CC Minutes 8-8-05
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Sure, go ahead.
Councilman Labatt: How much of this land does MnDot own? Bottom line.
Todd Hoffman: How much, the whole corridor.
Councilman Labatt: So if MnDot owns it and they’re not going to get permission, then let’s just
make it for ease of enforcement sake, everything north like we’ve just proposed here, no hunting
so that if people go out there and hunt, it’s as clear as mud that the ordinance says no hunting
north of Lyman. I mean I can’t believe we’re sitting here.
Todd Hoffman: It’s not, Councilman some of these areas that are owned by MnDot may still be
farmed and the road may not affect them this fall, the construction, so that’s what I think what
you’re saying. You can still hunt, some of the road right-of-way is still going to be cornfields.
Councilman Labatt: We’re trying to put a postage stamp here where a person can hunt out there
in a small little parcel and it might be just easier, the ease of it just to say no hunting north of
Lyman Boulevard. So that’s all my comment.
Councilman Lundquist: I would move to table item 1(e).
Mayor Furlong: Motion made. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to table the amendment to
the designated shooting areas in the city. All voted in favor, except Councilman Labatt and
Mayor Furlong who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
None.
REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2)
TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND GALPIN BOULEVARD;
CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION, PLANNING
CASE 05-23.
Public Present:
Name Address
Abby Wilson 2332 Stone Creek Drive
Ron Blum 2081 Stone Creek Drive
4
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Gene Kruchoski 2030 Boulder Road
Dan Luna 2483 Bridle Creek Trail
Rodney Melton 2413 Bridle Creek Trail
Mark & Chris Fischer 2407 Bridle Creek Trail
Gayleen & Roger Schmidt 8301 Galpin Boulevard
Jeff & Dee McGuire 2272 Stone Creek Lane East
Dean Held 2230 Stone Creek Lane East
Ben Merriman 8156 Mallory Court
Helen & Gary Schock 2309 Boulder Road
Peter & LuAnn Sidney 2431 Bridle Creek Trail
Kevin DiLorenzo 2382 Stone Creek Lane West
Barry LaBounty 2421 Bridle Creek Trail
Thor Smith 2139 Boulder Road
Amina Linkous 2208 Boulder Road
Drew Dingman 2403 Bridle Creek Trail
Mike Wright 2280 Boulder Road
Rodney Melton 2413 Bridle Creek Trail
Joel Lehrke 2329 Boulder Road
Craig Johnson 2450 Bridle Creek Trail
Bob Generous: Thank you Mayor, council members. As you stated this is a hearing regarding,
there’s two parts to it. First there’s the rezoning. The property is currently zoned Agricultural
Estate. It’s guided in the comprehensive plan for office industrial uses. Under that land use.
The appropriate zonings in the city code are either in IOP, Industrial Office Park or a Planned
Unit Development. The applicant originally submitted a plan using an IOP concept. Upon
initial review of that staff recommended that they proceed through a Planned Unit Development
so that we could encourage and massage the project to save additional trees and topography in
this site, so they came back and we were able to get the plat that’s before you tonight. The
rezoning from A2 to PUD. As part of the PUD the city establishes specific design standards for
this project. We start with the IOP district regulations and we sort of distilled it down. In this
instance we removed most of the auto related uses. We incorporated all of the design standards
that we have for conditional uses and IOP and made them permitted uses subject to city
approval. We’ve developed this based on other projects that we’ve had in the community. We
think that we have provided some safeguards for the abutting property owners as well as
providing good guidelines for the developer. We anticipate a quality development and this
developer has come through under IOP zoning and done a good job on like Lake Susan, the
business park on Lake Drive. Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning from A2 to PUD
subject to approval of the plat. The second part of this project is the preliminary plat. This
development would create 8 lots for development and 3 outlots. Outlots A and B contain
wetlands and storm water ponds. Outlot C is the preserved area that we were able to maintain as
part of this industrial development. It contains a significant stand of trees on the topographic
separation from the east to the west. The outlot, one of the conditions of approval for the plat is
either that they place a conservation easement over the outlot or dedicate it to the city for open
space surfaces. The subdivision itself is straight forward. The 8 lots would be accessed by a
private street that connects to Galpin Boulevard at Stone Creek Drive. We did look originally at
providing access to Lyman Boulevard but the County directed the applicant to access off of
5
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Galpin only. So that’s where the road connection came in. The applicant as part of the review
process has worked on enhancing the buffering along Galpin Boulevard in the northern property
line. In some instances they doubled the area of landscaping that’s provided. It should be noted
that the northern part of the site is approximately 17 feet lower than Galpin Boulevard at that
area, and then it comes up and it’s at grade at the entrance into the site. The southern property is
slightly above Galpin Boulevard. We are working with the developer to try to lower that one site
so that Lots 1 and 2 on the south side of the project can share a common truck area that would
screen their loading docks between the two buildings and provide a nice space on the perimeter
of the site. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions in
the staff report. As part of the preliminary plat and the grading plan there are wetland fillings
that are taking place primarily in the pasture area on the east side but then there’s some small
wetlands that are scattered in the western portion of the site. They are providing wetland
mitigation adjacent to the existing wetland in the southwest corner and they will be providing
storm water ponding to treat the storm water within the development. Staff is also
recommending approval of the wetland alteration permit. With that I’d be happy to answer any
questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilman Lundquist: Bob you talked about some safeguards that staff had put in based on
other IOP’s and things throughout the city. Can you talk specifically what those are?
Bob Generous: Well primarily it’s the separation and the landscaping requirements on the
perimeter of the site. Additionally each of these lots will come in for site plan approval on an
individual basis. At that time we’ll look at additional screening for any truck areas or loading
docks so that we can anticipate providing some noise attenuation for perimeter property. Also
we’re preserving through the PUD process that large outlot piece, approximately 4 acres and that
in itself will add to screen this development and create a different environment than you would
normally see under an industrial park. Generally when these come in they flatten the whole site
so they can set their large pads in, but they’ve tried to maintain some of the topography and
through the use of retaining walls created that area.
Councilman Lundquist: And the options for this zoning IOP or PUD, the IOP, is it accurate that
the IOP zoning has much more of a, oh say industrial park feeling to it and not more of an office
park?
Bob Generous: That’d be correct, yes.
Councilman Lundquist: And so who, does the developer choose or request the PUD or IOP or
how did we arrive at PUD rather than IOP?
Bob Generous: We negotiated with them. As they originally came in, we looked at their first
plan and Outlot C was another industrial lot at that time. We suggested that they work on ways
to preserve more of the natural area on the site. Through the PUD we’re able to transfer intensity
of development. Give more impervious surface on some of the lots by keeping this lot open and
6
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
so we were able to, and primarily they were looking in the southern part of the site to increase
the impervious area from 70% to above.
Councilman Lundquist: Pushing the impervious down towards Lyman rather than towards
Trotters Ridge.
Bob Generous: Right. Correct.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just further state that the IOP is permitted. I mean the straight IOP zoning
which is a permitted and is consistent with the comprehensive plan so if they did request that, we
suggested the PUD and the developer agreed to go that direction but either zoning district is
consistent with the guiding of industrial in the comprehensive plan.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor. Bob, if you could, one of the main I think problems
people are having is the entrance and exit off of this park, and if you could just go over briefly
you know the process with MnDot and really what power or control we have as a council in
deciding how, what happens and you know where we go from here.
Bob Generous: Well I think Paul would be better at that.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, so I don’t mean to put you on the spot but I mean that really
seems to be a hot button and if you could address it.
Paul Oehme: We did have several conversations with the County and the County has
jurisdiction over both Galpin and Lyman. They’re both A minor arterial roadway sections.
Roadways out there, and Lyman Boulevard, from the County’s perspective is a corridor they
would like to maintain. Or eliminate as much access points as possible along that corridor. The
traffic counts projecting traffic counts for the future of that roadway indicate that the amount of
access points along that roadway should be limited just because of the east/west traffic getting to
and from the west side of town into Chaska and back onto potentially 212. That’s where they
anticipate a lot of traffic to be heading. So eliminating access points where they’re not warranted
or they’re hard to justify if there’s not a T intersection, that’s where the County has had issues.
Our current ordinance also does try to limit access points on arterial collector roadways as well
to a quarter mile of distance, so we’re trying to follow our code and then also the County’s
requirements and recommendations for the separate corridor.
Councilman Lundquist: Paul, how far between Galpin and Norex?
Paul Oehme: About 1,900 feet I believe.
th
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, so that’s not quite half a mile. 4/10 of a mile or something.
th
3/10 of a mile.
7
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
th
Paul Oehme: Yeah, it’s about 3/10 of a mile. And the newer intersection point, if you refer
back to the site plan, would potentially be about 1,000 feet away from Galpin Boulevard, and the
property south of this property under consideration tonight would, if that develop would have
access off of Galpin, so that property, if and when it would develop would have access off of
Galpin and out not have an access farther to the west.
Mayor Furlong: Excuse me, just for clarification, when you say it has access off of Galpin. Is
the access going to come at the intersection of Galpin and Lyman?
Paul Oehme: Galpin at the T there.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, where the T is now will become a 4 way.
Paul Oehme: We would not anticipate another access for that property so this site at potentially
new access points for the site.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: No, that’s okay.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Peterson: The residents had mentioned the timeliness of traffic studies. Can you
walk us through when it was completed and not only what…shelf life of those are?
Paul Oehme: Sure. Well we did look at traffic volumes based upon trip generations that are
typically standard for these type of developments. We looked at that.
Bob Generous: Well using a worst case scenario for development we did provide an upper level
of what the trip in’s would be. A trip in is both entering and exiting so it could be someone
going and leaving in the same…but as part of the comprehensive plan we did look at this area as
an office industrial site in conjunction with the rest of the city and the land use have been
changed for this. As property has been developed, so we anticipated that it would be within the
same parameters of this. Normally for industrial development if they reach 1,000, a million
square feet in building area, then they trip the threshold for requiring an EAW. We felt that this
project was small enough and that the projected traffic and potential increase was within the
parameters of our study. Of our comprehensive plan.
Paul Oehme: So we did look at trip generations for this new development. We also looked at
existing trip generations within our own city comparables and we looked at Chanhassen Business
Park First Addition off of Audubon and looked at traffic volumes that are currently generated
and are really close to what potentially could be eventually built out at this time at this location
and the trip generations at the existing site are extremely close to what we were anticipating for
the new site to be so we’re confident on the traffic volumes that we have estimated for this site.
8
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. Paul, wasn’t that number your trip generation
estimate right now for this development was about 2,600 cars per day. Is that what you were
estimating?
Paul Oehme: Between 24 and 26 depending upon full build out. What exactly would go in.
Todd Gerhardt: And then our short little traffic counts that we took at Chan Business Center,
didn’t they come in about 2,400?
Paul Oehme: 24 and we did a two day count there.
Todd Gerhardt: So I think those two, I think Chan Business Center has about 345,000 square
feet of office industrial space today and this development has about 350,000 future development
once it’s fully developed out. Would generate about the same number of trips so they’re good
comparisons.
Paul Oehme: And we would anticipate a lot of this traffic, truck traffic and potential worker
traffic to be coming from Lyman Boulevard onto Galpin. Once 212’s built, that seems to be a
logical corridor for truck and worker traffic to get back and forth to the proposed development
because it is a major thoroughfare to downtown, to east of there and also west.
Councilman Lundquist: So those counts that you did at the Chan Business Park, you took the
counters out in the last week or two and put them out?
Paul Oehme: That’s correct. The counters that we took do not indicate vehicle type though. We
don’t have that capability.
Councilman Lundquist: You’re just counting how many times the tires go across the hose.
Paul Oehme: Exactly.
Todd Gerhardt: You know and depending on the uses that go in here, you’ve got the postal
service trucks coming in and going so that may be a little higher volume than what you would
see but you know on an average I think it’s a pretty good indication of what you would see for
traffic on this development. I think those are the estimates that we used when we put the
comprehensive plan in. Those are the numbers that we used in planning for the upgrade of
Galpin to the state it is today. There’s also going to be plans in the near future of looking at
Lyman Boulevard upgrade to an urban section, similar to what you see on Galpin.
