to the Council.
4. During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion.
Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough
understanding of your concern, suggestion or request.
5. Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual
either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed to the City
Manager.
Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Houlihan’s Restaurant & Bar, 530 Pond Promenade in Chanhassen immediately
after the meeting for a purely social event. All members of the public are welcome.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: August 14, 2006
SUBJ: Review 2007 Street Improvement Project Nos. 07-01, 07-02, 06-06
BACKGROUND
Staff needs to start the process for the 2007 street improvement projects at this
time. This process includes budgeting for the projects in the 2007 CIP, hiring a
consultant for the work and beginning the MS 429 assessment process. Before
these projects are advanced, staff would like to review the proposed improvement
areas with the Council.
Three general projects are proposed for improvements in 2007. Street
reconstruction and utility improvements are proposed in the Koehnen
Area/Yosemite Avenue and Dogwood Road/Tanadoona Drive areas. Street
overlays are proposed in the Bighorn Drive Area, Belmont Lane/Preakness Lane
Area, South Shore Drive Area and Pleasant View Cove area.
Koehnen Area/Yosemite Avenue
The Koehnen Area/Yosemite Avenue improvements were originally proposed for
construction in 2006. However, due to the slower then anticipated designation
process for Yosemite Avenue to become a state aid route this project had to be
removed for the 2006 street improvement project. Designation of Yosemite
Avenue is required to use Municipal State Aid Funds for the project. The
proposed improvements are the same as last year. The improvements include
replacement of the watermain, sanitary sewer spot repairs, storm sewer
improvements which include the construction of three storm water ponds and
replacement of the streets which includes concrete curb and gutter. Consistent
with the City’s assessment practice, 40% of the street improvement costs would
be assessed to the benefiting property owners.
The preliminary schedule for this project is as follows:
Neighborhood Meeting November 15, 2006
Public Hearing December 11, 2006
Neighborhood Meeting March, 2007
Assessment Hearing and Award of Bid April, 2007
Construction Start May, 2007
Todd Gerhardt
August 14, 2006
Page 2
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
Substantial Completion August, 2007
The design for this project is complete. However, a consultant supplemental
agreement for rebidding the project will be required.
Funding for the project is as follows:
Revolving Assessment Fund $1,100,000
Municipal State Aid $500,000
Water Utility Fund $660,000
Sanitary Sewer Fund $230,000
Storm sewer Utility Fund $610,000
Total Project Cost $3,150,000
Dogwood Road/Tanadoona Drive Improvements
On October 24, 2005, staff discussed this project with Council at a work session.
The Council authorization staff to prepare a feasibility study. The feasibility
report was paid for by one of property owners who would like to develop. The
proposed project includes the construction of street, storm drainage, sanitary
sewer, and watermain improvements to serve existing residents and a proposed 18
lot residential development along Dogwood Road on the east shore of Lake
Minnewashta.
Currently, Dogwood Road and a portion of Tanadoona Drive are gravel roads
which are a problem for City street crews to maintain. The City’s pavement
management program does not rate gravel roads, because the criteria used would
rate the streets as 0, the lowest rating given. Septic systems in this area are failing
and several existing property owners would like to hook up to City services.
The proposed street improvement includes the reconstruction and widening of
approximately 2,900 linear feet of Dogwood Road and Tanadoona Drive to a 24-
foot wide rural section roadway. The proposed roadway section is consistent with
the east street section of Tanadoona Drive. Watermain improvements include the
extension of 8-inch watermain along Dogwood Road and Tanadoona Drive.
Sanitary sewer improvements include the construction of gravity sanitary sewer
and replacement of an existing lift station and forcemain.
The improvements are proposed to be financed through a combination of special
assessments to the benefiting properties and other City of Chanhassen funds.
Staff has met with the property owners and most of them are in favor of moving
the project forward. Staff had requested that the residents sign a petition if they
were in support of the project. The survey results are attached. The result of the
petition was 80% of the parcels are in support of the project. The property owners
Todd Gerhardt
August 14, 2006
Page 3
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
that are not in support of the project are the parcels that were assessed in the past
for sewer improvements and are currently connected to City sewer service. The
previous sewer improvements were more then the estimated improvements for
this project. These residents are not proposed to be assessed for sewer
improvements. The Westwood Community Church Board has reviewed the
project and is in favor of the project moving forward. Staff is still working with
one property owner on Tanadoona Drive on a vegetation screening plan.
Consistent with the City’s assessment practice, 40% of the non development street
improvement costs would be assessed to the benefiting property owners. The
City would be responsible for the remaining 60% of the non development
roadway improvement costs estimated at $348,000. The developer will pay 100%
of the street and utility improvements for the development. Sewer and water
assessments would be 100% assessed to the benefiting property owners expect for
three parcels that already have sewer service. No sewer assessments are proposed
for these parcels. The development assessments would be due at the time of
final plat. The estimated assessments for the development parcels are $926,000.
This project does not proposed to build all the development improvements only
the improvements on Dogwood Road.
Some property acquisition is necessary to construct the street to the planned
width. Appraisals for these pieces of property should be drafted soon so right-of-
way acquisition can begin. Right-of-way acquisition is included in the project
cost.
The following is a summary of the proposed financing plan for the improvements:
Financing Summary
Revolving Assessment Fund (Assessments) $ 1,616,000
City Share (Revolving Assessment Fund) $ 348,000
Total $ 1,964,000
The following is a preliminary schedule:
Public Hearing December 11, 2006
City Council Approves Plans and Specifications March, 2007
Bid Opening April 13, 2007
Award of Bid/Assessment Hearing April 23, 2007
Start Construction May 7, 2007
Construction Complete August 31, 2007
Todd Gerhardt
August 14, 2006
Page 4
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
Rehabilitation (Mill and Overlay) Areas
The pavement management program has identified several streets that are
recommended for rehabilitation at this time. It is no longer cost effective to
maintain these streets with preventative maintenance techniques (sealcoating and
patching). The mill and overlay areas include the Bighorn Drive Area, Belmont
Lane/Preakness Lane Area, South Shore Drive area and the Pleasant View Cove
area. The work in general includes replacing damaged concrete curb, replacing
distressed pavement areas, minor repairs to the sanitary, storm and watermain
systems, and milling and overlaying the roadways with bituminous pavement.
This type of improvement is anticipated to extend the life of roadways 15 to 20
years. The repairs are necessary at this time so more costly reconstruction work
can be delayed. Consistent with the City’s assessment practice, 40% of the street
improvement costs would be assessed to the benefiting property owners.
Funding for the project is as follows:
Revolving Assessment Fund $672,000
Sanitary Sewer Fund $ 50,000
Storm Sewer Fund $ 50,000
$772,000
The preliminary schedule for this project is as follows:
Neighborhood Meeting November 15, 2006
Public Hearing December 11, 2006
Neighborhood Meeting March, 2007
Assessment Hearing and Award of Bid April, 2007
Construction Start May, 2007
Substantial Completion August, 2007
Attachments
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
JULY 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the work session to order at 5:45 p.m..
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
Labatt and Councilman Lundquist
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Peterson
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Beth Hoiseth, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman and Paul
Oehme
UPDATE ON SAFETY CAMP AND NATIONAL NIGHT OUT, BETH HOISETH,
CRIME PREVENTION SPECIALIST.
Beth Hoiseth updated the council on the 10th annual Safety Camp which is sponsored by the City
in cooperation with the Park and Rec Department, Carver County Sheriff’s office, and the
Chanhassen Fire Department. She invited the Mayor and council members to participate in
National Night Out activities and provided a map of sites where activities will take place. There
will be a brief meeting held in the Courtyard conference room beginning at 5:15 p.m. on
Tuesday, August 1st. Mayor Furlong asked about the number of neighborhoods involved. Beth
Hoiseth stated 41 neighborhoods have registered so far, which is the largest number ever. The
first 20 groups to registered received free party packs.
KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGY: 2008 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE/RETAIL
MARKET STUDY.
Todd Gerhardt introduced Jim McComb with the McCombs Group who presented a summary of
the findings of the Retail, Office, and Residential Market Analysis and Development Potential
study. Linda Walton, Executive Director of the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce was also in
attendance. Highlights of the study showed the future Highway 312 corridor, lifestyle,
convenience and downtown trade areas and population projections associated with the different
trade areas. Mr. McComb noted that the trade area average and median house income stay the
same across all trade areas, which he’s never seen in the 32 years he’s been in this business,
noting this is a very attractive number to prospective retailers. Because the downtown trade area
is pretty well maxed out as far as vacant land, he believes the supportable space numbers show
the need for a lifestyle trade area for shopping goods, which would not compete but compliment
the downtown trade area. He showed a map of other supportable retail land acres available in
different locations in downtown, the intersection of Highway 312 and Powers Boulevard and the
intersection of Highway 312 and Great Plains Boulevard. Councilman Labatt asked for
clarification on how the numbers for median income were established, and a comparison in
square footage for the example of Arbor Lakes in Maple Grove. Mayor Furlong asked for
clarification of supportable retail land area projections. In discussing the possibility of
Chanhassen Dinner Theater leaving the city, Mr. McComb would recommend replacing that
City Council Work Session – July 24, 2006
2
square footage with office and commercial to bring additional people to make the downtown
trade area more viable and successful. In discussing the office industrial area, he provided
current numbers and future demand numbers for the four different categories of
commercial/office, office showroom, office warehouse and bulk warehouse. Todd Gerhardt
stated staff will be reviewing current zoning to see if the current zoning numbers concur with the
projections of the study. Mr. McComb noted that the Dorsey and Fox parcels could handle
higher zoning than what they’re currently zoned because of their proximity to the Highway 312
corridor and that the City Council can pick uses they want to see in different zoning areas. In
reviewing the numbers for growth in the northern segment of the Southwest Growth Corridor,
which includes Chanhassen, growth has remained consistent over the last 15 years and he
showed the estimated land demand for different categories through the year 2025. He stated the
biggest demand being residential. Todd Gerhardt noted Jim McComb will be making the same
power point presentation to the Chanhassen Chamber Board and staff will bring back
recommendations at a future work session meeting, noting the commercial area and lifestyle
center are two major components the council will need to discuss. Kate Aanenson explained
how the results of this study tie into the comprehensive plan update and the need for a public
process to assess where the city is currently and what direction it wants to go in the future.
Mayor Furlong thanked Ms. Walton for being involved in the study process.
Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session meeting at 6:45 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
JULY 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
Labatt and Councilman Lundquist
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Peterson
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman and Paul
Oehme
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
David Jansen Chanhassen Villager
Jerry McDonald Planning Commission
Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Jeffrey A. Fox 5270 Howards Point, Excelsior
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: INVITATION TO NATIONAL NIGHT OUT. Mayor
Furlong invited the public to attend the 23rd Annual National Night Out which will take place on
Tuesday, August 1st from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. and outlined the activities involved.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded
to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s
recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated July 10, 2006
-City Council Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated July 10, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated June 27, 2006
b. The Preserve at Bluff Creek, Project 06-12: Approve Access Agreement with Ryland
Group.
d. Amendment to City Code, Chapter 20, Section 1259, Concerning Electronic Reader
Board Signs.
City Council Summary – July 24, 2006
2
e. Resolution #2006-49: Longacres Drive Stormwater Pond Outlet Improvement and
Lyman Boulevard Sewer Repairs, Projects 06-08 and 06-09: Reject Bids and Authorize
Re-advertisement for Bids.
f. Approval of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for Fund Raiser, September 30, St.
Hubert Church, 8201 Main Street
g. Resolution #2006-50: Approve Purchase of Grass Rig, Chanhassen Fire Department.
h. C.J.’s Coffee & Wine Bar, 600 Market Street, Suite 170: Approval of Request to Amend
the Liquor Licensed Premises for a Charity Event on September 30, 2006.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Sgt. Ross Gullickson presented
the sheriff’s office area report, sheriff’s office area citation list and community service officer
report for the month of June. Chief Gregg Geske presented the June monthly report for the Fire
Department. Regarding a house fire that occurred in his neighborhood, Councilman Lundquist
asked Chief Geske to talk about standards for response time.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive talked about a late e-mail he
had sent to the council regarding impervious surface coverage calculations.
LAKESIDE, 125 LAKEVIEW ROAD, APPLICANT SIENNA CORPORATION:
REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON 26.34 ACRES REZONING
THE PROPERTY FROM R12, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUD-R, PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL, WITH VARIANCES; PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR 29 BUILDING LOTS, TWO OUTLOTS, AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PUBLIC
STREETS; SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 234 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,
INCLUDING TWO, THREE, FOUR, AND CONDOMINIUM UNIT BUILDINGS, AND A
COMMUNITY BUILDING; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT WITH VARIANCES.
Public Present:
Name Address
David Vogelbacher Apple Valley
Matthew Anderron Golden Valley
Rick Denman 6656 PLC
Steven Mangold 4852 Woodhurt Lane, Minnetonka
Gregory Kozulls Prior Lake
John Harriss Minneapolis
Tony L. 425 Portland Avenue
Mary Beth Maki 150 Lakeview Road E
Steven Schwieteus 10072 Gristmill
City Council Summary – July 24, 2006
3
Daryl McLinden 7321 Hillsdale Court
Jerry Frederick 7297 Hillsdale Court
Stephanie & Thomas Drees 14727 Boulder Point Road
Chris Honaas-Wildfang 18397 Nicklaus Way
Scott Frederiksen 18626 Bearpath Trail, Eden Prairie
Bruce & Mary Jo Carlson 8988 English Turn, Eden Prairie
Ginny & Pat Gaspard 17615 Bearpath Trail
Andrew Pynch 8724 North Bay Drive
Phil Young 6832 Hallmark Drive, Eden Prairie
Kevin McShane 180 South Shore Court
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and reviewed the issues raised by City Council at their
last meeting. Councilman Lundquist asked for further clarification on the grading and tree
preservation plan. Mayor Furlong followed up on Councilman Lundquist’s question regarding
grading and storm water management, specifically condition 37 regarding the emergency
overflow elevation. John Vogelbacher clarified Sienna’s plans for tree preservation. After
council discussion the following motions were made.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves the rezoning of property located within the Lakeside development from High
Density Residential District (R12) to Planned Unit Development-Residential (PUD-R),
incorporating the development design standards contained within this staff report, subject
to the final plat approval for the Lakeside development. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves the Preliminary Plat for Lakeside, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated
May 19, 2006, revised June 7, 2006 and July 17, 2006, with a revised grading plan dated July
24, 2006, and a revised tree preservation plan dated July 24, 2006, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The developer must submit a list of proposed street name(s) and an addressing plan to
Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval prior to
final plat of the property.
2. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
3. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Please contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
exact location of additional hydrants and any to be relocated.
4. A minimum buffer of 16.5 to 20 feet shall be preserved around the perimeter of the wetland.
All structures (including parking lots) shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the wetland
buffer. All trails and retaining walls shall be modified to remain outside the wetland buffer.
The plans shall be revised to reflect the required wetland buffer and wetland buffer setback.
Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s
City Council Summary – July 24, 2006
4
wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs before construction
begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign.
5. The plans shall be revised to depict the OHW of Lake Riley, which is 865.3. All structures
shall be located a minimum of 75 feet from the OHW. The proposed fire pit shall be located
a minimum of 75 feet from the OHW and shall be buffered from the lake by vegetation. No
grading or intensive clearing of vegetation shall occur within the shore impact zone (all areas
within 37.5 feet of the OHW).
6. A conditional use permit (CUP) shall be obtained from the City prior to the operation of a
recreational beach lot.
7. All existing amenities and/or structures (including any docks, existing beach that is not
proposed to remain and the boat launch) on Outlot B, North Bay shall be removed. A boat
launch is not permitted.
8. The location of the building on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be adjusted to respect all drainage and
utility easements.
9. The applicant shall supply details about the water feature between the rear yards of the units
in Block 3, specifically the source for the water in the water feature. As an alternative to the
current proposal, the applicant should consider revising the plans to utilize storm water as an
amenity as part of a rain garden system in this area.
10. The applicant shall provide additional information detailing the proposed emergency
overflow (EOF) route from Pond 1 to Lake Riley.
11. The grading and landscaping proposed around Pond 1 shall be revised to provide a flat, open
area so maintenance equipment can access the flared end sections from Lake Riley Road East
without damaging the retaining wall or the landscaping and without being below the NWL of
the pond.
12. All storm water infrastructure, including catch basins, storm sewer pipes, manholes, flared-
end sections, outlet structures, ponds and swales, shall be owned, operated and maintained by
the developer and, eventually, the homeowners association. Prior to final plat recording, the
developer shall enter into an agreement with the City that outlines the parameters of
operation, inspection and maintenance of the storm water infrastructure. This agreement
shall be transferred to the homeowners association prior to the developer relinquishing
responsibility for the development.
13. The SWPPP shall be provided to the City for review by the Carver Soil and Water
Conservation District.
14. The plans shall be revised to show that erosion control blanket will be installed over all areas
with 3:1 slopes or steeper.
City Council Summary – July 24, 2006
5
15. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the pond shall be provided. The EOF could consist
of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf re-enforcement mat (a permanent erosion control
blanket). A typical detail shall be included in the plan.
16. Energy dissipation shall be provided for all inlets and outlets within 24 hours of installation
17. Wimco-type or other comparable inlet controls shall be used and installed within 24 hours of
installation of the inlets. Perimeter controls and inlet protection shall be in place and
maintained as needed until 70% of the vegetation is established.
18. Typical building lot controls shall be shown on the plan in a typical detail. These controls
shall include perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street sweeping, inlet control
and temporary mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the Certificate of Occupancy
(CO).
19. The proposed storm water pond shall be used as a temporary sediment basin during mass
grading. The pond shall be excavated prior to disturbing up-gradient areas. Plans shall show
how the temporary basin will be constructed and how water will be diverted to the temporary
basin. Berms and/or ditches may be needed to divert water to the pond, and temporary pond
outlets are needed. The outlet could be a temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. The
plans shall be revised to include a detail for the temporary pond outlet.
20. The proposed silt fence along Wetland Basin B shall be Type 2 silt fence, as specified in
Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5300. Type 1 silt fence may be used for the remainder of
the site. The grading plan shall be revised to show the proposed silt fence following the
grading limits for the site and shall be located outside of the required 16.5-foot wetland
buffer. Silt fence shall be placed at the proposed high water level elevation of the proposed
storm water pond.
21. Street gutters and catch basins are considered “surface waters” and shall be protected from
exposed soils with a positive slope within 200 linear feet. Following installation of curb and
gutter, silt fence shall be installed curbside along all positive slopes to the street with exposed
soils.
22. Plans shall be revised to show erosion and sediment control measures for the road ditch along
Lyman Boulevard. All perimeter controls shall be inspected by the city and the SWCD prior
to grading.
23. Details for concrete washout areas where drivers will wash out their trucks and how the
water will be treated should be developed and included in the SWPPP.
24. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
25. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $195,293.
City Council Summary – July 24, 2006
6
26. The owner/operator of the proposed development shall apply for and obtain permits from the
appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Transportation,
Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval.
27. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for
preservation and/or at the edge of proposed grading limits.
28. A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to
construction.
29. No burning permits shall be issued for tree removal. All trees removed on site shall be
chipped and used on site or hauled off.
30. The applicant shall increase landscape plantings along the east property line to minimum
bufferyard requirements.
31. No trees shall be removed behind the northwestern corner of the silt fence as shown on
grading plans dated 05/19/06.
32. A total of 139 trees shall be planted in the development as required for canopy coverage.
33. All existing buildings, driveways and accessory structures must be removed before grading
commences.
34. The lowest floor elevation of 106 Lakeview Road East must be field verified.
35. The high water level of the proposed pond must be minimum three feet lower than the lowest
floor elevation of the adjacent homes along Lakeview Road East.
36. The high water level of the wetland must be determined.
37. The proposed grading in the northwest corner near the wetland needs to be adjusted to meet
city standards.
38. Pavement grades at the following locations must be adjusted so that the grade does not
exceed 7%: West of Building A, and the northern street extending from the Lakeview Road
East intersection.
39. Private driveway grades shall not exceed 10%.
40. Ground (ie. non-paved) surface grades shall not be less than 2%.
41. Emergency overflow locations and elevations must be shown on the plan.
City Council Summary – July 24, 2006
7
42. High point elevations between the catch basins must be shown along the east side of Block 2.
43. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
44. An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading. The
developer must receive approval from the City of Eden Prairie for grading in to the Outlot for
Bearpath 3rd Addition.
45. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
46. Building permits are required for all retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be
designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
47. All sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer within this site shall be privately owned and
maintained.
48. The watermain extension from Lyman Boulevard must be wet-tapped and must be done
under traffic.
49. The developer must provide ingress/egress to the North Bay residents for the duration of the
utility extension within Lake Riley Road East.
50. Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2006 trunk
hookup charge is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and
watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building
permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the
Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance.
51. The 15-foot wide sanitary sewer easement on the northwest side of the property must be
vacated.
52. The proposed pool house must not lie within the drainage and utility easement.
53. The payment of full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final plat approval in lieu of
parkland dedication.
54. The applicant shall provide all design, engineering, construction and testing services required
of the “Lyman Boulevard Trail.” All construction documents shall be delivered to the Park
and Recreation Director and City Engineer for approval prior to the initiation of each phase
of construction. The trail shall be 10 feet in width, surfaced with bituminous material, and
constructed to meet all city specifications. The applicant shall be reimbursed for the actual
cost of construction materials for the Lyman Boulevard Trail. This reimbursement payment
shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and receipt of an invoice
documenting the actual costs for the construction materials utilized in its construction.
City Council Summary – July 24, 2006
8
55. The trail connection at the northeast corner of the site connecting the Lakeside area to the future
Highway 212 trail and underpass, as depicted in the applicant’s plans, is completed.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves the Site Plan for 231 housing units and a community building with pool, plans
prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 19, 2006, revised June 7, 2006, and July 17,
2006, with a revised grading plan dated July 24, 2006, with a variance for building height
for the condominium units consistent with the building elevations prepared by Harriss
Architects, stamped received May 26, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. The pool, including the pool deck, shall be relocated outside the 50-foot setback from Lyman
Boulevard.
3. Accessibility must be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the
units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State
Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements.
4. Buildings over 8500 square feet of floor area are required to be protected with an automatic
sprinkler system. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not constitute
separate buildings and the areas of basements and garages are included in the floor area
threshold.
5. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by
the Building Official.
6. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site.
Application for such permits must include hazardous substances investigative and proposed
mitigation reports.
7. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
8. Walls and projections within three feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire-
resistive construction.
9. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional
engineer.
10. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
City Council Summary – July 24, 2006
9
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
11. Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
12. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
13. Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the new
roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire code Section 501.4.
14. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of
fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
15. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be
removed from site or chipped.
16. Approved fire apparatus access roads (driveways) shall be provided for every facility,
building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the
jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access roads shall comply with requirements of Section 503
and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility or any portion of the exterior
wall of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of
the building or facility. Exceptions: Fire Marshal is authorized to increase the dimension of
150 feet where the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler
system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3. Pursuant to Section
503.1.1 2000 Minnesota Fire Code.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beachlot with a variance from the
requirement that 80 percent of the units within 1,000 feet of the recreational beachlot,
plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 19, 2006, revised June 7, 2006, subject
to the following conditions:
1. A conditional use permit (CUP) shall be obtained from the City prior to the operation of a
recreational beach lot.
2. The plans shall be revised to depict the OHW of Lake Riley, which is 865.3. All structures
shall be located a minimum of 75 feet from the OHW. The proposed fire pit shall be located
a minimum of 75 feet from the OHW and shall be buffered from the lake by vegetation. No
grading or intensive clearing of vegetation shall occur within the shore impact zone (all areas
within 37.5 feet of the OHW).
City Council Summary – July 24, 2006
10
3. The area of Outlot B shall be recalculated to include only the area within the outlot above the
OHW. The amount of shoreline for Outlot B shall be calculated along the OHW. The
number of docks and slips permitted by the conditional use permit for the beach lot shall not
exceed the number of docks and slips allowable by City Code for the actual beach lot area
and frontage.
4. All existing amenities and/or structures (including any docks, existing beach that is not
proposed to remain and the boat launch) on Outlot B, North Bay shall be removed. A boat
launch is not permitted.
5. The applicant shall work with staff on the design of and materials for proposed path from
Lyman Boulevard to the dock to minimize the impacts of runoff from the path to the
shoreline and Lake Riley.
6. The proposed walking path along the shoreline shall be made of a pervious surface such as
mulch, crushed rock or turf grass and shall not be located below the OHW. Special attention
shall be paid to ensure that the path materials are not prone to erosion. The plans shall be
revised to show the woodland gardens above the OHW of Lake Riley.
7. An individual permit shall be obtained from the DNR for any beach sand applications that do
not meet the DNR standards for sand blanket applications without an individual permit.
8. One beach area shall be permitted to minimize impacts to the lake and to adjacent residents.
9. The applicant shall work with staff on the placement of the beach lot infrastructure to
preserve as many of the existing trees in that area as possible. A survey of the area with the
tree locations will be required and used to facilitate tree preservation. The applicant shall
also work with staff on the location of the woodland path and woodland gardens along the
path.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adopt the Findings of
Fact relating to motions A through D as presented in the staff report. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
(The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilwoman Tjornhom noted the 10th anniversary
celebration she attended at Centennial Hills. Councilman Lundquist commented on the positive
feedback he received regarding the City Manager and Chanhassen Fire Department in
responding to the house fire in his neighborhood. Councilman Labatt notified the council that he
will be moving out of Chanhassen and resigning from the City Council as of August 1st. Mayor
Furlong and Todd Gerhardt thanked him for his 13 years of service on the Public Safety
City Council Summary – July 24, 2006
11
Commission and City Council. Mayor Furlong asked staff to prepare options with regard to the
council vacancy for the next meeting.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt invited everyone to stay for cake
after the meeting to say good-bye to Councilman Labatt.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:10
p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
Labatt and Councilman Lundquist
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Peterson
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Todd Hoffman and Paul
Oehme
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
David Jansen Chanhassen Villager
Jerry McDonald Planning Commission
Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Jeffrey A. Fox 5270 Howards Point, Excelsior
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and welcome to everybody here with us in the Council chambers
and those watching at home. Glad that you joined us this evening. At this time I’d asked council
members if there’s any modifications or amendments to the agenda that was distributed with the
council packet? If not, we’ll proceed with that agenda. Without objection. I’d like to start out
this evening with an invitation to our residents and businesses, friends and neighbors to join
myself, other members of the council and a number of other people this coming Tuesday, August
1st for National Night Out. City of Chanhassen will be celebrating National Night Out again this
year. This is an event that’s designed to encourage citizens to get out and get to know their
neighbors, promote crime prevention awareness, and to provide an opportunity for public safety
representatives to visit with them. The City of Chanhassen takes great pride in being a safe place
to live and work. We are a safe city and our residents feel safe, and that’s important. Keeping
Chanhassen safe is a partnership between our citizens, our residents, our businesses and those
who serve the City. National Night Out supports this effort by reminding citizens that their
involvement is vital to maintaining safety in Chanhassen. With citizen participation we can
make an impact on crime and keep our city a safe place for everyone to live. August 1st, a week
from tomorrow, next Tuesday, representatives from the Carver County Sheriff’s Office and
Chanhassen Fire Department will be visiting Chanhassen block parties. We have a number of
block parties this evening already signed up. I believe we’re over 40, which is the highest we’ve
had in the years that we’ve been doing this up from about 34 last year, so participation continues
to grow for this event, which is a credit to all those involved. If you’re interested in hosting a
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
2
block party, or participating in one near your home, I’d encourage you to check our web site at
the City of Chanhassen or to call city hall, 227-1610 to get more information.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded
to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s
recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated July 10, 2006
-City Council Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated July 10, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated June 27, 2006
b. The Preserve at Bluff Creek, Project 06-12: Approve Access Agreement with Ryland
Group.
d. Amendment to City Code, Chapter 20, Section 1259, Concerning Electronic Reader
Board Signs.
e. Resolution #2006-49: Longacres Drive Stormwater Pond Outlet Improvement and
Lyman Boulevard Sewer Repairs, Projects 06-08 and 06-09: Reject Bids and Authorize
Re-advertisement for Bids.
f. Approval of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for Fund Raiser, September 30, St.
Hubert Church, 8201 Main Street
g. Resolution #2006-50: Approve Purchase of Grass Rig, Chanhassen Fire Department.
h. C.J.’s Coffee & Wine Bar, 600 Market Street, Suite 170: Approval of Request to Amend
the Liquor Licensed Premises for a Charity Event on September 30, 2006.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE.
Sgt. Ross Gullickson: Good evening. Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the council.
Ladies and gentlemen. Folks at home, good evening. Sheriff’s report and statistics for the month
of June, 2006. There were 158 criminal calls for service last month, consisting of 57 Part I
offenses and 101 Part II offenses. To clarify the definitions for everybody and for those at home,
Part I offenses by definition are the, of the Uniform Crime Report are offenses which include
arson, aggravated assault, burglary, homicide, robbery, rape, theft and theft of vehicle. Part II
offenses include all other crimes, some of which are simple assault or assault that does not result
in serious injury. Disturbing the peace, property damage, etc. Last month in June, Part I
offenses were broken down into the following. We had 6 burglaries were reported. Three of
those that were reported actually turned out to be unfounded, which means that what was
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
3
reported was not actually a burglary, and of the remaining 3, one business and 2 private
residences were burglarized. There were 50 thefts reported for the month of June, which is up 21
from last month. Theft related calls year to date are 176, which is up 37 from year to date totals.
Upon further research, I thought that that was a pretty substantial increase so upon further
research it was learned that the biggest jump in theft was related to gasoline drive off’s. With the
sky rocketing gas prices, people are filling up and driving off, so that’s where the biggest
increase came and of those 50, 16 of those were related to gasoline drive off’s. Part II offenses
were broken down into the following. The biggest jump in Part II offenses for the month was
disturbing the peace calls. There were 43 reported for the month, compared to 5 reported in
May. Again further research into this found that it was related to fireworks, with the 4th of July
celebration and the month of July. There were 25 calls for fireworks complaints. There was also
slight increase in property damage offenses. 28 reported last month. Or I’m sorry, in June
compared to 21 in May. There were also 1,065 non-criminal calls for service during the month
of June, which compares to 1,227 from last month. We saw a decrease in traffic stops. Traffic
stops were down 94 from last month totaling 327. We also saw an increase in suspicious
circumstances, or acts from 81 in May to 117 in June. There was also an increase in driving
complaints reported to the sheriff’s office, which was 64 compared to 52 in May. And there
were 288 citations listed, or issued in June. Fourth of July parade, my first day as a new sergeant
in Chanhassen was the day before the biggest celebration in the city. The parade and various
events all went according to plan with minor incidences reported here and there. But overall a
huge success, and at this point I’d like to take this opportunity to publicly thank the Chanhassen
Rotary, city staff, the street department, Park and Recreations and my staff and all others for the
planning and coordination that they did that made my job very easy as the new kid on the block.
Some of you may have also seen in the council packet that I set out, we did a crime alert. A city
wide crime alert was sent out regarding a rash of recent car prowlers in neighborhoods. I would
like to take this opportunity to remind those present and those at home to please remove all
valuables from your vehicles and to make sure that they are locked. Furthermore, please be
vigilant in watching your neighborhoods at night and report any suspicious activity, no matter
how minute they may think it is to 911 immediately. As the Mayor pointed out, National Night
Out is also right around the corner, and will be held on August 1st. National Night Out is
designed to heighten crime prevention awareness, promote neighborhood communication and
strengthen the bonds between public safety officials and the community. I would ask everyone
here, the folks at home, to find out where their local block parties are held at and participate. For
those at home that wish to register their block parties, so you can get a visit from various public
safety officials, you can contact the Crime Prevention Specialist at the number notified by Mr.
Mayor, which is 227-1610. Any questions, comments or concerns from the council?
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for the Sergeant. Very good. Thanks for the report.
Sgt. Ross Gullickson: Good evening.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Chief Geske is here this evening with the fire department. Good
evening Chief.
Chief Gregg Geske: Good evening. Couple things that I wanted to report that we’ll be involved
in, coming up one which has been mentioned of course, the National Night Out. We’ll have
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
4
three of our apparatus out in different neighborhoods and stuff, located around to different
meetings. Saturday, August 19th we’ll be involved with the Miracles for Mitch Foundation run
that’s in town here. First aid response and closing some roads and such. We’re also
participating with the Lion’s Club, their in a golf tournament on August 31st. Recently here in
the last week we’ve taken on 3 more rookie fire fighters. They’ll be starting the year long
classes and Fire Fighter I, Fire Fighter II, HAZMAT and their medical training so hopefully
they’re, at the end of the year they’re still with us after the grueling. It’s one of the things we do
meet with their family and stuff, and go over how much is involved, especially in the first year
and how much training’s involved so looking forward to taking those people on and they show a
lot of, definitely show a lot of excitement. Did want to mention the house fire that we had last
week. We had, during the daytime. We did call mutual aid from Excelsior, Chaska, Eden
Prairie, and we had standby from Victoria. It’s pointing towards the toaster but the fire was
pretty large by the time we got there. It was going through the roof. We were able to save some
of the pictures and stuff that were in the basement so the homeowners were very happy about
that. Want to pass on thanks and would also like to thank the sheriff’s department for the work
that they did and a couple of their people, the investigators stayed on the scene to help us to
investigate the cause and determination of the fire. Call numbers continue to be down. I guess
as long as it still works I’ll continue to chalk that up to fire education. Any questions or anything
tonight?
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for the chief.
Councilman Lundquist: Chief Geske, the reference to the fire last week. Hit pretty close to
home for me, just a couple of houses down actually in the neighborhood. One of the comments,
or several of the comments that I got, questions about the time that it took from the time the 911
call came in to the time, I mean there was a lot of things. The fire was fast and hot and all of
those things but can you talk a little bit about how long that one took and you know what’s the
standard. What’s normal. Expected or some kind of, is there a metric that you use to kind of
measure you know how fast you make it and those sort of things?
Chief Gregg Geske: Sure. And we hear that comment a lot you know from people that are
standing there waiting for the trucks. It seems like when 911’s called, then they stand there and
the fire keeps burning of course. The response time from the time that it was called in to us, or
reported to us by the dispatch to the time that we have the first vehicle or fire department vehicle
on the scene was 6 minutes so that, any time we can do it in about 8 minutes, especially during
the day, it’s pretty good response time. Of course with that one we did try to make entry, which
was too hot from internal or offensive mode, so we immediately we went onto a defensive mode
and set up our aerials so it takes a little bit more time and that to get the aerial up. Hook it up to
a hydrant because there’s only about 300 gallons of water on it so, you know we have to hook up
to the hydrant and it seems like it takes longer, like I say, as you’re standing there, especially
with the intensity of fire. Even before we got there it was coming through the roof and there was
smoke coming from the vents along the roof line, so that’s an indication that there is strong or
heavy load of fire in the attic area so, it wasn’t long after we showed up that there was quite a bit
of fire coming from the attic itself. I had got a call from city staff that we had a call. I work in
South St. Paul and made my way here, and before I could even actually get to the airport you
could see the column of smoke so as the fire progressed and we anticipated that it possibly
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
5
started and between 20 after 10:00 and 10:30 so it had a half hour basically before it was
reported you know to grow so. It does seem, but I was happy with our response times I guess
that we had, and you know the time, the daytime calls are definitely, we are short people and
that’s why we depend on mutual aid and getting other people there, but the response time was I
think was adequate that we had so. But it does seem, as you’re standing there, been there before
waiting for the rest of the trucks to get there and it seems like a long time, especially with the fire
rolling so.
Councilman Lundquist: So that 8 minutes is a metric that you use internally or is that some kind
of a national standard?
Chief Gregg Geske: There are some national standards and NFPA guidelines. You know there
are areas and are areas in our city where it takes longer to get, the lower Y for example. PI’s and
stuff takes longer for us to respond, but that’s kind of a goal that we shoot for too, and most of
the time we’re, we’re close to that response time too.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for the Chief at this time? No? Very good,
thank you.
Chief Gregg Geske: Thanks.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. Good evening Mayor and council members.
Mayor Furlong: Good evening.
Jerry Paulsen: We had a late e-mail which might have gotten to you. I put it on your desk there,
in regards to impervious surface, just to clarify. The original impervious surface came at 32.0.
After that, the second condition…and brought it to 42.6%. But that excluded the right-of-way
for the two streets which if you include that, and include the wetland, we’re up to the larger area
and the impervious surface we believe re-computes at about 47.1. If you add the gazebo, the
hardscape material at the beach, the pool and the artificial water features, we may be pushing
50%. Just wanted to remind you of that.
