12-7-94 Agenda and Packet FILE
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIG.
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1994, 7:30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
7:00 P.M. Interview Planning Commission Applicants
7:00 p.m. - Mr. Bob Skubic
7:15 p.m. - Mr. Michael Meyer
CALL TO ORDER 7:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Item Withdrawn by Applicant.*
2. Rezoning of 49.9 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to R4, Mixed Low Density Residential,
preliminary plat of 49.9 acres into 92 twin home lots and one outlot, and a wetland alteration permit located
north of Hwy. 5, approximately 1/ mile on the east side of Galpin Boulevard (CR 117), Lotus Realty Services,
Lake Ann Highlands.
3. Item Deleted.*
OLD BUSINESS
4. Review of Concept Plan for Revised Plat for Towers Heights. °
NEW BUSINESS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
ONGOING ITEMS
OPEN DISCUSSION
ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will
make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be
possible. the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration
will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting.
Items Deleted *
1. Conceptual plan and rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development for an office
campus/residential use on 20 acres of property located at 1350 Flying Cloud Drive (former Assumption
Seminary), Franklin Svoboda and Associates.
3. Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development to rezone 89.59 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural
Estate to PUD; preliminary plat one block (48 units - 14 twin home buildings and 5 fourplex buildings) and 2
outlots located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Galpin Boulevard, Autumn Ridge, Good
Value Homes, Inc. (Betty O'Shaughnessy property).
CITY OF
ANHA SSEN
t - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director
DATE: December 1, 1994
SUBJ: Planning Commission Interviews
In February of 1990, the City Council passed a resolution establishing procedures for filling
vacancies for commissions. One of the conditions states that incumbents who are reapplying
for their positions do not need to be interviewed and should not be involved in the interview
and selection of their competitors. In addition, they do not need to be interviewed by the
City Council.
Therefore, we have set up interviews at 7:00 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. for the two candidates for
the vacancies. I have spoken to the incumbent planning commissioners and asked them to
appear at the regularly scheduled time for the meeting. For those who will be interviewing
the applicants, please find attached the applications and a list of questions that may be asked.
� J�
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
DATE: February 12 , 1990 RESOLUTION NO: 90-19
MOTION BY: Dimler SECONDED BY: Workman
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR FILLING
COMMISSION VACANCIES
WHEREAS , it is important that Commissions never risk the
lack of a quorum; and
WHEREAS , it is important that incumbents know if they
are reappointed prior to the expiration of their term on December
31st; and
WHEREAS , it would be helpful for new appointees to have time
to become acquainted with their responsibilities prior to taking
office on January 1st .
NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Chanhassen as follows :
1 . That an advertisement announcing the Commission vacancies
be placed in the official newspaper during the first week
in October and shall be published for three consecutive
weeks .
2 . That after the third publication , applications shall
Oot remain open for another two week period.
3 . Commission members interview applicants at their regu-
larly scheduled meeting just prior to Thanksgiving .
4 . That the Council interview applicants at their first
regularly scheduled meeting in December . The Council may
interview all applicants or just those referred to it by
the Commission.
5 . Incumbents who are reapplying for their position do not
need to be interviewed by the Commission members and
should not be involved in the interviews and selection of
their competitors . They do need to be interviewed by the
City Council.
This resolution shall become effective immediatley upon its
passage .
Passed and adopted this 12th day of February, 1990.
ATTEST:
OP/ / /JUL CIL,,_73 - I
Don Ashworth, City Manager Do a d J . ' i - , 'ayor
APPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN COMMISSION
DATE: /6- - 4-
COMMISSION
COMMISSION APPLYING FOR: Pikhn,hy Cokr‘,..1 sc;v'-1
ALTERNATE: II/k gar._ `f _
NAME: hO6 SN b`C. BIRTHDATE (optional) : 10
ADDRESS: C ►J-Ikcceh U. CITY: Cl'1Qnllr qv,, ZIP: S�3/7
HOME PHONE: % 34- - g¢ r WORK PHONE: 94-3 - aA3G
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A RESIDENT OF CHANHASSEN?: 5 Y R
HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED, PLUS DEGREES. IF ANY:
1
C )1 DCSf r 2y� �/�C�"1 �J _\ACk. ' ,Lef._1
� y
CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: (State position, employer i brief description
of duties. If with present employer for only a short time, list
previous employment as well. C.a,,p ( . w:eks )
iv-• • 1 � hr -• I
��"W r [: �et.�inh�l l ln�d l/c7L m.•
J , t� ,r.�.,
ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: (Include elective offices, honors and
recognitions received, if any. )
REASONS FOR SEEKING THIS POSITION AND YOUR QUALIFICATIONS:
T Cum pv"„% .d Q.X� ;evIc tt(AelR•r)‘4.10 4o �el p de4e "2_ +hc
1- 5tz- r5 - �� �ti,.I,�.i; y c•� cif 004.31 55-e
LI4.41t ieY1(AN4L/eN�en+- vy;II
4.-1nC Moi a4<t � —LL I Vc'r.....d O 4vnp4vhP.-, '1 N C,LIrvPv
1r.0,h : C rin (\o ;eycki urn a,( -1-e
ex1/4-ehf Cif /`Ahvn%hi Vet. ,r[� 4 441 IS p,ic.4-.0.
IN FILING THIS APPLICATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT A COMMITMENT OF MY
TIME, ENERGY, INTEREST AND PARTICIPATION WILL BE INVOLVED, AND I AM
PREPARED TO MAKE SUCH A COMMITMENT IN THE EVENT I AM APPOINTED TO
THE ABOVE COMMISSION.
Imo' EIVED
SIGN TURE
SOV - 8 1994
CITY OF CHANHAbaEh
W
rt
H
z
0
H
H
CO
01
3
Co
>
a
an
El
- —
1-; n.
b
Cc v
W U) a
Z C C 0 V
o 1-1 0 - C
-1 a) v >, C) •-•1 v ra
CO .0 0 •-+ U U) > •••+
U) y co U) s-f c u) 0
H a) ro 0 •.••+ V u) c
0 s•+ >, r-1 U E .)J O
0 c E c c •.+
o 7 4-+ •,-+ U a..) 0 v a) m
U c 0^ c •.•r U) U co E Up
•.-1 C C C 4.)) Q) U) +-) •.a
C7 L ..-4 O n• E W 01 Cr ro .W E
Z .0 >. >, O E ra 01 C .c ••1 E
1-i .-1 s4 0 Q, •.•1 •.r c E O n•
Z C a to c U .0 c ro O U E
Z 0 a E 4- c C .0 U a)
4 >,n. ro v c a) 0 a) ro U a) •C
,.3 c .-r w .c >, .c .-1 a) .0 4-)
a 0 0 w .Q a v E4-)
T) ••+ O O a) a) a) •--+ s
L0 w s- •C C CO a1 u) w +J
m U) a s..+ ro $-4 .0 O .,-1
a) —+ (c (10 cU 4) 0 0)
••r E c 4.1 C m .0 sa
4-) E 0 U) •-+ a) a) a) a) 4.) a) a)
--4 O Cl) a) > C > n• > a) .-4
••+ U 45 tr, C a) N a) v) a) .se zs E .Q
AS 0 0'+ a) •-1 n. U) •.1 sJ •.•r •.a C 0) (a
• Cr $J •,.I U) .-I U) •.•1 n. .-r O .-r .-I ro E 4
C7' C .0 to W 4-r .. a) .CJ a) 4-) 1.4
•.•r w ra .0 a) 0rl .0 .0 .0 C U) ro C
L.-
r, C O n• .0 c C rn •.+ 3 C ••+ C >, a) a) E
••+ it >, C .J ro O RS C O a) 0 V _0 C
C •a 0 •C >, C 'D >, C >, 'O C C
C.) a a) •-•+ a) U 4-) ft a) .-4 c O
a 14U) 0u) .-1c O $-1 0 c 4.)
m a) ro co (a tr+ V a) a 1a V c V 0 C C
•.•r C 4) (L) 0 n. 3 O rn ,-
.1.) � 4-) E � •.i gra •aJ U .i >, 4.) c >4 a)
ro rt E it U rt a) ra c ra ro 0 3 se 0
.0 O .0 O .0 ro .0 $a .0 O s w .0 O 0 O rt $.
3 3 U 3 4-+ 3 Cr 3 U 3 0 3 'O .4•• c +-1
a)
E
( .
Z .-i N M cr Lt) 1D r- co oN
CO
x
H
z
0
E
a
3
CO
H
t4
W
E
Z
H
CC
4.1z
0
H
U)
Cl)
E
X
0
0
C7
z
H C
Z $.4 rO
Z C (1) C
a U C E u)
Ci, o c
T5 U C 0
. C a) •-1
O rd -i a
rp O •r-1
its 0 $4 U)
O N (1) 17 • 0
•.-1 r+• a C C >1 a
C (1) G) r0
Cl) a) •.., C
E •,., c'. a ,-•i o
E 4) rn V O -.-i
O s.4 -.-1 c G) JD U)
U a) U) RS .!4 its v)
a as a)
ro o k .c 4) o a c
4) a
c ) a C --I a)
c E a) .c >
O >, •-+ a) E >1 co ••a
L., rrs 4 4 >'a cn
Or •.-i •.•i a) .0 •.•r O C
.-S4 - C) 7 •••+ .-•i b a)
0 •.i a) U) E ••a rp W
rn .0 a Cl) O .a a) a)
p] Ks U) H U < a 0
v
E
ro
Z - N m tr) l0 s 1 00
4-)
C
> U
c
•
w VI
O QJ
v
Cn
7.1
8 •o
c
c o
H •�-I U1
8
cA U O
e
0
a rm
x• U
1
rQn
L
u
l.r �
vU
C
•.a
t
•
f1 I1 Z
APPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN COMMISSION
DATE: 9-01-94
COMMISSION APPLYING FOR: Plarminz Commission
ALTERNATE: 'done
NA.MZ: Michael L. Meyer BIRTHDATE (optional) :1-08-64
ADDRESS:981 Butte Court CITY: Chanhassen ZIP: 55317
HOME PHONE: 470-4114 WORK PHONE: 474-0894
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A RESIDENT OF CHANHASSEN?: 1 . 5 years
HIGHEST LEVEL. OF EDUCATION ATTAINED, PLUS DEGREES, IF ANY: I have a
Bachelor of Science in Business Administration with majors- in Economics,
Manement, and Industrial Relations.
CU'F� EMPLOYMENT: (State position, employer is brief description
of duties. If with present employer for only it short time, list
previous employment as well. ) T am a broker associate with RE/MAX Carriage
House Realty in Excelsior. Job description - RPa1 estate sales: Homes, land,
anc-d new construction
ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: (Include elective offices, honors and
recognitions received, if any. ) I am a member of the Chanhassen Chamber of
CrxrriPTrP, the Minneapolis Area Assoc. of Reltors, and the Residential Sales
Council. I am also a Certified Residential Specialist, a Graduate of the Real
Estate Institute. and a licensed broker.
REASONS FOR SEEKING THIS POSITION AND YOUR QUALIFICATIONS: Tt would be
a great learning opportunity, an opportunity to give something back to the
cnnrumity. and a chance to have a positive impact orr Chanhassen's development.
Cialifications: I have approx. 3 yrs of experience selling real estate in
Chanhassen, a basic understanding of the development process, an ability to
work well with people, and a willingness to learn.
IN FILING THIS APPLICATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT A. COMMITMENT 0? MY
TIME, ENERGY, INTEREST AND PARTICIPATION WILD BE INVOLVED, AND I' AM
PREPARED TO MARE SUCH A COMMITMENT IN THE EVENT I AM APPOINTED TO
THE ABOVE COMMISSION.
a'\AAika
SIGNATURE
w
a
H
rx
z
0
H
E
rn
w
of
3
w
H
ccw
E —
z
H n•
b
cc a)
w cc a
z 0 0 o zs
o sa o r-4 C
H a) a) >Y a) •.••1 a) J-) r0
Cl) _c a) r•-1 0 Ti) > -'"1
cn -0 rn in sa C Ti) (1)
H (1) - MI 0 •.-1 b cnC
E
2 0 >a >v --1 U O
2 � O +) C C C •-•1
o >T14-1 •-•r U 4-) 0 0) (1) V)
U C tr C --•1 C) U m E cn
•-•1 C C 4-1 0) ts) 4-) •-•1
U sr ..-4 o C'. E $.4 tr rn ro 4-) E
Z .0 >- >, C) E rd a- C .- E
H r1 3-1 0 Q, ••-1 -'-4 0 E O n•
Z C 0, co C U .0 C rd o U E
Z 0 a. E C C .0 U a)
d >--ck.
to O C a) 0 a) rts U O .0
N: C r-1 4-1 .0 r>1 .0 1--1 C) .0 4-)
a o o sa .0 4-1 •a a) E -)
'1:5 •--I 0 o a) a) a) •-I .0
m w sa .0 a) sa a) a) u) 4) w 4)
C` v) a 4.4 s-, ra sa .c o •-•I
a) I co (Ti CO 4-) o a) 3
•-•i E C -0 C C) 4-) .0 sJ
-0 E 0 CO --•1 a) a) a) a) 44 a1 a)
-•-I O v) a) > C > C'. > a) ..o r•'1
•--1 U R5 tT C Q) U) v to a) b E -0
tis a) O a) -'-1 r\. rn ---1 $-1 -,i ---I C a) 00
C is W -r4 m --1 C) •.1 (N. r-1 O '-•I r-1 rd E
O' c .0 m n) 4) .0 a) .0 a) 4_) 4
•ri sa
to -0 v tr .0 .c _ c rn rd o
r•1 c C a1 .0 Ti) C •-•1 MI 0 sa W
(d C O (•• .0 C C C) •-•1 $ C •.-( C > a) a) E
•-•1 r0 > C 4-1 rd O (0 C O a) 0 b .0 C
U --1 0 .0 >, C 'a >. C >, '1 C C:
a) R+ a) -'-s a) U 44 ro a) r-1 c o
Q s., CO O C) r-1 C 0 s-I 0 C aJ
cn C) rci cr) (d ell r» a) 0 s-I r C 'a O C C
.c C a) 0 N 3 O (1)
-i-I i) 4-) E •-•1 +-) 05 4- O a.-) >, -s-1 rn >, W
rd rd E rci O MI a) rc1 C (ti rd (I) 3 -. (1
.0 o .0 O .0 rd .0 )-s -C O -C W .0 O 0 O rd $.
• +-) 3 U 3 4-I 3 en 3 O 3 0 3 '0 x 0 4 ft
a)
E
•
•
Z .--1 ry rn d' 1 Ir o r•-• coo rn
CO
CC
H
PCtz
0
H
N
c!)
W
0r
3
co
H
z
W
H
Z
H
Ce
CO
z
0
H
cn
cn
H
X
0
0
CD
z •
H C
z ro
z C a) C
Qo U •••-; •
a U C E co
a 0 C
r0 U C 0
• C (1) •.-1
a) m r-i a .,..1
ra 0 ••-1
Et 0 $.+ Cl)
U ►•+ a) O
•'•1 (c• a C C a
C C) a) co
cn tr+ •-i C
E •.•1 c'. a H 0
E Cl) 'CI CD •.1
o ••-i C a) .n Cl)
U a) Cl) CC X ra Cl)
• a m a)
'0 0 k .0 o a C
C 4_) a) a C -.4 a)
a E (1) .0
O > - a) E > u) •.•r
v ra s4 En
CT •,-1 a) •.-4 v C
ae —1 U a H1 b a)
0 •'•1 a) Cl) E ••-4 ra w
r0 .0 a rn O .Q a) a)
00 Cl) H U rt a 0
a)
E
. •
Z r1 N m V' Ul kr. r I co
4-3 >1
c4-2
•c
0
C
w U1
o
a)
CP
.-1 La
8 °
C rtS
x £
� � c
cn c o
•
g
cn _) o
0
0
CT-LJ
LL 'II •C
3.-1
C
x U
v
•� b
a .�
u
LJr
U
?4
I
In HI Z
CITY OF �'
F' PC DATE: 11/02/94 and 11/16/9
1207/94
�\� r � � � ss:� C
C DATE: 1/9/95
�1,
CASE #: 94-14 SUB, 94-7 REZ,
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 49.9 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to R4, Mixed
Low Density Residential, and preliminary plat of 49.9 acres into 92 twin home
lots and one outlot, Lotus Realty Services, Lake Ann Highlands.
I'
Z LOCATION: North of Highway 5 on the east side of Galpin Boulevard, in the SW 1/4 of
4 Section 10 and the NW 1/4 of Section 15, Township 116 North, Range 23
U West, Carver County, Minnesota.
APPLICANT: Brad Johnson Jack Lynch
13. Lotus Realty Services BRW
P.O.Box 235 700 3rd Street South
4 Chanhassen, MN 33917 Minneapolis, MN 55415
934-4538 370-0700
PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District, A2 / Highway Corridor District, HC-2
ACREAGE: 49.9 acres
DENSITY: gross: 2.62 units per acre net: 3.56 units per acre
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Windmill Run and Royal Oaks subdivisions
S - A2, OI - Elementary School, Highway 5
E - RR, vacant
QW - A2, single family farmsteads, Galpin Boulevard (CR 117)
Q . WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. The southern portion must petition for sewer
extension as part of the Bluff Creek Sewer project.
LW PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is rolling farmland with a high point of 1013 feet and a low
L. point of approximately 940 feet. The site is generally devoid of trees except along the Bluff Creek
corridor which is located in the southwest corner of the property. A small wetland, designated A10-
14(1) on the City's Wetland Classification Map, is located in the southwest portion of the site
adjacent to the proposed north Highway 5 collector road.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre
�y I I ILAKEI
°'9?
ea
\rim ft.
t '
All
1----- /, 'At
L4KE
-- -0 M4RRl,SON cr
LAKE LUCY B!
= J 4 lgelil
O
,Q
j
7
o .. SHC
m , AI
Q.)
j1: LAKE ANN
49c\,-1 . 11,..11112ak Q' 1..,.; ./.
)//i
6: Irerral;61
ix 11640-
i/IIIIIIIIIm
LOCATION
L A K
cin;:{;;:2'�'`.::�':
ANN
PA
K
1
#1.!:..:.:::::.;::::::::,:::::!:::::.::i::•:.:::..:0.7.1...!--=''"'':: AR�ORE �'• BOULEVARD
I /
pir W1 it >!' ,
�� idlw F
GYN RQg[
t .,./.-----1%,,
11w
go.
i I
ailk
, I ?IM$ERW„^.Op •
lio ._
10
. __. Sii tii 0rt.,,ir ,
P 0 _OA,
IffillP
ARK '
1W!!
<-
------
...I
lin
a cou
-L, f.V,
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 2
Due to a Public Hearing Notice error made by the Chanhassen Villager, the Public Hearing
7:30 p.m. Hewever, because notice was sent to property owners within 500 feet of the
the Public Hearing on November 16, 1994.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
A completed application was submitted to the city on October 7, 1994. The applicant is
proposing the rezoning of the site from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Mixed Low Density
Residential, R4, which permits either single-family or two-dwelling units. The proposed net
density of 3.56 units per acre is within the net density provided in the City of Chanhassen
2000 Land Use Plan. The applicant is proposing the subdivision of the site into 92 lots and 2
outlots. Outlot A is guided in the Land Use Plan for medium density residential which
permits a net density of 4.0 - 8.0 units per acre. Outlot A will be platted at a future date.
The applicant is proposing development of the northern half of the site in two phases. The
first phase would consist of 38 units and would include providing roadway connections to
Galpin Boulevard and an extension of Windmill Drive.
This property is located within the Highway 5 Corridor District, HC-2 District. While single
family residences are exempted from the architectural design standards within the district, the
project must still comply with the highway corridor district intent which is to attain high
quality in both design and construction of the development. Specifically, the development
must be consistent with all plans and ordinances; must preserve natural conditions to the
greatest extent feasible; must establish harmonious physical and visual relationships with
existing and proposed development in the corridor; must use appropriate materials, lighting,
texture, colors, architectural, and landscape forms to create a high quality design concept;
must create a unified sense of internal order; must create a suitable balance between the
amount and arrangement of open space, landscaping, view protection through screening,
buffering, and orientation; must provide safe and adequate access and internal circulation; and
must provide adequate separation from adjacent properties. Staff believes that this
development has met the intent of the ordinance based on the proposed design and the
conditions of approval contained in this staff report.
The applicant has stated that they do not have a specific builder at this time for the
development. It is their intent to market predominantly single level living. Based on the
subdivision design, there will be multiple orientations in the housing units. Staff would
recommend that we require that there be a variety of colors and materials used throughout the
development to eliminate any monotony in the appearance of structures.
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 3
The proposed northern Highway 5 access boulevard, which is proposed to run from West 78th
Street to Highway 41, dissects the property. The Highway 5 Corridor Study recommended a
mix of land uses with single family residential setback from Highway 5 and multifamily
residential abutting Highway 5 with medium density residential providing a transition from
the single-family (see attached North Alignment - Access Blvd. Site Development Concept,
Figure 8.4). The applicant is proposing a development for this transition area that is less
dense than what was envisioned as part of the study, but which is consistent with the
existing Land Use Plan. The study also recommended the access boulevard location. The
City Council recommended the southerly access boulevard location, but the final
Environmental Assessment, EA, hearing has not been held. Staff has directed the applicant to
work with the northern alignment. This alignment goes through the John Hennessey property.
The Highway 5 Task Force and the Planning Commission have recommended the northern
access boulevard alignment. The preferred access boulevard is a 32 foot wide urban section
(see attached Access Boulevard Alternatives, Figure 3.1) with a 10 foot pedestrian trail and
boulevard landscaping. Development of phase II of this project is contingent on the
construction of the access boulevard. The applicant could construct this segment of the
roadway or they could petition the city to have the road constructed. Development of this
phase and construction of the access boulevard will require that a connection be made to
Galpin Boulevard either through the Hennessey property or by crossing over Bluff Creek and
transversing the VanDeVeire property on the northeast corner of Highway 5 and Galpin
Boulevard. Until the access boulevard is constructed, access to this project shall be from a
local road connecting to Galpin Boulevard and via Windmill Drive.
Outlot B is serving no function as part of this development. It should therefore be combined
with Lot 16, Block 2, or be attached to the Hennessey property to the west.. A 10 foot
drainage and utility easement shall be granted over this corner. Access for the Hennessey
property shall be provided via the future access boulevard.
Staff met with the applicant on November 8, 1994 to discuss areas of concerns and
possible alternative designs that could address concerns of the Planning Commission,
neighbors, and city staff. Staff expressed the following concerns: the transition from the
Windmill Run subdivision to the north, preservation of the knoll area identified in the
Highway 5 Corridor Study, verification of building pad location and size, alternative
zoning options and site design, and the need for housing elevations and building types.
We provided the applicant with the these zoning options for the property: PUD,
Planned Unit Development, for detached single family; RSF, Single-Family Residential,
straight; R4, Mixed Low Density Residential, with a mix or single-family attached and
detached; and R4 single-family attached. Staff also provided schematics of alternate plat
designs for each of these zoning alternatives. With R4 zoning, the applicant could
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 4
develop the property as proposed, but increase the slope in the area of the knoll to be
preserved (which is the option the applicant chose), or revise the plat to bring a cul-de-
sac to the top of the knoll and reduce the grading, or mix detached single-family and
transition from the Windmill Run Addition by locating single-family detached housing
either along the northern project boundary or as the entire first phase of the project
with twin home development as part of the second phase. A straight RSF subdivision
would be designed very similar to the Windmill Run Addition with a minimum 15,000
square foot lot area. A PUD subdivision permits the applicant to reduce the minimum
lot size to 11,000 square feet with an average lot size of 15,000 square feet.
In addition, the applicant has scheduled a neighborhood meeting with the residents to
the north for Wednesday, November 30, 1994. At this meeting, they are to provide the
neighbors with brochures provided by the homebuilder regarding the types of units that
are being proposed.
The applicant has revised the grading plan to reduce the amount of grading within the
area increasing the street grade from the knoll to the east to 10 percent and to the west
to 7 percent. This revision reduces the cut at the top of the knoll from 12 to 6 feet.
However, staff is concerned that we are compromising safety on the approach to the
intersection in order to retain 6 feet of grade.
Staff is recommending that this development be approved subject to the conditions of
approval.
BACKGROUND
Currently, there are 218 twin home units within the city. Housing types are distributed as
follows: detached single-family homes, 4,475 units (81%); twin homes, 218 units (4%);
townhouses, 309 units (5.6%), and multifamily, 529 units (9.6%). The proposed twin home
development helps to maintain the housing diversity within the city and provides housing
alternatives for current and future residents of the city. Housing Availability Policy No. 8 of
the Comprehensive Plan states "The development of alternate types of housing will be
considered to supplement conventional single family homes. Chanhassen is committed to
providing housing alternatives. The future land use plan is evidence of this
commitment. Land designated for future single family units (1990 - 2000) will
accommodate approximately 2,400 units. Land designated for alternative forms of
housing will accommodate approximately 1,500 units. As future development occurs, it
is anticipated that alternative forms of housing will increase as a component of
Chanhassen's total housing stock."
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 5
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
The City has prepared a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that is i
e€-€e adoptieeed. The SWMP will serve as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water
resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and
quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its
impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a
100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm
sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet
model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate
conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land
use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to
determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies.
In conjunction with final platting and the construction plan review process, staff will require
the applicant to supply drainage plans providing the pre-developed and post-developed
drainage areas along with runoff calculations for pre-development and post-development
conditions for 10-year and 100-year 24-hour storm events. The grading plan shall also reflect
the normal and high water elevations in the wetlands and storm water ponds for both pre-
developed and post-developed conditions. Water quality ponds shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with the Walker Pondnet model which essentially uses a 21/2-inch
rainfall. In addition, detailed drainage plans and calculations indicating drainage to individual
catch basins will also be required.
DRAINAGE
The proposed project includes the headwaters of the east and west branches of Bluff Creek.
Bluff Creek is planned as a natural resource corridor from the headwaters to its discharge
point at the Minnesota River. The east branch and the main channel of Bluff Creek is-alse
are a DNR protected water. Staff has reviewed the upper part of Bluff Creek with the
Design Center at the University of Minnesota and recommends a 100-foot buffer to maintain
a natural resource corridor as well as a recreational and educational trail corridor.
The site falls into two watershed districts (Figure 1). Approximately half of the site drains
naturally to the east branch of Bluff Creek and half of the site drains naturally to the west
branch of Bluff Creek. It appears that the proposed grading and drainage plans intend to
maintain a similar drainage pattern.
Soils throughout Chanhassen contain very high moisture content. Groundwater has been
observed in other projects in the area. Seasonal and annual fluctuations of the groundwater
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 6
should be anticipated. Staff recommends construction of drain tile systems behind the
proposed curbs to intercept and convey household sump pump discharge that would typically
be extended to the street. The City has in the past experienced that the discharge of sump
pumps in the streets created hazardous conditions for the public, i.e. icy conditions in the
winter as well as algae buildup in the summer.
Phase I of the Development
The stormwater runoff for this phase of the development will drain to the east branch of Bluff
Creek. The proposed temporary sediment basin will be sufficient for the interim as long as
the discharge is allowed to run through a grass swale before entering the creek.
The stormwater management plan may require additional catch basins and storm sewer.
Stormwater pipe sizes should meet the runoff rates as noted in the SWMP. This may or may
not include sizing for off site drainage. Pipe size installation beyond the requirements of the
proposed project will be reimbursed by the City (see SWMP fees below). This will be
reviewed after staff receives specific stormwater calculations for post developed drainage
areas and individual catch basins. The proposed temporary sediment basin shall be
maintained until the downstream permanent nutrient pond is constructed. Phase II of the
project may not proceed without this infrastructure in place.
Phase H of the Development
The proposed temporary sediment basin will be replaced by a downstream water quality basin
designed to meet Walker standards as discussed in the City's SWMP. This pond will be
sized to take the runoff from this site in addition to the fully developed runoff conditions
from the rest of the watershed area that drains to the creek. Again, this ponding basin must
be in place or constructed as a part of the overall Phase II improvements.
According to SWMP, a water quality pond is also designated just southwest of this
development to treat stormwater runoff in the west branch of Bluff Creek. The basin is sized
to take the runoff from the southern drainage district on the property (Phase II) in addition to
the to lots along Galpin Boulevard and adjacent to the property. Ideally, this water quality
basin is to be used and modified to pretreat the runoff from the southern half of the
development as well as the west branch of Bluff Creek. In order for Phase II to proceed this
ponding basin must also be in place or constructed as a part of the overall improvements in
Phase H.
The stormwater management plan may require additional catch basins and storm sewer.
Stormwater pipe sizes should meet the runoff rates as noted in the SWMP. This may or may
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 7
not include sizing for off site drainage. Pipe size installation beyond the requirements of the
proposed project will be reimbursed by the City (see SWMP fees below). This will be
reviewed after staff receives specific stormwater calculations for post developed drainage
areas and individual catch basins. The proposed temporary sediment basin should be replaced
with a permanent nutrient pond as discussed above.
Storm Water Quality Fees
The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based
on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for
treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land
and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land
use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus
a value of $2.50 to $4.00 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The water quality charge
has been estimated at $1,421/acre for low density developments. This proposed development
of 35.2 acres would then be charged $50,019. This includes a land cost estimate of $21,000
per acre. The City will need to be petitioned to construct the downstream ponds and a project
ordered by the City prior to Phase II approval unless the applicant constructs these
downstream ponds. If this is the case, the applicant would be credited for the work.
Storm Water Quantity Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an
average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land
acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for
runoff storage. Low density developments will have a connection charge of $1,980 per
developable acre. The proposed low density development of 35.2 acres would then be
responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $69,696.
Wetlands
There is one agricultural/urban wetland on-site that will be impacted by the proposed frontage
road alignment. The applicant should avoid impacts, and if they can not, they will have to
complete the necessary sequencing and replacement plan application process for the City and
the State Wetland Conservation Act. Since impacts to this wetland would occur in Phase II
of the development, staff suggests that the wetland alteration permit application be postponed
until that time. If the City is petitioned to construct the road, then the City would be
responsible to apply for a permit.
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 8
Buffers and Setbacks - The City Wetland Ordinance requires buffer strips for the ag/urban
wetland located on the property if the wetland is not impacted. The buffer strip width
required for an ag/urban wetland is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet.
The principal structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside edge
of the buffer strip. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the
City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction
begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
EROSION CONTROL
Staff recommends an erosion control plan be incorporated on the grading and development
plan and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to City Council review. Staff
also recommends that the applicant use the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for
erosion control measures. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and
mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion.
UTILITIES
Utility service is available to Phase I of the development. Sanitary sewer and water is
available at the end of Windmill Drive. Due to elevation constraints, the sanitary sewer has
limited serviceability to only Phase I. Phase II is proposed to be serviced with the extension
of the Upper Bluff Creek trunk sanitary sewer which is proposed to follow the Bluff Creek
corridor through Outlot A in the southwest corner of the site. In order for this trunk sanitary
sewer to be extended, the applicant will need to petition the City and have the City authorize
a trunk improvement project to extend sanitary sewer underneath Trunk Highway 5 from the
south. Currently, the sanitary sewer is located at the end of Stone Creek Drive located
approximately 3/4 of a mile south of this development. The City is proposing to extend the
trunk sanitary sewer line in 1995 up to the elementary school located just south of Trunk
Highway 5. It may be possible for the City's project (Phase II) to be expanded to include
extension of sanitary sewer service underneath Trunk Highway 5 to this project.
The applicant is proposing to extend the 12-inch trunk watermain from Windmill Drive down
to the future frontage road along Outlot A consistent with the City's Comprehensive Water
Plan. The applicant should be given credit for installation of this 12-inch trunk water line.
Typically, the applicant would need to only install a 6-inch or 8-inch water line. Therefore,
the applicant should be given credit for the cost difference between an 8-inch and a 12-inch
water line. The exact alignment of the 12-inch watermain shall be determined with review of
the final construction drawings for this development.
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 9
Sanitary sewer service to Phase II is proposed to be extended in two locations from the future
trunk sanitary sewer line along the west branch of Bluff Creek. Staff believes that one of the
lines could be eliminated. This should be further investigated by the applicant prior to
developing construction plans for Phase II.
Along the westerly portion of Phase H adjacent to Galpin Boulevard, an existing homestead
abuts this development. The applicant, in conjunction with Phase II of the development,
should intend on providing sewer and water service stubs to the parcel. The City will
reimburse the applicant when the parcel connects to sanitary sewer and water. The exact
amount will be determined at the time when the parcel connects.
Detailed utility and street construction plans and specifications will be required in conjunction
with final platting of both phases. Construction drawings shall be developed in accordance
with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Construction plans
and specifications will be subject to staff review and City Council approval. In addition, the
applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee conditions of approval of the platting process.
Fire hydrant placement in both phases will be subject to fire marshal review. These types of
reviews are typically at the time of construction plan and specification review. The applicant
shall relocate or add fire hydrants as necessary in accordance with the fire marshal's
recommendations.
STREETS
The preliminary plat proposed to dedicate necessary 60-foot wide right-of-ways and 80-foot
wide right-of-way for future frontage road. Street design appears to be consistent with the
City's urban street section which is 31 feet wide, back-to-back with concrete curbs and
gutters. The preliminary plat proposes three fairly sharp curves which do not meet a 30
m.p.h. design speed. However, staff is not opposed to this layout since the curvilinear design
adds character to the neighborhood and helps reduce speed. The appropriate traffic control
signs will be installed by the City upon completion of the street project.
Access to Phase I of the development will be by extending Windmill Drive from the north
and another connection bac-k-eut to Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). Since Galpin
Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of the Carver County Highway Department, an access
permit will be required. This should be a condition of final plat approval. Prior to Phase II
commencing, the applicant should be required to have the frontage road constructed from
Galpin Boulevard to provide another access point. The applicant may wish to petition the
City to construct this segment of roadway; however, depending on the scope of the project
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 10
and City Council support it may not meet the applicant's schedule. The applicant may want
to consider constructing this segment of the frontage road themselves from a scheduling and
cost standpoint. The frontage road is also listed on the City's Municipal State Aid Route;
therefore, the street must be constructed to meet State Aid standards. A trail/sidewalk will
also be required along the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor
Study.
Phase II of the development proposes two cul-de-sacs with landscaped islands. Whereas the
City is not opposed to the idea, the City does have concerns with regards to maintenance of
the islands as well as parking within the cul-de-sac areas. Typically, the City requires that
the applicant list in the homeowners association bylaws the maintenance responsibilities. In
addition, the City will require that no parking signs be posted within the cul-de-sac areas.
This is to ensure adequate turning radius for public safety vehicles. The City Council will
have to adopt a resolution prohibiting parking in the cul-de-sac areas.
Galpin Boulevard is listed as a collector-type street in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The
applicant is proposing the necessary right-of-way as well as a trail easement outside of the
right-of-way consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Construction of auxiliary turn
lanes or bypass lanes on Galpin Boulevard may be a possibility contingent upon Carver
County Highway Department review of the plat. Spacing between the intersections of Phase I
and the future frontage road is adequate along with spacing between the Windmill Run
development as well.
Staff has previously made remarks with regards to the future development of Outlot A. Staff
is concerned about future street access points off the frontage road. Staff believes the
appropriate access point would be at the intersection of Windmill Run and the frontage road.
There is a physical topographic separation (Bluff Creek) between this parcel and the one to
the east which may result in a long dead-end cul-de-sac when Outlot A develops. Staff just
wants to bring this to the applicant's attention at this time that there will be limited access
points on the frontage road.
. ..-.. . - • .. '. - ... . .. . ' . - ' • . . . _ . The street
grades appear to range between one and seven ten percent which exceeds city ordinance.
The applicant has raised the street grade to 10 percent to retain more of the existing
knoll. The revision reduces the cut from 12 to 6 feet. However, staff is concerned that
we may be compromising safety on the approach to the intersection in order to retain 6
feet of grade. Should the plat be approved with the 10 percent street grade, a variance
would be required. Street grades are laid out to provide a very rolling affect through the
neighborhood. This, combined with the curvilinear streets, should provide for a very unique
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 11
street layout similar to Lundgren's Near Mountain development in the northwest portion of
the City.
Direct access to all lots should be restricted to the interior streets and not onto Galpin
Boulevard or the frontage road.
GRADING
The site is currently employed in agricultural use. The entire site with the exception of
Outlot A is proposed to be graded. It is unclear whether both phases will be graded with the
initial phase. The applicant should provide the City with a narrative with regards to
earthwork calculations and the schedule of grading events. At a minimum the City will
require grading of a temporary sediment pond with Phase I as shown on grading plan to
provide an acceptable level of water quality treatment and flood protection downstream.
Adjacent to collector-type streets (Galpin Boulevard and frontage road), the City does require
berming and screening. The applicant, on the landscape plan, has provided some screening
along Galpin Boulevard as well as minor screening along the proposed frontage road.
However, no berming has been indicated on the grading plan. The grading plans should be
revised incorporating undulating earth berms along the frontage road and Galpin Boulevard
outside the City's road right-of-way. Landscaping plantings along the frontage road should be
maintained a distance away from the street in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor
design standards.
Possible site grading on Lots 5 - 10, Block 3 promotes surface runoff along the common
rear property line from west to east. This drainage pattern may result in drainage
problems for Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block 3. A better alternative would be to route storm
water runoff from the rear yards of Lots 5 - 10, Block 3, between Lots 26 - 32, Block 3,
out to the street. This would avoid concentrating the drainage along one lot line.
LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION
There are few trees within the developed portion of the site. Staff estimates that there is
approximately 18,875 square feet of canopy area within the northern portion of the
development (excludes Outlot A) primarily within road right-of-way which represents a 1.2
percent baseline canopy coverage. It appears that all of these trees will be removed. City
Code section 18-61, Tree Preservation, requires a 25 percent canopy coverage for low density
residential property with 19 percent of less canopy coverage. Forestation requirements for the
site require the planting of 334 trees (1,529,134 sq. ft.times 25 percent minus 18,875 sq. ft.
(existing canopy) divided by 1,089 sq. ft.). In addition, a replacement planting of 21 trees
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 12
shall be required (18,875 times 1.2 divided by 1,089). The total tree planting requirement is
355 trees. Of these trees, at least 20 percent must be evergreens and no more than 33 percent
may be from one tree species.
Staff has reviewed the preliminary landscaping plan and notes that the plan does not meet
the minimum requirements for tree plantings. Of the 357 trees being provided, 174 (49%) are
primary species, 83 (23%) are ornamental species, and 100 (28%) are evergreens. M.
-- - a - - • - - . -- - _ ._: •- • - - - - - - - - - - a .-
Staff ro ends the , e of 19 Arborvitae. The s 128 deciduous trees, 284 gees-
fall), and Japanese tree lilac (as an additional ornamental choice). The Sugar Maples within
the planting islands should be deleted because they do not tolerate heat and salt. As a
the landscape islands are too close and crowded. The plat+ should reduce the number of tree
groupings rather than in a linear fashion. The final landscape plan, which will serve as the
woodland management plan for this development, must be prepared by a landscape
professional.
1. Along the northern property line.
2. Providing additional screening along the Highway 5 collector road.
3. In the front yards of Lots 21 and 22, Block 3.
1. On corner lots to provide landscaping on both street frontages. No plantings may
be within the cerner site triangle.
PARKS AND RECREATION
The Park and Recreation Commission met on October 25, 1994 to discuss this development.
They recommended that full park and trail fees be required in lieu of land dedication.
REZONING/COMP PLAN
The rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Mixed Low Density Residential,
R4, is consistent with the Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4.0 units per
acre) guide plan designation of the property. Staff supports the requested rezoning of the
property.
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 13
COMPLIANCE TABLE
CODE FOR TWO-DWELLING: Area - 10,000 sq.ft. per unit, Frontage - 50 ft., depth -
125 ft., Setbacks: front - 30 ft., side - 10 ft., rear - 30 ft.,
and access boulevard - 50 ft.
BLOCK LOT LOT AREA FRONTAGE DEPTH
1 1 10,050 68.5 138.9
1 2 10,034 66.58 145
1 3 10,018 64.6 155.7
1 4 10,284 60.98 170.4
1 5 10,330 49.82* 188
1 6 11,422 50.16 208.6
1 7 16,560 59.69 237.2
1 8 19,026 60.62 275
1 9 12,627 79.97 184.1
1 10 10,478 55.03 190.5
1 11 13,356 56 199.7
1 12 14,164 56.64 213.8
1 13 15,676 35.01* 190.5
1 14 11,151 35.01* 157.2
1 15 16,359 31.85 183.3
1 16 13,316 39.14* 188.1
1 17 13,867 46.14* 167
1 18 14,813 42.95* 197.7
1 19 14,959 100 160.3
1 20 14,386 105.1 160
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 14
1 21 13,628 35* 204.2
1 22 14,302 54.4 167.9
2 1 16,631 80 209.4
2 2 10,387 55 188.9
2 3 15,407 71.54 167.5
2 4 12,242 89.07 152.4
2 5 17,522 177.92 136.8
2 6 14,895 136.67 142.3
2 7 10,009 78.87 134.4
2 8 11,139 76.32 153.1
2 9 12,608 51.02 186.4
2 10 18,580 47.72* 209
2 11 13,529 54.61 192.6
2 12 13,086 53 170
2 13 12,724 70.01 161.7
2 14 12,416 70 157
2 15 11,607 69.35 151.5
2 16 13,036 71.18 167.9
3 1 10,046 63.93 162.3
3 2 10,215 77.38 172.6
3 3 10,151 60.02 168.5
3 4 10,017 60.26 166.5
3 5 10,033 66.06 134.1
3 6 10,041 60.92 132.3
3 7 12,605 64.78 139.7
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 15
3 8 12,322 84.83 151.2
3 9 12,136 79.23 178.8
3 10 12,121 81.61 175.5
3 11 11,311 36.1* 184.2
3 12 15,412 35.82* 181.4
3 13 12,310 40.98* 175.2
3 14 10,185 42.28 152.2
3 15 12,203 138.57 122.4#
3 16 13,099 108.2 144.9
3 17 12.991 61.3 163.7
3 18 10,391 66.51 159.9
3 19 10,119 66.51 155.7
3 20 10,071 68.04 151.4
3 21 10,240 92.27 170.5
3 22 10,638 78.91 200.9
3 23 11,272 84.6 204.3
3 24 10,765 108.49 177.3
3 25 10,181 72.1 151.8
3 26 10,000 61.9 143.3
3 27 10,016 73.41 137.0
3 28 10,003 74.06 135.9
3 29 10,008 72.04 141
3 30 10,420 70.49 151.5
3 31 10,648 81.29 164.6
3 32 11,755 76.74 176.5
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 16
4 1 12,836 76.12 155.1
4 2 10,107 69.89 145.9
4 3 10,034 71.29 141.3
4 4 10,060 71.11 142.2
4 5 10,020 68.32 148.3
4 6 10,690 68.4 158.9
4 7 10,020 60.47 168.9
4 8 10,466 60.08 174.0
4 9 10,151 58.04 174.7
4 10 10,020 58.79 171
4 11 10,927 66.94 164.3
4 12 10,457 67.19 156.7
4 13 10,600 64.39 151.7
4 14 11,524 52.6 160.8
4 15 13,487 41.1* 196.6
4 16 14,124 47.68* 248.3
4 17 16,722 43.06* 240.9
4 18 13,237 40.38* 190.9
5 1 14,642 53.95 179.5
5 2 13,390 71.67 198.5
5 3 14,726 71.67 218.3
5 4 16,776 74.33 239.8
Subtotal 92 1,125,509 (25.8 ac.) 51.8 % of site
lots
Outlot A 643,360 (14.8 ac.) 29.6 % of site
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 17
Outlot B 1,306 (0.3 ac.) 0.06 % of site
ROW 402,325 (9.2 ac.) 18.6 % of site
TOTAL PLAT 2,172,500 (49.9 ac.)
Notes: * Complies with the width requirement at the building setback line.
# Does not comply with City Code requirements
FINDINGS
Subdivision
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the R4, Mixed Low
Density Residential District with the exception of Lot 15, Block 3, which does
not comply with the lot depth requirement of a minimum of 125 feet in depth.
Either a variance request for 2.6 feet from the 125 foot depth requirement must
be requested and approved or the lot needs to be reconfigured to meet the
minimum requirement. - • - - - = -- - - - - - - - - - . - - - -- -
. . ._ • • - Y.
feeeninieffelatiens
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional
plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. The
proposed net density of 3.56 units per acre is within the density range allowed
within the Residential - Low Density land use designation of 1.2 to 4.0 net
units per acre. The development complies with the intent of the City's
Highway 5 corridor plan.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 18
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the
conditions specified in this report.
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure
subject to compliance with the conditions contained in this report.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage
subject to conditions if approved.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements,
but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban
infrastructure based on compliance with the conditions of this report.
Wetland Alteration Permit
When approving a wetland alteration permit, the following principals shall be adhered to:
1. Avoiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity may destroy or diminish the
wetland.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to fill a small wetland along the north Highway
5 collector road. This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 19
agricultural practices. The applicant will be required to mitigate the wetland either
through the enhancement of a wetland within the site or another within the watershed
district as part of the city's wetland banking system.
2. Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and
its implementation.
Finding: The applicant is proposing to fill a small wetland within the alignment for
the north Highway 5 collector road extension. This wetland is isolated and has been
altered in the past during agricultural practices. The proposal minimizes the impact of
the development while at the same time replacing and enhancing the wetland complex.
3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected wetland
activity and its implementation.
Finding: The proposed wetland mitigation is to enhance and restore the natural
appearance and the quality of the wetlands on site or within the watershed. Water
quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to entering the wetland.
4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the activity.
Finding: Through the enhancement and long term protection of the remaining
wetlands, the city is implementing its stormwater plan as well as improving the natural
environment. Water quality ponding will be provided to filter stormwater prior to
entering the wetland.
5. Replaces unavoidable impacts to the wetlands by restoring or creating substitute
wetland areas having equal or greater public value as set forth in Minnesota Rules
8420.0530 to 8420.0630.
Finding: The development's improvements will enhance the drainage facilities within
the area and will be served by the appropriate public facilities. The applicant is
proposing to fill a small wetland within the north Highway 5 collector alignment.
This wetland is isolated and has been altered in the past during agricultural practices.
Water quality ponding will be provided to filter storm water.
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 20
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the following motions:
REZONING
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning #94-7 rezoning 35.1 acres,
encompassing the land north of the north Highway 5 collector road, from A2, Agricultural
Estate District to R4, Mixed Low Density Residential District. consistent with the Chanhassen
2000 Land Use Plan"
SUBDIVISION
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat #94-7 subject to the
following conditions:
1. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of
foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final
plat approval.
2. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings.
This should be done prior to final plat approval.
3. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance
of any building permits.
4. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review
prior to final plat approval.
•
•
•
_ •
. . _. . . . . , -. .. . .. ...
. - - e:. • .. , • . - . • : : -, - . -. _. .. :.• :
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 21
c. The Sugar Maples within the planting islands shall be deleted and substituted
d. In addition, the plantings within the landscape islands are to close and
crowded. The plan should redue-c the nu+ber of tree in the islands as well as
e. Trees should be planted in groupings rather than in a linear fashion.
f. The final landscape plan must be prepared by a landscape professional.
g. A landscape buffer shall be provided from the property to the north.
h. Staff recommends that the additional trees be provided in the following
priority:
1. Along the northern site boundary.
2. Providing additional screening along the Highway 5 collector road.
3. In the front yards of Lots 21 and 22, Block 3.
�. On corner lots to provide landscaping on both street frontages. No
6. Combine Outlot B with Lot 16, Block 2, and grant a 10 foot drainage and utility
easement over this corner, or attach to the Hennessey property to the west and
provide a 10 foot drainage and utility easement along the street frontage.
7. Full park and trail fees be required pursuant to City Code in lieu of land dedication
8. The applicant will incorporate a variety of architectural features, colors and materials
throughout the development to eliminate any monotony in the appearance of structures.
9. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street
improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for
permanent ownership.
10. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water
Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to
the City for review and formal approval
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 22
11. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook.
12. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and
utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council
approval.
13. If necessary, wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the
City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before
construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
14. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in
accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post
developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level
and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks.
Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be
required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water
quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
15. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the
development contract.
16. The applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers
section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland
Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland
fill activity in all phases of the project.
17. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota
Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval.
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 23
18. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire
hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart.
19. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain tile
system in accordance with the construction plans. The applicant shall include a drain
tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from the units.
20. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat
for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width
shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access
for maintenance of the ponding areas. The final plat for Phase I shall also dedicate
the frontage road right-of-way.
21. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way except landscaping
along the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor Study.
22. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings should be a minimum
of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level.
23. Stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal
water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes.
24. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The
requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a
schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. This proposed
development of 35.2 acres is $50,019.
25. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer
trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design
requirements. The proposed multi-family residential development of 35.2 acres would
be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $69,696.
26. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
Engineer.
27. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a 100-foot wide conservation easement over
the southwesterly 100 feet of Outlot A. This area may also be deeded to the City as
an outlot.
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 24
28. Prior to Phase II receiving final plat approval, the downstream permanent nutrient
ponds shall be constructed or scheduled in conjunction with Phase II improvements in
accordance to the City's SWMP and the frontage road shall be constructed or
scheduled for construction through the site out to Galpin Boulevard. No building
permits shall be issued in Phase II without these improvements completed.
29. The applicant shall be given credit for installing the 12-inch trunk watermain along
Windmill Run. The credit shall be for the cost difference between an 8-inch and a 12-
inch water line.
30. The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer and water service stubs to the Hennessey
parcel located west of Lot 16, Block 2. The applicant shall be reimbursed by the City
for the cost of providing the service stubs when the property connects to the system.
31. The applicant shall list in the association bylaws the maintenance responsibilities of
the landscaped cul-de-sacs. If the islands are not maintained, the City reserves the
right to remove them or continue maintenance and assess the benefitted properties.
The City will adopt a resolution prohibiting parking in the cul-de-sacs with islands.
32. Direct access to all lots shall be restricted to the interior streets and not onto Galpin
Boulevard or the future frontage road.
33. The grading plan shall be revised to be compatible with Windmill Run and incorporate
berms along the future frontage road and Galpin Boulevard outside the right-of-way.
The grading along the rear yards of Lots 5 - 10, Block 3, should be revised to
promote drainage north along the common lot lines of Lots 26 - 32, Block 3, out
to the street.
34. Landscaping along the future frontage road shall be maintained a distance away from
the street in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor design standards.
35. The applicant shall provide the City with a narrative with regards to earthwork
quantities and a schedule of construction events.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of wetland alteration permit #94-6 subject
to the following conditions:
Lake Ann Highlands
October 27, 1994
Revised November 30, 1994
Page 25
1. The applicant shall submit mitigation plans as required as a part of the State Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA) and Wetland City Ordinance specifically replacement plans,
wetland delineation report, a map with wetland data points, at least one data sheet for
each wetland identifying upland areas and a map of the soils.
2. If necessary, wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the
City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before
construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign."
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Development Review Application
2. Memo from Steve A. Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 10/3/94
3. Letter from Ceil Strauss to Robert Generous dated 9/27/94
4. Letter from Richard J. Pilon to Robert Generous dated 9/28/94
5. Notice of Public Hearing and Mailing List
6. Letter from Mark and Sharon Pryor dated 10/24/94
7. North Alignment - Access Blvd. Site Development Concept, Figure 8.4
8 Access Boulevard Alternatives, Figure 3.1
9. Watershed Districts, Figure 1
10. Park and Recreation Minutes of 10/25/94
11. Letter from Cyrus Knutson, MNDOT, to Robert Generous Dated 10/25/94
12. Memo from Bill Weckman to Robert Generous Dated 10/7/94
13. Memo from Bill Weckman to Robert Generous Dated 10/20/94
14. Letter from Michael & Dawn Ronningen to Joe Scott Dated 10/27/94
15. Planning Commission Minutes of 11/2/94
16. Letter from Julie A. Wojtanowski to Don Chmiel Dated 10/28/94
17. PUD Alternative Design Schematic
18. RSF Alternative Design Schematic
19. R4 Mixed Attach/Detached Alternative Design Schematic
20. R4 Attached Alternative Design Schematic
21. Letter to Residents regarding Hearing Cancellation and Rescheduling Dated
11/10/94
22. Letter from Ross M. Fefercorn and Brad Johnson to Neighbors dated 11/18/94
23. Letter from Ross M. Fefercorn and Brad Johnson to Neighbors dated 11/23/94
24. Country Home Brochure
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: Lotus Realty Services OWNER: Lars Conway
ADDRESS: PO Box 235, Attn: Brad Johnson ADDRESS: 4415 Fremont Avenue South
Chanhassen Minneapolis, MN 55409
TELEPHONE (Day time) 934-4538 TELEPHONE: 635-1535
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements
2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance
3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Wetlapd Alteration Permit ,
4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal
5 Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
6. X Rezoning
7. -4- Sign Permits _ c cnn
8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs
9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost**
$100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP
$400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds
10. X Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ $2325
$400 + $1425
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
Included with the application.
Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
" Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
PROJECT NAME Lake Ann Highlands
LOCATION NE Corner of County Rd 117 and Arboretum Blvd.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION See attached.
PRESENT ZONING Agri cultural Estate
REQUESTED ZONING R-4
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Up to 4 units per acre
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION R-4 - Two-Fami 1 y Homes
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Define use and zoning in accordance with exi sting
guide plan and proposed plat.
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying
with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records.
C t.� °� LYcti 7J 1 �c
c, Y
Signature of Applicant ate
—z ? I- U 9y
Signature of Fee Owner Date
/ or'
Application Received on 9-d('-9Y Fee Paid $ c-`4 Receipt No.5i "/ ' 5/G47/6)
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
SENT EY:ARCNITECTURAL ARTS 9-19-94 4:31PM 33'07= 612 93^ ?�9•#
EXHIBIT "A"
That part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23,
and that part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23,
Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows :
Commencing at the west quarter corner of said Section 10; •thence on
an assumed bearing of South 01 degree 56 minutes 40 seconds East
on the west line of Said Southwest Quarter,
feet; thence North 88 degrees 03 minutes 20 secondsnce East, a213dis.40
tance
of 1190. 41 feet to a point on a 3452. 4
foot the
center of circle of said curve bearing North 79d ius greesv30 minutesi
09 seconds West from said point, said point also being the point of
beginning of the tract to be described, thence Southwesterly along
said curve, a distance of 383.�9 feet central angle 6 degrees 22
minutes 10 seconds ; thence South 71 degrees 42 minutes 20 seconds
East, a distance of 301.07 feet; thence South 18 degrees 17 min
40 seconds West, a distance of 466. 33 feet to a minutes referred to as Pointto Aapoint that is here-
after
point of intersection of the oNortherly is drightbof-wa beginning ofiQ at
Minnesota. Trunk Highway No. 5 and a line 33.00 feet Southeasterly
measured at right angles to and parallel with the centerline of of
Carver County Road No. 117; thence on an assumed bearing of N
degrees 17 minutes 40 Seconds East, and parallel with thecenterline l$
of said Carver County Road No. 117, a distance of 725.00 feet;
South 65 degrees 12 minutes 03 seconds East, a distancetet' thence
feet to said Point A; thence from said Point A South of X68.73
minutes 03 seconds East, a distance of 406,27 feet; thenceS degrees 12
degrees 55 minutes 06 seconds East, a distance of 00 Southr27
less to the south line of said Southwest
thence South 0 degrees Quarter of Section 10; or
9 ees 00 minutes 05 seconds East, a distance of
68. 13 feet more or less to the Northerly right-of-w lime
Minnesota Trunk Highway No. 5; thence Easterly aloe
right-of-way line of Trunk Highway RY ne of said
Southwest Quarter of Section j0• �hNe' 5 to the east line of Northerlyaid
Zl seconds West along said east'lgnence North 2 degrees 04 minutes
27Sectione 10) a distanceof1e2st feet;of the Southwest
minutes 05 distan Westeet; thence North Quarterdegrees of
20im Southwest Quartercodsf Son a line parallel to the north line of
to a point on a foot
10, a distance Of 1416.95 feet
said point bearsa3452. 34th radius curve, the center of circle of
said point; thence Southwesterly 24 minutes 20`sQconds Nest from
174.92 feet central angle y along said curve, a distance of
point of et n 9 e 02 degrees 54 minutes 11 seconds to the
or less and is sub�ecthis tract to right-of-way 49.7
subject to any acres of land more
and all easements of record.
existing county road and
ecoid.
•
r 4
ilI 7.1111111111. ....7-:, 3-- - " -- it•-ii--... :
+11I i i .
ji I 1 ~� _S
_s ,1\
1.. / i t r C
I I f ��
? i I \ "b' "is-
---
�• • I .L I E . earc t i + -�-
-•H � '. tel/'~ ./4:0044, :„.....„....
�ai Imo . �•, ``
_,
., alto ifijk
. ,
I- ifire..,.
. `�, /
+�^,,,dry' E �l, c0` r ear ____,1
'
Ftell
i rit:.1 k P . ,), ---..... ': , .j : ria. I poll 0,.--*-11:
391 I A•.14rTigigg
I 1, Ill _" 6'' `,�e ---�
Bap
��1;1:'` �' i�� .,ifi *4e,,, Sms Kwikf -:i-
1 10 iffit gititYiv'mym. 3r4 gaff ,..,,i----1
, \ ._.__. . AI
f--,-.....0!
..,,
i „..„.A..
//1 is�� r 411 \, ,_ s i • Sic I
• '; / IPS iMY -- -
.11121*;441111 ."44,r
ir = Ho- !�
% e_R " rri--,;/' t � iS i rF gm--
,
4,,..=
€ siti
t.: a V' ,',,� 'tea .----------•
� •
`''��,! �, ;''��` 4;;lp, _,�rj ft"} -14.!.� I:-.,:r•'_ 1
�; ` 6 �C��.;. '. -h fir,: , 1 'W .itip. ...1' -:ti _
•ai i ) 4 wq� z .AIR =-.- � . .. .lrL--
I:R 11 r a vr.a..� r� =
\1/4EN., ____)
--- --IS;--- ._...„..i i:-...—•— •-..1_ ,.... ....." s /: ' - 1:-.-. ..."...
.. .: . ._______.
aI .....-11 it . - __ • mo i; �` i
ij111' aL� - /-21 1 i i If , --'
ri ► 1-
=a ilL II I 9. Zitl 0
€iIRIi11IUIR1(IIEfl!
1t-_ ( Et Eyiifiliifi:liifiii i+iiiifiiiiiliill1111 f ;t(f;tf � r r-
tee
`till; ;1 ii 1 I
i.rmtlittilis. ,trii itti4 'f o
- Y fte6 i 1 1.11
° esr1 Ers i(Ii°i l' 1 •._ ---'' I _
° i iiillillia1illiiiIilfi'.ififilll LI jIIIar1.'�1it alli7t+II 'PiiL}i1IiIIi!ii!iui11PdIi
Cf'.. lin -
i urn < < iiiti , f4i
ft� r jjtt ; i }�
t f ild s k i i4 i f i p'. • .... i gitif?.€`t 4'dtRsiI lit b E -
1' :1:,7 ; i e - I Ilii UIIIIIil1I:11111i M. �1 -
I .•
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official ,
- ,(
DATE: October 3 , 1994
SUBJECT: 94-14 SUB & 94-7 REZ (Lotus Realty Services, Lake Ann
Highland' s)
I was asked to review the development plans for Lake Ann Highland' s
stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN; RECEIVED; SEP 20 1994; CHANHASSEN
PLANNING DEPT. "
Analysis :
Elevations . Proposed lowest floor level elevations, top of
foundation elevations and garage floor elevations are required in
order to insure adequate plan review by the Public Safety and
Engineering Departments .
Dwelling Type . The proposed type of dwelling designations are
necessary to enable the Inspections Division, Planning Department
and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of
the structure at the time of building permit issuance. Standard
designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be used for
proposed dwelling types . These standard designations lessen the
chance for errors during the plan review process . I have included
the 1993 memo which lists and explains these designations .
Soils Report . In addition, a soils report showing details and
locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and
fill soil is required for plan review purposes .
Street Names . In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street
names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety
Department . Proposed street names are not included with the
submitted documents .
Bob Generous
October 3 , 1994
Page 2
Recommendations:
1 . Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor
level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor
elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval .
2 . Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard
designations for dwellings . This should be done prior to
final plat approval .
3 . Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should
be done prior to issuance of any building permits .
4 . Submit street names to the Public Safety Department,
Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval .
enclosure: 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo
g:\safety\sak\memos\plan\lkeannhi.bgl
..-.,
or ,
CITY QF
EN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
W. .-., .i.J.
MEMORAN P UM
TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
DATE: January 29, 1993
SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation
We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of
dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps
it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning
behind the requirements.
fri3O o:PLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with the basement floor level
approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4'
above the basement floor level.
R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings.
SE Designates Split Eatry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level.
SEWO Designates Split Eatry Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'
below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level.
TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below
grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the
dwelling.
WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade
at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling.
(---;;N - R SEWO WOF� LO
or RLO
111 t - -- r r — — — -t7
Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the
engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building
plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all
documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews.
es
i PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
STATE OF
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106
PHONE NO. 772-7910 FILE NO
September 27 , 1994
Mr. Robert Generous, Planner II
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P. O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Lake Ann Highlands, Bluff Creek, City of Chanhassen, Carver
County
Dear Mr. Generous:
We have reviewed the preliminary site plans dated September 15,
1994 (received September 21, 1994) for the above-referenced project
(Sections 10 and 15, T116N-R23W) and have the following comments to
offer:
1 . Bluff Creek, a Public Water, is adjacent to the proposed site.
Any activity below the top of the bank of the channel of Bluff
Creek which alters the course, current or cross-section of
protected waters or wetlands, is under the jurisdiction of the
DNR and may require a DNR protected waters permit.
2 . It appears that some of the stormwater is proposed to be
routed directly toward Bluff Creek with the outfall
approximately 100 feet from the channel of Bluff Creek.
Stormwater sedimentation/ treatment basins, or other
appropriate stormwater treatment features, should be included
in the plan. If stormwater is routed directly toward the
creek it can cause sedimentation and water level bounces that
are detrimental to the creek's wildlife values and water
quality.
3 . Bluff Creek has a shoreland classification of tributary/urban.
The shoreland district extends 300 feet from the top of the
bank, or the width of the floodplain, whichever is greatest.
The development must be consistent with the city shoreland
management regulations.
4 . The following comments are general and apply to all proposed
developments:
a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken
during the construction period. The Minnesota
Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning
Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association
of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts)
guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Mr. Robert Generous
September 27 , 1994
Page 2
b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10, 000
gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the
contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations
permit. You are advised that it typically takes
approximately 60 days to process the permit application.
c. If construction activities disturb more than five acres
of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater
permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Scott
Thompson @ 296-7203) .
d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of
Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These
comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack
thereof for a particular project.
Please contact me at 772-7910, should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Ceil Strauss
Area Hydrologist
CCS/MM
c: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD, Robert Obermeyer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann
City of Chanhassen Shoreland File
Minnegasco•
A Division of Arkla, Inc.
September 28 , 1994
Mr. Robert Generous
Planner II
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re : 94- 14 SUB and 94-7 REZ
Lake Ann Highlands
Lotus Realty Services
Dear Mr. Generous :
Enclosed are your prints for this project with the location of
Minnegasco' s natural gas mains indicated in red. Individual
services are not shown. Natural gas service is available to this
property from the main shown. No addition work is anticipated at
this time unless requested by a developer/builder/ owner.
The developer/builder should contact Terry Jencks of Minnegasco' s
Residential Energy Services , 525-7607, to make application for
natural gas service .
Minnegasco has no objections to this development proposal .
Sincerely,
Richard J. P ' ln, P.E.
Senior Administration Engineer
Engineering Services
612 -342- 5426
cc : Mary Palkovich
Terry Jencks
RECEI JED
1y�'q
CITY CF Cf,".Nr-:t+.:.3f d
111111111111/
700 West Linden Avenue
P.O. Box 1165
Minneapolis, MN 55440-1165
fif
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING c:
PLANNING COMMISSION - c I;
MEETING _$1Iu11iirea
Wednesday, NOVEMBER 2, 1994 d L
��11�� �1�
at 7:30 p.m. h �TN '
1111111111 i
City Hall Council Chambers � LOCATION
690 Coulter Drive
Project: Lake Ann Highlands
Developer: Lotus Realty Services1116 I
Location: North of Hwy. 5, 1/4
mile on the east side of ' 41,
Galpin Boulevard � ``! ' '
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant is proposing the rezoning of 49.9 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural
Estate to R4, Mixed Low Density Residential, preliminary plat of 49.9 acres into 92 twin home
lots and one outlot, and a wetland alteration permit located north of Hwy. 5, approximately 1
mile on the east side of Galpin Boulevard (CR 117), Lotus Realty Services, Lake Ann Highlands.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you
about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project.
During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following
steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop
by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish
to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose
to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the
meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on October 20, 1994.
/ W
Bluff Cre.;k Partners
Hi-Way 5 Partnership Michael J. Gorra Larry & Elizabeth Vandeveire
c/o Dennis Dirlam 1680 Arboretum Dr. 4890 Co. Rd. 10 E
15421 Creekside Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
David Stockdale & Douglas & Theresa Bentz Darleen Turcotte
Angie McBryde Stockdale 7280 Galpin Blvd. 7240 Galpin Blvd.
7210 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
John Hennessy & D. Rengers Theodore & Marlene Bentz J. P.'s Links, Inc.
7305 Galpin Blvd. 7300 Galpin Blvd. c/o John Przymus
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 642 Santa Vera
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Michael & Kristine Perry Mark & Sharon Pryor Jean Kingsrud
7521 Windmill Dr. 7541 Windmill Dr. 2027 Brinker Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Kevin & Joan Joyce Robert & Carol Obersigner Brian R. Erdman
2043 Brinker Street 2075 Brinker Street 2091 Brinker Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jeffrey R. Stone Amit & Ruth Diamond Collin & Desiree Brown
2103 Brinker Street 2117 Brinker Street 2131 Brinker Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Julie Wojtanowski The Rottlund Company Kathleen Hademan
2145 Brinker Street Suite 301 2059 Brinker Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317 5201 East River Road Chanhassen, MN 55317
Fridley, MN 55421
October 24, 1994
Mark and Sharon Pryor
7541 Windmill Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Sir/Madam:
We would like to take this opportunity to outline our concerns regarding the proposed rezoning of
49.9 acres of property currently zoned A2 Agricultural Estate to R4, Mixed Low Density Residential of 92
twin homes and one outlot referred to as Lake Ann Highlands.
We recently built a home at 7541 Windmill Drive, in Windmill Run, a Rottlund development. As
such, our home would border on the proposed development of Lake Ann Highlands. Before Sharon and I
made our decision to build in Chanhassen, we looked into both Chanhassen generally, and into the area
surrounding Windmill Run in particular. We talked to a number of long-time Chanhassen residents, and
we were assured that Chanhassen had a reputation for controlled development and that a long term plan
had been developed outlining the intended use of areas that had yet to be developed. Sharon talked with
a member of the City Planning Department regarding the land immediately around Windmill Run. Sharon
was assured that the long term plan was to develop the land around Windmill Run as Residential - Low
Density (single family homes). In addition, we have reviewed the "2000 Land Use Plan" which also
indicates that the plan is to develop the land around Windmill Run as single family homes.
Sharon and I relied on the information provided by the City, both in terms of verbal assurances
from the City Planning Department and in the "2000 Land Use Plan" in deciding to make a substantial
investment in building our home. We are now very concerned that this requested zoning change, at a
variance from the planned use, to construct twinhomes rather than single family dwellings, will reduce
our property value as well as to reduce the use and enjoyment of our property by having it border on
property with a much high concentration of population per square foot than we had expected.
In addition to concerns about the placement of medium density property in this area, Sharon and I
have reviewed the Preliminary Plat of the proposed twin home development, and have concerns about the
Preliminary Plat itself. The Preliminary Plat calls for the development of 46 twin homes, or a total of 92
families, in the development over two stages. This would be nearly three times the size of Windmill Run.
However, the Preliminary Plat does not call for any streets which would exit directly onto Galpin
Boulevard. Thus, all of the traffic both going and coming from the twin home development would travel
down Brinker Street and Windmill Drive. Thus, we can expect to have traffic from all 92 twin home
"units" (none of which are in our development) passing directly in front of our home. In fact, in reviewing
the Preliminary Plat, it appears that the primary goal of the developer was to see how many lots could be
"jammed" into the 50 acre space.
We feel very strongly that the City should stick to the plan as outlined. Many people have made
significant decisions based on this plan. This is not a question of opposing higher density housing in
general, but rather, simply requesting that the City follow the plan which it has established for controlled
development. The City of Chanhassen had the foresight to develop a plan for future development. The
residents of the City deserve to be able to rely on that plan in making their decisions. Thus, we urge the
City Planning Commission to deny the rezoning request.
Sincerely,
ak. 4,,,__________
i
Ma & Shaon Pryor
. ''- rile . *I : ...Mir 1
4„ri , i .; , .. ,,,......._
.,,, , , -i. 4:_,,,
, . . , , , _ . • ,
_- , ,,,,, ,,
....
l f
. ,:i ��f ;,moi
f 11 I I l 'r` -- �i
..:,
lag .
•
III •ihNSis\ - -..1*, W
il •,„,.., . 1 ..;
. ' Ltiri. '‘, :4 I / I .:
, N1/4 - .:.,•:,. _ _ .1. / ..).._ ..1 -.44 . j .
r.
---7--V-4----• gol
' , .44 4_____-- izZI .i.
, ___,. ..._....L.,_ he : Li/z ..,,z
MMINNINI
12 1
C4 L4
/-,, 1..
r
/ fes.
-ii'li: ''‘-.;•' -;I \til••• liv
•
2 ........; .., / fil \ 11 . 0
—"ft... i / Irsr ,45:17".,:l. 1 ...... ,
. li \H----1 NS
SC I r� i %.110.°111:‘ ,%.1 • ,` - •- 4
N k‘&‘4-St..4.(/
,,:II \ 4 Ye a
���- _
i/ �I '' 1-1-1/A-g-r0.7 .
ri � i<
Iiib i/ �. ,ems 4 s1,
t ,, S) / !!', ,\ 0e9"-N\
I - l' f \'\11 I
1 e �i
{.., l'ti /
I
i ts
1,";,k ' i::
\IP Sio .17 w'tt44 / - 1 \•,.•. i
t:S..-r bo t•i / .'"7- x .•..r•
li7 t �� .11 \\.
ceIa� •+I I �t i !------ -- ''''''`.4 ,'E1
t s1 I • _
n
.1 Ti tl ; I i
-?
I ACCESS BOULEVARD ALTERNATIVES
I ..
/ -.1. '=
4, /U. s
..
_ .;
11.0 44;
�.. P, I waw.
,r --rr :-r r
i 1 , r-r R-r r-If +r-r 11,-f • 17-4/
NI-V wow_
A. 28'-0• WIDE - URBAN SECTION
I
44 , al.t.
I
�\ w0.w1�1 i tV r 1_ �.i..17 „PLO w.
' �.a -
f.....
J If-Cr
1 11,-ft •-e1
-r! e-r 4-r, IT-If u-a• SI-IT j
B. 37-0' WIDE - URBAN SECTION '
I
n ; r
1 a I .r E
a 0 w.. ...a I ROW,4-r1 111-• ,4-0.1 +ri x-r r WAN* +1 tl
lef
C■ 36'-0' WIDE - RURAL SECTION
; "h1-,
s ..F
r
. E
O
r
S III y'-r•_*
H , .
wart I ILA I I I r-t j a-€ j a-r j r-r waw.
1 f-r O-9' 1 11-41-1 11-frriQw f+r- w-r I
�
D. 10'-0• WIDE - URBAN SECTION
1111111•11111111 WI Er_.___. F'�+
• FIGURE 3.1
z „......__
-'' MINNEHAHA CREEK DISTRICT
otalammc_ps.t 46, k prit,wdolliftftpt WNW a Milig'1444421442684114614tr‘all 4.44-0.22.1LC4ife#113.01.2.3 -g
-/------ 7-- :
it r r•gitf fgegl"Iftili"raiiiieri lir-
24
c.•,, -,..-7. -;--zi,,,
Z
181 Nellie&
IdC-J11-
24 :01,e
‘,..2444C4.3
OS? - 1.4C4.681. 1444/1°°°-CI 11C-1.4.1 1,4c4.13
Lk41.5 301-1111r5 pf. I • .10..° 1132.. to; i4C3.4
,„_ ....•■•
3Crrelleaktii.0/9 72.
1.4C4 1
.hicezta Ilr i • effor ., .7._.,,,..
•••••""' ,., :co& C1-111.
g i 1 1,7_.5 • . < "',:l 40.IIIII.1
ur-rt.s /7--'••
• c 't elt iomt MC3.1 L__ scrcr/r6F6.2 ? CL-Al m• ' e„t
„........„ 24 rs': . VA
i•-n.. • 1.11-Pi 7
..-57B--52 3 ki1.4 1014.0'11117.7 i 7 ...1 19" 13 ..."
..
._3cr , • - NI, ix:.' ..... .iii., ,1 r \ciata2gEs.- cz-mi
r ----.,fr 24 L111.1
MAL ,- L111.7 1 -_=_ LL-L.A.1 r .:0:21 ..--t-iilk. Ciller5 )/2
•fii'-• 24 , i Lui. it wi. c '
41.1 iLi4 t_ea
LU1.8 1. w.S6.: • .4 ---'`-4.1-
# ‘ • .0* CL-Pr 4
Al 2r , 111-PLA b
2 1'17or . 0,01 . ___, 2414„Lui.•,..). .. n :. 402.5 CL-A.S 1' 1,3 •
,
-''... 72.0 4. .. CL-PEIO
......... _ ••
--\ 32__-1, -, 4.LU 1. 4" _, t---! 1-* t :
-: -
t-A• *".1:7NE74 .....
LA41.4 /02Topozy 7- 1 c:', ner _....., ) _ 1
2 1 I ' -8 24-lb LU5.1 ..As, ts. is- 1 •
41,-.
ii,F f v-
;- . .:. LO-PLS LLI-Pti 44 ...-.• -StS
1-141 My 24' ,•••;....,
1 w..a., -, CT --- 9 --.-,AS lx-,..2 "" .\--..T . W-PL ..-/ V43/ml
, 0 .0.
..,, --,,,,
it,..
we - Lu,.„ • UP-PS.4 no I- •901.17
L • 33. 1V-SCS k *Wet . •I riMib ___ j
, ) 0.11.7C724- ''•-•` _ i• 2
IT
L111.7 1 tP.
PS- ' al-Rs • s .
• 86 5- 24 1- LU1.1 30. •-': •-,..&L, i(I, ill' 71-thl LU3.3 .,' ' •i
alle2.5i ' • i , r,.._.,..., ..
..., c,.....J--__- ,,,.. %, ,v-iff...„..a. •.--7.15 ii),,,..,..,:, J.,..7..,14...
1,-;' .i.^ i'::'
4:v.,-- -, z: •444..
.N lui.".7r-gr 5 (- %.
1;112.6 L.• ro.. ..... r . • • •
,
1 • , r ...pm.
fairN - ..-.,.. .-
r:41:-'••• " \o\41.-414o i
-- 36- •
3" .. ow.. ••••'' .......--• , -jn .
/ .
fiii-Pts j( w-re. C •\ 1* k,., t . LU3.12`" 4*,„
.1 ,..1,_u_A5.,,,L,... .,...:.......: ,
i:-•
- i
A ,..„_,.. .. ,,,,.... ..,,,,,..„,114,41.701..0 73.. •.1.: Mt `,... •
i„:„... Z.Utir• `k,..
.:-..1." ' 11/41'
; -._, . re' LU3. 24.
1
• 24"
U3,, 2-24r"
1 IIP U.1 0
-LAKE-.1...liCY :TRICTL,„Au_ __ ,
poi, w_L Li 5-.9:id
- I
11.12.. 02W5.911. •',' 0- . • • -
2 ' iii--"L•al' .- • • • LAKE • - . II 7 \
Nk'--:-... _,-'
LU-A3 a • ,
r, Bcoik,24-
#0014. )
\ („i ,., :4° :ULM- .
'''' .'----.7 --.4- -1: - • - . .- . LUCY - -
. A, . .17.- - ' II
,,71.1..\ 10.10
i tolwi
4-.,274,4-. 1,-% -
el / / 0
24 II LU-A5 to iftwoo. .
LU3.4
z ei 46.AL70;t1D-p6.8
w-pg.
Axil gr 1.•V 1 2.14 elsoc.0-till 5 ----71 w-As.9 34 ; • • • • 4.4-PLA 6 \ \IET,r,-,
14-
s4 ‘
682--we
)) 29 @
As of - 1
1. •s--; )
1 b LU
2 - 5 e` la
74
.7 2 X , , LAKE. • . ' • - . -PV•2 ,
I 1 .
LD-PS.SI ,
##4,0, , ,,C,.. 4
13C1. '/
, 12\ . ,-,4-7 --1.• .
11C-Pl.4 --I
w-pi, , ! 24
I i J: 24" ,
aci.ii_ x --
- E N 8 'I
c L . 10.
_ _
o '
*17
X-PLS ,.‘ - )_ ',yr \
.1 0 Bc, it -4-.4, 41‘.• ,•
-
, • 8C1.2 , (. ... 4'
10.1 111111i•
, _ --1 il 24 24"): • - 24'
d
24
- , ..--..------:- ---, . 27:4K,i •
‘: i ....q.,-_ •-fiNe.:,,,,.... ' 14c-' ' ' • • T24 , Li OMNI%
ai1,53.4 24 ,g1
• BC3.3..,.24'• fil0C31)LOOP LA1.4111 LA1-:/ de
LS3.1; 2r_KI
_. . vit.:6 3T
- x RCP i
1;4" L -is--A.s i'
r- f....w%Ni • 8C3.4 \ ec3.5 I 2
r
- • LS312 2e
.
`• 1 4 " -eCi'2A • ‘sallie7. ';
4 13118 TNT ...
/'4% .44 . . , r .1
,
24 AV ae -k .. . 211.53.2 24 461.7 L?3•12
Ls-PO
#.° DC2.2 "•01.
• Bc1.1 9 .41,111b,V ... - BC3
ifir- .4 ', '6 c. le-PLS - 133.9t 33.' 153 14. :. . 7-7-ki
92 4"sc-pz 4 Nift ' BC 1.2 ' .- 1,95- 557-7-. 1 24 toW.3
I 4.5446--W9 \ Ec.m ze.-Pv11 \ .. o• .
pi BC3.7 L53.1 tr., . a
Is-?6.Z._ 2 4' ec-2 934.0
LS.3. 91p•';. 2
----,-_--_, - Nii ."...-:.X.. _ • ?jib __. 01 9-3-1-ivur
'.x4' al .06-8 ilakt2112-41i - ;-- 153.3
100.0 r-----•- - --- r
I -- or- - . .E1C1.26 -- ' e ------;-7-hr - r, - :
53.35 --,Ls3„341k
1 8C2.16 ej„, :3•Illk_n.EIC3.161_ 14-4__sis_. g3 e ,4T-Pi.ree.-' , LS3.32
Z.15 i ,, 30-gg ftw.. .0,(905.* tel ti Ne0/912-5 .. 'I z_At
fAC2-17 „„ ta i - --
cpc3.1 : A;3.19 24I,N. . 0c0.,01 c Ilitzpi 917_,2 ;t Eri 1,or _ - 102.
BC2.1. or
et
.
a
1 1 0,24ti.28 a & 0 BC311 S S3218 t 311 ; --,-AtOC-tj 3-, .15_A45
? 2... -- "'..•-• 7.•1 . -11'-'e 4
i BC1.27 30- , 8C .32 1 30- • . .. .1,-_-._x-, ,x .
SC-Pat 1 2- 4 2 ,
- r,.''t '''; 9. t-53.74-1S3.70 ,' -1 4 24
111"arffir9 l' • RC:A 3
LS3 7
8C1.20 e • LS- -.7., ifr ...-. 4s" , -, _ ...1 .. .
so. , ..-•
r.g.••••
% 3 QC .22 ,.... . • •
,.....-....k• 238C 01 'z4 0,• • • ' 53"
6 lik12•41?
Lake Ann Highlands
..k- , 2e -/-'....104-03-p-w., , /27 .
, ' -_- ,. 4
0 ,. ,BC425 . _."' ( i ,.....1 ......A/ SD-ALS 1 3°'3°- t
•...._____ , . ...,•y., .
z A, Ns- EtC3.2 •••74) ° MI 1: FIGURE 1
241 _,... 1
vagivi • . ' ,
BC2 21) " ' o F;04Are.. 1
- vt-'424- 3 .....-L7-- .„„.BC3-28 - ..)
I '. : 1 20 33* ---‘. . 8C3.29 ,,v,
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 25, 1994
Andrews Okay
Hoffman: Annual review. Come back to the Park Commission.
Huffman: Could I make a recommendation? I'm sorry, if somebody else wants to. I was
just going to make a motion that we offer the 30 mph speed limit on our section of the trail,
11:00 curfew 7 days a week.
Andrews: I guess one clarification Todd. Is there a starting time? I mean if you curfew
people off at 1 1:00, what time are we letting them on?
Huffman Let me amend that motion to 11:00 p.m. off trails to 7:00 a.m. to be consistent
with Chaska.
Andrews: Is there a second to that motion?
Meger. I'll second that
Andrews. Any further discussion?
Huffman moved. Meger seconded that the Pari: and Recreation Commission recommend a 30
mph speed limit and an 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 am., seven days a week, curfew be established for
the Southwest Regional Light Rail Transit Route. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: REZONING OF 49.9 ACRES OF PROPERTY
ZONED A2. AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO R4, MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
AND PRELLMLNARY PLAT OF 49.9 ACRES INTO 982 TWIN HOME LOTS AND ONE
OUTLOT, LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE ON THE
EAST SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD, LOTUS REALTY SERVICES, LAKE ANN
HIGHLANDS.
Todd Hoffman presented the staff report on this item.
Andrews Is the applicant here?
Hoffman: No, he's not.
Andrews Or a representative of the applicant.
4
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 25, 1994
Hoffman: No.
Andrews: None, okay. If you'd like to make a comment. State your name and address
please.
John Hennesey: My name is John Hennesey. I'm at 7305 Galpin Blvd. I have, Jerry can
point those out for me please. Those two parcels there. I have to wonder, there has been no
decision as far as I know as far as putting a trail on the east or the west side of Galpin yet.
Andrews: I believe we're leaning towards.
Hoffman: Both sides.
Andrews: Both sides, okay.
John Hennesey: A trail on both sides of Galpin?
Hoffman: At least on the south side of Highway 5 and the north side of Highway 5, it will
carry less traffic. South of TH 5 you'll see a four lane road. North of TH 5 it's at least
anticipated at this time that will remain a two lane road. We have not designated east or
west. Usually one will go first and then the other one would come later as things fill in but
we haven't desiened east or west at this time.
Lash: I know we did acquire an easement, didn't we on the Lundgren site on the west side.
John Hennesey: Yeah, because I know I haven't been approached at all as far as acquiring an
easement along my 450 feet of frontage on Galpin yet. This whole project's a little bit, looks
to me like putting the cart in front of the horse inasmuch as there is no determination yet
where the parkway paralleling TH 5 is going to go. Whether it will be on the east side of the
creek, which would be to the south of my southern border, or on the north side of the creek
which would cut that lower parcel of mine in half. Without knowing that, how can you make
any type of dedication?
Andrews: I can probably answer that. I served on the Highway 5 task force. The people
that own the land have the right to develop and not wait for the ultimate decision as to where
the road will be placed. I think this may be just somebody seizing the opportunity to say, I'd
rather have it my way rather than wait for the State and the City to come by and tell us what
they would prefer. So this might be their way of trying to do the best they can for
themselves. And you're right, there's been no decision yet as to the exact layouts of the road.
5
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 25, 1994
The last time I heard I think we're talking what, 2000. I think they pushed it out some more
years I know that.
Hoffman: ...they can enter this from the north but all those types of questions would be
appropriately brought up at the Planning Commission.
John Hennesey: I notice on the plan here he's got a fairly large stretch of road from here...
Andrews: Again, the Highway 5 access boulevard was designed as a wide collector. It also
had a right-of-way to allow for a separate trail. Separated by, I think it was at least 12 feet of
buffer so it's a fairly wide right-of-way. So it would look, on a map, significantly larger than
a standard side street.
John Hennesey: But that still hasn't been determined whether it's going north or south.
Andrews: On the creek''
John Hennesey: Yes.
Andrews There was a preference but there's been no decision and to be honest, I don't recall
which way the preference was anymore. But there was a preference but that, like I said, has
not been approved.
John Hennesey: Okay. So as far as what he's dedicating, is that still up in the air?
Andrews: As far as the roadway goes?
John Hennesey: No, what he'd be dedicating land wise for this trail and park.
Andrews: What we're asking is he dedicate money. What Todd was saying is that this whole
plat is within a service area of other park areas so rather than for us to take land, the
recommendation would be to take cash.
Lash: Yeah, we'd take cash and then is it not that we would take easement along TH 41?
Hoffman: Along CR 117, Galpin?
Lash: Yeah, that's what I mean.
6
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 25, 1994
Hoffman: They're requiring additional right-of-way for the road, this county road so we'll go
ahead and construct our trail within that right-of-way.
John Hennesey: Thank you.
Andrew: Sure. I guess the only comment I'd like to add here is 94 twin homes, that's about
180 plus kids. Boy, I would hope the developer might find it within their pockets to put up a
play structure. Perhaps that would be appreciated.
John Hennesey: Excuse me sir, I think what his plans, in talking with Brad, he's telling me
that these are mostly designed as more single level, geared towards retirement.
Andrews: Okay. I guess I would assume if a developer could sell one of these to a family,
that they'd be happy to take the money.
Roeser Yeah, I think they've been using that a lot lately.
Huffman: My 64 year old grandmother went horse bike riding and bowling with us this past
weekend and I think she likes to have a little area to call her own too.
Lash: And a lot of retired people have grandkids that come and visit and then they have
nothing to do when they go to grandma's.
Huffman: Say Todd, a quick question I don't understand this one as much. Maybe this has
already been conversed, and I don't want to hold this one up at all. This sounds like Rottlund
on TH 101. They're pushing a lot of townhouses in here. They're telling us they're going to
bring in the kindly old people who don't want a lot of space. We're about to go and push for
a referendum asking for space They're going to have to go across a major collector to get to
their designated play area across Highway 5, which only the Lord in his infinite wisdom, or
her infinite wisdom, knows when that underpass will ever be built. So we're going to tell 180
families, which they will sell it to quicker than will get built, there's no park there for you. If
you drive to it.
Andrews: That's correct.
Huffman: I'm trying, I don't like this.
Andrews: It doesn't make economic sense for us to build a park across the street from
another park.
7
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 25, 1994
Huffman I understand that.
Lash: Well especially when you've got Stockdale. You've got the elementary site. And then,
granted they are both across major collectors and I don't like that either and then you have
Lake Ann, which by the time these are filled up, I'm assuming we may be getting close to the
point where there will be a trail along TH 5 where they could go by foot to Lake Ann. And
crossing Galpin between now and then I don't look at as being as big a problem as crossing
TH 5. That's obviously going to be a problem, even if there is a light there, which is
supposed to go in sometime in the near future but that still will be a dangerous proposition.
But I'd be hard pressed to ask for property. I don't necessarily like it either Dave but it's hard
when we're trying to build up some money in a fund too to acquire property when it's within
the radius of three different parks.
Berg: Particularly when other areas are deficient. It'd be hard to justify a park across the
street when there's other areas that don't have one across the street or even close.
Huffman Are we talking about a park or an open space here? I mean I'm asking at this
point. •
Lash: Either way you look at it, it's money out of our fund so if we don't take the money,
the park at Stockdale's never going to get developed. You know it could be that this could be
the money that's going to come in that's going to give us the money to develop Stockdale.
Andrews. Yeah, it's a trade.
Hoffman- At Mission Hills you got both the open space and the park fee because it was a
PUD As far as I know, this is not a PUD. At least I don't see it referenced anywhere in the
materials that I have and I've not heard...conversations with the planner. So the Mission Hills
we were able to go ahead and ask for that open space because we were giving them
something so that's why we asked for some open space. This one, if it's not a PUD, you don't
have the luxury but if any of you want to...make it public space, I can't advocate that because
we're not into building breast pocket parks. So then it would need...
Andrews Yeah. I guess I think the best we can do here is to state for the Council that we're
concerned about access to the neighboring parks, which are waiting for development. That
being the trails. The access trails. They need to be built. And maybe this means we've got
to push the Highway 5 upgrade a little harder because I think what Dave said is true too.
These things will be occupied probably before the road is even built. There's going to be 180
potential families that are landlocked. They can't get out of there and as somebody that lives
8
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 25, 1994
in a landlocked neighborhood right now, it's pretty frustrating to not feel safe to travel out of
your neighborhood so.
Hoffman: 94 home sites total. So we double...
Lash: That is twin. That's counting them each separate?
Hoffman: Yeah, they each have their own lot. The density is considerably less than that of
Mission Hills. Mission Hills was R12...this is R4. 4 units per acre. These people will have
a yard, front and back.
Roeser: We're just talking Phase I too right now, is that right?
Hoffman: No, Phase I and Phase II and the outlot.
John Hennesey: Of course Phase II can't develop until sewer is accessed to that Highway 5
side. Phase I will access from the back...Windmill Run.
Lash: And when is that?
John Hennesey: Pardon?
Lash. When is that going to happen, do you know?
John Hennesey: The Phase II? ...Kate told me the other day.
Lash: Is that the '95 study area?
Andrews: No.
Huffman: I've seen miraculous things happen when Phase I sells out though. It's amazing
how quickly Phase II can go into action.
Andrews: Well this might be the kind of development too that will kind of push things
along. Get the road built. Get the trails built. Sometimes that's the push you need. Can we
have a motion?