Paul Oehme: And potential signals at intersections as well.
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Councilman Peterson: There’s been some discussion about the buffer between Galpin and… and
where it stands today. If those would be extended it seems as though you’re saving that
9
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
additional hard wood trees on the east, on the west side of the project. How is the buffer
currently? I’m just trying to envision.
Bob Generous: They’re showing a 50 foot buffer area from the property line to the parking lot.
What the developer said is that anything that comes off of the east side they’re going to take out
as Outlot C to make up for it so once they start moving north, they’re going into the grade too so
they don’t want to go any farther than if they try to maintain a 3 to 1 slope. Right now they’re
looking at the installation of a retaining wall along the end of Outlot C to stop the grading.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And Bob, where are we on the number of stories for some of these
buildings?
Bob Generous: Well their plans only project that they’ll have one story, and within the design
standards we provided for up to 3 stories and 40 feet. Under the industrial office park zoning,
the permitted intensity is 4 stories and 50 feet.
Councilman Peterson: Have you discussed with the developer the option of limiting it to two?
Bob Generous: Yes we have and I’ll let him address his response to it if you don’t mind.
Mayor Furlong: Anything else at this time? Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: So Bob in page 2 of your report, the second paragraph towards the end there
it says City Council can revise the design standards for building heights for Lots 1, 6 and 8 to 2
stories and 30 feet to address neighbors concerns. So we can.
Bob Generous: You can change it. You could say go up to 4 or you could say go down to 1.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then in the Planning Commission summary on point 54. Your
point was to follow the city code and have a 150 foot setback from the northeast corner, or on the
northeast corner abutting Lot 6. I figure those are the 3 or 4 first homes in Trotters Ridge. That
corner that we’re talking about, correct?
Bob Generous: That is correct.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. So they’re recommending the 100 foot setback. Next paragraph
down is staff believes that the recommended 100 foot setback buffer to the north complies with
the city code. So you’ve got two interpretations of the same part of the code.
Bob Generous: Right. The ordinance says that if the buffer yard is satisfactory to City Council,
they can reduce the required buffer by half so the 100 foot width complies with the ordinance.
Councilman Labatt: And so, you’re inferring that there’s a buffer, it is the natural vegetation and
that stuff?
10
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Bob Generous: Partially and berming and screening. Landscaping that they’re going to provide
along that northwest, northeast corner of the site.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then Lot 6, as mentioned earlier is 17 feet below the grade of
Galpin. Is going to be a finished grade, correct?
Bob Generous: Yes. The finished floor elevation they’re proposing.
Councilman Labatt: So if we take it from Galpin, and Lot 6 the finished grade is 17 feet below
so, and we put a 30 foot building on there, you’re looking at 13 feet above the grade of Galpin.
Bob Generous: Right.
Councilman Labatt: And how does that coincide that grade of Galpin to the grade of Trotters
Ridge, the first 4 or 5 homes? I mean I couldn’t find my grading plan so.
Bob Generous: They’re about 965 approximately. For the house locations. Galpin is higher
then them also. It’s 974 approximately right at the southwest. Southeast corner of Lot 1.
Councilman Labatt: So Galpin is 9?
Councilman Lundquist: 9 feet higher than the houses.
Bob Generous: The first one may be built into that. We don’t have the pads…
Councilman Labatt: Then the height of the berm that they’re proposing is like?
Bob Generous: 6 feet.
Councilman Lundquist: On the Galpin side or.
Councilman Labatt: No, on the north. On the north side. What if we asked them to double that?
Bob Generous: Then you’d have a 12 foot berm.
Councilman Labatt: They can provide the grade and the slope and all that.
Bob Generous: Right. They could meet the 3 to 1. Our only concern has been, and it’s one of
the conditions that we looked at addressing any drainage that would result from that.
Councilman Labatt: I’ll come back to that point. That’s all I have for right now.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Couple things I’d like to go back over, just to make sure from
an understanding standpoint. Changes in the design that have occurred since the Planning
Commission, just so we are aware if there’s something that they saw at the Planning Commission
but it’s not there now. Can you summarize for us what changes have occurred.
11
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Bob Generous: The primary one is that they’ve enhanced the landscaping along the north and
east property lines. I don’t, I just got this plan today so I don’t know a count but visually looking
at it, it looked at least on the south part that they have a double row of trees instead of the single
that was originally shown.
Mayor Furlong: You said south part. This is up along?
Bob Generous: On Galpin.
Mayor Furlong: On Galpin down and then.
Bob Generous: Adjacent to Lot 1.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay.
Bob Generous: And they would blend that in with the existing trees. Also what they don’t show
is that we’re going to try to lower Lot 1 approximately 5 feet so that we don’t have a retaining
wall between Lot 1 and 2. Most likely that retaining wall should go over to the eastern side of
the site, but we’ll see that as part of any final construction plan.
Mayor Furlong: In terms of land use, we have residential neighborhoods to the north, to the east
of this site. It’s guided for this purpose. First question I have is the property to the south of
Lyman directly south of this property, the nursery.
Kate Aanenson: Holasek’s.
Mayor Furlong: Holasek’s. What is that guided?
Bob Generous: Office industrial.
Mayor Furlong: So the same use is being proposed here.
Bob Generous: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And in terms of changes as we think about traffic in the comprehensive
plan in this area, what changes have occurred in land use guiding that you’re aware of and…
Kate Aanenson: Actually the most significant one in this area was the school district. They
bought a piece of property that was also guided industrial and the city has received numerous
requests over the years to change that to multi family and stood firm on the industrial. In looking
at the school needs and trying to possibly make a high school, that was at the time the talk, the
District 112 they look at a high school and the City Council agreed for that purpose only, that if
it didn’t become a school that they would rezone it back to this industrial. But that was the other
significant one in this area.
12
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Mayor Furlong: And refresh my memory when we were looking at, because I think we were
dealing with traffic in the AUAR for the 2005 MUSA area and now it’s the school site is outside
of that but we were looking at school site and an industrial commercial site as one or the other
within the 2005. What were the traffic patterns between the two? I mean the fact that that’s now
a school versus potentially commercial, is that going to be generating more or less traffic…
Kate Aanenson: In the AUAR we’ve looked at, and that would be just for everybody’s
clarification, that’d be the area south of Lyman. Here’s Lyman to Pioneer. Future Powers and
Audubon. About 600 acres in there. We actually looked at a 30 acre school in that site and the
AUAR, or the traffic study as a part of that environmental assessment actually determined that
the school would probably be equivalent to the industrial trips generated. A lot of it has to do
with the type of school. If it’s high school, that obviously has more trips because more drivers.
As opposed to the elementary which has the least amount of trips because most of those kids are
bussed. So there’s more parents…
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So that site could still, I mean obviously the school district owns it. The
intention is to build a school. So but the traffic out there is not going to be expected to be
significantly different.
Kate Aanenson: Than if it would be an industrial park.
Mayor Furlong: Had it been industrial which is still possible.
Kate Aanenson: Right.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. With the PUD versus the IOP. What is that, has anything been
done with regard to architectural standards and for the development?
Bob Generous: Well we provided specific standards in there that go up and beyond what the
office industrial commercial design standards require. We said no back sides to the building
that’s visible to the public. Materials can be limited. Again we can work on building types and
specified as part of the design standards, zoning of the property.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So the standards within the PUD document this evening are higher
standards you’re saying than they would be just in the general ordinance?
Bob Generous: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Having come through a PUD. Okay. Where else in the city, and I think there
was a mention of Chan Business. Where else do we have situations here, I mean there obviously
has to transition between any type of land use and another. Where do we have other situations
where we have a land use such as this commercial land use next to residential?
Bob Generous: Low density off of Dell Road and Lake Drive East where Super Valu and those
projects are. And then we have the residential in Eden Prairie.
13
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Kate Aanenson: It also abuts Chanhassen too, so the Super Valu… Then the other one would be
Lake Drive West.
Mayor Furlong: And where’s that located?
Kate Aanenson: If you go on Lake Susan Hills, to the south, that industrial park, and that’s a
newer industrial park. Then we also have the Chan Business Center where the National Weather
Service is, that is residential low density to the south.
Councilman Lundquist: You have Stone Creek and General Mills as well.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Actually there’s another one too, that is Timberwood. Right on the
corner of Timberwood. When we put the road in…there across from the elementary school, just
on that corner of Timberwood.
Mayor Furlong: Across from the church and elementary school.
Kate Aanenson: And there’s some multiple housing right there that’s adjacent to Stone Creek
Drive…
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Let’s see, other questions right now.
Councilman Lundquist: Bob the drainage north of Lot 6 mostly. As I was walking around out
there last week, you know we haven’t had a lot of rain. It’s pretty sloppy down at the bottom
there and as we look at grading and doing berming and all of that stuff there, there’s kind of, I
forget exactly which house it is in Trotters Ridge but there’s sort of a culvert thing there that
apparently doesn’t work all that well and I guess as we do those berming and those things, has
Lori taken a shot at what we think is going to happen to the water there that now uses, kind of
pools right where that building on Lot 6 will be.
Bob Generous: Lori and our engineers and their engineers and we still want to, the ultimate
design will depend on what the final berm is and so we’ll have to look where we need to put
intermediate catch basins in also to pick up water within the site. The developer’s open to that.
Whatever he needs to do to treat his water.
Councilman Lundquist: So we’re looking at it from the standpoint of the water in the bottoms of
those yards should get better or remain and definitely not get worst. That’s our standpoint?
Bob Generous: Yes.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Do we have that set as a requirement anywhere?
Bob Generous: Only in the general that the developer will work with staff to address the
drainage issues on the north side of Lot 6.
14
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And then the distance between, really between that northeast
corner of the building on Lot 5, or the lot on 5 and the north property line. We’ve got that Outlot
B, is that a triangle piece so from the, what have we got from the setback there? Is that 150 feet?
Bob Generous: That’s over 200 feet.
Councilman Lundquist: Over 200 feet, okay.
Bob Generous: Primarily because they need to have the wetland setback.
Councilman Lundquist: On Lot A.
Bob Generous: For Outlot A.
Councilman Lundquist: B, I’m sorry.
Mayor Furlong: Excuse me councilman. What’s that from the wetland?
Bob Generous: It’s a 40 foot setback from the buffer and a 16 ½ foot buffer requirement so 56
and a half.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Sorry.
Councilman Lundquist: And then, last when we talked about, we talked a little bit about access
from Lyman. We talked about also the potential of access to the west through the existing
business park in Chaska. Can you talk about those conversations and what came out of that.
Bob Generous: We did ask Chaska if they would be opposed to that idea. They said go ahead.
However in looking at it, there’s two issues in that. First we have private property. The only
place theoretically to put it would split the two properties just to the west of this. Lot 5.
Councilman Lundquist: 4 and 5?
Bob Generous: Yeah, right up in that northwest corner of the site. And if you go to the Chaska
side there’s a retaining wall in that location also so there’s topographic changes that would be
tough.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Is that a public street or a private street that it would access off
of.
Bob Generous: It would be two driveways. So it would be, it’s private driveways. Two of them
rather than even a private street that would serve two properties.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
15
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this time? We may have some others as we do
hear more. Okay, at this time the applicant’s here. Like to come forward and address the
council? Thank you.
Ben Merriman: Mr. Mayor, council members. Good evening. My name’s Ben Merriman. I
represent Eden Trace and the developer of the property. Sometimes it’s easier to start from the
beginning then kind of walk through things then it is to jump right in so I’d kind of like to do that
if I may. I’ll try to be relatively brief because some of these subjects have already been covered.