Mayor Furlong: And I appreciate you giving that to us. Did you give a copy to Ms. Aanenson as
well? Maybe when we get to that agenda item, she can address that. I know there’s some other
e-mails that went back and forth and some responses the council got copied on so, thank you Mr.
Paulsen. Appreciate that. Anybody else, visitor presentations? Very good, thank you.
LAKESIDE, 125 LAKEVIEW ROAD, APPLICANT SIENNA CORPORATION:
REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON 26.34 ACRES REZONING
THE PROPERTY FROM R12, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUD-R, PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL, WITH VARIANCES; PRELIMINARY PLAT
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
6
FOR 29 BUILDING LOTS, TWO OUTLOTS, AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PUBLIC
STREETS; SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 234 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,
INCLUDING TWO, THREE, FOUR, AND CONDOMINIUM UNIT BUILDINGS, AND A
COMMUNITY BUILDING; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT WITH VARIANCES.
Public Present:
Name Address
David Vogelbacher Apple Valley
Matthew Anderron Golden Valley
Rick Denman 6656 PLC
Steven Mangold 4852 Woodhurt Lane, Minnetonka
Gregory Kozulls Prior Lake
John Harriss Minneapolis
Tony L. 425 Portland Avenue
Mary Beth Maki 150 Lakeview Road E
Steven Schwieteus 10072 Gristmill
Daryl McLinden 7321 Hillsdale Court
Jerry Frederick 7297 Hillsdale Court
Stephanie & Thomas Drees 14727 Boulder Point Road
Chris Honaas-Wildfang 18397 Nicklaus Way
Scott Frederiksen 18626 Bearpath Trail, Eden Prairie
Bruce & Mary Jo Carlson 8988 English Turn, Eden Prairie
Ginny & Pat Gaspard 17615 Bearpath Trail
Andrew Pynch 8724 North Bay Drive
Phil Young 6832 Hallmark Drive, Eden Prairie
Kevin McShane 180 South Shore Court
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. We did review this item at your
last meeting on July 10th. We did provide an executive summary, which we addressed the issues
that you asked the staff to work with the development and most specifically with the elimination
of setback variance along the easterly side. Additional landscape buffering and preservation of
additional trees through the reduction or elimination of grading, and checking into the OHW.
We did provide that and that was one of the other e-mails that went through. It does show up on
the entire packet that you got. If you look through all the grading plans, it’s on page 2. Showing
this first, this dark line, and it is, the impervious surface was calculated. Everything above that.
Again the impervious surface is allowed at 50%. We believe that there’s a difference in
interpretation of calculating that and the corrected would be the 44%. In the staff report there is
no mention of the exact percent. What we said is that needs to be to the 50%, which we will
ensure that it meets that. Having said that, I’ll go through the changes that have been made since
the last time we met.
Councilman Lundquist: Kate um, that will insure us on that impervious will be done between a
preliminary and final?
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
7
Kate Aanenson: Absolutely, yeah. And if there’s changes. Obviously it’d have to stay below 50
because it would need a variance and so we have those changes that we’ll be showing.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So the changes, this is a black and white, but maybe I can just show. What’s,
the multi family building as we corrected at the last meeting, needs to meet the setback of the
height. Right now it’s shown on the 42, as it would be with the pitched roof. The rest of the
buildings all meet the 50 foot setback, even building C, which would be this back building right
in here. What that does is there’s a 3 unit here and a 3 unit here, so those have been eliminated
in order to, what it does is it changes. What they were trying to create is some different view
sheds. As you look, it wasn’t a straight line. Kind of a soldierisk, you remind the planning staff
sometimes when we put those units, so it actually had a little bit of a curve to the street, so what
this did is, took that curve out and now they’re kind of more aligned, but it does now meet the
setback requirements, so that variance has been eliminated. As I mentioned Building C also now
is in compliance with that setback. It is outside the shoreland district so it doesn’t need the
height variance, so then there’s still the issue on the height itself. But before I go to that, I just
want to touch a little bit on the grading and the landscaping. That was the other issue you asked
us to look at. The developer has eliminated any grading on the back side of condominium A,
which would be adjacent to the lake side and the Bearpath side. And meeting with Eden Prairie,
it appears that they’re going to move the trail to the most easterly side of their outlot, so they’ve
eliminated the grading, if I can translate that into kind of the tree preservation that’s there.
What’s shown highlighted in green, and I did pass this out. There are a few extra copies over at
the table. I did pass it out to the council, in case you can’t see that. But those were the
significant ones. The burr oak. Larger, 28 inch, 30 inch, but it would include everything but I
just wanted to show that. So everything behind the larger building, the condominium building
would, all those trees would be preserved. What the applicant is asking for, and now meeting the
setback would still be on those twin units as you move down towards the condominiums, that
they still have the opportunity to grade. Certainly that’s in Eden Prairie and that’s at their
discretion to approve that. We are recommending approval with the condition, and I’ve handed
out to you the modified conditions, and that’s reflected in, if you want to turn to conditions of
approval. And again I have extra copies of this at the table too. That would be reflected on page
29 of 33, and condition number 44. That the developer must receive approval from the City of
Eden Prairie for grading into the outlot. So any action tonight would still require Eden Prairie to
approve it. Again the goal there is to, while they’re, to make the view sheds nicer. What I
wanted to show, we did ask for renderings so you have an idea of what the change, can you
zoom in on that maybe a little bit. So this, as we put in the staff report on your cover memo,
exactly where this is on the 15th fairway is about 482 feet from that lot, looking towards, do you
have it out of focus? Looking towards what you would see right now. And the other questions,
so this is with the pitched roof, which is what the staff is recommending on the, we wanted the
pitched so it matches kind of what’s in the North Bay and the most visible one that you would
see also from the Bearpath homes. Then this would be the perspective from the lake itself. And
again with that beachlot, a majority of those trees would be saved. That beachlot itself is going
on the other most westerly piece. On the beachlot… It’d be over on this piece right here. So but
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
8
the majority of these trees have been, would be saved. So that’s why, that’s a pretty accurate
representation.
Councilman Labatt: How far out on the lake are you in this picture?
Kate Aanenson: I did ask that. I’m not sure if they had some way to calculate that.
John Harriss: 300 yards.
Councilman Labatt: So 900 feet.
Kate Aanenson: We did ask that and I didn’t get the correct, so there you go. So those are those
two. We did also ask for a perspective. What it would be with a flat roof. Now this is the exact
building. This doesn’t have the pitch on it, so this would be, so this building, I just want to be
clear, is the same materials. You can see, because if you look in the booklet it’s a little bit harder
based on the distance that you’re looking at it from the booklet. This has the same materials on
the building itself. This would be at 37 feet, so you’d only need a 2 foot variance. Again the
staff is still supporting the pitched roof. Again being the proximity and the visibility, that we
think a pitched roof looks better.
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, can you put the rendering of the 15 total.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. Kind of put those two in maybe. So with those, the only other variance
that was on there that I think you pretty much spoke to already was the beachlot association. The
fact that some of those lots fall outside the 1,000 foot, which is also the shoreline district. That
you seem to support that, so we didn’t spend too much time addressing that issue. We addressed
that already. So with that I believe those are the issues that you asked us to look at. And we are
still recommending approval with the conditions as modified that we kind of add to it, and I’d be
happy to answer any questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: So in summary, two weeks ago we were looking at a request for setback
variance and now there, with the changes there’s no setback variance required.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: On any of the buildings.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And while you looked at the Building A with a flat roof, it would still
require.
Kate Aanenson: A 2 foot variance.
Mayor Furlong: A 2 foot variance and you’re recommending.
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
9
Kate Aanenson: The 8.
Mayor Furlong: 8 or 6 more than what was…
Kate Aanenson: 6, correct.
Mayor Furlong: With the pitched roof.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And also recommending the other variance then would be, well there’s a
height variance on both A and B being requested and recommended by staff. And then the.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and let me just clarify again on Building B. Based on this orientation and
where it is on the site. It’s difficult to see whether you’re on Lyman or whether you’re on the
golf course side. Getting those kind of blocked from the other building, and the tree line from
the lake. And then Building C doesn’t need a variance because it’s outside the shoreline district.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Then the final is the beachlot which we discussed last week as well.
The beachlot variance.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: For in terms of including all the units…
Kate Aanenson: It seemed to make sense to put everybody in, yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Questions for staff at this time. Follow up questions.
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, the grading. Original grading plan that came two weeks ago
showed some grading behind Building A.
Kate Aanenson: That is correct.
Councilman Lundquist: So that’s been revised.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Lundquist: So that the grading, because I’m looking at, is that what this dotted line
on this one is?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. If you look at the original grading plan, if I could just show this really
quick. You would see that the grade, 910 was actually pushed up into that similarly up into the
outlot where the trail would be. That would ultimately be the possession of the City of Eden
Prairie for the trail. That has also been eliminated, as has the grading behind this building itself.
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
10
They’re just going to bench that in so there won’t be any grading on those trees back in there, so
all those trees will be preserved.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So that wouldn’t, when we’re looking at this rendering then, if
they’re not going to grade there, there should be more.
Kate Aanenson: Trees?
Councilman Lundquist: There should be more trees on there then what’s there now?
Kate Aanenson: I would agree because if you look at it, it looks like just the higher. You’re not
seeing the willows and some of those scrub trees that would be on, kind of on this side.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: There’s also, as you said, on that tree preservation, there’s additional trees
showing that there are the green ash. It’d also be saved so there would be more trees.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Then on here, with the revised grading plan. Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, so we identified that so the rest of the grading plan would still be
consistent with moving that, and again that’s a requirement that Eden Prairie would have to
approve. If they don’t approve it and they have to modify their grading plan, it would come back
before this body to approve something different.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So this is only modifying the grading plan for behind Building A. Otherwise it
was, and that’s in your conditions of approval as modified but otherwise the existing grading
plan would still be in place.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Could you clarify the area behind the condo project along the Eden Prairie
border? If they’re not grading into that area, where there be thinning out of any trees or
anything?
Kate Aanenson: No. It’s my understanding it’s not going to touch it. Correct?
John Vogelbacher: No.
Todd Gerhardt: Good question.
Mayor Furlong: And with regard to grading again, at our last meeting they talked about with the
revised grading, this was the first revision of, the most revision at our last meeting dealt with
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
11
storm water and the flow between I guess to the north of Building A and the first set of twin
homes there. Is that still, from a storm water management, is that still.
Kate Aanenson: This is the high point right in here so we’ll kind of look at how we need to look
at that. There shouldn’t be too much flow. I did talk to the Assistant City Engineer looking at
how much water’s going to come back through that. Now that the trail’s on the other side, we’ll
have grade going the other way. There shouldn’t be too much water that we would route around
the building.
Mayor Furlong: It would come east/west into.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and I think we can work with them without much impact to the site to
make that happen.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Then my other question on, okay. And I guess this speaks, I guess this
grading because I’m going to continue to follow up on Councilman Lundquist’s question.
Condition 37 talks about changes with emergency overflow again. Now this is the northwest
corner so I assume this is west of Building C, up by the North Bay development. That was a
concern that was raised at the Planning Commission. I thought we had addressed that but my
question, I guess two questions here. What has changed there. Second, one foot above the
emergency overflow. Is that standard? Is that enough? We’ve had some issues in the past
where the emergency overflow gets blocked or changed somehow.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. We can clarify where we are on the site. We’re down in this area over
here. Yeah. That was the area that was mentioned. I believe we’ve addressed that. That was an
issue that I ignored to add.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I guess has the grading plan changed at all there from the last
meeting?
Kate Aanenson: No, it has not.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And so this requirement of the first floor elevations being 1 foot above
the emergency overflow, then my question is 1 foot current standard there? Is that enough?
Paul Oehme: I think the current standard right now is 3 feet.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So why are we at 1?
Paul Oehme: I don’t know that for sure right now. The, I know there was some discussion about
changing the elevations of some of the, finished floor elevations there so, I don’t know exactly
why, why it’s at 1 foot correctly. So we’ll have to look at it.
Kate Aanenson: Between now and final plat. Also the fact that Building C shifted slightly.
There’s certain fixed touch down points on this project. Those being the entrance to the
condominiums, as there’s some challenging topography. Those are fixed points that we have to,
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
12
the developer had to work around, so there is a retaining wall on the back side of that. So we’ll
look at that. Whether it needs to be the 3.
Mayor Furlong: Would we want to say 1 foot then at this point in the preliminary or is that…
Kate Aanenson: It can be adjusted.
Councilman Labatt: I would say the standard. If the standard is 3 feet.
Paul Oehme: Right.
Councilman Labatt: We should leave it at 3 feet and then change it if we need to.
Mayor Furlong: I guess my question is that something, well I guess that’s why I’m raising the
question because 1 foot seems low but.
Kate Aanenson: It was 3 feet and it got struck to 1…reason for that so, whatever that needs to
be, we’ll make sure and we’ll point that out in the update. When it goes to final plat, what the
issue was there.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Work with staff I guess or to staff’s approval at this point unless there’s,
I mean it was obviously because as Ms. Aanenson said, it went from 3 to 1. There’s a reason for
it.
Kate Aanenson: There’s a rationale and I’m sorry, I don’t.
Mayor Furlong: It went from lowest to first, right.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Whether they’re lookout, walkouts, we’ll have to look at that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: I think it has to do with those row of townhouses on the west side, and floor
elevation there is why that had to get adjusted.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: But we’ll look at that before the final plat.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other questions that kind of go into, that went with the
grading? There’s been a change in grading there. Any other questions for staff? I guess at this
point, since this was brought back, or tabled with specific direction, I guess I’d ask, I don’t know
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
13
if we have to go through a repeat of last meeting in terms of applicant presentations and
everything, but I certainly want to make sure the council has an opportunity to ask any questions
that you have, whether it’s of staff or it’s of the applicant or if there’s any other information the
council is interested in receiving clarifications, either on the staff report or questions of the
applicant.
Councilman Labatt: So Kate, just to clarify. So the issue with the height, on the Building B. On
the corner there.
Kate Aanenson: That’s Building A.
Councilman Labatt: A, I’m sorry. You’re still recommending the variance for the pitched roof.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a quick comment? Or a question of us or.
John Vogelbacher: Just a comment. Clarification.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
John Vogelbacher: John Vogelbacher with Sienna. We were talking about the tree clearing, and
I just want to be certain that the council, there wasn’t any confusion as to what we’re proposing,
and in our initial presentation at the last council meeting I believe we identified 3 significant
trees. Three large trees that were behind Building A that would be, had been preserved. And
since that time we’ve modified the grading plan to eliminate all grading behind that building so
that basically right now we’ve identified 10 trees. Not all of them are significant but they are
nice trees. The bulk of the trees there are elm and box elder, and that’s the bulk of the trees that
are behind the building, and the ones that are in Eden Prairie. There’s no question that we’ll
have to go through a process to have the City of Eden Prairie approve whatever we do in the City
of Eden Prairie. But in terms of what our presentation is, is currently what we have is 10 trees
that are nice. They’re all either ash. Predominantly most of them are burr oak and good healthy
trees, and those are the ones that on the grading plan are identified as being preserved, and we
can do that because we’re not doing any grading behind the building, so I just wanted to be clear
that our proposal would be to clean that area up and to save the significant trees and species, and
just wanted to be sure that the council was aware of what our intentions were as we go over and
visit with Eden Prairie.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you.
Councilman Lundquist: So on the Chanhassen side, behind Building A, other than those 10, it’s
your intention to clean out all of the elms and all of the lesser trees in there?
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
14
John Vogelbacher: That’s correct. That’s correct, right. So we have actually identified the
exact trees and their location on the grading plan as to the ones that would be preserved and the
rest we would be looking to remove and to finish that area with a trail and turf and such so.
Councilman Lundquist: Any idea how, what the percentage or, so you’re 40 feet from the line
and that line is essentially 40 feet from the fence that’s there now, right?
John Vogelbacher: Yes.
Councilman Lundquist: Pretty close to. Okay, alright. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Very good. Again, this was
brought back so I guess at this point I would open it up to the council for discussion and/or as
part of that discussion, any clarifying questions. As we move towards consideration of the
proposal and the recommended motions. Thoughts. Comments.
Councilman Lundquist: Glad to see the progress on the setback variances. I think it’s debatable
whether the curved street is better than straight, or not, and how that looks. But it is good to
eliminate that variance and create that buffer there as well I believe. For the height variance, I
guess although I was you know the driver behind looking to reduce that or eliminate that height
variance, that flat roofed building doesn’t appeal to me really, compared to the pitched roof, so I
like the pitched roof better. It matches the buildings along side of it, and you know what’s in
that area so, I’m inclined to go for the pitched roof there. The third variance, I didn’t have any
issues on. I think we’ve got, you know we’re still in a, maybe the cart before the horse a little bit
here with some you know confusion and things going on with the City of Eden Prairie and on
that side and this side, so but I guess what we’ll look at, what I’ll look at tonight is, trust that the
City of Eden Prairie’s going to do what they think is best too for that overall and help us create
that buffer like we talked about last time so I’m comfortable with where we’re at on changes
here. Pulling those back. Still like to encourage, see you know as we come back between now
and final plat, if there’s some other, the rendering is good to see that. Like to see that picture is a
lot easier to tell what’s going on. I’m glad to see that the lakeside is buffered heavily, which is
good. Makes me feel a lot better from that and from the road there. Will be minimal impact.
But to see you know, guess I’m going to rely on the City of Eden Prairie then to you know push
that landscape piece through that when that trail goes through that 40 foot buffer to see if there
isn’t something else more that we can do on the buffering in that building and go from that, so
with the changes that are there, you know it’s not 100% ideal I guess but I’m convinced that
there’s going to be something on this site eventually and as we talked last time, the architecture
is still strong. It’s a good product overall so I’d like to, I’m comfortable going forward now and
you know it will be on the developer’s shoulders then to work out the other piece and that 40
foot outlot and see what they can come up with to help buffer the Eden Prairie side of the project.
I know that the residents on the Chanhassen side here are comfortable with what they’ve got and
seeing that Lakeview guarded now, I’m comfortable with that as well.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good, thank you. Other comments. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
15
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well I think I’ll just stick to my comments I made at our last
meeting. This project I think speaks for itself. I think it’s going to be an asset to our town. I
think that progress, positive progress was made when you think about the fact that there are, that
the setback variance has been deleted and that they have made an effort to save some more trees
to make a better buffer. I’m going to go along with staff’s recommendation for the 8 foot
variance for the pitched roof. I think that’s a much better product than a flat roof. And of course
last time I supported the beachlot variance and so I just, I’m thrilled that this…coming before us
and I wish them good luck.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: You know I don’t disagree with anything that Councilwoman Tjornhom or
Mr. Lundquist have said tonight on this project. It is a great opportunity for our city to take care
of 26 acres of land and redevelop it. The issues that Kate had addressed earlier, the height, I
would agree wholeheartedly with Building A to go with the pitched roof, and not the flat top.
That flat top says nothing and.
Mayor Furlong: You’re not talking about my haircut or anything.
Councilman Labatt: No. Not the haircut. So I like the, I like the pitched roof. Happy to see the
request for the variances on the eastern setback is gone. And the beachlot I can support that
variance too.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Appreciate the comments. Last week, or excuse me, 2
weeks ago last meeting when we considered this, you know we asked as a council, staff to look
into some potential changes to eliminate the variances. We’ve talked about that tonight. There
were some changes on the part of the applicant that we wanted to make sure, even though they
appeared to meet the requirements, that they did take the time to do that. And then also for staff
to incorporate comments at the meeting into the Findings of Fact and I think that was certainly
done as well with the distributed, those distributed with the staff report. I think the other thing
that occurred to me as I was reading through the report here is, where we are and the few things
that we’re discussing at this point is at the culmination of a very long process. And I know, as
I’ve been involved in this council, this current property has been an issue for the city. For the
nearby residents on all sides, and there were desires knowing that this property eventually would
be redeveloped, there were desires to make improvement in the area. I think a lot of those
improvements have been incorporated into this development. In fact just about all of them, even
up to the point now that, as Councilwoman Tjornhom said, you know the, it was alluded to as
well by Councilman Lundquist. Eliminating the request for the setback variance. I think that’s
an improvement. We can debate curved street versus straight. We may have different opinions
there, but I think I’ll always try to lean towards eliminating requests for variances as opposed to
not to. But I think while we might be able to debate that, I’m sensing that there’s very little
debate on whether or not to go with the height variance on Building A, which isn’t aesthetically
pleasing decision to make and not one that I would support. So I think, you know I appreciate
staff’s effort. I appreciate the developer’s effort. I appreciate all those that were involved in the
process. Back even before this current developer got involved years ago, comments that I was
receiving from our residents and others on how to improve this part of our town and I think this
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
16
will be an improvement and I think it’s something that we’ve worked hard to get. So I’m
pleased with where we are. I agree with staff’s recommendation on all the various items and
sounds like my fellow council members are in agreement with those as well. I think we’ve got a
proposal now in front of us that is an improvement. We took a look at some options and I think
Councilman Peterson was the one that said, let’s look at some things and see if we’re making,
going to make some gains or not. I think that Building A is a classic example of looking at
something and saying no. Don’t want to go there and, but we looked at it, so I think from that
standpoint that was good. With that, I want to thank everybody that’s been involved in the
process all the way along. Not only staff and the developer but residents as well that have
participated in the process. I spoke to that last meeting about how sometimes the process may
seem slow but I think there’s sometimes it’s important to take time to make sure we get it as
good as we can, and I think we’ve reached that point at this time so, I’m looking forward to
moving this forward and seeing this property be redeveloped based upon the plans that have been
put before us this evening. Any other comments? Questions at this point. We’ve got a number
of revised motions that have been distributed in hard copy as well so at this point, unless there
are any.
Councilman Labatt: Can I just ask for quick clarification? On page 28 of 33 then, number 37.
Are we going to leave it as is or are we going to? How we going to deal with that 3 or 1?
Mayor Furlong: I guess my question there or my thought would be to direct to staff how do you
want to deal with that? Do we go with the 1? There was a reason for this revision taking place
so we have to, have them work with staff. I’m assuming that there was a rational decision at the
same time want to make sure that we’re not going to cause the problem.
Kate Aanenson: If it’s okay, just on number 37 just say that the proposed grading plan in the
northwest corner near the wetlands needs to be adjusted so that it meets city standards. So we
can just leave it at that and then we’ll clarify that when it comes back for final plat.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Does that make sense to you Councilman Labatt?
Councilman Labatt: (yes).
Mayor Furlong: And again, at this point we’ll get any clarifying questions or other comments or
discussion? If not, at this point I’d entertain a motion. We have what, four. A, B, C and D in
front of us that have been distributed. Is there a motion?
Councilman Labatt: May I’d move that we, City Council approves the rezoning of property
located within the Lakeside development for High Density Residential District (R12) to Planned
Unit Development-Residential (PUD-R), incorporating the development standards contained
within the staff report subject to the final plat and approval for the Lakeside development.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
17
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion?
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves the rezoning of property located within the Lakeside development from High
Density Residential District (R12) to Planned Unit Development-Residential (PUD-R),
incorporating the development design standards contained within this staff report, subject
to the final plat approval for the Lakeside development. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Motion B.
Councilman Labatt: I would move that we, City Council approves the preliminary plat for
Lakeside, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated May 19, 2006, revised June 7, 2006,
revised July 17, 2006. There’s a typo there?
Mayor Furlong: Nope.
Councilman Labatt: With the revised grading plan dated July 24, 2006, and a revised tree
preservation plan dated received July 24th subject to the following conditions 1 through 55 with
amending number 33 to read the proposed. Or 33. The proposed grading plan in the northwest
corner near the wetlands needs to be adjusted so that it meets city standards.
Mayor Furlong: And that was condition 37.
Councilman Labatt: 37.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you, is there a second to that motion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion? Comments. Seeing none we’ll proceed
with the vote.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves the Preliminary Plat for Lakeside, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated
May 19, 2006, revised June 7, 2006 and July 17, 2006, with a revised grading plan dated July
24, 2006, and a revised tree preservation plan dated July 24, 2006, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The developer must submit a list of proposed street name(s) and an addressing plan to
Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval prior to
final plat of the property.
2. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
18
3. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Please contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
exact location of additional hydrants and any to be relocated.
4. A minimum buffer of 16.5 to 20 feet shall be preserved around the perimeter of the wetland.
All structures (including parking lots) shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the wetland
buffer. All trails and retaining walls shall be modified to remain outside the wetland buffer.
The plans shall be revised to reflect the required wetland buffer and wetland buffer setback.
Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s
wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs before construction
begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign.
5. The plans shall be revised to depict the OHW of Lake Riley, which is 865.3. All structures
shall be located a minimum of 75 feet from the OHW. The proposed fire pit shall be located
a minimum of 75 feet from the OHW and shall be buffered from the lake by vegetation. No
grading or intensive clearing of vegetation shall occur within the shore impact zone (all areas
within 37.5 feet of the OHW).
6. A conditional use permit (CUP) shall be obtained from the City prior to the operation of a
recreational beach lot.
7. All existing amenities and/or structures (including any docks, existing beach that is not
proposed to remain and the boat launch) on Outlot B, North Bay shall be removed. A boat
launch is not permitted.
8. The location of the building on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be adjusted to respect all drainage and
utility easements.
9. The applicant shall supply details about the water feature between the rear yards of the units
in Block 3, specifically the source for the water in the water feature. As an alternative to the
current proposal, the applicant should consider revising the plans to utilize storm water as an
amenity as part of a rain garden system in this area.
10. The applicant shall provide additional information detailing the proposed emergency
overflow (EOF) route from Pond 1 to Lake Riley.
11. The grading and landscaping proposed around Pond 1 shall be revised to provide a flat, open
area so maintenance equipment can access the flared end sections from Lake Riley Road East
without damaging the retaining wall or the landscaping and without being below the NWL of
the pond.
12. All storm water infrastructure, including catch basins, storm sewer pipes, manholes, flared-
end sections, outlet structures, ponds and swales, shall be owned, operated and maintained by
the developer and, eventually, the homeowners association. Prior to final plat recording, the
developer shall enter into an agreement with the City that outlines the parameters of
operation, inspection and maintenance of the storm water infrastructure. This agreement
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
19
shall be transferred to the homeowners association prior to the developer relinquishing
responsibility for the development.
13. The SWPPP shall be provided to the City for review by the Carver Soil and Water
Conservation District.
14. The plans shall be revised to show that erosion control blanket will be installed over all areas
with 3:1 slopes or steeper.
15. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the pond shall be provided. The EOF could consist
of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf re-enforcement mat (a permanent erosion control
blanket). A typical detail shall be included in the plan.
16. Energy dissipation shall be provided for all inlets and outlets within 24 hours of installation
17. Wimco-type or other comparable inlet controls shall be used and installed within 24 hours of
installation of the inlets. Perimeter controls and inlet protection shall be in place and
maintained as needed until 70% of the vegetation is established.
18. Typical building lot controls shall be shown on the plan in a typical detail. These controls
shall include perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street sweeping, inlet control
and temporary mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the Certificate of Occupancy
(CO).
19. The proposed storm water pond shall be used as a temporary sediment basin during mass
grading. The pond shall be excavated prior to disturbing up-gradient areas. Plans shall show
how the temporary basin will be constructed and how water will be diverted to the temporary
basin. Berms and/or ditches may be needed to divert water to the pond, and temporary pond
outlets are needed. The outlet could be a temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. The
plans shall be revised to include a detail for the temporary pond outlet.
20. The proposed silt fence along Wetland Basin B shall be Type 2 silt fence, as specified in
Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5300. Type 1 silt fence may be used for the remainder of
the site. The grading plan shall be revised to show the proposed silt fence following the
grading limits for the site and shall be located outside of the required 16.5-foot wetland
buffer. Silt fence shall be placed at the proposed high water level elevation of the proposed
storm water pond.
21. Street gutters and catch basins are considered “surface waters” and shall be protected from
exposed soils with a positive slope within 200 linear feet. Following installation of curb and
gutter, silt fence shall be installed curbside along all positive slopes to the street with exposed
soils.
22. Plans shall be revised to show erosion and sediment control measures for the road ditch along
Lyman Boulevard. All perimeter controls shall be inspected by the city and the SWCD prior
to grading.
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
20
23. Details for concrete washout areas where drivers will wash out their trucks and how the
water will be treated should be developed and included in the SWPPP.
24. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed.
25. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $195,293.
26. The owner/operator of the proposed development shall apply for and obtain permits from the
appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Transportation,
Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval.
27. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for
preservation and/or at the edge of proposed grading limits.
28. A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to
construction.
29. No burning permits shall be issued for tree removal. All trees removed on site shall be
chipped and used on site or hauled off.
30. The applicant shall increase landscape plantings along the east property line to minimum
bufferyard requirements.
31. No trees shall be removed behind the northwestern corner of the silt fence as shown on
grading plans dated 05/19/06.
32. A total of 139 trees shall be planted in the development as required for canopy coverage.
33. All existing buildings, driveways and accessory structures must be removed before grading
commences.
34. The lowest floor elevation of 106 Lakeview Road East must be field verified.
35. The high water level of the proposed pond must be minimum three feet lower than the lowest
floor elevation of the adjacent homes along Lakeview Road East.
36. The high water level of the wetland must be determined.
37. The proposed grading in the northwest corner near the wetland needs to be adjusted to meet
city standards.
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
21
38. Pavement grades at the following locations must be adjusted so that the grade does not
exceed 7%: West of Building A, and the northern street extending from the Lakeview Road
East intersection.
39. Private driveway grades shall not exceed 10%.
40. Ground (ie. non-paved) surface grades shall not be less than 2%.
41. Emergency overflow locations and elevations must be shown on the plan.
42. High point elevations between the catch basins must be shown along the east side of Block 2.
43. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
44. An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading. The
developer must receive approval from the City of Eden Prairie for grading in to the Outlot for
Bearpath 3rd Addition.
45. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
46. Building permits are required for all retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be
designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
47. All sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer within this site shall be privately owned and
maintained.
48. The watermain extension from Lyman Boulevard must be wet-tapped and must be done
under traffic.
49. The developer must provide ingress/egress to the North Bay residents for the duration of the
utility extension within Lake Riley Road East.
50. Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2006 trunk
hookup charge is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and
watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building
permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the
Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance.
51. The 15-foot wide sanitary sewer easement on the northwest side of the property must be
vacated.
52. The proposed pool house must not lie within the drainage and utility easement.
53. The payment of full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final plat approval in lieu of
parkland dedication.
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
22
54. The applicant shall provide all design, engineering, construction and testing services required
of the “Lyman Boulevard Trail.” All construction documents shall be delivered to the Park
and Recreation Director and City Engineer for approval prior to the initiation of each phase
of construction. The trail shall be 10 feet in width, surfaced with bituminous material, and
constructed to meet all city specifications. The applicant shall be reimbursed for the actual
cost of construction materials for the Lyman Boulevard Trail. This reimbursement payment
shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and receipt of an invoice
documenting the actual costs for the construction materials utilized in its construction.
55. The trail connection at the northeast corner of the site connecting the Lakeside area to the future
Highway 212 trail and underpass, as depicted in the applicant’s plans, is completed.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Motion C.
Councilman Labatt: I move that the City Council approves the plans, approves the Site Plan for
231 housing units and a community building with a pool, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering
dated May 19, 2006, revised June 7, 2006 and July 17, 2007? Isn’t that a typo there? 2006.
With a revised grading plan dated July 24, 2006, and a variance for building height for the
condominium units consistent with the building elevations prepared by Harriss Architects,
stamped received May 26th, subject to the following conditions 1 through 16.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion?
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves the Site Plan for 231 housing units and a community building with pool, plans
prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 19, 2006, revised June 7, 2006, and July 17,
2006, with a revised grading plan dated July 24, 2006, with a variance for building height
for the condominium units consistent with the building elevations prepared by Harriss
Architects, stamped received May 26, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. The pool, including the pool deck, shall be relocated outside the 50-foot setback from Lyman
Boulevard.
3. Accessibility must be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the
units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State
Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements.
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
23
4. Buildings over 8500 square feet of floor area are required to be protected with an automatic
sprinkler system. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not constitute
separate buildings and the areas of basements and garages are included in the floor area
threshold.
5. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by
the Building Official.
6. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site.
Application for such permits must include hazardous substances investigative and proposed
mitigation reports.
7. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
8. Walls and projections within three feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire-
resistive construction.
9. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional
engineer.
10. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
11. Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
12. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
13. Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the new
roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire code Section 501.4.
14. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of
fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
15. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be
removed from site or chipped.
16. Approved fire apparatus access roads (driveways) shall be provided for every facility,
building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the
jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access roads shall comply with requirements of Section 503
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
24
and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility or any portion of the exterior
wall of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of
the building or facility. Exceptions: Fire Marshal is authorized to increase the dimension of
150 feet where the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler
system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3. Pursuant to Section
503.1.1 2000 Minnesota Fire Code.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Motion D.
Councilman Labatt: I move that the City Council approves Conditional Use Permit for a
recreational beachlot with a variance from the requirement of 80% of the units live, 80% of the
units within 1,000 feet of the recreational beachlot. Prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated May
19, 2006, revised June 7, 2006, subject to the following conditions 1 through 9.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Councilman Labatt: Do we have to say with the Findings of Fact here?
Roger Knutson: I’ll get to that. I’ll recommend that as your next motion after…
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Motion D has been moved. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on motion D?
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves a Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beachlot with a variance from the
requirement that 80 percent of the units within 1,000 feet of the recreational beachlot,
plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 19, 2006, revised June 7, 2006, subject
to the following conditions:
1. A conditional use permit (CUP) shall be obtained from the City prior to the operation of a
recreational beach lot.
2. The plans shall be revised to depict the OHW of Lake Riley, which is 865.3. All structures
shall be located a minimum of 75 feet from the OHW. The proposed fire pit shall be located
a minimum of 75 feet from the OHW and shall be buffered from the lake by vegetation. No
grading or intensive clearing of vegetation shall occur within the shore impact zone (all areas
within 37.5 feet of the OHW).
3. The area of Outlot B shall be recalculated to include only the area within the outlot above the
OHW. The amount of shoreline for Outlot B shall be calculated along the OHW. The
number of docks and slips permitted by the conditional use permit for the beach lot shall not
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
25
exceed the number of docks and slips allowable by City Code for the actual beach lot area
and frontage.
4. All existing amenities and/or structures (including any docks, existing beach that is not
proposed to remain and the boat launch) on Outlot B, North Bay shall be removed. A boat
launch is not permitted.
5. The applicant shall work with staff on the design of and materials for proposed path from
Lyman Boulevard to the dock to minimize the impacts of runoff from the path to the
shoreline and Lake Riley.
6. The proposed walking path along the shoreline shall be made of a pervious surface such as
mulch, crushed rock or turf grass and shall not be located below the OHW. Special attention
shall be paid to ensure that the path materials are not prone to erosion. The plans shall be
revised to show the woodland gardens above the OHW of Lake Riley.
7. An individual permit shall be obtained from the DNR for any beach sand applications that do
not meet the DNR standards for sand blanket applications without an individual permit.
8. One beach area shall be permitted to minimize impacts to the lake and to adjacent residents.
9. The applicant shall work with staff on the placement of the beach lot infrastructure to
preserve as many of the existing trees in that area as possible. A survey of the area with the
tree locations will be required and used to facilitate tree preservation. The applicant shall
also work with staff on the location of the woodland path and woodland gardens along the
path.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, then it would be appropriate to adopt the Findings of Fact which are in
your packet that relate to all the items you just voted on.
Mayor Furlong: Relating to A.
Roger Knutson: A through D. That is correct.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a motion to such effect?
Councilman Labatt: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: Thought I was losing you there. Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
26
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adopt the Findings of
Fact relating to motions A through D as presented in the staff report. All voted in favor
and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Anything else on this matter?
Todd Gerhardt: No.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Thank you everyone. Very good. At this time I’ll take
a slight recess. Ask council to remain in our chairs. We’ll start up again in just a minute.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Furlong: Any council presentations?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor, I attended the 10th anniversary of Centennial Hills. It
was a beautiful day and good turnout and it was just a great celebration for all who participated
in the past and are there now in the present and looking forward to being here for the next
anniversary so, it was a good day.
Mayor Furlong: Well we appreciate you representing the council at that event.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, just like to again, in regards to the fire last week. Pass
along some positive comments that I received from some of my neighbors or several of the
neighbors on Mr. Gerhardt, how he handled the situation. Got a lot of positive comments on
offering assistance and help, along with the fire department to the resident there. The
homeowners and those things and how that situation was handled and responding quickly to
getting it boarded up and those things too. There was a lot of kids running through the
neighborhood. The house is in pretty bad shape so, keep those curious little kids running around
at a potential there so, and I did receive several positive comments from the neighbors on that so
Todd, thank you for your efforts and much appreciated.