Lash: I'd be willing to make a motion. I recommend that the Park and Rec Commission
recommend to the City Council to approve the Lake Ann Highlands and collect full park and
trail fees, to be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land dedication and/or trail construction.
9
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 25, 1994
Andrews: Is there a second?
Berg: Second.
Andrews: Any further discussion?
Lash moved, Berg seconded that the Part: and Recreation Commission recommend that the
City Council require full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land
dedication andior trail construction for Lake Ann Highlands. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
Andrews Again, I'd like to add the comment for the Council that we're concerned about
construction of trails to provide access to neighboring park sites.
ESTABLISH AN AGENDA FOR THE WORK SESSION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL LN
REGARD TO THE PROPOSED PARK, OPEN SPACE AND TRAIL ACQUISITION AND
DEVELOPMENT REFERENDUM AND PARK AND RECREATION GOALS.
Andrews. Todd. I don't know how much detail you need on an agenda for this. For what it's
worth, I took a stab at one. I guess I'll throw this out as an idea and this is pretty vague. I
don't know if you need more specifics. I just put item 1 as goal setting. Item 2 as
referendum. And I put a sub-hearing (a), discuss overall needs of capital. (b), prioritize
needs. (c), establish time frame and number of dollars necessary.
Berg: What did you have in mind when you said goal setting?
Andrews: That's the overall Park Board goal setting that we go through annually to talk
about what do we want to accomplish next year. And I guess I put that first because I figure
the referendum would be part of that goal and that way we could get that accepted as a goal
first and then push through it to provide details to what the referendum would be.
Lash: And I'd like to have that clarified that, and no offense you guys but that it not
necessarily be staff goals because that ate up our whole meeting last time.
Manders: Frankly I think that goal setting could be at the end and the assumption is that the
goal is to get this referendum through and deal with these other goals as a secondary issue.
Lash. Well my goal for meeting with them is to convince them that we need to pursue at
least haying a task force to study this issue and the task force I thought was the one who was
10
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - October 25, 1994
supposed to be coming up with all the different things that we want the referendum to cover
and dollar estimates for that. Was that correct'' That was my understanding.
Hoffman: Yeah. It's really a give and take process. You have a back and forth process as
far as referendum. The City Council has not asked all the specific questions on how much
information they're going to want to see prior to establishing a task force. So what we need
to bring in is as much information as we can. Why go out and cheat the moon when they're
going to come back and say, well we don't...so the task force is going to do the detailed work.
It's kind of how obstructionist do you want to be and how many questions you can ask... If
the City Council backs us, they'll go along with it and ask some questions.
Andrews: Well you were asking for us to have an agenda so you could have material ready
for us, correct? And to me, to discuss the overall needs of capital, that's the most critical
thing. We have to show them why do we need money? Bandimere. The trails Lake
Minnewashta, the new park there. We've got Stockdale. We've got the desire to buy some
forested land. Some open space or prairie space. I think those are all.
Lash: Some more park property too. Is that what you want from us? Just some ideas of
what it is that we're looking at things that we would want to have fall under the referendum
to be financed by the referendum so that you can pull together more information, or what do
you want?
Hoffman: I want your ideas on what we should discuss with the City Council. What are the
key factors that are important to you in order to convince them that they should go ahead
with this thing. We just want to set an agenda. Now if you want to, and I need to know
which one goes first. If you want the referendum first or goal setting. You know how goal
setting, I don't care if they're your goals or our goals, but try to make it specific because I
don't want to sit there and talk about staff goals for the entire.
Andrews: Why don't we put the referendum first so we don't get bogged down and eat up all
our time.
Lash: Well actually it ends up, it's hand and glove. I mean if we have to say, we want to
have a task force. We want to study the possibility of having a referendum and these are the
reasons why. We need to develop Bandimere. We want to try and preserve some mature
treed areas along with construction of TH 212, whenever that happens.
Huffman: Bluff Creek charette.
Lash: Right. Preserve Bluff Creek. We want.
11
004 Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge Building
,((pit
1500 West County Road B2
SOF Tp Roseville,Minnesota 55113
October 25, 1994
Robert Generous
Planning Department
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
PO Box 147
Chanhassen MN 55317
Dear Robert Generous:
SUBJECT: Lake Ann Highlands
Preliminary Plat Review P/94-101
Northeast quadrant of TH 5 and CR 117
Chanhassen, Carver County
CS 1002
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the Lake Ann Highlands
preliminary plat in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subd. 2, Plats. We find the plat
acceptable for further development with consideration of the following comments.
• A Mn/DOT drainage permit will be required for the proposed development. Application
for permit must include drainage computations and drainage area maps showing both
existing and proposed conditions. Existing drainage pattern and rates of runoff must be
maintained.
Development, as shown on the plans, will double runoff from property. Permanent
ponding should be used to control flows to Bluff Creek and to the storm drain at the east
side of the site. All storm drains shown lead to TH 5 and will cause ponding in the
highway right of way; this must be prevented. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed
District should also review the development proposal. Questions may be directed to
Bonnie Peterson of our Hydraulics Section at 797-3054.
• Bill Warden of our permits office may be contacted at 582-1443 for permit applications
and questions about the permit process.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Robert Generous
October 25, 1994
Page two
• We request that the owner dedicate access control where the plat abuts Trunk Highway
5 right of way. Please provide Phil Keen of our Right of Way Section with a copy of
the final plat for our records. It may be sent to him at the above address. Questions
may be directed to Mr. Keen at 582-1283.
• Provided the development plan is consistent with the city's plans for Arboretum
Boulevard frontage roads and provision for a bikeway along the boulevard is made, we
have no additional comments regarding the proposal. Questions may be directed to Ron
Erickson of our PreDesign Section at 583-1295.
If you have any questions regarding this review please contact me at 582-1387.
Sincerely,
Cyrus Knutson
Transportation Planner
c: Roger Gustafson, Carver County engineer
John Freemyer, Carver County surveyor
R ( L'.
,2• 1j i
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ;. CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
(616)361-1010600 EAST 4TH STREET.BO1 l CHAS A.MINNESOTA 5318
6
FAX(612))361-361-1025 .
4ilA/NES01
COUNTY OF CALVEQ
October 7, 1994
TO: Robert Generous, Planner II
FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat
Lake Ann Highlands (94-7 Rezoning and 94-14 Subdivision)
Following are comments regarding the preliminary plat for the Lake Highlands subdivision
transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated September 20, 1994.
1 . Right-of-way widths listed in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study for roadways
functionally classified as Collector (Class I) are:
Urban Undivided Rural Undivided
2-lane Roadway 2-lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended
80' 100' 110' 120'
Urban Undivided Rural Divided
4-lane Roadway 4-lane Roadway
Minimum Recommended Minimum Recommended
100' 110' 190' 200'
County Road 117 (Galpin Blvd.) is functionally classified as a Collector (Class I) roadway
in the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study. The 40 foot from centerline corridor
shown would provide for a potential 80 foot corridor. This corridor would only meet the
minimum needs for an urban roadway.
It appears the development to the north has a 50 road corridor. The city may wish to
consider a wider highway corridor along the proposed subdivision if a separate trailway
is to be constructed along the county highway. Additional width may also be needed to
accommodate public utilities and landscaping.
2. Any public utility lines that are to be installed within the CR 117 right-of-way are subject
to the utility permit requirements of Carver County.
3. Any proposed access construction, grading, or installation of drainage structures within
the right-of-way of CR 117 is subject to review and approval of the county highway
department.
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
Printed on Recycled Paper
Contains Minimum 10% Post Consumer Waste
4. Development activities (including the installation of both public and private utilities needed
to serve the development site) that result in any disturbance of the county highway right-
of-way (including turf removal, trench settlements, erosion, and sediment deposits) need
to be completed in a manner that leaves the right-of-way in "as good or better condition"
than what existed prior to construction. It is requested that the city include a provision
in the developer's agreement that requires the developer to be ultimately responsible for
the final condition of the county highway right-of-way. A clear understanding of this
responsibility will result in fewer project oversight problems for both the county and the
city.
5. Any trees or landscaping completed within the right-of-way must be approved by the
County. When locating shrubs and trees, consideration should be given to maintaining
an acceptable sight distance at the proposed intersection. Any trees or shrubs
overhanging into the right of way could be subject to trimming for safety or overhead
utility consideration.
6. Existing drainage patterns must be maintained. No impounding of water will be allowed
within the road right of way.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed
development.
(
± 1/
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
(612)361-1010 ' 600 EAST 4TH STREET, BOX 6
FAX(612)361-1025CHASKA.MINNESOTA 55318
AIN v so
COUNTY OF CAMEQ
October 20, 1994
TO: Robert Generous, Planner II
FROM: Bill Weckman, Assistant County Engineer. ),k-Ai
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat
Lake Ann Highlands (94-7 Rezoning and 94-14 Subdivision)
Revised plan.
Following are comments regarding the revised preliminary plat for the Lake Ann Highlands
subdivision transmitted to Carver County by your memorandum dated September 20, 1994.
•
1. The change in the proposed right-of-way width has been noted.
2. The County's recommended minimum access spacing for a collector roadway is 300 feet.
It appears that this proposal will meet that minimum. An access permit from Carver
County will be required. The developer may want to verify that adequate sight distance
is available for placement of an access at this location.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subdivision and site plan for the proposed
development.
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
Printed on Recycled Paper
Contains Minimum 10% Post Consumer Waste
October 27, 1994
Joe Scott i City of Chanhassen
Chairman Planning Commission
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen M 55317
Dear Mr. Scott,
We recently relocated to Minnesota from Illinois. Coming from one of the fastest growing and over-developed
counties in the nation the location of our new home was just as important to us as the home itself
During the first week in July we met with city employees and planners in Chaska,C'hanhanen and Eden
Prairie_ We purchased zoning maps and studied"2000" plan maps. Based on the information gathered
we chose to live in Chanhassen. We invested in a$225,000 home based on information provided by
the City of Chanhassea
We were informed about the Highway 5 corridor,a strip convenience type strip center at 5 and Galpin,with
single family homes (possibly on smaller lou)adjacent to Windmill Run. When questioned about variance to
this plan we were told that surrounding neighbors would be informed during the approval stege.
Notification of developnwnt;'sane from our neighbors not the city of Chanhassen as was promised. We have
received letters regarding the Lundgren Long Acres subdivision but nothing on property directly adjacent to
our subdivision
We invested in a home in Chanhassen because we believed in your commitment to quality development
Not the gross over developed under serviced area in Lake County Illinois we moved away from We intend
to prefect our investment
We want sinnle family homes on at least 10,000 square foot lots,appropriate traffic routing in and out of the
proposed development and information regarding development(and variances)throughout the process.
Sincerely,
Michael&Dawn Rosmingen
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING:
REZONING OF 49.9 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED Al, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO
R4, MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 49.9 ACRES
INTO 93 TWIN HOME LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT, AND A WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMIT LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE ON THE
EAST SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD (CR 117), LOTUS REALTY SERVICES, LAKE
ANN HIGHLANDS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Jeff Steinke 7481 Windmill Drive
Mike Gorra 1680 Highway 5
Blane Hammer 7421 Windmill Drive
Joel Reimers 7495 Crocus Court
Rick Manning 7460 Windmill Drive
Cinda & David Jensen 2173 Brinker Street
John Hennessy 7305 Galpin Blvd.
Amit Diamond 2117 Brinker Street
Colin & Desiree Brown 2131 Brinker Street
Mark & Sharon Pryor 7541 Windmill Drive
Allan & Mary Jane Olson 7461 Windmill Drive
Julie Wojtanowski 2059 Brinker Street
Kathy Haldeman 2059 Brinker Street
Joan & Kevin Joyce 2043 Brinker Street
Ed & Kathy Loveridge 7508 Tulip Court
Michael & Kristine Perry 7521 Windmill Drive
Bonnie Lou & Charles Peterson 7496 Crocus Court
James & Jeanette Freidler 7500 Windmill Drive
Peter K. Beck 7900 Xerxes Avenue So.
Ross Fefercorn 7625 Metro Blvd. Suite 145
Steve Selinger 7480 Windmill Drive
Virginia A. Bell 7476 Brinker Street
Joy Bon 7490 Tulip Court
Dawn Cook-Ronninger 7471 Tulip Court
Patricia A. Lynch 7475 Crocus Court
Lars Conway 4415 Fremont Avenue So, Mpls 55409
Dawn R. Brian Erdman 2091 Brinker Street
Wendy Stove 2103 Brinker Street
41
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Questions or comments?
Ledvina: Mr. Chairman?
Scott: Yes.
Ledvina: The grading situation, I guess I wasn't able to resolve it. Maybe it was in the staff
report. Was all the grading going to be done at once or what's, how is this going to happen?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. That's one of the items that we
pointed out in our staff report. It was unclear whether it was all going to be under the first
phase or if it was going to be two phases. We requested the applicant to fax a narrative
explaining the phasing approach of the site grading. One other thing I'd like to add at this
point, I guess Bob had mentioned contingencies about phase two happening. The other item
would be storm water quantities...as well for Phase two.
Ledvina: So do we know what the applicant is planning as it relates to grading or we're
requesting that of them at this point?
Hempel: We are requesting that.
Scott: Bob, you mentioned that there are several options for zoning of this property and I
sense that there's some prerogative that we have. You had mentioned that of those options
you need to determine which is appropriate, or maybe you need to tighten that up a little bit.
Generous: ...basically a policy decision. Does the city want to continue and have the
standard 15,000 square foot lots...go with a slightly higher density and have the twin homes
which is still single family at least from our standpoint...Or should we go and look at what
the Highway 5 corridor study is saying for the future and...
Scott: Can I ask you a question? With the, has the actual, the decided location of the access
boulevard been made public record? Has it been surveyed, platted, located, etc, etc?
Aanenson: Well we're going off the, what you recall the task force recommended the
northern alignment. The Planning Commission recommended the northern alignment but
Council recommended the southern alignment. ...hearing of the EA document has not been
determined. Staff gave direction to the applicant to go ahead and use the northern
42
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
alignment...as an environmental assessment document. But we still believe as part of the
design...the northern alignment. This is approximately the second...
Scott: So what do we have here? What is this proposed second phase? Is that, I know that
both the northern and the southern alignments and this was kind of the Bluff Creek crossing
section so how does what we see on this plan relate to.
Aanenson: It reflects the alignment on the EA document on the northern alignment.
Farmakes: Kate, can you explain when you're referring to the souther or northern alignment,
are you referring to this particular piece of property, or are you talking about the several
options that were available throughout the Bluff Creek corridor?
Aanenson: ...this is the northern alignment that you're seeing...and the southern alignment had
the road... Both options again, high density is already on the comprehensive plan adjacent to
Highway 5 and we haven't changed that as far as the Highway 5 document as far as... There
still is talk about the Van de Veire property and other opportunities there that have not been
resolved... There was other land use considerations being used for that one.
Farmakes: My question is, in regards to the Council, you said that they made a
recommendation for the southern alignment. Are you referring to this particular location of
the property or for all the options that were available between here and TH 41?
Aanenson: They went with the southern the entire route, is that your question?
Farmakes: The entire route from Lake Ann to TH 41?
Aanenson: Correct. The task force had the cross over...
Farmakes: Including the property west of Galpin.
Scott: So what we see on this plan is the northern alignment? Thank you.
Mancino: I would also like to add, being a task force member, that in our task force guide
book on 23, that the potential uses were, they said single family residential or multi family
and the higher density abutting obviously Highway 5 so they could also see it single family.
At the time and on Highway 5, just so you know, nobody talked about twin homes. That
doesn't mean anybody was for or against but I think when everybody talked about single
family, they were thinking about the traditional single family, detached. They weren't
43
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
thinking about twin homes when they thought about single family and that just has to do with
the Highway 5 task force. I just wanted to make that clear.
Farmakes: I think I was opposed.
Mancino: To?
Farmakes: To the way that this zone was laid out period. It was my opposition to getting a
corridor...
Mancino: For the multi family.
Farmakes: Not that I object to...
Audience: Could you speak up, we can't hear you.
Farmakes: Nancy's referring to a task force that operated for a couple of years in regards to
the Highway 5 task force, which is referring to recommendations as to an access road that
followed, that would allow traffic to egress into the city without getting on the highway.
Highway 5. Where that access road would be going, there was options for both northern and
southern alignments. Southern being closer to the highway. Like a frontage road going
closer to the highway and the northern route more similar to Lake Lucy Road or Kerber
Boulevard where it goes up farther into the northern reaches. When we're talking about the
theory about what type of property zonement would be along those routes, say to the south of
the access road, to the north of the access road, what the buffers would be between medium
and high density housing. My concern, being on the task force, when it was talking about the
comment that Nancy made is that there were differing opinions in regards to the solutions for
this, including a task force and the Commission here and what I'm hearing, the Council also.
There are a lot of different factors that play here. My concern was that we do not get a
corridor between Lake Ann and Highway 41 that's nothing but high density or medium
density, townhouse type structures and that there's some diversity showing up. Typically
aligned next to a highway you'll typically see these long endless large apartment, townhouse
type buildings that you see on 169 for instance going north. And they go on for 5 or 6 miles.
I'm hoping we don't see that here but.
Aanenson: Can I just make one clarification? We're not recommending...but still it's low
density according to the comp plan which was always 1 to 4 units per acre. We're not
recommending medium. But within that we're saying there's three opportunities you have.
And yet they're consistent with the comp plan...
44
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Farmakes: I think the issue is where the alignment road goes, anything to the south of that,
in this case it's an outlot, what would happen there? At that point and for the property
adjacent to it because that will somewhat dictate how that property develops.
Aanenson: ...zoned high density. But the land use...comprehensive plan has guided that for
high density.
Scott: Okay, any other questions or comments for staff? Or any other comments from staff.
Harberts: I'd like to ask a question. I don't know exactly where I'm going with this but my
understanding with this particular project is that it's going to force the Council to make a
decision on the alignment. Are they ready to be forced into that decision?
Scott: When is the Environmental Assessment Worksheet hearing scheduled?
Aanenson: Well there are a number of things that have to happen. You have to decide
whether or not...rezoning at this time, and you have to decide whether or not we're going to
take utilities to the project. It's all predicated on the fact that you're ready to move forward
with this plat. Then if we do get to that point, then the Council's got to decide whether or
not that's what they want to do.
Scott: As far as the road goes, the Phase I can be serviced with transportation and utilities
from the Windmill Run subdivision so for the Phase I that's, these are never no brainers but
that's an easier thing to get at because the access boulevard does not enter into it.
Aanenson: Correct. So we there's some time...if the road does shift...
Scott: Okay.
Harberts: To me though it's, well I guess as I look at this, I'd like to know where the road's
at in terms of with the outlot, with how this maybe not so much with Phase I but Phase II or
whatever. I guess if it was my preference, I'd like to know so I know what I'm looking at as
a total picture there. I mean we talked a little bit about the struggle we had with Lake Susan
and the piecemeal affect. That's what's happening so, that's my comments.
Scott: Okay. Any other additions or.
Mancino: Ditto.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Scott: Ditto, thank you. Anything else? Any other comments from staff? Questions from
commissioners.
Harberts: No, I'll be quiet for a while.
Mancino: I just have one question for staff and that is, Bob you've given us the background
here that we have 81% units are single family. We have as a category multi-family which is
9.6 and subsets of that category is twin homes which is 4% and townhouses which is 5.6%,
right? What does that mean to me?
Generous: That 81% of the homes.
Mancino: And single family.
Generous: Are single family detached.
Mancino: But I mean do we have any planning as to where we want to be in those?
Aanenson: Yes. The comprehensive plan, one of the goals is to have diversified housing
opportunities for people who want single family. That don't want the large yard. Maybe first
time home buyers. That's one of the goals of the comprehensive plan is to provide diversified
housing styles. It's mentioned several times in the comprehensive plan.
Farmakes: If it's mentioned, do we take percentage numbers saying that when Chan's filled
up with 32,000 we have these percentage of multi family units?
Mancino: Yeah.
Generous: ...breakdown in structures.
Farmakes: So do we have goals as to, or are they open ended goals?
Generous: They're open ended. One of the goals is to provide affordable housing.
Mancino: And again we haven't defined affordable housing. We haven't said how much.
Generous: Well actually there are some definitions that we can use.
Farmakes: I was wondering if we define that or that will be defined for us by a Minneapolis
representative in the State Legislature.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Generous It's being defined for us by the legislature.
Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments'' Would the developer, the development
team like to make a presentation?
Brad Johnson: Mr. Chairman, my name is Brad Johnson. I live at 7425 Frontier Trail.
Sometimes I forget. I represent Lars Conway, who is the owner of the property. We have
with us this evening, if you'd like to direct any questions to them, Peter Beck who is our
attorney and Jack Lynch who represents BRW...as an introduction. He's done, we just figured
out today, 250,000 lots, which I think is pretty impressive. And they just completed a 25,000
lot subdivision in Phoenix. Isn't that amazing? And then Ross Fefercom who is the
developer and proposed developer of this site ultimately, with these country homes. I've
passed out some sheets because the neighbors have been concerned about what is this and
because of the process that we go through when we're just doing subdivisions, this is not a
PUD and we feel that we fall underneath the category of your comprehensive plan, is 0 to 4
unit subdivision is a permitted use here. If you recall last year somebody, I believe in August
of 1993, adopted a plan for this area. You are a party to that. That suggested that this area
be increased to 8 units And the road south of the new Highway 5 corridor be 12 unit
density We've been kind of floating around for the last 2 years while we're waiting for that
plan to be adopted by the City Council. Because there's some urgency on our part to get
rolling on this particular parcel, we decided that we'd stay within your current comprehensive
plan guideline which was 0 to 4 units on this side of the road and 0 to 8 units on the south
side of the road and if you look at your comprehensive plan you'll see, it says 8 units. 0 to 8
0 to 4 and then the single family homes where these folks live, and that was the long range
plan. If you also read your comprehensive plan you'll see that you have guidelines that have
set up your goals as to what the multiple family unit mix should be in the city and
historically Chanhassen has been well below their goal. I can't remember but I think we've
got a copy of it because I was a part of that process about 7 or 8 years ago. This evening we
realize there's two decisions that you may or may not make but we believe you have 120 days
to make that decision because it's just a subdivision permitted under your rules and
regulations. We are in fact trying to force the decision on the location of that road. We've
told the Council that. We've waited two years for them to react to it. Because you, this body
recommended the northerly route, that's what we're using. This is exactly what you suggested
late last fall. That has not been as yet recommended or accepted by the Council. Now you're
free to change your mind but this was the decision that you made. Also in that report you
recommended 8 units to the north and 12 units to the south. Obviously because the Council
hasn't done that, you're welcome to change your mind. I don't think you're welcome to
change your mind on the comprehensive plan that was adopted in 1987. I think that's there
and based upon that, a lot of people have made decisions. As far as the staff report is
concerned, we don't have any concerns with it other than items that we have planning on just
47
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
talking to them because we got an extended stay here as far as the public hearing is
concerned so just for the record we have concerns about items 6, 7, 8, 19, 24, 25, and 27 and
most of these are clarifications or technical issues. We will get together with the staff
between now and then. I don't think we have to go into getting exact. Because I think a lot
of this is just input and probably participation by the, well one of the things. We've got a
number of calls from neighbors saying that they were promised that this area was zoned
single family. Well in fact it is single family but it's 0 to 4 units per acre. We weren't part
of that. We have never had a call from any neighbor. I don't think, Lars did you ever have
any call from a neighbor? Did you ever have a call from a realtor? No. And so therefore
any of that kind of conversation was not, we were not party to it. We believe that if anybody
looked at the comprehensive plan, they would have said it a little bit differently. If they had
followed the public hearings that were going on for 2 years on the Highway 5 corridor they
would certainly say, well it could have been up to 8 units per acre so obviously whoever
informed these folks that they were not following anything that you were doing. I don't know
if anybody talked to any of you or the staff, they would know. I don't know. We are
concerned however about how we buffer to these folks so in talking to Bob Generous he said
one of the concerns was the transition. Not just by unit mix but also the transition by what
does it look like. So we're going to show you some of the landscaping ideas that we have
here now that may take care of that issue. My feeling though is that you will have to deal
with this single family issue yourselves. I'm a resident of this particular community. I think
we need more density just to get going but that's my own personal feeling...but I'd like to
have Jack Lynch just kind of go over the rationale behind the plat at this time.
Jack Lynch: I'm not sure what I'm going to say, to tell you the truth. The piece we're
dealing with is approximately 50 acres on the northeast corner of Galpin and TH 5. At this
time we're asking for rezoning of the northerly 35 acres. Basically an R4 zoning category.
There is a discussion on the table about the access boulevard. Whether it should be in the
northern alignment or the southern alignment. It's being presented and asked for, vote up or
down on it so we can get on with life. So the property owner can get on with his life and
develop the property. We have, as staff has said and as Brad has mentioned, worked with the
staff on locating and going along with the northern alignment. There has also been discussion
here tonight on the differences from the zoning codes, the comprehensive plan, the guide
plans, the corridor studies. They all mention something that's just a little bit different from
the... The corridor study that I think this body adopted though had in it's recommendations
was a density gradation from single family to mid density to high density. I think the guide
plan talks about mid density to low density. And certainly we've got an existing zoning, or
existing subdivisions at low density. We took the corridor study and actually I think some of
your comments at the beginning of the meeting today and we took a serious look at the high
density, medium density and decided that was a little bit too high and backed off of that to
the low density to potentially medium density. This outlot has not been yet decided whether
48
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
it will be, exactly what it will be. But we did make a conscientious decision by the parcel
north of the access boulevard and the subdivision to the north should not be a medium density
product. It should be a low density product and that's what we're proposing. The other
discussion item had to do with the landscaping. The initial submittal was a little light on the
landscaping and we have gone back and taken a look at basically the landscaping was shown
has to be increased by 50% and we would basically locate those additional plants and then do
some more extensive berming along that northerly property line. Where we would propose a
natural change from one density to the next density. Actually going from a 2 1/2 density
product to a 3 1/2 density product, there's no difference. With that let's get into some of the
discussion items and we'd be glad, all of us, to answer any questions.
Scott: Questions or comments?
Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, can you resolve the issue as it relates to the grading with the two
phases? How is that going to happen?
Jack Lynch: Quite frankly it doesn't make any difference to us. It's probably more
economical if you grade it all at once. However, once it's graded all at once, the commitment
is made that that product is going to go for the entire 92 lots, which is not a big deal. It's
probably easier to grade it all at once.
Ledvina: If your proposal to grade it all at once?
Jack Lynch: Well it was, yes. The proposal was to grade it all at once but it was unsaid,
unstated in the solution.
Scott: What's the total pad size for each building?
Jack Lynch: Like the square footage for the unit?
Scott: Not the square footage but just the pad, size of the foundation pad.
Jack Lynch: It's probably roughly about 3,000 square feet.
Ross Fefercom: ...house pad is minimum size about 15 to 20 square.
Scott: That's per side though, right?
Ross Fefercom: Yes. Per side.
49
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Scott: 3,000 total.
Ross Fefercom: Exclusive of the garage. If we go a minimum with double car garage and
build a 2 1/2 acre car garage and build a 3 car garage as requested by the customers.
Mancino: Mr. Lynch, are you going to be showing us architectural styles, etc?
Jack Lynch: No. This is simply a standard subdivision request.
Mancino: But part of the Highway 5 corridor is that we're supposed to be making some of
our decisions on the quality that we've asked for under the Highway 5 corridor study. How
are we going to make a determination on quality in this corridor if we don't know what you're
going to...
Brad Johnson: Single family is excluded.
Mancino: No it isn't.
Brad Johnson: That's what your guidelines say.
Mancino: Well, that's if we go with single family. But if we went with multi family, it
wouldn't be excluded.
Generous: Right, and that's from...
Aanenson: And again clarification, this is a standard subdivision. You're not doing a site
plan review. It's not a PUD. It's not a multi family project where they're bringing in
buildings... We haven't done one of these. We're all kind of...but that's why I said there's
other options.
Mancino: But under land use, etc in Chapter 4, etc it doesn't exclude single family. It
doesn't say it excludes it when it gives guiding philosophies, etc.
Aanenson: ...ordinance itself that was adopted.
Mancino: Oh, okay.
Jack Lynch: There has not been a developer selected but those are some of the units that are
being talked about.
50
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Mancino: No, that's it.
Scott: Any other questions or comments? Okay, good. Anybody else from the development
team?
Brad Johnson: Well a couple questions have come up. We realize it will be about 2 weeks
here so we have a slide presentation we can provide the neighborhood. There are 4 or 5
projects like this in the city...how they will look... The average price range on these runs
from $150,000 to $350,000.00 per side. Their square footage runs from about 1,700 square
feet up to 4,500 square feet per side. They're not small units.
Audience: Is that on this plan development or on other developments?
Scott: I think what we'll do, we have a public hearing and we can have some back and forth,
and I'm sure there will be some.
Brad Johnson: I just wanted, because somebody asked me prices and that's the range. It's a
very versatile product and probably the number one product like this was designed by... very
few children type of product...They're the number one Reggie Award of all the homes in this
classification. They won the number one award for quality and design. That's why we...
Farmakes: Mr. Chairman, since we have a large group of people here and it is somewhat
confusing because of the alignment considerations on Highway 5, the zonement, the
rezonement application for options that we're looking at here may be something we should
walk through once again. Looking at the possibilities. Again, this comprehensive plan is a
guide and there is a difference of opinion as to which one of these routes should be used.
Although we've recommended that, we did not recommend it unanimously and I believe that
there's difference of opinion at City Council so the question being, it seems to be an
important one, is what this property is rezoned for. Other than discussing the price of the
housing units. It seems where do you start first. There may be some confusion on the part of
the audience here with regards to the philosophy of what that zonement is going to be.
Whether it's a PUD or whether it's low or medium density and where that alignment defines
that being the buffer. In other words, if the southerly alignment has no developable property
to the south of it, therefore there's a larger amount of property. The northern splits two pieces
so there's a barrier. So anyway, there's several options to look at there and I think you
touched on whether it was a PUD or a traditional development and that may need a little
more clarification for the people in the audience.
Scott: Yeah, I think it might help from a RSF, residential single family, which is the
Windmill and Royal Oaks, basically what that is, by ordinance a developer can come in and
51
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
cut the property up subject to the proper street width and so forth. Can divide the property
up into 15,000 square foot lots. Put a house on there that has a 60 x 60 foot pad, which
would include the garage and a deck and so forth, and they can build those all day long and
that's the minimum from the ordinance standpoint. In some instances, I don't know if you're
familiar with the Song property. Lots of trees. Lots of terrain differences and that's where
we like to apply a PUD or planned urban development. What that allows us to do is that
allows us to be more flexible with the ordinances but for very specific purposes. For example
we had the Song property, that I mentioned, had a tremendous amount of mature trees.
Extremely old so basically what we did is we allowed the developer to allow smaller street
widths and allowed them slightly greater grades for the streets to preserve some of the trees,
which obviously was a benefit for them because they can sell their property for money, etc,
etc. but then it allowed us to follow one of our guides which is to preserve as much of the
natural terrain or the natural vegetation as possible. So a planned unit development is a way
that if a property has some significant topographical or vegetational, I'll make up a word, we
use that. So those are two options that we have here. As far as the R4, which is the one I'm
not as familiar with, basically what that would allow you to do, if you could envision this, is
that it looks as if these lots are approximately, if you took the two lots together it looks like
they're what, 20,000 square foot. Okay, so we have two lots but the homes are touching so
basically what it looked like, if you didn't know that it was two families, basically you're
looking at a home that's going to be approximately, I think they're anywhere from 3,000
square feet to conceivably 9,000 square feet. And if you're talking about the 15,000 square
feet a side to the 4,500 square feet per side. So those are basically the 3 zoning options.
Now you've heard some talk about a Highway 5 corridor study. You've heard about the
comprehensive plan. And then other guide documents. Basically what the comprehensive
plan is that every decade the citizen task force, the Planning Commission, the City Council
get together and take a look at the city. All the undeveloped property and try to say alright,
what do we want our city to look like. Where do we want to have multiple family? Where
do we want to have commercial property and so forth so that our city develops in an orderly
fashion. Well the comprehensive plan, these are all plans and things are not cast in concrete
by any means but we want to have a plan that we have to present to the Met Council for
approval so they know what we're trying to do with our property. That's basically what the
comprehensive plan is. The Highway 5 task force was a study that lasted for over 2 years of
which Commissioner Mancino and Commissioner Farmakes were involved with, where we
figured we had this highway. It's going to have an impact on people who drive through our
community. People who live here. What do we want them to see from the highway relative,
because we got involved with building materials. We got involved with views to see natural
amenities like Bluff Creek. So hopefully this is quite eye opening. There's been a lot of
work been done on this but once again, these are guides. These are plans and we tend to, in
this instance we're focusing on a particular piece of property. There's a known quantity. We
know what your area looks like. It's zoned residential single family. We know what
52
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Highway 5 looks like. We know what Galpin. Because of the City Council not acting on the
alignment, we don't know exactly where that access boulevard is going to be. So where we're
at right now is, because of, and you may have heard this earlier today. Because of some
misinformation or lack of information that was printed in the newspaper, this is not
considered to be an official public hearing, which means that the Planning Commission
cannot make any recommendations for the City Council. So what we're going to do at the
public hearing is to get neighborhood input. I sense, and the other commissioners sense that
one of your major concerns is the change in density from your development into what this
may be and just to let you know, the Planning Commission, at least I've been here for 2
years, what we have consistently done is buffered not necessarily with just vegetation but
buffered with a more gradual change of density inbetween two "dissimilar" areas. So if that
is a major, may I just ask a question. How many of you are primarily concerned with the
difference in density between your development and this proposed development? Mostly,
okay. Okay. So I think that point is understood quite well by us and what, I'm not trying to
discourage anybody from speaking at the public hearing but if maybe one or two people could
articulate that for the public record, we'd appreciate it. If there's some other things, and that's
why we have these because the developer is using their, in good faith coming up with here's
something that we believe fits with these three different documents that overlap and underlap
and so I mean in their situation, they're making their best efforts to do what they think is
appropriate. Obviously when there's development next door to anybody, you're concerned so
this is the way the process works and I think what we should do, with that in mind, is could I
have a motion to open the public hearing please?
Mancino: So moved.
Harberts: I thought there wasn't a public hearing.
Scott: Well.
Conrad: Let's just listen for input. Let's have the public hearing next time.
Scott: Would someone like to speak? Step up to the podium. Give us your name and your
address and then let us know, as best you can, what's on your mind.
Kevin Joyce: My name's Kevin Joyce. I live with my wife, Joan and 3 children at 2043
Brinker Street which is in Windmill Run development. My property abuts the proposed Lake
Ann Highlands development. At the end of last year, 1993, my family was investigating
home sites in the southwest metro area. We narrowed our choices down to Chanhassen. We
were very interested in the Windmill Run development that was being developed by Rottlund
Homes. In researching our purchase, one of the main criteria was the type of neighborhood
53
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
that we'd be raising our family in. I went to City Hall the week of December 27th. I'm not
exactly sure of the date but it was that week right after Christmas. I met with Bob Generous
of the Chanhassen planning staff. We discussed in detail the area just south of the property I
was interested in purchasing. He showed me a color coded land use map that showed the
Windmill Run property as SFH I believe designated. He never showed me any
comprehensive plan. There was no zoning done on the property just south of this that we're
discussing tonight. I asked him what was planned for that property and Bob said, similar
housing to Windmill Run. Single detached houses. I asked would they be similar in value to
the houses built in Windmill Run. Bob said he couldn't guarantee the value of the homes but
the lot sizes would be the same. Minimum 15,000 square feet or 3 SFH houses per acre. I
had a witness to this meeting and he's willing to file an affidavit that this discussion took
place and this was the content of that discussion. When we received a notice of the
development, we were obviously very upset and wondered if we had made a mistake. We
had misunderstood what was said at that meeting. However talking with our fellow
neighbors, we found out that most of them were either directly or indirectly told the same
thing. SFH. Single detached houses. I think it proves that there was some misinformation
here given by the action of our neighbors, and we have quite a few of them here today. That
they have some concerns about this particular development. I feel we were misled by the
City of Chanhassen. I feel there's been a gross misrepresentation by the planning staff of
Chanhassen against my family. My family based a large portion of our decision to purchase
this home in Windmill Run in Chanhassen on the information that was given by the Planning
staff. Many of our neighbors based their decisions on this as well. I feel Chanhassen's
responsibility to us as new residents to live up to the commitment they made to us when we
were told the property to the south of Windmill Run would be used as a continuation of our
existing neighborhood and that's how I feel. I feel very strongly about this. I think there was
gross misrepresentation here. That's all I have to say. There are other people in this group
who have the same problem. Thank you.
Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak?
Mike Gorra: My name is Mike Gorra and I live and own about 50 acres directly to the east
of this subject property. Have you got something you can put on the screen there that shows
the site plan?
Generous: Subdivision?
Mike Gorra: Just the whole site. Well, no. That shows the... First I'd like to say that I don't
have any objections to what the proposal is on Mr. Conway's property. The only reason I'm
here is to protect the interest of my property and if there's something that affects it, I want to
know what's going on. First of all I really don't think that there's any confusion to what the
54
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Council wants as far as the land because on March 28th of this year they voted on Resolution
#94-40 unanimously to approve the southern alignment. And my conversations subsequently
with the councilmen since then indicate that they haven't really changed their mind on that.
Now maybe the staff has over ruled the City Council, I don't know but what are we doing
looking at a plot plan here that shows the northern alignment instead of what the City Council
recommended. That's my first question. No answer?
Scott: I don't have an answer, no.
Mike Gorra: Okay. So then staff did over rule City Council.
Aanenson: ...considered the possibility that the northern alignment may be the preferred
alignment. They've had several work sessions and the final alignment has not been selected.
That was an informational meeting for the EAW, or excuse me, for the Environmental
Assessment. The final public hearing with the final recommendation has not been held.
Mike Gorra: What was Resolution #94-40 then?
Aanenson: They did make a recommendation south but they've also.
Mike Gorra: So what's the confusion? I mean as far as the public announcements, the only
announcement from the City Council is this resolution that I'm speaking of, is that correct?
Aanenson: That's correct.
Mike Gorra: Okay, so as far as we know that's the way it...so what's the confusion?
Aanenson: As far as what's on the public record, that's correct. But there have been other
discussions that you may not be aware of that the Council has held that they may consider
going to the north.
Mike Gorra: Okay, which brings me to my next question. Now this road on the south side
of the development that ends in a dead end at the property line. Is that correct?
Generous: Yes.
Mike Gorra: Is there any guarantees from the developer that this road is going to be
continued to the east? How can you act on a plot plan or a development when you don't
know if the road's going to go any farther? How can you ask them to build a road when you
don't know if it happens south there or if you can go farther?
55
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Generous: Well we have to provide access to adjoining properties all the time and this would
be providing access to your property.
Mike Gorra: Yes, but I've indicated that I am proposing a golf course on this property and it
doesn't include a road at that location, which is the northerly access. And I've also indicated
to the City Council that we're going to have to have a court hearing and let a judge decide if
the City has a need for a road there when they have an alternative which many people think
are better, cheaper and will look better in the long run. So there's no way that you can stand
here and guarantee to these developer that that road is going to be where you propose it is.
So how can you have it on the plan at this time? My third question is the drainage. Have
you studied the drainage on the proposed development?
Scott: Dave.
Hempel: Yes we have.
Mike Gorra: Where does the water on the west side of this development drain to?
Hempel: The west side of the development? It will continue to maintain the drainage that
exists today for the most part.
Mike Gorra: But will there be more water draining onto someone else's property than there is
today?
Hempel: It will maintain the pre-developed runoff rate. As with any type of development,
the amount of runoff will increase with the amount of hard surface coverage. However, to
maintain the level of flood protection and maintain the level of discharge rate, or the pre-
developed runoff rate. In addition we will be incorporating the city's comprehensive storm
water management plan to ultimately serve water quality and quantity...in this area.
Mike Gorra: Okay but, what you're saying in the long run is this water's going to be running
onto someone else's property.
Hempel: As it does today.
Mike Gorra: Yes. But at a greater rate.
Hempel: Not at a greater rate. The same rate.
Mike Gorra: Do you have those computations so I can.
56
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Hempel: We do not have those at this time. That is a restriction we impose upon the
developer to maintain that rate.
Mike Gorra: But you have no computations.
Hempel: We typically do not have computations at this stage of preliminary plat.
Mike Gorra: Well all I'm asking the Planning Commission, if you're going to plan something,
plan something that might work and go by what the, first of all go by what the City Council
recommends. At least they're the elected officials and they're supposed to do the
recommendations around here. Secondly is take action on a plan where the road, where you
can guarantee the developer that he's going to be able to extend his road and make it work.
You can't do that at this time. Nobody can because we all know that when you go to court,
nobody knows what's going to happen in court until it happens. And the third thing I want to
be assured of is the drainage on this property. It's not allowed, you can't, everybody knows
when you develop a piece of property there's going to be more hard surface. The water isn't
going to soak into the ground so it's going to run someplace. I want to know for sure that
this excess water isn't going to be running onto my property. Thank you.
Scott: Good, thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir.
Mike Perry: My name is Mike Perry. I live at 7521 Windmill Drive with my wife, my 2
year old and also my Golden Retriever and we came here from out of state so I wasn't able to
review a lot of the proposed plans and ordinances but one thing that does happen when I
relocate, and I've relocated 6 times in the last 12 years. My company takes care of a lot of
that sort of thing for me. So they ask a lot of questions of the city and the planning and I
also try to do some questions and some phone calls and that sort of thing. And one of the
things that we came up with was, we were going to be adjacent to development that was very
similar to the one that we were investing in. And this is our second home, just like many
other people. It's their second and for some people third home. And one of the things, we
had a get together last Sunday and I guess one of the best testimonials that I can offer this
council here is there was an individual that moved from out of state,just like I had. He
moved from the New Jersey area and he was faced with the similar type of development and
I think it cost him, and correct me some people if I'm incorrect, that were at our Sunday
meeting, but I think it cost him when a lower cost. Or I shouldn't say a lower cost but a
lower quality development went in next to his property and then he had to resell it, it cost
him a good $50 to $75,000.00 is what he quoted at that meeting. I guess my point is, if
you're going to plan out a large area, and I've lived in some developments where they had all
the way from $100,000.00 home, and I should really correct myself. All the way from
apartments to million dollar homes. All the way from the stretch from $100,000.00 all the
57
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
way to million dollar homes. It was done in a very, very quality fashion. And when the
developer made his, even his first proposals, it had very, very good testimonials of other
properties. It also had very, very good architectural drawings, similar to the one that we saw
earlier tonight where it was a nice planned out project. And I think that this project is going
to be done, and done well, we're first going to have to determine for this general area what
we really want it to look like when we grow up. I can take you to Houston, I can take you to
Dallas, I can take you to New Mexico and I have areas where I could show you where it's
one steam of apartments or townhouses right down a major corridor. Something they didn't
plan 10 years ago in the early 80's in Houston but certainly in the 90's, that's what they saw.
And they saw a lot of developers that maybe had some very, very good expertise in
commercial but then all of a sudden decided to go into residential. And then when things got
tough and Kate and I were discussing, you said interest rates went up, all of a sudden these
developments aren't occupied. And that's another thing. One thing you have is you have a
very, very good diamond here. You have a very, very good diamond and it's called
Chanhassen and I think you need to polish. Polish that diamond and polish it in the right
way. And that's really all I have to say. I have some concerns about the overall planning
and how this whole thing is going to funnel down together. I have concerns about the buffer
area. I'm not seeing a lot of things that I've seen in other quality developments. I don't see
any ponds that would keep the natural wildlife within the particular area. I'm not quite sure
what's going to happen with the wetlands. I don't think it's a 100 year wetlands as they call it
down in Louisiana but certainly it is a wetlands. What's going to happen with that? So I
think there's a lot of open ended questions here and hopefully we'll find out more and more
what's going to happen with this development. Thank you.
Scott: Good, thank you.
Joan Joyce: Hi. I have a very sore throat. I'm surprised I can even talk right now but I'll do
the best I can. My name is Joan Joyce. I live on 2043 Brinker Street in Windmill. Putting
aside the fact that we definitely, without a doubt have grossly been misled with regard to
what we've been told by the City Hall here, I would also like to point out that in terms of
coming into this community and looking at what potentially could exist here, in this area, it's
shocking to me to even think that you can have two residential streets parallel to each other
that are not first time homes. Probably second time homes because they are custom homes,
upper bracket. Not million dollar homes but surely none of us are purchasing our first home
here. This is second or third. It's amazing to think that something like a change of housing,
such as these twin homes, can exist so closely to a small smattering of 35 homes. 35 homes
is not a neighborhood. It's a small group of the start of a neighborhood. Again, we
purchased expecting this to be a big, nice neighborhood in which our children could ride their
bikes down the street a couple of blocks here and there. That's definitely not what is going to
happen here. Obviously what I see is you're going from single family homes to higher
58
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
density twin homes to apartments to townhomes. I mean and throw anything else in there to
this big hodge podge unplanned area, it absolutely has no cohesiveness with regard to overall
planning. I don't understand how something like this could even be considered. Again, I
think back to how this whole issue started when the zoning was changed from whatever it
was to allow the single family housing that now we live in. In my opinion, the die was cast
at that point. That was zoned single family housing and that's what it's become and it doesn't
make logical sense to me, after such a small start on this neighborhood, to change it to
something else and end up with a different sort of living with regards to the people that are
there. It's a different lifestyle. It's not the same sort of neighborhood and that's all I have to
say, thank you.