We originally looked at the 40 acre site and as Bob mentioned we came in under an IOP and
with that IOP we had one additional lot to what you’re seeing now. We complied with
everything within the zoning requirements of an IOP and had that lot in there. We met with staff
and I really got to extend my gratitude and appreciation to your staff of Chanhassen. The depth
of knowledge within the staff is excellent and they pointed out a number of different factors that
persuaded us to go into a PUD, and so I think we owe them some gratitude from that standpoint
because they’ve helped us through this process. We have a couple wetlands that we’re dealing
with. There was one that is in this area here and then a couple of spots that are in here. Those
are being mitigated to the wetland area there. We have a regional holding pond. Our
preservation area is approximately 4 acres and that’s the outlot that we’re going to leave as a
preservation area, and that’s this area here. In designing that we also took into consideration a
majority of the trees that extend beyond the 4 acres which is down in this area here. In order to
do that what we’ve done is design the shared drive between these two lots rather than running
two driveways, one for each. And in doing so we’ve been able to save a lot of these trees. We
also ran a lot line between these two trees that are here in order to maximize the number of trees
and save them. After the planning meeting we did a number of different things to try and
appease the neighbors of this development, and I think we’ve done an excellent job. I’d like to
kind of go through those. First of all we increased the number of trees that are being planted on
this property and this is just for the development. Each building has to come in and also plant
trees and that type of thing, so we’re not addressing the buildings. Just the development itself.
At this point we have enough trees in the exterior buffer zones to comply with an IOP zoning. In
other words if we’ve gotten the site, we have enough trees planted in the buffer zone to comply
with the tree replacement requirements that you currently have. The tree replacement or the
number of trees that we increased are in a couple of different areas. First area is right through
here. All these trees in here were added and then again through here and then we’ve increased
the area through here dramatically. All this area and from here to here we have trees planted to
the maximum number we can get in there. In other words there’s only so close you can put each
tree and it will still allow growth, so we’ve maxed out the number of trees that we can plant
essentially along the borders of this industrial park. There’s been a lot of talk and rightly so
about this area in here. Now we first talked about just putting in a large berm and Lori, rightfully
so came in and said look, and Jill came in and said, look if you plant trees on top of a big berm, a
big hill, they’re going to die. You can’t just do that. So we had to come up with another
solution, and what we’re suggesting is above and beyond planting all these trees through here,
the wall of this building here will act as basically a retaining wall. So what we’re going to do is
start a slope outside of these trees. When this property develops. I can’t do it prior to this
building going in but the building wall is going to act as a retaining wall. So what we’ll do is run
an undulating berm…ski hill coming up to this and then undulate the hill and roll it a little bit
and put in spruce trees are normally the best that we can provide, up towards the building and
16
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
then the trees that are planted along the perimeter in the buffer zone, those will be deciduous
trees of maples and lindens and that type of thing. What this does, and the, it’s a little bit high. I
don’t know if you can zoom in on this, but what our architect did is put a building, and I’ll put
my glasses on to read. This is 40 foot. This is a 30 foot high building. So we looked at two lots
and then what we did is in the back yard of Lot 2 of Trotters Ridge, if you were standing at the
walkout level, and you’re 6 foot tall, this is the sight line that you’re going to see. Now the
architect, we’re asking to undulate the hill a little bit differently than what he’s got…bring it up a
little bit higher in this area here. Well basically this is the sight line so if you’re standing there,
at the floor elevation of Lot 2, we’re decreasing the amount of visibility of the building quite
dramatically by building this hill. We think that will help a lot. The area in there will be
maintained in more of a natural state. I think we need a little bit of discussion about this with the
neighbors as to what they’d like to see in there, but I think what we’re finding is not something
that’s sodded and mowed once a week, but something more in line of a natural vegetation and
perhaps it needs to be cut 5 times a year. 4 times a year. It’s probably not too dissimilar from, in
the Chanhassen Business Park there is the weather station has a large area and I believe that’s cut
several times a year, but it’s not mowed per se. The drainage has also been something that we’ve
looked at in that area. There is a culvert in there. To be quite honest I don’t know the size of
that culvert and we’ll investigate as to it’s size and it’s capacity. We will however put in our’s a
drain for anything that comes off of that hill so any additional drainage that’s going to occur, if
that culvert can’t take in that water, then we will pipe a drain in there to take care of any excess
water, and we’ll work with staff and our engineers and their engineers to guarantee that there
isn’t any additional water that’s going into that area. It’s my understanding that water does
accumulate in that area and then slowly drain off into that drain. There’s one other area that we
changed a little bit and Bob alluded to it and that is these two lots down here. Currently we have
a grade change between this lot and this lot through the center line. What we’re proposing to do
is lower this building. We’re not sure exactly how much to lower but we’re trying to lower the
building a couple of feel and then we’ll change this access point and by doing that these two
buildings sit at the same floor elevation. We eliminate that retaining wall. The retaining wall
can go here and we’re able to save a little bit more trees and be able to get the building lower so
when the new trees are planted, it covers more of the building. I think that pretty much covers the
changes that we’ve made. There was also some conversation about the height of buildings and
that’s an area that we’re willing to bend a little bit off the 40 feet and we’ve worked with the
folks and try to find a building height that works for us and it also will work for the neighbors. If
you have any questions I’d be happy to answer them.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions of Mr. Merriman.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Merriman, you might not, maybe this is a question for Kate or Bob.
There’s a building that you can see from, that would essentially be just to the west of your’s on
Lot 5 in that Chaska industrial park there. How, do you know, anybody know how high that is
about from the back of the houses in Trotters Ridge?
Ben Merriman: The bakery or Lewis Engineering?
Councilman Lundquist: Either one. The higher of the, when you stand in that back yard you can
see, there’s a pretty prominent building that sticks up above the fence there.
17
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Ben Merriman: There’s a bakery back there and that has, that’s got to be well over 30 feet. And
Lewis Engineering isn’t quite that tall. I think they’re probably, I guess I don’t know exactly
how tall their building is.
Councilman Lundquist: And then there’s a grade change between that and what Lot 5 would be
at now.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. That’s why there’s a retaining wall on the Chaska side.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions? Of Mr. Merriman.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Merriman, one of the, we brought up earlier was a retaining wall
going from 6 to 12 and I think Steve, I don’t know whether you were talking about that on the
north side or not but the impact of moving from 6 to 12 could, I’m assuming that could mean
taking out more trees and increasing the angle, considering you would lose the benefit of
increasing the berm because you could have less vegetation on the higher berm, would that be
safe to assume or not?
Ben Merriman: On Lot 1?
Councilman Peterson: On the north.
Councilman Lundquist: I think he means 6.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah. Just the berm.
Ben Merriman: The berm height? Increasing the berm height?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah. Anywhere from that northern part where the residents are, Steve is
that where you’re talking about increasing the berm?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, by Lots 2, 3 and 4 side.
Councilman Lundquist: Of Trotters.
Ben Merriman: Yeah, I think 3 to 1 is maintainable so we could certainly run a 3 to 1 slope from
essentially where we’re planting the new trees all the way up to the building. Or through that
entire 100 foot setback. We could run a 3 to 1. I’d like to see some undulation of that and so
that it looks a little bit more natural than just a runoff slope. And in doing so if you create some
pockets, that will collect some of the water for the trees and you plant the trees in the pocket and
that seems to work fairly well. As that area wouldn’t be irrigated, or at least we weren’t planning
on irrigating it.
18
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Todd Gerhardt: And that’s what you’re proposing right now is a 3 to 1. To go higher you would
go above a 3 to 1 slope.
Ben Merriman: Well you can go higher. Increase the 3 to 1 angle?
Todd Gerhardt: If you made the berm taller, you would lose your 3 to 1 slope, correct?
Ben Merriman: Yep.
Todd Gerhardt: And then you have kind of a maintenance issue that you’re going to have to one,
real question if the trees will grow on that steep of a berm and then two, I don’t know how you
maintain it. It would have to be just natural grasses of some sort that would never be mowed.
Ben Merriman: It gets very tough. I mean you could not, essentially after a 3 to 1 slope it gets
very difficult to mow. Also in heavy rains you’re going to get wash off and even if, it isn’t so
dramatic during the summertime when the vegetation is fairly strong, but if you get a heavy wash
off in the early spring, it will create some wash off’s so I wouldn’t recommend going higher than
a 3 to 1 slope in that area. Unless you were to retain it. Unless you were to come up with a 3 to
1, put a retaining wall and then continue at 3 to 1. That’s something you could possibly do but
you’re getting into some more mechanics of the whole thing.
Mayor Furlong: But you were saying, if I understood you by the undulating fact that it was
designed, or actually reducing some of the storm water runoff to the north across the area and it
catches in the lower levels and move it east/west and also in the trees. Is that?
Ben Merriman: There is some. It will catch some of it but not a great deal. What we’re trying
to do is just create some slope or pocket for where we’re planting the trees and then that gives
the trees more water and a better change that they’ll survive under those conditions. The water
runoff I think we just have to plan on. Anything that lands on that berm is going to come back so
we’ll plan on that and engineering it so…so be it but we’ll plan for all the water that comes, that
lands on that berm to be picked up by a storm drain of some sort. And if the capacity of the
existing one is not sufficient, then we’ll put one in that is. And we’ll bring the water to our
regional pond.
Mayor Furlong: How is that to the west of Lot 6, you get into the Outlot C. How are the
elevations there versus the height that you’re describing here? Is it going to be, right now where
Lot 6 is pretty low. In fact I think there’s even a wetland area… C is higher, correct?
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, there’s a hump in the middle.
Mayor Furlong: Of Lot 6, I’m sorry. Between Lot C and Lot 6. Outlot C.
Ben Merriman: Lot C comes up quite dramatically. Yeah, there’s a fair amount of a ridge that
basically runs through that treed area so it’s coming up from the east, hitting that ridge where we
have the preserve, and then running again back down to the west.
19
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Now is there going to be an opportunity to improve storm water in the area both
on your property as well as maybe this property to the north in terms of managing the storm
water here, and maybe that’s as much a question for staff too as you, I mean as we’re looking at
building Lot 6. Collecting the storm water there, is that an opportunity to the extent that Lot C
right now because of it’s elevation down to the northeast, that we can try to work with storm
water management there as well.
Ben Merriman: That’s a good point. And perhaps we should take a look at the water that
currently comes off of Outlot C or that preserved area and do that in the water calculations and
we’d be happy to do that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Merriman or the staff?
Councilman Labatt: Can you pop up Nann that overhead? Go back to your little schematic there
on the sight line, the cross section. The bottom right there. So this cross section is from a
resident, a 6 foot resident sitting, standing outside his walkout level. Of Lot 2 or 3, they’re pretty
similar.
Ben Merriman: I believe they’re pretty close, yeah.
Councilman Labatt: So if they were in their upper level bedroom or family room, which is 8 to
16 feet above that grade, they have a whole different sight line, correct?
Ben Merriman: That is correct. They would be looking from, if they were out there at the main
level of their house, it’s probably an additional 10 feet higher I would surmise and the architect
also didn’t run this at a 3 to 1 slope.
Councilman Labatt: No.
Ben Merriman: And I asked him to but sometimes you have to.
Councilman Labatt: Can you take a free hand pen and try drawing a 3 to 1 slope on there? I’m
just trying to figure out, my whole point is, I don’t know if you guys have ever watched or
follow my hand here, where it comes down from the building and then swoops back up. That
swoop back up is where I’d like to see it a little bit higher and that whole thing would be higher,
correct?
Ben Merriman: Correct. What he did is he started out as a 3 to 1 slope so again this area here is
probably run at a good 3 to 1 slope and so if you were to continue that, and then put some kind of
a undulation in here but if this was continued up I think you’d be running a 3 to 1 slope and
we’re probably at the top of that tree…
Councilman Labatt: Once you put that tree up higher, the trees up higher onto the building.
Ben Merriman: That is correct. But we would be certainly willing to run it at a 3 to 1 slope with
some undulations from the plantings of the new trees to that building.
20
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Councilman Labatt: I’ve got more points but I’ll just wait.