Todd Gerhardt: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: Very good.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor I’d just like to add a few comments to that. It’s always amazing to go
out to scenes like this and you think there’s going to be all this chaos going on and you know
when you don’t train like the fire department does for this type of stuff, I mean every Monday
they’re over at the fire station training for some type of major event that’s going to go on. A
majority of it is fire but there’s a variety of other things and when you go out to the scene and
watch them in action, it’s just amazing how organized it is. They run it like a business. They
have the command area and they’re tracking everybody. The rest of the firemen are waiting for
direction. It’s just very, very organized and Greg Geske and the rest of the firemen do a fantastic
job with the help of Carver County Deputies and I’m just proud to be out there to watch it all and
just stay out of the way and I’m the guy where, keep an eye on him. You know he’s on the cell
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
27
phone to be talking to be so, but they do a great job and we should be very proud of our fire
department.
Councilman Lundquist: And my comments, not to diminish the effort of the fire department,
comments before. I think the, as Chief Geske said, when you’re standing there watching your
neighbors house go up in flames, it seems like it’s 6 hours and not 6 minutes but you have
comments, once the department was on the scene, they got things under control very quickly and
actually were able to minimize the damage to the house next door. Just some melted vinyl siding
which given the proximity of the houses could have been a lot worst so you know, it was by the
time they got there it was not a lot that they could do so, also positive comments once on scene
handled it very well and got it under control and did that so, not to diminish the performance of
the department or sheriff’s at all, by any means. They did a fantastic job, given what they had to
work with.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Unfortunately all their training, you hope they never
have to use it but when they do, it’s nice to see how it all pays off and appreciate all their efforts.
Okay. Thank you. Other council presentations.
Councilman Labatt: Sure.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah. August 1st I’ll be moving out of Chan. And ending my, after 8
years, excuse me. So it has been an honor to serve with you Tom and Brian and Bethany and
Craig. And you Todd. It’s been 13 years after Public Safety Commission and Council, and
changes in my home life. Personal life so it’s time, I’ll be moving to a northern suburb and I
wish you all the best of luck.
Mayor Furlong: Well, I will start and fortunately we’re going to have you back here because we
don’t have a Maple Leaf right now, so as they say, I reserve my reply and extend my remarks.
Steve, I’m going to miss you a lot, and I appreciated your counsel, especially on issues of public
safety and others and your insight, and we’re going to miss you. I appreciate the relationship
that you’ve provided to the council over the years as well. It’s been a joy to serve with you. So,
but again we’ll have you back.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: And you know talk a little bit more about your service and years of service.
Councilman Labatt: Good.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor I’d just like to add that Steve’s resignation from the City Council and it’s
bittersweet for us I think. You know Steve has been an outstanding City Council member. For
the past 8 years he’s served on the City Council and the best example I can give comes from
Commissioner Tom Workman on his 4 years on the City Council it was like going back to
college. We deal with some very complicated and sometimes emotional issues and Steve has
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
28
dealt with this for 8 years and has done a fantastic job. I know that he’s always stayed connected
with me throughout that period. Continuing to follow up on issues when, you know a lot of it
was on the public safety side of it, but also personal issues with residents or accidents that may
have occurred in the community. But Steve has done, been involved with so much. He served
on our public safety commission 6 years prior to getting on the City Council, and there may be
some overlap there when you were on the City Council, but helped us in a variety of things to
make the police contract with Carver County much better. Helped us just think about some of
the things we accomplished here these past 8 years with water treatment. Our overall trail and
park system. The Chanhassen new library. Starting from the planning to the final development
of that. Probably I don’t know how many residential units that you’ve been involved with.
Quite a few.
Councilman Labatt: Kate would probably know.
Kate Aanenson: A lot.
Todd Gerhardt: But you know, on behalf of the, my staff and I’ve got to speak for the rest of the
council and previous council and mayors, you’re going to be dramatically missed with your
experience and knowledge of what you’ve gained over this past 8 years and as our friendship has
grown, I’m going to miss you personally in things I share with you and you share with me and
I’m going to miss that a lot.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah.
Todd Gerhardt: So thank you very much.
Councilman Labatt: You’re welcome. Thank you.
Councilman Lundquist: Steve, it’s been an interesting 4 years I guess. Most of the time we
agree. Not always but the one thing I think I always admired and counted on you for was all the
history of all the, you had this uncanny knack of remembering things that happened 7 years ago.
Some strange condition, obscure thing in some deal somewhere, to pull it out. You know but for
whatever reason in that circumstance it was important and had some bearing on it so even that
was something that I always admired that you were able to pull that stuff out. And you know
wish you the best of luck in going forward in all the changes and things in your personal life. I
hope that stuff works out for you and it’s been great serving with you and best of luck in the
future.
Councilman Labatt: Thank you.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And Steve I want to ask you to stay again. I won’t go there again
with that whole.
Councilman Labatt: She was the first one I called.
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
29
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I offered to help anyway I could. But I just want to say thank you. I
came on as a rookie and I really leaned on you a lot during those work sessions. Asking you
questions and you were always there to help me and I really relied on your support and I just
really appreciated the things that you taught me. And you are going to be missed. You were a
real part of this community and I think you know, you have a civic duty that you do and then
also here, and you’re a big asset to our whole town and we’ll miss you but congratulations on
brighter days ahead, and please keep in touch.
Councilman Labatt: I will.
Mayor Furlong: Obviously that creates an issue for the remaining 4 of us. Mr. Gerhardt, I know
you and I chatted today but I guess I’d prefer to, or ask that possibly next meeting we put an item
on our agenda to talk about options with regard to the council vacancy.
Todd Gerhardt: Staff will do that, yep.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, excellent. Just to continue the thoughts on this issue. Had a wonderful
week this last week with my family in South Dakota, in the Black Hills and we went to see
Mount Rushmore, which I was looking forward to. I’d never seen it. It was a, gave you tingles
and a sense of patriotism. My children enjoyed it as well, but one of the things that it reinforced
for me personally was just how fortunate we are as a country to have a system of government
that we do. A representative democracy by our own citizens and to talk about and relive for, or
re-listen to the story of the Revolutionary War. The fight for independence from a monarchy. It
was something that was very touching for me. I bring it up now in part because Steve you will
be part of that. Public service. Resident of this city for how many years.
Councilman Labatt: 18.
Mayor Furlong: 18 and serving as an elected official and now unfortunately as Todd said,
bittersweet for us. Happy for you for what you’re going to, but sorry to see your leave but now
return to a private citizen. And while that’s an important part I guess. Just thinking about what,
when I saw your e-mail last night when I came home… It just reinforced what a wonderful
country we are all fortunate to live in and our form of government so, thank you very much for
your service. Any other discussions or council presentations at this point?
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: The only thing I have to add right now is that we have gone over to Byerly’s and
got a going away cake so we would ask everybody in the audience and anybody that would like
to come up and say good-bye to Steve informally. We’re going to have more of a formal send
off when we get the Maple Leaf done, but at the conclusion of this meeting we’re going to serve
up some cake and thank Steve personally.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Ask him about the cake?
City Council Meeting – July 24, 2006
30
Mayor Furlong: I’m going to open that up to any other city related matters as well. Seeing none,
very good.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:10
p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
JULY 18, 2006
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, Kurt Papke, Dan
Keefe and Kevin Dillon
MEMBERS ABSENT: Deborah Zorn
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; and Josh Metzer, Planner I
Due to the fact that the applicant for the first item, Mr. Veltkamp was not present, item 2 was
presented first.
PUBLIC HEARING:
WAYTEK, INC.: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 100,000
SQUARE FOOT ONE-STORY OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2440 GALPIN COURT IN CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK,
PLANNING CASE 06-27, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION.
Public Present:
Name Address
LuAnn & Peter Sidney 2431 Bridle Creek Trail
Bill Olson 2403 Bridle Creek Trail
Ben Merriman 8155 Mallory Court
Sue Marlock 2325 Boulder Road
Bob Lamoreaux 7660 Quattro Drive
Mike, Peter, John, Wayne & Mark Larson 7660 Quattro Drive
Barry LaBounty 2421 Bridle Creek Trail
Rod Zivkovich 2337 Boulder Road
Mark Undestad removed himself from the Planning Commission for this item. Bob Generous
presented the staff report. Commissioner Dillon asked about the number of trees required on the
site. Commissioner Keefe asked for clarification on the height of the berm and landscaping. The
applicant, Ben Merriman with Eden Trace Corporation presented samples of materials proposed
for the building, sight lines drawings, berm details and lighting. Planning Commission members
asked the applicant to speak about the number of tenants proposed the building and screening of
roof top equipment. Chairman McDonald opened the public hearing. Peter Sidney, 2431 Bridle
Creek Trail expressed concern with the height of the berm, construction of the berm interfering
with the drip line of the tree on the corner of this property, screening noise from the roof top
Planning Commission Summary – July 18, 2006
2
equipment, that there will be no lighting on the north side of the building, hours of operation, and
the height of the wing wall on the northeast corner. Laura who lives at 2384 Stone Creek Lane
West expressed concern with truck traffic on Galpin interfering with school traffic. Bill Olson,
2403 Bridle Creek Trail stated he would like to see as many trees as possible remain in the
northeast corner of the site. Barry LaBounty, 2421 Bridle Creek Trail stated his primary concern
was the height of the building, screening the view and noise of the air conditioning units on top
of the roof, hours of operation and associated truck traffic. Chairman McDonald closed the
public hearing and asked the owners of Waytek to address the concerns with hours of operation,
truck traffic, number of employees, and if there would be sub-leasing of any part of the building.
After commission comments and discussion the following motion was made.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LOREN VELTKAMP: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM 30 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE EXPANSION OF SECOND LEVEL OF
HOME WITH NONCONFORMING SETBACKS. TWO SETBACK VARIANCES WILL
BE REQUIRED BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS A CORNER LOT. THE SITE IS
LOCATED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RSF) AT 6724
LOTUS TRAIL, PLANNING CASE 06-25.
Public Present:
Name Address
Sig & Don Sennes 6680 Mohawk Drive
Keith Gunderson 6661 Mohawk Drive
Jeff King 767 Carver Beach Road
Bruce Johansson 6701 Mohawk Drive
Jim Boeshans 6651 Pawnee Drive
Mike Henderson 6701 Mohawk Drive
Shelly Berg 6701 Mohawk Drive
Liz & Matt Tibbetts 6699 Mohawk Drive
Doris Martin 6650 Pawnee Drive
Susan Telander 11516 Bender Court
Loren Veltkamp 6724 Lotus Trail
Kate Aanenson presented background information and proposed motions for the Planning
Commission to consider. Chairman McDonald asked staff to clarify actions needed to be taken
on options A, B and C. Josh Metzer presented the staff report. Commissioner Dillon asked for
clarification on the previous permits that were issued and work that was done without permits.
The applicant, Loren Veltkamp reviewed historical information on what he’s been told by city
officials in the past about the status of his property, and presented reasons why the variance
should be granted. Chairman McDonald noted that citing Supreme Court decisions had no
bearing on what was before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Larson asked the
applicant to explain what changes affecting setbacks have occurred since he purchased the house
in 1990. Commissioner Dillon asked the applicant if he would be willing to comply with the
conditions of approval if the variances are granted. Commissioner Papke asked the applicant to
Planning Commission Summary – July 18, 2006
3
explain how he manages his rental agreements. Chairman McDonald opened the public hearing.
Jeff King, 767 Carver Beach Road stated his three concerns were making sure all city codes are
upheld, the number of windows on the second level overlooking the public swimming beach, and
that he would not like to see Tamarack Road vacated but used as a public walkway to the beach.
Bruce Johansson owns two properties directly west of this property, 6701 Mohawk and 6711
Mohawk. In passing around photographs he showed pictures of the second story obstructing his
view of Lotus Lake and devaluing his property. He believes Mr. Veltkamp has the right to build
the house as it was prior to the fire, but he doubled the size of the house from the time he bought
it and is relying on the rent as a source of income. Mr. Johansson, along with the neighbors
within 500 feet made a request to the Park and Recreation Commission to use Tamarack Road as
a public pathway to the beach. He also opposes the variance request because he does not believe
there is a hardship. Liz Tibbetts, 6699 Mohawk opposes granting of variances for this property.
Mike Henderson, 6701 Mohawk stated his opposition to the height variance and passed out the
sheriff’s report commenting on the type of family environment going on with the rental situation.
Chairman McDonald closed the public hearing. Loren Veltkamp commented that the roof on the
new plan will provide for a better view than the old roof. After commissioner comments and
discussion, the following motions were made.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission moves to concur with the
planning staff’s interpretation that the owner of property at 6724 Lotus Trail, Loren
Veltkamp has been renting the property as defined in the City Code Article VIII, Rental
Dwelling Licenses, Section 10-217, Rental Dwelling. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission deny the variance for 22 foot
and 15 foot front yard setback variances for the expansion of the second level of a home
with non-conforming setbacks in the single family residential district at 6724 Lotus Trail
based on the following:
1. The applicant has reasonable use of the property.
2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
3, There’s an alternative process to secure a rental license.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Papke moved, Larson seconded to adopt the amended Findings of Fact as stated by the
Planning Director. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6
to 0.
Chairman McDonald reviewed the actions of the Planning Commission as agreement with the
city staff in their interpretation that the owner of the property at 6724 Lotus Trail has been
renting the property. Under the code, the Planning Commission adopted staff’s recommendation
C which states that what the applicant should do now is apply for a rental license to look at it as a
Planning Commission Summary – July 18, 2006
4
two family rental on the dwelling and at that point the Planning Commission will apply, based
upon those standards, whether or not the variances would be approved.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keefe moved, Commissioner Larson seconded
to note the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated
June 20, 2006 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a
vote of 6 to 0.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 18, 2006
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, Kurt Papke, Dan
Keefe and Kevin Dillon
MEMBERS ABSENT: Deborah Zorn
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; and Josh Metzer, Planner I
McDonald: Okay with that I will open up the hearing tonight. We had the Loren Veltkamp case
before us and this is a variance request for relief from 30 foot front yard setbacks, requirements
for the expansion of the second level with non-conforming setbacks. Two setback variances will
be required because the property is a corner lot. The site is located in the single family
residential district at 6724 Lotus Trail. This is Planning Case 06-25. Staff your report please.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, before we start, just point of order. I don’t believe the applicant is here on
this one. I believe there’s people here that are interested in it, so that’s the first. And then I’d
like to give some background before we go back and review the variance so, I’ll leave it up to
you.
McDonald: Would you like us to proceed to the next case on our agenda?
Aanenson: That’s one option. Otherwise we still could proceed. There is a right to appeal
whatever your recommendation is so.
McDonald: Has the applicant contacted you about the meeting?
Metzer: Not today, no.
McDonald: Any indication of whether he did not intend to appear?
Metzer: He did not let us know that he wouldn’t be here. He was given verbal indications about
this meeting and also written notice that this hearing was going to be tonight.
McDonald: Well I guess as Chair what I would prefer to do then is bypass this one. We’ll bring
up the second case before us. If the applicant has not appeared by the time the second case is
completed, we will proceed. So at this point then what I would like to do is we will proceed to
the second case on our agenda.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
2
PUBLIC HEARING:
WAYTEK, INC.: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 100,000
SQUARE FOOT ONE-STORY OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2440 GALPIN COURT IN CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK,
PLANNING CASE 06-27, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION.
Public Present:
Name Address
LuAnn & Peter Sidney 2431 Bridle Creek Trail
Bill Olson 2403 Bridle Creek Trail
Ben Merriman 8155 Mallory Court
Sue Marlock 2325 Boulder Road
Bob Lamoreaux 7660 Quattro Drive
Mike, Peter, John, Wayne & Mark Larson 7660 Quattro Drive
Barry LaBounty 2421 Bridle Creek Trail
Rod Zivkovich 2337 Boulder Road
Laura Sp
Mark Undestad removed himself from the Planning Commission for this item. Bob
Generous presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Thank you. Debra?
Larson: I don’t have any questions.
McDonald: Go ahead.
Dillon: Just one comment. I mean in terms of the proposed trees near the parking lot. There
were quite a few less trees proposed from what the regular guidelines are. So looking at some of
the other areas, there are more trees but you know why, what was the deal with that?
Generous: That’s just how they originally designed it. The conditions that they’ll need to
comply. I think the parking lot, with the additional parking lot islands on the south side, we can
get some more trees in there. However we are also looking at the potential for revegetating the
open space in Outlot C with more native trees and where that berm extends into the open area,
we’d like to see additional trees planted in that also so. We think it’s a win/win because Outlot C
is part of this development was a common outlot for all the lots and so if they needed to get
additional green space, they could take it from that property. And so now we get some
additional landscaping in that.
McDonald: Mr. Keefe?
Keefe: On a related note. Just, what is the height of the berm. I recall from when we looked at
this before, didn’t we have some language in there that talked about visual height and what the
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
3
view, particularly I think from the north side and I’m just wondering if that was considered or, I
thought that was made part of the design requirements. And so I guess you know I just want to
get a full understanding of what the height of the berm is and where the trees are and what sort of
the visual will look like from the north end. Can you give us any sense on that?
Generous: Well Alyson can talk about the height of that I believe.
Fauske: Commissioner Keefe, as far as your question of the height of the berm, it ranges from 4
to 10 feet high. And then I can, I don’t have a cross section available that would give you any
idea as far as elevation. Just looking at the grading plan here, if you look at the back yards of the
homes to the north, it’s approximately 10 feet high from the ground of their back yard to the top
of the berm.
Keefe: Okay, and then types of trees. It will be a mix of.
Generous: It will be deciduous and conifers in there. And also they originally showed that
buffer immediately adjacent to the property line. One of our recommendations is that they
spread that out, as well as provide additional trees up next to the building.
Keefe: So you get this kind of stand.
Generous: Yeah, you get a little depth to your screening and as they grow, they sort of fill in.
It’s a little better than just a narrow row of landscaping. As well as we think they can raise the
elevation of that berm a couple more feet by, when they do the extension. They have plenty of
dirt out on the development so.
Keefe: And then on the east side, it’s only landscaping? No berm?
Generous: It will come down, in the northeast corner of the site there’s that existing stand of
vegetation and we really prefer that that remain. It’s pretty dense in there. It may not be year
round but it is you know right now you can’t see through that area and we’d prefer that that not
come out.
Keefe: Okay.
McDonald: With that, is the applicant present? I have no questions by the way, so if the
applicant wishes to come forward.
Ben Merriman: Good evening. I’m Ben Merriman. I’m with Eden Trace Corporation, and I’ll
just briefly go through the project. I think Bob’s done a real good job of explaining. There’s a
couple of things I’d like to go into with regard to the berm. A couple of other things of details on
the plan. On the building itself, we’ve used a number of different materials. We’ve got, it’s a
pre-cast or poured wall, but they’re exposed aggregate and we’ve used a couple of different types
of exposed aggregate, and then we’ve also used some smooth faced areas in it as well. The
smooth faced areas you can see are in these areas here, over the entryways, and these columns.
These are actually fake columns and they’re used in there. We’ve also got a lot of cornices
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
4
through in here, so we’ve got a lot of architectural to the building. We’ve given a lot of breaks
because it is a fairly long building. We’ve given it a fair number of breaks throughout there with
the entries and these column posts. Waytek is the company that’s going to be moving into the
facility and they’re currently in Chanhassen. They’re on Quattro Drive. They’ve expanded once
in their current facility and now they’ve outgrown it and so the building is for them and they feel
it will serve them for years to come. We do have, as Bob pointed out, office area that Waytek’s
main entrance is in the southeast corner, and this is a view of their entrance, and they will have
office in this corner of the building. It’s 110,000 square feet. It’s on 7.9 acres. We have about
31% green area, and the balance is asphalt and building, so we’re in compliance there. I’d kind
of like to talk a little bit about the berm area because that’s probably an area that we’re going to
do a little bit more work in. We’re going to have about a 4 to 9 foot berm, which we can
increase some along in here, but we’d like to make some few corrections. As Bob pointed out,
there’s a stand of trees in this corner down here, and there’s a house back in here and he’s going
to be facing pretty much towards this parking lot and so I think he’s here tonight, but we could
increase the berm right through this area to hide the parking and the corner of this building. If
we take out a few of these trees in the corner, we could also increase the berm and then plant
perhaps some evergreen trees and those which, these are deciduous trees and they’re going to
lose their leaves during the winter. The evergreens would hold and so we could do that for this
corner of the building. As we pointed out, there’s a wing wall that’s going to extend out into this
area here, and we’ll extend that wing out and then the berm will extend out this way and it may
meander a little bit. There’s a large tree here, and you can see it’s hard on this drawing but you
can see the drip line of that tree. We may change this corner a little bit to try to stay away from
the center of this tree. Try to save that tree, and then extend maybe the berm in here. Most of
the trees that you see are all lined up right on the property line down here, and that probably will
not be the end result. We’ll move a lot of these onto this berm here. If it exceeds 9 or 10 feet in
height, we may have some problems trying to keep trees on that berm. We can plant bushes but
if you plant trees on the top of a berm, it gets a little bit tricky in trying to keep them alive, but
there is a, we can plant additional trees up in here and extend that berm and maybe raise it up a
little bit. With regard to sight line. Do you have full scale plans here?
Generous: The revised one?
Ben Merriman: Well I think either one. If you’ll look, it will be, can you get this detail? Here’s
a detail of the berm. This is the north wall of the building itself, and then the berm comes up to
approximately 9 to 10 feet and then slopes back down. This is the sight line from the property
line, so if you’re right here in 6 foot of height, here’s what you were looking at. Now this berm
goes back. This wall, this comes up a little bit and then the homes sit in here so, you were asking
about the a sight line and this is a sight line that the architect has prepared. And that’s with a 9
foot berm, and we’re going to play that with a little bit. So just to give you an idea of what that
looks like. On the east side we’ve got a number of trees that are being planted here. There’s a
large grove of trees that continue in here. We’re going to put a retaining wall along on one
section through in here, and then parking. But this is a fairly significant drop off and doesn’t
taper down to grade with Galpin until you get down into this area in through here. So we think
we’ve done an adequate job of lining up trees, with the existing to mitigate any view of the
building from the neighborhood that exists over in here. This area, we’ve hidden the loading
docks with these two. The wing walls here and it faces out into Outlot C, which is never to be
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
5
developed. So that should work out quite well. I think that’s pretty much it unless you have
some, oh lighting. I’d like to cover lighting a little bit. There are no lights on the north wall of
this building. There are wall packs throughout the building and they face downward and they’re
for security and safety reasons. We’re going to eliminate any pole lighting that was originally
planned in the parking lots and just go with the wall lighting. This will help in deferring light off
into the neighborhood so we think that will help a great deal.
Keefe: What height are those placed on the building?
Ben Merriman: You know I don’t think it’s actually been determined exactly what height but I
would suspect that they’re probably going to be 15 feet in the air. On the building. Facing
downward. They’re kind of a can light, or not a can light but a covered light that faces
downward so it doesn’t reflect and light directly out. There is no paint on this building. It’s
entirely pre-cast or exposed aggregate, metal and then all aluminum windows and doors. I think
that pretty much covers it. Is there any questions I might be able to answer?
McDonald: We’ll find out.
Keefe: Just one quick question. Is there a single, you said Waytek is going to be the tenant. Is,
or the owner I presume.
Ben Merriman: They are the owners.
Keefe: And is it anticipated it will be a single user?
Ben Merriman: They may lease out some of the space for a time. They haven’t made out the
final decision. The owners of the company are here and so I’m sure I can get one of them to
come up and answer any questions about their plans for the building. The complete ownership.
McDonald: Kevin, any questions?
Dillon: On the roof of the building, are there like air conditioners or you know that type of
things? And if so, how will they be intrusive or how is that going to be screened?
Ben Merriman: Yes there are. If we get back to this drawing again down here, it kind of gives
you an idea. Can you zoom in just a bit? Okay, great. This is actually an air conditioning unit
right here. And this is a parapet and so the wall comes up and the roof attaches here and the
parapet extends beyond the roof. What that does is take care of any sight lines, so those air
conditioners units are set far enough back from the parapet, or the edge of those buildings that
they’re not visible.
McDonald: No questions? The only question I had was a comment you made about the lighting
in that front parking lot. You said that there will not be lighting there. Only on the building
itself. Is that going to be sufficient for the safety of that parking area at night?
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
6
Ben Merriman: Yes. Well, the lighting can be increased. The number of lights and the intensity
of the lights can be increased so that it covers the parking area but doesn’t extend beyond the
parking area. And so that’s quite easily accomplished, and the other alternative is to go with
poles. Put poles out and then put, it’s called a shoe box light on there and then it floods light
downward. It’d be a little bit more intrusive to…pole lights than with a shoe box, even though it
defers light straight down and we do a study of the lights so it doesn’t penetrate past the
boundary of the property, it’s still going to be more of a view than if they were wall packs on the
building itself.
McDonald: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that at least the parking lot’s going to be
illuminated enough at night so that employees can go in and out safely.
Ben Merriman: Yes, there will be.
McDonald: Okay. That’s all the questions that I have. At this point then I would open it up to
the public and ask anyone to come forward with comments and again, state your name and
address and please address the Chair. Okay, seeing no one come forward.
Peter Sidney: Sorry.
McDonald: Okay, I’ll unring the bell.
Peter Sidney: I was waiting to see if anyone else would come up. I’m Peter Sidney. I live at
2431 Bridle Creek Trail, and so we are about here. On the corner of the building and the parking
lot and the Outlot C. There are a few concerns and questions that I wanted to raise. One has to
do with the berm height, and I don’t know, I’m obviously not an expert so I don’t know what is
possible but I recall that in the earlier discussions of this property there had been talk of a berm
of 15 feet high or something like that because we have expressed concerns about shielding the
residential properties on the north side of the building. So I would ask about that. And in terms
of extension of the berm to the west, we have a tree that is near the lot line and we would ask that
any extension of the berm does not go within the drip line of this tree, which does, the drip line
does go into Outlot C and so we would want that not to, not to interfere with the roots of that
tree. We have a little bit of concern with the northwest corner of the parking area and Ben has
addressed it to a certain extent, but there are some very large oak trees near the property line that
are in Outlot C, which according to this plan looks like they’re going to be lost and we would
want to encourage the developer and the owner to minimize the loss of trees there. I’d also like
to emphasize that in terms of the roof top equipment, the parapet will apparently screen the sight
of the equipment on top and the view, but we also have concerns about screening for the sound
and if there’s anything that can be done in terms of screening the equipment itself to mitigate any
sounds from that. And I just wanted to confirm, it sounded from what Ben said that the, on the
north side there will be no lighting, and I just want to confirm that. Also a question to the
owners of Waytek. What will the hours of operation be for the new building, or what are they
the current hours of operation? And then I noticed that in the plan, in the document from the
staff that this can be a multi tenant building, and I wanted to ask about what plans there might be
related to that, and on the plan it looks like there are multiple entrances all along the building and
I just wanted to confirm that that was the case. Finally related to the northeast corner wing wall,
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
7
on the plan here I’d be curious how far out 10 feet goes and then also how high that wing wall
would be. And I think those are all the concerns and questions that I wanted to raise. Thank you
Mr. Chairman.
McDonald: Okay. Does anyone else wish to come forward? Come on up.
Laura K.: I’m Laura...and we’re at 2384 Stone Creek Lane West. And my question involves
the 18 wheelers that are going to be running out of there and I’m curious about how many are
expected to run up Galpin. I mean there’s Bluff Creek School is right there, and then you’ve got
plans for a Chanhassen High School, and those big semi trucks, which I’m understanding are
going to be the result of this company, don’t seem to go along with kids driving and also the fact
that there’s schools there, so I’m wondering if any concerns were addressed along those lines.
McDonald: Does anyone else wish to come up and make comment?
Bill Olson: My name’s Bill Olson. I’m at 2403 Bridle Creek Trail. We just moved in in March,
and have subsequent been absorbed into this rather fast. I guess my question to the council and
belief in the council is just that in your best taste and interest to the community that that wall that
they’re proposing on the northeast side, to add that and take out some of those bigger trees,
whether it’s summer or winter, still a 30 year old tree does provide nice coverage and would
rather see as many of those stay as possible. Other than that, that’s it.
McDonald: Okay, thank you.
Barry LaBounty: Hello. My name’s Barry LaBounty. I live at 2421 Bridle Creek Trail, which
is the house that will be directly facing the development here, and I guess my concerns tonight
are primarily is the height of the building. It’s pretty significant and if the parapet that’s planned
is not tall enough, I’ll actually be looking right out from my bedroom window and be able to see
a sea of air conditioning units across a very large building, and so I’d like to have hopefully
some consideration there along with as Peter Sidney mentioned, the sound screening for those
fans that will be running constantly. Today we can hear the Chaska development with all the
businesses over there from my house. You can hear those quite significant. Also if possible
have the owner of the business maybe give some sort of statement on the amount of shipments
that go out daily. The hours of operation. Kind of the type of shipments that go out. Is it
typically LTL shipments? Is it UPS? FedEx? What hours are they picking up during the day
and night? And as far as the berm height goes, again it was mentioned at one time possibly
getting a berm height as high as 15 feet. I think as well the higher that berm height is, the more
sound that’s going to absorb. As you can see now, the berm height’s probably 30 plus feet. We
do not hear much sound today so it’s certainly when they lower that, the sound is much greater.
And again reiterate that the wing wall being of enough length and height to hopefully block any
significant truck traffic that would be moving in and out of the area at those times. Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment? Okay,
seeing no one, this time I will close the public meeting and will bring the issue back before the
commissioners for discussion. Kurt, I’ll start with you.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
8
Papke: So just, so we’re not going to allow the owners to come up and answer any of the
questions about hours of operation? Does that make sense to continue that at all?
McDonald: That would be perfectly fine at this point. I’m okay with that.
Papke: I think there were a number of the residents raised concerns about shipments and hours
of operation and stuff like that. I think it’s probably worth touching on.
Bob Lamoreaux: Good evening council. My name’s Bob Lamoreaux. I’m President of Waytek.
There are four owners. They are here. I’m the President. Right now we’ve been a corporation
resident of Chanhassen since ’88?
Wayne Larson: ’89.
Bob Lamoreaux: Since ’89. Right now our hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday. General rule of thumb, we do not work weekends. On occasions
someone might be in, in the office doing something but general rule of thumb we don’t. As far
as the number of shipments. A majority of our shipments are going out UPS, FedEx. One
pickup from each truck. We do probably about 10 or 15 other semi’s might come in deliver or
pick up during the day.
Papke: Are these 18 wheeler sized semi’s or are these more the UPS size trucks or some mixture
of the two?
Bob Lamoreaux: Mixture of the two, yeah. Right now we only have 3 loading docks so.
Papke: How many employees do you expect to peak out at?
Bob Lamoreaux: Oh boy, peak out at? I’d love to peak out at 100 or so. Right now we have 48
employees.
Papke: Okay. Okay. So you expect to eventually double in size would be.
Bob Lamoreaux: Yeah, right now we’re a 49,000 square foot building. When we moved into
the building it was.
Wayne Larson: 25.
Bob Lamoreaux: 25? Thanks Wayne. So 25 and we added 10 employees. Now we’re at 50 and
we are at 48.
Papke: Okay.
Keefe: Are you anticipating sub-leasing part of the building then?
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
9
Bob Lamoreaux: Initially right now we’re not. The building is kind of designed if we had to or
something happened, we can. Right now we’re not planning on it. But if we did, it would be at
the north end of the building because we are, our offices and everything at the south end.
Actually the north end of the building right now will not have any air conditioning units on the
roof. All the air conditioning units will be at the north, south end. The inside the warehouse will
all be hanging furnaces. No air conditioning in the warehouse. So that’s kind of the plan right
now. The only air conditioning will be in the offices at the south end. Are there any other
questions on this?
Keefe: I’ve got just a couple questions on the site plan, and I’m not sure if you’d be the right
person. Maybe the staff can help out but you know there’s a comment around the oak trees on
the certain northwest corner. You know given that they’re expanding the parking on the south
end, does the pavement need to continue out as far as it did? It’d be a way to potentially retain
some of those trees or?
Generous: Well you could cut back on the parking lot in that area. And also there’s construction
techniques to make less of an impact to the trees. And we’ll work with them on revising that, and
they’re up for it. Like with the revisions to that parking area on the south, over…
Keefe: Yeah, that’s what I was wondering. I mean you really need to have the asphalt going out
as far as it is on that north end, taking out more trees presumably. That’s what’s happening.
Generous: Yeah, they’re pretty close to the elevation they’d be in out there so.
Ben Merriman: As long as you don’t object to parking, that’s fine with us. We have that there
because we needed parking spots to meet code, and Bob knows more about it than I do.
Keefe: Right, yeah so the addition on the south end would you know mean that you tend to cut
back a little bit on that northwest corner possibly. Maybe consider you know…
Ben Merriman: The odds of anyone parking up there are very slim because all the employees are
going to be down in this area.
Keefe: I mean it looks like there’s a couple of trees that may exist there, at least from the, those
2 that are just to the left there.
Ben Merriman: Yeah, these here.
Keefe: Yeah, right. Would those come out or are they, would you save a quarter of the tree or?
Ben Merriman: …we could leave those as proof of parking, okay so that they’re not, they’re not
developed now. If they’re needed in the future, we could, we have the liberty of going in there
and adding them but we leave them as proof of parking and then curve the radius point here, and
just do a radius. We need to be able to get semi trucks and so that needs to be able to work, but
the architect can make this work in this corner so that this tree can be saved and we’ll try to stay
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
10
out of the drip line as much as we can of this, and then we can mitigate the damage through
construction techniques so, that shouldn’t be too much of a problem.
Keefe: There was also one comment that I heard, I think on one significant one on the east side.
I’m not aware of what that might have been but.
Ben Merriman: On the northeast?
Keefe: Yeah. I thought there might have been.
Ben Merriman: And I have to, on one hand sit down with the owner and go through this and
he’s here tonight and he expressed an interest here. We can leave this grove of trees the way it is
right now pretty much, primarily. Or we could put in a retaining wall. Take out some of the
trees and put in some spruce trees, which you know hold cover during the winter. It’s kind of his
option, and we’ll work with them. The same as we’d like to work with the residents back here
about how this berm is constructed and what it looks like and how it undulates through here.
Keefe: That’s good to hear. Get some input from the local residents. Okay.
McDonald: Okay? Thank you very much for coming forward. Debbie.
Larson: A couple of the residents brought up the berm height. Was it 15 feet? I don’t remember
that.
Keefe: I thought we put in language.
Papke: Yeah, I suggested some language that we try to prevent sight line issues which, you
know judging from the drawing that we saw, I don’t recall the exact language of it but it at least
satisfied the spirit of what we were trying to get to when the PUD was approved, which is to try
to permit you know, obviously the, you know if you’re up on a second story bedroom looking
down, you’re going to see some portion of the building. I don’t know that we can put a building
in this location and say you’re not going to see the building at all but.
Larson: Right. Well I mean and, Ben made a point. Is it Ben? Ben. No, you just made a point
that the higher the berm, that it’s harder to keep trees alive and so I understand and I think that
it’s best that we don’t. I’ve seen them before with a row of dead trees sitting on top of them.
Papke: Yeah, that was going to be my, one of my primary comments was you know, I think
we’re going to have to let city staff and the developer mediate out so that we maximize the
screening here and not end up with a 15 foot berm with a row of naked trees.
Larson: Dead trees, right.
Papke: Yeah, that’s not a great sight. We’ll entrust the developer and city staff to work through
that.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
11
Larson: Okay, that’s all I have.
Papke: Other than that, my main concern with this development was just the scale of the
building. You know going from 3 buildings in this, in what we originally approved when we
approved the PUD to 2, this one is bigger and it’s physical presence from Galpin is going to be a
little bit more substantial. But I think developers have done a great job with working on the
aesthetics of the building. With providing visual contours, parapets, columns, etc so I think
they’ve done, you know I don’t know that you could do a lot more with an industrial building to
break it up and provide visual appeal than what they’ve done, so I think they’ve done a great job
with that. I don’t have any reservations. You know certainly when we approved the PUD there
was a lot of discussion about the screening. There was a lot of discussion about the traffic, but I
think the design meets the spirit of what we approved when we approved the PUD so I have no
concerns.
McDonald: Okay.
Keefe: I think the developer’s done a great job here and I really like the attitude of working with
the local residents, particularly with the berm and the screening. I commend you for doing that.
That’s terrific. Sometimes we don’t get development teams in here who are willing to
necessarily do that and be proactive that way. That’s great so. Look forward to this building
going up and continuing your work in the city. Appreciate it.