Scott: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir.
John Hennessy: I'm John Hennessy. I live at 7305 Galpin. Bob, could you put that on.
Could you point out my property. I own the 3 acres right on that section. I would ask that if
we're putting some screens, that the developer would screen with vegetation, trees around my
property on the north and the east side there. And the other question I have was, I notice one
of the internal streets comes right through my northeastern tip. It looks like the pavement is
right on my property line. If the pavement is on my property line, then the right-of-way is
well into my property, is that not correct?
Scott: Yeah, what would be the grading impact? We are looking at pavement here, right?
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can answer that. That's road right-of-way.
Scott: Okay. And what would be the grading impact? How much beyond the road right-of-
way does grading impact?
Hempel: We're not proposing to intrude upon Mr. Hennessy's property with the grading of
the street. Based on the grading plan.
Scott: Okay.
John Hennessy: That is where the...
Hempel: Correct. The curb would be about 14 to 10 feet away from the property.
John Hennessy: And then I would ask that storm water be reviewed very carefully because...
land around there, from about 200 feet to the northeast of my land, it all kind of washes down
59
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
so if we have 2 1/2 to 3 inches of rainfall in a 4 hour, 5 hour period, I've got a nice stream
running right across my driveway... Thank you.
Scott: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir.
Mark Pryor: Mark Pryor. I live on 7541 Windmill Drive which would abut the property.
And just, I have to admit I'm fairly naive with this area. It's difficult for a homeowner to
kind of get the grasp on this. We did look into it and I took some offense to some of the
remarks made earlier about not knowing what was going on. In listening to the discussion
here today, I have a couple concerns in that there were representations made by the city to a
number of myself and my neighbors about what was going to be there. And I can see, in just
listening to the discussion, where it came from. I've heard a number of people use the term
low density single family housing in the same breath. In fact I think Mr. Scott did the same
thing. That's what we were told.
Scott: Well I didn't. I used single family but it's been kicked around, low density and it's 0
to 4 units and you don't, when someone tells you low density and it's not followed by the 0 to
4, you can assume what you want.
Mark Pryor: That's representations that were made to us and that's the kind of thing that we
heard and that's what we looked into and that's what we relied on when we made our
purchases and it's a real problem for me, when we go to the city and inquire as to what's
going on and get this representation and then when development comes up and when we
come to the meetings and they say well, you know that's not really what it is. It's low density
but it also includes twin homes. We didn't tell you that because we lumped it all together.
But that's a real concern I have because I think these representations made were not clear and
I think it's real clear in the discussions why that happened and I think the Planning
Commission is the...to look at that in terms of planning in your plan. Not only your plan but
also for representations made to, not only those who are new folks but other potential buyers
of what's going to be in certain places and what kind of tiering and what kind of
neighborhoods are you going to have in single family and a little more density and those
kinds of things. I think the commission's got to look very closely at that. There's been some
problems in the past which are coming to light now which I think...look at very closely.
Scott: Okay, good. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes.
Pat Lynch: Mr. Chair, members of the commission. My name is Pat Lynch and I live at
7475 Crocus Court, which is part of the Windmill Run development. I'm up way past my
bedtime tonight to emphasize how darn important this is. And I guess to restate it in a little
different way, kind of the expectation piece that's of serious importance to me. What
60
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
everyone talked about in terms of the misrepresentation is that we're not all dummies. We're
not all stupid and when we ask those questions, we believed those answers and we believed
the answers in their simplest, easiest to understand form because we don't know the initials.
And if you're not familiar with the acronyms, you're saying does that mean single family
houses? They say yeah, that's what it is and you say, well that makes sense. So people made
what they thought were conscience decisions. People also didn't take the time to try to find
things out and for the most part that many people can't be that stupid, I don't think. In terms
of referencing did we pay attention over 2 years. Most of us have been here for 6 months.
That development is about that new so to assume, in some of the references that we would
have been somehow rather illiterate to the plan, you can only ask the question when looking
at it but if you haven't been a party to that during that period of time, it's reasonable to
assume that you may not have had that familiarity if people have only been here since April.
The other part of it I guess that's of critical importance to most of us is that what we had
assumed in the conversations, and we received as many answers as well what we really need
is affordable homes. Well $300,000.00 isn't affordable homes. And other people said, we're
not talking about affordable, we're just talking about the spreading of a corridor in an orderly
fashion and what it appears to us is that it's not an orderly fashion and what our expectation
and what our hope is that there be given some consideration to that. Particularly in light of
how much research so many people did. It isn't as if we're in some ways looking at it and
saying we're not expecting to have neighbors. Everybody's assuming that we're going to have
neighbors. We're hoping the neighbors are the neighbors that you said would be there, which
is how this is how the neighborhood would progress up to Highway 5. And the other part of
it that's of critical importance is the roadway piece. When people talk about using Windmill
Drive as the construction road and when people talk about using Windmill Drive as the other
access for emergency vehicles, that's a serious issue. Windmill Drive is not the kind of street
that you'd probably look at and say, that's the one that you'd target for that kind of usage.
Our hope is that as you listen to us, you're not listening to a group of neighbors who stayed
up past their bedtime to simply be nay sayers to a project. We expect to have neighbors.
We're hoping that the Planning Commission understands what our neighborhood is looking
for, thought we were promised and would be happy to welcome to the neighborhood. And
we'd certainly love to be a part of the process of planning too because we weren't around for
the other 2 years of discussions so, thank you.
Scott: Well you are now. You are now. Good, anyone else. Well since this isn't a public
hearing, I don't have to close it. Anyway, I think this would be an appropriate point in time
for the commissioners to discuss their thoughts and then after we get done with that, we won't
be making any recommendations but it will be, this is what, we're talking the 16th. We're
going to be exercising our stamina again on this. Okay. You're it.
61
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Ledvina: Well we've had, over the 3 years that I've been here, we've had many situations
such as this where residents will come in. Into our room here to oppose developments based
on zoning and it always is a difficult situation and I don't know, you know what happened
with the city in terms of the discussions that were had with staff and I will personally be
looking into that a little bit and seeing exactly where we're at. But I think from my
perspective at this point, I have to look at it in accordance with the comprehensive plan and
what we're looking at there. And again we are trying to make a transition from the Highway
5 corridor and we have planning right next to the corridor that allows for a more dense type
residential situation and that has to be transitioned back to single family. And the single
house per lot situation. I think that that's a tough thing to do but I think with the efforts
associated with a transition between the northerly extent of this development and the previous
developments with landscaping and setbacks and those types of techniques, that those
transitions can be made and I've seen that work many times. So I am somewhat confident
that that will be able to make this work and work together. I have a few specific comments
for staff on the plan as it's laid out in front of us tonight. Looking at Units, and I'd like you
to take a look at this Bob if you could. Looking at the back of Units 5 and 6 for Block 3 and
3 and 4, Block 3. There's a.
Scott: On page?
Ledvina: Well the preliminary grading plan. It shows that 5 and 6 is essentially a walkout
and there's approximately 40 feet between the back walkout and the side of that other
building into 3 and 4, Block 3. So if you'd just look at that area there. Maybe we can do
something with that. It looks a little tight in there. You see where I'm talking about? Okay.
There was one other comment that I wanted to make and I didn't make it. As it relates to
these units that will be on the north side of this development. Typically with our single
family home scenario we can have buildings that are on the order of 15, well it's 20 feet apart
essentially. 20 feet from corner to corner. Building corner and with this development you
should note that the buildings will actually be along that north side 75 feet to, in some
instance 120 feet apart. So I think that's.
Mancino: Like where Matt?
Ledvina: All along this north face. If you look at the separation distances between the
buildings, we're looking at roughly 70 to 120 feet apart. So I think people are thinking these
buildings are squashed together and they really aren't. I mean because they are together, you
know, the two units are together, you have a lot more side yard area and things like that and I
think actually that's, that can be a very nice feature to have. The buildings are not in there
compactly so I think that's another thing that can help in terms of the transition. So but as it
relates to Units 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 on Block 3, I think...taking a look at. Also looking at
62
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
the grading plan, I know the developer has worked to maintain some character but I think
some additional efforts can be made with the grading. I don't know, where are we in terms of
street slopes Dave? Have you look at that? That center road.
Hempel: Street...off of.
Ledvina: Okay. So they're closing in on about the maximum grades? Okay. And I think
after that, you know recognize that the developer has done pretty much what he can in terms
of dealing with that. That's the extent of my comments at this point.
Scott: Good, Nancy.
Mancino: I have a couple questions. Excuse me, Matt I have a couple of questions for you
as the grading. When I got out of my car and walked at the dead end street that goes into
this from Windmill Run. I went up and stood up on a slope that was directly south of that
street and it was high. I mean I was standing there and I could see McGlynn's, I could see
you know south. What's happening there? I mean I can see the road's going to go through.
Are we going to be loping off a lot of the rollingness? When I.look at this I see a lot of
990's to, I see lots of 990's in this Phase I up to 1,000 so I see a 10 foot difference in
elevations and that's about it. Through this whole Phase I.
Ledvina: Well they have to, obviously they have to match the grade at the existing Windmill
Road there. But a lot of, actually there's a lot of filling that's going on. Well let me take a
look here. I guess I hadn't noticed that specifically in terms of what they're doing. It roughly
drops to about 980 and then it goes back up essentially so there's a couple of hills in there. A
couple of 10 foot hills in that road before it terminates at the access boulevard so.
Mancino: Okay. So you're saying they are, to me it looks like they're doing quite a bit of
flattening.
Ledvina: Well they are but they're generally speaking they're attempting to maintain that
general topography there because it does go, the top of the hill goes to a little valley area and
then it goes back up and then it goes back down again. You know from north to south. So I
don't know. And in those areas, you're right, it's pretty high and they are working at some
pretty steep grades over in that area so.
Mancino: Well I'm wondering though, the public view that we're going to have from
Highway 5, that was one of the things that we discussed...
Ledvina: Right, with Oak Ponds, yeah.
63
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Mancino: Yeah, what's that going to do and if you look in Chapter 8 of the Highway 5 study
guide. Excuse me, of people who don't have that Bob on Figure 8.4, I mean we clearly say
in this area preserve steep slopes. Is that, I mean I know the precedent has been set by City
Council that we're not really preserving steep slopes in our subdivisions. First hand on that
but do we care?
Generous: Well yes we care. It's how much of it do you need to preserve? Do you have to
keep every knoll out there?
Mancino: No, I think there was actually one right here, if you look on Figure 8.4. It wasn't
like the entire, they weren't saying the entire area but a particular high point that one might
say is a feature on this particular land.
Generous: That's where they're reducing the peak down to 12 feet and they're shifting near
the top of that contour, they're shifting over this...coming down from that. So they are taking
out the highest point but then they're having, from that point to the intersection they're having
a 10 foot elevation change. I don't know. How much do you have to preserve to get these...
Mancino: Is it still steep?
Generous: Not as steep, no.
Mancino: And what percentage are you taking off, 30%?
Hempel: I guess one clarification, what do you consider steep? What percentage is steep?
We reviewed a plat earlier tonight where we had retaining walls with 3:1 slopes for back
yards. Those are steep.
Mancino: Well whoever wrote this put down steep slopes and it was one of the things that
we talked about on Highway 5 so if we're not going to do anything about it, let's not talk
about it.
Hempel: As Bob mentioned, there's one knoll on Block 3 there. Lots 9, 10 and 11 that
would be reduced by about 12 feet. The rest of the subdivision will maintain it's rolling
character with the 7% street grades. If you wish we can grant a variance and increase to 10%
street grade... From an engineering standpoint, I wouldn't recommend it. I don't see the
compromise as it's worth it. There's not trees to be saved. There's not wildlife to be saved as
a result of it. They're still maintaining the rolling integrity of the piece of property. The
curvalinear streets are going to magnify that as well. There is a...difference of about 1010
with the existing Windmill Run street is. And when you get down to the southeast corner
64
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
where the frontage road is, the elevation there is almost 960 so there's a significant grade
difference between the two. From the north end to the south end.
Mancino: Yeah, that's over a pretty big expanse. If we do 10% grades then on the south
slope, much like we've done it on others so there wouldn't be a problem with, in the winter
time.
Hempel: Winter times it would be exposed to the winter time...freezing conditions.
Mancino: Yeah, I'd like to see some grade changes in the street if we can maintain. It was
significant during this Highway 5 study to put it on our figures here and yeah, I think it's
important. I think that Mike Gorra brought up a very good question, discussion point and that
is, we have certainly made a recommendation to the City Council on where the road goes.
One of the reasons for even to me, at least I was told the Highway 5 task force was to be
proactive. Was to get out there ahead of developers and say, let's do some good planning and
I would like to see the City Council now, we have done our job at the Planning Commission
and made our recommendations. I would like to see the City Council also come to a decision
on where this north access boulevard goes. Because it will greatly affect what happens here.
Farmakes: Are you clarifying that when you're saying the north access boulevard goes? Are
you clarifying your preference?
Mancino: Where they would like north of Highway 5. Okay. No, I'm not saying whether it
should go north or south. I'm just saying north of Highway 5 I would like to see City
Council right now make that decision. We've got development out here ready to go and.
Scott: You've got to tap the microphone 3 times before you say that.
Harberts: Mr. Chair?
Scott: Yes.
Harberts: If it's okay I'd like to make my comments. I have to catch an early flight
tomorrow morning so I'd like to take my leave then.
Scott: Good...
Harberts: I'm not advocating for or against the development at this point. I'm certainly a
proponent, if you understand some of the politics that are going on in the region in terms of
what's coming out of the.Metropolitan Council, that they certainly will have a greater amount
65
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
of power that the legislature has dealt to them through the last session. And what I'm seeing
here is far better than what I'm hearing down at the Met Council in terms of what they would
like to see out here. I think Matt brought up a very good point, and I think it would be in the
best interest of the developer if they would perhaps take a step further in terms of their
presentation of what the impact really is or is not because when you look at this, when you
look at the two lots that they average each lot perhaps, the average is somewhere between 10
and 12,000 per unit. You've got two lots together. That exceeds 15,000. That exceeds the
lots on the other side. You've got a 3,000 square feet pad, as I understood, as the total unit
which is about the size I would guess of a standard home in that type of price range on
almost double a regular lot size. I think, I don't know. But that's what the numbers tell me
based on my experience of sitting here for the last 2 years. Boy, that's not so bad is it? But
I don't know that if we have a display model or something like that rather than all these lines
or something, it might be a little easier to see that a little bit more comfortable. I like, now
don't hold me to my words. I don't know if I'm saying these right. I like, I'll say a more
enhanced density. I can remember sitting here with Windmill Run and talking about this is
what we think is going to happen, because this is what's been happening in the city and I
believe in the staff comment, you said this is the first time this has ever come to us.
Somebody is challenging us or testing us in terms of what the code is saying and they're well
within their right to do it. Personally I'd rather see this as a PUD. It gives us a little bit
more flexibility in terms of putting some more of the pieces in there that we like. Maybe a
little bit more green space. There's a lot of houses in here. There's going to be a lot of
people here. A little bit of green space. Kids riding bikes, things like that. I guess if this
was a perfect world, I'd say put a PUD on the whole thing. Ladd tells me, well they can do
this. Well okay, fine but I'd still like to see a PUD. If the world was perfect, I'd like to see
the Council tell us yes, this is what it is. The southern alignment. Yes, we've got it in policy
but anybody knows with a governing policy, they can change their mind. This is going to
force them to get on the fence here or get off on one of the sides here. I'd rather be able to
be able to look at the whole thing rather than to piece meal. Sometimes this world isn't all
that perfect. So we have to live and try to do our best job. We certainly you know, we
certainly if we had our crystal balls we'd certainly make this a perfect world but we try and
that's all we can do. I think the input is good. I think it's great. There's some very good
points brought up. I would like to see building materials. Yes, you don't, the developer does
not have to, or builder, whatever it is. They don't have to show this to us but come on folks.
We've got some residents here that have a concern about what the values of their homes are
going to be. Is it so wrong to maybe go that extra step further because that makes our job a
little easier? Like I said, I don't think this is such a bad, this is really a better density when
you put it in that perspective, than if it was a single family house. I think. I don't know. I'm
guessing. I can't tell a whole lot from lines on a piece of paper so I guess, since this is
public input, we have an opportunity to see this, I would just encourage the developer to
maybe go the extra step to help everyone becomes a little bit comfortable with what this is. I
66
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
remember sitting here with Windmill Run expecting yes, we'll see 15,000 square feet lots and
a house and so on and so forth but you know, this is well within the code. You know staff
lives and breaths this every day and this is what they expected to see. We've never had one
of these. Whoa, someone read the book and this is what they can do. There's nothing wrong
with that but yeah, I'd like to see a little bit more green. I'd like to see a little bit more open
space. My comment though to Bob is, in Block 3, 16 and 15, I believe the way that pad is
proposed facing the road, that that's going to be where their access point is...from sight lines,
things like that and the amount of traffic. Is that such a good way for the cars to be backing
out? I don't know. That's my, that's a challenge there. I'm not a real big proponent of, in the
cul-de-sacs. The islands, sure they look nice but from a public safety and from maintenance
and stuff like that, I don't know if this is a homeowners association as the last one. They
didn't go into that. I don't know. Then they're the ones that have to wrestle with it but if it's
a city, we don't need to raise our taxes anymore just to go around some pretty things. Those
are my comments. We're going to see this back. Like I said, the way this is sitting right
now, what I can tell or can't tell, I'd rather see a PUD just to, in a sense make sure we're
meeting the criterias of Highway 5. Things like that but like I said, it looks okay but you
know maybe the developer or builder or Brad, maybe you can give us a little bit more
information or renditions of what we're looking at because this isn't so bad but when you look
at all these blue lines and stuff, I'd get nervous too.
Brad Johnson: Can we rent a bus and we'll see?
Harberts: Sure. I'll give you a deal. With that, that's my comments and I'm sorry but my
flight leaves real early in the morning.
Scott: Have a safe trip.
•
Harberts: Thanks.
Scott: Ladd.
Conrad: Nothing to add.
Scott: Okay, Jeff.
Farmakes: I'll make my comments as brief as possible...I guess I see this as the cart before
the horse here because of the alignment issue. There are people that talked from a standpoint
of it has to get the City Council off the stick if they throw a proposal at them with an
alignment the opposite of what they voted on. I don't know if I buy that exactly. I would
like to remind however the people in the audience here that this property is currently zoned
67
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
agricultural estate I believe and that's important to bear in mind. What you have here, what
people are talking are proposals. You have the opportunity to contact your elected officials
and let them know that you disagree with that. For those of you who've just moved into the
area, been here 6 months or so, you're probably not familiar with some of the planning and so
on that's been involved, or the forces that are involved. For some of you that are out of state.
The Met Commission of the people's Met Council that people are talking about is a governing
body that takes the 95 communities that make up the metro area and basically doles out and
plans money for things like effluent collection and improvements of utilities and so on.
These things are very expensive and they have a way of controlling development. The inner
city obviously, and the powers that be within the city would like to see city density all the
way out. They'd like to see as many people as possible placed per square foot so they don't
have to pay as much for utilities and sewage collection. So there are those forces at work
that would like to see high density and nothing but because it would be cheaper for them.
There are other forces at play out here of families who have owned farm property here for
generations and they're selling off because of taxation and it's time to cash in. There are
developers here who would like to have certain ways that they can develop a piece of
property where they make more money and you have those forces at work and then you have
your investment in a single family zone where you're concerned about the value of your
property and what goes next to it. Getting back to the original point I made. That property
currently is zoned agricultural estate and the process, it's still open. It has to be voted on to
change the zonement and so your City Council will get that on their agenda at some point in
time and the process is, is that you call up and complain and say you don't want it. If you
have, you're part of that process. You're part of that pressure. I did not go along with the
commission and voted for the southerly alignment between Lake Ann and Galpin. Then I
went with the northern route. I think that there are Minutes available to you if you care to
read that but I think that will be a deciding factor of whether or not this is a PUD or it's a
regular development. I believe that there is more opportunity to buffer that development and
your homes with a PUD and I believe with the southerly alignment there'd be more property
available there to deal with rather than to compartmentalize the zonement. And I, if I make
comments on this development, I kind of feel like I'm falling in line with what I see as sort of
a directional phase to the northerly alignment. I'm not going to do that. I think that that's
wrong. I also think that if the City Council in work sessions are discussing this issue, it
should be in the public's eye based on the amount of work that went into it. Particularly if
it's counteracting public hearing information that they voted on. I don't know what the
particular city rules are on that but it seems that I wasn't aware that they were considering re-
voting on that or were in session somewhere on that.
Scott: Nor was I.
68
Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994
Farmakes: But there are, depending on how you say this, there is a consensus that we were
all in line and agreement with this and I know city staff adamantly feels that the northerly
alignment is the correct way to go.
Aanenson: No, what I'm saying is that whether or not it goes to the north or to the south, it's
guided single family. Regardless of where the road goes and this is one option underneath
the single family. Whether it goes north or south. It's guided single family. 1 to 4 units per
acre. So what you have to decide is whether or not you want it to go single family, PUD or
1 to 4. That's what you have to struggle with.
Farmakes Yes, but I think what the point here is, what we're talking about and where it gets
lost is what is the end result of what we want to see. And we're talking about this road and
it's alignment. We're talking in some cases the end result of the ability to develop property
and the options to develop a large amount of property as an option. A golf course for
instance was named or townhouses or four plexes or where that road goes is going to
determine what that is. And it seems to me that will be the first point. You don't come up
with a development and then say well, here's the first development. We have the road up
here. Therefore the rest of the properties surrounding it is going to fall in line. I would hope
that what we look at is, we look at this as this is a guide and it doesn't necessarily have to
dictate specifically what we wind up with. What typically happens in the process is that
when a development comes forward, there's a developer, the surrounding property owners
come forward and say you know, this is what we would like to see and then there's a process
that we go through. But I'd probably see this again, like Diane did, as a PUD situation but I
would again like to see the road go to the south. And I also think that that will change
fundamentally this development. That's the end of my comments.
ScottGood. Well thank you all very much for coming and I think, hopefully being part of
the process, maybe some of you for the first time, get at least an idea of the players, the
forces that are at work. If you don't happen to know the names of your Council people, all
their phone numbers are in the phone book and their published in every Villager. There's a
section that says who they are at the State and local level. We appreciate your input and
hopefully you felt that you were involved and we're listening to what you're saying. We'll be
seeing this again and you all will get notices and it will be published in the paper so we
expect to see you all in 2 weeks. I'd like to thank the development team for coming in and
the adjacent property owners too. Thank you all.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE REGARDING ACCESS STRUCTURES ON
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOTS.
69
Mr. Don Chmiel
Mayor of Chanhassen
7100 Tecumseh Lane
Chanhassen, Mn. 55317
October 28 , 1994
Dear Mr . Chmiel :
I have recently been made aware of the potential rezoning of
the land located behind my house. ( attached) When I purchased a
home in Windmill Run, I did so with the understanding that the
zoning indicated that any future development would be single
family homes . It is very likely that I would have purchased
elsewhere had I known that twin or town homes would adjoin my
property.
I also understand that the potential rezoning could mean 100
additional families travelling down the road ( Brinker St . ) where
now only 35 families may travel . This greatly concerns me from a
traffic and safety standpoint.
I moved to Chanhasssen and Windmill Run in good faith that
the city would honor the zoning that had been established around
my house .
I hope you will consider honoring the zoning and consider
the residents _who will be most directly affected by any changes
that are made.
Sincerely, / Q
Ju ie A. W . jtanowski
2145 Brinker St.
Chanhassen, Mn. 55317
612-474-0811
,• '� _._ __�_ .. .- '-T (� - .�-_-..-.. .,. D2°64'21
, >Yi 3io,— 'it3ST' •-is IT
41*
/ t' ..._ y. ; ` •6 o o• 1bi, 11
10 \^. 7dr - ,� At'—�' IIIMMidsoir
' L — t '- • ``. MOI " Y .,•,-••c• :• .;,2*•!---
•!.--- ., ,� ' -
.y � _ y ' • I Jr. '` ..J .• }j. ''' . 7'•. X96- 1'
•
.• "'R .0"5.€. • 7 --'1":41 •
�3• r r 69 091. &Ter - � �� � '' 4,..". 411-,,-.1.4. / • \ - - ,•.•' e l'" . �,�
z..,v..7,• : ':I•'re SI : ..'.'47•11
C1C
lit"'- ,0 9, irpe;;000,4s, 411S, . •'' CS's' -4)//I I r.i ' ' '-;.
III—- /'.. ,iiiiitZ,4,e, , .. ., .,, ...,.,,..•- is.... . ,_ - ... ie.. ' 19,D,,, , • .0
' 4' .1...# 5 •
C1 .11.1
1- •. NW '.. 'C�•1'4 oat : i_ 4 .o hn rn'••o
.�, s tib• ` � / R 2� v�
Z:7•1� 4sV�" ''446 ti _ . . ./ {'! "b..;
�' .te ..'• O s7' .»••�► .0 4 en i
:- 5111111114 � .1 ri .F "') ,, '' - iT q �G.• ''i t p �h nA •�n p :OI
N er.aLis'.`•• • 7*'ro�e °,°� e�• 'a •'.e-or r ta4r� �p• �6Ooo., `o —
ee•r c ' J N ed-'`v 'tl• �9.7 �•`�� •,`T _ •\•vi,°i., %-S. �,ti' .IS 6•-1.---
.. Or CI
• ► 96 fr.( =� !. =;`.tr �•- l -'• •.� O.• �.°p,,[ ` `>� 'Popp p
1 e. , • •I7 r7 CO h !S �y) i ..... o
hy, �69 Cs. 6[St 1. L( it • i• ur._• tt = rol00� Cam
In -l:jl..," O ^ .60.[r .iY .r fA��•�� ijj9. -t
' ►Y I
• .• cc Fe '•0•�l.p F y1� [•' .� I I .r
y .47f:1-•
^ �6 hr w .. I lfr O• ;'� •. % 1 ^I • N �b io /r • ev
•
i r CC Pr' •S.p e‘,
hIP' `+!+ 1 3.•
e
,. ^I I • 9r j • I P• ' - •. • • '
S Ig •9 tz i' -h n .,I f. .e may. _
sr.i ,• ) tea.,.•. L:4 �,° / •
03.SJti 6f_00.: � •oa �. yy�iE .�1� --
( •▪ .9G.IS.cf •• S.9S;.� I tl0,1f•OD rre •'r 4 '.5.� .. . --y*fy %� ,'..3, .9.Y 1 1 /.
I " I -or art 1? •A c4 �q,p� ; ,� 1 �•. 1. Q' .
17
i. 7-iiC6f_. '`_* 7 ,n Lpf•N•.•I , 5 2\4 4D'�, -` j.� ` .„.• v,t' •yx 5 rtl. f1 i•
I VC 09l y_�
I. r�►A I h\ ��'� .�a'�• ;_' I Iy�'$•J �'�1 t • 1' t. 61 -%:1,965�• •1
1 / YLsc • w ?'S•'1'Z0.6�' y �� I �O •
454 „ // / ^v •'44o^ 'OY /[;
'1•
f30�+3vf r •I •'or .1-• *6.'9 9D•6� d 1y .. ` `6# 6 "0'��,d0- I . Nal 0,;8,/•77 //t.,_'< d0 r
1 !: "St ram ' � 1 -.6 r •
II: 'L �,• 6[ ck 4s.E �•iscyr 3 3 .. • �' / ” v•y.
>t{ yt07 \ \� .� )1 �'9� i�t •
1'l o r .�' o�w l??h - .l`� A.
9.• .S, -�•.• \ 10'04 . 1 •� 1 °%ti.�
1 h �,
( - tt"1- .,\ --,,-1,_:� ot_ 1 r,
r "L t B - 96. , • P16S Hb171, .1�'-' I !�. -� ) /`• .. .0•_ // • ;\ p'
c.v /. -,=-1...62 193 � 1 66 ,, r /gib,,• I . t-
.7"."6'
r �, r� •I /( -�4.16L0 9' �I L�f3.0 �:•� • ��t ./ Jtl•. ••� .•: •
�c'0_ •(`AaGJ 4_1 5797/77r 67 , i1 7 7..zi ..rt./ t,.ir4 2.4 .,
..--_--,?;., ili
_-- _ cr .$• 02°04'21
-'`'
,,,',..-,..•---
".„7-7..e.- —-- `� `' =: (5 '''�� ' 622.81 9so� �i
/ r r\ I
,fie. .\ ` *A,
, Z ••C 22 t9 1
..t , <
ri '., -• •• • S • \--.1 7.. . •:,va. N••••• . s k AT— ,.,?__ ii. _ Z
� e J' • •• nl '"l �. l� 9
•a
Mt& �/�' �• • cam, +►_. _
��4] 'e d i ` i /Pjr`
CI:
.r . it/I ` 4 •i v- ;'� •••._ 8' T 1.,��,.� :W
6.... 9 4 Lu
`•t C►ltit - 1 Ai' -�.. b <jI'S• .ti �9 `rte ce, `- mmil
, .6.50.411,111 ,,iti, .r r J i 5 - +t �1, p{
•
a-...- rip' • . .
" ., 4.. $��fi.p. o •i ' � ..gin g'. 1 I '
ot.61,► • F. $_ err r A* •bt:' e� : . \ o• . •..d/• /;► •' • ' :' H • tf
r cc.r lr, a .' fr/. b D�11 `p•i . ., / /.0 OA D ; .:1�°. O, "E:
N^.lr91•• c . Q • ll0'e.' •.. _ —,cy; • e I C/III)
.`c / �°l • ��. `- _-i o�
�r !6 r.,M - ' 7.0=..a �Or..• I , ,, - ' `� �o ,ti� -^,0; �`'O}.,• of., --- i OC
err 6_ -�-OOL
[0 pr!s - c ....1•56"44` - — I. ?r r0. cr P / '�'i .: °+..
' '7, • ^••�� ) .P.rr. . • •D.� '.14•,'-• C, - ' �J <ID • •ir
• !Ii
1rrr , -rr.Ogt . ) f.• I �, ! //!O r I N• '' \ 60 �T ^r
Q� t .s h I o`er\ _ ! 1 }.y* _ 7 $.r'4
p I err C /.�
(`� Y - ' � r'- ,`N~. gyp., `�- -14 / � ' ` ,
• ft E: ir. '/ p 'pi QC S ` r Y, 1 • •/• ,/SS. ( 102,
i b_cr6r.„ ,. • .. ,•'• '' ^ • .f.-. 1 .� ma •c/' ^... . •../, � • ... • sl /
. '.
tI ' / t .,0=E :4 r..•. .•
. ./.., / / .*/ JOr'•� • \'• c a • I
• e' .• ,,,4 --„, S ..9. e •�• .•r ! -, .. 34$ D • 's m•52oe ' f'9P � . .'o!'�•. ,• v4 r '�6�a- tiltf
_ I r0 09: ' Si \' ,4.• -• i .• .t. .•
b h
^
11,
I In/ web,.• - _• �'8 N 02.541 • w `r:'S _. 9� 'P` •. ^r' 6 / 5. j , }% /�,�DO r� • 1'
9.0 •.si •., • p .q 20 h .�� ! - P•� /' •
l/Ft h/7��.. •p', �''J/
ASO S' �• _ 6� _6 hO.�.70 .:�°771 ' • co en .a./
I q ra pQ^�� t �bgy5 Cqk ON 01 ! b�k. / 1r .!
!IF
�) • ..•
E q •
1•, X11 c . , • J /`.; • •'ti 'y
y.9 e • \ e•Cp $ert a 1 H �•`. A l •), - r •, ',
s tE'��, t2.% .. .p 1M1 s 0 k t ` �ti�
�.� f. • s i. ems. v.
8 n”�� M,1 •. g6i, , 6i-04 -..�.�! _ M-a. •D-� r-/`. • / 'I • O J .r• I.,
.r'."L ; ''. P7 •t ]Cr NI 1.li.'. I 0 • •� • f •., // D i,
•
/1"•(_,..46,.• •4.16 a/9' I L.$0. • 1� ..�i k , �{/
. •..... . . i
-
; iiii a. h 1`7 ' . .' 'J 0. '�/ e• Oi r -4/ •
•P• f..p .77,-1.'
'1.% . • �
4.76-6F• A-.-,,...
- rc.l. � Vi! ! °r . Fd ; i. '= 5
• r-- ,o ..iS_ f as -
22 s r
• y ' �� • �. .``'.1.4170TH' .�8 ;�. • O
� /�' _ - * -;;yip ,,- --Z.1. , Qa
/
•._- - ?
�-��g6 N •41
. S 02°04'21
9E:—.^
/ /�o6a , -,.R� .• c� - r _q'� 1622.81
�' wh" )� Bim` sv. �' ! p, .2" ,
0
• D�- �.an � .� ofitih^ .� ioiap
,-
.... S el'7_+O ' ..R, 't_et• �•1 _ -Al -
it•S•0. • • 0. A. • \‘1.
LUl „C• '\ 4• y • rv�r sem' N#�%- E:
S S- , S. .OGErTr . p q _•
/elle,biP"�itki�•I
.��+ny- i.���' i lire
�_ _0 XV.
q•�'
'G y t 4• s
V a - Ct • J y. fir. �b o;r. _ 1 , .r
•s.r - r ;h .0 6 ...
SS Et,0c S _', ':/Of • \ ' :r n o ''r.9r.tr.:09'oo 09,G..i
{_f:...�5 �'
'..C,' v. O`•a 11 10 t f N b •6•,, �o., •f: pp-y.
It v ! • \ •-•.4f.•
�o • i . • $ /` N
N b ',1°.%4'.:'-‘2.74'.9:..yy'.-\ O••• s. *.i..1,•10 / Pe N O•.>h t •''n.�• E o, ^t.
0 ;, _� e„ __ `9' a o` ' / {� ` h; w^.70-. c o
'_• w.• !i. ��'�i �o• tet.tr. i �O�') 'N .i .22.* t 6'
sta., _ ri; \ o .,q r t / d°�1° \ ttea c-
_ :. ".: - Q - .-.21C9l�, •�ry�i� �����/eti.eel-
C.P.
9 t .0.-?
� .P�� "e4
O� r? :.f6> OoDD_
.> . . r 3,6.8.7r,9 res.. n\`o 'sl,r,., O 1 {ir..1 0_.
- if...,./...
- -.c . SZ r e' ••CT' I 1 4,4?'''f.,..at S 7 Or P //, �!i Oy p 69 s• mac. $Z
I.. • <<:_ + . e.r r �` . / i t''
-_ - ;`.a' S•8l -+� 'c r',,,-,e----
i p•,=` • /, •Er,.0 5 9E
W _ ` �S>'S:.1 S nni� 3.I►fr.rL n �' •�r�{i��71 ! �• + Wil- 115414553ir ,
?J�:z::t :�; :.E-., O .60[L• 7�^'' `''39 C': ,• '1
?) • + '.-:r0►t•p� •' h •
fylr 1. „_+ MIM. $� v '
• • •b_zr I .-'•ten �- �sf
0 sE:53. 1 i 9
6 22, MI.
N iw; �A i 10� ` s.q ' /`th
,..,,,
MI
�.� ';?s) • xlxr 1.t•.-:rte A. , . M .6U too S >`.\. 1. a' '`bn�Ass
I ! l� ~ F
:tt �" z. �: �1 •r • 7 cp: [6.9:•
Ie y\' .'•‘‘.7% a• 9� I�/� [ � .iP9
I. �.� ] .S:.EL:: .. t -¢�>� ,r..IP6�•:pNP' M6G.[• OGS't1 6: •Y\ .' 4414 na") ..12 'CO// /� �. �" •
-.'FS I •1 kI C 3,Ir fr,t: ti ^I �:Q. r.� .4 .y e r • i'A .Z J
x .PTI.• - I 6Fr .e .:L Pt .-.+ S+^• ,p
Q 'E IPS 99,s.p �' .6•.Zf.G05 IP? r '; - Qy, n 16• ` C .C.-
.-
S Is.'. 7' i • 3 Z►.f r.'c N ^1� p,y�1r �•f •�) • .'2 •�''.,`-- -y • i2 -
G_'E:: qq0 '� • ,` .v";"•44.. ¢ ..4NE OT 4, Q9`,
CI . , itt; ; .;:...7,._.;1$ ,-f re
LU
lir
47
-y I rtrr +.o '\• IL) Abp..
7,:,/,4%.,,.....::.
. ') i O•E' . 66Sr.:)
01 �°h h�.. .a Q
�.r ^ e'„ '�r ' nl I�' Ew 5' •C:j: dal Mi6 �, �.�•47 F r'
•
PI ,*4°:
X
;36 Cm
>:1:._: n Q.3."u w [ 4 --••
•r C I • / !a 5' .JOS n
�6Z>. ^_ tSQ6r. ;� n h �v IIw iCrtr/ ' jI • 6 of
"'%6.s== . .9 aS-N '�\\^ wl 1^ may/' d. 'w.IS f4iC ..,
2 .. �, , . x c •:.r•66▪ + E,b M 15 ^ NM6•;90 "e g - i - -�j= • •• r• S
.„. _.,
•..•.
�.:'t`6 . •1 ♦ •5a„b5�0�y��h> N ! ! , e/.
.”`h ! n : ,a� ./4 ".Sr'.�r • ,
�c •
\ + 1 w ., C ^ ^ o A a ?qcV/Z3
•
:, .,-•5' - •••"-'1- ▪ •41iiiihr) •‘'' ,-:k , , - N , , 4,\ 1/ ., -• .., - // i . ••
of,. . :.
. ,
•
•
...
.-.• ...•�• •' '. T 777 SJ N10I7r' w i Co i _..e /
' •••• /i -1.6239 2.7•16' %i`+- >/ Ar ~' -40
�. �, or :p.r6L0U9- ,-.50,----- ti• • ,� •/ S.
.a`.54 • 9- %.,c? /r w /Pr '�.`3J.93��� - �`•eabr9r`t4 1
'4 •. /i p� te •a- •Ar' 0, - 0,`` �'�.�
I �r' pS //^ .`y r.`1�. 4 ; N 4 "1 O p •* I I . •'v ': r a_• OFA
y '''VVV w
^•'\-. .. •a�' Icy--- ` tk �' O i - • qo .'
"'..�.�. "▪ 4?.
�ry `may _ / /; /.
•
::• - S 02°6.4'21
,•'" Ito. r,.. ...,,,,w-_,„. ..--11tr' -:. f :7— 9,,, C. --- 1 ---- r r.
LLI
C'o-�rP. r 'Si14p4 q b + .- ♦�•11t.. \I7-64 114
..../ ' ." • k gt ZiL -. >
r''��•
...vie. = I •..x I e�I / •.g• try•
.
17101
7 ' • ��jt_ 6 � iJ• ly4 � ��1c r [(6- : �
Z
I fiew.r0'c. • .1 .0`..t.' :t•-....._. • �``.
/ 164 •CC 5C•00-S0 4..........or. •-,.,,... 4141 _. •„2"7 ..c. ....., ' - '....'-
.: CC
•
•
1.0 „ I.Avy„ 4, 1,"..ti.` i e NLLJ
til
• 9Z Lrt • I Q •. Vtiba i 4..•et•�'?
!-[ .
-f•• .0260•4 •�.1 _ o's, ` " •• / 1b h, Oa•,1. "�• a •
� t '�: t 4• SA 1••f a _•n'. MIMI
,_.9rpZ.•�� D �,I Q ..' �•'�ii4•)1���.1 b%!e'1- - t, '0f r" �o:; ii. ,6,' 7' '•1---___
• I'' q
I c i r. N 1 6' 0. .• `P. •O[6 eft •7•I---`.(f 6. - 0!'00;
N •' -GG6f.0c S I. D..1C.p0js, i,' • 7 . 'p ti / i'4f. Dr t
ah 96 f,: t _. ..- .^:.'e i. I te,,,_ . • Il. Ii_pg
, •Or p! •o! 09r 6DPf_7••• 'tn
• '
Zi 9s �: 1 �pc t. 96t,o r °` `rr .. r 7• _ _
I„ _69 ZG+ ,r • ro[G� V i�r •i iy ' ��� t / \ � ._ ,QO cc -QD�pr'•
in+C err . .:�•, •�.60`.0 •. ,Qi' 'cam \ �p^'
c9cs •.�7�,.� 4" .,-r[6f.7 O a
J'o ;, :,0,,Z.D"•7 t :' „(.• •✓! • i Iia t.
1 . .Gt 61:0C S\ �•. , , e .a ! 1 • .**1' i"c ;P:.
Nit �.. .'^ , / J
Niejl
C)
•
I___<}co g .9�c,9 •• ,� .l o?_ •, co.yf:" w N .60 �\ •t r 4i • ••5 r. 4 ` . '
.� - .GG.E:.:+. A. .. .t 'X 1l.6s,,.7 -,.,, ".661•x 5 Z �'• Q y _
-- [rr yt ' ' �, N^ :d.s<j6r Irm
~�'g• • 1_ 19 •
( �47-, s. 1
3.s brx • [ter ; Ih. ,-7� r+y,. •� r
�',sieve, ^ t Y �1 % / 0 1 - ,
$� • SG 6r 11••/1• OfV-; • 00,Lr, ''b '>.--� -4'� ��/ �' O V,a5�
/
rJ "01 qtr
•
J „ 9. . 1 990 �t •E ! •a" :-� \�y r•�, t• 10?•7
. 1% q,4.•� i- I' • 6� 9� Yo o"fit •�•• '• '. e� r9'S7 • I
th
• CC�- Y - A G .G00 N , N 07'5•'1•: w ['- q ,0. . �• In 10 /.l•l7' / 6•I d0^ .•'J !1
i^77--, .5,'94,7 ..t a•9+.j:N .J7 N.\ •V 1^ wW'6I'!. •s.•_' 'M ff.tgPo ..l!
ii.. •4 Of'0f .6°40 e.b M �y �' ,/b6�•9 !per Q L. ` 'It S I
I SOS7 g •16 %9 .,e N 116 frr�— - —675 IP-321- — 9• �! /1.4'.4,. es, /,-
N.04, J.'7.
• ,`, N� yt •' l � a • ' ` rev �.
• : 4 'ri: 6° .4. 4, a.,e 47 N n i ^ ` `'' `gam / e.,::ei r .
it,...„....
ii,
18 11111•s\� 6e ��CPy�C. i C4 k c6
0,4
0 • •�/ 6�7� -7r •
S 7' D 1. l• h 7 7.6J N .1`27' ) • / "✓✓ /At
.N� • �\,,.�� ,d�t6••02. 99. _—T .-L. 6'10 -.-r _ i''' ./ 477' y'• • j
r 41Q.••..
.-t ° ,,t, - % "P4 ...• .„,....,..- ---.--- ilia! I i /,0•-- 41
--r-t.„;;E„,..,. • • • -f k 14 7' :..?" ''')'4? . / r art, I; •
•
-- `-01D— `r6r0,. 44 •Qr .- !]^___ : r• 1 .�0.q 0/ `, ' • • 8���^ j 4+,'/f �%
e ' 1 . ars .q.� 3 :.r •': a -,'".1...,.
'.,� e , 1
S. m 307;'1!5-'•-P.•--A...1.-EV,-
. • 'x 414,iiW
• � .�I
/ •
�s
CITY of _ . : ....
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
November 10, 1994
Re: Lake Ann Highlands Public Hearing
Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and Wetland Alteration Permit
Dear Resident:
The public hearing for the Lake Ann Highlands preliminary plat;rezoning, and wetland
alteration permit has been deleted from the Planning Commission agenda for Wednesday,
November 16, 1994. The public hearing is being rescheduled to Wednesday, December 7,
1994, in the Chanhassen City Council Chamber, 690 Coulter Drive, at 7:30 p.m.
If you want to see plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours,
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this
project, please contact Bob at 937-1900, extension 141.
Bluff Creek Partners
Hi-Way 5 Partnership Michael J. Gorra Larry & Elizabeth Vandeveire
c/o Dennis Dirlam 1680 Arboretum Dr. 4890 Co. Rd. 10 E
15421 Creekside Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
David Stockdale & Douglas & Theresa Bentz Darleen Turcotte
Angie McBryde Stockdale 7280 Galpin Blvd. 7240 Galpin Blvd.
7210 Galpin Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
John Hennessy & D. Rengers Theodore & Marlene Bentz J. P.'s Links, Inc.