Councilman Lundquist: That point that Councilman Labatt was talking about, how far is it from
those houses, Lot 1, 2, 3 there along Trotters to that edge of that proposed building on Lot 5? Or
Lot 6, I’m sorry. You’ve got a what, 100 foot setback from the property line there and then those
houses are probably set back what, 50-60 feet maybe. Something like that so you’re 150-160
feet.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this time? No? Okay, thank you. Any follow up
questions for staff at this point? What I’d like to do at this point then is invite residents and other
interested parties to come up for public hearing, public comment. I would say too, as a
preference here, we received a tremendous number of e-mails, phone calls, comments on this
development and comments about what took place at the Planning Commission. We’ve also had
an opportunity now to review the Planning Commission meeting’s verbatim so to the extent that
we have comments from the commissioners as well as residents so with that being said, I’d
certainly like to present this opportunity for residents to come forward and provide some
comments and to the extent that they’re new comments or emphasis of other comments, and
you’ll have to use your judgment. If there’s a number of you that want to say the same thing, if
you can appoint a representative, that might save us time and by no way going to reduce the
emphasis of the point I can assure you. So with that I would invite people to come forward.
Provide the council with their comments. Please state your name and address as you do.
Barry LaBounty: My name is Barry LaBounty. I have been a Chanhassen resident here for 15
years and currently live at 2421 Bridle Creek Trail. I wish to thank the council members and the
mayor for giving me the chance here to speak tonight on the Chanhassen West Business Park
development. And just to start out, I’d like to, I like many others support development in our
city, for both business and residential. Do not object to this development, the Chanhassen West
Business Park. As with any new development there are concerns to what this will do to the
quality of life and of course the property values long term. Really all I ask is that the
development’s completed in a manner that takes into consideration a transition zone between the
neighborhoods affected and the development. I would like to ask that you reconsider a few of
the recommendations made to the Planning Commission by the surrounding neighbors.
Councilman Lundquist: Excuse me Mr. Mayor. Todd, I’m having trouble hearing, thanks.
Sorry Mr. LaBounty.
Barry LaBounty: Thank you. Item 1, I’d really like to see to hold the buildings 5 and 6 to no
more than one story plus the parapet for screening of rooftop equipment. This really would
assure that as my neighbors and my family look out our upper story windows, we’re not really
looking into a great wall basically or if in some cases there are second floor office spaces, we’d
actually have people looking straight into our bedroom windows that are working in these office
spaces. Really item 2 is assure that the berm is provided between Outlot B and Building 5 and
that a berm on the north side of Building 6, which I guess now has an increase in trees, but again
is structured enough so that it does provide again some barrier and transition zone between the
current development. And really the only way to do this at this point is to increase the buffer
21
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
zone. Obviously there’s a 3 to 1 and it says we can only have it 6 foot, a 6 foot berm. That 6
foot berm will not really give us a whole lot of screening. Maybe from the ground level it will
give us somewhat of a screening but looking out our kitchen windows, looking out our bedroom
windows it will be really basically no screening at all. By increasing that to 150 feet, that would
allow us to have a larger, taller berm and hopefully provide the transition that we would require.
And lastly, item 4, I’d like to at least make sure again that, reiterate what Mr. Merriman had
pointed out again or they’re looking at the drainage in the southeast corner of Lots really 2, 3 and
4. Having been in that area for 3 years, I’ve seen a lot of snow melt. A lot of heavy rain where
that water tends to build up way out into the farm land. And as everybody knows in the spring
snow melts we tend to get some rapid melting with large rain storms and it can create quite a big
lake in that area. And actually in one case last year, just about came together with the wetland
that was further to the south. So I guess with that, once again I want to thank the council
members and the mayor for the chance to speak tonight. In summary, I do not oppose this
development. I only wish to be able to preserve as much as possible the quality of the
surrounding area for those of us who live here and also of course the future business owners as
well. Thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Peter Sidney: My name is Peter Sidney. My LuAnn and I live at 2431 Bridle Creek Trail, which
is Lot 5 in Trotters Ridge. I want to thank the council and the mayor for giving us a chance to
speak this evening, and I’ll be brief. First I’d like to say that we appreciate what the property
owners, the developer and the staff have done to take into account the concerns of the residential
neighbors and mitigate the impact of the proposed development. While we do not oppose the
proposed development, we feel that to maintain the livability and quality of life for which we
chose Chanhassen, it’s essential to balance the needs for further development and provide a
satisfactory transition between neighboring residential and industrial areas. We ask that the
council seriously consider the concerns and requests of the neighbors that you’ll hear, and some
specific conditions that I ask that you adopt would be the following. Designate Outlot C as a
permanent conservation easement precluding any future development or change of permitted
uses. I think that we have that in the proposal. Restrict the height of buildings 5 and 6. We ask
that the buildings not exceed one story plus parapet for screening of roof top equipment. Do not
allow outdoor paging and speaker systems. Consider limiting the hours of operation of
businesses to two shifts. Do not allow lighted signage. Require minimally invasive lighting on
the north sides of buildings 5 and 6, and specifically concerning Lot 5, to protect the large white
oak tree. We’re the lot line between our property and Outlot C. Locate the barrier fencing in
Outlot C no closer than 10 feet beyond the drip line of the tree. Jill Sinclair was out to visit our
house and put out some proposed staking for the barrier fencing there. And also to protect
against disturbance of the roots of this tree, do not extend the west end of the berm along the
northeast property line beyond Lot 4 of Trotters Ridge. Again I want to thank the council for
giving us a chance to speak tonight and I appreciate it very much.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Kevin DiLorenzo: Hello Mayor Furlong and council members. My name’s Kevin DiLorenzo. I
live at 2382 Stone Creek Lane West which on this map would put me right about here at the end
22
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
of the cul-de-sac. I want to share some of the thoughts that are on my mind tonight as well as the
minds of a lot of my neighbors as we talked about this proposed development the other night.
Let me start by saying that we believe that developers have a right to develop their property. But
we also happen to believe that this is not the right development plan. We believe we can do
better. There needs to be a better transition between the proposed development and the nearby
existing neighborhoods, primarily Stone Creek and Trotters Ridge. As you know this industrial
development borders these two family neighborhoods which we believe makes this situation
unique. All sorts of concerns have already been shared with the Planning Commission. Our first
choice would be for the City Council to eject this proposal and take a closer look as to what’s
going on in our corner of town. We want to see a clear vision for the city’s plan. Development
has been fast and furious all around us. From Lifetime Fitness to 490 Town and Country Homes
on the Degler farm property, to a new Chanhassen school and those are just a few of the things
we know about. We believe this land being talked about tonight could serve a greater need for
the community in the future. Now if you don’t agree with that, we would like to see a better
proposal in front of you tonight. I’m sure several of my neighbors will share their thoughts about
things like providing greater setbacks, building smaller and more attractive buildings, limiting
semi truck traffic in and out of the development and perhaps the biggest issue, moving the
proposed entrance and exit to Lyman. As citizens most directly affected by this proposed
development I don’t believe we’re asking for anything more than our elected officials are there
to deliver and we’re looking out for the best interest of the community. I want to thank you guys
for the role you play in making Chanhassen such a great place to live. Even CNN and Money
Magazine have ranked us number 16 in the country and that’s a great feat. Now is not the time
to settle. If you agree I’d encourage you to vote against this proposed development tonight. If
you’re unsure I simply ask that you delay your vote until you’ve had more time to think about
it’s impact on our neighborhood and the greater community. Earlier today I mentioned to Mayor
Furlong that many of my neighbors believe a decision to approve this development had already
been made. He assured me that that’s not the case. As you know the Planning Commission had
a 3 to 2 split vote on the issue. Tonight the vote is up to you. Thanks for listening.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Jeffrey McGuire: Good evening. My name is Jeffrey McGuire. I reside at 2272 Stone Creek
Lane East. I’m Vice President of the Stone Creek Homeowners Association. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak tonight Mr. Mayor, council members. The Planning Commission has
worked hard to try to meet the needs of our community as well as the property owners in
developing this site. We do however respectfully dissent with the zoning ordinance adverse
affects…from the submission which is the traffic generation by the proposed use within the
capabilities serving the project. We’re particularly disappointed that this plan does not take into
account the existing road that accesses Lyman Boulevard. We’re concerned with the traffic
generation study, particularly in light of the zoning of the property to the south of Lyman and
how that will impact traffic flow onto Lyman. Perhaps sooner or later another crossroad where
the existing one is. In addition the District 112 property to be developed within the next few
years. The Highway 212 extension which as we know drops off onto Lyman east of the subject
property and of course the Town and Country development. We would respectfully submit that
Buildings 6, 8 and 7 be limited in their height. Or that any pasture of fill in would be equalized
by an increase in the height of the berm on the east side of that property. With respect to
23
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Building 1 we would also like that limited to one story. But our biggest concern is the amount
and the flow of traffic. The trip generation study that compares the Chanhassen Business Park is
a business park with multiple access points. This property with only one cul-de-sac will force
the traffic out through one exit and entrance for the same quantity of trip generations per day.
What that means for any truck traffic of course is that there’s only certain left turn lanes. No left
turn lane exists right now northbound on Galpin into that property. A right turn lane exists
southbound on Galpin into that property. Trucks coming in on Lyman Boulevard headed
eastbound will be forced to make a left turn across traffic with no light or any stop signs. Traffic
westbound on Lyman will be turning north onto Galpin and be forced to make a left turn across
traffic with no left turn lane. As you may know, this is a heavily traveled school bus route with
pick-up’s along Galpin Boulevard. In fact the buses sometimes park to the right hand side, the
east side of Galpin as they hold up for their route. So we would want you to take that into
account. We’d also note that while we’re grateful for the Outlot C dedication to preserve the
many beautiful trees on that site, we do note that there was a parking dedication waiver
providing cash for the city and we would hope that some of that cash would be applied for
additional mitigation along the east side for berming and trees. Perhaps even re-sizing some of
those mature trees onto that berm. Thank you very much.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anyone else?
Thor Smith: Good evening. Thanks for allowing us to speak. My name is Thor Smith. I live at
2139 Boulder Road in the Stone Creek development and I’m also newly on the Stone Creek
Association Board. And we represent about 100, well exactly 141 homes and more than 265
people in our neighborhood. I’ve not spoken with all the households but I’ve been in contact
with a large quantity of them and because of various reasons many of them can’t be here tonight
and the ones that I spoke with wanted to have some of the voice heard before you. The number
one comment that was raised by everyone that I spoke with is that this just plain does not make
sense. When pressed a little bit deeply their reply is very consistent that why would anyone put
industrial right across from or right next to residential neighborhoods. And you know we as a
group, and again I certainly don’t speak for everyone in our neighborhood. I don’t want to imply
that, but we feel the proposal, this proposal was not given proper consideration. We feel there
needs to be much more consideration for the myriad of other developments that are coming up or
have recently come in such as the Degler farm, the new school coming in, the townhomes,
Lifetime Fitness. Just the addition of Lifetime Fitness has had a significant increase of the traffic
on Galpin Boulevard and by adding the proposed development we feel the traffic gets raised to
you know unacceptable levels and you have even a larger dilemma on our hands. Another
common concern is the lack of vision for the future of Chanhassen. I know I personally, and a
th
lot of people I’ve talked to take great pride in the fact that you know we live in the 16 best city
in the country and you know we brag about that and however we feel that by approving an
industrial business park directly adjacent to a residential neighborhood with virtually no
th
transition between the two shows a lack of planning and we feel that 16 ranking in the future
may be very difficult. And it you know saddens us because we know the potential’s there.
We’re not asking for any special consideration. We’re not asking for anything different. We’re
asking for the same consideration that we feel’s been given to other projects in the downtown
areas of Chanhassen and we just don’t feel that we’ve been given…certain circumstances. Most
of the people in our neighborhood anyway believe that this land should be developed and we
24
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
want to see an increase in business locating here and, but we would like to see development have
a transition from our neighborhood where we raise our family to the industrial. The staff report
states that the developer’s going to use high quality materials and you know, we respect that and
we’d also, we would ask that the definition of it be more spelled out. You know it’s really
relative to what you’re doing I guess that high quality materials for someone is completely
different than it is to somebody else and we think that that needs to be spelled out a lot more
clearly. We think that there should be some other restrictions as mentioned by some other
people. We think that there needs to be more traditional roof lining or some type of a façade on
the buildings facing the traffic that will be and the homeowners that look out their windows at
these buildings that are going to… By doing these types of things you’re going to blend the
developments much better than the proposed for the site. And we just ask if you agree with these
concerns that we would ask or would encourage you to exercise the option of deferring the
approval of this for a period of time and allowing us to have more conversations or a
conversation with the developer in making more of a smooth transition between the residential
and the industrial area. If you’re unsure then we would ask that you would delay a vote until you
have at least some more up to date study and on the direct impact of this and other upcoming
developments. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Gene Kruchoski: Good evening. My name is Gene Kruchoski. I live in Stone Creek as well as
many of the rest of the people here.