McDonald: Kevin.
Dillon: The only, one of the residents talked about the traffic with the trucks and all that and we
haven’t heard a lot about that you know from other people tonight, and the new school and
everything is going in nearby. I mean was, being a relatively new member of this commission I
haven’t heard any previous discussions about what do the people in the school think about you
know traffic from trucks, because this is a business park area and so this is nothing new. I mean
were there concerns about placing a school with the trucks?
McDonald: Well all of this was discussed when we did the initial PUD and we asked for a
traffic study and we looked at the way the roads were going to be put together and actually
Lyman Boulevard is scheduled for an upgrade because it is going to be an access road off of 312
or 212, so all of this was evaluated. In fact we even asked about another entrance so that there
would be two entrances instead of one, and I guess we were shot down by the County on that, as
I recall. That because of what they want to do with Lyman, it wasn’t possible. We also looked
at maybe an entrance and an exit through the park going through the Chaska area, and again
because of different ownership, that wasn’t possible either. So we did address the issue of
traffic, and the school came up at that point. It was more of a rumor I think than anything. It
was a possible site, which has now become more solidified. So we did discuss all that at that
point and I think we have pretty much exhausted all of our remedies for that but.
Papke: The only thing I’d add to that, if you look at our existing schools on Pioneer Trail, lots of
truck traffic on that so I think the school system is, you know got a fair amount of experience
with coping with that.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
12
Dillon: Other than that, I mean the aesthetics of the building and I agree the attitude of,
willingness to collaborate with others is positive so, don’t have any other questions or comments.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. I guess the only comment I would add is to kind of echo that it is
nice for a developer who’s willing to listen to the residents. I know that this has been a long and
drawn out development and there were a number of individual meetings. There were a number
of issues that I have not heard come back today, and the ones that did come back I believe that
you have addressed them but the comment I would make to everyone who came up to the mic is
that if you wish, you may contact city staff about any of the details of this and that they would be
able to fill you in but I think from what the developer’s told us tonight, that your concerns have
been addressed as best we can I believe so from that standpoint I am, you know again grateful
for the fact that we do have a developer that is willing to listen to the neighborhood. With that,
does anyone want to make a motion?
Larson: Okay. Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case Site Plan 06-27
for one story approximately 110,000 square foot office-warehouse building, plans prepared by
Houwman Architects dated 6-16-06, subject to the following conditions 1 through 31. Okay?
McDonald: Yes, 1 through 31.
Papke: Second.
Larson moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Planning Case Site Plan #06-27 for a one story, approximately 110,000 square foot office-
warehouse building, plans prepared by Houwman Architects, dated 6-16-06, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. The developer shall extend the sidewalk from the building to the sidewalk on Galpin Court
and include pedestrian ramps at all curbs.
3. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
4. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
5. The developer shall heighten the retaining wall on the south side of the northerly drive-in
overhead door to create a wing wall that is a least 10 feet above the grade of the loading dock
area. This wall shall extend from the building westerly at least 15 feet then may be stepped
downward as it continues west.
6. A temporary cover of seed and mulch shall be established on all areas of exposed soils not
actively worked within a 14-day time period and within 14 days of achieving final grade.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
13
7. The plans shall show temporary inlet control details for all proposed catch basins, including
beehive catch basins. Existing catch basins immediately adjacent to the project shall be
protected as well. Plans shall indicate that inlet protection shall be installed within 24 hours
of inlet installation.
8. All sediment tracked upon paved surfaces shall be scraped and swept within 24 hours. Plans
shall include a designated concrete washout area and/or plans on how the development will
handle the concrete wash water.
9. An NPDES Construction Site Permit shall be applied for and received from the MPCA by
the owner/operator of the site.
10. The area in which the rain garden is proposed shall be part of a project sequencing plan that
will protect the rain garden site from compaction. The rain garden shall not be built until at
least 70% of the contributing area is stabilized. The applicant shall submit a planting plan for
the garden.
11. High overhead windows shall be added on the northern building elevation between the
smooth bands.
12. Overstory trees shall be added every 40 feet along the north building elevation.
13. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a total of 39 overstory trees within the
vehicular use area. Trees may be added to the west side within Outlot C if their installation
does not damage root systems of existing trees within that area.
14. A row of four conifer trees shall be added north of the parking spaces in the northwest corner
of the loading dock area.
15. Tree preservation fencing is required to be installed prior to any construction around existing
trees along Galpin Boulevard, Outlot C and any trees preserved along the north property line.
16. All landscape plantings along Galpin Boulevard shall be field located as to not damage
existing plantings.
17. The bufferyard plantings along the north property line shall be spread out between the
property line and the building to provide screening in depth.
18. Areas proposed for the preservation of existing trees shall not be sodded.
19. The developer must install a storm sewer stub south of CBMH 6.
20. The storm sewer downstream of CBMH 6 will not be owned or maintained by the City since
it will not convey runoff from a public right-of-way.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
14
21. The developers of Parcels A and B must enter into a maintenance agreement for this segment
of storm sewer.
22. The outstanding balance of the Park Dedication Fees for Parcels A and B must be paid with
the building permit. The amounts are $82,600.14 for Parcel A and $29,579.78 for Parcel B.
23. The height of the berm shall be increased and extended to the west to provide additional
screening for the existing single-family homes to the north.
24. A revised grading plan must be submitted with the building permit application.
25. Retaining walls four feet high or higher require a building permit and must be designed by an
engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
26. Eight-inch watermain must be looped around the building. This watermain shall be privately
owned and maintained.
27. Sanitary sewer and water hookup are due for this site. The 2006 trunk hookup charge is
$1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for watermain. These fees may be specially assessed
against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance.
28. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
29. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
30. Builder must comply with Fire Prevention policies numbers 4, 6, 7, 29, 84, 36, 40, 49 and 52.
31. Drive aisle widths shall be a minimum of 26 feet.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, just for the record, this is going forward to the City Council on August
14th. So anybody that wants to follow the item. And then we’d also ask that the applicant work
with the property owners prior to that meeting so we have a little bit more definitive resolution
on some of those issues before the council meeting.
McDonald: Okay, with that we will go back to the first agenda item. Is the owner, Mr. Loren
Veltkamp present?
Aanenson: Yes he is.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
15
PUBLIC HEARING:
LOREN VELTKAMP: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM 30 FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE EXPANSION OF SECOND LEVEL OF
HOME WITH NONCONFORMING SETBACKS. TWO SETBACK VARIANCES WILL
BE REQUIRED BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS A CORNER LOT. THE SITE IS
LOCATED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RSF) AT 6724
LOTUS TRAIL, PLANNING CASE 06-25.
Public Present:
Name Address
Sig & Don Sennes 6680 Mohawk Drive
Keith Gunderson 6661 Mohawk Drive
Jeff King 767 Carver Beach Road
Bruce Johansson 6701 Mohawk Drive
Jim Boeshans 6651 Pawnee Drive
Mike Henderson 6701 Mohawk Drive
Shelly Berg 6701 Mohawk Drive
Liz & Matt Tibbetts 6699 Mohawk Drive
Doris Martin 6650 Pawnee Drive
Susan Telander 11516 Bender Court
Loren Veltkamp 6724 Lotus Trail
McDonald: With that, staff would you like to give your report or?
Aanenson: Sure. Yes, I’d like to start with just a little bit of background and some of the
concerns that came up at the last meeting. You did table this item. I apologize but there is some
corrections in the revised motion, and I’ll go through those. First of all I want to point out, it’s
the staff’s interpretation that this property was being rented, and one of the things that we want to
clarify, as stated in city code, is that if the staff makes an opinion of a use or interpretation, that
that could be appealed to the Planning Commission. So we are asking you as one of the
recommendations, if you go to the handout, that first of all the interpretation that the property is
being rented because obviously there’s a disagreement of living as cohabitants. Roommates,
whatever, are not renters. It’s our opinion that it’s being rented and we want that on the record.
So with that, that would be one motion. The second motion which Josh will be going through in
a minute for the variance request, we also had recommended again the goal here is that it’s, if it’s
shown as a rental unit, that there be two courses of action. One through the variance request, that
there also be a nexus that you can attach reasonable conditions. And those conditions outlined in
the staff report would limit the rental, because there wasn’t three separate kitchens in violation of
the city ordinance. So what we’re recommending is that there be, if you did give a variance, if
you chose to grant the variance, that there would be a mechanism to regulate that. The third
option, which would be C, which we also pointed out in the cover memo of the staff report, that
recommending denial because there is in another provision, if the applicant chose to go through
the rental, to pursue a rental, and that’s provided in Section 20-59 of the City Code which allows
an applicant and any property owner to apply for a two family dwelling, and there are criteria for
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
16
that which we’ve included in the staff report, and those could be also deemed hardships and
issues. I’ll just briefly read those for you. Those are found in the city code. Section 20-59,
conditions for single family. This is a separate variance process which the applicant did not
apply for, so it would have to be a separate process. But what it does allow, again through a
public hearing the applicant could apply, that based on a demonstrated need, disability, age or
financial hardship that he would want two separate dwellings. Again you could then attach a
condition of getting a rental license and those conditions because again it was our concern how
the property was being used and what the expectations of some of the surrounding properties. So
with that, there was modified conditions, which we did hand out for you tonight, so if you have
any questions on that part of it, I’d be happy to answer those. Before Josh kind of goes through
the summary of the specific variance request.
McDonald: Do any of the commissioners have any questions? For Ms. Aanenson concerning
this.
Keefe: You mentioned the hardship piece. I was struggling with that just a little bit in terms of
hardship.
Aanenson: Well yeah. Well there’s two hardship cases. One would be a separate, the variance
that you’re, that the applicant is pursuing tonight. The variance for the side yard setbacks, and
Josh will go through that in a minute. The other one is a separate application which will come
through which in every city code it’s state law that allows you to apply for a single family home
to be used as a two family dwelling. You can attach reasonable conditions to that too, and what I
was reading to you under Section 20-59 would be one of the criteria, so that would be a separate
process.
Keefe: Okay.
Aanenson: Does that make sense?
Keefe: Yep.
Aanenson: So two separate processes. The one that you’re looking at tonight is actually a side
yard variance.
McDonald: Okay, I have a question for you. Would recommendations A and B go together?
Aanenson: No, A is independent. We would like you to make that interpretation so that it’s on
the record that the staff is interpreting that it’s being, the property is used as a rental, and that you
concur with our interpretation.
McDonald: Okay.
Aanenson: So we’ve got that on the record. Whether or not you grant a variance, whether or not
any other action is taken, we have that on record that, how it’s being used so there can be
enforcement in the future.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
17
McDonald: Okay. And then the choices that you would like us to make then are between B and
C?
Aanenson: Yes. Thank you Mr. Chairman, that clarifies that.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else have any questions before I have the staff do a
report? Okay. Staff.
Metzer: And just to remind Planning Commission and the audience that the site is located on the
west shore of Lotus Lake at 6724 Lotus Trail. In February, on February 23rd of this year the roof
and majority of the second level of the home were destroyed by fire. State law permits the
reconstruction of non-conforming structures destroyed by fire. The existing structure currently
has setbacks 8 feet from Lotus trail, and 15 feet from Tamarack Road, which is considered a
paper street. Now these are non-conforming setbacks and due to the non-conforming setbacks,
the requested second level addition constitutes an intensification of a non-conformity which city
code prohibits. Staff is however recommending approval of this request, and again by doing so
staff feels that the city will be better able to control or regulate the rental situation on the subject
property through the conditions of approval attached. Should the Planning Commission choose
to deny this request the applicant does have the alternative again for, to apply for the variance for
use of a single family home as a two family dwelling. And should the applicant choose to seek
that variance, a separate application should be filed. I’d be happy to answer any questions that
you have.
McDonald: Mark, you want to start?
Undestad: Don’t have any questions right now.
McDonald: No questions? Debbie.
Larson: Just in reading a piece you have down here on various variances that have been granted
over the years. It looks like some of them are quite small, like the 6711 Hopi. A 2 foot side yard
setback variance for a garage. 1 ½ foot side yard. I mean so what he’s asking for really isn’t, I
mean it’s a lot, or a lot more generous than what some of the ones that we’ve already done.
Metzer: A more significant request?
Larson: Thank you. So I don’t know, that was all, the only comment I have at the moment.
McDonald: Kevin.
Dillon: Well you know kind of looking through the background on this, there seems to have
been like kind of a history of some, I don’t know if, maybe not such great oversight or poor, I
don’t, probably none of our, before any of our time here but some poor judgment used in issuing
some of the permits and stuff like that.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
18
Metzer: Yes. The second level dormer addition, and also a portion of the garage addition. I
think it was, I can only speculate what was going through this person’s head at the time but must
have gotten confused on what setbacks were restricting what property line because the north
property line is actually the front. Considered a front property line because it’s still what we call
a paper street right-of-way to the north, which requires a 30 foot setback. I can only speculate
that they thought it was a 10 foot setback at the time they approved the permits.
McDonald: Excuse me. Could you define what a paper street is because this is one of the first
times I’ve seen this term.
Metzer: It’s just kind of a loose term. It’s not, it’s a road right-of-way. The city would have the
right to put an improved street through there but there is no actual street. It’s just empty, vacant
right-of-way.
Aanenson: So it’s recorded as right-of-way but there’s no public improvements out there. So we
say it shows up on paper but if you were to go out there, you wouldn’t be able to discern that
there was a street.
McDonald: But at some point in the future then the city could extend that street for…
Aanenson: Correct, or use it as an easement or whatever.
Metzer: And it’s my understanding that it’s currently used as a kind of easement access for the
neighborhood residents to access the lake.
Larson: Like a walk path?
Metzer: Yeah.
Larson: And is this the one that, is there pavement on it or no?
Metzer: No.
Larson: Just dirt.
Metzer: Just grass. Vegetated trail basically.
Dillon: So do you know if those permits that were issued in error were issued to the current
owner?
Metzer: They were.
Dillon: And then the kitchen on the second level was installed without permits?
Metzer: Correct.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
19
Dillon: Was that where the fire originated? I mean.
Metzer: That I don’t know. I do not know.
Dillon: Okay. Just trying to get a little context here. That’s all the questions I have.
McDonald: Okay.
Keefe: I have two questions. One is in regards to, how did the City determine that the property
was being rented? What is the determination?
Metzer: Basically based off of statements made in the sheriff’s report from when the home was
burnt down.
Keefe: And I was wondering if that, that’s what I thought too in number 16. That identified…so
okay. And then, hardship for the variance? What is the hardship we’re looking at for granting a
variance?
Aanenson: I guess the way the staff is looking at it again was trying to find some resolution as to
how the property was being used. In looking at that, and after the last meeting, speaking with the
city attorney, there is another mechanism to provide a second, if the applicant chose to, to do a
rental without going through the variance. So the goal was to try to get compliance. Again
through the ability to attach with a variance, attach reasonable conditions. But if you chose not
to grant the variance, there still is another mechanism for the applicant to proceed to do that.
And still attach conditions for a rental unit.
Keefe: So if you can’t find a hardship, you need to go to Plan B.
Aanenson: Or C.
Keefe: Or C in this case, right. Pursue that. Does that require a variance too though? They
would need to apply for a variance?
Aanenson: It’s a variance but it wouldn’t be for additional square footage or a setback variance.
Keefe: Right.
Papke: Could you just explain a little bit the recommendation A with having the, this is a new
one from my years on the Planning Commission. Having to have the Planning Commission
concur with a staff recommendation so.
Aanenson: Correct.
Papke: In this particular case, let me state what I perceive and you can tell me if I’ve got it right
or not. So in this particular case, staff has come to the conclusion that there, this is a rental
property. There’s rental property occurring here and the applicant has challenged that
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
20
interpretation so therefore it’s our role to act as a, not really a mediator but to either confirm or
deny staff’s conclusion on this particular case?
Aanenson: That’s correct. As stated in state code, acting as the board of adjustment, one of your
primary roles besides granting variance would be to be, we’re the administrators of the code but
then you either concur or, if somebody’s aggrieved of a decision that we make, then they have a
right to appeal that decision to you. So while it wasn’t part of the original application, we did
talk to city attorney and we felt that it would be important that we kind of resolve that ambiguity
because it seemed at the last meeting we got hung up on whether or not there were boarders, co-
habitators, so we want to be clear and have you endorse that if this decision is appealed, that you
either concur or disagree with our interpretation of that.
Papke: So just to be clear, the applicant, did the applicant ask for this appeal?
Aanenson: No.
Papke: Or this is motivated by city staff.
Aanenson: Correct.
Papke: Just to get clarity. I just want to make sure I.
McDonald: I think part of what we asked them to do was to go back and look at the differences
of the ordinances and come back with something that would give us a little bit more, you know
determine what this is.
Aanenson: And we haven’t had too many appeal cases on that specific language, so you’re right.
It’d probably be pretty rare that we see these.
McDonald: Okay, go ahead.
Dillon: So like if, if it ends up that B is the option we support here and then the applicant has to
comply with all these conditions that are set forth. If you know, if C is chosen and the applicant
chooses to get a one family home turned into a two family home, is that like an, is that a slam
dunk thing that you automatically get that?
Aanenson: No. Well you would still have to go through the findings for a variance and you’d
still have to look at those findings, and again you can attach reasonable conditions. But let me
back up just explain what the process would be. No matter what you decide tonight, to approve
or deny, any person aggrieved of your decision can appeal it. Whether it’s the applicant or one
of the neighbors or one of the Planning Commissioners to say I want this to go to City Council.
So whatever you decide tonight, someone else could still take it to the City Council and appeal
that decision. And then the other option is, if it did go there and whatever happened there,
there’s still another alternative and that would start over, and that would be Option C. Does that
make sense?
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
21
Dillon: Yep.
McDonald: Okay, I have a couple questions for clarification also. Because this was a non-
conforming use prior to the fire, he is allowed to re-build based upon what was there at the time
of the fire. Now he’s asking for expansion beyond that, so that’s what makes the non-
conforming use more egregious.
Metzer: Intensified, right.
McDonald: Intensified, so okay. And then the other question, if he goes to a rental, that’s to
turn a single family into a two family. At the time that we were looking, when the fire happened,
there were actually four families total. Three renters and, plus the applicant himself. So two
family means two family, am I correct on that? It’s not where you could.
Metzer: It’s also you know setting up the home with separate dwelling units. And this would
clarify that you would be allowed two dwelling units rather than the ambiguity and the you
know, running around the definitions and things like this, of what’s considered open and.
McDonald: Because at this time because of what was there prior, he would be allowed two
kitchens, as I remember. The third kitchen on the second floor would not be allowed.
Metzer: Well he was, the construction of the third kitchen on the second level was not permitted.
Now it’s really with the granting of the variance we can limit him, can limit the applicant to two
kitchens total.
McDonald: I just need to get that clarified because…through with this and this is a.
Aanenson: Can I just add something on that too. I thought we had put that in there as one of the
conditions but one of the things that we did want to look at is the number of people renting. Just
to make this even more muddy. The City doesn’t prohibit people from having two kitchens as a
general rule. A lot of people have entertainment areas, whatever. It’s when that use, and that’s
what started clouding this up. It’s when you start having additional units and how people living
in it, and how they’re living and the ambiguity came into play of someone’s interpretation of
how they’re living so, just to be clear on that. But I think going back to what you were talking
about, Chairman McDonald is that you want to make sure that there’s just one additional rental
family unit.
McDonald: Okay. Anyone else have any questions for staff?
Dillon: Just so I can place, the worst case scenario then you know for the applicant’s point of
view, would be to like deny all this stuff and just kind of rebuild on the same exact footprint
that’s already there, is that right?
Aanenson: That’s correct.
Larson: They use the same footprint but just additional up?
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
22
Metzer: And the request is to make an addition in an area of the home that has non-conforming
setbacks.
Larson: So beyond…
Metzer: So it’s like, it’s doubling the amount of the home that has, that’s within the setback.
McDonald: Okay? Okay. Then with that, if the applicant would come forward. We’re ready to
hear from you at this point.
Loren Veltkamp: Thank you. I’m Loren Veltkamp, 6742 Lotus Trail. The information you’re
getting from staff tonight is very different than what I got from staff in the past and certainly
from other members of the City that I spoke with years ago. The proper history of this affair is
that I was divorced 5-6 years ago and I started to rent after that. I got divorced in the middle of
expanding the house. We put another garage and then I built over the garage and then I
continued that into the house, and tonight I would like to get a variance to continue it over the
rest of the house. Just making the second story bigger. I would, when I first started to rent there
were no codes on the books at all. I called the City about this and somebody said there are no
codes concerning renters, but there’s something in the works, and that turned out to be true.
They did come up with a rental application and some codes concerning renters, which I did apply
for, and I was told to apply for them. But we all got bogged down because I didn’t actually have
rental units, and this was determined by the City. This was not my idea. I was just renting all
along through here, and the reason why I was renting is just to make ends meet. I had to have a
certain number of renters in for a certain amount of money to make the mortgage basically, and I
still have that same problem. So I was just renting to roommates who were sharing everything in
the home, and then they started to pass codes and the codes were never quite clear so I was never
really sure if I was like you know doing this right or not. But it was eventually determined by
the City, not by me at all, that I did not have rental units and the key issue, which I brought up
last time was the fact that I don’t have locking doors in the house that separate these areas. So if
there’s no separation, you don’t have separate dwelling units. The other problem that we ran into
was that I don’t rent to families. I rent to single people or older people. They’re people like me
who you know, you know might be handicapped or you know just basically here you are, pretty
quiet. I see in this memorandum that she mentions there were three separate family units living
in the house. This is not the definition that we were working with before this. You know family
unit is children and married people. You know the people that I rent to are basically looking for
a family, and when you put single people together in a house, you create a new family, and it’s
much closer to a new family than it is to three separate families. So this language of family units
is completely misleading. It’s absolutely misleading and in fact it’s 180 degrees wrong. Okay.
What I’m doing is creating a family, and this is the only family that I have until I get married
again, and I would like to keep the family intact and so would the other members of the family.
So these two issues of not having locking doors in our house, thereby not having separate
apartments, and not having you know families in the house, those were the two issues that swung
the thinking of the previous staff and the city attorney, who I had a letter from, saying that my
rental situation was fine. You know those are two key issues. Having single people and not
having locking doors, and that’s why I had the five inspections on my property. They wanted to
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
23
go through the property again and again and again, over a period of time to make sure that there
were not locking doors and separate dwelling units. So we went through this exhaustively. I
can’t tell you how many letters we had and how many months we spent on this and it was all
determined. So I don’t think we have any issue here today. I don’t think there is an issue. The
City has long decided this issue that if you have roommates in a house, it’s not individual
whatever. It’s not separate units. And I did not want to do, in fact I had this option many years
ago to go to a duplex, and I don’t want a duplex. I don’t think neighbors want a duplex. I don’t
see any need to have a duplex. What we were doing was fine. Was not done under cover at all.
As I said, I applied for the rental variance and we went through that whole process so. And
another thing the staff keeps saying here, which is completely wrong, is the idea that the kitchen
was like snuck into the building somehow. You know I worked on this place for a period of,
I’ve been working on my house for about 8 to 10 years and I have a stack of inspections,
inspection receipts that is about three-quarters of an inch high, and it’s not including the five
final inspections. We had the plumber out there and another thing that bothers me here is that
you know staff knows perfectly well that when people, when people pull a building permit, they
don’t pull a building permit for every room that they’re going to build. You know kitchen,
bedroom, living room. You know nobody does this. I didn’t do this. Nobody does this. There’s
not a builder in the world that does this. So yeah what I did is I said, I defined the space that I
was going to build in, you know as best I could, and then when I got a deal on cabinets, I took
the cabinets and I set them up in the kitchen and then it became the kitchen. And later on I did,
you know once I designed it, you know I put it on drawings and I submitted it to the City and
they came out and they checked the plumbing and all these other things many, many times. And
I have to have special electrical in a kitchen. You have to have special circuitry. All this was
inspected with a special plumbing, venting going out the roof. All these things had to be done,
and they were done. Right in front of the City the whole time. For years and years and years.
Now they say I snuck in a kitchen. I should be pissed off you know. It’s lies. So I have done
everything from the beginning with the City. I’ve done everything and I created a nice property.
It’s way better than what it was when I found and I bought in 1990. It’s way, way better. And
roommates have helped to develop this property. Roommate money. And you know I think it’s
better for the neighborhood. I’m sure the neighbors have had you know some problems. You
know I suppose it’s unavoidable, you know. I certainly have house rules and I tell all the renters
that they’ve got to get along with the neighbors no matter what, you know. There’s no fighting
with neighbors and no problems with any neighbors. That’s the house rule. It’s not going to
create for a perfect thing, but that’s what I tell them. So I don’t have families living in my house.
I did not install an illegal kitchen. Like she said, there is no, there was no codes against three
kitchens you know so.
Aanenson: That’s not what I said. I said you can have an additional kitchen. I didn’t say three.
I said one additional kitchen.
Loren Veltkamp: Well there are people with more than three. You know in town already. Many
people. And you know you have a kitchen on every floor like you have a bathroom on every
floor for the same reasons.
McDonald: Actually if I could interrupt you there for a second. You know it doesn’t do any
good to argue about what staff said and what staff didn’t say. What we’re here for is to hear an
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
24
argument based upon why we should be granting a variance, and the kitchen right now is not part
of that. I really don’t care how many kitchens you’ve got. There are rules, well let me finish.
Loren Veltkamp: …I told them that.
McDonald: Let me finish because I want you to understand what you need to focus on. You
know the rules about that, and that’s part of any permit you pull or anything, and that’s a separate
issue. What we’re here for is why should we be granting this variance because you are wanting
to expand your house and you need to explain to us why you want to do that. So that’s what you
need to focus on. It doesn’t do any good to try to tell us that staff is making mistakes or even
more egregious than that. That does not go into our decision. All we have before us is what you
are requesting and that’s what we’re going to vote on. So please, keep your comments to that.
Loren Veltkamp: …I don’t think the rental issue really has anything to do with the variance
either, and we spent a lot of time on that last week. Last month. So yeah, I would just as soon
forget about all that and get to the real point. Concerning the variance, I did some research at the
law library with West Law and I looked up some cases that had gone before the Supreme Court
and a couple of cases I’ll mention here because they are similar to the one I’m dealing with here.
In particular there’s one, it’s a pretty famous case. It’s City of Aura vs. Burns and in this
particular case the Supreme Court of Minnesota ruled that the location of buildings already
constructed may properly be used in the fixing of setback lines. I’ll read it again. The location
of buildings already constructed may properly be used in the fixing of setback lines. This is their
way of saying I think, I mean you can read these cases for yourself, but they’re saying if you
have an established building there, that’s pretty much the setback. And I complained about this
last week where the City changed the roads here and now they changed the setback, and now
they’re telling me I can’t build in my footprint, like everybody else can. You know to me this
would not stand up in front of the Supreme Court.
McDonald: Okay, I’m not sure that we’re on the same thing at this point. No one is saying
anything I think about the property or the footprint of the house, and I think we’ve all pretty
much come to the conclusion that under statute you’re allowed to rebuild within your footprint.
What is happening.
Loren Veltkamp: That’s what I’m trying to do.
McDonald: Well what has happened here though is you’re trying to go outside of your footprint.
Loren Veltkamp: No, I’m trying to go up on the existing footprint.
McDonald: Well again that’s what gets us into getting outside of what your footprint is. I don’t
think we’re looking at changing lines. We’ve all pretty much agreed what the lines are. What
the issue is before us is, you know you’re trying to build something back on a non-conforming
property that increases the non-conformity, and we’re looking for reasons why you should be
allowed to do that, and under statute there are certain hardships that have to be looked at, or there
are certain rules that have to be looked at, and we have to make findings based upon that. So I
think that’s the issue. It’s not that we’re trying to do anything with the lines of the house. That’s
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
25
never come up so, I don’t think it does a lot of good to quote cases to us. Again this is not a
court of law. What we have are ordinances that we have to go by. We’re not going to make an
interpretation based upon what the Supreme Court said. I’m sorry, that’s just not within our
charter.
Loren Veltkamp: Well I just think that it should be.
McDonald: I’m afraid it’s not. We’re also governed by what the Supreme Court says, and the
Supreme Court has said, that a Planning Commission can basically apply the rules as they exist.
We cannot look at changing those rules. All we can do is apply them and make a
recommendation to the City Council which is a legislative body which can change rules. So
that’s where any of this discussion, if you’re looking at changing rules, has got to go, but before
you get there, you’re going to have to allow us to make a recommendation based upon the rules.
Loren Veltkamp: So maybe I should save that for later then.
McDonald: Yes, much later.
Loren Veltkamp: But I thought I would bring it up now because I brought it up last time you
know that my house was originally fine. The setbacks were fine until they changed the road.
Now they’re coming up over the top of the house and saying I can’t build on my existing
footprint, which is horizontal. You know it’s not vertical. I never heard of a footprint being
vertical.
McDonald: Okay well, what the statute says is you can rebuild exactly what was there before.
You can’t do anything to change that going up, out or anything. Exactly what was there. This is
the same problem people that buy cabins on the lake have where they had to, they’re making
improvements and it has to be within the footprint of an existing house. That’s the statute that
we’re concerned with. You’re trying to improve going up. Under those rules you know, we
have a right to look at this and to say that’s a non-conforming use and we’re not going to
approve variances. Now if you want to build back exactly what was there, that was destroyed by
the fire, we don’t even end up having any of this discussion. Am I correct staff with that? But
that’s not what you’re wanting to do. So that’s why we’re here is to look at do you meet the
hardship requirements for us to grant you the variance. Or do you not meet the hardship
requirements.
Loren Veltkamp: Well I thought I would meet the hardship requirements too, but I also think I
meet the Supreme Court requirement…
McDonald: Okay, I’m not going to argue the Supreme Court with you because again this is not a
court of law. We’re not going to go into that. What I would like you to do is if you feel you
meet the hardship requirements.
Loren Veltkamp: I have a question whether, are you bound by the Supreme Court or are you
above the Supreme Court?
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
26
McDonald: We’re again, I told you how all this comes down. Our decision is to interpret the
city rules. We cannot, or not interpret. Apply the city rules. We do not have the power to make
interpretations and as I said, there is nothing here before us that says anything about prop, or
footprint lines, where the setbacks are. All that is the existing house and I don’t hear an
argument about that. What the argument is, is what you’re wanting to rebuild and you’re trying
to get a variance from us so that you can build and improve the second story. That is changing
the footprint, whether you want to look at it going out, up or whatever but you’re changing the
footprint.
Loren Veltkamp: I didn’t know a footprint went vertical like that. I never heard that before.
McDonald: Then what you should do is you know read, there are cases concerning this. Read
what people have done. As long as you rebuild what was existing exactly, you’re okay. And
that’s not what you’ve requested before us today.
Loren Veltkamp: Well, just to put an end to this, you know this particular case I’m citing here
was a horizontal footprint. And there’s other cases like this where you know the Supreme Court,
when these issues get all the way up to the Supreme Court, they basically go with the landowner
and the existing setbacks and say okay, this has been here since 1926 you know. It’s good
enough. It’s good enough setback. So I think that is important for any decision in any
application of Chanhassen code you know, the Supreme Court has been around a while. Talking
about just hardship here. Okay. I have a hardship with this house in that things are not stacked
properly. Okay, we have storage over living space and I have living space over storage space.
The problem is you can’t get to stuff right, and it’s hard to heat. So that’s the kind of hardship
that you have to deal with every day, okay. You’re not, you don’t have proper access to stuff
and you’re paying too much for utilities. Other codes, you know particularly the new energy
codes, try very hard to keep people at a low energy rate and the proper way to do that is to stack
the different floors and the living spaces so that the heating and the cooling you know are closer
together. So I think that’s a hardship. You know it feels like a hardship to me you know to have
things disorganized and to pay extra for something for the same amount of living space which is
what I’m going to end up here. I’m not trying to increase the living space. So that is one
hardship. Utility bills, those would be another hardship. And not being able to have a second
floor like most of the other people, houses on the lake. To me that is a hardship. You know it’s
very similar to not having a garage or something like that. So those are the kind of hardships that
I would list as being the hardships in this case. I believe I made a list in here of a couple other
things. But there’s a certain amount of hardship here but to me that really wasn’t the focus of my
request here you know. I think that my property, my property footprint has been established
since 1926. It was valid. I should be able to build on it and I think if I took this all the way to
the Supreme Court, I would be able to build on it more because that’s my footprint. And it
shouldn’t be taken away just because the roads are changed. So that’s my real feeling here about
this but there is some hardship too which I hope you will recognize. I don’t think the renting has
anything to do with this so I don’t know if we want to talk about that any more. I think I can,
you know for the neighbors, I think I can build a better looking house here than I had before if I
get this variance, and I think that views will be better for all the neighbors. It will be a little bit
more streamlined and I think it will look better. I think it will improve property values and be
you know just generally a good thing.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
27
McDonald: Okay. Is that all then?
Loren Veltkamp: Unless you have some questions.
McDonald: Oh yeah, we’ve got questions. I just want to make sure that you’re given an
opportunity to speak and to get the issues out before us and then we’ll ask questions. Same way
we asked staff but I want to make sure that you’re given every opportunity to present.
Loren Veltkamp: Yeah, I just had a couple more things. I’m not trying to increase the square
footage of this house. I’m really not doing that because what I’m, I had about, this upper story
had a room and truss here that I’m going to expand into, and that was a storage area. So the
second story originally, and I used about 80% of it. You know the part I could use was the
corners of the roof came down you know. So I had about, I was using about 80% of this already,
and now I’m trying to use 100% of it. So it’s really a very little bit that I’m asking for here but
even though it would create you know a bigger second story. But then I moved the storage over
the garage where it really belongs and then I don’t have to heat that area. So that’s the advantage
to me is I just get storage where storage should be, including space where the living space should
be and this creates a better house for me and relieves some of the hardship of not having stuff not
stacked properly. When it comes to building, you know if you stack your bathrooms, just your
bathrooms alone, you save a lot of money there and that to me is another hardship. If I have to
build the old way, I have to run the bathroom plumbing in a very stringed way which took me a
long time to do, and the plumbing inspector didn’t exactly like it. You know we finally got it
done so, there’s a lot of hardship in the building if you’re not stacking things properly, you
know, and I’m faced here with building and I have to you know do the crux of that and I have
to…which I know what that will be because I’ve lived in this house the way it used to be, and I
had a lot of problems with it, and I don’t want to repeat those problems. So those are you know
the hardships that I felt every day. I’d like to fix it. You know I’m not going to get another
chance. You know houses don’t burn down very often. I just want to do the best thing for the
house here and for all future owners and I’m very open to suggestions about this. I’ll work with
staff and neighbors and whatever just to get you know the best house here that we can get.
McDonald: Okay. Take questions. Mark, want to start? No? Debbie?
Larson: Well, really what you’re trying to do is basically make the house make more sense,
which I think…
Loren Veltkamp: Yeah…floor plan and a little better utility build you know.
Larson: And the problem that the City seems to have with it is the fact that what you’re doing is
you’re building in air space that wasn’t built in before. And therefore you’re improving and
making the property larger, which is non-conforming and it’s acerbating the issue.
Loren Veltkamp: From their point of view it’s an intensification you know of the.
Larson: Right.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
28
Loren Veltkamp: Of that area that they want for the setback but my view hasn’t changed on this.
I mean if they want to change the roads and then come over the top of my house and come in the
back yard 30 feet too, I mean they’ve left me with a buildable sliver. I have a 10 foot buildable
sliver now that they’ve changed the road, and my opinion as homeowner is if you’re going to do
that to me, you can buy the fricken property.
Larson: When did you purchase the property?
Loren Veltkamp: Back in 1990, yeah. You know and what they’re doing here is so grievace. I
mean you know they’ve left me with nothing to build on. I’ve got a 10 foot sliver. It’s not even
a 10 foot sliver. It’s like a diamond.
Larson: Then why’d you buy it then?
Loren Veltkamp: When I bought it it was legal. They changed the roads and then they changed
the setbacks.
Larson: You know I’ve lived in Chanhassen for 22 years, not far from you actually, and I don’t
know if it’s changed all that much back there…
Loren Veltkamp: Well I don’t…changed either you know because this road was here when I
moved in, but you know Josh was talking about how this deck got built on the back of my house,
which was in error.
Larson; Okay, so wait a minute. It changed since you bought it or no?
Loren Veltkamp: It’s changed 3 times as far as I know since I bought it.
Larson: Is that right?
Loren Veltkamp: You know when I asked to install a deck.
Metzer: From my understanding this whole subdivision was platted in 1918. No right-of-ways
have changed to my knowledge since 1918. Other than road right-of-ways being vacated. No
new right-of-way has been created. Tamarack Road to the north and Lotus Trail to the east have
been in existence to my knowledge since 1918.