7305 Galpin Blvd. 7300 Galpin Blvd. c/o John Przymus
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 642 Santa Vera
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Michael & Kristine Perry Mark & Sharon Pryor Jean Kingsrud
7521 Windmill Dr. 7541 Windmill Dr. 2027 Brinker Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Kevin & Joan Joyce Robert & Carol Obersigner Brian R. Erdman
2043 Brinker Street 2075 Brinker Street 2091 Brinker Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 • Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jeffrey R. Stone Amit & Ruth Diamond Collin & Desiree Brown
2103 Brinker Street 2117 Brinker Street 2131 Brinker Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Julie Wojtanowski The Rottlund Company Kathleen Hademan
2145 Brinker Street Suite 301 2059 Brinker Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317 5201 East River Road Chanhassen, MN 55317
Fridley, MN 55421
Dawn Ronningen Jeff Steinke Blane Hammer
7471 Tulip Court 7481 Windmill Drive 7421 Windmill Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Joel Reimers Rick Manning David & Cindy Jensen
7495 Crocus Court 7460 Windmill Drive 2173 Brinker Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Allan and Mary Jane Olson Kathy Haldeman Ed & Kathy Loveridge
7461 Windmill Drive 2059 Brinker Street 7508 Tulip Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Charles & Bonnie Lou Peterson James & Jeanette Freidler Ross Fefercorn
7496 Crocus Court 7500 Windmill Drive Suite 145
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 7625 Metro Blvd.
Minneapolis, MN 55439
Steve Selinger Virginia Bell Joy Bott
7480 Windmill Drive 7476 Brinker Street 7490 Tulip Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dawn Cook-Ronninger Patricia Lynch Lars Conway
7471 Tulip Court 7475 Crocus Court 4415 Fremont Ave. S.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minneapolis, MN 55409
Wendy Stove
2103 Brinker Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317
•
.►f77,i
CounyHome rC.:_ ._-
iei-a�a:' f�t.
[ 1q^
November 18, 1994
Dear Neighbor:
Enclosed please find a picture postcard which depicts a typical "street-scape" of one of our
award winning communities, Woodland CountryHomes in Eagan.
Please note the abundance of landscaping and the architectural characteristics which has
become our hallmark.
We look forward to discussing our proposed development at Lake Ann Highlands with you
sometime in the near future.
Please feel free to contact either myself or Brad, we would be happy to answer any questions
that you may have.
Regards,
• J
Ross M. Fefercorn Brad Johnson
President Broker
CountryHome Builders Lotus Realty
P.S. We are pleased to announce that our 1994 Parade of Homes Model in Woodbury was
awarded the prestigious 1st place Reggie Award in the $185,000 to $284,000 single-
s family attached category by the Builders Association of the Twin Cities.
Development Office
7625 Metro Boulevard.Suite 145
Minneapolis.Minnesota 55439
(612 835-4126
■
Construction Office
6648 Rustic Road Southeast
Prior Lake.Minnesota 55372
(612)447-2424
$
Building ommunities
of fine carefree homes
•
• •fhle.-.: 0,7
•
iv
•
s� k
_wiws.0•Lowat
..4-z. 'ow ::4116-244-11: ...411PC-:. . 411111e:- .
_
_ .i .„._ -..4 .6 -,
_ a 4 1 If
CounyHome
November 23, 1994
Dear Neighbor:
We would like to invite you to a neighborhood informational meeting to be held on
Wednesday, November 30, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall regarding the possible development
at Lake Ann Highlands.
At this meeting, I will present to you some background information on CountryHomes and
provide you with an overall view of a typical CountryHome development .
Brad will also bring you up to date on the Highway 5, Arboretum Blvd development.and the
overall plan for Dr. Conway's property. Representatives will also be available from BRW to
answer any questions you might have.
We hope to see you there!
regards,
IN/
Rbs+s'l . of r orn Brad Johnson
President Broker
CountryHome Builders Inc. Lotus Realty
■
Development Office
7625 Metro Boulevard.Suite 145
Minneapolis,Minnesota 55439
(612)835-4126
■
Construction Office
6648 Rustic Road Southeast
Prior Lake.Minnesota 55372
(612)447-2424
RECEIVED
NOV 2 t 1994
Building communities
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
of fine carefree homes
CAMPBELL , k:NUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A Nov 29 ,94 16 :57 No .012 P .02
11.
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A.
Attorneys ar Law
I h»n.i•�.C;, „1 l cll (612)452-5LXV
RnffrN.Knutson FAX (61 2)152-5550
Thoma..M Scam
(;,,r‘
R \x'a1<ton
Elkin 11. Kn;r.4 h November 29, 1994
I.b•.a1,011 A.1_un_rr
A,,,lrv.i ,%;ell ro,hi, VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL
Ms. Kate Aanenson
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Concept Plan Review for Revised
- • I - inl.n ,. • �
Dear Kate:
I NTROAUCTLON •
The Planning Commission will be reviewing a Concept Plan for a revised Tower
Heights Plat on December 7. The matter will go to the Council on December 12.
This concept review is to obtain input and direction from the Planning
Commission and City Council concerning a potential resolution of the on-going litigation
over the Nez Perce extension. In a nutshell, the potential settlement involves the
construction of Nez Perce to Pleasant View Road as planned, with the Tower Heights
Plat being revised to access from Lake Lucy Road.
If the Lake Lucy Road access to the plat is not acceptable, there will be no
settlement discussions. If this access is acceptable, we will attempt to finalize a
settlement with Beddor, subject to City Council approval of the overall settlement and
formal application and approval of the new plat.
pISCUSSJON
Frank Beddor recently approached the City about settling his on-going lawsuit in
which he seeks to prevent the City on environmental grounds from constructing the
extension of Nez Perce to Pleasant View Road. In July, Carver County District Court
Judge Robert Goggins dismissed the lawsuit. Mr. Beddor has appealed that decision to
the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Attached is a copy of attorney Lawrence Moloney's
November 9 letter outlining the settlement proposal.
There are four major components to Beddor's settlement proposal:
SU it(' 117 • Eagandak Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121
CHMFBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P . A Nov 29 , 94 16 : 57 No .012 P .03
Ms. Kate Aanenson
November 29, 1994
Page 2
First, Nez Perce Drive will be extended to Pleasant View Road as planned.
Second, Beddor will donate to the City the right of way for the Nez Perce
extension. The City will drop its plans to acquire Beddor's entire parcel.
Third, the Tower Heights Plat would be revised to provide for access to the 13-lot
subdivision from Lake Lucy Road to the south by the 50-foot outlot owned by the City
instead of from Pleasant View Road to the north.
Fourth, Beddor will reach an agreement concerning the revised plat with the
present Tower Heights developer, whose preliminary plat was approved in July of 1993.
Beddor's attorney has assured us that such an agreement will be in place by December 7.
There are other matters which will need to be addressed in any settlement. One
item is the amount of the assessment against Beddor's property for the Nez Perce
construction costs. The City may also need a larger ponding easement from Beddor.
The goal is to accomplish the extension of Nez Perce to Pleasant View Road in
1995 at the least amount of additional expense. The settlement would put an end to the
current environmental lawsuit and any potential additional lawsuits relating to the City's
condemnation proceedings involved in acquiring Beddor's lot. We are scheduled to
submit an extensive brief to the Court of Appeals in February and have oral arguments
in late Spring. Beddor will most assuredly petition the State Supreme Court for further
review should his current appeal by unsuccessful.
1 will be at the December 7 Planning Commission meeting. A representative of
Mr. Beddor will also be present.
Please call if you have any questions.
Best regards,
CAMPBEL KNUTSON, SCOTT
& FU H',_P.A.
Lit By:
TMS:slc Thomas M. Scott
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Lawrence Moloney
CAMPBELL . KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P . A Nov 29 ,94 16 :58 No . 012 P . 04
DOHERTY
„.0 5li7StFntll:h1:Fifth
Stntv:cI rs 27 r a 1Corld 7r.dv(enlcr lrr RadnF
30[+>:`' VT1llr 1(25 .ri.(M.?.ihot Cri:r
12th)S.,cnritnth rye
:
RUMBLE \::nesota�4O?-4234 Sant DO.Minnr,•4eSSSOI-4999 Cashinglor. )r.2016 1203 Nnvil,Col,r,id• s0202.Nr,2N
tlrphonc(612)140.5555 TririLrne(612;291.5:33 (202,293-0555 klerh.nc MI;572.6:W
UBUTLER 'FAX
(612)39:.-;;,4 FAX lc•12l 24:-9313 FAX 2021 t. -04& FAX( tt)57:.t?03
rx.�l Lt•`Io1AL ASt.vt.1A111.)\
Atlorncy6 at Law Writcr•s d;r.::dia:ntimb. : (612) 340-5592 hcply to klinne p.}1i�o!f icc
November 9, 1994
VIA FACBIM1LE
Thomas M. Scott, Esq.
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT
& FUCHS, P.A.
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, Minnesota 55121
RE: Beddor, et al. v. City of Chanhassen et al.
Court File No. C9-93-1111
Dear Tom:
As you know, we have filed a Notice of Appeal in the above-
captioned suit . Thus both the Plaintiffs and the City of
Chanhassen will soon be obliged to focus their time and resources
on preparing the appellate briefs and record citations and on
arguing the case before the Court of Appeals. Further, on the
horizon is the prospect of additional appeals and the condemnation
proceedings.
This quiet before the next storm seemed a good time to explore
whether emotions had cooled to the point where a reasonable
compromise might be reached between the interested parties. With
this thought in mind, I have recently informally explored some
settlement ideas with you, and you have requested that I put them
in writing so that they may be considered by the City Council .
This letter is written in response to your request.
The concepts expressed in this letter are not intended to be
a firm offer because some of them could not be implemented unless
certain contingencies take place which are not in the control of
either Plaintiffs, or the City. Nonetheless, the tentative
proposals made here are offered seriously, in good faith, and with
the belief that if the City is agreeable to these concepts, the
prospects are good that the disputes between the Plaintiffs,
including Mr. Beddor, and the city, can be finally laid to rest.
At the very outset of this controversy it became evident that
the principle concern of the City has been to proceed with the
extension of Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road. While
PlaintiffG _ and many other residents of the impacted area . have
CAMPBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P .A Nov 29 ,94 16 :59 No .012 P .05
DOHERTY
RUMBLE
BUTLER ER . Thomas M. Scott, Esq.
rRctttiy�c:A At,SOcIAT1 November 9 , 1994
Page 2
opposed this extension of Nez Perce Drive on safety grounds, we
understand that the City has rejected these objections. As we
understand the City's position, the extension is deemed desirable
because a north-south connector road is needed and because the
extension would allay countervailing safety concerns of homeowners
on Lake Lucy Road who feel that too much traffic is being diverted
onto their street. In addition, some City representatives have
insisted that one of the Plaintiffs, Mr. Beddor, had previously
supported the extension of Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road,
and that the extension was a "done deal" which had been too often
revisited by the City Council . On this basis, the City determined
in May, 1993 to authorize the official mapping of the Nez Perce
Drive extension and to condemn the parcel often referred to at
trial as Beddor Lot 5.
The core of our proposal to the City would be to drop
Plaintiffs' opposition to the extension of Nez Perce Drive . In
fact, Mr. Beddor would be willing, assuming other conditions are
met, to donate to the City the right-of-way necessary for the
extension of Nez Perce Drive. Under this scenario, Mr. Beddor
would retain the ownership of the balance of Lot 5, eliminating the
need for the City to incur legal expenses in the condemnation
proceeding, or to pay Mr. Beddor for any condemned property.
In exchange, the City would simply approve the replatting of
the Tower Heights Addition property so as to provide access through
Outlot A. As you know, Outlot A was originally obtained by the
City in the mid 198O's for this specific purpose. Representatives
of the City's planning staff and engineering staff have previously
indicated that using this access route is feasible. In fact, this
access route has certain benefits which might even be acknowledged
by the City outside of the courtroom, such as saving several mature
trees, and the diversion of some stormwater from Christmas Lake, a
resource that both of our experts opined was precious and
vulnerable.
We are cognizant of the fact that the City has already
approved the preliminary plat for the Tower Heights Addition
development which calls for an access road to the north. We
recognize that some form of agreement would have to be reached with
JMS in order to make our proposal work. While no such agreement
has been reached, we are willing to make a good faith effort to
reach agreement with JMS to address any concerns that it might
have, if the City is open to our proposal. On the other hand, if
the City is not open to these concepts, the prospect of an
agreement with JMS is eliminated, and we will be obliged to return
to the litigation process, and any other means at our disposal to
oppose the City's proposed actions.
CRMFBELL , KNUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , P . R Nov 29 ,94 17 : 00 No .012 P . 06
DOHERTY
RUMBLE
BUTLER Thomas M. Scott, Esq.
PR r ,,EdC),AL AssociA7J November 9 , 1994
Page 3
I believe that we presently have an opportunity to finally put
this controversy behind us. Our proposal allows the City to
achieve its principle goal and eliminates the cost of land
acquisition and legal costs which would otherwise be required by
the effort to condemn Lot 5. Environmental concerns that should
also be of concern to the City would be addressed. The safety
concerns of the Lake Lucy Road homeowners would be allayed given
that the bulk of the traffic at issue would be diverted to the
Nez Perce Drive extension. Any new traffic on Lake Lucy Road from
the Tower Heights Addition would be minimal given that traffic from
that development may be expected to usually turn toward County
Road 17 , and would be very minor in any event.
The outlet A access would require minor variances which the
City should have no concern about granting. The City has recently
acted to widen the standard for residential streets, but our
proposal would merely require that the access road be built to the
width the City would have required until a few months ago.
Moreover, the two homes adjacent to Outlot A will be a few feet
within the front setback requirement of the City.
However, we believe that the benefits of our proposals far
outweigh the costs. We sincerely hope that the City is of a mind
to enter into a compromise which is not merely reasonable, but
beneficial to the City. If you have any questions, or want me or
other representatives of the Plaintiffs to meet with City officials
to discuss our ideas, please let me know. You should be aware that
we are under some time pressure and need within the next few days
an indication of whether the City is willing to settle the pending
litigation on the basis of our proposals. The opportunity
presented to the parties to end the litigation may be short-lived.
Therefore, please provide me the response of the City as soon as
possible.
Sincerely,
f='y.
Lawrence A. Moloney
L.ANan E7a5e
cc: Frank Beddor, Jr.
Julius C. Smith, Esq.
David C. Sellergren, Esq.
Todd A. Noteboom, Esq.
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
our areas that are just adjacent to their's. So that 's. . .issue.
Councilman Senn: Isn't that something we evaluate ourselves first?
Mayor Chmiel : To a certain point we do, right . But this also becomes involved
where upon Council would look at that and view that and come up with conclusions
as well . Colleen?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: As I understand it , it's just a 3 year study to look
into the possibility. We're not recommending any collaboration or anything at
this point .
Mayor Chmiel : No. That 's correct .
Councilwoman Dockendorf: And I'm just curious. I don't want to throw this
comment back in your face Don but you say we're tired of being kicked around. I
didn't understand what that meant .
Don Ashworth: I think we provide a very good service level for our community
and I think we've provide it in a very cost effective manner. But it seems as
though the Governor's office has continued to take and say, cities are bad guys
and others and quite truthfully I'm tired of being kicked around. I'd just as
soon stand up. Show people what it is we do and why we do it and to prove that
we are a cost efficient government .
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Alright , thanks .
Mayor Chmiel: Good point . Any other discussion?
Councilman Mason: I'd like to move approval of item 2(f) .
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the
Memorandum of Agreement for Metrpolitan Council to provide technical assistance
in program review and analysis to Lake Minnetonka area cities. All voted in
favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of
4 to 1.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
EXTENSION OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE, FRANK BEDDOR.
Public Present:
Name Address
Sherry Novacyzk 6371 Pleasant View Cove
John Fess 6280 Ridge Road
Tami Falkowsky 850 Western Drive
Jeff B 850 Western Drive
Gary McCauley 420 Pleasant View Road
Curtis Anderson 500 Plesaant View Road
5
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
Name Address
Jonathan Smith 7600 France Ave So, Minneapolis
Birgitte Wyller Bernstsen 1050 Pleasant View Road
Michelle Beddor 850 Pleasant View Road
David Beddor 1050 Pleasant View Road
Todd Cocallas 860 Vineland Court
Jame Ledin 840 Vineland Court
Steven Jaeger 880 Vineland Court
David & Linda Lyndahl 6501 Nez Perce Drive
Don & Darlene Miller 395 Pleasant View Road
Dan & Sharon Rogers 6500 Nez Perce Drive
Renelle R. Ulrich 6581 Nez Perce Drive
David & Paula Donna 881 Vineland Court
Frederic Bruno 6560 Fox Path
Steve Beddor 1010 Pleasant View
Gail Dorn 1010 Pleasant View
Jim & Mary Stasson 6400 Peaceful Lane
Mike & Mary Meuwissen 6580 Troendle Circle
Frank & Marilyn Beddor 910 Pleasant View Road
Darlene J. Lyndsey 7951 Powers Blvd.
Daryl Fortier Golden Valley
David Sellergren St . Paul
Julius C. Smith Chaska
Bill & Ann Miller 6561 Fox Path
W.P. & B.J. Gullickson 830 Pleasant View Road
Laurie Curnow 650 Pleasant View Road
Larry Tivy 370 Pleasant View
Jeff & Norma May 745 Pleasant View
John & Jan Nicolay 608 Pleasant View Road
Peg Scheletzche 680 Pleasant View
Karen Robideau 540 Pleasant View
David Kelly 6580 Nez Perce Drive
Jerry & Teri Frederick 660 Pleasant View Road
David & Valerie Rossbach 670 Pleasant View Road
A.W. Owens 6535 Peaceful Lane
Kenneth Lincap 6735 Nez Perce Drive
Kimberly Murphy 6870 Nez Perce Drive
John Schevenius 570 Pleasant View Road
Conrad & Michelle Eggan 6500 Peaceful Lane
Greg & Barbara Hedlund 748 Lake Point
Marlow Peterson 1180 Pleasant View Road
Lynda Johnson 1140 Pleasant View Road
Hank 855 Pleasant View
John M. Cunningham 6665 Horseshoe Curve
Gordy & Patsy Whiteman 825 Pleasant View
Sharon Graef 855 Pleasant View Road
Jim Meyer 6225 Ridge Road
Steve McKinnon 941 Lake Lucy Road
Jeff Schoenwetter J.M.S. Development
Ron & Karen Green 1021 Lake Lucy Road
Teresa & Dan Schrempp 1041 Lake Lucy Road
Bryce, Shelly, Luke & Katie Fier 1040 Lake Lucy Road
6
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
Name Address
Todd & Gayle Lantto 981 Lake Lucy Road
Jim & Sue Duchene 961 Lake Lucy Road
Mary Jo Olson 1020 Lake Lucy Road
Terry Bauk 960 Lake Lucy Road
Len Kluver 1080 Lake Lucy Road
Jenny Johnson 1061 Lake Lucy Road
Jan Hansen 1081 Lake Lucy Road
Darryl & Liz Ann Wills 1060 Lake Lucy Road
Rodd Johnson 1061 Lake Lucy Road
Ron Green 1021 Lake Lucy Road
Mayor Chmiel: Paul , prior to Mr. Beddor conveying his presentation, I would
like you to provide the Council some of the background that we have done with
this particular project . So just sort of a refresher and I think you've
probably all read it but I think there may be something you may have to add to
it .
Paul Krauss: Sure Mr. Mayor. The original roadway concept was developed in
1989 with the Vineland Forest plat . At that time the city contemplated running
the internal street in Vineland Forest between Lake Lucy and Pleasant View Road.
Mr. Beddor , and several others, raised concerns with potential traffic issues on
Pleasant View and it was agreed that the city should study options that minimize
the potential for problems and minimize the concerns before they ever had a
chance to occur. Staff developed 4 alternative road alignments. Ultimately the
City Council selected what was referred to as Alternative #3 which has really
served as the guiding document for all the city decisions since 1989. That does
show a connection, generalized a connection between Pleasant View and Nez Perce
via the Peaceful Lane intersection. The plat , the Vineland Forest plat was
approved based upon the plan for the connection. Every home buyer in Vineland
Forest is put on notice through notice in the chain of title that the road's to
be extended and there was a temporary cul-de-sac constructed with a barricade
that had a sign on it that said this road is to be extended. The Lake Lucy Road
loop that 's recently being billed as a solution by some was studied in the 1989
document , which I included in your packet . It doesn't show up on the
alternatives but we did go through an analysis of all the potential connections
into the Vineland Forest , Troendle, Owens area and it was dismissed at that
time. Largely because it really didn't resolve the access issues. Because it
would have impacted lots on Lake Lucy Road and because there was some grade
questions. Grade's not impossible. It could be done but it was pointed out as
a problem. I should point out that where that Lake Lucy Road loop is now being
proposed is an outlot that was acquired by the city a number of years ago
potentially for right-of-way. Homes have since been built on Lake Lucy Road on
those two adjoining lots. Since we didn't anticipate this road, or this outlot
coming back as a road, those two homes were built with less than the required
front yard setbacks on what 's in essence their side yards, which would face this
outlot . One is 25 feet from the right-of-way. The other's 27 feet and I
haven't been inside the homes but it looks like the orientation is that , because
the garages are away from the outlot , that some of the living space is actually
focused on the area that is in the outlot . So again that was studied. City
code does require a 20 foot setback if a street 's to be put through there.
There would be a variance situation that would result . There would probably be
7
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
some fair sized impacts to those homes as well. In 1990 Mr. Beddor brought
forward plans to develop the Troendle Addition. Lake Lucy Road residents were
very concerned and were very vocal at that time about having all the growing
levels of traffic into the Vineland Forest , Troendle Addition coming down Lake
Lucy Road, Nez Perce in front of their homes. They came to the Council meeting
and asked that no approvals be granted for the plat until the road connection
was made. Mr . Beddor's representatives indicated strong support for the
connection as illustrated in Minutes and materials that were submitted by them.
However, they indicated that the connection was ultimately out of their hands at
that point since the last piece of the puzzle is the Owens parcel and that was
in a bankruptcy proceeding at that time. They indicated that they were
negotiating on that parcel and would be cooperative with the city. The Council
considered limiting the number of lots that could be built on the Troendle
Addition. I don't know if all of you recall but you actually approved it
preliminarily with I think only 6 lots being allowed, if memory serves.
Ultimately we sat down with Mr. Beddor's representatives and negotiated an
arrangement whereby they were allowed to proceed with the entire plat based on
the road connection ultimately being made incrementally, which was always it 's
design, and that they would pay $10,000.00 towards the ultimate cost of that
road which was computed to be what would have been assessed to those lots had
they had a road project existed. A development contract was. . .and I understand
that the money was, or a letter of credit was deposited for it . Similarly with
the Vineland Forest plat , the Troendle Addition homeowners were also put on
notice that the road is to be extended. The city then approved a grading plan
which allowed Mr. Beddor to regrade and landscape the ponding area on the Owens
parcel. This was approved based upon the determination that finish grading
would still allow the connection to be made and that reasonable development of
the site with single family homes would remain possible. There has since been
related a smaller scale actions including, that were related to the road
connection including a small lot division in Vineland Forest . And again, we
have exhibits that were prepared by Mr. Fortier on behalf of Mr. Beddor
illustrating how that connection would be made. The Owens parcel cleared
bankruptcy and was sold in two pieces. Mr. Beddor acquired the north half while
another developer has purchased the south. The owner of the south half
currently has a plat pending that 's based upon the approval of the connection to
Pleasant View Road. It was scheduled for last week's Planning Commission
meeting but in light of the fact that you were discussing roadway issues and we
couldn't really act on the plat without the roadway being determined, we pulled
it from the agenda to await your decision. At the same time we received that
plat , Mr. Beddor 's representatives announced opposition to the street connection
and implied that they would be building a home that would sit in the propose
alignment . We've since had exhibits that show where that home would be. When
this came up before the Troendle Addition, staff was asked to bring this item
back to the Council within 18 months or when anything significant occurred on
it . We did bring it back to the Council in May. We did bring it to you asking
that you consider official mapping or some other mechanism to at least reserve
the right-of-way through there so that the road connection could ultimately be
made. The Council at that point elected to order the condemnation of the
right-of-way and that was the last official action that was taken on this
proposal. There's a tremendous amount of information of one sort or another
that circulated on this issue. Staff continues to believe that the connection
makes sense from a traffic safety, for vision of emergency and maintenance
services, traffic equity and good planning practices standpoint . We'd be happy
8
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
to expand on each of those if desired but we've prepared numerous staff reports
that go into them in detail. With that I would close, except I'd like to add a
comment on some of the calls that we've been getting. There seems to be an
implication that the City was studying or is thinking about studying the
widening of Nez Perce south of Lake Lucy Road or Pleasant View Road itself, or
additional connections into the Fox Chase subdivision. None of those are in
fact the case. None of those have been talked about in the 4 years I've been
involved with this issue. With that Mr. Mayor, that 's the background on it .
Mayor Chmiel : Okay. Thank you. Don, do you.
Don Ashworth: If I could Mr. Mayor. The City Council can be reasonably assured
that you will have 50 or more residents from Lake Lucy Road expounding upon the
dangers that exist on that roadway and the terrible impact that will be created
if Mr. Beddor 's 15 to 20 lot subdivision is reconnected to Lake Lucy Road. City
Council can also reasonably expect 50 or more residents from Pleasant View
expounding upon the dangers of that roadway and the terrible impact that will
occur if Mr. Beddor's 15 to 20 lot subdivision is allowed to connect to Pleasant
View. Property owners along Lake Lucy Road will be asking the Council not to
reconsider the decision that was made by the previous Council and Mr. Beddor 4
years ago. Property owners on Pleasant View will be asking that the Council act
to reconsider that decision. I believe it is reasonable to state that property
owners on both Pleasant View and Lake Lucy Road can contend that they made
decisions to purchase or sell relying upon their reading of the Minutes where
Mr . Beddor received his approval, relied upon the signs that were posted showing
the new connection, and relied upon the covenants which were placed on each of
the lots which showed that connection would be made to Pleasant View. I don't
think that the current Council should get caught in the dilemma as to the
effects of 15 or 20 lots on either of the two streets. The sole question to be
answered is, did Mr. Beddor portray how the traffic from his new subdivision
could best gain access to and from their properties and had the City Council
agree with Mr . Beddor's presentation. Unfortunately we cannot go back and
eliminate the 15 to 20 lots. Accordingly, the only issue we can reasonably
review is whether or not that decision had been made and whether or not Mr .
Beddor had made those commitments as a condition of his plat approval . If
there's a liability issue, it currently rests with Mr. Beddor. Staff cannot
recommend that liability now be shifted to the city. Reconsideration cannot be
recommended.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Mr. Beddor. If you'd like to go through your
presentation as to what you have.
Frank Beddor: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I didn't realize I was such a bad guy. I
would like to have, if I could, I'd like to have Daryl assist me. I don't have
overheads but I would like to show a couple of plats, or boards. I appreciate
the opportunity to come here before I would like, before I start to clear the
air on a few items. In one of the memorandums that went out by the city it
sounded as though I was questioning the integrity of the Minutes that were kept
at the last meeting. The last meeting of the 24th I was unable to attend and I
had Daryl Fortier and Jules Smith attend. Well, sometime after that I read the
Minutes of the meeting and when I read these Minutes I was very upset and I
called Jules and I said Jules, what were you doing at that meeting? I didn't
see one word in there where you made a presentation about our solution. Jules
9
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
said well, I certainly made the presentation. Maybe they ran out of tape.
Maybe they were changing tape, so I said fine. Then I called Daryl and I said
Daryl, I just read the Minutes and I said, I know that Jeff, the developer of
Owens' is a nice young guy but why were you up making presentations on his
behalf? He said well that was an error. They probably should have put , they
just accidentally put my name down instead of his. I said okay, I can
understand that . I said but how come you didn't make any presentations on the
solution? He said, well I don't know. I made the presentation and what I put
in this little mailing was, is that it was a coincidence that both
representatives that I had here, there was no mention in the Minutes about what
the solution was. And I apologize to the, either staff or Council if they felt
in my mailing I sent out I was trying to question the integrity. I think I used
the word coincidence. Incidentally, we have had some meetings with different
homeowners and I was very surprised at one of the meetings when one of the
Vineland people said to me, you know I can't sign this petition you have and the
reason I can't sign this petition is we signed a covenants. In our title
there's a covenants that says, give me a second. That we're not allowed to sign
this type of petition and I said, well I can't really believe that . I said I
have a developers agreement after that period. That 's not on my developers
agreement , I don't think. So I had Jules check it out and I kind of blew up a
copy of the 1989, December 18th of the developers agreement with Vineland Forest
and to read just part of it . It says, each owner purchasing a lot in Vineland
Forest agrees not to object to such a possible future roadway extension. So I
said, now that might not have anything to do with me or at Troendle's but then
we talked to the developer and he sent us a letter and he said that provision
was put in the covenants and the restrictions at the insistence of the City of
Chanhassen. Now I wasn't involved in that . At the time this came up we did not
own either Troendle's property and we didn't own Art Owens property. But if
this was such a, if 4 years ago here this was such a cut and dry deal, I wonder
why that wasn't put in our developers agreement . The other thing that , before I
start , that I 'd like to check on is, people are wondering why we're concerned
about Pleasant View Road being widened. Well, one of the reasons I'm concerned
about it , I 'll get into in just a second but at a meeting on August 8th, 1990
when we were applying for a plat , Jules called me and said well, I'm all set
with the plat . However, there's one last thing you have to do. Really two.
You have to donate or dedicate some land along, a strip along Pleasant View
Road. I said what do we need that for, and let me read what the memo I got from
Jules said. This is, he's quoting the staff. The reason that the staff stated,
one reason amongst others. You are dedicating this property to the city so that
they will own this property in the event that they wish to widened the road in
the future. And if it were not dedicated at this time, and they decided to
widened the road in the future, they'd have to condemn the property and
reimburse you for the value. Well of course my antenna went up when anybody
talks about widening the road. One other thing that did happen during that
time, so we dedicated the land. Now I didn't agree with that but I accepted it .
You know a lot of times you accept something, that sounds like an agreement but
I accpeted it because we didn't have any other choice. Another item we had to
accept was, and I probably take a little exception at this. That we pay
$10,000.00 for improving Nez Perce Road or making the extension. Well first , we
didn't pay $10,000.00. We issued the city a letter of credit to be drawn upon
when and if there is a new intersection. I was told that this $30,000.00 was
needed not to extend Nez Perce Drive, but where Pleasant View or where Peaceful
Lane and Pleasant View join, there's two great big wide swinging turns and they
10
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
wanted to bring that back into a T. So to make that T was going to cost
$30,000.00 so they couldn't assess Vineland anymore because they had already
settled with the city. So they were assessing Troendle's and I put up the
letter of credit because I didn't want it as an assessment . I had to have clear
title to the lots, and then they were going to assess whoever bought Art Owens
property and what they're going to do to the other $10,000.00, I don't know. But
you know it kind of sounds as though Frank Beddor knew all about this road. He
willingly put in money. He had to get his permit and he was going to contribute
towards the extension of Nez Perce Drive. And that 's not really true. I was
under the impression that this was for a T in the road. I do have one thing to
say to the, that I would like to address for a second to the Lake Lucy
residents. All of us that live on Nez Perce Road and Pleasant View sympathize
with your problems of increased traffic and speed and safety and maybe a partial
answer there would be stop signs and lowering the speed. But you know it was 8
or 9 years ago that we were at this same kind of a meeting and Pleasant View was
going to be widened at that time and we defeated that and if that road had gone
through at Pleasant View at that time, I don't think anybody from Lake Lucy
would be living on that road and I brought a plat just to show what that is .
What was proposed way back 8 or 9 years ago, when Near Mountain was going in,
was coming from TH 101, right straight across to Pleasant View Road. Down
behind Pat Cunningham's and right out where Lake Lucy is. My contention has
been to the Lake Lucy people is, that if we let this extension go through, it 's
going to create more traffic and now it 's going to be more traffic that 's going
to come on Nez Perce Drive, Pleasant View Road and also just the extra spillage
that 's going to come on Lake Lucy. So when the question comes up about we're
never going to extend. We never think we're going to widened Pleasant View
Road. We've gone through that . The residents that have been here, we've gone
through that before. I thought this was an impossible situation then and this
was already in my mind. At that time, if I remember right , was okayed by the
city and the Metropolitan and it was because all the homeowners came out , and
ever the developer was against it , of Near Mountain, that we defeated that
purpose. You know, tonight the statement was made that this is a Frank Beddor
issue and I don't think it 's a Frank Beddor issue. I don't feel I'm standing up
here alone tonight . We have the petition signed by 202 homeowners on Pleasant
View Road and Nez Perce Drive and Vineland and I don't think that it 's just
Frank Beddor . I believe that I'm representing a lot of other homeowners who
feel the same way I do. And I would like to briefly tell you how I envision
what happened since 1989. Daryl, can you put . In 1989 the developer came with
this plan, which was two cul-de-sacs to develop that property. And the city
evidentally objected to this and you have to remember at this time we did not
own, any of the other property. They wanted a cul-de-sac that comes up to the
property and then a short one off Pleasant View Road. And then city staff came
up with what we, the 4 plans you're talking about and what they recommended was
plan 4. And we violently opposed plan 4. Plan 4 connected a straight shot
through Pleasant View and we were all here at that meeting and what we
recommended was 3, which ended up being 3A. And that was as shown up here on
the plat , a cul-de-sac. Now we're talking that we agreed to it and we said
fine. That I agreed to it . We accepted it . That this was the road and
everybody from that point on was going to abide by this road. Well, if that
were true, you notice there's a big cul-de-sac going up in here. That cul-de-sac
is not in there. What we were concerned obviously was, and we always have been,
is the increased traffic. We voted for plan 3, not because we thought it was
the best plan but it was certainly better than plan 4. So we said, the people
11
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
who were here, and it was our understanding that this was going to be looked at
because nobody owned Troendle's property. Nobody owned Art Owens property. So
to say tonight that 4 years ago or in 1989 this was a cut and dry deal, I don't
feel that 's accurate. Now I was enthusiastically for 3. I sent out a petition
for 3. I got a lot of people here to vote for 3 because that was a lesser of
two evils. Then in March of '91 we purchased the Troendle property. And we did
it a little differently again than the city recommended. You know Pleasant View
Road has a character and it always has had the character of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 acre
lots and we've tried to keep it in that area. So we did not put the 7 or 8 lots
up that showed in the cul-de-sac on the plat as presumably was okay then. We
showed, we made one big lot on Pleasant View Road of 2 acres. And then we took
the Troendle house and made that into a lot off Nez Perce Drive and one other
one along side of it . And when we later purchased the Art Owens property, it
was a mess. The pond was a mess. In going back through the history, this
originally, that I found out , was caused by the city when they put the sewer in
in 1970. They cut off the drain. They didn't discover that until they put a
water tower in in 1980 and then the city went out and corrected that problem
with Art Owens but by the time he was supposed to correct his part , the city did
their part and he was supposed to correct his part . He was in a bankruptcy so
we wanted to go in and clean that area out . What we did, we ended up in our
plat with 3 lots on the south part and 11 lots in the back. And out of those 11
we exchanged 3 of them with the developer of Vineland for the 3 that were
running in tandem from Nez Perce to Pleasant View. So then the remaining 8 lots
we sold to a developer. Not , a homeowner, Michael Holmes. And then we platted
that and when we went for the plat , it was recommended we only have 6. The plat
was okayed. Not like it was in 1989. Not with the big cul-de-sac. Not with 7
or 8 more lots up in the south but there was 3 on one end, on the north end and
there was 11 on the back, 8 of which we ended up with and sold. Art Owens had
his property platted way back in 1989 and he showed in this front property,
which the city approved 5 lots on Pleasant View. We did a lot of research and
we looked, we talked with Art Owens and unfortunately Art Owens was caught up in
a bad bankruptcy proceeding with the government , which in my opinion was the
result of Art Owens standing up for his religious beliefs and the government
kind of took him to task. That may be a different item. But we purchased the 3
acres of Art Owens and then when we looked at putting in 5 lots, we found that
the cost to bring those lots. To dig down, get rid of all that muck, it 's kind
of in a wetland area. To bring it up to the right height would cost about
$70,000.00 per lot . So then we explored the possibility of two lots and we did
get a permit for grading and we kept in mind that there was a possibility of
someday that this could come through. Well, it took 2 years of negotiating with
Art Owens to get this cleared going through the bankruptcy court . During this
period of time I was informed by my legal counsel that Lot 5, Lot 5 is the whole
3 acre lot . That Lot 5 was one lot and we would not have to go to the city to
plat that if we wanted to just get a building permit to build one house, and we
looked at it . We thought well, that really makes more sense for just having one
house there. We never thought seriously that the, which I certainly was wrong,
that the city would ever think of condemning private property for an interplat
use and have to use taxpayers funds when it doesn't serve the whole community.
However, we did grade the property. We got a permit for that . Then things took
a little brighter look. At least in my mind. See but ever since 1989 I said
there's got to be a better way to develop all this property rather than bringing
excess traffic back through Pleasant View and Nez Perce because any connection's
going to increase it . So we came up with a plan which would be to take, go up
12
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
the driveway and go right back out Lake Lucy Road. And this would give 13 lots
and I said well, we're in the right direction. I think if we can think long
enough we can come up with a solution. However, after looking at that , there
was 3 pitfalls of this so we never brought this to the City. One was that the
grade was too steep. That we were told going up Lake Lucy. Second, it did not
help the Lake Lucy people because it did not get rid of the traffic that comes
onto the Troendle. But the third one was that you would have to tear out a lot
of trees to go up the driveway to Art Owens. So then we took a good look at
those trees and where the proposed development is now, still that development we
had, the same thing still holds true. If you look, going up this driveway, the
yellow is where the driveway presumably is and the white is the outside of that
driveway. This is going up the driveway. The next one is looking from the
driveway going back down. And the third one that we researched is, we went back
and counted all those trees and measured all those trees then we found that
there was between 20 to 33 trees going up that driveway and some of those trees
are 60 to 80 years old and to 100 years old. That was one of the reasons why we
never came back to the Council with this plat going straight thru. We thought ,
at one point I thought that was an answer because out of 13 lots, Pleasant View
would take half of them. Lake Lucy would take half of them and we'd eliminate
the connection. So we did not , we were looking at purchasing Art Owens southern
property but we felt his asking price was too high because what we wanted to do
was to leave his driveway alone. Come up to his house and make two big lots and
possibly maybe develop 7 lots in the back, exiting on Lake Lucy. This didn't
seem to be feasible from the standpoint of a cost standpoint so we did not
purchase the property. Then a nice young guy named Jeff bought the property. He
came to you with a plat and we met with Jeff. We met with him in our office and
we had a visit with him and he told us that he was not really concerned about
the road. He didn't want to get involved in the road issue. So I said, well do
you have any other suggestions? So we looked at this, this is the board we call
the problem. The way the road's going through. He said well rather than coming
up that driveway, he said maybe I'd like to come across your property and turn
in and come off Nez Perce Drive. Leave the road where it is but come up through
this area and not come up on the other side. So that was a good idea. It saved
all the trees but it didn't answer the one question about additional traffic. So
Jeff left and Jeff no more left and I thought , my lord. Daryl, there's
something we ought to check out . We're always talking about Lake Lucy for 4
years and that , that it 's too steep and what is it? 8% or 9% that 's too steep.
I said why don't you go over there and check that grade for me. And he did and
the next day he came back. The next day and said to me, that the grade going up
Lake Lucy is only 5.3%. The grade going up Nez Perce Drive going in the way
we're proposing it is 5.5% and the grade going up the way that the city is
agreeing to, or the developer wants it going up Owens is 10.5%. So now I'm
delighted. I said now we've got a real win-win-win-win situation. We could win
for the city because they don't have to condemn the property. The homeowners of
Nez Pence Drive and the homeowners of Pleasant View won't have any additional
traffic. We have a win situation for the developer. He gets 14 lots instead of
13. And in my opinion, we had a win situation for the Lake Lucy people because
anybody that lives in Art Owens or Troendles is going to come down Lake Lucy and
then take a left go right up into the area. So we thought that this solution
was great . And I said Daryl, I said Jules, we just thought of this a short
time, a week before this meeting so when people say they have explored these
possibilities, saw Lake Lucy before, I have never seen any plans for that
myself. So maybe, I'm sure somebody has but I suddenly thought we had an
13
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
original thought . I was all excited about having this solution so I said, go
over to the Council and tell them we've got a win-win-win-win situation. So
they did, and I couldn't be there and the conclusion, they came back. Nobody
even wanted to listen to the solution, or they'd listen to it but instead, my
property's condemned. Now, I'm not dishearten because we have another solution.
After that I happen to run into Art Owens and Art said you know there's one
thing Frankie I don't like about your proposal and that is that it comes too
close to my house. So I said okay, that 's a good concern. So I went back and I
said to Daryl, I said what if Marilyn and I sacrifice one of these lots. Lot 9.
The way the city would word that would be to dedicate that . What if we dedicate
that . Kind of like, it 's kind of like Clinton you know. You're not going to
pay more taxes. You're going to have a little sacrifice here. So he went back
and came across Lot 9 and came back out this way. The developer still gets 13
lots. 12 plus the house and I said, we're not going to have to take any trees
down on either end so I thought that was the best deal. Now, the reason I'm
here tonight is, and I appreciate your time and your efforts to let me speak
tonight . First , I don't feel that this is a Frank Beddor issue. I don't feel
that I ever signed a contract or said yes, I absolutely agree that this is going
to go through. And it probably is a little disheartening to me to think that
you would sign a contract with someone like Vineland and put it in that he will
not fight back. And a year afterwards I buy the property, why wasn't that put
in my contract . We've been trying to keep, we've been trying to stay, not this
one Daryl. Let 's see, I'll leave that one on. So what I'm asking tonight of
the Council is for you to, yeah. Is for you just to rethink or to give another
chance and go back and take a look. It was 4 years ago that decision was made.
Now isn't there anybody here that made a decision 4 year ago and later, if
nothing was happened, they made another decision and found the better decision
for it . So I'm officially asking tonight that the, and I'm requesting,
respectfully requesting, that the city of Chanhassen do the following. Order a
preparation of an update of a feasibility study which would add Lake Lucy option
to it because before we had two options. 3 and 4 and now we have a third one.
And you know in that you could include the total cost . Including the land
acquisition. The new ownership interest . The difference between what would
happen if in Peaceful Lane or if you went up south of Lake Lucy. What the
impact on tree removal would be. The impact on the slopes. The storm sewer
issue. But even more important than that , and before that 's done, I think it
would be wise if the city on their own would prepare an environmental assessment
worksheet . This would analyze the traffic. That 's the traffic on Lake Lucy and
the traffic on Pleasant View. You know since 4 years ago there's a lot of new
people that moved in. There's some Council people here that weren't there 4
years ago. They could look at the safety of the traffic issue and the air
pollution, the tree removal and the wetland impact . Darlene, can I have those.
This is what I'm requesting. Would you bring me up those. Mayor , pass those
out to each of the members there. Mr. Mayor , I've given you all the original
copies of the petition and I've given everybody else here a type written copy,
alphabetized, there are 202 residents in this area who are all taxpayers. Who
are all voters and they are homeowners who feel the same way we do and I do not
feel that this is a Frank Beddor issue, and I do not feel that I stand alone . I
feel that I have the support and I'm just 1 of 200 that are standing here
tonight and I would hope that the Council would listen to the overwhelming, the
voice of the overwhelming majority. Thank you very much.
14
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I just didn't want this to take up much more time
with all the applause. I'd like to ask Council for any of this reconsideration
and I'd like to start with Mark. Mark, do you have any comments or questions
that you may have regarding this?
Councilman Senn: I don't know, I wasn't here I guess 4 years ago when all this
came up one way or the other. The thing that strikes me the most about it is
that , from everything I've now received and read I know 50 some letters and 50
some phone calls I think. There was a lot of information to be had. The thing
that strikes me the most out of it is, is that there's really an apparent safety
problem on Lake Lucy Road. You go look at Lake Lucy Road and it 's kind of hard
to disagree with that premise or that assumption. A lot of traffic moves
through there and it moves through there at a pretty good clip. At the same
tine I look at it and I say, well the solution for Lake Lucy Road isn't to move
the problem. Or split the problem. Or to redefine the problem. And then I get
back to looking at the overall issue of should the extension go through or
shouldn't it . I'm not prepared tonight to say whether the extension should go
through or shouldn't go through. I don't think I have anywhere near enough
information to make that judgement tonight . I hoped to spend some time with
Charles this week before the meeting but he's on vacation so that kind of made
that impossible. From a traffic standpoint it seems to me that , there are
traffic controls and there are ways to control traffic. There's ways to reduce
speeds and there's ways to reduce traffic through a given area. The ultimate
solution here may be the extension. But either way if you look at the amount of
traffic going through that area, I think ultimately not only the extension is
the issue but also what safety controls or what traffic controls are you going
to put into place to assure that you don't grade or further exasperate a bad
safety condition. And I'm not sure I'm always on the same side as staff is that
way because I'm not as opposed to cul-de-sacs as they are and I'm not as opposed
to what I'm going to call traffic safety measures or traffic barriers as I think
staff is . I would really like to look further into the issue and really make
sure that we solve a traffic safety problem and not create another one. That 's
what I guess I look at the real issue as being. You know not whether a street
is extended or not . In looking at that , I don't know if all the alternatives
again have been looked at or not . I mean I've had a quick couple of weeks to
read a lot of memorandums and letters but again I wouldn't say that 's anywhere
near adequate to make a decision. So from that standpoint I guess I'd like a
little more time to look at it and to see some of the alternatives.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Is this a lottery?