Mayor Furlong: And your address sir.
Gene Kruchoski: 2030 Boulder Road.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you sir.
Gene Kruchoski: Sure. Many points have already been brought up. The things that I’d just like
to mention in addition to those that I’ve heard is, I hope that there’s been some time spent by the
council looking at the traffic as patrols try to cross children across Galpin at this time. There
would be nothing in your studies as you said comparing car traffic versus truck traffic. You
stated like what will be going into the high school. Well we know they don’t take semi’s. They
take nicer cars than a lot of us. Anyway, but you want to, you have to make comparisons apples
to apples, not apples to oranges. The development you’re proposing to accept would bring in
truck traffic. The truck traffic near the school is already at a scary level, and I think it needs to
be considered and the safety of our children. The second thing I’m noticing the plat map for the
development as it is. I would like to know is any of the presentations you’ve had initially are
there any plat maps showing that development drawn out with access from Lyman or access
from the west and if you’ve seen those, were they presented to the County and rejected or is this
just a more comfortable way to get through this situation? Thank you.
Amina Linkous: Hi Mr. Mayor and councilmen. I’m Amina Linkous. I’m at 2208 Boulder
Road. I spoke with many of you and I thank you for your prompt responses in speaking with us
and allowing us to speak tonight. I just have two main concerns. One is the trees along Galpin
25
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Boulevard, we talked about one of the things that you did which is nice is added more trees onto
Galpin Boulevard. Are these going to be large trees or seedlings or how long can we…so that’d
be one question.
Kate Aanenson: Do you want me to answer that now. There’s a lot of other questions we may
be answering too.
Mayor Furlong: We’ll get back to it then.
Kate Aanenson: We’ll write them all down.
Amina Linkous: And then the other concern I had, and I talked to the County Engineer today, is
on the access versus Galpin and Lyman and we talked about that. The one thing that was
addressed to that and I drove the property prior to coming to this meeting, is the access over here
on this side is the other business park because I was surprised and happy to hear that Chaska was
okay with allowing something like that. And I think that there’s been so much discussion and so
much concern between Trotters Ridge and Stone Creek on this Galpin access and allowing that, I
would love to maybe…the issue on an access in another business park. Because it is an
industrial park in our back yard so we’re just trying to keep our neighborhood nice and keep it
safe for our kids. Thanks for your time. Have a good night.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Drew Dingman: Good evening. My name is Drew Dingman. I live at 2403 Bridle Creek Trail
which is Lot 1 in Trotters Ridge and you indicated previously that you had the opportunity to
read the minutes from the Planning Commission so I just want to make one point of emphasis
and I’ll be brief. And that is the point I raised in that the buildings down here were very
specifically designed to minimize visibility from up hill angles. There’s a lot of care given to
those buildings and the concern that my neighbors have as well as folks over in Stone Creek
have raised and that building 6 does not seem to bear that same sort of architectural foresight and
thoughtfulness. It’s two very large lines. It’s a very large building and it’s the one closest to the
residents. I would ask that the council consider re-designing that building or limiting the size of
that as well as the height. Thank you.
Mike Wright: Hi there. Thank you very much for listening to us tonight. My name is Mike
Wright at 2280 Boulder Road. My biggest concern is the, I’m assuming at some point either
there’s going to be stop signs or stop light at this intersection. In addition Lyman is getting to the
point where trucks coming in and out are having a hard time seeing the stop sign. Or else they’re
just blowing right through that intersection so you’re ending up going to have a stop light system
there also at some point. Galpin is only a mile long, plus we’ve got the concern as they said
going to Bluff Creek. With the townhomes. How many stop signs and stop lights are there
going to be in that area? So that’s something to consider also. Thanks very much.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anybody else?
26
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Rodney Melton: Hi. I’m Rodney Melton, 2413 Bridle Creek Trail. Resident of Chanhassen for
th
10 years and I was just looking for a point of clarification as it relates to the July 19 Planning
Commission meeting. They had mentioned as one of the conditions, I believe it was 54
concerning 150 foot setback as it relates to the Trotters Ridge residences, and tonight I think I
heard the discussion centered around 100 feet and if we could clarify that I’d really appreciate it.
Joel Lehrke: Good evening. My name is Joel Lehrke. I live at 2329 Boulder Road. That would
be the houses that are directly across from Building 1. We’re on the drainage pond, in that area.
When we had been talking with staff and also with Eden Trace, we’ve asked for an increased
setback in that area. Picture may have been forwarded to you from Planning Commission but
there is a set of mature trees in that area that has done a very good job of buffering. I see you
nodding your heads and know what I’m referring to. Unfortunately the setback would be about
150 feet. We understand that but anything that would increase it would save a lot of the trees.
The other thing I’d like to bring up this evening was the reference. We kind of smiled as you
guys went through everything, a lot of this development talked about the codes and how it could
be the IOP and basically I want you to know that even though we don’t see it as a threat, one
that’s brought to us as the city at our meetings, the first thing that was said, are they threatening
us so just something to consider when you guys mentioned the IOP to us. That is some of the
conversation that we’ve had at our meetings and we said, well they could go to an IOP. Just
something for you guys to know that that has been talked about at our meetings. Also with, in
regards to the way we’ve had the housing go next to industrial. The weather ball was brought
up. I was going to go take a picture of it today but didn’t think we need to do the P.T. Barnum
show, but if you really go look at that area at that weather ball, what’s very nice about that
residential area that’s directly to the south of that area, it has a very distinct long, mature tree
growth. Mature trees. Not the type that are going to be replaced with the 5 gallon balls or the 2
½ inch diameter trees so that’s something to keep in mind that you guys did with your blending
there, that you do have a residential abutting up to an industrial. You have 40 foot mature trees
along that whole area and it’s a solid line. Well done city. Well done. And that’s what we’re
looking for at our area. Is something like that to do it. Now we’ve talked this evening about
facades a little bit and some of the people have brought up points what we mean by facades on
the east side of Galpin and also perhaps, depending on what you do with berming or facades for
those people on Trotters Ridge. There’s been examples of a McDonald’s in Illinois that one of
our residents used to live by. That when they looked at it you didn’t even know it was a
McDonald’s. That type of façade is what we’re talking about. We’re talking about a person’s
home here about a Super Target north of Milwaukee and that’s as big as anything around here
and he said when you drove by it, you would never have known it was a Super Target. It just
looked like nice little office buildings. Example I’ve seen in Chanhassen is where Quiznos, the
dentist, across from the gas station where the new medical clinic went in. That has a very nice
change in a façade for what is really a neighbor brought up to my attention a very square
building that is broken up very nicely. Now I’ve talked with Mark and we know he says he has
his undulations and breaking of the building and windows and stuff like that, but we are asking
for a little bit more since this does abut up to so many residentials without a good tree barrier
anymore because much of it’s going to be taken out and replaced with the small saplings. Yes,
in 20 years it will look great. Unfortunately I will be retired at that time and down sizing. Thank
you.
27
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Anybody else?
Abby Wilson: Abby Wilson at 2332 Stone Creek Drive. Thanks for hearing us tonight. Like my
neighbors I have some of the same concerns but am also wondering what would the construction
time line be. When would it begin and how long would it last? Also would Galpin increase to 4
lanes to allow for the increase in traffic. And what kind of signal or stop sign would be put in
that area. I’d also like to see some kind of study of some area that is similar to our’s but has had
a proposal like this and what that’s done to property value and what we can see with our taxes.
Thank you.
Craig Johnson: Craig Johnson, 2450 Bridle Creek Trail. Two questions, can the developer or
the staff demonstrate another neighborhood in Chanhassen that would be burden by two sides by
light industrial properties? And the second concern I would have is, is the transition. Yes
they’re putting berms and barriers in but in other industrial areas they’ve typically done a better
transition and a much larger transition than what they’re proposing to do here, and if the council
is to approve this particular project here tonight, would they be willing to consider some sort of
limitation for truck access onto Galpin considering the amount of schools that are going to be put
in place for the coming years. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anybody else? What we’ll do now at this point is probably close
public comment unless somebody else would like to speak, and just for, to explain the process
now. We’ll bring it back to council. We’re going to follow up with a number of answer to some
of these questions and then the council will start discussing the motion. As many of you are
aware, the 5 of us up here haven’t seen this before. Haven’t discussed it amongst ourselves so
many of you have probably discussed it more than we have at this point, but that’s fine because
our discussion takes place in the open, so once we bring it back to council there won’t be
opportunity. We’re not going to go back and forth and continue to respond to questions and stuff
so again, if anybody would like to add anything to the record or let the council know of anything,
this would be the time because after this we’ll discuss it mostly with staff, but I should say
mostly amongst ourselves but also with staff and the developer as well. So at this time if
anybody else would like to speak, I’d invite them to come forward now.
Joel Lehrke: Mayor, I just have a quick question. …I was not present at the meeting of the
Planning Commission, I did watch the video tape and what many of noticed…
Mayor Furlong: Excuse me sir, could you come back up to the microphone please so that those
at home.
Joel Lehrke: We just want to exercise some caution here. What we did notice, and I was not
able to attend the Planning Commission meeting but I did get the DV, thank you Bob for getting
that for me and got a chance to go over it in quite detail and what we’ve noticed is when the
meeting went closed, there were some errors made by the Planning Commission with statements
and at that time that gave us no reason to help clarify those points and left us quite hanging.
While you can close the meeting, I understand parliamentary procedure, how it works. We’re
very fearful if you have some sort of instance where it’s an incorrect information and we all
know some other information, how are we going to get that to you?
28
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Well, and sir to that point. We’re not closing the meeting. Everybody’s invited
to stay. What I’m trying to emphasis is that we’re not going to go on for the next 5 hours back
and forth…
Joel Lehrke: Right, we understand that but if you see us all kind of rumbling about something
that we know that’s incorrect, maybe pay attention to the waves that are being made.
Mayor Furlong: And we do that each and every meeting. So at this point if nobody else would
like to come forward, then I would sincerely thank everybody for their comments this evening as
well as the e-mails, phone calls and participation in the Planning Commission as well. Some
people have said, to me they felt left out and helpless and those words are kind of disturbing to
me because I think we try to make a very good point. I know our Planning Commission does
and our council does too to try to listen to people and while we may not always agree, we do
listen so with that what I’d like to do now is, we’ve got a number of issues that have been
brought up that I’ve heard. I know staff has. Why don’t we, and I know a lot of us have been
taking notes and so why don’t, Ms. Aanenson, do you want to start with your list and we’ll make
sure we cover it.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah…Bob Generous and City Engineer Paul Oehme but I’d like to start off
and I’m going to take the hot one first as far as the IOP threat because I made that comment. Just
so everybody knows, there is a legal process that if it’s consistent with the city’s comprehensive
plan, we are, we’re required to approve it. Now the staff worked diligently to try to move off the
minimum and move them to the maximum, so herein lies the rub. Now I’ll also say that we’re
going to agree to disagree on some things. Our perspectives but we moved, if you try to get an
IOP, which we believe saves.
Councilman Lundquist: It’s a PUD.
Kate Aanenson: A PUD, excuse me. Instead of the straight zoning, because we believe that we
would be able to, working with the developer, resolve some of those rough points and clearly
there’s still some points of conflict that I’ll take a minute to go through. First of all I want to
clarify Chan Business Center, which I worked on, is a long cul-de-sac. All traffic has to come
out onto Audubon Road. So the trip generations that City Engineer Paul Oehme gave would be
similar to this. It is a long dead end cul-de-sac. The façade on Villages on the Pond, that’s a
commercial development. Both Bob and I worked on that. The first vertical proposed…that was
done in the Twin Cities area and that is the, probably the key element that went into there first
was St. Hubert’s that set the pace, but that is commercial uses in there which typically we tend to
get more brick and stucco. We don’t have any brick industrial buildings that I’m aware of that
are all brick in the city. If you go back on the historical, a lot of them were the tilt up panels
which we’ve really moved a long way from as far as our industrial standards. That was one of
the first things that we changed in the city code and I would say Chanhassen Business Center,
and I also want to comment on the size of the trees because that was one of the first industrial
parks I worked on. They didn’t start off that big. That’s a lot of years growth on those trees too,
and that, there was a fence put on. That fence continually goes down. It’s down right now.