Larson: Okay, and since 1918.
Loren Veltkamp: And Willow Road to the south. Willow Road to the south which is what.
Larson: Well I’m familiar with the area. I understand. I’ve got kids and dogs that will go down
to the beach all the time. I know the area. I don’t think a lot has changed since 1990, and I’ve
been there a lot longer than that. Okay, that’s all I have at this point.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
29
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Kevin.
Dillon: So, if the Planning Commission were to approve the variance for the 22 foot and the 15
foot front yard setback variances, so on and so forth, how do you feel about all the restrictions
that are a part of that? I mean are you willing to comply with them?
Loren Veltkamp: I would like to, I would love to get out of building this third floor kitchen.
You know I would comply with any of it but the issue that I have is that, without the renters I
can’t afford the place. That’s my problem. You know so I just want a place where I can have 3
renters like I’ve had before. Three roommates. I don’t want families in there. I just want 3
roommates. You know middle aged roommates who can help me afford the place, and I’ve just
got to get to that, it’s really a dollar point I’ve got to get to you know. My expenses are over
$2,000 a month and that’s why I’m concerned about utilities and building costs and all these
other issues. I mean I have to be or I’m going to lose this place very quickly.
Dillon: So I guess my understanding of this is that you can have one other renter, or right?
Aanenson: That’s correct.
Loren Veltkamp: …with one so I really have to have three because you know they’re not going
to pay any more than that.
Aanenson: Herein lies the crux. I’m sorry to interrupt. The crux of the issue is that it’s staff’s
opinion that this is not being operated as a single family residential home. As it’s guided. If
there’s an economic hardship reason, then it needs to go through a separate process because we
disagree and we did inspect the property and so I don’t want to get into the whole history of that
because we could be here another 2 hours. A whole history of that whole thing. But clearly,
whether they were people that were married, unmarried, it’s our opinion that they were renters.
Whether they were families or individuals, we have prima-facie evidence as submitted by the
sheriff’s office, that there were renters on the property. So that’s our opinion, and our concern is
that it’s going to continue to be used that way. That was why we did recommend approval with
the limitation. And I want to make sure that he understands that that was the intent also. For that
the variance for the reasonable attachment, that there’d be limitations with that. And if there’s an
economic issue, the code does allow for that process and that’s a separate process to come back
through.
Dillon: Do you get that?
Loren Veltkamp: No I don’t. It’s the first time I’ve ever heard this before. You know I heard
about the rental applications you know and I went to get one, and then you know other things
developed from that. So this is kind of new information and the options they’re putting on the
table here don’t give me enough money to keep the house.
Dillon: Well okay so then there’s, so like Kate did talk about some other options. I mean.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
30
Loren Veltkamp: I was trying to understand Kate. I couldn’t heard her at first and I’ve got some
information when I came in here. I’m perfectly willing to discuss this, you know after this.
Work something out with the thing. My only issue is that we have a nice house. I don’t really
want to go the duplex route. I don’t think that neighborhood needs a duplex. I just wouldn’t
want a duplex down there if I was there.
Aanenson: Well herein lies the problem because there’s more than duplex going on right now,
and that’s the problem. And we’ve tried to work this. As you can see, the reason why we’re
here today is we want this to be on the public record and it’s documented, get an interpretation.
McDonald: I understand.
Aanenson: Yeah. Because there is a difference of opinion of how we’ve handled it in the past
and there hasn’t been concurrence so it’s good that it’s in a public forum to get this cleared up.
Loren Veltkamp: And I would emphasize again that the City’s already ruled on this and I have
letters to that effect from the City Attorney saying that it’s not a triplex or duplex or anything of
the sort. It’s simply a house with three kitchens and some roommates.
Aanenson: We respectfully disagree on that.
Loren Veltkamp: Well this is the first I’ve heard of this. Honestly.
McDonald: Well that was part of the reason why we wanted this tabled because I personally felt
that there was more to the ordinance than what we were being told and what we’ve gotten back is
yes, there is. And I think that was part of the missing piece of all this. You know I have
questions dealing with that that I will get into when it’s my turn but I want you to know that yes,
we asked staff to table this and come back with more information. They have done their job at
this point. And whether it’s new information to you or not, it’s new information to me. I mean
this is the first time I’ve seen it too but that’s why we asked for it because there were missing
pieces to all of this. This is a complicated issue. There are a lot of things that are going on here
and we have to sort them out and we can’t do that without the proper information, so.
Loren Veltkamp: I believe we spent 9 months on this last time we went through it. I think it was
a 9 month process.
McDonald: Hopefully it won’t be 9 again but.
Loren Veltkamp: I’d rather not do that again.
McDonald: Are you okay? You have any questions though?
Keefe: No. Not yet.
McDonald: Okay. Kurt.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
31
Papke: Disregarding what we call them right now, renters or roommates or whatever, how do
you manage your financial relationship with them? Do you have a written rental agreement or
how do you determine what rent they pay? Is it in writing?
Loren Veltkamp: …agreement.
Papke: It’s a verbal agreement?
Loren Veltkamp: It’s legal in Minnesota if you have less than 12 people you’re dealing with,
and there’s no lease so if anybody’s unhappy with anything they can go at any time. I have
house rules that everybody must comply with.
Papke: Are they in writing?
Loren Veltkamp: Yes. Yes, and it’s the stuff you would expect. No noise. No fighting. No
drinking. No anything like that. And you know the other agreement is I tell them you know that
you’re a roommate here. That’s part of the rental agreement too. You cannot call yourself, you
know these are not apartments.
Papke: Do you keep a record of payments of your roommates or renters? Who paid what when?
Loren Veltkamp: Well there’s only 3 of them so I mean.
Papke: But you keep some kind of record that they’ve paid their rent on time and things of that
nature?
Loren Veltkamp: Yeah usually but I can keep that in my head pretty much. I mean it’s just
month to month you know, and people contribute and sometimes they frankly can’t pay. And
I’ve let people do work on the house in exchange and things like that and I took one lady in with
a digital camera. You know because she was destitute and within 2 years she’s making $80,000.
Papke: If we grant the variances and you proceed to improve the second story, it looks like a
couple of the bedrooms will get substantially larger. It’s quite common with rental properties
that the rent is often correlated with the amount that’s charged for rent. Would you expect to
increase the amount of rent you charge your roommates or tenants as a result?
Loren Veltkamp: I would like to increase it slightly just to cover the rise in utility bills. You
know I’ve been losing.
Papke: So what you’re saying, you said before that you have a hardship on the basis of the
energy efficiency but you expect utility bills to go up when you do this?
Loren Veltkamp: Seems like they’re still going up. Yeah, they have gone up considerably.
Papke: But you just said that as a result of putting this expansion on, your utility bills will go up.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
32
Loren Veltkamp: No, they will go down I think. Because I’ll be stacking this properly.
Papke: Okay, that’s not what you just said but.
Loren Veltkamp: Didn’t I?
Papke: Yeah.
Loren Veltkamp: Well I think utility bills for the world are going to go up. Okay, for me if with
a variance I believe the utility bills will go down. I mean so it’d be a money saving thing,
because I’m not heating over the garage. That killed me when I put that room out over the
garage and tried to heat that thing, that was pretty hard.
Papke: Okay, that’s all I have.
Keefe: Just and one, I do have one quick question. Are you in agreement with the police report,
you know what they stated in there that there were renters in your? Are you in agreement with
that or…?
Loren Veltkamp: Well yeah, I told forever, I told the City forever that I had renters in there. I
tell everybody. I’ve never hidden this.
Keefe: Except last time you stated they were roommates but today you’re saying they’re
definitely renters.
Loren Veltkamp: Yeah, I don’t know what the difference between a roommate and a renter is. I
use the terms interchangeably, I mean. If there is a difference, let me know. You know I
specifically have roommates and my agreement, my rent agreement with them says you’re a
roommate. You know we’re going to share this house. You have to live according to the house
rules and you’re going to live like a family. You know that’s what we’re doing here.
McDonald: Okay. I guess the whole thing about whether they’re renters or roommates, you
would agree that you accept money. It does sound as though they are on a month to month lease.
Legally under the state statutes, that’s the way it is. If you do not have a written lease, you’re on
a 30 day month to month lease and there are protections for you within the statute as there are
protections for the renters. Statute doesn’t make a difference between roommates, renters. It
makes a difference between an exchange of money between individuals. You own a piece of
property and what you give out to those individuals is a place to live. So under the statute,
you’re going to fit the definition of landlord and renters.
Loren Veltkamp: That’s true. They just group us all together.
McDonald: So, yes. And that’s what we have to go by. As you say, you bring up the state
Supreme Court cases. There have been many cases on that and the definitions have changed via
statute because of that so, you are renting people. You would, renting to people and you would
agree to that.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
33
Loren Veltkamp: I said this all along. I don’t know why it’s become a point.
McDonald: Okay. And your intention would be that as part of all this is to get the 3 couples,
individuals, the people who were living there before would like to come back and you would
need this to help as far as maintaining the house. To me that’s monthly expenses.
Loren Veltkamp: Ah yeah, I can’t do without it. I can’t do, I have not worked. I’ve not been
able to work a full time job in over 20 years now, and this came out in the divorce too.
McDonald: Okay. How much of this expansion is driven by the fact that you’re trying to make
a better place for people to live in? The second story.
Loren Veltkamp: Absolutely none of it.
McDonald: Well who lived on the second floor?
Loren Veltkamp: One lady. Her name was Kathy. You know she primarily, she had her
bedroom up there, which blocked by access to the storage, which caused me you know trouble.
You know, because the City told me that the bedrooms must be regarded as private and I have to
give written permission to go into somebody’s bedroom and Kathy is working and you know this
kind of thing. I really don’t need to expand the square footage or anything like that. I just, you
know I just need to have 3 renters to make the mortgage.
McDonald: Okay, so what this is really coming down to is you really need the individuals to
help you stay in the house. If we were to deny your application, you could still move those
people back in the way it was.
Loren Veltkamp: Well I could but there, you know the staff is also interested in reducing my
driveway and taking out that third story kitchen. You know the second story kitchen and these
kinds of things. If they’re successful in doing that, and I don’t think that they can be, but if
they’re successful somehow in doing that, then that might you know hurt me just enough to force
me to sell you know. I’m really losing, I’ve been losing money every year here you know but I
happen to have some money when I divorced and I’m getting a little bit better so I was working
again last year because I had the house done so I went out and took some you know construction
jobs. So I’m working a little more now and I had some, you know I had some money to go
through but I was basically losing money. I was losing maybe $1,200 a year. About a $100 a
month. And then when utility bills went up you know, doubled, I mean that now this coming
year I could lose you know a lot more than that. So you know I’m on the edge here. My renters
on the edge too. They’re really on the edge.
McDonald: Okay, well one of the things in all of these applications when people come up before
us and you’re asking for variances, we do look for trade off’s because again we’re trying not to
intensify any of the I guess reasons for the variances themselves, and right now your hard surface
coverage area, according to the calculations, is 31%. So if you were to bring the driveway back
down to 25%, that meets the requirements for you to be able to put I think 2 cars in the driveway,
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
34
which is again, remember you’re in a single family residential district and that would meet the
requirements within that particular district. If what you’re looking at is that again you need to do
this in order to have facilities for the renters, then that’s what begins to complicate this. What is
this? A single family house or is this going to be a rental property? That’s what I guess we’re
trying to decide today. I really, I guess at this point I don’t have any further questions for you on
this but I do want to wait until after we’ve heard on the public meeting. We may have some
more questions for you at that point.
Loren Veltkamp: Yeah, regarding the surface coverage thing, when I did that originally that was
okay but the code on that has changed again too and they include retaining walls now as part of
the, and I have gazillions of retaining walls because the whole property slopes down toward the
lake. So I think that they might be adding in retaining walls here, you know and that’s why it’s
more now.
McDonald: Well I can’t, again because you’re not building exactly what was there, you open up
everything for review and scrutiny and that is all part of this process. At that point we do look at
everything. So you know that’s why the question was asked about could you just re-build the
way it was and live with that or if you actually need all this for either economic reasons or those
things, then there are things that we need to apply in our decision making process and hard
surface coverage area is one of them. And that is one of the things that we would look at in all of
this.
Loren Veltkamp: Two more things I could say about the hard coverage is that, we can vacate
Tamarack Road, which they were ready to do years ago. I investigated this. We could vacate
Tamarack Road and then that would be fine. That would probably settle this problem, and that
should be vacated anyway. We can keep the trail going through there you know for people if
they want to have it, it doesn’t matter to me. Another thing that can be done now is you can get
100% pervious pavers which allow the water to go through them 100%. And you can purchase
those now. They make them in Wisconsin. You know you could take up some of the brick and
put that in you know as another way to solve this problem. That’s not a big problem. We can
work with that one. I’m willing to. I’ve got nothing against these codes. I’m just trying to stay
in the house.
McDonald: Okay. Well let me go ahead and open it up the public meeting and let’s see what
comes out of that. We’ll take it from there. So at this point I will open up the floor for
comments from the public. I ask that you come up to the podium. State your name and address
and then address the Chair.
Jeff King: I live at 767 Carver Beach Road, just basically up the hill from the property. I have
three concerns. The way the construction’s going right now, I just want to make sure every code
is upheld. I looked in the staff report they wanted structural you know okay on everything. You
know I don’t know, whether they give a variance or not, I’d kind of like to see that upheld.
There’s reasons why there’s stuff that was damaged in the fire. As a you know resident and
neighbor I want to see the level of quality of the homes when they’re being redone kept as high
as possible. You know from what I understand, if you’re plumbing you need to have a licensed
plumber do it. You know not a do it yourselfer. That should all be done licensed, so I’d just like
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
35
to see the quality when the house goes back to be done to you know normal construction
standards. Second issue is, it’s right adjacent to the public beach. You know I just want to make
sure if he’s adding space on the second floor, you know there’s not a lot of windows over
looking the beach where there’s kids and you know, people in swimming suits basically. You
know the beach, you know it’s public land and I’d like to see ways to make that more private
from you know, it’s right across the street from this house and my third issue is that road. I do
not want to see the City vacate that. I don’t think the City should ever be giving back land. I’d
like to see that you know be expanded if anything for a walkway or something, so those are my
three issues and I just hope we can work around those three things.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Next.
Bruce Johansson: Hello. My name is Bruce Johansson. I own two properties directly west to
Mr. Veltkamp’s. 6701 Mohawk which is 4 feet from his property line, and I also own 6711
Mohawk, former Zelda and Herman Giegler property, which I bought a couple years ago, and I
have a number of issues in listening to Mr. Veltkamp both tonight and last week and I’d like to
address some things. I’m opposed to his request for a variance on a number of reasons. The
simplest is I don’t think he has a hardship and I don’t think he qualifies for it. I have some
pictures that if we’re going to start talking hardship, is it possible to pass pictures around?
Aanenson: Sure.
Bruce Johansson: Okay. These are pictures. This first one is currently out my back yard. All
you see is a.
McDonald: Excuse me. Before you do that, do we have a requirement that these have to be
shown on?
Aanenson: No.
McDonald: Okay.
Aanenson: We’ll make them part of the record though.
McDonald: Okay, thank you.
Bruce Johansson: Well the point I’m trying to make is, one of the pictures that you’ll see in
there, you just see a mass of black roof, and that used to be my totally unobstructed view of
Lotus Lake, so if there’s hardship, I’ve felt hardship a lot in the devaluing of my property and I
think it’s unfortunate. I think Mr. Veltkamp has a right to rebuild the house. He doubled the size
about 6-7 years ago as he states. I know that because I was living there then and now he wants to
make it even larger and I think it’s going to have, I don’t think it’s going to improve the
property, and I think from what it sounds like, is that he’s relying on this property as his income
source. And if you do give him a variance, I’d like one too. If we could just pack in, maybe we
could have a condominium development. I mean if we’re going to carry this line of thinking to
just. I’m a single man and I pay all the bills myself and I’ve had to work. I work every day so,
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
36
an inconvenience I think is different than a hardship. A person can rebuild the house. He didn’t
talk to his neighbor. I’m the closest. You’ll see some pictures on there of some nail spikes
sticking out of the fence that’s directly on my property. I don’t know how it passed code. He
has fake iron denotating the property line, and so I think there’s some fudging going on. And
then as far as the vacating of Tamarack. I’ve gone around and talked to a great number of the
neighbors in the 500 foot radius specifically about creating a walkway down Tamarack Road,
which borders my, both of my properties. Mr. Veltkamp and Mr. and Mrs. Tibbetts, and I’ve
had really unanimous support. I presented this to the Park and Rec Commission last, a couple
weeks ago. I’d just like to pass this around if I could. And Mr. Veltkamp hasn’t talked to me or
any of our neighbors about his plans and so I don’t know if it really shows a sense of
neighborliness. I think if maybe he would have come in with a plan that had a low roof and you
know, would work. I know Mr. and Mrs. Sennes, they’re doing beautiful remodel right across
the street from me and fits in great. They haven’t bothered anybody and they aren’t requesting
anything and they would have liked to have had a variance. I would have been immediately
backing them up. I think it’s the way a person goes about it and from my reading of the
ordinance, it just doesn’t seem like he has a valid hardship. That’s my reason for opposing it.
Thank you.
McDonald: Okay, thank you sir. Does anyone else wish to come forward?
Liz Tibbetts: Hi. My name’s Liz Tibbetts and I, what do we live to the northwest?
Steve Tibbetts: 6699.
Liz Tibbetts: 6699 Mohawk. And in the winter when the trees are not full of leaves we can see
Mr. Veltkamp’s property. His decks that he added on. Blue tarps after the fire and now more of
our view of trees and lake will be blocked if he is allowed this variance to go up. Another
concern I have is just because there were some variances granted in the past, right or wrong, does
not mean that we should continue down that path and give him additional variances that are more
egregious or more aggressive or whatever term we’re using. I also feel great concern over the
fact that he has expressed last month at the meeting and again tonight the fact that he does not, if
he’s granted the variance, he does not plan to abide by the restrictions that the staff is
recommending. If he does not agree with the staff’s recommendation, that he doesn’t get a third
kitchen, he doesn’t agree with cutting down on the driveway space, and he just commented that
he’s not really planning to do that. So granting him the variance, thinking that you’re going to
get him to abide by these restrictions when he first would stand here and say that he’s not
planning to do that, doesn’t encourage me in thinking that that’s the right approach. We’re just
letting him have larger space and encroach upward and into the, what could be a walking path.
And we’re going to continue to have the same kind of rental issues that we currently have in a
residential neighborhood. That maybe some of the other staff recommendations were making it
a rental property and limiting the number of rentals is a completely, sounds like it’s a different
process. A different plan. But that could be followed whether or not he gets this height
variance, so I’m opposed. I don’t think that it’s going to help the neighborhood at all, and I don’t
think that there is hardship. You know the fact of stacking your utilities and that kind of thing, to
remodel within the existing footprint to get a good architect or a good remodeler, you can figure
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
37
out how to change your floorplan, which is a separate issue and not an ongoing hardship. So my
husband and I are opposed to giving the variance.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else care to come forward please?
Mike Henderson: I’m Mike Henderson. I live at 6701, just right behind Mr. Veltkamp. I’m
opposed to the height variance, or the variance based on the height I should say. The part that
has currently been constructed is over the garage. It’s at least twice as big as it was before and
completely, there’s photos that were passed around. It completely blocks the, there’s no view of
anything beyond that other than the garage. And in addition to commenting on the aspect of
renters in the past, it was mentioned that, something to the effect of a family type of
environment. I’d like to pass this around. This is the type of family environment we had going
on there. This is the sheriff’s report, and that’s really about all I have to say. Thank you.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else wish to come up and make comment?
Loren Veltkamp: Wondering if I can return.
McDonald: Well as soon as the public meeting’s over, I’ll let you come back up. Okay, seeing
no one else come forward, we’ll close the public meeting. Before I bring it back up to the
commissioners, do you wish to add something sir?
Loren Veltkamp: Well yeah.
McDonald: Why don’t you come up to the podium.
Loren Veltkamp: I should add a couple things here. You know as Mr. Johansson got up here
and talked, Mr. Johansson has been angry with me because I blocked his view of the lake and.
McDonald: Okay, before you get into that. This is the same thing with staff, and I’m going to
allow this to become an issue of he said, she said. I really don’t care what they’ve said. You
know all we’re looking for is input so that we can make a decision. This is not a forum for
anybody to get up and start making comments about their neighbors. That is not what this is
about. What I would like for you to do is, you have an opportunity if you want to add something
that will help us to make our decision, that is fine. If what you want to do is talk about your
neighbors, I can’t help you. That’s not what this forum is for.
Loren Veltkamp: I’ll just add then that the roof on the new plan is sloped in such a way that it
provides the house behind me a better view then they had before. Okay. I realize that the roof is
a little steeper this time, but the way it’s sloped will provide a better view for that property. Not
worst.
McDonald: Okay, thank you.
Keefe: One quick question of staff. What is being constructed right now?
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
38
Metzer: The only work that’s been done since the house, since the fire is reconstruction of the
garage.
Keefe: Okay. Just the garage.
Metzer: And that portion of the home.
Keefe: Has been left as it was or?
Aanenson: Correct.
Keefe: Or in.
Metzer: If he wanted to build out to the max height at that portion of the home, he could because
it meets setbacks.
Keefe: Okay, so that is in line with the way it was before.
Aanenson: That’s correct. Can I just make one other clarification for the neighbors. When you
have a homeowner building a house, it’s definitely more tedious to inspect, but just to be clear,
as the supervisor of the building inspection department, we do try to check on a regular basis
what’s going out there. There is mechanical requirements, as special inspections are already
being required. Those are all written. Whether or not he gets a variance, we still want to make
sure that it’s followed to the T. Again it’s a little bit different when you have a homeowner
building the home and it takes longer, which is, can be a little bit of a nuisance for the
neighborhood but that is a right that the homeowner has to do. As long as there’s continuous
activity, they can do that and we are monitoring that.
McDonald: Okay. And with that I’ll bring it back up the commissioners for comment and
discussion. Want to start Kurt?
Papke: Okay. As to recommendation A, I think it’s pretty clear to us all that he has been renting
the property. A dwelling unit as one or more rooms with, for one or more persons basically with
a bedroom and a kitchen and a bathroom, which is basically what he’s got, so clearly I’d have to
support staff here that, on their interpretation that he has been renting the property. As to the
variances, this one is really unusual because you know if we really bound by the findings of fact
here, and if we just ignore everything else and just look at the findings of fact, the staff findings,
does not cause undue hardship. It’s applicable to all properties. Increases the value of the
property. Self created. You know you go right on down the line and there’s nothing in the
findings of fact to support a variance here. And so it’s highly unusual for me to have staff come
back with findings of fact that don’t support a variance, but yet to recommend the variance.
Now I understand there’s extenuating factors in this case. There’s other issues at play but as
Planning Commission member, I feel somewhat compelled to follow the findings of fact and say
we should do what we’re supposed to do, which is to interpret the findings of fact and the code
and make that recommendation to City Council. In regards to kind of the indirect consequences
of our actions, I’m just very concerned that if we grant this variance, if we would ignore the
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
39
findings of fact and grant the variance, it would provide a compelling inducement for the
applicant to continue or even intensify the rental use of his property, which is exactly what we’re
trying to avoid. So I think we have to be very careful that sometimes what we stipulate in our
recommendations and our conditions for granting a variance, that’s one thing. Those have to be
enforced but there is another, if we make it so compelling that he can perhaps get a better rental
price for his units and so on, I just think that fights what we’re trying to do with our, with trying
to control the situation. And then lastly, I think there is a pretty good plan C here in that if we, if
we really read through the conditions for use of single family dwellings as a two family
dwelling, clearly I think the applicant has demonstrated there’s some financial hardships here
and so on and if I read it, the way I interpret it is, is here in Section 20-59, it really seems to
signal that this is a way to accommodate people to take a single family home. Open up a second
unit for people under conditions of financial hardship which you know we would have to, it
would have to be concurred to, and that’s really what the code outlines that really should be
followed under these kind of circumstances so I, everything seems to point to me in that general
direction of going for pursuit of this two family dwelling alternative so that’s all.
Keefe: You know in regards to the renting piece, you know it’s my opinion that staff is correct
on this that he’s been renting and looking at, he stated so himself and then also the police report I
think gives enough evidence that he’s currently renting so I’d be in support of A. In regards to
B, I’m concerned about it really expansion of the property given you know what he’s doing with
it and the fact that he appears to sort of, kind of flaunt the code and kind of do what he wants to
do anyway on his own so, I just have a real concern about making an expansion despite all the
best intentions of the staff to try and control it through a variance, but you know, I really don’t
want to see an expansion of it and I also have a hard time finding hardship associated with it so, I
think really our role would really sort of compel us to deny, to deny that variance based upon
hardship reasons. So that’s kind of where I come down on it.
McDonald: Okay. Kevin.
Dillon: Yeah, I think I’m going to concur with these two guys on A. I, you know also would
just agree with everything Kurt said regarding B plus, I mean the comments from the neighbors
in terms of like the views and everything that will be disturbed if this was allowed to go through
as proposed so, I don’t like that. And then the Plan C, I mean kind of you know it gets back
down to the what seems to have been a pretty blatant disregard for codes and guidelines and all
that sort of stuff before. I mean if you go through the process of hardship and you know get two
family thing but that’s you know, I mean I think we’re kind of right back to where it was. I
mean and you know unless there’s someone you know totally you know riding herd on the
situation every day, I don’t know how you’re ever going to get around you know. Is it two
families could soon be three and three could be four.
Aanenson: Right, I think what, sure.
McDonald: Let me ask a question about that because I wanted this. If you have this, under this
statute you have enforcement powers, is that correct?
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
40
Aanenson: That’s correct, and again that’s why, this is a public process where we’re getting it
on the record but also the disagreement came in regarding the rental license. There is
disagreement on why there wasn’t a licensed approved, but this, whether you grant it with a
variance or it comes back to the other one, on the process of the hardship case, we would require
a rental license. Therefore we’re in every other year to inspect the property to see how it’s being
managed. Who’s living there. The requirements regarding parking. Whatever reasonable
conditions so there would be more control, and that’s where there was a disagreement before of
how it was being used. Who was in there. When it kept being added onto. Clearly it went under
the, trying to go under the radar what the rules were, and now we’re trying to say we want to
clarify that.
McDonald: Right.
Aanenson: And to get a rental license, which we would for anybody else.
McDonald: Anything else?
Dillon: I’m done.
McDonald: Debbie.
Larson: I also concur with A. As far as, it’s very obvious that there’s renters there and the fact
that he says there’s no families there, the police report, maybe they’re not married but still
there’s a gentleman, his girlfriend and a baby. To me that sounds like a family. And it’s
mentioned a couple of times. I don’t know if the police officer, I’m sure he didn’t miss that.
Some of the things that the citizens of the neighborhood brought up, kind of demonstrated to me
there’s a little bit of a disregard for, for the concerns of the neighborhood. And then also too,
one of the things that I saw reading the police report as to when the house was burning down,
some of the actions that went on was actually quite interesting to read and kind of read like a
good TV show in some parts. I really honestly have a problem with the fact that we want to
block the views and go up further from what we had. I would like to see the house layout
improved, if that’s possible without changing things too much. I mean I can certainly understand
having a bedroom on top of the garage is not energy efficient. I’d like to see energy efficiency
and I don’t know how we can work that into this, but that may be a completely different issue.
But as it stands, I don’t want to see the same house put up because it sounds like it’s sort of piece
meal. But I’m not sure I want to see it be expanded either, so I don’t know. I’m struggling with
this one.
McDonald: Okay. Mark.
Undestad: I too would agree with A. It is a rental. Even by the applicant’s own admission, it is
a rental. Rental units there. I also think that again our role here, looking for hardships or
variances, things like that, I mean we have to look at it and truly there isn’t a hardship. He still
has reasonable use of the property so I think no matter how much we try or hear how the people
kind of twist and turn, try to come up with our own phrases here, I think bottom line is, it doesn’t
fit the hardship issue on there.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
41
McDonald: Okay. I guess my comments back to the same reason why I was in favor of tabling
this and why I asked staff to come up with something a little bit better as far as the rules as to
how to deal with this. On that particular night we were asked to review two variances, which we
denied. If anything we have been very consistent I think in the way that we have applied the
rules, and my problem that night was we were being asked to basically look the other way and
not apply the rules, and I had a problem with that. I have a problem with that because again,
people have come in here. We have denied variances for individuals on Lake Riley trying to
build their home. They wanted access for handicap. It didn’t fit within the requirements of what
the hardship was and they also intensified into an area that would have made variances and
setbacks worst. We ended up with a good compromise there in the fact that there was some give
and take and I believe that the home they wound up with, they’re quite happy with. We also
have problems with other individuals who have gone out and decided to build things. We’re
now in the process of telling those individuals they have to tear it down, and there is a lot of
money involved in tearing things down. We have told people to dig up sport courts. They too
have come in and tried to say that the hardship is again, you have to understand what we’re
looking at for a hardship. Your high utility bills is not a hardship. It is an inconvenience. A
hardship would mean that you cannot occupy your residence without the variance. You cannot
take advantage of what the residence would afford you as a living space. I have not seen
anything here tonight that says you are being denied any of those things. The neighbors have
come back and again this gets us back into the issue of the intensification. You’re asking to
build up, which at that point begins to block individual’s views. We do have a right to look at
that because again you’ve come to us and you’ve asked us for waivers against an existing non-
conforming residence. As I mentioned up here before, if you had built it back the way it was, we
probably wouldn’t be here tonight. But however you are wanting to make changes, I can
understand the need for those changes in your circumstances. But I’m afraid what it comes
down to is we must apply the rules and that’s one of the things I’ve tried to get across here
tonight is that we need input that will help us to basically apply the rules and the statutes of the
city so that we can make a decision. And unfortunately, you know individuals do come to us
with some very compelling reasons as to why we should grant variances, but we can’t unless
they meet again, what the law lays out as far as hardship and all these points that staff has gone
through. I think based upon that, you know we are probably at a point where we can make a
decision on this and we will go forward from there, but I do need the applicant to understand that
the process that we’re going through is we are applying the rules. As part of those rules you
have the right to disagree with us. We’re not the final word. Again we make a recommendation
and it is based upon our interpretation of the law as it is given to us. So with that I guess I’m
looking for some motions and as I kind of understand this, we will probably need to do all three
of these and vote on them.
Keefe: Two.
Aanenson: If I could just, the two. One that, the interpretation one.
McDonald: On Part A.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
42
Aanenson: Yep, and then either B or C. And then Mr. Chair, if I could just refer you to Findings
of Fact, depending on which way you go, that we, I don’t want to steer you on that vote. If you
do modify and go with C, then we’d want to, I’ve got some changes in the Findings of Fact so
they would correlate to a denial recommendation if you get to that point. I’d be happy to help
you.
McDonald: Okay.
Papke: Alright Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission moves to concur with
the planning staff’s interpretation that the owner of property at 6724 Lotus Trail, Loren
Veltkamp has been renting the property as defined in the City Code Article VIII, Rental
Dwelling Licenses, Section 10-217, Rental Dwelling.
Aanenson: Is it 20 or 10? It’s 10, I’m sorry. That’s correct.
Papke: And then I make a second motion that we deny the variance for 22 foot and 15 foot front
yard setback variances for the expansion of the second level of a home with non-conforming
setbacks in the single family residential district at 6724 Lotus Trail based on the following. One,
the applicant has reasonable use of the property. Two, the applicant has not demonstrated a
hardship. And three, there’s an alternative process to secure a rental license.
Keefe: Second.
McDonald: Okay. On the motion, on the first motion. Motion A. All in favor signify, well first
of all, does anyone wish to add any amendments? Okay.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission moves to concur with the
planning staff’s interpretation that the owner of property at 6724 Lotus Trail, Loren
Veltkamp has been renting the property as defined in the City Code Article VIII, Rental
Dwelling Licenses, Section 10-217, Rental Dwelling. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission deny the variance for 22 foot
and 15 foot front yard setback variances for the expansion of the second level of a home
with non-conforming setbacks in the single family residential district at 6724 Lotus Trail
based on the following:
1. The applicant has reasonable use of the property.
2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
3, There’s an alternative process to secure a rental license.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
McDonald: So the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
43
Aanenson: Mr. Chair can I just also have you adopt the Findings of Fact as a part of our record.
McDonald: Yes.
Aanenson: And then if we could just go through those real quick. They’re in your staff report.
Modified to match the motion.
McDonald: Okay, which ones?
Aanenson: I’d recommend under 4(d). The purpose of the variation is based on a desire to
increase the value. I’m assuming that matches, I’ll wait til you get done, sorry.
McDonald: Okay. You’re on page 5 of 7? Findings.
Aanenson: I’m just on this attachment. I’m not looking. It’s just the back side. It’s back of 7 of
7.
McDonald: Okay.
Aanenson: So if you go to 4 (c). Again this is to match the motion. That the variation is based
on a desire to increase hardship. That would correlate to the findings. The alleged difficulty of
hardship is self created. Again that would match. And then the granting of variance will be
detriment to the public, injurious and again that was talking about the view sheds. That’s
correct. And then we would add the conditions that Commissioner Papke read as a part of that
too. That there’s an alternative. If that’s acceptable, and I would ask that the commission adopt
those then as the findings.
Papke: Okay, I make a motion that we adopt the amended Findings of Fact as stated by the
Planning Director.
McDonald: Do I hear a second?
Larson: I’d second.
Papke moved, Larson seconded to adopt the amended Findings of Fact as stated by the
Planning Director. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6
to 0.
McDonald: So at this point what the Planning Commission has done tonight is we have agreed
with the city staff that their interpretation that the owner of the property at 6724 Lotus Trail has
been renting the property. And that under the code we have adopted their recommendation C,
that it is an alternative to this that what the applicant should do is now apply for a rental license
so that what we can look at is a two family rental on the dwelling and at that point we will apply,
based upon those standards, whether or not the variances would be approved.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
44
Aanenson: Can I just state one other thing for the record? Just a point of order. Anybody
aggrieved of this decision has the right to appeal, so Mr. Veltkamp still has the right to appeal
this decision to the City Council, and that has to be done in.
Metzer: Within 4 days.
Aanenson: 4 days. So.
McDonald: I was going to say that.
Aanenson: Yeah, I’m sorry, okay.
McDonald: Just want to make sure I’ve got it right, but thank you.
Aanenson: Yep.
McDonald: Okay, yes ma’am.
Audience: When it says here that a single family dwelling as a two family dwelling, does that
mean a duplex?
Aanenson: It wouldn’t, not necessarily. There are conditions in the city code, and if you want to
give Josh a call, we can go through that with you but it doesn’t have to be separate entrances or
anything. It’s just, how it’s being used.
McDonald: It’s more of a condition of how the property is actually being used.
Audience: It limits the amount of people that he can.
Aanenson: Correct. There would also be a public hearing on that process, so again there’d be an
opportunity for public comment on any reasonable conditions that we’d want to attach to make
that work, and that might be outdoor storage, car parking, etc..
McDonald: Right, at that point the whole issue of variances can be re-addressed upon the new
classification.
Audience: And when would that be?
Aanenson: He hasn’t applied for it yet.
McDonald: He has to apply for it.
Keefe: There’ll be another notice that goes out.
Aanenson: That’s correct.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
45
McDonald: Okay. So at that point then we are complete with that issue and we will now move
on.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keefe moved, Commissioner Larson seconded
to note the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated
June 20, 2006 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a
vote of 6 to 0.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
JULY 25, 2006
Acting Chair Scharfenberg called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Spizale, Jeff Daniel, Anne Murphy and Steve Scharfenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Kelly, Glenn Stolar and Paula Atkins
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; and Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Superintendent
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Murphy moved, Spizale seconded to approve the agenda
amended to include discussion on bike trail markings under commission member
presentations. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Staff reviewed upcoming events, i.e. Thursday night Concert
in the Park series, Miracles for Mitch Triathlon, and Dave Huffman Race.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Murphy moved, Daniel seconded to approve the verbatim and
summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated June 27, 2006 as
presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
DISCUSS POTENTIAL PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES WITH INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT 112 AS THEY SEEK TO BUILD A NEW HIGH SCHOOL IN
CHANHASSEN.
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Murphy stated she’s heard
demand for a swimming pool to host a competitive swim club and a football stadium. Regarding
locating a town baseball stadium at the high school, Commissioner Daniel has heard concerns
from 3 or 4 people about not being able to sell alcohol on school premises. The people
Commissioner Scharfenberg talked with brought up the need for a hockey facility and
encouraged the council to explore all possibilities of a partnership with the school district.