Mayor Chmiel : I decided I'd move it around a little.
Councilman Wing: Well I was on record back when all this occurred as supporting
what we did, having been on the Council at that time. But I also was very
protective of Pleasant View Road and it 's future and it 's aesthetics and it 's a
horse trail. I think calling it a poorly designed horse and cart trail but I'd
like to keep it that way because that 's one of my major thoroughfares for
jogging and running and biking, especially in the fall months. So I'm
certainly not anti Pleasant View but this thing's all, some of the comments
tonight , you know where was I? I attended all of the Planning Commission
15
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
meetings. I attended all the Council meetings. I haven't missed any. Looked
at all the alternatives and the facts as I remember them, the issues that
occurred as I remember them, to the best of my ability, don't coincide with the
comments that were made tonight and the petition with 250 names is wonderful if
the facts that went into that petition are accurate. And I won't attest to
that , whether it 's right or wrong but I do know that , you know I've got this
pile of letters, like we all have and here's half from this side. Here's half
from this side. And they're all 100% diametrically opposed which means there's
two real hard core positions here. So now it 's up to us. We're elected to make
some decisions based on facts and dealing with some issues and one half at some
point 's going to be mad and one half is going to be happy. I voted with the
unanimous Planning Commission and I voted with the unanimous Council at that
time to go ahead with the option we selected, and we looked at options 1, 2, 3,
4 , 5. I mean all of them. We looked at north, south, east , west , up, down.
Going straight thru and to call this a collector road is inappropriate. I think
this is a neighborhood connecting road. It 's got a lot of turns and curves in
it . It 's not going straight thru to anyplace. It comes off Nez Perce and makes
a hard turn. Goes up, makes a hard turn. Winds around. Makes a hard turn.
That 's not a collector street . And the issue of Pleasant View Road at that time
and tonight to me remains almost a separate issue . The impact of this,
regardless of what we do. Whether we make this a U and it goes onto Lake Lucy.
the impact is massive. So whether we go up to Pleasant View. No one can tell
me what the impact 's going to be because we looked at the traffic counts and the
traffic studies back then and we looked at how many cars were going to be moving
north, south and the predicted road movements. And the issue came up, it 's
going to be coming from the east and the west , not the north and the south.
This isn't a major collector going from one point to another that 's going to be
the major road. So if I was asked right now to review this, based on all the
work, we went through and the Planning Commission went through before, I think
we're asking ourselves what 's new. What are we reviewing? We've already gone
over all this. On the other hand, if the majority of Council wants a little
more time, I can also accept sending it back to the Planning Commission and have
this proposed new idea. And this isn't a proposed new idea to me. It 's just
old news that we're being asked to review again. If a review is appropriate,
I have no problem with that . We've looked at Lake Lucy as being a dangerous
situation. Quote you know. There's been no accidents there. We've looked at
Pleasant View. Mr. Harr's reviewed the accident history there in depth.
"Dangerous road" . I won't deny that . We've said that on many other roads.
What are we going to do about it? But what 's the Planning Commission going to
do? Come back with the same recommendation? Or are they going to come up with
a new recommendation based on. . .information so I don't know if we're wasting
time or not . But if this is a very heated issue, I think the residents on this
side deserve to be heard, maybe in a little more established manner and this
group allowed once again to present their case. And if there's anything new in
1993, so be it . I guess I would stay with that .
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Colleen.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I was wondering which way you'd go. Well there are
just volumes here and I've tried to catch up on the history and I can plead
innocence to being here when the decisions were made but , I've weeded through
the volumes and there are some, I've tried to gather all the salient points but
there are a lot of exterraneous issues here which I think really fuddle it up.
16
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
The way I see it there are two related but really separate issues. You
definitely have a safety problem. That 's come through with everyone I've talked
to. Every letter I've read. And then we have the road extension. I guess I'm
not , a lot , a lot of time and effort has been put into this extension by staff.
By the Council . By all the residents and by Mr. Beddor. Like Richard, I'm not
sure what 's going to be accomplished by looking into it more. I guess I'm, you
know I've been out there several, 7-8 times in the last week. Driving the speed
limit and walking it , and you know I'm not a planner but it just makes sense to
continue that road. Just as much as it makes sense that people will not be
using that to cut through. If you come up, if you're going north on Nez Perce,
it 's very unnatural to turn and continue to go on Nez Perce. You're going to
shoot out Lake Lucy, unfortunately because we do need some, we have some safety
concerns there and we do need some traffic control, which I would recommend that
we look into as opposed to relooking at this extension issue. So I guess I'm
not ready to look at , to send it back down and look at it again. I think the
Council has moved on it . I think we do need to look at the safety issues. I
think it 's worth looking at and making it where Lake Lucy and Nez Perce connect ,
maybe doing a 3 way stop there. Just as much as where Peaceful Lane and
Pleasant View connect to make that a definite T to tighten that up, which I
understand is the plan. The only thing that I think people are still uncertain
about that it hasn't been addressed yet tonight is the cost , because I think
there was some misinformation sent out about who's going to be paying for this
extension. Paul , if you could expound on that .
Paul Krauss: We received some information that preported to give data on the
cost of the roadway. The only information that we have is in the feasibility
study that was done for the City Council. That does not take into account
right-of-way costs, which is obviously significant . But the cost as I recall
was $127,000.00. I might also add that , as we're on the subject of the
feasibility study, that the feasibility study that was prepared by an engineer
working for you shows a grade of S 1/2's on the Nez Perce connection, not 10%
which was illustrated earlier.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, you can go out there and look at it .
Paul Krauss: But the cost of right-of-way is a significant issue and with the
action to go to condemnation, that will tell you what the cost of the property
is. I don't have any additional information.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Right , but the crux of the issue I think for most of
the people here is, will they be assessed and the answer is no. Is that
correct?
Paul Krauss: Well again, you never, I think you received the feasibility study
but you didn't approve it or whatever you need to do. You didn't order the
project so we can only conjecture as to what may or may not be assessed. I mean
clearly the Troendle Addition has already paid a share and as Frank mentioned,
it was anticipated. You know Frank's share was theoretically for the connection
from the end of Owens' parcel down Peaceful Lane. The reason for that being is
we always assumed we would get the piece across Owens parcel for free. The same
way as we got it across Vineland and the same way we got it across Troendle. So
in terms of who might be assessed, I mean it was always clear that there was an
17
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
assumption that when the Owens parcel developed, that that would bear it 's fair
share of cost .
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Paul.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just one more comment . Sorry, about the trucks and
speed issues. I live in a neighborhood that is still being developed and I find
that most of the safety issues and the speeding vehicles are construction. And
I can only say hopefully that will go away soon. That's just been my personal
experience with who drives too fast .
Mayor Chmiel : Not necessarily. I've sat on that road many, well I shouldn't
say many times. I've sat on there a couple different times with a radar gun
observing speeds and writing down license plates. I've heard this through the
grapevine that has come back to me and said, if that's all he's got to do it's a
shame but that 's part of my responsibility to do. Because I get the complaints.
I'm the guy that gets them on the phone and by letters and I do want you to know
that yeah, there has been some of those vehicles on that road that has exceeded
the speed limit . But with writing down the license numbers and checking those
license numbers, I've found that almost 98% of those are from that area. And I
just wanted to make sure that I made that particular.
Audience: Question.
Mayor Chmiel: No question. I'm not entertaining any questions at this
particular time. I'm still talking with the Council and I'm just making a
statement that I have made. I've done this in other neighborhoods as well where
I've received complaints and I've done that . Over and over. And I know where
it 's at and it 's normally within that same specific area.
Councilman Wing: Well Mr. Mayor, just before we get off that . Having served
for 10 years on the Public Safety Commission and having done a minimum of 3 of
those traffic studies, I would just concur that your statement is 100% accurate.
In one case the State Highway Patrol on Highway 7 stated if the local residents
would simply slow down and stop tailgating, you'll resolve your problem on
Highway 7. In every case that we studied, the 10 years I was on the Public
Safety Commission, not once did we find the problem to be with the outside
traffic. It was local residents in all cases. Documented. Documented cases.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well then I stand corrected. That's been my
observation in my neighborhood but, if that is what you're saying, the case,
then I remember sitting at that podium last year and getting publically berated
by Mr. Mayor about our neighbors driving too fast in our neighborhood and I
guess you're right .
Mayor Chmiel: Unfortunately.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, it's unfortunate.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: A little history I guess. I've been driving on Pleasant
View, well I've been married for 14 years and she was essentially born and
18
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
raised off of, on Yosemite off of Lake Lucy Road on the other side of Powers
Boulevard. So I'm very familiar with Pleasant View. I live on Woodhill Drive,
about 4 houses down from Nez Perce. And I've been there for 7 years. When I
moved into Carver Beach there were 2 homes on Woodhill Drive. There are now 9
homes. Lake Lucy Road did not exist . The connection was not there. None of
those homes were there. Vineland was somebody's dream. Troendle wasn't there.
The only connection was Pleasant View. I was appalled when I came back from a 2
week vacation to see that the 5 acres down my hill had essentially been plowed
over and going to get developed. Woodhill Drive went from about oh, seriously
maybe 4 cars a day to I don't know, maybe 15-20 cars a day. To me it was a lot .
It still is. I wish there were just 4 cars there. There aren't . And I can't
do anything about that . Richard, Don and myself were on Council when all this
came by. I was initially opposed to a connection going through there. I thought
you know geez, that 's awfully close to me. I just , personally I don't want it .
I 'm seeing my neighborhood get developed. It doesn't make any sense to me. As
I've said before, I have to weigh what I think is in the best interest of the
city. Now I appreciate the work that Mr. Beddor has put into this and 202
signatures is quite a few. Make no mistake. It certainly is a majority of
people on Pleasant View. I take a little issue with the newer residents on
Vineland complaining about the traffic simply because they've been there 6
months or a year, whatever and clearly development is part of the problem here.
There's precious little we can do about that . After talking with neighbors and
after receiving the volumes and volumes of letters, and I have talked with
people on Nez Perce that are both in favor and not in favor of that extension.
So some people in that area I think are a little up in the air about it . I have
trouble reconsidering this. I think we've spent an awful lot of time on it . I
know there are unhappy people. I'm sure that the people on Pleasant View think
they have continuously taken it on the chin, and I know from driving on that
road for 14-15 years now, it is busier than it was. I question that people that
live say in Near Mountain, if they're coming into Chanhassen, are they going to
go the quarter mile on Pleasant View and get on TH 101 or are they going to wind
around on Pleasant View, come through on Nez Perce and then zip by my house.
That isn't how I'd do it and some people probably don't think I'm the norm but I
think I'm a little closer than that . We'll see. I think we decided a number of
years ago to go through with this and yes, there are times to reconsider .
Certainly I've changed my mind on things that happened 4 years ago. While as I
understand that there are many people that claim, and I disagree with them that
this does not serve their best interest . I think in the long run it does serve
the best interest of the city and there are times I think it 's unfortunate but
my job is to do what I think is best for the city and I think not reconsidering
at this point is in the best interest . I would, having said all of that , I'd
like to get a real quick opinion from staff about what they think of an updated
feasibility study.
Paul Krauss: I'll be honest with you. I'm not sure that we have anything more
we can give to this issue. You know we've looked at it intensively and maybe
we're even too close to it but my staff, the engineering staff has worked on
this extensively for 4 years. We had an outside consultant give us a feasiblity
study for the connection which says it is feasible. I mean from a technical
standpoint it 's a relatively easy one to make, and there are cost considerations
and others. The issue of the Lake Lucy Road loop is one that can easily be
studied. It is in the report that Dave and I did 4 years ago. But we didn't
study it in that much depth because it didn't really seem to serve the purpose
19
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
at the time. If you did want to go with another study, I'm not exactly. I mean
I would be real specific as to what your expectations are for information above
and beyond what you have. And I would also ask that you seek to bring in
someone from the outside who maybe could take a fresh run at it . I don't
honestly believe it 's going to add too much to the argument but if you wanted to
do that , that 's probably the way to approach it .
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Paul . I guess it doesn't take too much reconsideration
for some of these things. As was mentioned previously, and I'm not going to
reiterate much of the things that have already been said. But when we looked at
this back at the time that it was proposed, I too thought that the solution that
we proposed at that particular time was the best solution for everyone within
the city. You always have to take that in and look at that real strong. We're
not infallible at all, believe me. We're just like you are in making decisions.
You know even in your own home but what we think sometimes is right , basically
comes up as right . Mr . Beddor gave me a call and asked me to listen to what his
proposal was and at that time I said sure. I'll be more than happy to sit down
with you and talk to you. But I said too that I felt that if he were to make
that particular proposal, that all the people within that adjacent area would be
in favor of what that proposal might be. And if there was some of that that was
not , then my position would be standing as it is right now. I'd like to take
the time to study these things, but believe me we've gone back through and we've
read and read all the letters and I do appreciate all those letters of concern.
All except one or two that I had received. I don't think the Council , nor
myself as an individual, should at any time take some of the "complete ignorant
attitudes" concerning the connection of Nez Perce and Pleasant View Road. I
don't get paid enough money to take those kinds of comments from people. I took
this job because I thought I could do a job for the city the best I knew how,
and it irritated me quite a little bit to see that . I think we try to do the
best job we know how, and we work hard at it . So I'm ready to call a question
in regards to this of whether or not we should consider additional study or not
to reconsider . And I would ask for a motion in regard to this at this specific
time.
Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a motion saying that no
further consideration is needed on this subject .
Mayor Chmiel : Okay. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'll second that .
Mayor Chmiel: It 's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Richard.
Councilman Wing: I'd just like to make a quick comment to clarify where we are
here. I'm going to support the motion, but in doing so I want to make it real
clear to everybody in the room tonight that those of us sitting up here are not
isolated government . We're you. We're neighbors. We're friends. We're
acquaintances. We're taxpayers. We're residents of this city. We listened.
We've heard what everybody's said. We've tried to obtain the facts and then
deal with the specific issue. And that is our responsibility and we were
elected by you to be visionary and look to the long term best interest of the
city. And I feel very comfortable on my part in supporting Mr. Mason's motion
that we have in fact lived up to those expectations.
20
City Council Meeting - July 12, 1993
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Mark.
Councilman Senn: I guess I don't see the urgency. I don't see the rush. It
seems to me in a democracy like this, we have 200 people here that are against
something. We have 30 who live on Nez Perce. Again, I can't say I like
necessarily Mr. Beddor's solutions that I've seen presented. I can't say that
I necessarily like staff's either. I think there are alternatives and that 's
just from sitting down and playing on a piece of paper. I just don't see again
the rush and why after 4 years we can't take another look and just make sure
that it 's the right way to go before we leap.
Mayor Chmiel: Michael.
Councilman Mason: I guess my comment to that would be, while as I understand
that Councilman Senn and Councilman Dockendorf are "relative new" of what 's
going on here. I don't see what I'm doing tonight as taking a leap in any way
whatsoever. To say that I haven't thought about this. To say that I haven't
spent an awful lot of time talking with people. Looking for solutions myself , I
think is not doing this Council justice. We've been working on this concern for
a number of years. Intensively for the last 2 or 3 months. Taking action
tonight is, in my opinion, by no means a leap.
Mayor Chmiel: With that I'll, any other discussion? I don't disagree with you
about a democracy but democracy has been looked at a long time and I'm not going
to expand on what Michael has said. So if there are no other discussions from
Council, I'll call a question.
Councilman Mason moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded that the City Council
not reconsider the extension of Nez Perce Drive. All voted in favor, except
Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
(The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting. )
AWARD OF BIOS: JOHNSON/TURNER/DOLEJSI TRUNK UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO 92-5.
Dave Hempel : Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. I'm kind of
sitting in for Charles here this evening. He's on vacation. On Thursday, July
8th, 1993 bids were received and opened for the Johnson/Turner/Oolejsi trunk
improvement project , Project No. 92-5. Total of 5 bids were received and the
low bid being received was from Northdale Construction in the amount of
$746,576.90. The engineer's estimate for the project is $810,000.00. The low
bid received is approximately $160,000.00 below the project estimate. Northdale
Construction Company has performed satisfactorily previous work in the city. Is
therefore recommended that the City Council award the Johnson/Turner/Dolejsi
Trunk Improvement Project No. 92-5 to Northdale Construction Company in the
contract amount of $746,576.90. If there's any questions regarding the bids and
so forth, Mr. Phil Gravel of Bonestroo and Associates is here this evening to
answer those.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Dave, I think I have a real simple question. Where is
this?
21
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director
DATE: December 1, 1994
SUBJ: Director's Report
At the November 28, 1994 meeting, the City Council the following actions were taken:
1. The Council reconsidered the preliminary plat for Shamrock Ridge development. Two
lots were eliminated.
2. Approved the preliminary and final plat for Hobens Wild Wood Farms.
3. Approved the preliminary plat for Powers Place, Jasper Development.
4. Tabled the amendment concerning gazebos on recreational beachlots. They requested
staff provide standards including electricity, plumbing, fireplaces, etc.
NOVEMBER 1994
ZO N/A'CiVelPS AMERICAN r , ,
PLANNING
ASSOCIATION
Dealing with Bias and zoning bias. On the other hand, most courts consider rezonings
Conflicts of Interest to be legislative in nature. The rezoning is presumed to be as
valid as the enactment of the original ordinance,and the burden
is on the challenger CO overcome that presumption. The court
By Mark S. Dennison will not invalidate the grant or denial of a rezoning on grounds
of bias or conflict of interest—or for any other reason—unless
Zoning officials must be mindful of ethical dilemmas and the rezoning is clearly shown to be "arbitrary and capricious,"
prevent improper influences from swaying their decision an abuse of discretion," "totally lacking in relationship to the
making. A landowner applying for variances, special use public health, safety,and welfare,"or some variation on the
permits, rezonings. and other local zoning approvals is entitled highly deferential standard applied to legislative acts.
to a fair and impartial decision by the local zoning body. If an This legislative label may not settle the issue, however,
official has a personal bias or conflict of interest regarding any because some courts will look beyond the legislative label to
aspect of the application. he should remove himself from the evaluate the type of rezoning action taken by the zoning body.
proceedings to ensure a decision free from any taint of bias. [See. e.g., North Point Breeze Coalition v. Pittsburgh, 60 Pa.
This issue of Zoning News examines various apes of ethical Commw. 298, 431 A.2d 398 (1981) (when a governing body
dilemmas faced by local zoning and planning officials and offers applies specific criteria to a single applicant and a single piece of
guidance on how to handle potential conflicts and improper property, the governing body is acting in its adjudicative
influences during the decision-making process. capaciry and not its legislative capacity).] A minority of
Bias and Conflicts of Interest
Although zoning ordinances and state enabling ^N.,,) DOESNT COMM i55rONER
legislation provide standards and criteria for 6URKIN OWN PROPERTY
deciding variances and other types ofR 3 OVER HERE ?
applications, zoning decisions do not -
always turn on straightforward assessments '� 111,
c•a
of objective factors. Community pressures
and outside interests often infiltrate the k...,' R3 R-111111110
process and threaten an applicant's right ,
to an impartial decision. Unfortunately, V 0,11N.VNARY RE-:.avai.S •
the ad hoc, discretionary nature of many
——
zoning decisions exposes them to 1.1":„
potential abuse and unfairness.
Zoning officials are susceptible to
community pressures, political ON,lo R Hecmac.srop.tireBefore IPia.at.,:
influences, and personal bias because -St
of the localized nature of zoning
regulation. Zoning officials are generally appointed because jurisdictions including Oregon,Washington, and Idaho make a
of their close contact with the community, understanding of distinction between comprehensive rezonings and piecemeal
community needs, and interest in promoting the public rezonings that affect single or small parcels of land. These courts
welfare. But an official's close association with the characterize small parcel rezonings as quasi-judicial in nature.
community increases the chance of bias or conflict of interest [See Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners, 264 Ore. 574,
arising in regard to a particular zoning decision. 507 P.2d 23 (1973).]
Quasi-Judicial vs. Impartiality Standards
Quasi-Legislative Decisions The law governing bias and conflicts of interest in zoning
The distinction between quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative decision making has been refined through ongoing judicial
zoning actions can be especially important in challenges alleging analysis.A finding of zoning bias depends on individual facts
zoning bias. Some courts will accord substantial deference to and circumstances. If the evidence shows that a zoning decision
decisions labeled quasi-legislative, declining to question the was tainted, the usual remedy is for the court to invalidate the
motives for the zoning body's decision. notwithstanding the decision because the biased decision maker should have
possible presence of bias or conflict of interest. disqualified himself from participation. Courts have said that
For purposes of reviewing zoning decisions, this distinction when a zoning official must disqualify himself because of bias or
arises predominantly in the context of rezonings. Courts a conflict of interest, the disqualification is absolute and cannot
universally agree that decisions on variances and special use be waived. [See, e.g., McVoy v. Board ofAdjusrment of the
permits. building permits. and the like are quasi-adjudicatory in Township ofMontclair,213 N.J. Super. 109, 516 A.2d 634
nature and, therefore, subject to judicial review for evidence of (App. Div. 1986).]
A biased decision maker's participation in the actual vote on and will not hold that an appearance of unfairness alone suffices
• a zoning application is not necessary for invalidation.A biased to invalidate a zoning decision. Instead, they will consider the
zoning official may disqualify herself from voting, and the court appearance of fairness in combination with evidence of"actual
will still invalidate the decision if it finds that she participated in bias"or"substantial interest or temptation." In this sense, the
the proceedings or otherwise influenced the zoning body's threat to public confidence in the zoning process is viewed as
voting members. [See, for example. Szoke v. Zoning Board of coterminous with actual or potential conflicts and operates as an
Adjustment of the Borough of Monmouth Beach, 260 N.J. Super. additional rationale for regulating bias.
341, 616 A.2d 942 (App. Div. 1992): Alanookian v. Blaine
: County, 112 Idaho 697,735 P.2d 1008 (1987).] Types of Bias or Conflict of interest
Likewise. the decision would be invalidated if the biased In applying their various approaches to determining bias and
official voted, even though the zoning action would carry conflicts of interest in zoning decisions, the courts will review
without the necessity of counting that vote. Further,courts may evidence of several relevant factors. The various types of zoning bias
invalidate a zoning decision even when the biased official is only and conflicts of interest can be grouped into fairly distinct catego-
a member of an advisory board that makes findings and ries,one or more of which determines every zoning bias case.
recommendations to the zoning body that ultimately makes the Financial Influences. Financial interests represent the most
decision [see Buell v. City of Bremerton, 80 Wash. 2d 518,495 prevalent type of conflict. When zoning decision makers stand
P.2d 1358 (19-2) (biased planning board member participated to benefit financially from ruling in a certain way on a zoning
in recommendation to city council concerning zoning change)]. application, the zoning official's failure to disqualify himself
Courts have said that the self-interest of one official infects from participating in the decision clearly arouses an appearance
the action of the other members of the zoning body regardless of unfairness and may be evidence of actual bias or"substantial
of their disinterestedness. One court denounced a township temptation,"which may provide sufficient justification for the
supervisor's appearance before the zoning board over which he court to invalidate the zoning decision. Zoning decisions tainted
had appointment powers as an imposition of duress on by financial influences especially undermine public confidence
members of the decision-making body and a violation of basic in the process because this type of bias creates a strong
due process. The supervisor appeared on behalf of a variance impression of local government corruption and dealmaking.
applicant. [Abrahamson v. Wendell,76 Mich.App. 278, 256 Courts have invalidated zoning decisions both in cases where a
N.W.2d 613 (19--).] local official actually benefited and in situations where the
Courts have developed a number of approaches and decision maker could potentially benefit. Zoning decisions have
'" standards for evaluating problems of bias and conflicts in zoning been struck down when a zoning official stood to gain financially
decisions. These approaches vary by state and take particular as a neighboring landowner, as an employee, as a business
factual circumstances into account. Courts have articulated associate of an affected landowner, or as the seller or purchaser of
several tests or standards for addressing zoning bias. Many property impacted by the zoning decision. The most obvious
• courts may use a combination or variation of more than one type of financial conflict arises when the zoning official's own
approach. property will be affected financially by a proposed zoning change.
Actual Bias. The actual bias standard is the most stringent test Associational Interests. This type of bias arises in situations
and distinguishes between situations where a clear benefit will be where a zoning official's impartiality may be compromised
conferred on a zoning decision maker and instances when only a because she has a personal or business relationship with
potential for benefit exists. Courts applying this approach require
clear and tangible evidence of actual bias as opposed to the mere
appearance of impropriety or the potential for partiality. State Zoning Bias Statutes
Substantial Interest or Temptation. Under this standard,an
aggrieved landowner must show more than a mere appearance State laws Regulating Zoning Conflicts of Interest
of unfairness but need not prove the existence of"actual" bias. Ala.Code 5 11-43-54 (prohibits councilmen from deciding
This standard is premised on the need to remove public issues where special financial interest exists).
9 officials from situations where a potential conflict of interest Ala. Code 5 36-25 (code of ethics for all governmental officials
would have the capacity to tempt or improperly influence an and employees).
official's decision. Under this test, direct and substantial interests Alaska Stat.5 29.20.010 (prohibits having a"substantial
provide grounds for disqualifying an official fromparticipation in financial interest").
a zoning decision. whereas indirect or remote interests do not. Ariz. Rev.Stat.Ann.5 11-222(member of board ofcounry
• Thus, the focus centers on the probability that particular interests supervisors shall not vote upon any measure in which he,any
member of his family,or his partner is pecuniarily interested).
may affect the ultimate outcome of a zoning decision.
Ark. Stat.Ann.§21-8-304 (public officials or state employees
Appearance of Unfairness. Some courts, in weighing
cannot use office to advance personal interests except
evidence of potential bias,will disqualify an official and incidental).
invalidate the zoning body's decisions if a mere appearance of Conn.Gen. Stat.Ann.§8-11 (prohibits participating when
unfairness exists. Courts using this lesser standard, most notably there is a direct or indirect,personal or financial interest).
those in the state of Washington, emphasize the need for public Fla. Stat.Ann.5 112.3143(requiring public officers to disclose
perceptions of fairness and confidence in the zoning process. interests within 15 days of vote).
In virtually every zoning bias case, the courts will discuss the Ga. Code Ann.5 36-30-6(illegal for a council member to vote
importance of the appearance of fairness in zoning decisions. on any matter in which he/she is personally interested).
Most courts will not, however, rely on it as a separate standard Ga.Code Ann.5 69-204 (prohibits participation when it
concerns a matter"in which [the decision maker is]
Mark Dennison is an attorney and author who practices personally interested").
environmental, land-use, and zoning law in Ridgewood, New Jersey.
2
someone who will be affected by the decision.Although this Courts recognize that public officials have opinions like
relationship may not involve a financial conflict of interest, everyone else and inevitably hold certain political views ,:
courts recognize that the associational interest may just as related CO their public office. In fact, zoning officials are
improperly bias the zoning official's decision. typically chosen to serve in their official capacity because .,
Although the evidence is generally circumstantial that a zoning they are expected to represent certain views about local land-
official's familial.business, or other relationship actually has use planning and development. For instance, a zoning official
caused a biased decision,an appearance of unfairness is usually may have campaigned for office on a pro- or -
evident. Courts applying this standard will invalidate decisions antidevelopment stance. The courts tolerate this type of
when an associational interest raises the specter of impropriety. opinion because it is part of the political process. Moreover,
As with other types of potential conflicts of interest, the official opinions concerning land development generally •
courts must weigh the evidence to determine whether the represent community values and preferences that may
associational conflict is great enough to justify invalidating the implicate important public welfare concerns.
zoning decision. They will generally examine the nature of both Only when the opinion rises to a level of personal or self- -.
the association and the underlying interest to determine interest or shows prejudgment of a specific situation is the right
whether it warrants invalidation. Generally, the underlying to an impartial decision violated. This might occur if a zoning w,
interest has a greater impact on the court's determination of the official made statements prior to or outside of the ordinary -
issue of impartialin. but a close personal relationship may decision-making process that indicated a strong presentiment
indicate just as strong a propensity toward bias. about the decision.Whether a particular statement would be
Close family relationships are usually subject to greater strong enough evidence of bias is a fact-based determination for
judicial scrutiny. More distant familial relationships are the courts. In one case. a Rhode Island court found sufficient -.,
generally tolerated. although the nature of the underlying evidence of bias when a zoning board member told opponents
interest may justify invalidating the zoning decision. of a variance application prior to the hearing that "we are going
The potential for bias also may exist because of a zoning to shove it down your throat." [Barbara Realty Co. r. Zoning
official's relationship to various community organizations, Board 128 A.2d 342, 343 (R.I. 1957).]
although the nature of the underlying interest is usually the Ex Parte Contacts. Proof of ex parte contacts may also show
determining factor. For instance, courts have found that mere that a zoning decision was tainted by bias, although the courts
membership in a church that has an interest in proceedings may tolerate this as a part of the political process. Ex pane
before the zoning body is nor enough to warrant invalidating a contacts—discussions of a topic outside official proceedings—
zoning decision without evidence of actual bias. frequently occur through lobbying efforts by various interest
Prejudice and Bias. This category is generally based on groups seeking to influence the decisions of public officials. In
statements made by a zoning official that reflect a prejudgment the context of quasi-legislative decisions, such as rezonings, the
of the merits of a particular zoning application. If the landowner courts are especially reluctant to scrutinize ex pane lobbying
can prove that the zoning decision maker was somehow efforts because of the separation of powers and First Amendment
predisposed to decide his application in a certain way, a court rights to influence the political process. However,when ex parte
max'choose to invalidate the decision. However, a zoning contacts are present in the context of quasi-judicial zoning
official's particular political view or general opinion on a given decisions, such as variances and special use permits. courts will be
issue will generally not suffice to show bias. more receptive to challenges on grounds of zoning bias.
Ga. Code Ann. § 89-953 (stating code of ethics for public N.H. Rev. Stat.Ann. §673.14 (regulating zoning board of
officers and employees). adjustment,building code board,planning board.or historic
Idaho Code§67-6501 (prohibits participation by members of district commission conflicts of interest).
governing boards or committees in matters in which there is N.J. Stat.Ann. §40-55D-23(b) (regulating planning board
an economic interest by self or by relations). conflicts of interest).
Idaho Code§67-6506 (regulates the economic interest of N.M. Stat.Ann. §3-10-5 (any member of a governing board
members of the governing board, their relatives,employer, having any possible financial interest in any policy or decision
and employees). is required to disclose matters).
Ind. Code Ann. §§ 36-7-4-223,36-7-4-909 (regulating N.Y. Gen.Mun. Law§800-809 (prohibiting conflicts of
planning commission and board of adjustment conflicts). interest of municipal officers and employees).
Md.Ann.Code art.40A, §3-10] (prohibits public officials Ore. Rev. Stat. §244.120(1)(a) (requiring elected public ,
from participating in matters in which they have a conflict of officials other than legislators to announce potential conflicts
interest). prior to acting thereon). -s
Me. Rev. Stat.Ann. tit. 30,§2251(1) (prohibits direct and RI. Gen. Laws§36-14-4 (prohibits participation when there is f..
indirect pecuniary interest). a`substantial conflict of interest").
Mo.Ann. Stat. § 105.462 (prohibits participation by S.C.Code Ann.§8-13-410(no municipal official or employee
member where decision may result in direct financial gain shall use his/her position for financial gain).
or loss to him) Va. Code Ann. §2.1-639.1 (state and local government -
Mont. Code Ann. § 2-2-125(b) (prohibits an officer or conflict-of-interest act).
employee of local government from participating in Wis. Stat.Ann.§ 19.46(no public official shall take official
official acts in which he has a direct and substantial action on any matter in which he/she has a substantial
financial interest)• financial interest).
3
Courts that apply the "appearance of unfairness" standard of special permit from the planning commission. The planning
impartiality are the most likely to consider ex parte contacts as department argues that making it easier for discount stores to
evidence of partiality in zoning decisions. In one case, a locate in abandoned industrial areas will promote investment in
Washington court declared that ex parte communications, new retail developments,generate employment opportunities,
"however innocent they might be . . . tend to create suspicion, and increase sales and property tax revenues.
generate misinterpretation, and cast a pall of partiality, But many small storekeepers oppose the plan, claiming it
impropriety, conflict of interest, or prejudgment over the creates an unfair playing field. Should Mayor Rudolph Giuliani
proceedings to which they relate . . ." [Chrobuck v. Snohomish support it, the city planning commission would then review it.
County,78 Wash. 2d 858, 480 P.2d 489 (1971).] A state-mandated environmental impact study and approval by
both the borough presidents and community boards would
State Conflict-of-Interest Statutes follow before it could go to the city council. Kevin J. Krizek
A few state statutes specifically regulate bias and conflicts of
interest in zoning decisions. Three states—Indiana, New
Jersey, and New Hampshire—have statutes that prohibit
members of a planning commission or zoning board of p adjustment fromndir partbstantng in hearings es which they have � ' V orts
a direct or indirect substantial interest. These statutory
prohibitions are limited to partiality by zoning bodies that
function in an adjudicative capacity.
A few other states. such as Virginia, New York. and Montgomery County
Connecticut. have broader regulations that require impartiality Open Space Preservation:
by zoning decision makers who act in either a legislative or Program Recommendations
adjudicative capacity. Connecticut's statute has the most Open Space Preservation Task Force, Montgomery County Court-
comprehensive scheme. For example, it prohibits zoning officials house, Norristown, PA 19404. September 14, 1993. 60 pp. Free.
from participating in any hearing or decision in which they have Late last year, Montgomery County in suburban
either a direct or indirect personal or financial interest. Philadelphia approved a 10-year, $100 million program for
Several other states have general governmental ethics and open space acquisition. This document details the rationale
conflict-of-interest statutes that provide a basis for regulating behind the program as developed by the task force assigned by
various types of bias and conflicts by public officials. At least 19 the county board CO study the issue.
have statures that prohibit participation by local officials in
decisions in which they or a particular associate have a financial
li
deno
interest. Relatively few cases have been decided under these Modeling Future Development
statures, however, so the precise scope of their application in the on the Design Characteristics of
context of zoning bias is uncertain. Maryland's Traditional Settlements
Maryland Office ofPlanning(in cooperation with the School of
In the Public Interest Architecture, University ofMaryland), 301 W. Preston St., Room
Zoning officials should make every conceivable effort to protect 1101, Baltimore, MD 21201.August 1994. 112 pp. $2.
the integrity'of the zoning and land-use planning process Neotraditional and cluster designs for rural and suburban
through impartial decision making. Biased decisions not only communities have been attracting increased attention in recent
undermine public confidence in the local zoning body but are years as planners seek new solutions to the problem of urban
more susceptible CO unwanted and costly court challenges. sprawl. This effort. the result of a university research seminar on
small town paradigms,examines a series of traditional Maryland
communities and concludes with alternative models for zoning
ordinance language to facilitate traditional design. The
Big Box Retail in appendices include sample provisions of local comprehensive
the Big Apple? plans and zoning ordinances from existing communities.
The New York City planning department wants to give big
retailers the key to the city—and much of the small business
Zoning News is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning
community is preparing to change the lock if it does. Seeking to Association.Subscriptions are available for s45(U.S.)and$54(foreign)
reverse the cirv's significant decline in retail sales and employ- Michael B.Barker.Executive Director;Frank S.So•Deputy Executive Director.
William R.Klein.Director of Research.
ment, the department is proposing to change the zoning of
Zoning Net,is produced at APA.Jim Schwab.Editor:Michael Barrette.Dan Bever.
manufacturing and industrial districts to encourage specialized Sarah Bohlen,Fay Dolnick,Michelle Gregory.Sanjay Jeer,Beth McGuire,Marva
discount retailers and warehouse stores. The 20,000 acres Morris.David Smith,Reporters;Cynthia Cheski,Assistant Editor;Lisa Barton,
targeted include abandoned and underused industrial land in Design and Production.
ever('borough but Manhattan. Copyright C1994 by American Planning Association.1313 E.60th St..Chicago.IL
6063'.The American Planning Association has headquarters offices at 1"76
Current zoning allows only 10.000 square feet for food, Massachusetts Ave.,N.W.,Washington,DC 20036.
department, and clothing stores and an array of other retail uses All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in an
within areas zoned for light and heavy manufacturing. Large form or by any means,electronic or mechanical,including photocopying,recording.
retail stores seekingto locate in these districts must apply fora or by any information storage and retrieval system,without permission in writing
pP Yfrom the American Planning Association.
special permit,which can take years. The proposal would allow
Printed on recycled paper,including 50-70%recycled fiber
any retail development up to 100,000 square feet to be and 10%postconsumer waste.
permitted as-of-right on wide streets. Others would need a
4
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 16, 1994
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott and Jeff
Farmakes
MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Mancino and Ron Nutting
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer;
John Rask, Planner I; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 8 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED WEST OF HIGHWAY
7, EAST OF HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY AND SOUTH
OF PIPEWOOD CURVE, 4131 PIPEWOOD CURVE, LYLE DELWICHE, DELWICHE
ADDITION.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Any questions for staff or comments?
Ledvina: Mr. Chairman? Kate, you said that they had conceptually given approval?
Aanenson: They do their subdivisions a little bit differently and on conceptual...
Ledvina: They have a conceptual and then preliminary?
Aanenson: Yeah.
Ledvina: Okay. So it has started the formal process through Victoria?
Aanenson: Right. So it has to be given the final City Council approval...That would include
the cross over easement and accommodation of those two lots...They wouldn't want to make a
lot and...Victoria would landlock that Lot number 8.
Scott: Good, anything else? Would the applicant like to make a brief presentation?
Lyle Delwiche: We're really here to answer any questions you might have.
1
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Scott: Okay. Any questions of the applicant from commissioners? This is a public hearing.
May I just briefly see a show of hands for people who'd like to speak at this public hearing.
Let the record show that no one is here to speak on the public hearing. Therefore I would
like to get a motion to waive the public hearing please.
Harberts: Moved.
Scott: Second? Could I have a second to that motion?
Ledvina: I'll second that.
Scott: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we waive the public hearing. All those in
favor signify by saying aye?
Ledvina: Discussion? It's going to remain a public hearing, was that okay?
Aanenson: You opened the public hearing. You just closed it.
Scott: Let's open it. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please?
Ledvina: We probably should withdraw that.
Harberts: I'll withdraw.
Scott: Okay, thank you. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing?
Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public heating. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public heating was opened.
Scott: There's no one here for the public hearing. May I have a motion to close the public
hearing please?
Ledvina moved, Halberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Comments? Diane?
Harberts: I'm okay with it.
Scott: Besides from the fact that I need a book of Robert's Rules of Order.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Harberts: I don't have any comments.
Conrad: Nothing.
Ledvina: No comments.
Farmakes: No comments.
Scott: Okay, can I have a motion please.
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
Preliminary Plat for Subdivision #94-17 for the Delwiche Addition for 2 single family lots as
shown on the plans dated November 2, 1994, subject to the conditions in the staff report.
Scott: Is there a second?
Conrad: Second.
Scott: Any discussion?
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
Preliminary Plat for Subdivision #94-17 for the Delwiche Addition for 2 single family lots as
shown on the plans dated November 2, 1994, subject to the following conditions:
1. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-
mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the
city's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise.
2. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development and will be protected
by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of
dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height
shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location
of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description.
3. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition
and/or trail construction.
4. A cross access easement agreement shall be prepared by the applicant to maintain access
to Lots 1 via the existing private driveway.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
5. The applicant shall dedicate to the City on the final plat a 20 foot wide drainage and
utility easement over the existing drainage ditch.
6. Lot 2, Block 1 will be responsible for a hook up and connection change of $8993.42
(1994 figure) for connecting to municipal utilities. This fee will be payable at time of
building permit issuance. The fees may also be assessed.
7. The applicant shall escrow with the city $300.00 to cover the city attorney's time for
review and recording of the final plat.
8. Approval of the plat from the City of Victoria.
All voted in favor and the motion carred.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE, ARTICLE XXVI, REGARDING THE SIGN
ORDINANCE.
Public Present:
Name Address
Randy Herman 2792 Piper Ridge Lane
Vernelle Clayton 422 Santa Fe Circle
Leonard Thiel 5643 Green Circle Drive
Roland Danielson 6209 Lockmoor Drive
John Rask presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Questions or comments.
Harberts: I have a question. Who's your contact at Eden Prairie?
Rask: Gotchya.
Harberts: That dog. I take exception to the information he provided you. He's incorrect with
that.
Rask: Okay. He is.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Harberts: He is. He even sits on that commission.
Rask: Well he said I should tell you so.
Harberts: Pardon, what did he do?
Rask: He said tell Diane I told you so.
Harberts: Well I'll tell him something. Alright.
Scott: What is the correct info?
Harberts: Well there are benches around Eden Prairie. There's one at our site in Eden Prairie
that had advertising on it. Southwest Metro Transit has their own internal policy where they
do not allow any advertising at their park and ride sites. Bus shelters or anything. That's an
internal policy within Southwest Metro Transit. And I don't know if it was misunderstood or
whatever but I know in Eden Prairie there are benches through the American Bench Company
that have advertising on it so, but with regard to transit, it's a decision made solely by
Southwest Metro and not by the City of Eden Prairie.
Ledvina: Let me try to understand this. Then are those benches not allowed by ordinance
then or what? What is the situation?
Harberts: I don't know what Scott was talking about.
Ledvina: Are those against the ordinance then or what?
Rask: The way it's currently written, signs...bus benches in Eden Prairie. There aren't any
benches.
Ledvina: That is their ordinance? Okay.
Rask: That's the way I understood it.
Ledvina: Okay.
Farmakes: I'd like a clarification on page 13 where it talks about the, these features shall be
applied toward the maximum allowable sign area at the rate of one-third the architectural
feature area. What exactly does that mean?
5
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Rask: It's talking about the color band. If those, if the bands say occupy 100 square feet of
the building area. If you take 1/3 of that. 33 feet would be taken away from the maximum
allowable signs. So if you had 150 square feet of sign area was allowed by ordinance, and
you had your color bands that occupied 100 square feet, you take 1/3 of that. You're at 33
feet and you'd subtract that. So then if you have a sign, wall sign would be allowed
approximately 117 square feet.
Farmakes: If we had a sign limited to say 80 feet on Taco Bell and attached to that sign, or
running up to that sign are large color bands of plastic. Are we defining that we only count
1/3 of that towards the maximum square footage of the sign or?
Rask: Correct.
Farmakes: Okay. I was just wondering what the reasoning of 1/3. Why wouldn't we apply
100% to that?
Rask: Well I think that's all been, it's difficult to regulate some of these features within the
sign ordinance. It's better addressed through architectural review standards...on Highway 5
corridor into, to pull this into the sign ordinance makes it difficult.
Farmakes: I served on both committees and it's sort of catch as catch can but in the
architectural committee they said, well we'll address that with the signage ordinance and now
we're saying we'll address that in the architectural stipulations so. If we discussed the issue
of dealing and evaluating a structural tie in to signage. What you see currently, and Holiday
just redid their banding. If you're discussing that as an architectural feature, it's not. It's part
of signage. It's meant to be, have the building seen as a sign. So my point is, if we're going
to apply the banding say around Holiday and get any type of moderation, if there isn't a cap
and allowing a vendor to have some discretion on how they use that, the interpretation of
putting bright stripes on a building. Saying it's really for the purpose to make the building
look better and not to attract. Or the intent of serving the purposes of a sign, what point are
we solving. We're not moderating anything. Because if we have like an 80 square foot
maximum to the wall sign and we're allowing them 1/3 of the architectural feature area, that
may double that. Would it not? So what have we moderated?
Aanenson: We stumbled over this for 2 years. We've been asking for direction on this.
We're not sure how to handle this. We're not sure if the architectural features are being... If
you want to include that as part of signage...
Farmakes: I think currently as I see in architectural, particularly in fast food operations and
gas, what you're seeing is the back lit striping and in some of the fast food areas, the back lit
6
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
canopy area. That's where they're connecting with. Adding an architectural feature that is
imposing as a signage attraction and again, I don't know if the way to approach that is to
prohibit that or to moderate that on square footage or if it's to interpret, just list those items
and say that these count as signs. As your signage maximum. Use them as you wish but this
is the maximum that you can use based on the size of the building. Just like we moderate
signage. But it seems to me that again, the intent in designing those buildings, to use that as
a signage attraction, that we should deal with that for what it is. And call it what it is.
Scott: Well I think what you're getting at is we talk about the intent statement is that a
business needs to identify their location and I think if the signage is used for that purpose, it
doesn't really matter if it says Joe's Bait Shop with blue lines around it. I mean if I were
faced with a situation with my business I'd say well, I think what I'm going to do is trade my
color banding for the name Joe's Bait Shop and make that as big as allowable by the
ordinance and I think maybe that's what we want to do. Is we want to encourage people to
focus on making it a real sign and then not try to get bonus attraction based upon colors. I
think that's, when I look at the intent statement of the ordinance, we want businesses to have
an equal playing field when it comes to identifying their location. But then I think we run
into the same situation, people who have more windows can get more window signage so I
think this will even out the playing field for those who don't use colors in their, the Super
America's, Holiday's, Block Busters, etc, etc. so I think I would agree with you in that we
need to apply the banding 100% against the sign area.