There’s 4 sections of it, it’s kind of been a long term maintenance problem on that, so that’s kind
29
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
of what we’ve learned from some of our mistakes on that, putting up fences is a long term
maintenance and I think that’s some of our concern that we’re working with the developer on.
When we get a berm too high and it dries out and the trees fall over. We want to make it
successful so, and we’re still trying to find that right point that it’s high enough to create
screening and provide adequate to buffering. So again working on both those projects and the
setback would be similar on both those projects between Chan Business Center and the
subdivision to the south, as it would be on both of these projects here too. And there are other
subdivisions in the city that have commercial. Lake Susan has it across the street and to the
north so it’d be on the east side and on the north side, so there are other situations. Again I’ll just
talk a little bit about the comprehensive plan. We talked about Lifetime Fitness. That’s an
industrial park. A large industrial park. Couple hundred acres. Was required to do an
environmental assessment so all those pieces that fall into that are generated by this. The
property to the south that we’re talking about, the 600 acres is also guided by an environmental
assessment document that also analyzed all the traffic. The area we’re talking about was guided
in 1991. We re-visited it when we updated the comp plan. The city did contemplate, we had a
request to change the zoning on this particular piece of property and the neighborhood resisted so
we left it industrial. As we stated there’s industrial to the south and across the street, except for
the school wanting to buy and this council stood firm and said if the school was not to build, you
wanted to see it left industrial. So there is that industrial in the area. …signage issue is
something we should discuss. That could certainly be some blight if we have the signs, lit signs
along the Galpin Boulevard facing the neighborhood. Depending on the height I think that’s
something we do need to discuss with the developer so I can certainly see that being a negative
issue and we should kind of further evolve that. That would certainly be, and certainly lighting.
Any lighting on the north side of, facing Galpin again, looking at that so that’s not intrusive.
Some kinds of industrial buildings, put wall plaques on and again those can be very intrusive.
We do have an area, the one that’s adjacent to Eden Prairie. We did have some issues there
when a builder changed out some of the wall plaques and we got compliance on that and we
don’t have complaints up there on lighting so I think that something we can certainly look at. I’ll
let Paul answer the question, City Engineer on Galpin widening. There may be potential stop
lights or stop controls in that area.
Paul Oehme: The County currently does not have any plans for widening Galpin Boulevard. I
believe Galpin Boulevard currently is 52 feet wide and there is somewhat of a shoulder on the
side of the roadway at this time. You know with the traffic counts that they are at currently, I
would be real hesitant to say that the County would ever, or projected traffic counts, would ever
extend that roadway to 4 lane design now. Lyman Boulevard is a different story. I mean the
traffic counts on that roadway are anticipated to increase significantly over time so with our
conversation with the County we are definitely looking at expanding that roadway to 3, maybe 4
lanes of design.
Kate Aanenson: We do know there will be a signal at Lyman and Audubon. Further to the
south, I mean by the new AUAR area. Ultimately.
Paul Oehme: Right.
30
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Kate Aanenson: And that’s a little further south than that so I’m just saying there will be a break
in the traffic.
Todd Gerhardt: There’s one there now.
Kate Aanenson: Pardon me?
Todd Gerhardt: There’s one there now.
Kate Aanenson: Oh I’m sorry.
Paul Oehme: There will be improvements to that intersection in the upgrades of that signal and
again we do anticipate that Galpin and Lyman would have a signal in the near future as well. So
another question I think that one of the residents had raised was the turn lanes onto and out of,
acceleration lanes out of the proposed development. The county still has not reviewed the final
construction plans so they would have that opportunity to include that in the construction plans at
that time. So, and again Galpin is the County’s jurisdiction.
Kate Aanenson: I just wanted to mention too, back to the intersection at Lyman. One of the
things that the Park and Rec Director is working on is that to get to that school site they would do
an underpass underneath Lyman with the reconstruction of that, so that would get children to the
south of Lyman, underneath Lyman Boulevard, in this new area we’re talking about to the school
on that side of the street. So it’s not at grade.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Then there was another question that we didn’t answer and that was about tree
size that was going in…
Bob Generous: Ordinance requires a minimum planting of 2 ½ inches. It’s caliper inches. It’s
about a 15 foot tall tree. Evergreens are required to average 7 feet. I’m sure they’re going to
look at trying to preserve some, use some of the trees on site to, as a savings cost because it’s just
more economical that way.
Kate Aanenson: There was a construction time line too and I think Ben has to answer that one.
Mayor Furlong: Any, I’m going to look through my list. Any other questions right now for
clarification from staff because I think I have a couple for Mr. Merriman too.
Councilman Lundquist: On the issue of the road, there was a question asked about, how far
along, what level of detail did the County see this development in it’s proposed, or if any
proposed access off of Lyman? Was it a, when the developer, Mr. Merriman when you went in,
was it a I want to put the road off of Lyman and Roger said don’t do it. You have to put it on
Galpin or did you have some preliminary drawings or layouts.
31
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Ben Merriman: We initially sat down with our engineer, with Schoell and Madsen and we took
over the property in trying to design the basic parts of the property. So when you do that, the
first thing you look at is access and how to try and lay it out as best we could and we did actually
look at it both ways. We looked at coming in right along the regional holding pond for the road
which would have been accessed off of Lyman, and then we looked at the access point where we
currently have the development. Both were considered but we kind of knew right away, given
what was going to happen to Lyman. Lyman’s going to become a 4 lane road in the future and
we, I’m not new at this. I’ve been doing this for a long time. They don’t want a lot of
uncontrolled access points onto 4 lane roads so we kind of had a pretty good idea of what was
going to happen, but when we contacted the County, that’s when the road was moved over to
Galpin.
Councilman Lundquist: So you actually showed a design to the County staff at all or was that a
verbal conversation?
Ben Merriman: No, just a verbal conversation. We did some initial sketches from Schoell and
Madsen did some initial sketches showing both ways and how to run a cul-de-sac. We initially
had the cul-de-sac in a little different configurations. Went through a couple different
configurations with the cul-de-sac. Most of those were with regard to saving trees though so we
backed it up to keep it away from the high point of that bluff. And then we had a couple
configurations of coming off, one coming off Lyman and one coming off Galpin.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And then Paul, you reconfirmed that with MnDot also, correct?
Paul Oehme: With the County, correct.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: County, yes I’m sorry. County.
Mayor Furlong: Before you go Ben.
Councilman Peterson: …for construction.
Ben Merriman: Well it’s a bit hard to judge. It’s based on the economy. We do have one
building that we’d like to move forward with and that would be, that would be this building here.
We’re looking at constructing that building relatively soon. And then other buildings, we’re
currently looking at trying to, a proposal for this building with a couple of tenants. It’d be a 2 or
3 tenant building. Under a fast pace, 3 years. 5 years might be more close. We developed a
park that you folks are aware of on City West Parkway, or not City West Parkway. On Lake
Drive West and that development was about a 60 acre parcel and we thought it would probably
take us about 6 years and it we actually finished it in about 4. That was under a good economy
and the economy is stable but, so 3 to 5 years.
32
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And this is a related question for you but, 3 to 5 years then, does that
mean you would not do any of the berming or any of the tree planting until the project was
completed?
Ben Merriman: All of the trees, all of the trees that are planted in the buffer area along the edge
will be planted. The only consideration that we’re, and one of the topics that we’re discussing is
Building 6 and that berm which is here. We can’t build this berm until that wall is in place. And
a couple of people have pointed out that this building doesn’t look as good as this building. It
does. We haven’t done anything to this back side intentionally to a degree. We’re trying to
make it a straight wall. We could put some wiggles in it or something to that effect but if you
leave it as a wall and we berm up to it, it’s going to look a lot better than if we try to put parking
on that side or put office. Design it for office on that side. Currently it’s designed to have the
office on the east and south side of the building versus the north. You don’t really want office on
that side of the building.
Mayor Furlong: Questions for Mr. Merriman.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’m sorry, I have one more.
Mayor Furlong: Go ahead. Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: They were discussing the setbacks and in the Planning Commission
it was 100 feet I believe and then, 150 and in our packet it’s 100 feet. Show me or can you
maybe can’t, show me what trees would be lost by doing that. Was it on a point that if you
moved the setback line, something would have to give?
Ben Merriman: Yes. Basically if you move the setback line, it really has no effect except for
this building here. This building, if you drop it 50 feet, you’re taking 50 feet of building out of
that land. And if we do that then basically I’ve got to move that building this way to pick up that
lost square footage. The problem with that is, and maybe it’s a give and take and that would be
fine with me. However if we moved the building in this direction, what happens is this is a fairly
steep slope with a lot of trees on it, so if I come in, just as an example, if I go 20 feet into that
preserved area, you’re going to lose 50 feet of trees. Because you get into the root systems and
the drop area of a tree, you will kill the tree. Not maybe not right away but it will die most likely
within a few years. So it’s difficult for me to do an exchange there. In other words if I take 50
feet off one, I’ve got to take 50 feet that way and it doesn’t really work. Or it doesn’t work very
well.
Mayor Furlong: And continuing on that with regard to, you know if you come in the 50 feet as
was requested from the north, you’re going to be going to the west so you’re losing trees.
Opportunity in terms of listening to people and trying to look for opportunities with regard to
Lots 1 and 2. By dropping Lot 1 down to a similar elevation to Lot 2, so you lose that retaining
wall. I think that was something that we’re looking at. Do we need as much space between
those two buildings so that, because trucks will be driving at the same level rather than at
different levels, and is there an opportunity and what do we gain by this in terms of moving those
buildings a little closer together? Do we pick up any trees? Any significant trees on the east side
33
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
of Lot 1 by moving those buildings together now that we’re coming to an equal level.
Understand my.
Ben Merriman: I do understand what you’re saying.
Mayor Furlong: And maybe you don’t have a question but I guess I’d be interested in, if there’s
an opportunity there with regards to what’s been presented this evening and requested.
Ben Merriman: I think perhaps what can happen if the retaining wall is moved from here into
this area, what that’s going to allow is that area becomes higher. The trees are planted at a
higher elevation so we don’t necessarily move the parking lot in, but that area becomes higher.
Planting trees there, we’re probably gaining an additional, Bob do you have the retaining wall,
how high that retaining wall is approximately? There’s a 5 foot difference between Building 1
and 2. If we moved Building 1, which is the closest building down 5 feet, the retaining wall
comes up 5 feet. This area here basically we get a rise in area 5 feet. With that we’re adding
trees at the normal planted height. We’re gaining 5 feet of screening. So by moving the
retaining wall you’re basically gaining screening.
Todd Gerhardt: May I try? If you lose your retaining wall inbetween the two buildings, your
loading dock area, could that be reduced, thus pulling the building west because you don’t have
that retaining wall. You have to take into account a factor for those trucks to back up to the
loading dock area to stay away from that retaining wall. How much do you gain, you know 10-
15 feet by pulling that building to the east? Or west. See what I mean?
Ben Merriman: Yes I do. Theoretically the trucks on those buildings would have to drive around
the building. If they’re going to back into these ramps here, they essentially cannot do it in this
radius here so what they’re going to end up doing is driving around the building. Coming back
this way and backing into those loading docks.
Mayor Furlong: What’s your current flow?
Ben Merriman: That’s the current flow.
Mayor Furlong: The current flow, they’re coming around both buildings.
Ben Merriman: Around the buildings and back in. Same thing here. We’re going to make them
come around the building and come around this way. Come up and pull in here. Now they pull
off the road and pull in this way. Generally they don’t like doing that. Truck drivers don’t. If
this wall’s eliminated, this area can get a circle so they can come directly in off this way and
circle and come in…but I don’t know how much without having an engineer take a look at it.