Daniel moved, Murphy seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission direct staff to
continue discussions with School District 112 on further investigation regarding possible
partnership for a ballpark, hockey arena, and pool. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Park and Rec Summary – July 25, 2006
2
2007 PARK AND TRAIL ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP).
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item and asked the commissioners for additions
or changes to the list provided by staff. Pat Niles, speaking for the Little League program, asked
that the commission consider the addition of a concession stand in conjunction with the pavilion
at Lake Ann Park, noting that the Little League would partner with the City to make that happen.
Commissioner Scharfenberg asked staff to bring back the 5 year CIP to discuss that issue at the
Park and Rec meeting in August.
Scharfenberg moved, Daniel seconded to table discussion on the 2007 Park and Trail
Acquisition and Development Capital Improvement Program (CIP). All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
RECREATION PROGRAM REPORTS:
2006 FOURTH OF JULY CELEBRATION. Jerry Ruegemer presented the evaluation on the
2006 Fourth of July celebration. Commissioner Daniel suggested having more children and
toddler sized t-shirts. Commissioner Spizale suggested having an information booth where
people can ask questions or get directions.
FALL SOFTBALL LEAGUE REPORT. Jerry Ruegemer provided an update on the fall
softball league.
CARVER BEACH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. Todd Hoffman reported on the
neighborhood meeting that was held at Carver Beach Park to discuss tree planting and provided a
potential job list for the park.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. Jack Spizale asked about the
possibility of marking the city’s bike trail system. Todd Hoffman commented on the time and
money involved in implementing such a program.
ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. The commission discussed the skate park attendant and asked
staff to check the ordinance regarding smoking at Lake Ann Park beach.
Murphy moved, Spizale seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 25, 2006
Acting Chair Scharfenberg called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jack Spizale, Jeff Daniel, Anne Murphy and Steve Scharfenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Kelly, Glenn Stolar and Paula Atkins
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; and Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Superintendent
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Murphy moved, Spizale seconded to approve the agenda
amended to include discussion on bike trail markings under commission member
presentations. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Scharfenberg: Any public announcements?
Hoffman: Well, we have a variety of them. Coming up on the calendar is, what’s the next
event? Miracles.
Ruegemer: We’ve got concert series Thursday night. Our last one. There’s a Big Bend in the
River is the band. 17 piece band. They’ll be playing Thursday night right up here.
Scharfenberg: What time?
Ruegemer: 7:00.
Scharfenberg: Okay.
Hoffman: Then August, what’s the date for Miracles?
Ruegemer: 18th.
Hoffman: 18th. Miracles for Mitch. It’s actually up to 1,000 participants in the event and
Huffman Race is September 9th. Plan ahead for those events and talk to your neighbors.
Scharfenberg: Do you need any help from the commission members on the Huffman Run?
Ruegemer: We sure will. You bet. I’ll be in touch with you guys.
Hoffman: Sign up in August.
Park and Rec Commission – July 25, 2006
2
Daniel: What’s that date again?
Ruegemer: September 9th.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Murphy moved, Daniel seconded to approve the verbatim and
summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated June 27, 2006 as
presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
DISCUSS POTENTIAL PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES WITH INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT 112 AS THEY SEEK TO BUILD A NEW HIGH SCHOOL IN
CHANHASSEN.
Hoffman: Thank you Chair Scharfenberg, members of the commission. To your last meeting I
believe it was, June 27th the commission made a recommendation to the city, that the City
Council initiate a joint effort concerning a baseball stadium within the community. That
recommendation has been forwarded from my office to City Manager Todd Gerhardt on June
30th, and at the time you talked about that that evening, and as you recall that conversation was
initiated by the gentleman that came in I believe at your May meeting to talk about the future of
baseball and the possibilities in Chanhassen. The commission also said well, let’s talk about
what other possible joint facilities could we participate in with School District 112 as they come
to town to ask the voters to build a new high school. They will be presenting that referendum on
the general election this November 7th. They’ll build a high school on a 90 acre site situated off
of Lyman Boulevard in southern Chanhassen. You have a map located there. I have seen a very
preliminary site plan and it did include on that property a football stadium and a baseball stadium
as the two most visible external or outside athletic venues. They also had tennis courts, which
they need for their tennis program, and then a track, which would be incorporated in their
football stadium, and then just some ancillary fields after that to allow for practice. So now a
huge property at 90 acres. It has some bluff and some unusable property, and then you plop a
very large school in the center of it and that’s what they have mapped. At least in a schematic
design. That’s in no way to say that those things will be built there. Just gives you an idea of
the possibilities for that particular piece of property. In general, to kind of shape the
conversation, the Park and Recreation staff had a, had hoped that with this new school coming to
town that there would be a potential to add to our, add to our ability to host athletic events in the
community. From what we see today, this new school, if built in town, will actually do the
opposite. They will not be able to build sufficient facilities on that site to accommodate all the
activities that would come along with a high school, and so they would be out seeking space or
playing time at Lake Ann, Bandimere, Lake Susan to accommodate a high school being in this
town. Now the City would probably certainly want to attempt to accommodate that so they’re
going to be you know Chanhassen children attending that school. Participating in those
programs, but it’s actually going to do the opposite of what we had hoped for. It’s not going to
be a, it’s not going to go in the positive column. It’s going to actually I think put additional
pressure, if it’s built, on our existing facilities. And so you know this is the time again to look
for additional opportunities within the community. Do we have to go out and partner with the
district and push some additional space in town? They also don’t have an ice arena incorporated
Park and Rec Commission – July 25, 2006
3
as a part of this program, and in talking about that, if you’re going to have your own football
team and your own baseball team, you’re going to have your own hockey teams and where are
those teams going to go and participate so, there is much work to be done and I think a lot of it’s
going to have to happen in the next 30 to 60 days prior to the referendum, and there’s also, if this
thing passes, there’s going to be a good deal of work after that point. When you open the school
in fall of 2009, if it passes, you’d better be ready not only for the academic needs of those
children but the sporting and athletic events as well so. That’s the general message that I have
for the commission. It’s really one of your responsibilities to advise your City Council on what
you see as far as the necessary improvements in the community, if any, if this high school is built
in the community so anxious to hear from you folks and upon receiving a recommendation, if
you have one to the commission, or for the council, staff will forward that to them.
Scharfenberg: Let’s open it up for discussion. Anne, want to go ahead first?
Murphy: Well what I heard a lot of discussion from my neighbors was on the community pool
and wanting to have a swim club. Competitive club swimming in Chanhassen because we don’t
currently have that. They have to go to Chaska or Minnetonka, so a lot of people have their kids
in, and Eden Prairie. So a lot of people don’t have their kids in Chanhassen swim club because
there isn’t one. So they wanted to see that and then the article came out in the paper that it
wasn’t being built in the high school so people had a lot of concerns and questions about why it
wasn’t being built at the high school, and I really didn’t quite know all the background on that so
I didn’t really know how to answer that question. But that’s what I heard the most about and
people wanted of course a football stadium. Then I had a couple people bring up parking. If
there’s going to be enough parking for students, because I guess at Chaska High right now a lot
of the students can’t park, or there’s only so many spots given so there’s a lot of students that
can’t park that have cars.
Hoffman: They park at Target.
Murphy: Yeah, and walk so. That’s what I heard.
Daniel: Yeah, and actually the same thing at Minnetonka. They’re parked all the way down to
101 on the side. It’s amazing. They walk for blocks just to get there.
Hoffman: And you referenced the article about the pool, and I’m not sure if they answered all
the reasons why but from what I understand the pool is going to be proposed for construction at
the 9th grade center, along with additional gym space and at least from what the article said, is
it’s they considered it, the school district, a neutral site in the fact that it wouldn’t be at the high
school in Chaska. It wouldn’t be at the high school in Chan built, and so it would be at that
location and both varsity teams would then utilize that space. In addition they had it
programmed in their overall program for that site, so they have the space there to accommodate
it. So that was their reason.
Murphy: So both high schools are using that for their competitive high school teams. The odds
of a club swim getting a lot of time in the fall and winter.
Park and Rec Commission – July 25, 2006
4
Hoffman: Would not be good.
Murphy: Would not be good.
Daniel: Yeah and Chanhassen does have one pool. Just serviced by Minnetonka so.
Scharfenberg: Jeff, what do you have?
Daniel: The one comment I had, talking to a few people out are, out in the public is, and this is
going to sound weird, but with discussion related to the town ball, town ball stadium I should say
in support of athletic from cooperation with the school district and supporting as initial
discussion came up for town ball and that’s kind of where I’m heading to. Really related to
concessions believe it or not and alcohol sold on the concessions because as you know you
cannot sell alcohol on school premises. So not that that was a major issue, but it was one, a
concern by actually 3 or 4 people I talked to. I mean as far as well are they going to be, it’s
going to be like Chaska. They kept on comparing it to Chaska. One person referenced it to
Jordan and how Jordan does their’s as well. I mean they’re all off site and I don’t know if
there’s any consideration if there’s interest in the district to kind of have something set up similar
to how Chaska’s doing their’s with the athletic field. From a high school standpoint. I mean if
Chanhassen has a, or if and when we get to the point of having a high school in our city, then
having a baseball stadium on campus in support again, and if we’re looking at a town ball team,
there might be some loss of additional revenues if they, or at least an opportunity in the sale of
beer basically. So that was, like I said, the irony out of everything. It pretty much, the people I
talked to were pretty excited about the idea. Not only the high school but also the idea of town
ball coming back in Chanhassen, and legion ball as well.
Scharfenberg: Jack.
Spizale: So Todd as I understand it, the reason that there wouldn’t be some of those things is
because of shortage of land or the type of land? As far as doing a stadium at the high school.
It’d be hard to do?
Hoffman: They could do it, and they had a stadium both for baseball and football in their initial
schematic. The baseball field was shorter than a town ball field, and you also, as Commissioner
Daniel’s pointed out, you could not have concessions with alcoholic beverages, which in a town
team level doesn’t make a lot of sense. So if you want to pursue a baseball stadium that can
accommodate all those uses, like Shakopee, Jordan, Chaska, you would want to look to an off
site location and then utilize that space that would have been taken up for the baseball stadium
for something else at the high school site. But currently they have one on their plan, but it’s 350
and it would be for high school ball. The town teams probably could not be accommodated
there.
Spizale: Okay. That’s all I have.
Scharfenberg: Okay. Well the thing that I talked with some people about, the one thing that
came up was the hockey rink and doing some sort of hockey facility. I also had a conversation
Park and Rec Commission – July 25, 2006
5
with former Park Commissioner Rod Franks about you know kind of where the school board was
on some of this stuff or just talking about some of those issues and just, he had indicated with
respect to the pool is that, as Todd had indicated, that they have the space at Pioneer Ridge to
build that. He also said that he didn’t think that there would be, that they would talk about
another pool if the cost, he said the cost of the pool alone is $8 million dollars so, that there
probably wouldn’t be looking at partnering with somebody to build potentially another pool.
And you know I was thinking about what the, and then talking to Rod too about the hockey
situation, he said that if you did that, they would be looking at potentially two sheets of ice. One
for a practice sheet. The other one for a playing sheet, but you’d use both but they would be
looking potentially at two sheets, and he had mentioned the possibility of approaching the City of
Victoria about building another sheet. They have one, but then they would have two. The only
other thing I thought about in terms of what we have in terms of land space was, with the two
outdoor rinks that we have out at Bluff Creek, that that space you know would be some potential
to do something with that and partnering with the district with some of that space maybe.
Otherwise my thought is, I think they’ve got to have, they’ve got to have sufficient practice
facilities. It’d be nice to have a bigger ballfield or have a ballfield to accommodate. I just don’t
know if they’re going to be able to, that they would be, the City, or the school district be willing
to partner on doing something like that off site. I don’t know. Other than that, that was about it.
I know there’s been other talk about at previous meetings, putting up some sort of a dome or
some sort of thing similar to what I think they have at Eden Prairie and I don’t know if there’s
any thought about that or doing something like that with them.
Hoffman: Yeah, I don’t know either but it would make sense at their football stadium would be
a good way to go there. Also they’re talking artificial turf on these fields, so you can play on
them just about non-stop and then if you put a dome or a bubble over that, a field house over that
football stadium, then you can play both summer and winter. Would come down obviously for
the summer and fall season and then go back up, but I’m not sure if that’s in the program. And
then again, if the community wants to get involved in that, people have to step up and say, we’d
want to consider that as a part of the program.
Scharfenberg: The one thing that Rod Franks had mentioned too is that the school district has a
very good bond rating and that they have the ability to borrow money at a very low rate, and
potentially partner up with either the City or other youth organizations to help pay back that
money if they’re going to go into something together. I think he cited an example of where they
had built something and somebody was paying back the school district in terms of building stuff
like that, so I think there’s interest there on their part to do something more and I would certainly
encourage our council to explore all possibilities with the school district to partner as much as we
can. Todd, do we need to kind of make some recommendations then to council as to what we
want. Do we want to prioritize some things or?
Hoffman: You can either prioritize or just make a motion and then similar to the last statement
you made so. You can give them specifics or you can give them generalities or you don’t have
to, you know just depending on what the four of you feel is best. As far as a motion to the
council, we’re coming up on August 1st. Obviously they’re going to formulate this referendum
in probably the next 30 to 60 days and then it’s going to go on the ballot so. It’s going to happen
fast.
Park and Rec Commission – July 25, 2006
6
Daniel: If you don’t mind if I can add one more thing too Todd with regards and going back to
the stadium as well. Or at least the baseball portion of it. If you take a look at the surrounding
high schools that Chanhassen will be in essence competing with, or potentially competing with.
Minnetonka’s got a brand new $3 1.2 million dollar stadium that’s absolutely beautiful. Field
turf year round and, well basically. Football. Converted football fields for the fall, which
actually is a nice benefit for having those types of, that type of field service. You know they can
quickly change it out. The fences are moved or actually removed. But that as far as I know,
actually I think Eden Prairie as well are the only two local ones that are on campus. Everything
else is pretty much, Shakopee as you mentioned, Chaska, you know playing, Chaska plays in one
of the best ball parks in the State, and they have that leverage of course the ballpark’s almost 100
years old. But still, if there is an opportunity either at the school district or off site in looking at
existing facilities that Chanhassen has, that’s one thing you should probably take into
consideration and my recommendation at least with regards to that portion of it, if they do, is at
least give a good serious consideration to an off site first. Taking a look at. Then second would
be on campus. Any type of partnership. I think part of it has to do with again with limitations
and the expansion of town ball, if that’s the direction the community or people do want to see us
go into. I really don’t want to see where it’s at Victoria, where it’s very low turnout’s. Right in
the heart of the city and they don’t get a whole lot of attention. I think part of it has to do with
the facilities.
Hoffman: Yeah, much of it does.
Daniel: Yeah. I mean it’s just, actually probably a good, almost all of it does. It’s actually a
really nice ballpark but it’s not.
Hoffman: A stadium.
Daniel: It’s not a stadium, exactly. So if you can do it, do it right then.
Scharfenberg: Does anybody want to propose a motion?
Murphy: I just have one more question.
Scharfenberg: Okay.
Murphy: Is that a done deal then that they’re going to do the pool at Pioneer Ridge?
Hoffman: As far as I know.
Murphy: There’s no discussion of doing it at the high, or building it at the high school?
Hoffman: There was discussion but as far as I know their consensus is that they’re going to
propose to build it at the 9th grade center.
Murphy: That was the district’s decision?
Park and Rec Commission – July 25, 2006
7
Hoffman: Yes.
Murphy: I’m just confused how they’re going to share, how both high schools are going to share
a pool. Practice time and metes because they’ll have metes at the same time, I would think.
Hoffman: Maybe they haven’t thought of that. You hope they have.
Murphy: You kind of hope they have. Or else maybe one school will wind up kind of taking it
over.
Scharfenberg: Yeah, maybe they’ll only one swim team combined.
Murphy: I mean Chaska does have a pool.
Scharfenberg: I don’t know if they’ll have separate swim teams too. Maybe they’ll just,
depending on what they have for turnout, you know.
Hoffman: They could combine it.
Scharfenberg: They would just have a combined program maybe initially, I don’t know.
Murphy: There’s pretty good turnout for that.
Scharfenberg: I don’t know.
Murphy: I mean people get cut so I mean.
Hoffman: Good question…and ask your school board Anne.
Murphy: Yeah.
Hoffman: Check out their meeting.
Scharfenberg: So does anybody want to put anything, put forth a motion for staff?
Daniel: I really don’t have anything.
Scharfenberg: Jack.
Spizale: Not exactly to put it to a motion.
Daniel: I don’t know if there’s anything concrete right now.
Hoffman: Something similar to what you stated earlier.
Park and Rec Commission – July 25, 2006
8
Scharfenberg: I was going to say, something that we encourage staff to recommend to the
council discussions with district 112 and partnering with them in any and all possibilities,
including hockey rink, baseball stadium. Anything else that we want to talk about?
Daniel: Pool?
Murphy: I’m the pool. Well I’d just like to see Chan, I don’t know how to word that.
…Chanhassen team will get used to a pool and it won’t just, they won’t just be added onto the
Chaska team.
Spizale: It’s like making a wish list.
Murphy: And will there be any community use of that pool? I don’t know.
Scharfenberg: There isn’t too much now I don’t think.
Hoffman: Some.
Scharfenberg: They have some open swim but. I’m assuming they’re going to keep the pool at
the other middle school too, right? That will stay.
Hoffman: Not a competition pool. Probably a practice or pool.
Scharfenberg: Right, for class.
Daniel: Well why don’t we go with that wish list then.
Scharfenberg: Okay. Do you want me to go ahead Todd, somebody go ahead and make a
motion? Okay.
Daniel: I guess a motion to, motion for the staff to continue discussions with District 112 on use
or further investigation of joint partnership with regards to recreational facilities of ballpark,
hockey arena, and further discussions on pool.
Scharfenberg: All in favor.
Hoffman: Is there a second?
Murphy: Oh, second.
Scharfenberg: Moved by Commissioner Daniels, seconded by Commissioner Murphy.
Daniel moved, Murphy seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission direct staff to
continue discussions with School District 112 on further investigation regarding possible
partnership for a ballpark, hockey arena, and pool. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Park and Rec Commission – July 25, 2006
9
2007 PARK AND TRAIL ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP).
Hoffman: Back to another wish list. This one is a little bit more concrete. On an annual basis
the commission is asked to review your upcoming year’s CIP. In this case it’s the park and trail
acquisition and development CIP, or capital improvement program. We have a 5 year CIP.
We’ll be looking a little bit more in detail in years 2, 3, 4 and 5 later on this winter, but for next
year I want to review with the commission what is currently slated, and that’s listed in the first
column. A total of $405,000. Includes items starting at the top. The most expensive is the
Arboretum Business Park, Lot 12 trail. A long title. Basically if it’s, it’s the last segment of the
trail that is behind the Holiday Inn Express. The Holiday Inn Express is a mile, almost a square
mile of park open space. It has a trail system that is broken into four quadrants. The southeast,
the northeast, and then the Holiday Inn Express piece would be the northwest. The southwest
quadrant is left to be built. It will start down near, what goes through there? Coulter Boulevard.
Right at the intersection of Coulter, and then it will travel through the back of that Lot 12. Cross
a little creek way. Through the oak woods and connect up to the neighborhood, which is right
there off of Galpin. And so it’s the last segment. We have a development contract with the
developer of that area that when that lot is platted, or a building permit is taken out for that lot,
then the development contract kicks in. They have to build that trail as a part of their
improvements for that property, and then we have to pay them back. It doesn’t look like it’s
going to happen. It’s just a pending sale. It doesn’t look like it’s going to happen next year so
we’re recommending you take that out for next year. It includes $114,000 for a Highway 101
north trail connection. That’s to finish the Highway 101 north trail from Pleasant View to
Minnetonka. There’s a piece that’s left off. And then also from Pleasant View down to a trail
that starts on Pleasant View. Just kind of, a couple of blocks down from 101.
Daniel: What is that, I’m sorry to interrupt you Todd. Where is that from Pleasant View north,
does it wrap around?
Hoffman: No. It will connect up right to the trail that is there now. Just at the curve.
Daniel: Right where the curve is?
Hoffman: Yep.
Daniel: And that goes Vinehill? The one that connects to Vinehill?
Hoffman: Yep. One goes Vinehill and the other keeps on following Minnetonka.
Daniel: Is that already existing in place?
Hoffman: Already existing. The curb cuts are there. We just have to go up to the curb cut and
we’re done.
Daniel: Okay.
Park and Rec Commission – July 25, 2006
10
Hoffman: There’s three Phase II playgrounds. These playgrounds are probably oh 7 or 8 years
old now. Roundhouse Park, Sugarbush Park and Power Hill Park. Where you have a container
large enough, or two containers to accommodate both a 5 through 12 and then a 2 through 5 age
group. These are the 2 through 5 or the smaller kids. And so $30,000 for each of those. Picnic
tables and benches, we have an annual contribution. Trees we have an annual contribution. Just
give you an idea. This is called Fund 410. Revenue generated, approximately $600,000 per year
over the last 5 years. It’s my recommendation you prepare a CIP for each of the next 5 years in
the range of $400,000 to $600,000. With that in mind I’m recommending some modifications to
next year’s CIP. First is removal of that 190, as we discussed. And then add the following 4
items. Our picnic pavilions are not sufficient to accommodate our current demand so we have
more demand that we can accommodate and there’s plans for a Lake Ann Park, what is called the
Parkview picnic shelter. This would be similar, but not exactly like our existing shelters. This is
more of a slab on grade with a shelter up above. So more of a traditional type of a shelter.
There’s a location right up at the top of Parkview in Lake Ann Park. There’s water there already.
That has been up there for about 10 years so you’ve got direct access to water to the location.
And you begin to allow the accommodation of a lot more activity in that park. You have a
beautiful park which you’ve invested, the community’s invested a great deal of money in, but
shelters really kind of make parks come alive with activity where you can have a focal point.
People can get out of the hot sun. Underneath the shelter and they can have family reunions,
weddings, graduation parties, those type of things. And take any questions once we’re done
talking about it. Once I’m done with my presentation. Power Hill Park trail. This is moving
ahead from 2008. If you’ve been out in that area at all, there’s a great deal of construction going
on, and we want to finish up trails from the top of Power Hill all the way down the hill and then
north through that neighborhood park to connect up to Mallory Court, Bluebill, and then up to
the new development, so this will take what is currently a turf trail or a grass alignment. Put it
into asphalt and so all those neighbors can start to travel back and forth in their park for both
walking loops in the morning or evening. Getting to the playground. Getting to the sliding hill.
And it’s $75,000 for that. Tennis court repair. We have needed repairs on I believe it’s the,
we’re doing about 4 this year and 4 next year. So we’ve put $45,000 in for that. Same thing, we
get calls from people that ask us why do we have these tennis courts out there if they’re not in
decent condition to play? Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, so we want to make sure that
they’re in reasonable condition. Then a new initiative, the Minnetonka Middle School West is
looking to build, they have 2 courts there now. They’re looking to build 6 more for a total of 8.
They had a, I think it was 104 or 107 ninth grade girls try out for tennis and they have 2 courts.
And so there’s a group of parents in the Minnetonka district… The budget is very large and
we’re asking, we’re recommending, staff is recommending that the commission recommend to
City Council make a contribution in good faith for that effort in the amount of $30,000 to assist
with that tennis court project. The community does use all of our school parks. They’re in our
park service areas. When we’re out planning parks in the area of Middle School West, we say
oh, development B over here, we’re not going to give you a park because you have direct access
to a school site where you go and play tennis and have access to ballfields and those type of
things so, it stands to reason that we should contribute to those facilities from time to time. So if
you add those in to the remaining mix, you have a total of $460,000 with the other items that we
talked about earlier and I’ll answer any questions that the commission has and then ask that you
Park and Rec Commission – July 25, 2006
11
make a recommendation, either based on this list or any modifications to the City Council as a
part of the budget process for the next year.
Scharfenberg: Why don’t we do, we’ll do commissioners then we’ll ask Todd to comment.
Jack, go ahead.
Spizale: Everything looks pretty much in line here. I can really see the process of not doing the
Arboretum Business Park. Tennis seems to be getting another, there seems to be a lot more
people playing tennis. I can see the point of doing the tennis court. Looks good so far to me.
Scharfenberg: Okay. Jeff.
Daniel: The Parkview, is that as you’re heading north when you get in? Just before those
parking lots that are stripe free, I take a sharp right. Is that that hill up there?
Hoffman: Up on top of the hill.
Daniel: Are the two volleyball courts still there?
Hoffman: Yep.
Daniel: Okay, so it’s on top of all the…
Hoffman: Single volleyball court.
Daniel: Or single, yeah. So right on top of the hill up there? Perfect. Okay. That’s about all, I
was trying to mentally figure out where that was. That’s all.
Scharfenberg: Anne.
Murphy: For this tennis contribution for Middle School West, is that, what percentage of that is
of the total cost?
Hoffman: Less than 10.
Murphy: Oh. I don’t see anything else.
Scharfenberg: Then are those courts then maintained by the Minnetonka School districts?
Hoffman: School district.
Scharfenberg: Pat, would you like to address the commission? Pat Niles.
Pat Niles: Hi, my name is Pat Niles. I’ve been here several times in the past. It wasn’t my
intent necessarily to speak tonight but since the pavilion at Lake Ann was brought up, it’s the
Little League’s intent to enter into a partnership with the surrounding community to possibly
Park and Rec Commission – July 25, 2006
12
include the facilities at Lake Ann Park and add a concession stand. The City and the Park and
Rec Commission were generous enough to put up $60,000 for ballfield improvements for this
year. It’s our hope to also enter into a three way partnership with the City as well to add that
concession stand and if there’s any way to work into the plans, the addition of the pavilion, the
picnic pavilion and the concession stand and work that all into one. I think that we would be
interested in being involved in helping fund that. So that we can see, include concessions as
some of you may or may not know, we hosted the first ever softball state tournament this last
weekend and would like to increase that participation over the years. In addition to having
baseball tournaments and so we feel that concessions are a necessary part of that experience.
Thank you.
Scharfenberg: Okay, thank you. And I know Todd, I think there has been discussions in the past
about adding to that with bathroom facilities and everything, is that right?
Hoffman: Correct.
Scharfenberg: Yeah.
Hoffman: And basically dismantling what you have there. Building around it. We have a
myriad of electronics or electrical components that are mounted inside of that building for our
timings. Timers for our lights and then just outside of the building you have electrical sub-
stations or boxes for our lights and, you’ll be adding, we’ll only be adding to that in the future
when we add additional fields. So you would keep the same internal structure. Build around it.
We have sewer down at the pavilion at the lake, so you can run a sewer line down to that lift
station. Extend a grinder pump that sends the waste water to Greenwood Shores Park to a lift
station again. We also have water which runs directly underneath that location. So you have
water and sewer available for modern toilets at that facility. But when you start talking that kind
of construction, we’re into the $200,000 range minimal, depending on if you want to do it all at
one shot or do it in phases, so the building that’s there is certainly not all to everybody. It was
purchased by the American Legion probably back in ’87 or ’88. Something like that. Installed
maybe in 1990. It actually just laid up there on the ground for a couple of years because the
Legion didn’t have the manpower to get the thing installed so the City eventually installed it. It
was back during the time when Lake Ann was only 3 fields I think even at that point. 1, 2 and 3.
So there’s always been discussion about having a much nicer building at that location. It’s just a
matter of priorities and when is the timing correct.
Scharfenberg: What year in the CIP right now do we have for the additional lights? Is that
2008?
Hoffman: 2008, $300,000 for 4 fields at Lake Ann. Or just 4 fields in general.
Scharfenberg: And I’m assuming that they’re going to be doing the, that adding the lighting
you’re going to have to be doing updating you know with electrical and stuff like that, and
maybe that’s the time to do some of that is in 2008, if you’re going to do something with that
facility would do a phase at that time or something at that time would seem to make sense.
Park and Rec Commission – July 25, 2006
13
Hoffman: There is, just so the commission is aware, there’s nothing that’s currently in the 5 year
CIP for any type of improvement to that building. That’s not to say it hasn’t been discussed.
The larger items coming up in future years are just that. Lighting in 2008. Makes up the
primary, largest component. 2009 there’s a hockey boards and lights at Roundhouse Park for
$105,000. And then a Roundhouse Park tennis courts for $100,000. And in 2010 there’s
$275,000, and this is probably somewhere where you can start to think that, there’s always been
a City Center Park shelter warming house for a number of $275,000 in the CIP, but the future of
this property continues to grow more and more uncertain and as we continue on in our projection
of a community, the need for additional parking on this site continues to grow and will that
hockey rink on the grass and will that hockey rink inside the boards always be there? I can’t say.
Give you a guarantee that it will be. And so why would you put a $275,000 building out there to
accommodate that if those facilities are going to be in question. Are ballfields 1 through 6 at
Lake Ann going to be there? I can safely say that I think they’re going to be there and so it
would be a safe investment to potentially move that money away from building at this location
into a building out at Lake Ann and start to program that into your future CIP. And that is just a
mix, and we’ll talk about that. You have to hit a mix. Any CIP, you want to try to, if you put
everything in one item and you’re going to have a single CIP where you’re going to do one
project. Do you save $400,000 or $450,000 for Lake Ann Park, you’d better be able to withstand
the discussion in the community that you’re not doing anything else in any other park in the
community so you need to be prepared for that type of investment, and if we schedule it right,
you can probably accomplish that. But if that’s a goal of the commission, and we can evaluate
the CIP as we move forward and make some recommendations. There’s also future buildings at
Bandimere that are in the, and future lights at Bandimere that are in the program. There’s a
picnic shelter near the playground and then a ballfield building inbetween the 3 baseball fields, at
1, 2 and 3. So plenty of things on the master plans that are not identified in the CIP. Again
that’s our job to bring forward the priorities. Something that a budget should always say, is a
budget should be your priority. It should represent where are your priorities are in the
community because you’re investing limited resources that will not always be there in this
community and you want to make sure you get the first things done first, and let the ones that
aren’t going to meet the test of time go to the wayside and that’s just how the commission should
be thinking about these improvements as you move forward.
Scharfenberg: Todd, at what meeting will we talk about the CIP and the next 5 years? Is that
usually September or October or?
Hoffman: Yeah, we could talk about it in August even. And that would give you time to report
back to the council before they take up this year.
Scharfenberg: So yeah, why don’t we do that. Alright, any other questions for Todd on the CIP?
Hoffman: If you want to just continue this conversation then?
Scharfenberg: Let’s do that. Let’s table it until August but I think what staff has come up with, I
think we’re all agreeable from what we’ve heard tonight that the proposals that staff is making
would be appropriate for changing.
Park and Rec Commission – July 25, 2006
14
Hoffman: Motion to table?
Scharfenberg: Motion to table.
Daniel: Second.
Scharfenberg moved, Daniel seconded to table discussion on the 2007 Park and Trail
Acquisition and Development Capital Improvement Program (CIP). All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
RECREATION PROGRAM REPORTS:
2006 FOURTH OF JULY CELEBRATION.
Ruegemer: Just kind of going through, to just kind of give a preview. The 4th of July was again
one of our, it keeps growing and growing and growing. We collected our thoughts and our
breath here finally and kind of looked at the whole event as a whole. We’re going through
budget and that right now. Planning for next year...whether it’s portable restrooms or food
vendors or bigger tents, table, chairs, that whole thing. We’re growing from a one horse town
into a city here, and that’s been fun to watch as well so, a lot of positive comments in regards to
the nights that we did up here. The street dance, kids games and… Also from the parade. A lot
of the comments about that I received, if any of you attended that. The parade was absolutely
packed all the way around the route. It takes a lot of hard work from staff, the Rotary,
community volunteers to make this event successful so.
Hoffman: Also a few critiques on the parade…
Ruegemer: So the Rotary’s just going to have a conversation and sit with the Chamber for the
business fair. They certainly want to expand…so that is really growing in size and they’re
talking about expanding their tent again next year. We’re looking at getting 80 foot wide tents
next year. We had 60 wide this year. In fact how many years increasing in size so… It’s a pretty
significant number so, we’re just kind of working through all that right now, as well as working
on layouts again for next year, and that’s the sort of things we do so. I think Nate was surprised
about all the different components of the event and you can see by the evaluation, there was a lot
of thought put into each component on the celebration. Certainly we’re going to be working on
improving, not only capacity but our service…customers. Also looking at adding new things.
Whether that be a mini carnival of some sort or what, but really going to work on that even
earlier this year after conversations about the parade and the Rotary and those types of things to
improve the event for next year so. CBO seems to be really enjoyed. I think the community
enjoys CBO being here so, it’s been a fun partnership with them. And just some suggestions for
2007. There’s a breakdown…just kind of a breakdown of the event. Questions? Comments?
Concerns?
Spizale: I thought it went…
Scharfenberg:: I thought it went pretty well.
Park and Rec Commission – July 25, 2006
15
Daniel: It was busy. A lot busier than t-shirts.
Scharfenberg: Actually t-shirts picked up though towards the end of the night. I think there a lot
of people…
Daniel: I had a lot of positive comments on the design of the t-shirt. They really liked the type
of design. My only recommendation, I think Paula and I shared this, is that next year they go
with the toddler size t-shirts as well.
Hoffman: More sizes.
Daniel: Especially smaller, junior. Like the 4-T’s or the 2-T’s, whatever it may be. I think a lot
of, probably every third or fourth asked if we had something beyond just a youth large, and that
was, I think that really…
Spizale: I’ve got one thought. You know it always seems like we get a lot of questions we can’t
answer. I don’t know if you get a lot of people come up, where’s the first aid station? Where’s
this? Where’s this? Where’s that. Maybe as you enter this area, there needs to be some kind of
information booth or some type of things where people can get pamphlets or someone can ask
questions because I don’t know if you guys, there’s always someone coming up and you know
where’s this? Where’s, you know…
Murphy: A lot of questions on where to buy tickets. Where to buy ride tickets.
Spizale: Some we can answer. Some we can’t. Maybe something as you come in, a person
greeting them. Handing out things. Asking questions. Somebody you could call for first aid.
Just a thought. I’ve noticed that the last couple years.
Hoffman: We may just be able to make it an additional component of your operation with some
additional people there, or some additional information added training before we get into the
event. I really like our park commissioner Spizale…really working it.
Spizale: Well yeah, that might be a good idea. So maybe it could say information on it.
Hoffman: Absolutely. Information. First aid. Lost and found. We could make it all of those
things. Have the appropriate people there. As the event gets bigger, more and more stuff takes
place. Lost kids. Lost and found. I can’t remember, I can’t recall how many eye glasses we
found after this thing.
Murphy: Well that could go hand in hand with the announcements during the band, because the
band had some pretty long breaks in there. If we’re going to do announcements then. You could
announce where lost and found or first aid are.
Spizale: That’s a good idea.
Park and Rec Commission – July 25, 2006
16
Scharfenberg: Overall thought I think staff needs to be commended for the job that they did. It
was wonderful. Kids fishing contest. All of that stuff was very well attended and I know my
kids had a wonderful time.
Hoffman: Great.
Daniel: A very good job.
Hoffman: It’s going to get bigger… If you were around last year, last year was a dramatic jump
from the year before and this year was again. Not just a little jump. It was fairly dramatic. A
thousand. We got good compliments from our public safety officials. Well behaved crowd. If
you were there, at the end it cleared out very rapidly. No issues with the downtown. We did not
receive any complaints from our business community at the conclusion of the event so those are
all good signs.
Spizale: Todd, is there any problem with parking at this point yet?
Hoffman: Well obviously parking is festival style parking. They keep going back, back in the
neighborhood, but…this time again, no parking complaints from either of the neighborhoods or
the business community this year.
Daniel: I think the only complaint was the fact that Chanhassen Elementary had 50 million tons
of rock sitting there in their parking lot. So the 12 or 15 cars got lucky enough to park tight in
there made it.
Hoffman: That took out 60 stalls. That was the rock for the city street…project. Sealcoating.
Daniel: And also the other comment, which I’ve noticed much, a great improvement is the
amount of tables that were available. I remember 3 or 4 years ago you had your food on the
table outside of the tent were along the fence line, and that was it. Now you have a ton of tables
inbetween, plus when the business expo ended, all those tables were freed up. It was just a great
job. Nobody had any problems. None of us had any problem trying to find a spot to sit down.
Hoffman: What’d we have, 30 this year.
Ruegemer: Actually I had 50 addition than last year. We increased seating capacity by 300 plus.
Then we’re going to do that again, probably 400 plus so 700 plus in the last 2 years. Yeah, we’re
looking at all those components and we’re going from about 25 probably to 40 restrooms next
year for the parade and up here. So it just increases capacity and the overall experience. We
don’t want people a half hour in the bathroom line and that sort of thing too so.