Farmakes: Well the other thing is that in reality, when you get the applicants to come in
together as a group. Say you get a grouping of fast food restaurants like you would say on
78th over there. You potentially could have one building here with green or bright green,
orange and red striping and the building across from it would be lime green and orange and a
purple striping. You get, there's no.
Harberts: Continuity.
Farmakes: There's no relief there. You're getting a bunch of buildings screaming, look at me
first and you're getting concentrations of them and it's certainly not an attractive, positive
issue for the city I don't think.
Harberts: But with something like that Jeff, are you saying that you'd rather see with a
situation like that where they're kind of uniformed, kind of consistent in building in their
signage. You know Eat at Joe's. Shop at.
Farmakes: I think we should allow the vendor the discretion of how they want to do it. I
think Wendy's did a good job on it. I think we say Taco Bell come in here and there was a
7
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
perception that they weren't going to have the bands on there. When it came before the
Council, they were going to have the bands on there. And then the response was made, well
all Taco Bells have the bands on there and that's not true. Several Taco Bells don't have the
bands on there.
Scott: Yeah, Minnetonka.
Farmakes: And I think we keep on seeing this over and over again. Whether it's a tire center
or whether it's a gas station or whether it's, I think we should make an attempt to deal with
that issue so we have an intent of what the final outcome's going to be once all the buildings
are up. And again I think the issue is not to exclude but to moderate.
Harberts: Well I would tend to agree.
Conrad: I don't agree at all so, I don't think that this is, we're not talking about signage. This
identification. There's no difference in a style of a building. That's identification. That's
why chains build the same style so it's identification. A stripe is the same thing. I don't
perceive this ordinance regulating design. This is a sign ordinance. It's words. The whole
intent was to structure how many, what space you can put signs in period. It had nothing to
do with design of the side of the building. So it's, we'd have to start, if we're going to now
start putting in design into the criteria, we'd better go back to zero and start again because
none of the rules apply.
Farmakes: How we design say in the Holiday where you have plexiglass striping on the top
of the building constitutes a major part of the building. Do you feel that that's architecturally
relevant to the building or is that there for an attraction?
Conrad: Is it architecturally relevant? It's their design. It's their style. It's not signage, in
my definition. It's not regulated by this ordinance.
Ledvina: It's not in the definition of sign does not identify architectural elements or colors or.
Farmakes: If a wall sign is attached to a building, the striping runs and connects to it, how is
that any different than typography that's in color and the red striping and the blue striping
running to it any different.
Conrad: Well then you could take it further. Is brick, you know, does brick do something
for identification versus a striping? You know, I don't think anybody starting from day one
when this was reviewed, really considered that type of architecture impacting the sign
ordinance. I really don't. I don't think we've really taken a look at that.
8
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Farmakes: But I think it is evident that developers and business, particularly chain
businesses, are addressing the issue of maximizing presence by dealing with that through
architectural add on's.
Conrad: I'm not debating that.
Farmakes: So I don't think we're addressing that in our architectural issues because we did
make the assumption that we were going to deal with that in signage, or define that. And
define it in such a way that it could be moderated.
Conrad: Boy I'd be real, here we are again trying to get this through after months and this is
the first I've heard of it Jeff. I've gone all those extra sessions and I just haven't paid
attention to that. I would have considered all the ratios, all the square footages entirely
differently. I would have found it terribly complex. I addressed all these in terms of what
does it take to get a word message out on a building basically or for it to advertise a service
or a product or whatever. I never considered it in terms of how the side of the building
overall should look and whether the impact had a bearing on the size of the sign, or the
materials of the sign. But if we were doing that, we should have, geez we should have
looked at it a long time ago. I'm real uncomfortable with bottling it in. I really am. I think
it makes it terribly difficult to understand.
Scott: Is that something that should be regulated?
Conrad: You know the whole issue goes back to design. Do we want stripes on buildings?
You know, that's really the issue. If people put designs there because they're doing exactly
what Jeff is saying. They want identification. I don't care if it's stripes or if it's brick or if
it's an arch for, you know if it's an arch on the top of your deal or a giant football, like those
restaurants to have. I think design criteria regulate that. I don't know. And they're not bad
issues to deal with. It's good to make the city determine if it wants to get involved in the
architecture game and simplicity might, there may be some simple things that we could agree
on but I know it's a complex issue and I don't know if we could really, I don't know if we
could come to some kind of consensus. It's terribly confusing to me.
Ledvina: I think the definition of sign as a whole meaning and it becomes a very fuzzy
thing. What if my colors happen to be like a tan and a nice forest green and I want to put
some colors on the building. If I can't do that, even though it looks great because it's
considered a sign, I don't think that would be fair. I'm tracking with Ladd because I think
that bands on buildings are an architectural treatment. I don't see that specifically as a sign.
At least not the way we've defined it up until this point.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Scott: Does it matter if they're lit or unlit? Like a back lit band versus tile.
Ledvina: No, doesn't matter to me.
Scott: What do you think Diane?
Harberts: I think it does. I think when it's lit...
Conrad: That's an interesting.
Scott: I can see where Matt's coming from if it's architectural. I mean is it an attractant or
isn't it? Well it's more of an attractant when it's back lit and it's plastic and all this kind of
stuff but if it's something, I think there is a difference, at least in my mind, between an
architectural. When I think of an architectural detail, I think of something that is "built into
the building" like whether it's the brick or whatever. Something that's then architecturally
versus something that's signage is something that after the building is built, it's stuck onto the
building.
Harberts: Well I think the colors are just as important, especially a franchise or chain type
store as the word, and even to some extent more the colors and the placement than the word
itself. I mean you know when you're driving and oh, remember you just look for the golden
arches. You know you don't look for McDonald's. You look for that identity piece. I
understand what Jeff is saying when you, in terms of what we're trying to achieve in
Chanhassen. Do we want to, in a sense control that so it's more of a moderate or blended
look versus a piece that stands out by itself? You know in some of the places that I have
visited, such as Martha's Vineyard, they have no identity in terms like a McDonald's or
whatever. It's certainly the Cape Cod look and a little sign out front and that's all you see is
one continuous type of architecture. You don't have the individualities in terms of the
franchise or whatever.
Scott: Is that, do you feel then that's a pretty equal playing field?
Harberts: Well I don't know about equal playing field. It certainly added characteristic to the
island. It was a little hard adjusting in terms of you just can't pick out the golden arches or
something. You have to kind of look for it. That was the only thing I was struggling with
but I kind of like the characteristic it brought.
Scott: I don't know, there's a development that you can see from, I think it's on Weaver Lake
Road and 494, Maple Grove I think is where it is and what they've done is there's no banding
on any of these buildings. They're all brick and everybody gets their so many square feet.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
So whether it's McDonald's or Poppin Fresh or a Burger King, and they have them on very
short pylon signs. So I think if you're looking from a consumer standpoint, if the consumer is
being bombarded by all sorts of huge signage, trying to find a place can be difficult. But if
there's an equal playing field like what I've seen in parts of California and Maple Grove's a
good example, everybody knows that the logos are going to be about this far off the ground
and they're all going to be about this size. But there's an equal playing field and judging
from the parking lots of the place, I don't think any of the retailers are suffering. But they all
know what the rules are.
Harberts: But the burden then is on the businesses to somehow make themselves distinct
within those parameters because you don't get that immediate recognition. I mean when you
see that wave on a Coke can. The Coke words does not have to be there but you see that
wave and right away you think about Coke.
Scott: Well it all boils down to our definition of what's a sign and what isn't.
Harberts: Right, exactly.
Scott: And is that the thing that we need to recraft?
Harberts: Well I think it's the real, to me the question is, what are we trying to achieve and I
think that's again, it comes into the balance of being responsive to the business needs as well
as being responsive to the residents. You know I don't want to see a pink and green building
right next to each other because that's what their corporate colors or trademarks or whatever
but I certainly am sensitive to, I don't want to really place an undue burden on the business
climate because of things like that. I think there is a moderate or a compromising there. I
don't know what the answer is but.
Scott: Well that's what we need to do is to have an answer.
Farmakes: An example I think would be the Minnetonka Wendy's over there on TH 7 and
TH 101. They have a red, large red band going around that building, back lit where Wendy's
is on and the differences to the one they built here. I think this one's a much more attractive
building. It's a more moderate signage and I think there's just different outcome of what we
got there. Overall I think we're betting off having something like that, the perception of
higher class in this city than a piece of being a strip mall version over on TH 101.
Ledvina: There's a couple of dynamics that are working there though. That's an older
building. That's 6-7 years old and I think Wendy's is going more upscale with their clientele
and I think that's the reason why we see a better building.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Farmakes: But the point is, when that building came by, we worked on that building. There
were red bands on that building so my point is that if I'm given a design assignment and I'm
told to try and maximize the presence of that building and there is a cap on signage, I'm
going to find a way to get around that cap. And the first thing I would recommend was to
incorporate an attractant into the architecture. Into the feature and create the banding and if
you look at Block Buster Video, they have a large blue back lit awning and a large blue
stripe running around the building. The intent of that is to attract. It's nothing to do with
architecture. It's not there to make the building look better.
Ledvina: But it is part of the architecture.
Farmakes: So is the wall sign. It's attached to the wall. If you're going to define the word
architecture, it's the overall presence of the building looking at it. I mean it's, to me the
intent of the brick is not to create an attractant. It's not to pull your eye. And if you're
looking at the outcome of a building and it's purpose, there are buildings where the signage
and intent of the building sort of proceeds the architecture. And you'll see that in a lot of
commercial areas where what you're looking at is signage and you're not looking at buildings.
Because we're building a downtown supposedly and not a strip mall, that's something we
should be concerned about.
Harberts: I think colors and design like that is a very important element of signage. It's not
just words. That's my feeling.
Scott: Well what about something like this. We're concerned about what's architecture and
what's signage. What about if we say if it's tenant specific? If the tenant of the building
changes, like if Block Buster Video in Eden Prairie decides that they want to move someplace
else and Edina Realty goes in, is the blue banding going to come down? Sure. Sure as heck
will be. Maybe if it's, because signage is tenant specific and architectural features are not.
Now I'm not stating that as a fact. I'm throwing that out. I mean is that kind of what we're
talking about here? If it's tenant specific, it's signage. If it's not, it's an architectural feature
which means, I think we're talking from a lease hold agreement, it's a fixture or a lease hold
improvement versus the physical building.
Conrad: We're not going to solve this one tonight. The issue is, do you want to, it's
architecture. We're talking pure and simple architecture. It's definition. Some want to attach
it to a sign ordinance but we're talking architecture. Talking, does it fit? Are we mellowing
our architecture in so it's sort of the same in Chanhassen? That's sort of the direction that I'm
hearing. And stripes don't do that. I can't, you're not going to be able to give me something
to vote on that says, by a definition we're going to solve this. If we bring architecture and
this into this ordinance, somebody else, not me is going to have to go through this. I can't
12
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
vote positively on the ordinance tonight and there's been a terrible amount of work put in on
it. It's just different definitions which means all this stuff has to be relooked at. If we
change the definition to say that if it's tenant related or whatever, we still have to go back and
say okay, now what are we talking about? Does the same 80 square feet that we allowed for
signage, is that the right number now that it's incorporating stripes? Or now that it's
incorporating neon. You know how about, we get into other cities where you have a lot of
lights. I like neon by the way. I think neon's a neat architectural element. I don't consider it
signage. I think it's architectural and I think it's generally pretty neat. But I think for
tonight's purposes, if we're uncomfortable that this ordinance is not incorporating enough, then
it should go back but I don't think we're going to come up with a resolution on it.
Farmakes: Is your point that you're making that the Highway 5 overlay architectural
standards should be changed or amended to address that issue versus...
Conrad: See what you're bringing up, you know what you're bringing up Jeff is, in my mind,
architectural standards and I don't know if there's a difference between Highway 5 or the
commercial or the CBD or Highway Business. I don't know the difference between
architectural standards in the different areas.
Farmakes: There isn't. I think that this area is intentionally brought together. The way that
you get around the limitation is to incorporate it into the architecture. That's the motivation
for doing it.
Scott: Ladd do you, do you believe that there need to be guidelines for the banding? Your
thought is that this is probably not the place for it.
Conrad: I think the sign ordinance should be looked at simply for signage and if we want an
architectural standards to apply, those standards can, somebody can develop that and the City
Council can review those standards as they apply to this.
Scott: What, from a Highway 5 standpoint and I've kind of lost track where that is Kate.
Where is the, is there an ordinance?
Aanenson: Correct.
Scott: So basically we'd have to include the banding as an architectural piece.
Aanenson: Right.
Scott: That would have to be an amendment to that ordinance.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Aanenson: I think there's language in it that covers this issue. It's the City Attorney's
opinion too that really what we're doing, as Ladd indicated, we're pulling architectural issues
into the sign ordinance and we're really kind of getting into a gray area there.
Scott: But we do believe that there need to be some specific guidelines for it and as long as
there's a home for that, because I don't want to, I mean I've seen a number of instances were
we'll have an applicant come in and they'll say, I have several pieces of information between
this ordinance and that ordinance. Does that mean that I get two signs or you know, and if
the applicants can't figure out the ordinance, you know we just need to know where the
guidelines are so these people can come forward relatively quickly. Know what we're
expecting and deliver a product that we can approve. So I mean if there's a home for it in the
other ordinance, I think that will serve what you guys are doing. Or want to do is signage
here as defined as logos, service marks, sales marks, that kind of stuff. Banding and so forth
become.
Aanenson: I think this will be more clearly defined in the Highway 5 overlay. It's in there
but it's not to the extent. The way we had defined it here, we're trying to separate, as you
indicated, more tenant specific but what we found is company logos or associated with the
company... If someone was just to put a band on, or an architectural feature and it's not a
franchise or it's not associated, we look at that as an architectural feature. Then you have to
find out what are the company colors and it's....and I think that's where you're coming from is
more specific to a certain type of business association. So it's our opinion that if you want
something like that, then it really belongs in the Highway 5...architecture for the Highway 5
overlay zone.
Ledvina: Well we're going to need it more beyond the Highway 5 zone. I mean we need it
through the entire city essentially.
Aanenson: City ordinance.
Conrad: I think that's a real good issue just to float up to the City Council. Seriously.
Architectural standards is just a real difficult thing for a city to get involved in. Especially a
city the size of Chanhassen. But if we believe in those things, I'd sure like to get some
feedback from the City Council so that staff, it's not Highway 5. We're talking about you
know, you don't just have architectural standards for Highway 5 corridor. You have them for
the city. If you want them, you have them for the entire city. I'd like to see if the City
Council is interested in doing that, you know and then maybe something can be done. It's
still, it's still terribly difficult but.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Farmakes: The Highway 5 task force had a subcommittee dealing with architectural standards
for a year. That's what we were discussing there in that ordinance. That was part of the
ordinance for the Highway 5 overlay district. And the standards covered the commercial area
of Highway 5.
Conrad: But not downtown. Not our CBD.
Aanenson: Yes.
Farmakes: Well, not to the south.
Aanenson: Not to the south. They covered, there's two districts. One, the existing
downtown area and then the other district is from Powers going west. It does cover all the
downtown. There are places in the industrial park...
Farmakes: The intent when we worked on it was that it be a blueprint to establish...but that
was the point where we had a consultant brought in and discussing issues of how it was
handled in other cities. What recommendations they put together from, I forget the
consultant's name but we did deal with it for a year.
Aanenson: Are you talking about Camiros?
Farmakes: Yeah.
Conrad: Do we allow lights shining on our buildings? Spot lights to illuminate our
buildings at night? There's so many things, that could be considered, well that's a real
confusing but down south, that's a real popular thing to do. Real attractive. I doubt that we'd
allow it here.
Harberts: If you want to pay the electric bills.
Conrad: Well it's neat. It's neat. It comes up from the ground.
Ledvina: Are you saying we wouldn't allow it?
Conrad: I don't think we would.
Scott: Well getting back to the issue about what's signage and isn't, does it make sense to
direct staff to beef up the section in the Highway 5 architectural?
15
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Farmakes: I would recommend that. When we dealt with that as a subcommittee, we dealt
with that ambiguously. The reason being is...when we dealt with the sign ordinance, that
we'd tighten that up. It seems to me that it would make sense to deal with it as an
architectural standards because that's truly what it is. It is a gray area because of...it's a
design attempt to get around the maximum requirements. That's what it is. And if you,
there's no aesthetic reason to back light an awning. You do it because you want to be seen
from the highway and there's nothing wrong with that but the question is, how much of it do
you have. Do you have an entire town of back lit awnings. It's jsut a question of what you
want to wind up with.
Scott: What would be your direction to staff with regards to that. The architectural standards
...in dealing with banding and that sort of stuff.
Farmakes: When we're dealing with it as a sign ordinance, if you have a maximum amount
of it like you do in a sign, it seems like a logical way to treat that. Because that would give
the vendor the option of what they wanted to do. If you deal with it as an architectural
standard, it becomes far more difficult because you're dealing with square footages. You're
dealing with the size of the building. You're dealing with, it's an accent mark that they don't
define that by square. So if you're looking at that for either eliminating it or having it, I'm
not quite sure how you would approach that other than to define it by how you would like to
moderate it. A percent or eliminate it altogether.
Scott: But the home for that regulation is, you're thinking the Highway 5 architectural
standards.
Farmakes: We used the terms I think, and help me out here. I think it was bright colors is
what they recommended. Unnatural bright colors. Dayglo orange or green or things of that
nature. We may be able to address it as defining it as the subject matter, the gray area where
it becomes, where the architectural feature becomes a gray area or it connects with the sign or
is a part of the continuation of the corporate colors.
Scott: I think we all agree it needs to be, there need to be guidelines.
Conrad: But it keeps coming up so I think.
Ledvina: Right. We should be reviewing it in terms of the direction that this thing should
go.
Conrad: Somebody should review the subject.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Scott: And the home for the guideline should be in the Highway 5 document.
Conrad: Absolutely. Well no, it should be someplace else.
Scott: Yeah, other than this.
Farmakes: Currently the Highway 5 I think is the only, the two districts are the only ones
that are covered by that.
Scott: So the consensus here is that we need to give direction to the staff to apply perhaps
the thought process that we used for signage, i.e. print logos. Use some sort, that similar
methodology to the banding piece to somehow quantify it and express what you would like to
see as a percentage or whatever. But use the methodology that we use to regulate signage in
the sign ordinance with regards to size versus the building. And use that same sort of
methodology in the architectural standard section of Highway 5 to deal with banding. And
then I'm sure it comes with a definition of what banding is. We have a definition of what
signage is here.
Conrad: Well I'd like to see Jeff go to City Council. You know more than, you know what
you're talking about. I guess I'd like you to go there and just address.
Farmakes: That'd be fine. I'd be happy to do that. I'd like to see the staff take some
photographs of some of the examples of what we're talking about to use as visual aids in
defining it. I think that again the intent, whether you're a business person or whether you're
just a citizen in the city, the intent is to have a nice looking city. And I think again, the by
word is moderation and not illumination but to moderate the amount of this. We'll have a
better looking place and to use an example of the Wendy's to Abra or the Goodyear. If you
compare those to the same businesses elsewhere in surrounding communities here, we have
nicer looking buildings here. And they're still seen from the highway. They're seen from the
road but they're not going to make a, cause a car crash or something because they're blinding.
Scott: Well the noise level. The visual noise level is lower because we've established a
lower threshhold. That's why the buildings look better.
Farmakes: And as you group more and more buildings together, that becomes a factor in
defining the character of the city. And that's my point.
Scott: Okay. So we know where we're, is everybody clear on where we're going with this
and staff? Okay. Any other discussion?
17
•
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Harberts: Here.
Scott: Yes ma'am.
Harberts: I would really recommend that on page 5, number (d), that bus benches, that (d) be
changed to bench signs are prohibited except at designated transit stops as defined by the
Southwest Metro Transit Commission, or take it out entirely and have a different ordinance. I
think staff should put outlined and emphasize that cities have not had problems with it and it
is considered a benefit to the community. That's all I'll say.
Ledvina: Just a question Diane on that. Now that would relate specifically to...benches
right?
Harberts: At transit stops.
Aanenson: So they can't just be anywhere. It has to be a designated stop.
Harberts: And it would be as designated by the Transit Authority which would include then,
we would let the city know what we're doing because we have, we get approval from the city
when we do that.
Farmakes: I have a question on the, are we done with that?
Harberts: I think so.
Ledvina: Well how do you reconcile the City Attorney's opinion then? That this is
exclusionary.
Conrad: She included anybody.
Aanenson: She included anybody so, if somebody wanted to get a permit and you came to
the city to have a bus stop here, at a Southwest Metro bus stop...
Ledvina: Oh, I see.
Scott: Because I know one of the things that Diane is talking about is the public/private. I
mean if the taxpayers don't have to pay to put it up but because these are, I mean they're a
public benefit but they are predominantly beneficial when they are, in my opinion, they are
only, or they're predominantly beneficial when they're associated with a transit stop. That
allows you to take advantage of that.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Harberts: Right. And again, I would say that except at designated transit stops that are
designated by the Southwest Metro Transit Commission. And I want to assure that that
interpretation includes that Southwest Metro Transit Commission is responsible for working
with the city and with any particular locations. There may be some transit stops where we
don't feel we want to see a bus bench there. But for instance at the park and ride lot, I think
it'd be fine.
Conrad: Diane should there be, I guess the issue is, either to take it out of this ordinance or
separate ordinance or keep it as simple as what you moved. Do we need more definition than
that? Is it so loose right now because it's only 10 words, do we need better definitions to
make it a separate ordinance or is it, are we comfortable enough as.
Harberts: Well the intent of my statement is that it allows for advertising at benches that are
located only at transit stops and I don't want to use the word regulated but I don't know of
any other word at this point.
Scott: As designated by the transit authority, whoever that may be.
Harberts: Right, right. Because on practices that we chat with the city about that because
there are liability issues with regard to sight lines. Do you even want to have a bus bench
there and things like that. So that's why I wanted to make sure that whatever wording, it
makes those, reaches those intents.
Conrad: The other thing though is don't we want to have permission from the land owner?
Harberts: Oh definitely.
Conrad: Now is that.
Harberts: That's why as designated by Southwest Metro. We would take on all of that
responsibility to make sure that those agreements are in place because I mean there's liability
issues here so that's why, by designated by Southwest Metro Transit Commission, they take
on the responsibility to make sure all those ducks are in a row. And again, with something
like that, it goes with city approval and consent or something. That's how we work. That's
the relationship.
Scott: Any other discussion before we open the public hearing?
Farmakes: I do have one definition I'd like clarified. On window signage, when we use 50%,
do we define that as temporary signage? That's something that the ordinance does but is that
19
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
what we're expecting when we're expecting 50% of the window space is covered by signage
on a building?
Rask: The way I understand it, it would be, it could be temporary or permanent. You just
can't cover more than 50%.
Farmakes: So we potentially could be adding several hundred square feet in a large building
of signage from the projected out from the building, correct?
Rask: Correct. The way it is currently written, yes.
Farmakes: Is that the intent of what we want to achieve? It's my understanding when we're
dealing with window signage, that we're dealing with temporary signage. Sale specials
...displays, that sort of thing. We weren't dealing with permanent signage and I'm seeing
more and more of the back lit and the neon supplied by some of the franchisees where they're
mounted into the window as permanent signage. I'm wondering, what's the difference of
putting a moderation on signage, on the wall sign up above or on the pylon and then you're
adding several hundred feel in the window space of permanent signs. Should there be a
definition there between temporary and permanent?
Rask: I think one of the reasons it wasn't addressed more is the difficulty of enforcing a
condition like that. We'd have to control and see how long...limit temporary signage say to
one month time, we'd have...it'd be difficult to enforce. ...put that in there, limit the length of
a...window sign. I think that was the original concern brought up. We're trying to keep this
ordinance simple.
Ledvina: What would you suggest Jeff?
Farmakes: I don't know. It's my understanding from talking to some retail that's in town,
they're concerned about temporary signage. MGM for instance.
Scott: That's 100% now.
Farmakes: Well they're 100%. There isn't that much permanent signage in the windows.
There are a few companies that don't have much window space like Chan Lawn & Sports that
do have the opportunity to put up a lot of back lit supplied franchise type signage that's
provided to them but they don't happen to have much window space. Festival puts up a fair
amount of specials in the window. I don't think they have any permanent signage...in their
windows. Byerly's I'm assuming will have none by the looks of things.. Target also none. I
guess if there are no more large scaled buildings with a lot of signage in windows to put up,
20
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
the commercial buildings in Chanhassen I guess really isn't a major issue from what I can see
but there's a potential there if you had a building that had several hundred square feet of
window space. Half of that could be a permanent sign projected out to the street.
Ledvina: Are you saying all of a sudden they're going to look at this and say whoa, and put
up all kinds of signs?
Farmakes: Well no. That ordinance allows you to put up half of the square footage of the
window space. If I was at the Riveria, we'd have a lot less signage available to us because
the structure of our building does not have much windows. Another structure that has a lot of
window space like Subway. I'm not sure what the covenants within their lease are restricting
them to but they have I think 3/4 of their wall space is glass. Fully able to project to the
Gstreet there. I'm not sure how many hundreds of square feet it is but the ordinance allows
them to have it.
Scott: I know from a, is it to make a definition between temporary and permanent with
regard to window signage, you're right. I mean the sign police would be a full time job. And
I think it's really kind of, from an enforcement standpoint, you say 50%. It doesn't matter if
it's permanent or temporary. I think if someone is going to use window signage effectively,
the purpose of window signage, at least in my view, is it's a rotating product oriented
temporary usage. At least that's what I think it is and it's a question of how heavy does the
regulation want to get. I think 50% is, and don't make a definition in between whether it's
permanent or whether it's temporary. I think the gest of what we want to do, we want to
moderate the amount of window signage. 50%'s pretty easy to eye ball and whether it's
temporary or permanent, it really doesn't matter. So what? Any other discussion? Okay, can
I have a motion to open the public hearing please.
Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public heating. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public heating was opened.
Scott: Anybody who would like to address the Planning Commission, please step forward.
Introduce yourself. Yes sir. Introduce yourself. Give us your address and let us know what's
on your mind.
Leonard Thiel: Chair, members of the commission. My name is Leonard Thiel. I'm at 5643
Green Circle Drive in Minnetonka, Minnesota. As I've stated to you the last time I had a
chance to visit with you a couple three weeks ago, I told you that the principle, Mr.
Danielson, President of the company was out of town because we had changed, you had
changed the date of the public hearing and so he had made other arrangements and couldn't
be here. He wanted to be here so he'd like to address you tonight just for a couple seconds to
21
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
cover our viewpoints. Roland Danielson is the President of U.S. Bench and he'd like to
speak.
Roland Danielson: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. Roland Danielson
...mentioned and my brother and I own U.S. Bench Corporation and we've been in business
for 48 years. And I just wanted to support the motion that was made by Commissioner
Harberts relative to benches at bus stops. ...that's the essence of our business, and we have
been...serving the mass transit rider all through these years and we feel very, very strongly
about it being at a transit stop and no other place. And the whole idea and the whole premise
...local firms and local companies to help support the potential service...As a matter of fact I
got a couple of letters today from.._so that's kind of the premise in which we work and we
have been doing that... I also wanted to mention that we insure all the benches for $3
million... They are covered. That includes the transit company. It includes the city of
Chanhassen and it includes ourselves and it includes the sponsor so we're very conscientious
about that...so we feel that the bench system, that really works well can be enhanced by a
bench ordinance. We've had a number of ordinances and we..submit some and that just spells
our pretty carefully, very carefully, very rigidly how...good bench system would work... I just
wanted to touch on a few things there and show our support...Thank you very much.
Scott: Good, thank you very much.
Leonard Thiel: To reiterate...it's not a sign company. It's rather a convenience for bus riders
and an economical way for a small business in your community to advertise in an unobtrusive
way.
Scott: Thank you. Anyone else?
Randy Herman: Randy Herman, 2792 Piper Ridge Lane. I didn't intend to do this tonight
but I'd like to speak kind of as three people. I'm a resident, I'm a business owner. I'm also a
member of the Chamber that worked with you guys on the sign ordinance. As a resident,
when I sit and listen to these kinds of discussions, I'm bothered by what I see as an ever
increasing role of the city to kind of mandate everything bland. I get the impression that if it
was totally left up to certain people, we'd have nothing but beige and brown and tan. And I'd
like to speak for myself and I think a number of other people, I like a little color. I think
back lit awnings, with or without advertising are nice looking. I think they dress up a
building. I like to drive through the city and I like to see well lit, nicely done buildings that
might be green. That might be pink. There was mention of Highway 101 and Highway 7.
There also now is on that corner a couple of restaurants and a bank that use neon as a
highlight. They are great looking. They look neat. You drive down the highway, they stand
out and son of a gun, you actually know who's there and what business it is. At the same
22
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
time, I think they add flavor to that corner. I don't think everything needs to be bland. I
don't think it does anybody any good. As a business owner, it's a control issue again. I think
if you want to limit the amount of signage, I think we've tried to do that. We've set criteria
about maximum allowables. I don't think it should be the business of the city to mandate the
color, the form, the graphics. What is good advertising taste. What is poor advertising taste.
Let the businesses do that. There seems to be an assumption that businesses will always do
the worst thing and I think if that was true, every building in the city that had a business in it
would be dayglo orange or dayglo pink but that's not true. Businesses try to present
themselves in a certain manner to attract a clientele that they perceive as their clientele. If
you think they're doing business in an upscale community, you'll probably try to present your
building and your business and your signage in an upscale way. And I think that what the
city needs to do is set solid criteria. Maximum allowables. Square footage, whatever, and
then get the hell out of the way. I mean leave it up to the businesses to decide what they
want to do from there. And again, as a resident, it doesn't bother me that Fina or Super
America wants to put a band around their gas tanks or above them on the awning. I think it
looks well lit. It identifies where they are. It identifies what they do. There's way too much
personal opinion that can get entered into this idea of what's tasteful and what isn't and we've
got to leave it alone. It's up to the businesses. If somebody wants to paint their building an
ugly color, it's likely that they'll attract less clientele. It will balance itself out. As a
Chamber member and someone who was at the meetings and worked on this, I'm floored. I
mean when I saw some of the things that got entered into here, I just kind of wondered what
were we negotiating. What were we working on that whole time? Again, if we're going to
talk about architectural treatments, and maybe that's a moot point at this point, but to me it
opens up the whole thing. I mean we didn't talk about maximum square footages based on
that there might be a restriction on the amount of graphic banding or color a building could
use or whatever. We talked about it based on signage. And maybe it's a moot point, I don't
know. But it got thrown in there theoretically because that was brought up last time but that
was not the intent I understood last time when we met here as far as what staff was going to
work on. The very first thing that hit me on the very first page under purpose, is we changed
the language which allows, permits businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to
advertise period. To advertise the location of a business. I mean what the heck. Signs are to
advertise what you do. I don't want to just put Moore on the front of my business. I want to
put Moore Signs. Merit would like to put Merit Heating. I mean if we want to do that, why
don't we just put big numbers up and we'll have a key and you look for number 2000 is
Byerly's. I mean signs are to advertise. It's a basic premise of the sign. I don't understand.
Why would you want to restrict that? And I don't understand where that came from. I mean
it's just foreign to me that it got thrown in there. Ah, there's a lot of them. On temporary
signage, page 6, number 9. This wasn't an addition but it got talked about last time. Nothing
was done with it. We talked about it and came up with a possible solution. This section
allows a 64 square foot sign under certain circumstances. A temporary sign. There was
23
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
concern that if that sign was allowed to be 10 feet from the property line, which is the
standard throughout the ordinance, that a 64 square foot sign could fall over and be over the
property line. I think that's a legitimate concern. Our suggestion here would be, and this
section only allows a maximum of 64 square feet. It doesn't mean every sign will be 64
square feet. Our suggestion would be, set a minimum setback here of 10 feet and add one
foot of setback for every foot that that sign exceeds 10 feet in height. That's a simple
formula that will just say if it's 15 feet tall, it's got to be 15 feet back. Everywhere else pretty
much in the ordinance where we've got a temporary sign and we've set it's a maximum 10
foot tall sign, we've said it's got to be a minimum of 10 feet back from the property line.
Page 8, (c)(2). There's a restriction that allows only 4 signs per intersection. This is an off
site directional sign. I'm curious what we're going to do about the fifth developer that comes
in on that corner. Is it first come, first serve? Or what? I mean I'd hate to be that fifth or
sixth guy if I can't have an off site directional signage and the 4 guys before me could.
(c)(7), such sign shall be removed 12 months after the sign has been erected. It seems to me
it should be period there. And the developer may not apply for a second off premise
directional sign permit, there's no permit necessary over this section. Banners at 100 feet.
I'm sure there's a lot of people that think Byerly's banner currently is too big. I don't. I don't
think it's too big for the building. I don't think it's too big for the purpose. I don't even think
it's ugly at the size it is, and it's huge. It's probably 300 feet. It might be 4. We've allowed
a maximum of 100 square feet. That's a 4 foot x 25 foot banner which can't be read very far.
I think that ought to be increased and that was something we had talked about in the initial
discussions.
Ledvina: I'm sorry Randy, the size of banners? Is this page 9?
Randy Herman: Yeah that was, yes. Page 9. Page 12 (a). The second sentence is no sign
shall be placed within any drainage utility easement or utility easement. In (c) there's been a
collection made to say, it can be placed in a utility easement, if approved by the city. I think
that was the intent in (a) also. Because I think we've all determined that signs need to be in
utility easements. I mean that's where the majority of our permanent signs on main street are
and where most of the temporary signs go. I think it's very unusual that a city would ask for
permission to put a temporary sign in a utility easement but I guess that may be the way it's
going to be. I'm not sure what the concerns are. A temporary sign means temporary. If
there needs to be utility work, it's easily removed. Maybe instead of having to have
everybody come in and ask for permission, maybe we could just say the same thing that we
did with political signs for some of the other directional signs. Put a name and phone number
on it. Who's responsible for it. If it needs to be pulled, call. Have it pulled. The last
session we talked about window signage. One of the concerns I hear Jeff bring up was what
about somebody like the Riveria. The Riveria, they don't have any windows. That's unfair to
them. How about a minimum allowable? How about if we say you can have 32 square feet
24
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
of window signs regardless. And if you've only got 10 feet of windows, well you can at least
have, you can use them to their fullest use. When you get over a certain point, you've got a
lot of windows, then the 50% maximum applies. The whole architectural sign feature, I
thought that was all very vague and again it just kind of places the city in the control of
colors and everything else. I don't agree with it. Maintenance and repair. To me this is
almost the heart of this whole ordinance. We don't have a lot of bad signage in Chanhassen.
Most of what's bad is bad because it's deteriorated. It's falling over. It's falling apart. Some
of the worst signage that exists in the city is on property controlled by the city. Hanus' sign.
Isn't that property controlled by the HRA? That's the Hanus building sign with Toll Welding
on it. It's the entrance to the city. It's the ugliest sign in this town. I mean that sign should
go. But it shouldn't necessarily go because of it's.
Aanenson: It's going.
Randy Herman: Well I mean that to me it's right here. Take care of what's falling apart.
Make people maintain the signs. But don't put undue restrictions on them. It's been added
that 10 days after you get a notice to make a change, remove or alter, you've got to have it
done or you start getting fined. You start getting a violation. I'm here to tell you that 10
days is not going to be enough. 10 days to get a sign company out for a major sign repair, it
won't happen. It's got to be longer than that and 10 days is, I mean 30 days in the life of all
of us is plenty of time. I guess that's it. Again I feel like a whole lot of issues just got
opened right back up again after I thought we had pretty well resolved everything that was in
need of resolving. And I mean if all this stuff is back in and here to stay, two things. One, I
can tell you for sure this isn't going forward with any kind of Chamber support, and that may
not make a difference one way or the other to you. The other is that I feel like if we're going
to start adding things at this point in the game, let's go back and start talking about them
again. Let's open up the discussion about what makes sense. Let's get some counter points
in. I stood here last time kind of saying I thought we had come a long way. I take it back
this time. I think we've gone backwards and I guess I really don't understand why or where it
came from. Those are my comments.
Vernelle Clayton: I'm Vemelle Clayton. I live in Chanhassen at 422 Santa Fe Circle and I
have been involved in the, I'm sure as everybody else here...been involved with the Chamber
group too and I guess I have to echo a little bit of what Randy said, although I was not able
to make the last meeting so he's had a little more involvement than I have. But we felt very
good and we told all the people that we represented, including in my case in addition to
participating as a Chamber member, I was...representing Market Square in my participation.
One of the things I tried to do was keep it as orderly as we could and as efficient as we could
when we had our 3 work sessions and more than that work sessions on the part of the
chamber. And who you represented, and the folks that we would represent...so we didn't have
25
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
a room full of people every time. We thought we'd have it orderly and I think that you said
that you appreciated that and we just feel a little bit...I feel a little bit like we wish that these
things had been available to us in those round table discussions so that we didn't have to
stand here and make objections. I will try not to discuss the same things that Randy did but I
wanted to...just a couple. I do agree with him that the message these days that America is
giving everyone is let's let government leave us alone. I think it came through loud and clear
on Tuesday not too long ago and I think that's what Randy's saying here and that's what the
business people have said to us. I think the location of a business here, it's presense here
tonight in this draft, I would like to think stems from perhaps whoever put it in or whoever
decided to put it in or the group that did may be a little too close to the issue. I think saying
that means something to you, or to whomever put it there and I kind of picture what they're
thinking but I think to the new person or the business person picking up this document, it's
going to look crazy. Because they're not just advertising their location of their business if
you take this literally. As Randy said, they're advertising their business. I think this is not
something that caused us a problem in the past. I think that...will do what we're talking.
Signs are an advertisement and it's really...So that would be my thoughts there. I had a
couple other specific things. One is, I think this could have just been an oversight or again
an interpretation of a word or two...appears in two places. At the bottom of page 6, item (g).
And it appears again at the top of page 7. The work is completed...when we're saying a
project is completed, we're... That means different things in different situations. Often to the
contractor, the builder whoever's doing it...and I think what we talked about in our session
and I think...I guess Randy mentioned the issue that...on page 8, item 7 where we take a
portion out that relates to the fact...I guess I would like to suggest that we do treat this
situation the same as we treated the former situation on the top of page 7 where it gives front
and back sides some latitude and... have been suggesting to everyone that if we're going to
use a banner for a short period of time to make an impact, then let's let the people make an
impact. Let's regulate this in a time period. 100 foot banner does not make an impact. It's
just, it's more, it just creates in my mind more clutter than a big oversized banner that you
know is only there for a little while. A smaller banner looks like it's kind of a piece of paper
on a big building... Now I don't think Byerly's banner looks all that bad and it's enormous. It
would never fly under this ordinance.
Ledvina: Excuse me Vernelle, which section are you speaking to right now?
Vernelle Clayton: ...I should have stopped. It's on page 9, number...Again, the Chamber's
position was that, the underlying position I think for the Chamber was let's have an open
mind in this special promotion kinds of things. This is what creates the fun, creates
excitement...commercial area. I have a sticky little point here on item 4...but I think that my
ear perk up every time I get to the point where it says that the city should do something, or
remove it upon complaint. Because we kind of respond to a lot of things that are going on in
26
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
the city right now that are responsive in nature. We say okay, you can do it unless somebody
complains. And as soon as somebody complains...if it was a good idea. It's a pretty negative
kind of way of doing things and also I happen to know from the work that I do with a lot of
the folks at Market Square, that...love to complain. ...from adjacent residential areas. If there
are complains from people from residential areas. If I put up a..on some vacant lot that
was...put up a large flag, I sure don't want to have to take it down because somebody that
parked in the parking lot on a Tuesday afternoon when it happened to be blowing at 50
mph...and so that's a lot of words about a very little point but I'd like...don't have any other
specific things to say here. Maybe I have one more. I passed by and...discuss the part about
architectural features... Architectural features is not defined. There was a lot of discussion
tonight that meant bands and anybody walking into this room not knowing...felt about sign
bands would not know from having read the rest of this that they were related to bands. 10
or 15 years ago there was...I think it's the type of use that we typically are using to think now
when we're dealing with it. As you recall Midwest Federal a few years ago had round
buildings. In that case...that would have been 100%. The last thing, also I think if we had
this in place, Wendy's would not look like it does today. They were asking for very little
bright red. We could have said... Under the current ordinance we were able to get those units
burgundy. So I'm not sure, I think they're right... I've been involved in writing several sign
plans for various developments. Three of them in town...in each case we used individual
letters. Back lit letters or... There are three buildings or shopping centers that probably have
up to 35, the possibility of 35 different signs. Different tenants that have the right...individual
letters or logos in their signs. So I guess I would question if this were to pass the way it is,
what happens if the...leaves and a new one wants to put a sign up that's like the other people
had...some logos there. More of course I think the ordinance should say logos. If we have...
or other little things that various people use, the little ice cream thing that...using for the i, if
they have those, then I think we want them back lit. I don't think we want them off to the
side, possibly not lit. I think we want them all to be consistent. I'd like to have you look at
that because I think when I look at these signs, if we put it the way those sign plans are
written...
Ledvina: Where would that be addressed?
Vernelle Clayton: I have now wandered all the way over to page 14.
Ledvina: Did you have a specific suggestion for that?
Vernelle Clayton: Yes. Individual dimensional letters and/or logos.
Randy Herman: What about the industrial type buildings? The industrial building like the
one I'm in. There's no need to have illuminated letters.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Vernelle Clayton: Well I think this says back lit letters. That's the proposal. It's been my
understanding that we're proposing all back lit letters all over town?...okay, so individual
dimensional letters and/or logos. I just think it has to be in the sign...could be back lit.
Thanks.
Scott: Yeah, thank you. Anyone else? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing
please?
Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: Comments. Jeff.
Farmakes: I'll just be brief here. We've talked about this now for...2 years. I'll start out just
with the premise of a couple of issues. One is, I certainly think that the city is acting as it
should in regards to this issue. I don't think it's over stepping it's bounds. Certainly
Chanhassen's been a planned community for a number of decades and signage as an issue of
planned communities is a given. It's not an imposition on personal rights or individual rights.
It deals with the issue that the common good proceeds individual rights and certain issues of
planned communities. It's been to court and the issue at court has been established. What
we're looking at here I believe is the same premise that an independent developer uses when
they have a criteria covenant within that lease for that business that they have to cover
signage, as Vernelle just mentioned. She's been involved with three of them. It does a
number of things. It protects the investment of the developer. It protects the other lease
holders from abuse by another leasee. I don't think that the city's any different except instead
of one development we're dealing with many and I think the intent is still the same. To
protect the community's investment and we have an obligation to do that. I think we'd be
walking away from that if we treated that as saying, well you go ahead and do it and let us
know when you're done. We're certainly taking this opportunity here for this commission to
have that input. We've been working with it, city staff and numerous consultants here for a
number of months and I also believe that, what have we got here. Five out of a rather
complicated ordinance. Actually if this was representative of the amount of work that we've
done, it'd probably be 100 pages long. I think that it's been good that we've been with the
Chamber and that we've smoked out some of these things. Some of the nuts and bolts
applications. I think that there were some compromises made in the issues that were sent.
Starting out with the issue at the top of the list. The issue of the philosphical intent. The
issue to identify a location versus just the word advertisement. I'll take the benefit for that, as
requesting that in the last meeting and I think the reason being is that it certainly wouldn't
preclude if there was a sign saying Merit, to saying Merit Heating. That doesn't preclude
that. The issue of the intent would be what is the intent of the sign. If in the city regulating
28
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
it are they trying to keep a business from identifying it's name or it's location. I think that
came up with American Family Insurance. They wanted to put the logo and they wanted to
put the word Insurance on there. All of that would seem to me as part of identifying a
location of a business. However, if you get in and look at Byerly's and you look at Byerly's,
Fine Food, Open 24 Hours, Wine and Spirits, you get into another can of fish. If you look at
Holiday, you start talking about Cold Beer and Cold Cuts and the issue again is whether you
have an equitable opportunity to explain all their services and all their goods. When you
come back and say, well I can put signs all over the building saying that, you know like a
special on beer and you can't regulate that. You can't tell me I can't put that up in the
window if I need to. I think again going back to the issue of what is it that the sign does. I
think that it identifies in a community a location of a business and that is the intent of
signage. The intent of advertising is to advertise goods and services and that is a sub-issue in
here within temporary signs and other forms of discussions for bus back advertising and
things of that nature, which defines it differently. For instance Merit Heating might say, list a
number of units that they sell or something of that nature. The unnecessary duplication of
signage in this ordinance, I'm still not sure whether or not we've covered that. I'm not sure
even if we had a statement on that, that would allow the city to deny a signage based on a
duplication for a sight line. I use an example of the Byerly's up here next door. That's a
duplication of signage, even though there's two different frontages. To me it's duplication of
the same sight line and it's unnecessary. But I'm not exactly sure how we could word that
into the ordinance. I have no problem with the issue of the banner. I think that perhaps the
banner issue is probably a well made point. We may be able to deal with that as to say three
different sized buildings or however we deal with the pylon issue constitutes different sized
signs for different square foot buildings. Obviously Byerly's used as an example is a 60,000
square foot building. There aren't a lot of those in Chanhassen. Perhaps we could come up
with something relevant there. I think the minimum probably on the signage is a good idea
to establish or look at that at least in dealing with the issue of fairness. For some buildings
that even have little window space. The pylon sign issue that we haven't addressed. I'm not
sure how to work that in but I think one of the big mistakes that the City Council, in their
wisdom have made was making an exception to the rule again with Byerly's to putting a
pylon sign on 78th or an intent of the pylon sign. I think that the purpose again was over
kill. It's not necessary. You can certainly see it from the sight line and speed of 78th in the
distance. Again, you're hit with 3 Byerly signs from the same sight line. Do we need that? I
think that Target followed a good example. You have a large building. That sign is readily
seen from several hundred feet away. You know where to turn in. It serves it's purpose and
I think again as an example, we drive through the city with this moderation and the height of
monumentature, we can see, actually see the buildings instead of all the buildings being
covered up by pylon plastic. And again, it helps enhance the issue of a city. Small town
without the numerous expanse of cars and covered with plastic. Anyway, I would like to see
that if there is a way, and I don't know how, if we could put that forth to the Council. I'd
29
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
like to see that maintained. I think that's a good idea that perhaps almost by I think
circumstance that started off of the SA over on TH 41 and TH 7 where they lowered the
monumenture down. That really cleans up the look and puts it out towards the building
rather than being blown away by a big cover up in front. And again though I support the
pylons on TH 5 simply because it serves that purpose. That's a much faster highway. Much
farther sight lines and so on. It's a different sign assignment and again, it's not that I'm
against signage on 78th or Great Plains or any of the internal drives, but I think it serves a
purpose. I mean you literally drive right by the sign and it doesn't need to be 20 feet tall.