Todd Gerhardt: This is the mayor’s idea… I don’t want to take your idea sir.
Mayor Furlong: Unless it’s a good one, right?
Todd Gerhardt: Right. It was a good one.
34
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Mayor Furlong: And maybe that’s something to look at, is what’s the advantage and getting
trucks. Now they’ll still be at a lower level if we move that retaining wall to the east side of 101,
or Lot 1 so.
Ben Merriman: I’d be willing to take a look at it and see what happens there and whether we can
move it.
Mayor Furlong: Both in terms of flow within the development. Keeping it more internal as
opposed to ex, into the outside external and then if there is any connect in that retaining wall on
the east side of Building 1. Be moved any further west, and what does that gain us in terms of
preserving the trees that are there now and…
Ben Merriman: The green trees that are highlighted there are actually the ones that are existing
and stay.
Mayor Furlong: The dark green are?
Ben Merriman: The dark green are. There is a really large tree right here, and then up here so if
we move that over, I don’t know if you’re really going to gain any existing trees or save any
existing trees. Again the theoretically that area comes higher, we plant new trees.
Mayor Furlong: Relative to the roof line of Building 1, it becomes higher because you’ve
dropped the building 5 feet.
Ben Merriman: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Alright.
Todd Gerhardt: Still a good idea.
Mayor Furlong: There was a question on access points and Roger, maybe this is a question for
you. Specifically the question was, having the development be required to access through the
Chaska Business Park to the west. I guess my question is, the private property over there as
opposed to a public right-of-way, is that a reasonable request when there are two county roads on
two sides of it? Tell me what can be done there.
Roger Knutson: You can’t force the folks who own the private property to allow another private
developer to go through their property, is the short answer.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Lundquist: And we’re required to provide access to this parcel in one way or
another.
Roger Knutson: Definitely.
35
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Mayor Furlong: In terms of traffic control, Mr. Oehme along Galpin there was a question raised
and I think I understood the question as to whether or not there might be a four way stop at the
point where Stone Creek and this development would enter if the access is off of Galpin. Is that
anticipated given the traffic counts out of this development as well as out of Stone Creek that
there’d be a four way stop there?
Paul Oehme: Sure. Just based on preliminary numbers that we have here tonight, I would not
anticipate needing a four way stop at that intersection. Again a signal or a stop sign warrant
would still have to be met based upon significant back-up’s or accident issues at that intersection
and so there’s a lot of different…that we would take a look at, but just based upon the
information that we have here tonight, I would not anticipate a signal nor a stop sign. Four way
stop sign being included at that intersection.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. The architecture standards that are included in the current, or in the
staff’s report. One of the questions earlier before public comment was, how does that relate to
normal…there’s also, a resident raised the issue of being more specific in terms of what’s
required. Is that, thoughts of comments there.
Kate Aanenson: Well we have, we have the materials called out on page 8 of the staff report.
Materials.
Mayor Furlong: How did these compare to other? You said it’s different than, there are some
industrial properties that have tip up I think you used.
Kate Aanenson: yeah, or just concrete block. Yeah, if you look at unadorned tip up, that would
probably be General Mills which is just a smooth face, tip up. That type we don’t allow
anymore. That’s one of the older ones we had in the city. Most of these now would be the
textured block. Enhanced with glazed tile. Those sort of things, and there’s a requirement for
additional accent materials which in the past we haven’t gotten, so we don’t just see a long
unadorned façade, and again we’re looking at a representation to show what the ultimate build
out. Each of these projects will come in under these standards that are laid out in the staff report
and again a public hearing will be addressed on each of those to look at the overall design,
orientation and parking, new landscaping, those sort of things.
Mayor Furlong: So you’re saying, if I heard you right, the accent materials, that’s number 11
there on page 9 of 9 or help me out. You said we don’t, we haven’t gotten that historically?
Kate Aanenson: We do. We didn’t used to have that but now, with these that’s something we
require that there’s additional architectural materials.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So it’s not just one long unadorned wall. That there’s relief in that and that’s
done through the materials. And then the pitched roof with the parapet walls to hide the
screening, those sort of things.
36
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Other questions for staff.
Councilman Lundquist: There was talk about the conservation easement on Outlot A. C, I’m
sorry. Is that a permanent?
Kate Aanenson: I think that’s certainly something we can put in there. I would agree, the goal is
that’s not built on. You don’t want in 5 years from now, 6 years from now someone to come in
and put a lot on there. The intent is that it be preserved in perpetuity so I think that’s something
we would certainly want to put in there.
Mayor Furlong: Is it going to be dedicated?
Kate Aanenson: Well I think that’s always the cleanest way is that it be dedicated.
Mayor Furlong: Would that be acceptable?
Ben Merriman: Very acceptable.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, is there any examples of limiting truck traffic in our town right
now?
Kate Aanenson: Not to my knowledge.
Councilman Peterson: What about the issue of outdoor speakers? I know we have some of that
around town as I recall.
Kate Aanenson: I agree. I think that’s something we should put in here. No outdoor speakers.
We don’t allow outdoor storage. If that becomes a problem, that’s something we follow up on
but there is no integral to the design standards, that’s not permitted, but certainly no outdoor
speakers. I think that’s something we can add.
Councilman Peterson: I don’t think we have limited second shift. That might be a bit over…
Kate Aanenson: Even Chan Business Center has, as the City Manager indicated, the postal
service has round the clock deliveries out there, as does General Mills, as does the lumber yard.
So we have a few.
Councilman Peterson: It’s not very often used but.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this point? None? Okay, Mr. Merriman thank you.
37
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Ben Merriman: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, I guess at this point we’ll bring it to the council and let’s start
discussing some of these issues and overall the proposed plan. Anybody want to take a start at it
and as we get down to some of the issues we may see how our discussion goes.
Councilman Labatt: Mayor, not that I want to go first. I want to ask Paul a question.
Councilman Peterson: That means you have to go first.
Mayor Furlong: Then I guess you have to go first. Go ahead.
Councilman Labatt: Paul. I’m still, on this Galpin/Lyman access. What’s the long range plan
for Lyman? We just had a discussion about the 2005 MUSA and obviously Lyman is slated
sometime to be upgraded, right?
Paul Oehme: Lyman is going to be upgraded from 101 to Powers Boulevard under the 212
project, so that section will be built by 2007. And that corridor is anticipated to be built all the
way out to 41. So, and City Manager Todd Gerhardt and I and some other staff members are
continuing talking to the school district and the County about scheduling that upgrade of Lyman
Boulevard. There’s nothing on our plan right now for that upgrade but we are trying to facilitate
that, those discussions and move that process along.
Kate Aanenson: Mr. Mayor, can you ask Mr. Oehme maybe to explain what that cross section
would look like. That widening.
Mayor Furlong: I’d be happy to ask him what the cross section would look like. Mr. Oehme,
what would the cross section look like?
Paul Oehme: Thanks for the question.
Mayor Furlong: Certainly.
Paul Oehme: Well, I wish I had that exhibit in front of me but yeah, I wish. No. The cross
section for 101, or for Lyman from 101 to Powers Boulevard. I believe it’s a 120 foot right-of-
way section. That section of roadway is anticipated to be 3 lane at this time with a center turn
lane. Upgradeable to 4 lanes in the future. And we are anticipating that that section of roadway
to be extended all the way to 41. That does not mean that maybe from Audubon to 41 that that
roadway section will be a great pavement section or a wider pavement section because of the
school and maybe some of the other developments out in that area and traffic generated, but
where we would anticipate at least a minimum of 3 lanes, if not 4 lanes. So maybe 60 feet wide
or something. And Lyman Boulevard would have a trail system also connected along that
roadway section connecting to Galpin. Connecting to Chaska and to our new development area
to the south of Lyman as well to kind of connecting the community and surrounding cities.
38
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any further questions for Mr. Oehme? No, okay. More questions
Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: As I look at the map, one thing that comes up into mind is the right-in/right-
out off of Lyman. Have, did we look at that, explore that as a topic as far as the cul-de-sac.
We’re making another road to come down and providing a right in from westbound and right out
from the property to go out to 41 to…traffic, did we look at that idea?
Kate Aanenson: I’ll let the City Engineer address that.
Paul Oehme: Well my discussions with the County, you know I did not specifically address that
with them but again, it comes down to access issues and trying to minimize those access points
along the arterial collector roadway system there and again we’re trying to eliminate, limit the
amount of access points to 4 way intersections. We do not feel that the property south of this
proposed development would ever have an access at that point.
Mayor Furlong: The property to the south has access, and again where Galpin.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, currently.
Mayor Furlong: So that would come in at a signaled.
Paul Oehme: At a signaled intersection, correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Labatt: They could also connect up through Chaska by the storage place and the
water tower when the cul-de-sac comes in.
Paul Oehme: Which one is that?
Councilman Labatt: Off the nursery.
Paul Oehme: Off the, yes they can.
Councilman Labatt: Where the water tower is.
Paul Oehme: Right, correct.
Councilman Labatt: So they’ll have a second ingress and egress point.
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Councilman Labatt: Where this doesn’t. That’s the only point. I just think we’re missing
something with the right-in/right-out. You know it would certain provide access for 2,600
vehicles a day to have a second option to leave the site. I don’t know if the County’s been
39
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
pushed hard enough on that topic to look at that. And I don’t know how you’d, if you have to
move buildings and redo obviously from what it looks like right now, but something to think
about.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other follow up questions at this point? Okay. Council discussion.
Thoughts or comments. Who’d like to start? You’re not limited to one opportunity to discuss
either so.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, fellow council members, residents. You know industrial land
in our city and trying to integrate it into communities is tough. There isn’t an easy way to do it.
I think we all know we need it. At least we all should realize that we need it in our community
to balance different types of development throughout the city from a tax base perspective. From
a jobs perspective and a variety of others. What we’ve been dispatched with the responsibility is
to figure out where to put that. We, not this council but councils before us and Planning
Commissions before us said this was a good spot for it. And so that, with that you know the land
owner has rights that they can put an industrial development here. And that’s why we’re here
tonight because the landowner is presenting a concept that believes meets our ordinances and
now the Planning Commission and this council are trying to figure out the best way to put this
industrial park, office industrial park into a residential neighborhood. That’s not easy. But yet
again we’re tasked to make that happen. And there was discussion about the IOP versus the
PUD. It’s not a threat. I don’t consider it a threat but it’s a fact that this is an opportunity to get
a better development than would be otherwise and I think that’s why we have PUD’s and that’s
why we’re kind of on the cutting edge of the State. We use PUD’s a lot and I think we’ve got a
lot better developments because of that usage and I think that will certainly come to fruition in
this development also. I heard a lot tonight and a lot of my discussions with other residents over
the past couple weeks. There’s clearly a disparate perspective of everybody and there isn’t a
consensus between the residents as to what should be done either. You know we heard that
tonight. And some realize there should be development and let’s make it the best one we can.