Daniel: We had several neighbors in our neighborhood went for the first time and really had a
great time. They were impressed and I guess now educated on just how good of a time it is so.
It’s our probably one year community get together.
Park and Rec Commission – July 25, 2006
17
Hoffman: The band. They really connect with that crowd and they claim it’s their favorite event
of the year, and they’ve got a pretty big schedule. They see a lot of the country.
Murphy: I like the parking map too for the fireworks. We get a lot of people wandering into our
yard. For the fireworks. They claim they don’t, they think they can sit up on our hill.
Hoffman: Oh yeah. Oh I imagine.
Murphy: It’s like oh, who are you? So the whole neighborhood complains about that. We get a
lot of strangers in our neighborhood.
Hoffman: They park in the road and then they want to walk up and sit on top of the berm.
Murphy: Yep.
Hoffman: Well the parking map unfortunately won’t take care of that.
Murphy: It won’t help that.
Hoffman: No. You’ll have your berm people.
FALL SOFTBALL LEAGUE REPORT.
Ruegemer: Fall softball league is starting up again the week of August 15th. We’re just finishing
up summer. Well we’ll still be going a little bit with summer when the fall starts here so,
information is out on the streets right now. Thursday is just about full. Thursday night and
Tuesday. We also have teams signed up for that and I think…schedule of Wednesday night year
too…demand for that so. Double headers again this year. 55 minute time limit and 3-2 count
that kind of speeds up the game a little bit too and people enjoy the double header with that. Just
about at capacity on Thursday nights and we’ll get those schedules out about the first week in
August, depending on when the teams get their checks and rosters and stuff in so. But it’s going
good. Teams really like the relaxed atmosphere and playing down at Lake Ann. We’ll go 6
weeks and end up probably the third week in September, without rain out’s… We generally
schedule, we’ll have football going on at the same time for the Chaska Area Football Association
will be using Lake Ann fields on Mondays and probably on Saturdays for sure. They’ll be
running lights as well during those times and they’ll schedule some games probably after we get
down with softball the first part of October.
Scharfenberg: Alright.
CARVER BEACH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING.
Hoffman: Thank you Chair Scharfenberg, members of the commission. Wanted to bring you up
to date on some neighborhood interaction that both Chair Stolar and I had with the
neighborhood. And actually the City Council, over the past couple of months. This spring I was
walking down at Carver Beach Park and we had extra boulevard trees from our boulevard tree
Park and Rec Commission – July 25, 2006
18
planting program that Jill Sinclair manages, and we’re very fortunate to be the benefactor of
those leftover trees, if she has them, we go ahead and identify park locations where they can be
accommodated. There was an open area on Lotus Trail and I thought now this is a good location
that could accommodate a couple of trees, so we identified 3 on the main park, and there’s a
picture in there, and then 2 down the road. We happened to stumble into one of the neighbors
and at the time he didn’t seem too opposed to it. It was Mr. Gunderson right across from this
location, and he voiced no opposition at that time. But later on he came to the council meeting,
at a June council meeting. Brought quite a few of his neighbors in and made a fairly long visitor
presentation about their disapproval of this plan to plant these trees. Council directed staff to go
meet with them. I asked Chairman Stolar to come out as well. There was unanimous agreement
among the neighbors that they didn’t want to see the trees planted for a variety of reasons, but
mainly that the parkway is fully forested up and down it’s entire length, which is very long,
except for this one location, and it’s not just in their view, it’s not just the neighbors that live
directly across from this opening that benefit, but the people that walk in this area. They get to
stop and look out at the lake. People also drive and stuff and look out at the lake. And the fact
that it’s always been that way, they didn’t see it want to be changed and so we concurred. That
was our thought process going into the meeting is that it, if they had a neighborhood consensus,
we weren’t going to attempt to change that opinion. More importantly what this interaction
allowed is some good discussion. This is a neighborhood that at times feels put out. It’s an older
neighborhood and they think they’re not getting the same attention as some of the newer
neighborhoods in town and so, they truly appreciated the opportunity to talk with us for a couple
of hours. We have the job list there that has been identified. I think it’s a good opportunity for
the City and the commission to connect with the neighborhood and once they, we accomplish
these things and they see that there’s been some follow through by staff and the city, and the
commission, that they’ll be pleased and feel generally that the process worked on their behalf.
So we will be taking these projects into our work plan. We also have the opportunity to bring in
an Eagle Scout to complete a wood chipping project for the trail in that location. And again,
since this was a fairly well discussed issue at the council level, I wanted to bring it to your
attention so you knew what was going on as well. You familiar with that area?
Daniel: Absolutely. My only concern with woodchips is, a good portion of that stuff will be
washed right out. That’s the only issue. I mean if it’s really nice, I mean obviously on rainy
days you’re going to let it dry, which usually takes a while because it’s really shaded, but it truly
is, if you haven’t had a chance to walk that area, it’s one of the most beautiful parts of
Chanhassen. Absolutely. And just for that one quarter mile walk, or whatever it may be.
Hoffman: I’ll have the Eagle Scout work on that. They may rock some of the areas where the
ravines go across because you’re right, you’re going to get a lot of washing. An Eagle Scout a
number of years ago did, it was probably 20 years ago the last time they wood chipped it so
obviously that’s all gone but the neighborhood appreciated it. They liked it. Keeps the mud
down a little bit.
Scharfenberg: Any other discussion?
Park and Rec Commission – July 25, 2006
19
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS.
Spizale: Yeah, just that this year I’m doing more biking than I ever have because of our trails
and I’ve been using the new map that was put out, which is great, but I know they’re still
working on their…but there are very few if any markers for the trail. Sometimes I kind of think
as a person that doesn’t know the trail, so I kind of followed my wife and she had just a really
hard time finding where they came into different neighborhoods and stuff, and it got me to think
about it a little bit. If I’m having some problems, I’m sure that a lot of the new people that are
getting into our trails are also having problems, especially if you don’t have a map. What is the
process of marking these trails? I know you’re kind of waiting a little bit for them to be
completed but can we be putting up a couple, some type of markers to facilitate the start? Where
are we at?
Hoffman: It’s interesting that you bring it up. Where we’re at is, today I’m not convinced that
it’s a program we should be getting into, and primarily it’s because of the expense of the signage
package that would be required and the time that it would take to maintain that. In any program
you initiate, you want to make sure, and that’s not to say it shouldn’t be done Jack. Is that you
need to weigh the benefits against what you’re going to get involved in because we have a
limited budget. We have a limited amount of people. So let’s say we have 40-50 miles of trail
that you’re going to mark, and Minnetonka does this so it’s not like it’s not being done.
Minnetonka says this is a priority. We want to mark. They have stop. Yield. Turn. Curve.
You know location. The whole ball of wax. And they’re typically just the smaller, it’s like
taking street signs. Miniaturizing them and then starting to put them out on your trail system. So
should, can we investigate that? Sure. We can investigate that for the commission if you feel
that’s something you want to take a look at. Can we start at a minimal, you can start at a
minimum level. You know can you take it to you know the nth degree. Yeah, I think you can.
You know there’s all sorts of different signs. Once we start, people are going to say well you
didn’t mark that. You didn’t mark this. You didn’t mark this, so you’d have to come up with a
general consensus, and then signs, if you know anybody in public works, signs are a nightmare.
I mean I don’t care, street signs are absolutely necessary…go out there and get them maintained
and so I want to make sure the community is fully behind that type of program before I would
start to advocate for it and push it forward. To date I’ve been probably the main person who said
that’s something we’re not going to look at because once we get into it, it’s just going to be a
downward slide and we’re going to invest a lot of money and time. But do I hear, I hear from
people you know fairly often actually, or from time to time when they say hey, I couldn’t find
my way. That’s one reason we published the map, but then we had on there, not all, some people
have a more difficult time trying to follow the natural progression of the trails than others, so it
would be helpful I think.
Spizale: At the very minimum, at least maybe a marker maybe where the trail starts. You know
it’s, I noticed in some of these neighborhoods it starts in the neighborhood. If you didn’t know
where one block off of Galpin there, or if you didn’t know it was back in that neighborhood, you
wouldn’t be able to find it without a map.
Hoffman: Well, that’s neighborhood knowledge.
Park and Rec Commission – July 25, 2006
20
Spizale: Right, right. Right, and like I said, I just kind of look at it from a new person kind of
driving through it and it really is a little bit confusing. Do we need a trail head of some sort?
Maybe just very simple signage.
Hoffman: It’s not the only thing we’ve looked at signage. We have, often times people come
from out of town to find a park for a ball game and there’s no, some communities, so let’s take a
cross street. Let’s say Kerber and Nez Perce and let’s put a sign there. It will be a brown sign.
It will say Carver Beach Park with an arrow pointed towards the park, and we have not gone to
that level as of yet either so, another saying a community lasts forever. There’s always time to
do these good projects. It’s just when is the right time to go ahead and do them so. It’s
something that I can certainly spend some time investigating. Talk to some of my colleagues.
See who’s done it. Who’s not. It would actually make a good program session for one of our
fall conferences to talk about signage on trail systems because in the metropolitan area, there’s
trail systems are getting very elaborate and some people are doing signage and others are not.
It’d be interesting to talk about that and see the experiences that each one of those communities
think. Other thoughts on that?
Murphy: Does Minnetonka mark all their trails?
Hoffman: Yes. They have a trail coordinator who’s in charge of that whole position. So their
trail coordinator would be like a park director. So we would have a park director and a trail
coordinator. Trail coordinator manages the park trails and the signage.
Daniel: …doggy bag signs and all those little fun things.
Hoffman: In fact we’ve stayed away from the doggy bags as well.
Scharfenberg: It might be a good idea Todd to ultimately think about if they’re going to do
something like that, would be to prioritize maybe what trails we want, would we for example
once Bluff Creek, once that whole Bluff Creek trail gets completed, I would think that that would
be one of our main trails. Along with whatever ones, and then put in some trail heads or
something kind of identifying distances and.
Hoffman: It also has a destination. People might want to be going somewhere and they have to
take an off shoot, and if you put a sign there.
Spizale: It’s just from doing…all different types of, you know some people are joggers. Some
people are walking their dogs. Some people are, a lot of people are biking. Something they
could, we’ve done such a great job of building these trails and everybody uses them so much,
and a lot of people are still discovered the trails. I’m amazed at how many of my neighbors that
know some of the spots that I’ve been and so, I think it’s something to give some thought to.
You know, expose it to people so they know where it’s at.
Hoffman: It is fun to see the people out on the trails. I mean I turned onto Lake Lucy Road one
day I thought what is going on? A circus. I mean there was 20 people with different, you know
Park and Rec Commission – July 25, 2006
21
all different modes right there on that off street trail and I just imaged how happy these people
were that have that off street trail now finally.
Daniel: You have no idea. I live right off of Lake Lucy and that, I was just going to make a
comment on that. There isn’t a moment, and that’s from the time I go to bed to the time, from
the time I get up to the time I go to bed that somebody is not, there’s several people are always
on Lake Lucy. I just couldn’t imagine, based on the fact that, I mean it has helped that…the cars
have slowed down, and the amount of activity that’s on that trail. So I think it was a wonderful
investment.
ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET.
Scharfenberg: Looks like on the, at least the memo on skate park that the attendants is working
out. That’s kind of working out well.
Ruegemer: Yeah. Yeah, we have Matt Juelich from Chanhassen down by Stone Creek, and it
was really kind of, that was his first experience…Chanhassen skate park and he’s got a little
interest…and doing a good job out there…
Scharfenberg: How have things been at the park? Have they been pretty good this summer?
Ruegemer: In my opinion I think they have…but I haven’t really heard of any problems that
have been…Garbage seems to be kind of keeping in check…and there does not seem to be a lot
of garbage right around. There certainly is some but not like it has been in the past so...educating
people. There certainly is always the fringe…but you’re not going to cure everything over night
so…it’s nice to have some kind of concrete numbers as well to kind of see who’s using the skate
park. We’re certainly looking forward to 2007…
Daniel: Have you had any feedback from parents?
Ruegemer: I think parents like it. There seems to be younger kids kind of coming back… It’s a
position in progress and we’re certainly trying to accommodate the people but certainly just
inform people. Here’s the rules. Here’s what…so it’s really a community you know position out
there. We’re really trying to get people out there and really give the skate park a positive light
again so.
Hoffman: Saw the Villager article?
Daniel: Yep.
Hoffman: That was in there. On the back page. Three questions so that gives you a profile on
the position that he has.
Scharfenberg: Any other questions relative to the administrative packet?
Park and Rec Commission – July 25, 2006
22
Hoffman: It’s fun to read the reservation memos and the one, you’ll note that somebody did
review the, reserve the hillside picnic area and they didn’t think there was enough there for the
money so a shelter would help.
Scharfenberg: One thing before we end. Is there a rule or are there rules at Lake Ann for
smoking at the beach?
Hoffman: I don’t believe so.
Ruegemer: I don’t think there is.
Scharfenberg: Okay.
Ruegemer: There was discussions about that. Back a couple years ago I suppose.
Hoffman: And depending on the lifeguards, some may shoo them out of the sand area. But there
is no, we’ll check the ordinance for you. There might be something on sand areas.
Scharfenberg: I just looked at Sunday with some signage down there and I didn’t see anything
that said anything about smoking.
Hoffman: It might be in our ordinance. The whole smoking issue is handled a variety of ways
across the state and park and rec areas. Some are completely banned. Some are modified
banned. Chanhassen’s fairly open and we’ve addressed that at the council I believe once. A
couple of times now over the past 10 years and there hasn’t been any consensus that we should
be heading that direction. But we’ll check for you. I just can’t recall the specifics.
Scharfenberg: Okay. Motion to adjourn?
Murphy moved, Spizale seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works
FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: August 14, 2006
SUBJECT: Approve Addendum B to Chanhassen West Business Park
Development Contract - Project No. 05-15
The owner of Chanhassen West Business Park has provided documentation to
City Staff showing that the trunk sanitary sewer and watermain fees for this
development were assessed to the property in conjunction with the Upper Bluff
Creek Sewer and Water Project, City Project 91-17B. The $224,500.00
assessment has been paid according to Carver County Tax statements provided to
staff.
Based on this information, the Sewer and Water Hookup Fees are not due with the
building permit, therefore staff recommends approval of Addendum B to the
development contract.
The City Attorney has reviewed this information and has ensured that it is in
order.
G:\ENG\PROJECTS\A-E\ChanWestBusPark\Approve Addendum B.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Oehme, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: August 14, 2006
SUBJ: Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications for
Liberty on Bluff Creek 2nd Addition - Project No. 06-14
(Simple Majority Vote Required)
The attached development contract incorporates the conditions of approval for the final plat
and construction plans and specifications. A $1,679,975.53 financial security is required to
guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract relating to the installation of
public streets and utilities, one-year of public street light operating costs, engineering,
surveying, inspection and landscaping.
The cash fees for this project total $895,533.21. A breakdown of the cash fee is shown on
pages SP-3 of the development contract. No City funds are needed as part of this private
development project.
The applicant has also submitted detailed construction plans and specifications for staff review
and City Council approval. Staff has reviewed the plans and specifications and finds the plans
still need some minor modifications. Staff requests that the City Council grant staff the
flexibility to administratively approve the plans after working with the applicant's engineer to
modify the plans accordingly.
It is therefore recommended that the construction plans and specifications for Liberty on Bluff
Creek dated July 19, 2006, prepared by Westwood Engineering and the development contract
dated August 14, 2006 be approved conditioned upon the following:
1. The applicant shall enter into the development contract and supply the City with a cash
escrow or letter of credit for $1,679,975.53 and pay a cash fee of $895,533.21.
2. The applicant's engineer shall work with City staff in revising the construction plans to
meet City standards.
Attachments: 1. Development Contract dated August 14, 2006.
2. Construction plans and specifications are available for review in the
Engineering Department.
c: Westwood Engineering
G:\ENG\PROJECTS\K-O\Liberty on Bluff Creek 2nd\approve dc.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
LIBERTY ON BLUFF CREEK 2ND ADDITION
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SPECIAL PROVISIONS PAGE
1. REQUEST FOR PLAT APPROVAL........................................................................SP-1
2. CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL.....................................................................SP-1
3. DEVELOPMENT PLANS........................................................................................SP-1
4. IMPROVEMENTS...................................................................................................SP-2
5. TIME OF PERFORMANCE.....................................................................................SP-2
6. SECURITY...............................................................................................................SP-2
7. NOTICE....................................................................................................................SP-3
8. OTHER SPECIAL CONDITIONS............................................................................SP-3
9. GENERAL CONDITIONS.......................................................................................SP-3
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. RIGHT TO PROCEED............................................................................................GC-1
2. PHASED DEVELOPMENT....................................................................................GC-1
3. PRELIMINARY PLAT STATUS............................................................................GC-1
4. CHANGES IN OFFICIAL CONTROLS..................................................................GC-1
5. IMPROVEMENTS..................................................................................................GC-1
6. IRON MONUMENTS..............................................................................................GC-2
7. LICENSE.................................................................................................................GC-2
8. SITE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL......................................................GC-2
A. EROSION CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING
OR OTHER BUILDING..............................................................................GC-2
9. CLEAN UP..............................................................................................................GC-3
10. ACCEPTANCE AND OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS..................................GC-3
11. CLAIMS..................................................................................................................GC-3
12. PARK DEDICATION..............................................................................................GC-3
13. LANDSCAPING......................................................................................................GC-3
14. WARRANTY...........................................................................................................GC-4
15. LOT PLANS............................................................................................................GC-4
16. EXISTING ASSESSMENTS...................................................................................GC-4
17. HOOK-UP CHARGES.............................................................................................GC-4
18. PUBLIC STREET LIGHTING................................................................................GC-4
19. SIGNAGE................................................................................................................GC-5
20. HOUSE PADS.........................................................................................................GC-5
21. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS............................................................................GC-5
22. DEVELOPER'S DEFAULT.....................................................................................GC-6
22. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Construction Trailers.....................................................................................GC-6
B. Postal Service...............................................................................................GC-7
C. Third Parties.................................................................................................GC-7
ii
D. Breach of Contract........................................................................................GC-7
E. Severability...................................................................................................GC-7
F. Building Permits............................................................................................GC-7
G. Waivers/Amendments....................................................................................GC-7
H. Release.........................................................................................................GC-7
I. Insurance......................................................................................................GC-7
J. Remedies......................................................................................................GC-8
K. Assignability..................................................................................................GC-8
L. Construction Hours.......................................................................................GC-8
M. Noise Amplification.......................................................................................GC-8
N. Access..........................................................................................................GC-8
O. Street Maintenance........................................................................................GC-8
P. Storm Sewer Maintenance.............................................................................GC-9
Q. Soil Treatment Systems.................................................................................GC-9
R. Variances......................................................................................................GC-9
S. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations....................................GC-9
T. Proof of Title................................................................................................GC-9
U. Soil Conditions..............................................................................................GC-9
V. Soil Correction............................................................................................GC-10
W. Haul Routes..........................................................................................................GC-10
X. Development Signs...............................................................................................GC-10
Y. Construction Plans................................................................................................GC-10
Z. As-Built Lot Surveys............................................................................................GC-10
SP-1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
LIBERTY ON BLUFF CREEK
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
AGREEMENT dated August 14, 2006 by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a
Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and, K. Hovnanian T&C Homes at Minnesota, L.L.C.,
a Minnesota limited liability company (the "Developer").
1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for
Liberty on Bluff Creek (referred to in this Contract as the "plat"). The land is legally described on the
attached Exhibit "A".
2. Conditions of Plat Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on condition that
the Developer enter into this Contract, furnish the security required by it, and record the plat with the
County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 30 days after the City Council approves the plat.
3. Development Plans. The plat shall be developed in accordance with the following
plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. With the exception of Plan A, the plans may be
prepared, subject to City approval, after entering the Contract, but before commencement of any work
in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, the written terms shall control.
The plans are:
Plan A: Final plat approved August 14, 2006, prepared by Westwood Engineering.
Plan B: Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan dated July 19, 2006, prepared by
Westwood Engineering.
Plan C: Plans and Specifications for Improvements dated July 19, 2006, prepared by
Westwood Engineering.
Plan D: Landscape Plan dated July 19, 2006, prepared by Westwood Engineering.
SP-2
4. Improvements. The Developer shall install and pay for the following:
A. Sanitary Sewer System
B. Water System
C. Storm Water Drainage System
D. Streets
E. Concrete Curb and Gutter
F. Street Lights
G. Site Grading/Restoration
H. Underground Utilities (e.g. gas, electric, telephone, CATV)
I. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments
J. Surveying and Staking
K. Landscaping
L. Erosion Control
5. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required improvements by
November 15, 2006. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City
Engineer. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the
Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date.
6. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Contract, payment of special
assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements, and construction of all public
improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit in the form attached hereto,
from a bank acceptable to the City, or cash escrow ("security") for $1,679,975.53. The amount of the
security was calculated as 110% of the following:
Sanitary Sewer $ 250,238.50
Watermain $ 238,456.10
Storm Sewer, Drainage System, including cleaning and maintenance $ 172,712.90
Streets $ 732,033.30
Sub-total, Construction Costs $1,393,440.80
Street light installation (7 lights x $1,200.00 each) $ 8,400.00
Engineering, surveying, and inspection (7% of construction cost) $ 97,540.86
Landscaping (2% of construction cost) $ 27,868.82
Sub-total, Other Costs $ 133,809.68
TOTAL COSTS $1,527,250.48
SP-3
This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. The security
shall be subject to the approval of the City. The City may draw down the security, without notice, for
any violation of the terms of this Contract. If the required public improvements are not completed at
least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down. If the
security is drawn down, the draw shall be used to cure the default. With City approval, the security
may be reduced from time to time as financial obligations are paid, but in no case shall the security be
reduced to a point less than 10% of the original amount until (1) all improvements have been
completed, (2) iron monuments for lot corners have been installed, (3) all financial obligations to the
City satisfied, (4) the required “record” plans have been received by the City, (5) a warranty security is
provided, and (6) the public improvements are accepted by the City.
7. Notice. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand
delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at
the following address:
Kevin Clark, Vice President Land Development
K. Hovnanian T&C Homes at Minnesota
7615 Smetana Lane, Suite 180
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Phone: 952-944-3455
Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed
to the City by certified mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: Chanhassen City Hall,
7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317, Telephone (952) 227-1100.
8. Other Special Conditions.
A. SECURITIES AND FEES: A $1,679,975.53 letter of credit or escrow for the developer-installed
improvements, the $895,533.21 cash fee and the fully-executed development contract must be
submitted prior to scheduling a pre-construction meeting. The cash fee due with the final plat was
calculated as follows:
1. Administration fee: 2.5% of $1,000,000.00 + 1.5% of $393,440.80 = $30,901.61
2. Filing Fee/Attorney Costs: $450.00
3. GIS fee: $25 (plat) + [$10/parcel x 57 parcels] = $595.00
4. SWMP fee: $113,889.00
5. Park Dedication Fee: 186 units x $3,800.00/unit = $706,800.00
6. Street Light Operating Fee: $300.00/light x 7 lights = $2,100.00
7. Arterial Collector Fee: [54.885 acres (gross area of 2nd Addition) - 30.229 acres (area
of Outlot B, future development) - 3.40 acres (area of public right of way) - 4.257
acres (area of Outlot A)] x $2,400.00/acre = $40,797.60
SP-4
The sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges must be paid with the building permit. The 2006
trunk hookup charge is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for water-main. Sanitary sewer and
water-main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit
issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council
and are due at the time of building permit issuance.
B. The developer shall pay all invoices for furnishing and installing street name and traffic
control signs.
C. A preconstruction meeting must be held before grading, tree removal and/or utility
installation can commence. The executed development contract, and all securities and fees must
be submitted before a preconstruction meeting is scheduled.
D. All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and a 10:1 bench at the NWL.
E. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings must be at least three feet above the HWL of
the adjacent ponds.
F. The last public storm water structure that is road-accessible prior to discharging to a
water body must have a 3-foot sump.
G. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal.
H. An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading.
I. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant
will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
J. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump
discharge from homes not adjacent to ponds.
K. The storm sewer segment between Lots 18 and 19, Block 3 shall be privately owned and
maintained.
L. Additional storm sewer and catch basins are required in the western and southern
portions of Commonwealth Boulevard so that the maximum spacing between catch basins does
not exceed 300 feet.
M. The type of unit and lowest floor elevation must be noted for Lots 11 through 26, Block
1 and 1 through 10, Block 2.
SP-5
N. The lowest floor elevations for Lots 1 through 4, Block 1 must be raised to a minimum
elevation of 929.9 feet.
O. The developer must ensure that the geogrid for the western retaining wall does not lie
within the existing Xcel Energy easement, or obtain permission from Xcel energy to encroach into
the easement.
P. Upon project completion, the developer must submit inspection/soil reports certifying
that the private streets were built to a 7-ton design.
Q. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the
form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the
conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements
will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance.
R. The benchmark used to complete the site survey must be shown on the grading plan.
S. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). Financial security for the wetland replacement and subsequent
monitoring was submitted with the Liberty on Bluff Creek 1st Addition Development Contract.
T. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The replacement
monitoring plan shall include a detailed management plan for invasive non-native species,
particularly hybrid cattail, purple loosestrife and reed canary grass. The plans shall show fixed
photo monitoring points for the replacement wetland. The applicant shall provide proof of
recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland.
U. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around all wetlands. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in
accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs,
under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign.
V. All structures shall be set back 40 feet from the edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland
buffer setback should be shown on the plans. The proposed building on Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 4,
Block 3 shall be revised to meet the required wetland setback.
W. Bluff areas (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet
above the toe) shall be preserved. In addition, all structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from
the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located
within 20 feet from the top of a bluff).
SP-6
X. No alterations are allowed within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the
setback from the primary corridor. All structures shall meet the 40-foot setback from the primary
corridor.
Y. The developer shall determine the base flood elevation (100-year) to ensure that the
structures will meet all floodplain elevation requirements.
Z. The grade stabilization structure at the north end of Basin A is in disrepair and shall be
replaced. Before the development incorporates this structure into the permanent storm water
management system, the structure shall be assessed and a plan proposed and approved by the city
for the repair or replacement of the structure, as well as long term maintenance. The applicant
shall work with the property owner to the north to get permission to repair or replace the
structure.
AA. Drainage and utility easements with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be provided over all
existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water
infrastructure.
BB. A complete Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be in place before
applying for and receiving NPDES construction permit coverage from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA).
CC. All emergency overflows need temporary and permanent stabilization and shall be shown
in a detail or on the SWPPP. Energy dissipation (riprap and geotextile fabric) shall be installed
within 24 hours of installation of flared end sections and outlet structures.
DD. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil
areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system,
storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems
that discharge to a surface water
EE. Temporary sediment basins shall be constructed and could be located in the proposed
permanent storm water pond locations.
SP-7
FF. Chanhassen Type 2, Heavy Duty silt fence shall be used around all wetlands, streams,
creeks, bluffs and ravines; Chanhassen Type 1 silt fence shall be used around the remaining areas.
The inlet control (for area inlets, not curbside) detail shall be mono-mono heavy duty machine
sliced silt fence with 4 foot maximum spacing for metal T-posts. A rock berm placed around the
silt fence shall be at least 2 feet wide and 1 foot high of 1½ -inch clear rock. Wimco-type inlet
controls shall be installed in all inlets through out the project within 24 hours of inlet installation.
Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping
as-needed
GG. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (dewatering permit), MN Department of Health, Carver County, and Army Corps of
Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. Tree protection fencing shall be installed
prior to construction around all areas designated for preservation and/or edge of grading limits. A
walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to construction.
HH. Dedication of Drainage and Utility Easement for Outlot A and conservation easement
over Outlots B shall be made to the city or a shall be established over said outlots.
II. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance #9-1.
JJ. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be
installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
KK.Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersection when construction of the new
roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4.
LL. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either
be removed from site or chipped.
MM. Accessibility will have to be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage
of the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State
Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements.
NN. Buildings over 8,500 sq. ft. in size must be protected with an automatic fire protection
system. The State of Minnesota is in the process of revising Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State
Building Code regarding fire protection systems. It is not yet entirely clear how these changes
will affect residential construction. It is important that the developer meet with the Inspections
SP-8
Division prior to final design to determine what ramifications, if any, the new requirements will
have on the project.
OO. A final grading plan and soils report must be to the Inspections Division before permits
can be issued.
PP. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire-
resistive construction.
QQ. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined
by the Building Official.
RR. Building permits are required for all retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be
designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
SS. Building permits will not be issued for Liberty at Bluff Creek 2nd Addition until the utility
installation is complete and tested, except for footing and foundation permits for Lots 1 through
12, Block 1 and Lots 1, 2, 9 and 10, Block 2. Remaining building permits for Lots 1 through 12,
Block 1 and Lots 1, 2, 9 and 10, Block 2 (e.g. framing or plumbing) will not be issued until the
utilities are installed and have passed the required testing.
TT. The eight-inch lateral must extend to the west to the Audubon Boulevard right-of-way on
the north side of the plat.
UU. Due to the proposed Planned Unit Development zoning for the development, Staff
supports the proposed 20- foot wide private streets. The developer requests flexibility with the
PUD to allow for on-street parking in order to satisfy a portion of the development’s parking
requirements. Staff supports the on-street parking proposal, subject to the following conditions:
1. On-street parking is prohibited between November 1 and April 1 between the hours of
1:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., consistent with Section 12-16 of the City Code: Winter
Parking Regulations.
2. Credit for on-street parking is not allowed along the curve of the public streets.
VV. The developer shall build according to the PUD Standards and the Exterior Color and
Materials Booklet dated December 2005.
WW. The internal or private trail north of Block 1 shall be carefully planned and constructed to
allow convenient access to the Bluff Creek Corridor, subject to staff approval.
XX. A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to
construction.
SP-9
YY. “No parking fire lane” signs will be required. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
exact location of signs to be installed.
9. General Conditions. The general conditions of this Contract are attached as Exhibit
"B" and incorporated herein.
SP-10
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
(SEAL)
AND:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
K. HOVNANIAN T&C HOMES AT
MINNESOTA, LLC
BY:
Arthur Plante, President
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2006, by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor, and by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of
Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the
authority granted by its City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2006, by Arthur Plante, President of K. Hovnanian T&C Homes at Minnesota, a Limited Liability
Company, on behalf of the company.
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
EXHIBIT "A" TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
Outlot A, LIBERTY ON BLUFF CREEK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver
County, Minnesota.
MORTGAGE HOLDER CONSENT TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
,
which holds a mortgage on the subject property, the development of which is governed by the
foregoing Development Contract, agrees that the Development Contract shall remain in full force and
effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage.
Dated this day of , 20 .
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
20___, by .
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT
No. ___________________
Date: _________________
TO: City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Sir or Madam:
We hereby issue, for the account of (Name of Developer) and in your favor, our
Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $____________, available to you by your draft drawn on
sight on the undersigned bank.
The draft must:
a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. __________, dated ________________,
2______, of (Name of Bank) ";
b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Manager of the City of Chanhassen.
c) Be presented for payment at (Address of Bank) , on or before 4:00 p.m. on November
30, 2______.
This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless, at least forty-
five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date (which shall be November 30 of each year), the Bank
delivers written notice to the Chanhassen City Manager that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel,
this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in
the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows:
Chanhassen City Manager, Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen,
MN 55317, and is actually received by the City Manager at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date.
This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified,
amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not
referred to herein.
This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw
may be made under this Letter of Credit.
This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and
Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 500.
We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly
honored upon presentation.
BY: ____________________________________
Its ______________________________
GC-1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
EXHIBIT "B"
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Right to Proceed. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not grade
or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities, public
or private improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) this
agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary
security and fees have been received by the City, 3) the plat has been recorded with the County
Recorder's Office or Registrar of Title’s Office of the County where the plat is located, and 4) the City
Engineer has issued a letter that the foregoing conditions have been satisfied and then the Developer
may proceed.
2. Phased Development. If the plat is a phase of a multiphased preliminary plat, the City
may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent phases if the Developer has breached this Contract and
the breach has not been remedied. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until
Development Contracts for such phases are approved by the City. Park charges and area charges for
sewer and water referred to in this Contract are not being imposed on outlots, if any, in the plat that are
designated in an approved preliminary plat for future subdivision into lots and blocks. Such charges
will be calculated and imposed when the outlots are final platted into lots and blocks.
3. Preliminary Plat Status. If the plat is a phase of a multi-phased preliminary plat, the
preliminary plat approval for all phases not final platted shall lapse and be void unless final platted into
lots and blocks, not outlots, within two (2) years after preliminary plat approval.
4. Changes in Official Controls. For two (2) years from the date of this Contract, no
amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current
urban service area, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot
layout or dedications of the approved plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing
by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Contract to the contrary,
to the full extent permitted by state law the City may require compliance with any amendments to the
City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date
of this Contract.
5. Improvements. The improvements specified in the Special Provisions of this Contract
shall be installed in accordance with City standards, ordinances, and plans and specifications which
have been prepared and signed by a competent registered professional engineer furnished to the City
and approved by the City Engineer. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services and other pertinent agencies before proceeding with
GC-2
construction. The City will, at the Developer's expense, have one or more construction inspectors and
a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part-time basis. The Developer shall also provide a
qualified inspector to perform site inspections on a daily basis. Inspector qualifications shall be
submitted in writing to the City Engineer. The Developer shall instruct its project engineer/inspector to
respond to questions from the City Inspector(s) and to make periodic site visits to satisfy that the
construction is being performed to an acceptable level of quality in accordance with the engineer's
design. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a preconstruction meeting at a mutually agreeable
time at the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the
program for the construction work.
6. Iron Monuments. Before the security for the completion of utilities is released, all
monuments must be correctly placed in the ground in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 505.02, Subd. 1.
The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments have
been installed.
7. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and
contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the
City in conjunction with plat development.
8. Site Erosion and Sediment Control. Before the site is rough graded, and before any
utility construction is commenced or building permits are issued, the erosion and sediment control plan,
Plan B, shall be implemented, inspected, and approved by the City. The City may impose additional
erosion and sediment control requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the
excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in
that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion and sediment control plan, seed shall be certified
seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be fertilized,
mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the
essence in controlling erosion and sediment transport. If the Developer does not comply with the
erosion and sediment control plan and schedule of supplementary instructions received from the City,
the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion and sediment transport at the
Developer's expense. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed
action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations
hereunder. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in
full compliance with the erosion and sediment control requirements. Erosion and sediment control
needs to be maintained until vegetative cover has been restored, even if construction has been
completed and accepted. After the site has been stabilized to where, in the opinion of the City, there is
no longer a need for erosion and sediment control, the City will authorize the removal of the erosion
and sediment control, i.e. hay bales and silt fence. The Developer shall remove and dispose of the
erosion and sediment control measures.
8a. Erosion Control During Construction of a Dwelling or Other Building. Before a
building permit is issued for construction of a dwelling or other building on a lot, a $500.00 cash
escrow or letter of credit per lot shall also be furnished to the City to guarantee compliance with City
Code § 7-22.
GC-3
9. Clean up. The Developer shall maintain a neat and orderly work site and shall daily
clean, on and off site, dirt and debris, including blowables, from streets and the surrounding area that
has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns.
10. Acceptance and Ownership of Improvements. Upon completion and acceptance by
the City of the work and construction required by this Contract, the improvements lying within public
easements shall become City property. After completion of the improvements, a representative of the
contractor, and a representative of the Developer's engineer will make a final inspection of the work
with the City Engineer. Before the City accepts the improvements, the City Engineer shall be satisfied
that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and
the Developer and his engineer shall submit a written statement to the City Engineer certifying that the
project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The appropriate
contractor waivers shall also be provided. Final acceptance of the public improvements shall be by City
Council resolution.
11. Claims. In the event that the City receives claims from laborers, materialmen, or
others that work required by this Contract has been performed, the sums due them have not been paid,
and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking payment out of the financial guarantees posted
with the City, and if the claims are not resolved at least ninety (90) days before the security required by
this Contract will expire, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action
pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the
letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the claim(s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the
Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any
further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that
the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees.
12. Park Dedication. The Developer shall pay full park dedication fees in conjunction
with the installation of the plat improvements. The park dedication fees shall be the current amount in
force at the time of final platting pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinances and City Council resolutions.
13. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with Plan D. Unless
otherwise approved by the City, trees not listed in the City’s approved tree list are prohibited. The
minimum tree size shall be two and one-half (2½) inches caliper, either bare root in season, or balled
and burlapped. The trees may not be planted in the boulevard (area between curb and property line).