Other than that I think the majorityof this ordinance is good. That's not to say that
everybody's going to agree on everything. I do have one final comment on an issue of, I've
designed actually put together bus benches and bus backs and internal boards on MTC and I'll
tell you, I never knew that I was doing a public service. I was doing it for the money and the
businesses that I was doing it for were doing it for the money. It's a business. It perhaps this
is so much a public service we can donate all the income from it to public charities here.
Harberts: It's called transit charity.
Farmakes: Right, transit charity. I do support staff on this issue. I think the way to treat
this, rather than be industry specific, is to treat it, either you have it or you don't and I see
this as outdoor advertising is what it is. And I think the less of it the better. In this case, if
there was a way to legally do it where it was fair, because of it's limitation to bus backs, I
don't know if, or bus benches, I don't know if legally there's a way to do that. I would
support the staffs recommendation of eliminating it. That's it.
Scott: Ladd.
Conrad: A couple quick points. Under the definition or the purpose, I'd sure like to change
and instead of saying the location of the business, I'd like to say the name and service. I
think that just makes, I think that's clean. I agree with some of the points made to date by, at
the public hearing. I think we need to, I do believe that bus benches, transit style type of
signage should happen but it should be controlled so I can't, so the staff report as it stands I
don't agree with but I think there's a way to solve that. On page 6, points (c) under 9. I
think the Chamber's talking about a setback of 10 feet with an escalating setback for height.
Does anybody have a, I'm not sure exactly what the formula there is. Kate, didn't we think
that 10 feet was acceptable?
Aanenson: With this item...that's fine. ...10 feet and if it's higher than that, 1 foot for each
additional foot of the sign.
Conrad: Does that make sense?
30
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Aanenson: Yeah.
Randy Herman: It will be hard to have a 64 square foot sign that's only 10 feet tall.
Ledvina: But it can be 15 feet tall...right.
Conrad: So Kate, what would you say in terms of a 10 foot setback and then 1 foot.
Aanenson: Plus 1 foot of setback for each additional foot on the pylon sign.
Conrad: Okay. There's some semantic issues that I think can be dealt with fairly easily. I
think page 8, point 7.
Aanenson: That's fine. Strike that...
Conrad: That makes sense? Page 9, I think the banner issue was sort of nobody knows what
the right footage is.
Aanenson: And that just came up from what we used...
Conrad: I would recommend, because temporary stuff is just that. It's temporary. It's going
to be down. It should have some kind of impact but when, I think it's not bad to have some,
a little bit of control there so I guess what I'd recommend is a 4 foot. I'm thinking real and
Randy works in the real world and maybe some of us don't always think about that but if you
had a 4 foot sign, height wise, I think that gives you some decent letters. And it works in
terms of probably dimensions of this fabric that he works with and if you went to 35 feet
long, that would create 140 foot, square feet and I think that's going to, it may not bundle in
the Byerly's deal. I don't know. I'm just kind of interested. So instead of 100 feet, that may
be not right. 3 x 33. That might not work but I'm just throwing around the 4 x 35 and I bet
you we could play with numbers all night long. I'm probably going to make a motion and
I'm just throwing that out right now that 100 foot, the way I got to 140 feet was 4 foot by 35.
That's how I.
Ledvina: If you recall from our work sessions, I think we started at 60 feet. We went to 80
and then we went to 100 and that's how this has progressed. I'm not saying that 140 is bad
but we have.
Conrad: We have gone up.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Ledvina: We have worked with this number but, and if there's a good rationale, a 4 x 35 foot
sign as a temporary banner, I'm okay with that.
Conrad: Well let's just take visually. That's a 4 foot height right there, is my guess. Is it 3
or 4?
Scott: Remember when we first started talking about banners we said well let's think about
examples. We talked about St. Huberts. Fine. Well I hadn't seen anything as big as the
Byerly's when I drive past it every day and I went, fine. I mean it's like we have to sanity
test it and when we see it on an application and you go, you know. They're hiring. That's
good to know. It's open house or something. I didn't fine that.
Conrad: I don't think whatever this number is is abusive. I don't think you know if it's, I
don't know. And again, I'm just looking for something that makes sense and we have gone
up, Matt I agree, but I think we started at something really ridiculous. That meant we
outlawed banners and I don't think that's really been the intent to do. So I'm saying, 4 feet by
35. 35 feet probably stretches across a street. Probably on the front of a building, that's a
couple hundred feet wide. It's not much of an impact. It's just not. So again, that's my
feeling on that one. I do throw out another, I think Kate and staff, page 12. General location
restrictions. In point (c) we said, unless approved by the city.
Aanenson: Well and duplication, okay. We can take out in (a) where it says no sign shall be
placed...
Conrad: Okay. At the bottom of that page. I guess I was pretty comfortable just with the
statement. There's been a statement tonight saying well, what about the folks that don't have
many windows. Should we govern that? I guess I'd listen to somebody talking or wants to
talk to me about governing. You know not having this cover buildings with window areas of
less than 32 square feet of something. I don't know. From a, I don't know. It's another
number and if somebody has some input on that, I'd sure entertain that. I don't think I need
to regulate 32 feet on a building. I guess whoever made that comment, I guess I could go
along with it unless there's a good counter point to it.
Scott: We're trying to even the playing field.
Conrad: Yeah. See I'm not sure Joe if I agree. People buy buildings based on what they
see. I guess I don't need to, I personally don't need to level it. But on the other hand, I don't
need to get into somebody's back pocket either and say, I'm going to manage your 32 feet. I
really don't feel I need to do that so. I may make a motion to that effect that we go down.
That we do not go down to that area. Under 32 square feet of window area is not regulated
32
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
by that ordinance. That's probably what I'm going to say unless I hear some discussion
coming back. On page 13, I want (h) deleted. Jeff, I'm sure I just lost your vote on that one
but I really would like to accomplish (h) through a different mechanism and not here. I think
Randy brought up a good point in terms of signage. On Section 20-1266. 10 days is not
realistic. I can't get Randy to make a sign in.
Scott: Sounds like there's some...
Conrad: No, realistically in that business, if you want a decent sign to replace something,
you're not going to get it done in 10 days so I want to encourage quality. I really agree.
This section to me is probably the most important, or one of the more important ones. I think
we want to regulate signage on how big it is but I think we also want to regulate how well
it's maintained. It seems like we've had the easiest time over the maintenance, or this section
hasn't caused us any problem and it's probably one that has, if I want city staff to be really
monitoring anything in this ordinance, this is the one. This is where we can make an impact.
This is where the citizens do care and this is where I want staff out there looking. That's just
a personal deal but that's major. And the rest, that's real significant. So bouncing that
number up to 30 days seems reasonable and even that's tough. I think those are the
comments and if I get to make a motion, they're probably going to go that direction.
Farmakes: If you make a motion, on (h) being dropped.
Conrad: I will cover it in terms of.
Farmakes: Will you cover that with a direction to incorporate that into the architectural
standards section?
Conrad: Yeah.
Scott: Diane.
Harberts: I would support comments made by Ladd. Emphasizing that (d) on page 5 be
amended to read that bus signs are prohibited except at designated transit stops as designated
by SMTC, Southwest Metro Transit Commission. And then to strike, or to amend I guess on
page 11, number 8 to read the same. I guess based on the comments of the public hearing,
on letter 8, I'm going to sit on the fence and see where it goes. Those are my comments.
Ledvina: The comments that were made by the Chamber are all good additions and
modifications to the ordinance that we have here. I would support Ladd's comments,
33
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
especially as it relates to item (h) on page 13. I do feel that it's appropriate that that issue be
tackled in a different, or using a different mechanism. That's it.
Scott: Okay, can I have a motion?
Conrad: Sure. This is real exciting. Not that we're doing the right thing but it just may not
be back here.
Scott: Hopefully you're properly attired to make this motion then.
Conrad: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the revised
sign ordinance, Article XXVI, as drafted in the staff report. There's not really a date on here
but, okay today's date, with the following changes. On page 1, item 1. We changed the
wording, location of a business to name and service. On page 5. We revised under Section
20-1255(d), we revise the wording to say, bench signs are prohibited except at designated
transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. Does that work?
Harberts: Yes, I'll take it.
Conrad: I think legally that's the best way to do it. On page 6, point 9, item (c). Revise the
wording to say, such signs shall be set back not less than 10 feet for signage 10 feet or less.
Staff you're going to have to clean this up. Plus 1 foot of setback for each additional foot of
sign height. On the bottom of page 6, item (g). Last sentence. The word completed would
be changed to sold or leased. Top of page 7, third line down. The word completed would be
changed to sold or leased. Page 8. We would strike point number 7 under (c). We would
strike, and the developer may not apply for a second off premise directional sign permit.
Page 9. Banners shall not exceed 140 square feet, rather than 100. Page 10. Item number 4.
Add from surrounding areas to the end of that sentence.
Scott: Do you want to say residential? Are you talking about a complaint from a resident of
a leasee versus someone who's just driving in...
Conrad: Yeah, and I'd leave it open to business complaints as well. Page 11, number 8.
Bench signs are prohibited except at designated transit stops as authorized by the local transit
authority. Page 12, item under Section 20-1265(a). Staff will make (a) and (c) of this section
consistent with the intent to allow temporary signs in the utility easement when approved by
the city. Letter (g), will stand as is except with a final statement that says, this section does
not apply to buildings with less than 32 square feet of window area. Page 13. We're going
to delete (h) altogether but with a note that says, but with a recommendation to the City
Council that staff, with the help of Jeff, review the architectural ordinance in the Highway 5
34
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Overlay and determine if the architectural standards should be reviewed by staff and Planning
Commission for a separate city wide ordinance. Section 20-1266, fifth line down. Change
the number 10 to 30. Page 14, fourth line down. Add after the words, individual
dimensional letters add the words, and logos. That is the end of my motion.
Scott: Okay, is there a second to that motion?
Ledvina: Second.
Scott: Is there any discussion?
Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
amendment to the City Code, Article XXVI regarding the sign ordinance with the following
changes:
On page 1, item 1 change the wording, location of a business to name and service. On page
5 revise under Section 20-1255(d) the wording to say, bench signs are prohibited except at
designated transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. On page 6, point 9, item
(c). Revise the wording to say, such signs shall be set back not less than 10 feet for signage
10 feet or less, plus 1 foot of setback for each additional foot of sign height. On the bottom
of page 6, item (g). Last sentence. The word completed would be changed to sold or leased.
Top of page 7, third line down. The word completed would be changed to sold or leased.
Page 8, number 7 under (c), strike, and the developer may not apply for a second off premise
directional sign permit. Page 9. Banners shall not exceed 140 square feet, rather than 100.
Page 10. Item number 4. Add from surrounding areas from residents or businesses, to the end
of that sentence. Page 11, number 8. Bench signs are prohibited except at designated transit
stops as authorized by the local transit authority. Page 12, item under Section 20-1265(a).
Staff will make (a) and (c) of this section consistent with the intent to allow temporary signs
in the utility easement when approved by the city. Letter (g), will stand as is except with a
final statement that says, this section does not apply to buildings with less than 32 square feet
of window area. Page 13. We're going to delete (h) altogether but with a note that says, but
with a recommendation to the City Council that staff, with the help of Jeff, review the
architectural ordinance in the Highway 5 Overlay and determine if the architectural standards
should be reviewed by staff and Planning Commission for a separate city wide ordinance.
Section 20-1266, fifth line down. Change the number 10 to 30. Page 14, fourth line down.
Add after the words, individual dimensional letters add the words, and logos.
All voted in favor and the motion canied unanimously.
Scott: City Council?
35
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Aanenson: It will be on the 12th.
Scott: The 12th? I'd like to thank the members of the Chamber of Commerce for coming in
and assisting yet once again. I don't suppose you'll be at the City Council meeting. Thanks
very much.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REZONING OF 39 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO
RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO CREATE 48 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS, A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR
MITIGATION OF PONDING AREAS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
ALTERATION OF AREAS WITHIN A FLOOD PLAIN ON PROPERTY LOCATED
NORTH OF TWIN CITIES & WESTERN RAILROAD TRACKS WEST OF BLUFF
CREEK AND EAST OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES AND STONE CREEK, CREEKSIDE
ADDITION (FORMERLY HERITAGE FIRST ADDITION), HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY.
Public Present:
Name Address
John Dobbs 645 5th Avenue
Lloyd Grooms 1691 Lincoln Avenue
John Dietrich 922 Mainstreet, Hopkins
Steve McCurry 2050 Oakwood Ridge
Stan Rud 2030 Renaissance Court
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Harberts: Question. On what page, 25, under subdivision. That number 2. What is that
telling me? Number 2 that has a line through it.
Generous: Oh, I started to renumber this whole thing and then I redecided not to. How you
were going to vote and then...
Harberts: So 2 is included?
Generous: Yes.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Aanenson: What we attempted to do is for your edification is to show you how this has
changed. When it goes to Council, then we ...so you can see where...
Scott: Okay. Would any of the other members from city staff like to make any comments
about this development?
Hempel: I did want to make a point of clarification Mr. Chairman...the applicant with regards
to condition number 32...At this point I guess I'm open to deleting the condition with the
understanding that the condition may be brought back and put in the development contract
once it reaches the final plat stage. When the numbers are a little more...
Scott: So instead of having a blank check, which is essentially what that is.
Hempel: That's correct.
Ledvina: So you can do it at that point?
Hempel: That's correct.
Scott: So basically the condition would be used when the specific numbers or when the
developers or the applicant's exposure to special assessments is quantified by the city, then
those numbers will be included as part of the development agreement.
Hempel: In the...deleted at this point.
Scott: Okay. Do you have any comments Todd?
Hoffman: Chairman Scott, members of the commission. Last night at the Park and
Recreation Commission meeting the members did discuss the applicant's unwillingness to
show the additional park property which they had requested. They instructed me to bring a
message to the Planning Commission that they felt very strongly in that regard and that they
would uphold that requirement...
Scott: Okay. I also, I had a conversation with Jim Andrews regarding the subject of double
credit for the trail and then the...if you could perhaps. I don't know if the other
commissioners are aware what the concern was for that.
Hoffman: The Park Commission had asked for an easement, a trail easement. The applicant
is showing that as a long, linear piece of park property which may have some merits as far as
37
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
the dedication process and determined through the negotiation process once it reaches that
point....
Scott: So was the concern that the easement for the trail was also counted as park?
Hoffman: Correct.
Scott: Okay. And the position is that an easement's an easement and a park is a park and
they're not the same thing.
Hoffman: Typically, in past developments when an easement has been required or asked for,
they've been given to the city and not counted as park dedication.
Scott: Okay. Can you think of a reason why, since that appears to have been the mode of
operations with easements versus parkland, do you see any reason why this development
should be different?
Hoffman: No, I do not.
Scott: Okay. Do you have any other comments?
Hoffman: No, other than I just happened to have a photograph which shows the triangular
shaped piece of property of trees which is of interest to the park commission. Members of
the commission and staff and members of the staff and the applicant walked this area. It's
somewhat unique in that the Bluff Creek corridor is in a location which is defined...from
Highway 41 south... Throughout that experience if offers a variety of environments. One
thing which is beneficial to a trail corridor. Does not just have one type of experience... open
areas and wooded areas, is one of the aspirations of the Park and Recreation Commission in
acquiring this particular triangular shaped piece of woods would allow for that...
Harberts: Todd, am I understanding then that the applicant, and I don't know if I'm
understanding the process here, would prefer to pay park dedication fees instead of providing
the land?
Hoffman: No. What they're showing is the park dedication as the long linear strip along here
to accommodate the trail. And if indeed that was determined to be a taking, we'd be willing
to go ahead and give them credit for that. But then we would also like to negotiate a
purchase, and which we have communicated with the applicant, for the remainder of the
property.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Harberts: Okay. So what they're proposing is that the trail easement be considered as land
dedication without any additional park fees.
Hoffman: Correct.
Harberts: Okay. And the question that Joe had asked you was that in previous developments,
that there have been situations when there's easements given for trails as well as either land
for the park or park dedication. Has there ever been a request that you're aware of, similar in
nature to this one?
Hoffman: ...full park and trail fees. And then also providing...around the wetlands which is
very similar to this one.
Harberts: Fine, thanks.
Conrad: A question on wetland classification. Wetland A15-15. That's the one that you hit
right when you dump off of Stone Creek I think. This is designated as an ag urban wetland?
That is really a pretty wetland and we have a street running. I guess I'm kind of amazed that
we have a street coming right to it and obviously to continue that we're going to fill, and
that's what the applicant has to do, but I'm not sure I have a problem with the road. It's got
to go where it's got to go but I'm really kind of miffed that we allowed a road to get to this
quite nice wetland. If you took a look at it, you'd just be amazed and I guess when I see it
classified as an ag urban, I'm amazed.
Aanenson: Can you clarify that...
Hempel: Sure. The roadway alignment, the initial view of that is...Stone Creek platted when
Hans Hagen...sort of set in stone. In order to make the design curve to maintain the
standards...small portion of this wetland area. There has been, created a storm water pond
adjacent to this for the wetland area to pretreat the storm water runoff portion of this
particular development as well as the development of Stone Creek. We have tried to
minimize the impact to this wetland and continue that with a future road for this plat.
Aanenson: If I could just add to that. That was part of the reason we...and the applicant got
caught up in that whole process...we see this whole Bluff Creek corridor and adjacent to
wetlands...and as Todd indicated, it gives different opportunities...
Conrad: Dave, help me again with what went wrong. Did we anticipate the road really
missing the wetland? I'm not really pointed at this issue. I just guess when I do get out to a
site and I see something happening like this, I'm wanting to figure out what my role should
39
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
be and what you told me was when it really got delineated where the road went. Start me
there. When you saw where that road really went, it was too late to change it because.
Hempel: We were aware of the wetland outside of the Stone Creek plat and at some point
we knew we were going to have to run a road adjacent to it or try to minimize the impact to
it. And based on the topography is how this was explored. We actually got out, it was
probably a drier year when...than actually it is this year. But the applicant with this
proposal...roadway itself. Normally within the right-of-way...
Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff?
Harberts: I do. Again, going back to page 25. That number 2. When it says that shall
attempt to retain. That doesn't give me a good comfort level. Although this certainly isn't my
area of expertise, I'm just in terms of what kind of guarantee or is that giving us. I don't have
a comfortable level with that. If we were to consider shall retain, is that too restrictive given
what needs to happen? I don't know but this shall attempt. Who's going to make that
determination where that level of attempt is?
Hempel: Well that condition itself, you're right...may not be appropriate. This goes back to
previous plats that have been before you. The issue of what is considered excessive grading
on this site. What are natural features? To what extent are we trying to retain them. When
we put in streets, utilities and so forth, there is some compromise. There is...involved. I
guess staff has reviewed the plan. The applicant has made suggestions. The applicant has
not yet made those changes to improve, maintaining the knolls, the higher areas. He's still
not sacrificing or compromising on the street widths...in that approach.
Harberts: What if we took the word attempt. You know attempt to. Take that out and just
say, shall retain. Does it still achieve what you're speaking to with regard to the discussion
staff has had with the applicant or again, is it too restrictive given what you reviewed on the
plans?
Hempel: I believe it's restrictive and it's also interpretative...
Aanenson: I think what Dave is saying is correct is that we've moved in this direction.
We've made recommendations...street grades. Try to bring up the street grades... I think
we're...compromising on those issues_..This was targeted to that point and we think it's pretty
much...as Dave indicated...pretty vague. Maybe at this point it may help...
Harberts: But is it better off then that we leave it in to give I guess the city the opportunity
for interpretation on that, or not? I don't know. I'm just, again I was just uncomfortable.
40
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Hempel: Or should we rephrase it to say that the applicant shall for the most feasible
engineering practices or something like that, retain the natural topographic features.
Scott: Well what about, it seems like the major disturbance is going to be caused when the
streets and utilities goes in. I mean that's a given. Perhaps what it is, the applicant shall
retain the natural topographic features undisturbed by street and utility construction to
preserve the rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics with the final grading plan.
Then at least there's that, we know there's a given that's going to happen. I mean obviously
pads have to be put in, etc, etc but what we don't want is, you know unnecessary grading.
We're dancing around this thing but I know where you're coming from is that that's
meaningless. Well we tried, you know.
Harberts: Right.
Conrad: But Joe, they're moving a lot of earth.
Scott: Oh yeah, I understand.
Conrad: So I kind of like the vagueness at this point. You know bottom line is, they're
moving a ton of earth here and it's just like, this is, and the staff represented this very well.
This was some perspectives that we wanted in the very early parts and gave that direction. I
think the applicant has tried but they basically are saying we've got to move a lot of stuff to
fit our houses in there.
Harberts: And I'm understanding that the staff has understood that and you've reached
agreement.
Aanenson: As Ladd indicated it may not hurt if you wanted...
Harberts: Right.
Scott: This is superior to the one that came to us the first time. And that's what the job is.
Alright, any other questions or comments for staff? No? Would the applicant like to make a
presentation?
John Dietrich: Good evening. John Dietrich, RLK Associates representing Heritage
Development. I would like to thank Bob for going over the number of issues that we did
work on based on the comments that you had indicated last time. And we have addressed the
concerns we feel to the best possible solution within the confines of the city code
requirements as far as road grades, house pads, yards, side slopes that need to be addressed if
41
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
this site is to go a residential single family development according to the comprehensive plan.
The issue of site grading and cross sections, I have graphics and overheads if anyone has any
further questions, we can go over those so...hit on a couple of the other issues. The roadway
alignment, we are going to maintain the roadway alignment as it is proposed. I think Mr.
Conrad makes a good point on this wetland. We have to do a delineation as part of the site
preliminary plat requirements and with that we would like to avoid that as much as possible.
With the roadway alignment where it is, it will be shifted a little bit within the right-of-way
to try and minimize that. We will definitely do that. As we would move through the wooded
area on the south, this alignment does make the most efficient use of coming through that
wooded area in order to minimize the tree loss which we also want to do. And with the
curvalinear fashion running through the site with the undulating topography, we feel that has
a...set of aesthetics for both the users and the residential access would be placed on either side
of the street. In terms of the overall improvements to the site, we have a great opportunity
for the storm water ponding areas, identified as Outlot C and Outlot D to capture storm runoff
prior to it's discharging into the wetland itself and the wetland in the center portion of the
site. The opportunity to have a higher water quality element for this site will be one strong
outgrowth of the platting and development of this site. In turning to the parkland dedication I
would like to touch on that for just a minute. First off I would like to go towards the final
recommendations that are in the staff report. On page 28 of the staff report...just a couple of
clarifications in terms of the recommendations. The first one is item number 28. Staff
recommends that the cul-de-sac at the southern end of the site be a private drive. We've
looked at it in terms of a public drive. We feel it functions best as a complete public system
roadway but we will be willing to look at that as a private drive to try and close down the
space and a little less impact to the trees. Number 29. The extension of an 8 inch sanitary
sewer along the creek. We are still not convinced that that is the absolute best location. I
know that engineering wise it would be great if we could work it...creek preservation
elements that would have to be looked at with that sanitary sewer line runs along the center
line of the creek. Thirdly the item number 24. Individual grading, drainage and erosion
control plans will be required for each of the wooded lots. We fully would intend that to be
the case because these will be custom graded homes and they have been designed as shown
on the grading plan submitted that the building plans will work with the grading out there. It
should be noted that the woodland management plan which increased the number of
replacement trees...did account for the areas within the building pads and the driveways to be
removed so that as an application would come in to those individual lots, they would have the
right to remove the trees within that area because the replacement trees are being taken care
of at the time of the approval and are being replaced as part of the landscape plan and
woodland management plan. Item number 33, with the trail alignment along the wetlands and
Bluff Creek corridor. The proposal is that the trail alingment would follow within the 20 foot
minimal with parkland dedication running north and south through the site and that the trail
would remain along the eastern side of the ponding areas, generally in the location that is
42
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
shown. We will gladly work with staff and a soils consultant to place that trail in it's most
appropriate place along that trail corridor. And Dave Hempel has indicated on number 32.
We'd be happy to look at that as a part of the developer's agreement. I'd like to then switch
to item number 12, the Park and Recreation Commission's condition. In terms of the parkland
dedication. The overall site of 39.5 acres identifies up to 8.2 acres of outlot wetlands that
would be considered, that will be turned over to the city for... In addition to that 8.2 acres, we
are proposing that we will meet code, or actually exceed code by having the parkland
dedication...for this site. Based on the 48 residential home sites on this subdivision, the
requirement is 1.92 acres of parkland dedication. It is our full intent to dedicate this property
to the city in lieu of park dedication fees. We will donate the property as we had suggested
in the plans submitted. With the plan identifying the north/south trail corridor, or parkland
dedication corridor, the comprehensive plan identifies...running north and south along the
Bluff Creek corridor throughout the city. Bluff Creek corridor in the comprehensive plan is
described as a linear park...and as part of the parkland dedication, trail opportunities are
described as part of the parkland dedication and we feel the dedication of this 2 acre parcel
running north and south provides the greatest experience for trail users to experience
woodland areas, wetland areas of a high quality, open space, wetland area vegetation and then
coming up to the north area, a chance to start having undulating trail system and then into the
ravine that is along the northeast side of the site. The trail would have to be carefully
constructed and maintained in that corridor to be in conformance with the bluff line protection
area. The parkland dedication ordinance determines what is proper for the parkland
dedication. And your ordinance also states that a trail is to be included as parkland
dedication. The plat as submitted shows 2 acres of the dedication parkland. The Planning
Commission has stated that it is interested in more parkland than the Heritage subdivision has
indicated and in the instance where the city wants more land than the developers are prepared
to dedicate, the ordinance states and has been identified in the staff report, that the land can
be purchased or condemned. Accordingly if the commission desires more parkland than this
subdivision identifies, we recommend that the Planning Commission approve the plat as
submitted with the recommendation that the city consider purchasing the wood lots in Block
2, Lot 8, 9, 10 and 11, located at the southeast corner of the plat which would essentially be
this area here. The subdivision presented to you tonight has been a culmination of over 12
months of work with numerous redesigns, reconfigurations of roadway. Considerations of the
environmental aspects and the number of lots that could be properly set into this north/south
undulating topography site. It is our intent that this plan is the best solution for a residential
subdivision within this site and it meets all objections of the subdivision ordinance for the
city of Chanhassen. The plat as submitted with the 48 residential lots meets the requirements
of the subdivision ordinance and we would request that the Planning Commission approve the
rezoning, preliminary plat, wetland alteration permit and conditional use permit necessary in
order for this preliminary plat to move forward and on up to City Council. With that I can
answer any additional questions.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Scott: Questions or comments for the applicant? Thanks.
John Dobbs: ...John Dobbs, I'm...Heritage Development. As Mr. Hoffman mentioned...we've
been having conversations in one form or another about what this creek corridor parkland is
going to be like for some months now. Because for the reasons that Mr. Dietrich stated in
terms of what we believe the trail is in terms of park, a linear park...that discussions follow if
there is more land required or desired by Planning Commission or City Council and staff
other than what we're dedicating here, we can discuss the option of purchase and...you always
have the right to condemn and go forward and we've had that conversation for quite a while
so I'm in no way saying that either one of those options is something we'd be happy to look
at... But in the end it ends up basically being an issue of park or a trail easement is park or
whether it's a taking... Thank you very much.
Scott: This is a public hearing. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please?
Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion canied. The public hearing was opened.
Steve McCurry: My name is Steve McCurry and my address is 2050 Oakwood Ridge and I
just had one question. I missed the previous meeting unfortunately and so I'm a little
puzzeled about item one in your list of five things. The transition between Timberland and
this development. I have one very tangible question and that was, if preservation of a gain of
4 feet in elevation doesn't help since I don't know where we started from, and then some very
general questions. I'd like some general information about the original plan.
Generous: This is the Timberwood Estates subdivision and this is the proposed new grade for
this development. This is another cross section within the development. The existing grades.
Steve McCurry: Where is that on the map? Just in the entire cross section...
Generous: They're both in the northern third of the property.
Hempel: By the cul-de-sac.
Scott: If you can show where the section goes through. Mr. McCurry, are you primarily
interested in identifying where your property is?
Steve McCurry: No, I'm curious in general about the, there was a comment about
maintaining the aesthetics of the transition between Timberland and...and I'm curious to know
what the opinion was about what the aesthetics are and then I had a very specific question
44
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
because there are, there was a lot of discussion about...and how much earth had to be moved
and so on and...certainly true. But knowing that it was 4 feet higher than it was...
Scott: Did you get your question answered?
Steve McCurry: I think so. My house is right on the bottom there.
Generous: You'll overlook this development.
Steve McCurry: Yeah, and I do now. I was just trying to get some understanding of how
low the hill was going to be. It doesn't look bad. Thank you.
Scott: Certainly. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing?
Stan Rud: I'd just like to... My name is Stan Rud, 2030 Renaissance Court. And it was
mentioned on the transition there. Is there any landscaping or any trees or anything that are
going to be put in as a buffer to Timberwood? Any evergreen type trees or will there be just
power lines on the east or west of the power lines, because you can't climb under it...
Generous: Just from the east side of, it's a mixture I believe.
Stan Rud: Is there any kind of a landscaping picture or anything?
John Dietrich: ...in the wooded area...
Scott: Good. Anyone else?
John Dobbs: John Dobbs again. Just briefly, NSP does...contact the people when they come
back to do...so they will have to come back and contact people when they're cutting through
to trim trees...
Scott: Good. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Seeing none, may I
have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Conrad moved, Halberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion caned. The public hearing was closed.
Ledvina: I think there have been some changes in the development plan. I think the
applicant has worked with staff in making many of the changes come about. I think that after
walking the site and having an opportunity to see the significance of the, and the innerelation
45
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
between the Bluff Creek area, the wooded area and the wetland in the southern portion of the
site. I feel it would be a tremendous amenity for the future residents in that area so I have to,
I strongly support staff in their specific condition as it relates to the trail and the park in that
area. As I was reading through the City Council Minutes when this thing was evaluated as a
PUD, I noted that the Council members were very concerned with the screening and the
transition from Timberwood and I share that concern as well. I think the real concern occurs
pretty much along the northern 1/3 of the property boundary with Timberwood and affecting
those two residences. I know the developer has developed, or prepared a landscaping plan
which somewhat intensifies the plantings in that area but I guess I feel that I would like to
have this re-evaluated in light of the new grades. If we move things up. I don't remember
seeing this exact planting scheme so I don't know how it compares with the previous plans
but again I would like to see if there's an opportunity to intensify the plantings along that
northern third of the property boundary and I'll leave that up to the applicant to work out with
staff if that can be done. I think as it relates to the public improvements, we can handle that
with the development agreement. I would support eliminating I think it's condition 32. That's
the extent of my comments.
Scott: Diane.
Harberts: I don't have any other comments.
Scott: Okay, Ladd.
Conrad: I'm comfortable with the transition between Timberwood and this parcel. When
Matt and I walked the site there were two lots we were concerned with. Matt, I don't know
who's going to make the motion but there were two lots that I think if I were in Timberwood
I'd have a little bit of concern but other than those two, I think everything's fairly, there's
enough distance there so I think staf report in general and the applicant and the staff have
done a good job in making sure we have the right transition so, but again Matt, I don't know
if your comments relate to those two. If they do, I would support at least a relook at what's
appropriate for those two parcels. Kate, did we save any trees in the middle part there? The
oaks.
Aanenson: We've got one.
Conrad: They all coming down?
Aanenson: All those are down.
46
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Conrad: I'll re-echo Matt's point. I think the park, as requested by the Park and Rec
Department, the trail system and the park there, I think it's real appropriate. I think it is a
good amenity. I think it should be purchased or condemned or whatever the appropriate
vehicle is. I think that is something that Chanhassen should have for the residents. Other
than that, my only other comment is, and I'm not sure how to do this. The one wetland that I
referenced before. It is a classic pretty clean wetland and I guess I don't have the right
motion to make but I guess the best I can do is to re-echo to staff that some great care I hope
can be taken when we go in there and put a road in it because it will be in it. That's all.
Scott: Thanks, Jeff.
Farmakes: I don't have much new to add. In fact nothing. I support the city being
aggressive in regards to the park. I think that considering the amount of work or planning
that's gone into the creek... The issue of the elevation plans, I'll just support the comments
that have already been made on that...
Scott: Can I have a motion please?
Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend preliminary approval. I'm
sorry, recommend preliminary plat approval of Subdivision #94-7 subdividing 39.5 acres of
land into 44 lots and 4 outlots subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report with the
following conditions. Elimination of conditions 1, 5, 11, 32 and addition of condition number
37 which shall read, applicant shall investigate modification of the landscaping plans to
further intensify planting along the northern Timberwood property line to enhance the
screening effect from existing Timberwood development, particularly those dwellings at 8001
Acorn Avenue and 2050 Oakwood Ridge. Condition number 38. Applicant shall adjust the
alignment of the roadway at the southern end of the parcel to adjust the roadway alignment at
the southern end of the parcel within the right-of-way to minimize the impact to the existing
wetland in that area.
Scott: Can I have a second please?
Conrad: I'll second.
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends preliminary plat
approval of Subdivision #94-7 subdividing 39.5 acres of land into 44 lots and 4 outlots
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall attempt to retain the natural topographic features to preserve the
rolling terrain effect and drainage characteristics with the final grading plan.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
2. A woodland management plan will be required as part of the platting process.
3. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor elevation, top of foundation
elevation and garage floor elevation. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show
standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
4. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review
prior to final plat approval.
5. Submit street names to Chanhassen Fire Marshall for approval.
6. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safety operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen
City Ordinance Section 9-1.
7. Submit plans to Fire Marshal showing the connection to either existing or proposed
streets at the north end or south end of the proposed road.
8. Fire hydrant locations are acceptable.
9. Park and Recreation conditions:
a. The land bounded by Bluff Creek on the east, the railroad on the south, the
extension of Stone Creek Drive and Outlot B on the west, and the arm of Bluff
Creek on the north be shown as parkland. Said property to be purchased through
a combination of park dedication, fee credit and cash.
b. A 30 foot trail easement shall be dedicated along the Bluff Creek
Corridor/wetland complex along the north and east portions of the plat.
c. The alignment of the 8 foot bituminous trail be amended to reflect the direction
given the applicant by staff specifically that the trail shall depart the creek
corridor enter the parkland and meet the road extension at the southern wetland
prior to its connection with the railroad underpass. Said trail to be constructed
with the first phase of improvements completed by the applicant with a lump
sum cost for the trail being reimbursed by the city. Note: The applicant shall
supply the city with three quotes for the construction of said trail with the final
alignment being staked for approval by the City's Park and Recreation and
Engineering Department prior to construction.
48
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
10. The applicant shall revise the development plans to include a 100 foot setback buffer
around Bluff Creek and a 50 foot setback buffer along the tributary to Bluff Creek.
11. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored
with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice
Handbook. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface
Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be
submitted to the City for review and formal approval by the City Council. Type III
erosion control will be required adjacent to all wetlands except where storm ponds will
intercept runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. In these areas Type I erosion
control is required.
12. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and
utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council
approval.
13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality/quantity ponds
in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to
review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-
developed storm water calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level
and high water level calculations in existing basins. Individual storm sewer
calculations for a 10 year storm event between each catch basin segment will also be
required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water
quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
15. the applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Carver County Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA,
DNR, Army Corps of Engineers and MnDot, and comply with their conditions of
approval.
16. Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall submit to the City soil boring
information. On lots with fill material that have been mass graded as part of a multi-
49
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
lot grading project, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils engineer shall be
provided to the Building Official before the City issues a building permit for the lot.
17. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat
for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width
shall be a minimum of 20 feet. Consideration should also be given for access for
maintenance of the ponding areas.
18. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within right-of-way areas.
19. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings should be a minimum of 3 feet above the
high water level calculated according to the shoreland ordinance guidelines.
20. The proposed storm water ponds shall be designed with side slopes of 10:1 for the
first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1
throughout for safety purposes. The storm ponds shall be constructed with the initial
site grading.
21. Individual grading, drainage and erosion control plans will be required for each
wooded lot prior to issuance of a building permit.
22. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. If the applicant
constructs the water quality ponds as proposed, these fees will be waived.
23. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer
trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the SWMP design
requirements. The fees will be determined by staff upon approval of the construction
plans.
24. The applicant shall report to the City ENgineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City
Engineer.
25. The southerly cul-de-sac shall be re-evaluated for a private driveway in an effort to
pull the house pads away from the tree line. A turn around in accordance with the
Fire Marshal's recommendations shall be provided.
26. The applicant shall be required to extend an 8 inch sanitary sewer line to the westerly
edge of the plat along the Bluff Creek tributary (Lots 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, Block 3).
50
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
27. The northerly proposed interim storm pond shall be shown on the grading plan.
Details such as contour lines and the outlet control structure shall be included.
28. The north/south street shall be extended through to the frontage road within three years
after the final plat is approved. The applicant shall provide the city with a financial
security to guarantee the roadway extension will be completed.
29. The trail alignment around the wetlands (Bluff Creek corridor) shall be determined in
the field after walking the site and consulting a soils engineer.
30. The final plat shall dedicate the appropriate utility and drainage easements for access
and maintenance of the storm sewer lines as well as ponding areas and wetlands. The
wetlands and ponding areas may be deeded to the city as outlots as well.
31. The applicant shall employ the use of retaining walls along the east side of the
southerly creek crossing to minimize tree loss.
32. Adjust the lot lines for those properties that abut the Bluff Creek tributary to use the
tributary/bottom of ravine as the lot line.
33. The applicant shall investigate modification of the landscaping plans to further
intensify planting along the northern Timberwood property line to enhance the
screening effect from existing Timberwood development, particularly those dwellings
at 8001 Acorn Avenue and 2050 Oakwood Ridge.
34. Applicant shall adjust the alignment of the roadway at the southern end of the parcel
to adjust the roadway alignment at the southern end of the parcel within the right-of-
way
ightof-
way to minimize the impact to the existing wedand in that area.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Conditional Use Permit #94-4 to permit filling and replacing wetlands on the site subject to
the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the wetland fill/excavation and wetland mitigation
conditions as stated in Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit. Mitigation work shall
be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in future phases of the
project. All mitigation work shall be limited to the Bluff Creek corridor and not in the
wetland located at the southwest corner of the site.
51
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
All voted in favor and the motion carred.
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Wetland Alteration Permit #94-4 to permit filling and replacing wetlands on the site subject to
the following conditions:
1. All buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked by the applicant in accordance with the
City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before
construction begins and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign.
2. Wetland buffer areas are required around the wetlands in accordance with the City
Wetland Ordinance. The applicant shall revise the development plans to include a 50
foot buffer around Bluff Creek with a 100 foot building setback and a 10 to 30 foot
buffer with a minimum average of 20 feet around the tributary to Bluff Creek with a
50 foot building setback.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Kate Aanenson asked for clarification on the previous motion of Matt Ledvina.
Ledvina: That motion would include the Conditional Use Permit and Wetland Alteration
Permit with the items identified in the staff report.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Harberts moved, Ledvina seconded to approve the Minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting dated November 2, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Scott: Could you give us a City Council update?
Kate Aanenson stated that there was not a written update.
Scott: Well the significant matter, I got in at about 8:00 and basically the discussion centered
around reconsidering the Council's decision on the Ryan property. As you may recall, the
Mayor voted for denial. I believe Councilman Senn voted to approve. I believe Councilman
Wing voted to approve and I belive that Councilwoman Dockendorf abstained from voting.
Ledvina: Wing also abstained. Mason voted for.
52
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Scott: Okay, good. So what Councilman Mason made a motion that the Mayor and the
Ryan's get together and bring all the information to the table. I guess they were somewhat
put off. The concern I know Councilwoman Dockendorf was concerned that a lot of new
information came to the table at the City Council meeting and that they were put into a
situation where some of them felt they had made a bad decision. A bad decision to one that
could have been better if it were better informed. So Councilman Mason was concerned to
make sure that his motion said that they wanted to basically reinforce the decision that they
made to approve the development. However, it was not to specifically reconsider it for the
purpose of reversing their decision. So I mean it was very specific in that they didn't want to
give the impression that they were going to be over turning their decision. But they wanted
to re-investigate all the information and see it with enough time so basically the Mayor's
going to be getting together with the Ryan's.
Aanenson: That's already happened today. We met with the applicant today so we'll see,
really what we're asking to do is to provide a little bit more detail...
Ledvina: What's that? The 28th? Not our meeting.
Scott: No.
Aanenson: No, no. City Council. We won't be meeting again until December 7th so that
will be our last meeting for the year.
Scott: And that was really it. That meeting was over with at about 10 after 8:00.
Aanenson: ...everything else was on Consent. And that came up I think...
Scott: So that was to the best of my recollection on that one.
Aanenson: You will have a large agenda the next meeting. You did table Lake Ann
Highlands. We met with the applicant and neighbors. Bob and I did go out and look at
one...so we've asked them to provide, looking at the knoll on there and see if they can revise
the grading and give us some alternatives. We have some additional landscaping plans but
we just think...
Farmakes: Was there any involvement from the citizens over there?
Aanenson: Yes...there were two spokespeople that were at that meeting and Brad has set a
neighborhood meeting with that group for November 30th. Neighborhood meeting to try and
resolve some issues. I think it was a productive meeting. There's a lot of feelings...
53
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Farmakes: Do you feel that the spokespeople understand how the process works now? I got
the impression from the group.
Aanenson: We tried. I'm not sure they do quite yet. We tried to work on that.
Scott: Let me just ask a question. It's my perception that only in a few instances are
neighborhood meetings held motivated by the developer wanting to. I mean it seems like a
lot of times.
Aanenson: We always ask if there's a large neighborhood next door, like we did with the
Oaks. They worked very closely with those people. If there's a large neighborhood next
door...
Scott: Yeah, it seems like the motivation does not come internally from the developer. It's
more city staff. It's more tabling.
Aanenson: It depends on the developer but generally if there's a neighborhood...
Scott: Okay. Do we have any ongoing items?
Aanenson: No. I talked to you about, we're working with...We'll be working on that and
then this Highway 5 thing and trying to get that resolved. The corridor. That's part of the
other problem is the neighbors are concerned about we don't even know where the road's
going to be...and now we're getting into a new year. We've kind of lost that learning curve...
thought process there. MnDot is...we've got development happening and we need to know...
Scott: But that falls in the Council's lap.
Ledvina: But yeah. So is that decision going to be made?
Aanenson: ...MnDot make the decision. Whether or not...
Harberts: What's the approval time line?
Aanenson: Well, they're saying it's a 1998 project. MnDot's trying to get...already got
pushed back...
Ledvina: I had a question. I saw in the Chanhassen Villager that there were 3 seats that
were available with the Planning Commission. I thought there were 2.
54
Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 1994
Aanenson: Yeah, we had to advertise. There was an ordinance that was passed that said that
the Council will always advertise positions. I mean the three that are up, I've told them that
you're interested. I have to get back to them to find out exactly what they want to do as far
as, in the past they've always interviewed but that was because there was a vacancy...
Ledvina: Yeah, there aren't any vacancies.
Aanenson: But they still always advertise.
Scott: Well yeah, that's fine and if people, I think as long as people know that the folks who
are here want to do it.
Aanenson: We put that in the ad too. The ad did say that all three...
Scott: And if someone wants to be interviewed.
Aanenson: ...but that's one of the resolutions... Then we will have just one meeting in
December.
Ledvina: I can handle a 1:00 o'clocker.
Scott: How about open discussion?
Haibeits moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
55