In addition to any sod required as a part of the erosion and sediment control plan, Plan B, the
Developer or lot purchaser shall sod the boulevard area and all drainage ways on each lot utilizing a
minimum of four (4) inches of topsoil as a base. Seed or sod shall also be placed on all disturbed areas
of the lot. If these improvements are not in place at the time a certificate of occupancy is requested, a
financial guarantee of $750.00 in the form of cash or letter of credit shall be provided to the City. These
conditions must then be complied with within two (2) months after the certificate of occupancy issued,
except that if the certificate of occupancy is issued between October 1 through May 1 these conditions
must be complied with by the following July 1st. Upon expiration of the time period, inspections will
be conducted by City staff to verify satisfactory completion of all conditions. City staff will conduct
GC-4
inspections of incomplete items with a $50.00 inspection fee deducted from the escrow fund for each
inspection. After satisfactory inspection, the financial guarantee shall be returned. If the requirements
are not satisfied, the City may use the security to satisfy the requirements. The City may also use the
escrowed funds for maintenance of erosion control pursuant to City Code Section 7-22 or to satisfy
any other requirements of this Contract or of City ordinances. These requirements supplement, but do
not replace, specific landscaping conditions that may have been required by the City Council for project
approval.
14. Warranty. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by it
pursuant to this Contract against poor material and faulty workmanship. The Developer shall submit
either 1) a warranty/maintenance bond for 100% of the cost of the improvement, or 2) a letter of credit
for twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the original cost of the improvements.
A. The required warranty period for materials and workmanship for the utility contractor
installing public sewer and water mains shall be two (2) years from the date of final written City
acceptance of the work.
B. The required warranty period for all work relating to street construction, including
concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks and trails, materials and equipment shall be subject to two (2) years
from the date of final written acceptance.
C. The required warranty period for sod, trees, and landscaping is one full growing season
following acceptance by the City.
15. Lot Plans. Prior to the issuance of building permits, an acceptable Grading, Drainage,
Erosion Control including silt fences, and Tree Removal Plan shall be submitted for each lot for review
and approval by the City Engineer. Each plan shall assure that drainage is maintained away from
buildings and that tree removal is consistent with development plans and City Ordinance.
16. Existing Assessments. Any existing assessments against the plat will be re-spread
against the plat in accordance with City standards.
17. Hook-up Charges. The Developer also acknowledges overall sanitary sewer and
water trunk availability to the site and the hook-up charges established by the City as reasonable
compensation for oversizing costs previously incurred, as well as, long-term maintenance. Said hook-
up charges are collectible at time of building permit unless a written request is made to assess the costs
over a four year term at the rates in effect at time of application.
18. Public Street Lighting. The Developer shall have installed and pay for public street
lights in accordance with City standards. The public street lights shall be accepted for City ownership
and maintenance at the same time that the public street is accepted for ownership and maintenance. A
plan shall be submitted for the City Engineer's approval prior to the installation. Before the City signs
the final plat, the Developer shall pay the City a fee of $300.00 for each street light installed in the plat.
GC-5
The fee shall be used by the City for furnishing electricity and maintaining each public street light for
twenty (20) months.
19. Signage. All street signs, traffic signs, and wetland monumentation required by the
City as a part of the plat shall be furnished and installed by the City at the sole expense of the
Developer.
20. House Pads. The Developer shall promptly furnish the City "as-built" plans indicating
the amount, type and limits of fill on any house pad location.
21. Responsibility for Costs.
A. The Developer shall pay an administrative fee in conjunction with the installation of
the plat improvements. This fee is to cover the cost of City Staff time and overhead for items such as
review of construction documents, preparation of the Development Contract, monitoring construction
progress, processing pay requests, processing security reductions, and final acceptance of
improvements. This fee does not cover the City's cost for construction inspections. The fee shall be
calculated as follows:
i) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is less than
$500,000, three percent (3%) of construction costs;
ii) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is between
$500,000 and $1,000,000, three percent (3%) of construction costs for
the first $500,000 and two percent (2%) of construction costs over
$500,000;
iii) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is over
$1,000,000, two and one-half percent (2½%) of construction costs for
the first $1,000,000 and one and one-half percent (1½%) of
construction costs over $1,000,000.
Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall deposit with the City a fee based upon
construction estimates. After construction is completed, the final fee shall be determined based upon
actual construction costs. The cost of public improvements is defined in paragraph 6 of the Special
Provisions.
B. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for all
costs incurred by the City for providing construction and erosion and sediment control inspections.
This cost will be periodically billed directly to the Developer based on the actual progress of the
construction. Payment shall be due in accordance with Article 21E of this Agreement.
C. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from
claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat
GC-6
approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for
all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims,
including attorneys' fees.
D. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for
costs incurred in the enforcement of this Contract, including engineering and attorneys' fees.
E. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations
incurred under this Contract within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the
City may halt all plat development work and construction, including but not limited to the issuance of
building permits for lots which the Developer may or may not have sold, until the bills are paid in full.
Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year.
F. In addition to the charges and special assessments referred to herein, other charges
and special assessments may be imposed such as, but not limited to, sewer availability charges
("SAC"), City water connection charges, City sewer connection charges, and building permit fees.
G. Private Utilities. The Developer shall have installed and pay for the installation of
electrical, natural gas, telephone, and cable television service in conjunction with the overall
development improvements. These services shall be provided in accordance with each of the
respective franchise agreements held with the City.
H. The developer shall pay the City a fee established by City Council resolution, to
reimburse the City for the cost of updating the City’s base maps, GIS data base files, and converting
the plat and record drawings into an electronic format. Record drawings must be submitted within four
months of final acceptance of public utilities. All digital information submitted to the City shall be in
the Carver County Coordinate system.
22. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to
be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall
promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given
notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This Contract is a license for the
City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the
land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost
in whole or in part.
23. Miscellaneous.
A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on-site construction trailers and temporary job
site offices shall be approved by the City Engineer as a part of the pre-construction meeting for
installation of public improvements. Trailers shall be removed from the subject property within thirty
(30) days following the acceptance of the public improvements unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
GC-7
B. Postal Service. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of postal service
in accordance with the local Postmaster's request.
C. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this
Contract. The City is not a guarantor of the Developer’s obligations under this Contract. The City
shall have no responsibility or liability to lot purchasers or others for the City’s failure to enforce this
Contract or for allowing deviations from it.
D. Breach of Contract. Breach of the terms of this Contract by the Developer shall
be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. The City may also issue a
stop work order halting all plat development until the breach has been cured and the City has received
satisfactory assurance that the breach will not reoccur.
E. Severability. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or
phrase of this Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portion of this Contract.
F. Building Permits. Building permits will not be issued in the plat until sanitary sewer,
watermain, and storm sewer have been installed, tested, and accepted by the City, and the streets
needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface and the site graded and revegetated in
accordance with Plan B of the development plans.
G. Waivers/Amendments. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a
waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall
be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's
failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release.
H. Release. This Contract shall run with the land and may be recorded against the
title to the property . After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Contract, at
the Developer's request the City Manager will issue a Certificate of Compliance. Prior to the issuance
of such a certificate, individual lot owners may make as written request for a certificate applicable to an
individual lot allowing a minimum of ten (10) days for processing.
I. Insurance. Developer shall take out and maintain until six (6) months after the City
has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering
personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of Developer's
work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them.
Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than $500,000 for one person and $1,000,000 for
each occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less than $500,000 for each occurrence; or a
combination single limit policy of $1,000,000 or more. The City shall be named as an additional
insured on the policy, and the Developer shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior
to the City signing the plat. The certificate shall provide that the City must be given ten (10) days
advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance. The certificate may not contain any
disclaimer for failure to give the required notice.
GC-8
J. Remedies. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is
cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, expressed or implied, now or
hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and
every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to
time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the
right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy.
K. Assignability. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written
permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and
effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it.
L. Construction Hours. Construction hours for required improvements under this
contract shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays
with no such activity allowed on Sundays or any recognized legal holidays. Under emergency
conditions, this limitation may be waived by the consent of the City Engineer. Any approved work
performed after dark shall be adequately illuminated. If construction occurs outside of the permitted
construction hours, the Developer shall pay the following administrative penalties:
First violation $ 500.00
Second violation $ 1,000.00
Third & subsequent violations All site development and
construction must cease
for seven (7) calendar days
M. Noise Amplification. The use of outdoor loudspeakers, bullhorns, intercoms, and
similar devices is prohibited in conjunction with the construction of homes, buildings, and the
improvements required under this contract. The administrative penalty for violation of construction
hours shall also apply to violation of the provisions in this paragraph.
N. Access. All access to the plat prior to the City accepting the roadway
improvements shall be the responsibility of the Developer regardless if the City has issued building
permits or occupancy permits for lots within the plat.
O. Street Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for all street maintenance
until streets within the plat are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be placed by the Developer
when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on same and directing attention to
detours. If streets become impassable, the City may order that such streets shall be barricaded and
closed. The Developer shall maintain a smooth roadway surface and provide proper surface drainage.
The Developer may request, in writing, that the City plow snow on the streets prior to final acceptance
of the streets. The City shall have complete discretion to approve or reject the request. The City shall
not be responsible for reshaping or damage to the street base or utilities because of snow plowing
operations. The provision of City snow plowing service does not constitute final acceptance of the
streets by the City.
GC-9
P. Storm Sewer Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for cleaning and
maintenance of the storm sewer system (including ponds, pipes, catch basins, culverts and swales)
within the plat and the adjacent off-site storm sewer system that receives storm water from the plat.
The Developer shall follow all instructions it receives from the City concerning the cleaning and
maintenance of the storm sewer system. The Developer's obligations under this paragraph shall end
two (2) years after the public street and storm drainage improvements in the plat have been accepted by
the City. Twenty percent (20%) of the storm sewer costs, shown under section 6 of the special
provisions of this contract, will be held by the City for the duration of the 2-year maintenance period.
Q. Soil Treatment Systems. If soil treatment systems are required, the Developer shall
clearly identify in the field and protect from alteration, unless suitable alternative sites are first provided,
the two soil treatment sites identified during the platting process for each lot. This shall be done prior
to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Any violation/disturbance of these sites shall render them as
unacceptable and replacement sites will need to be located for each violated site in order to obtain a
building permit.
R. Variances. By approving the plat, the Developer represents that all lots in the plat
are buildable without the need for variances from the City's ordinances.
S. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations. In the development of the
plat the Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations of the following authorities:
1. City of Chanhassen;
2. State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and commissions;
3. United States Army Corps of Engineers;
4. Watershed District(s);
5. Metropolitan Government, its agencies, departments and commissions.
T. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall furnish the City with evidence
satisfactory to the City that it has the authority of the fee owners and contract for deed purchasers to
enter into this Development Contract.
U. Soil Conditions. The Developer acknowledges that the City makes no
representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the property or its fitness for
construction of the improvements or any other purpose for which the Developer may make use of such
property. The Developer further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its
governing body members, officers, and employees from any claims or actions arising out of the
presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants on the property, unless hazardous wastes or
pollutants were caused to be there by the City.
V. Soil Correction. The Developer shall be responsible for soil correction work on the
property. The City makes no representation to the Developer concerning the nature of suitability of
soils nor the cost of correcting any unsuitable soil conditions which may exist. On lots which have no
fill material a soils report from a qualified soils engineer is not required unless the City's building
GC-10
inspection department determines from observation that there may be a soils problem. On lots with fill
material that have been mass graded as part of a multi-lot grading project, a satisfactory soils report
from a qualified soils engineer shall be provided before the City issues a building permit for the lot. On
lots with fill material that have been custom graded, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils
engineer shall be provided before the City inspects the foundation for a building on the lot.
W. Haul Routes. The Developer, the Developer’s contractors or subcontractors
must submit proposed haul routes for the import or export of soil, construction material,
construction equipment or construction debris, or any other purpose. All haul routes must be
approved by the City Engineer
X. Development Signs. The Developer shall post a six foot by eight foot
development sign in accordance with City Detail Plate No. 5313 at each entrance to the project.
The sign shall be in place before construction of the required improvements commences and shall
be removed when the required improvements are completed, except for the final lift of asphalt on
streets. The signs shall contain the following information: project name, name of developer,
developer’s telephone number and designated contact person, allowed construction hours.
Y. Construction Plans. Upon final plat approval, the developer shall provide the
City with two complete sets of full-size construction plans and four sets of 11”x17” reduced
construction plan sets and three sets of specifications. Within four months after the completion of
the utility improvements and base course pavement and before the security is released, the Developer
shall supply the City with the following: (1) a complete set of reproducible Mylar as-built plans, (2) two
complete full-size sets of blue line/paper as-built plans, (3) two complete sets of utility tie sheets, (4)
location of buried fabric used for soil stabilization, (5) location stationing and swing ties of all utility
stubs including draintile cleanouts, (6) bench mark network, (7) digital file of as-built plans in both .dxf
& .tif format (the .dxf file must be tied to the current county coordinate system), (8) digital file of utility
tie sheets in either .doc or .tif format, and (9) a breakdown of lineal footage of all utilities installed,
including the per lineal foot bid price. The Developer is required to submit the final plat in electronic
format.
Z. As-Built Lot Surveys . An as-built lot survey will be required on all lots prior to the
Certificate of Occupancy being issued. The as-built lot survey must be prepared, signed, and dated by
a Registered Land Surveyor. Sod and the bituminous driveways must be installed before the as-built
survey is completed. If the weather conditions at the time of the as-built are not conducive to paving
the driveway and/or installing sod, a temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued and the as-built
escrow withheld until all work is complete.
Rev. 12/27/05
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: August 14, 2006
SUBJ: Emergency Sewer Repair at Bighorn Drive - PW419
REQUESTED ACTION
Approve quote with Parrott Contracting, Inc.
BACKGROUND
Earlier this year it was brought to the attention of the City that portions of the sanitary
sewer pipe in the Bighorn Drive utility easement adjacent to a drainage ditch has become
unearthed. At several locations along the alignment of the sanitary sewer pipe, the storm
water ditch has meandered over the pipe and eroded the soil cover over the pipe. The
City utility crew televised the pipe and it was found to be in good condition. No
infiltration of storm sewer water was found and the pipe does not appear to have heaved.
However, if the sanitary sewer pipe is left in its present condition, the sewer pipe could
heave and create a sewer spill or a backup could occur, or storm water could enter the
sewer pipe causing significant infiltration into the City sewer system which could
overwhelm the down stream lift station.
Staff does not have the expertise or equipment to fix the problem in-house, but has
solicited quotes for the repair. The repairs involve reshaping the storm water ditch to its
original alignment, placing fill back over the sanitary sewer pipe, and placing rip rap to
help stabilized the ditch embankment. The storm sewer ditch at this time of the year has
little flow so access and workability of the site will be easier. A few small sapling trees
in the drainage easement will need to be removed for construction and access purposes.
Staff has contacted the adjacent property owners on the project and has informed them
about the potential improvement project. Access to the site will be from Carver Beach
Road through the trail easement.
Two quotes were received as follows:
Parrott Contracting, Inc. $30,855.00
Kusske Construction Company, Inc. $31,285.00
Parrott Contracting, Inc. was low by $430.00. Parrott Contracting, Inc. works with the
City on most watermain breaks and their work has been acceptable.
Funding is proposed from the emergency sewer repair budget.
Staff recommends awarding the contract to Parrott Contracting, Inc.
Attachment
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: August 14, 2006
SUBJ: TH 101 GAP: Approve Resolution Dispensing with Statutory
Requirements Authorizing Conveyance of City-Owned Property to
the State of Minnesota - Project No. 04-06
REQUEST
Approve resolution dispensing with statutory requirements authorizing
conveyance of city-owned property to the State of Minnesota.
BACKGROUND
The TH 101 GAP project is proposed to address system continuity and safety
issues along TH 101 from Lake Drive to 86th Street. TH 101 currently has four
lanes north of Lake Drive and will be constructed to four lanes south of 86th
Street as part of the TH 212 realignment project. The segment of TH 101 between
Lake Drive and 86th Street, a distance of approximately 2,400 feet, currently has
two lanes.
Existing TH 101 will be cul-de-saced near Lake Susan and turned back to the
City. Access for the properties living on existing TH 101 will be provided off of
Lake Susan Drive. Existing TH 101 will be reconstructed, widened to four lanes
and urbanized with concrete curb and gutter. The roadway section will be
consistent with the TH 101 roadway section MnDOT is building with the TH 212
project.
A pedestrian underpass is proposed at the current pedestrian crossing to improve
safety. Additional pedestrian trails will be built on the east side of TH 101.
DISCUSSION
On January 9, 2006, the Council authorized a land purchase agreement for Outlot
I with Lake Susan Apartments for the TH 101 GAP project. This piece of
property was required to be purchased instead of having an easement dedicated.
Outlot I is .47 acres and will have a trail constructed and a portion of the trail
underpass box culvert constructed on it. The purchase price was $4,094.64. Trail
dedication funds were used for this purchase. The last step is to deed the property
over to MnDOT. The attached documents are to convey the property to MnDOT.
Todd Gerhardt
August 14, 2006
Page 2
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
The City Attorney’s office has reviewed the agreement and resolution and finds
them in order. This dedication fulfills the City’s responsibility for land
acquisition for the project.
SCHEDULE
The project schedule is as follows:
Roadway Construction Bid Opening October, 2006
Roadway Construction Begins April, 2007
Construction Completion November, 2007
Attachments: 1. Resolution
2. Quit Claim Deed
3. Map showing City-Owned Property
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: August 14, 2006
SUBJ: East Water Treatment Plant: Approve Change Order No. 2 for
Modifications to Well Nos. 2, 5, and 6 – Project No. 04-08
REQUESTED ACTION
Approve Change Order No. 2 for improvements to Well Nos. 2, 5 and 6.
BACKGROUND
On December 12, 2005, City Council approved Change Order No. 1 deduction in
the amount of $63,391.25 from the Water Treatment Plant Contract.
DISCUSSION
Well Nos. 2, 5 and 6 electrical system will need to be modified to allow the well
water to be pumped to the water treatment plant. Also, an electrical component,
VFD (Variable Frequency Drive) for new Well No. 10 should be modified based
on the pumping data and groundwater modeling. The VFD for Well No. 10 is
located in the water treatment plant.
Well Nos. 2, 5 and 6 currently pump directly into the distribution system (see
map). The static pressure or “head condition” in the distribution system is much
greater than the pressure needed to pump the water to the water treatment plant.
The pumping specifications of the well pumps should be modified to compensate
for the change in head condition. If the well pumping specifications were not
modified, the aquifer would be drawn down to unacceptable levels.
Staff and the City’s consultant, Kaeding and Associates, Inc, have reviewed
several options to modify the well specifications to the new head conditions.
They included replacing or modifying pumps, replacing the motors and changing
the electrical components for the wells. Changing or adding the electrical
components was shown to be the most cost effective approach. Specifically,
changing or adding VFD’s to wells was found to be the most cost effective. VFD’s
are standard equipment on all new wells the City has constructed recently,
including Well Nos. 10 and 11. VFD’s are like dimmer switches for lights. They
allow an electric motor to be run at varying, rotational speeds. Without VFD’s,
motors run at only one speed.
Todd Gerhardt
WTP Change Order No. 2
August 14, 2006
Page 2
The existing wells do not have drawdown monitors. Drawdown monitors
constantly monitor the aquifer levels and send the information back through the
SCADA system to the controller. All new wells that the City has drilled recently
have drawdown monitors, including Well Nos. 10 and 11. Currently, staff has to
physically lower a drawdown monitor into Well Nos. 2, 5 and 6 to find out the
level of the aquifer. With the addition of Well No. 11 in close proximity to Well
Nos. 2, 5 and 6, aquifer levels should constantly be monitored. Drawdown
monitors should be installed at the existing wells at this time.
Kaeding and Associates, Inc. has produced detailed specifications and drawings
for the work. Also, the consultant, staff and the contractor have reviewed the
scope of the work on site to ensure no work was missed.
In general, the scope of the change order work includes:
1. Furnish and install a new VFD at Well No. 2 and convert the well to
variable-speed operation.
2. Install a VFD (previously intended for Well No. 10) at Well No.5 and
convert the well to variable-speed operation.
3. Furnish and install a larger VFD for Well No. 10 to be installed in the
water treatment plant.
4. Furnish and install aquifer drawdown monitors on Well Nos. 2, 5 and 6
and connect a sensor to the SCADA system.
5. SCADA revisions for variable speed operations for wells.
6. Electrical modifications or removals at wellhouses necessary for
improvements, which also include removal of electrical chemical feed
equipment.
7. Electrical circuitry improvements for City-installed air conditioning
system.
8. Upgrade Wellhouse No. 6 main conductors to comply with NEC and to
accommodate the combined load of Well Nos. 6 and 11.
To save on costs, staff will be responsible for the following work:
1. Remove interior walls for Wellhouse No. 6.
2. Remove chemical feed equipment, tanks and piping from Wellhouse No. 2
and 6.
Todd Gerhardt
WTP Change Order No. 2
August 14, 2006
Page 3
3. Remove Wellhouse No. 6 chemical room exhaust fan, intake louver,
dampers and ductwork and patch openings.
4. Remove Wellhouse No 6 chemical room sprinkler system and associated
piping.
5. Furnish and install split air conditioning system for Wellhouse No. 6.
Staff had originally envisioned this work to be separate from the water treatment
plant contract. However, the work has become more complex and costly then
originally planned. Due to the tight schedule for the water treatment plant and the
staging for connecting the wells to the treatment plant, this work should be
coordinated and managed by the water treatment plant prime contractor.
The change order cost for all improvements is $120,035.00. Kaeding and
Associates, Inc. has reviewed the change order costs and finds it acceptable. The
budgeted amount for this work in the 2006 CIP was $70,000. Funding for the
project is 100% from the Water Utility Fund.
The security system and the fiber optic contracts for the water treatment plant are
both under budget. Both of these projects were paid for by the Water Utility
Fund. The security system contract is under budget by $20,242, and the fiber
optic contract, which was approved by Council on April 10, 2006, is under budget
by $21,567. If all three of the projects (change order for Well Nos. 2, 5 and 6,
security system and fiber optic contract) were combined, the net difference would
be $8,226.00 over the budgeted amount.
Staff is requesting the change order be approved at this time.
Attachment
g:\eng\public\04-08 wtp\bkgd 081406 approv co wells 256.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: August 14, 2006
SUBJ: Approve Quote for East Water Treatment Plant Security System
Project No. 04-08-5
REQUESTED ACTION
Approve quote for East Water Treatment Plant Security System with ADT Security Systems,
Inc.
BACKGROUND
Staff solicited quotes for the future security system at the East Water Treatment Plant. The
security system will include external and interior cameras, motion detectors, door and
window alarms and door entry security swipe card readers. Any alarms that are triggered will
be sent to the Carver County dispatch center and through the SCADA system to the on-call
utility personnel. The work was separated from the main contract so the City would have
more control over the security contract.
The City received three quotes as follows:
Siemens Building Technologies, Inc. $38,250.00
ADT Security Systems, Inc. $32,309.00
SecureTech, Inc. $29,758.00
Staff is requesting Council accept the quote with ADT Security Systems, Inc. based on their
proposal and availability to complete the work as required by the prime contractor.
SecureTech, Inc. is a small upstart company whose office is located in Chaska, Minnesota.
The substantial completion of the treatment plant prime contract is the end of December. The
SecureTech, Inc. proposal indicated their construction start would not occur until November,
due to current work load. This schedule is very tight and may interfere or delay the prime
contractor from finishing his work on time. ADT Security System, Inc. is available to start
the project sooner which is more in line with what the prime contractor wants for the security
installation work. The cost difference between ADT and Secure Tech, Inc. is $2,551.00.
ADT is an internationally recognized security company. They are experienced with security
systems on water treatment plants and municipal facilities including several metro facilities.
Their system is also very conducive to integrating other City facilities into the network and
call out monitoring.
The City attorney has been counseled on this item.
Funding for this security system will be 100% funded from the Water Utility Fund. The
budgeted amount for this item was $50,000 which makes this item $20,242 under budget.
Attachment
g:\eng\public\04-08-05 e. wtp security\bkgd. 081406 approve quote for security.doc
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, P.E., Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: August 14, 2006
SUBJ: Approve Change Order for Turn Lane on Powers Boulevard
Project No. 03-09
REQUESTED ACTION
Approve change order for turn lane on Powers Boulevard.
BACKGROUND
On February 28, 2005, Council approved a cooperative agreement with MnDOT
for improvements in junction with the TH 212 project.
On April 19, 2005, Council approved a loan agreement with the State of
Minnesota for funding the TH 212 project.
On November 14, 2005, Council approved assessments for TH 212.
DISCUSSION
This change order is for the addition of a curb cut and turn lane on Powers
Boulevard for future access to a property on the east side of the county road.
These improvements were not in the cooperative agreement, but were requested
by the property owner to plan for future development. The turn lane was assessed
100% to the benefiting property owner on November 14, 2005. The City just
recently received the change order for this work. The change order number is the
TH 212 project change order number.
Approval of the change order is recommended.
Attachments
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works
FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: August 14, 2006
SUBJECT: Vacation of Perimeter Drainage and Utility Easements Lots 1, 2 and 3,
Block 1 Chanhassen West Business Park- Vacation File No. 06-27
REQUEST (Simple Majority Vote Required)
Staff has received a request from Eden Trace Corporation, developer of the property, for
the vacation of the perimeter drainage and utility easements on Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1,
Chanhassen West Business Park.
BACKGROUND
The Chanhassen West Business Park plat was approved by City Council on
September 29, 2005. In June, 2006 the developer submitted plans for the Waytek
building. Due to the size of the proposed Waytek building and adjacent parking, the
applicant is requesting to add a portion of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 to Lot 3, Block 1,
referenced as “Parcel A” in this report. The remaining area south of Lot 3 will become
one lot, referenced as “Parcel B” in this report.
DISCUSSION
In conjunction with the proposed lot subdivision, the existing drainage and utility
easements on Lots 1 through 3 are proposed to be vacated. There are no utilities within
the proposed easement vacation areas.
The proposed easements on Parcels A and B are 10-feet wide at the front and back and
five feet along the side lot lines. The storm sewer that will be installed along the
common property line between Parcels A and B will be privately owned and maintained,
therefore additional easement area is not required.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approves a resolution vacating the
drainage and utility easements within Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 Chanhassen West Business
Park.
Attachments: 1. Application.
2. Legal description of vacated existing easements.
3. Drawing.
4. Notice of Public Hearing/Location Map.
5. Affidavit of Mailing.
G:\ENG\Vacations\Chanhassen West Business Park - PC 06-27\08-14-06 cc memo.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works
FROM: Dave Keleher, Engineering Intern
Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: August 14, 2006
SUBJ: Vacation of Roadway Easement within Lots 29 thru 31, Block 1, Red
Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta - Vacation File No. 06-03
REQUEST (Simple Majority Vote Required)
Staff has received a request from Paul Vogstrom, on behalf of Ken Rennick, owner of
3715 Hickory Road, Lots 29 thru 31, Block 1, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta, for
the vacation of the fifteen (15) feet of street right of way southwest of the property.
BACKGROUND
The existing 30’ wide right of way was originally platted with Red Cedar Point Lake
Minnewashta as Hancock Place for future development. Hancock Place was never
developed and there are no plans to develop it. On July 11, 2006 the vacation application
was submitted by Paul Vogstrom with the required fees.
DISCUSSION
Lots 29 thru 31, Block 1, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta are currently unbuildable
as a 30’ setback is required from the roadway easement. Vacation is requested to meet
rear-yard setbacks and allow for new construction.
The existence of sanitary sewer under the center line of the platted Hancock Place would
require a drainage and utility easement remain over the proposed vacation area. A 15’
drainage and utility easement is shown on the submitted survey and would be sufficient
and shall be recorded simultaneously with the right of way vacation.
There is currently a shed encroaching into both the 5’ easement on the southeast side of
the property as well as the proposed 15’ easement over the vacation area. This shed must
be removed.
Gopher State One locates did not show any public or private utilities in the proposed
vacation area.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approves a resolution vacating
fifteen (15) feet of Hancock Place right of way located along the southwest property line
of Lots 29 thru 31, Block 1, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta.
Attachments: 1. Application.
2. Drawing and legal description of vacated right of way.
3. Notice of public hearing/Affidavit of mailing/location map.
g:\eng\vacations\06-03 3715 Hickory\Vacation Memo 06-03.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Oehme, City Engineer
FROM: Mitch Rice, Engineering Intern and
Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: August 14, 2006
SUBJECT: Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Washta Bay Court
Vacation File 06-04
Kevin and Maureen Farrell, 6541 Minnewashta Parkway, Lot 1, Block 1, Washta
Bay Court adjusted the lot line between their lot and Lot 2, Block 1 Washta Bay
Court and request that the 12-foot wide drainage and utility easement that was
centered along the previous lot line be vacated. A new 6-foot wide sideyard drainage
and utility easement will be dedicated on each lot. Gopher State One Locates show
no evidence of any public or private utilities within the proposed easement vacation
area.
Proposed easement vacation Proposed 6-ft sideyard easements
Any proposed house on Lot 2 must meet the minimum setbacks from the new lot
line.
Staff recommends approval of the easement vacation.
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Survey Prepared by Kurth Surveying, Inc.
3. Grant of Easement by Farrell and Simpson.
4. Legal Description of easement vacation
5. Notice of Public Hearing/Location Map
6. Affidavit of Mailing
G:\ENG\Vacations\06-04 6541-6561 Minnewashta Parkway\08-14-06 cc memo.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director
FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: August 14, 2006
SUBJ: Longacres Homeowners/Developers Proposed changes to the
Highcrest Meadows Stormwater Pond Design, Grading and
Landscaping in the Area – Project No. 05-07-1
BACKGROUND
For several months, City Staff has been working with the Longacres residents to
finalize additional work with the Highcrest Meadows project that was requested
by some Longacres residents. The developer has agreed to make some additional
improvements to his development. The developer’s contractor is on site
completing punch list items, therefore, staff requests direction from City Council
regarding the Longacres residents’ requests. Staff has made recommendations for
each of the homeowner’s requests. This work, again, is in addition to the
requirements set forth in the development contract and none of the work is
required in the Development Contract.
Request #1: Place fill at the bottom of the retaining wall to minimize wall
height.
Longacres request: Developer should place fill at bottom of wall to reduce
exposure of wall to 12’. Wall draintiling ports should be extended to allow
consistent elevation of fill material.
Jerry Frederick’s notes per phone conversation July 26 with Paul
Oehme: Will review Anchor Wall plan details with developer, see Detail
4/W7, Page 7 of approved plans. Jerry provided contact, John Hique at
Anchor City, to provide elevation-drawing showing estimated fill and settling,
before beginning project.
Paul Oehme’s response: I have reviewed the plans and discussed the issue
with our building officials, the City Manager and the developer. It was our
understanding that this request was modified with the construction of a swale,
per your conversation with the City Manager. The developer is willing to
make the changes as requested in this paragraph; however, he is NOT willing
Paul Oehme
Highcrest Meadows Stormwater Pond
August 14, 2006
Page 2
to make the other improvements you have requested as described in this file (#'s 2, 3, 4) if
request #1 is accepted.
View of retaining wall. Fill has been placed at the bottom of the
wall. Arrow points to wall drain, where no fill has been placed.
Staff’s Recommendation: The developer shall place up to three feet (3') of fill at the bottom
of the retaining wall as soon as possible. No fill shall be placed at the wall drain locations.
Extending the wall draintile out may interfere with future maintenance/cleaning operations of
the pond.
Request #2: Do not add to the height of the retaining wall (as suggested by the developer’s
engineer in order to grade a swale and reduce the runoff area to the west of the wall).
Longacres response: The developer was in and completed the aluminum fence prior to the
June 22 letter, so we would agree they probably will not increase wall height. Note: The
second sentence in the response is incorrect: The statement “Therefore the area draining into
the Dettmer parcel cannot be reduced.”
Note the following correction: We believe that
the City did not provide written support as we
requested in the April 26 petition stating why the
change in retaining wall height would change any
drainage issues. Adding more height to the wall
was only one solution the city attempted to
provide. It does not mean that the Dettmer’s
runoff cannot be reduced. We await an optional
solution.
Jerry Frederick’s notes per phone
conversation July 26 with Paul Oehme: City to
provide detail of proposed swale at west end of
wall.
Proposed swale location
Paul Oehme
Highcrest Meadows Stormwater Pond
August 14, 2006
Page 3
Paul Oehme’s response: Alyson is drafting a plan detailing the proposed swale.
Staff’s Recommendation: No additional retaining wall block shall be placed at this location.
City staff shall provide a grading plan for the swale on the west side of the wall so that the
developer’s contractor can complete the grading.
Request #3: Longacres residents to approve the location of the tree plantings at the bottom of
the tree
Longacres response: Please add: Planting of 9’ coniferous (pine) trees as measured from
base of tree to top of tree (not including ball and burlap) located on southern side of
maintenance right-of-way.
Jerry Frederick’s notes per phone conversation July 26 with Paul Oehme: Jerry to get
count of Compact Mugo Pine plants and forward to Paul. Paul will talk to developer and see
if agreeable to planting Compact Mugo Pine for planting at wall, tree heights to be called out
in new response. Trees planted near common lot line to allow right-of–way access to pond.
Compact Mugo Pine or equivalent planted every 7’ at base of wall. Climbing vines at top
and bottom of wall agreed previously by developer. Paul to confirm climbing vines are still
agreed upon by developer. Longacres will contact Jill Sinclair with the Longacres person of
authority for placement when ready.
Paul Oehme’s response: The developer is willing to plant the vines. The developer is only
willing to plant 12 trees.
Staff’s Recommendation: The developer shall plant up to twelve (12) trees at the bottom of
the retaining wall. The tree planting locations shall be staked by the City Forester, the
developer and/or the developer’s contractor. One (1) representative from the Longacres
neighborhood may accompany the City Forester, the developer and/or the developer’s
contractor. If the neighborhood representative is unable to attend the on-site meeting, the
neighborhood representative may review the staked locations and notify the City Forester if
the locations are acceptable, or propose changes.
Paul Oehme
Highcrest Meadows Stormwater Pond
August 14, 2006
Page 4
Request #4: Redirect the pond outlet so that it does not outlet directly to the south, towards the
Frederick property.
Longacres response: Please add:
“Reconnect and redirect 18” pipe.”
Jerry Frederick’s notes per
phone conversation July 26 with
Paul Oehme: “Re-lay the pipe”
was defined by Paul as the outtake
that extends from the catch basin
into the drainage easement. That
pipe alone will be re-layed and
additional rip rap placed The ditch
will also be cleaned. In addition,
riprap area west of outlet structure
and remove high spot in area next
to out port.
Paul Oehme’s response: Agreed.
Outlet pipe was constructed per
plan. The developer has agreed to
re-lay the pipe as requested by the
homeowners.
Staff’s Recommendation: The developer’s contractor may re-lay the pond outlet pipe. The
pond hydraulics should not be affected by this work.
Request #5: Residents request an official letter from City of Chanhassen confirming both LA
and HCM drainage systems meet current code and are designed to operate as one complete
system. The letter based on an independent assessment providing positive data via
experienced-based metrics demonstrating long-term survivability. Supporting data to include
all existing Highcrest walls, property, associated holding ponds, drainage pipes, systems
currently installed are in fact installed to plan, to specification, to city code and in compliance
with adjoining Longacres properties, elevations, wetlands and city drainage systems by
September 1, 2006. Developer of Highcrest Meadows performance bond release tied to
demonstration of performance and survivability of systems.
Current direction of
outflow pipe
Proposed direction
of outflow pipe
Paul Oehme
Highcrest Meadows Stormwater Pond
August 14, 2006
Page 5
Jerry Frederick’s notes per phone conversation July 26 with Paul Oehme: City to
provide document with as-built data confirming systems compatibility. Current document
provided was unauthored.
Paul Oehme’s response: The City does not have the as-built drawings from the developer
at this time. Homeowners may obtain a copy after the City has accepted them.
Staff’s Recommendation: None required.
Request #6: A plan for clean up of existing Longacres wetlands and holding ponds from
storm runoff caused by the Highcrest development during September and October, 2005, and
spring of 2006 is promulgated and enforced by the City of Chanhassen; including start dates,
method of clean up, completion and process for verification of clean up by September 1, 2006.
Provided in July 18 response.
Paul Oehme’s response: The cleanup is part of the developer's responsibility. This work
will be addressed at the same time the other items are completed.
Staff’s Recommendation: None required.
Longacres residents: We look forward to your written response. Please make certain that
the developer maintains the cease and desist criteria until we are in agreement on the items
listed above until all parties involved can reach an agreement.
Staff’s Recommendation: The developer should be authorized to complete these items as
soon as possible. The approved meeting minutes from this Council Meeting shall satisfy the
requirements for a written response.