Some don’t want it to be industrial. Others want it to be industrial and be done with it because
they knew that was coming. Because they know it’s good for the city. So there’s a disparate
view. To that end as I look at this development in comparison to others in the area, I think it’s a
good plan. I think that it’s been sensitive to neighbors. I think it’s been sensitive to the
environment. Are there things that we can tweak yet? Yes, and I think we’ll do that tonight but
all and all I think it’s a good plan. It looks, you know we don’t know that the building plans
haven’t come forward so we’re not doing site plans so we’ll again do our due diligence to make
those buildings as architecturally interesting as possible. For those of you who have been around
meetings over the last few years, you know I push for architectural interest, whether it’s
residential or whether it’s industrial. You know I think that we as a council are obligated and we
work hard to have creativity and strong building architecture. So all and all I think it is a good
development. I think it’s, by hopefully the end of the evening we’re going to get it as good as it
can be. I’m concerned about moving the setbacks because whenever you move a setback it
comes at a cost. If you move, increase the setback on Galpin to positively affect Stone Creek,
that negatively affects Trotters Ridge so I’m at least you guys aren’t sitting in different sections
of the room because that’s what we’re all about balancing here and I think that’s what we’re
going to try to do. So I’m comfortable leaving the setbacks as they are you know and letting the
developer present some better ideas on the berming to 6 and the goal is to increase density of the
40
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
coverage for views and I think we’ve got some more work there that staff and the developer can
do as we move ahead on the project. You know I think that we can work on some lighting to
ensure both the signs and the outdoor lighting are appropriate for the neighborhood. I think that
we can limit the building height and I don’t know what that number is but at least we can limit
the building heights on certain of the lots that are adjacent to residential areas. I think there’s
less concern on the interior and the ones that are adjacent to the Chaska business park. We’ve
talked about limiting the speakers. Making it a permanent easement of Outlot C, I definitely
agree with. And I would like to make, you know a full force effort. If we haven’t done
everything we possibly can do to get the County to consider accessing in a different area, and
obviously the County may not necessarily be the issue to accessing this through the Chaska
business district but I don’t know if, you know we talked a little bit about this because of the
elevations it made it difficult but it would be interesting to at least pursue with the individual
landowner if they want to sell and access that way. I didn’t hear whether we had tried that and
maybe that’s another question we have to have with staff or the developer tonight but I’d like to
be able to exhaust all the access alternatives that we can and whether or not that’s having two
access points, to limit. Leaving one at Galpin and put another access point in as another option.
So all and all, I think it’s a well conceived plan. I think it fits that area as best as we can and be
interesting to hear other council people’s thoughts on additional items that we can do to make it
better.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: My turn.
Mayor Furlong: Go down the row.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Alright. Well unfortunately when new developments do come in I
think there’s always the fear that the existing developments will, their integrity will be
jeopardized by whatever is coming in and I think that’s a legitimate fear here tonight. But just
like Councilman Peterson said, this was set in place in a motion in 1991. It wasn’t really our
deciding. I think if I could change that I would. Put in some nice residential lots would fit in
better with the two developments that are there now but unfortunately this is what we have today
and we need to work with this. I think it’s important that the developer respects the neighbors
and the neighborhoods that are established there and they try to work with them and blend in the
best they can and I think that is done with appropriate berming and trees. I think, I don’t know
how you hide an industrial park exactly. Or an office park. I don’t know how you do it. I just
think it’s there and you’ve got to just make it work somehow and I think the developer seems to
be open into trying to make everyone as happy as they can be with what’s there. And I think that
it probably will be a beautiful development when it’s all done. I like the fact that he is going to
the effort of saving or preserving the trees on Outlot C. Is that correct? I mean that’s something
alone I think that he should be commended for. And so I do though have to go with the Planning
Commission’s recommendation to have the 150 foot setback instead of the 100 foot setback.
There’s a give and take there and I guess we’re going to have to take some trees to get some
more privacy and screening for the neighborhood. And I think with that I’ll leave it there.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist.
41
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: Comments a lot along the lines that Councilman Peterson eloquently
stated. As far as, we got some comments about lack of vision and for the, this part of the city,
the city in general, I think I would respectfully disagree with that. We have thousands of pages
of documents and studies and time and effort that has been spent on environmental studies and
guiding and comprehensive plans and looking at the city from a 30,000 foot view. When you
boil it down to this development it might seem that way but as Councilman Peterson stated,
there’s really not a good way to transition between residential and industrial commercial there
because somebody’s got to be the border. If you go from single family to townhouses, that was
proposed here and the residents don’t want, didn’t want townhouses there for a variety of
reasons. And so there really isn’t, and there has to be a mix and so as Councilman Peterson
stated our job is to try to do that as best we can. And I think even given the choice of residential
in that area, I’m not sure that’s a great thing for that. We certainly would have the ability, albeit
difficult to change that but I believe that this designation of industrial and, is the right application
for this space so I’m comfortable with that. I would, I think we’ve done a, the developer has
certainly been open to comments from residents and staff. I think hopefully this is a good
demonstration for residents in these neighborhoods and all over the city that the best way to get
your concerns answered is to bring them forward because had the ground swell of all these
people here and the e-mails and the phone calls and everything else not happened, it probably,
there probably would have been 50 foot tall buildings close to property lines without extra trees
and all kinds of things like that so, you know there’s a possibility that people will walk out of
here tonight not fully satisfied. But hopefully take a step back and look at what could have been
and where there is some give and take and hopefully that will, we come out with the best
possible plan here. And then lastly, before we get into the specifics of the motions and things, I
would also agree with Councilman Labatt that we need to go back to the County and push
harder. I think that I’d like to explore that right-in/right-out off of Lyman in addition to the
access at Galpin. It gives a little bit of more opportunity there, depending on which way you’re
going and things like that and I understand the County’s position. We’ve seen it in other parts of
the city, especially up on Highway 7 where MnDot has been closing access points to that for
those major roadways, but you know I think if we push a little harder there’s a possibility there.
I’m not as hopeful on the Chaska piece. I think it doesn’t hurt to ask the question but wouldn’t, I
think there’s not only private parties involved there but there’s some engineering and other
topographical issues there as well that prevents, makes that more difficult but perhaps we stand a
good chance at a right-in/right-out for the County so. I’ll save the specifics for when we get into
the motion.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. Thanks to my fellow councilors that were willing to go back and
look at that right-in/right-out. Appreciate that. I think that will send a message to the County
that we’re not pleased with their quick no to the access and I’m just not sure how I’m going to
word that in our proposal unless we table something but one other comment. I think Craig has
hit it right on the head here. We can’t stop it but now we’ve got to kind of minimize the impact
and the overall problems that can occur, or may occur. So some of the issues that were brought
up and I think we all have kind of hit on some of them. I’ll just repeat them briefly here.
According to the staff we can limit the height of the buildings to 30 feet. I think we need to do
42
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
that on Buildings 5 and 6. Make them 30 feet. One level and include the parapet and the
screening. I appreciate the cross section that the developer provided but when you look at, it’s at
the walk out level at the 6 foot height. When she gets to the kitchen or master bedrooms, we’re
defeating the purpose of the trees and the berming so I’d like to limit that and include something
in there about the parapet for screening. In reference to the berm, I mean if we’re looking at 3 to
5 years out up on that Lot 6, granted those trees are going to be planted up there along what I’ll
call the north line. The north property line. Is that correct, the trees will be, those trees will be
planted up there? On the north rim.
Ben Merriman: All those will be planted at the time of the development, so they’ll be planted
this fall or next spring.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. The only thing I would ask, for those that are going to be planted
there maybe we can do some sort of berming then and not have to wait for the Building 6 to go
up. If they’re going to plant those trees, maybe put something in there to work on the drainage
problem on Lots 2, 3 and 4. Maybe just address them a bit but I’ll just, there’s a drainage
problem up there. On Lots 2, 3 and 4.
Ben Merriman: Well with respect to the drainage problem, yeah we can pretty much solve the
drainage problem by putting in a culvert that will pick up excess water approximately where it’s
pooling. There’s an area where it’s pooling a little bit west of Lot 2 or I guess I don’t know the
lot numbers but the water’s pooling up high in an area where we’ll try to pick up the water and
we pick up all your water off that berm. With respect to building a berm.
Councilman Labatt: The little berm. I mean you can do that first swale of your cross section,
you can do that first swale.
Ben Merriman: Yeah, it’s a good idea. Inasmuch as it will give those trees, one it starts the
berm and two, it gives the trees a chance to get growing.
Councilman Labatt: Thanks. I think we’ve discussed Outlot C and making that a permanent
designation. We’ve talked about no outdoor speaking. The lighting on the buildings. We just
need to form a motion on that. Outdoor speaking? Avoid a lot of talks during breaks so they go
outside. And then the building 1, I think the developer with the mayor’s help and Todd’s help
will squeeze those buildings together. Other than that, you know let’s just figure out how we can
get the County to give us a right-in/right-out. I mean if they’re going to upgrade Lyman, it only
makes sense and maybe we can have the developer come up and talk about how he could tweak
that road or somehow make that road into a Y with a right-in/right-out off of Lyman if possible.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I think initial reaction to that, I’m not opposed to looking at a right-
in/right-out. I would be hesitant to change zoning and approve a preliminary plan unless we
know what the effect of that would be on the rest of the development. And particularly I’m
looking at, what I heard was, you start moving things you’re going to start, you move it all
within there so there’s a number of trees that are being preserved and others planted to the east of
Lot 4. If it’s Lot 3, needs to be pushed to the west to allow the right-in/right-out, what that’s
going to do to the rest of that. I’m not proposing but as you look at it, you know it’s probably
43
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
going to bring that right-in/right-out to the west of Lot 2. I’m not opposed to that. If it picks up
anything, some people would be in favor of it and I’m not going to be opposed to that either. I
don’t know how much it will pick up but we can look at it. But I think internally I guess
Councilwoman Tjornhom to your point too in terms of the increase setback on the north property
line, I’d be hesitant to approve a preliminary plan without seeing what the affect of that has on
Outlot C. …to the west, as I’m looking at it, that’s where all the grove of trees are right now and
so we may end up you know defeating what we’re trying to accomplish here, but there’s going to
be some balance. Somebody moving towards Galpin on Bridle Creek may prefer that. Now on
50 somebody living to the west may prefer to have the trees, so I think I’d be hesitant to make
that change without…effect or the right-in/right-out with the effect of the overall. Having
addressed just some reaction to those specifics. I think overall there’s been some question about
the quality of the project, what’s being proposed. Is this right for our city? I have a hard time
saying that it’s not right for our city in part because of not just our neighborhoods that are around
it but the rest of the comprehensive plan and what’s being developed. Traffic is a big issue here
and traffic along Galpin as I mentioned to some residents, as Galpin was upgraded a number of
years ago, it was done with the expectation that development and this type of development would
occur on this property as well as properties to the south. It is a, as roads go, it’s a very nice one.
The shoulders are about a lane wide right now. With right turn lanes. There’s trails on both
sides of it, with grass median between the road and the trail. So from a safety standpoint I think
it’s a pretty safe road. Can we, you know there’s going to be more traffic on it as we continue to
develop regardless of whether this development goes through or not so, you know from a traffic
standpoint, let’s look at the right-in/right-out and ask that question again. I know that question
was re-asked after the Planning Commission by staff for access off Lyman. Let’s re-ask it again
but again I’d be hesitant to approve anything tonight without knowing what the effect internally
would be because we may not be evaluating what that’s accomplishing. At what cost. To
Councilman Labatt’s points in terms of building heights, I too believe that a reduced building
height would be appropriate in this area. Certainly along the northern properties. The Lot 1
we’re already picking up some feet but I wouldn’t be opposed to looking at two height, or two
story height. At least not on the borders. Perhaps throughout the development as well, so I’d be
interested in my fellow councilmember’s thoughts on that. Overall I think the PUD process here
made this development better than what it would have been. There will be more trees preserved.
There will be better architecturally designed buildings. There will be the movement within to
help improve and there will be an emphasis on landscaping which is above and beyond. In fact
what I heard was double what our ordinance requires so there clearly are improvements here. Is
it achieving everything that everybody would want? No. Is it a good balance between what the
developer’s right to develop their property and what the neighbors are responding? My sense is
yes. Are there some tweaks that we can do? Perhaps as my fellow council members mentioned
and we can get into that detail so. I, like Councilman Lundquist said earlier, sincerely appreciate
the e-mails and information and correspondence that we receive from all the residents. While we
are not allowed to talk to each other during meetings, it doesn’t mean we can’t still pick up a
phone and call Mr. Gerhardt or Ms. Aanenson or Mr. Oehme and ask some of these questions so
a lot of the questions that you brought up tonight or started bringing up 2 weeks ago, we’ve
already been pursuing those and that’s helpful to try to make that process more efficient. Is to
get those questions out. Get them answered. Double checked just because the staff and the
developer come forward with a plan and maybe they’ve asked the question, I’ll use access as an
example. Does that mean that we shouldn’t ask again the County can we get access off Lyman?
44
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
That question’s been re-asked. Now we’re saying maybe we have to go back and say instead of
full access can we do right-in/right-out. And that’s reasonable. That’s part of the process and I
think ultimately we’re going to end up with a better project. It may not be everything that
everybody’s looking for. It may be, it will certainly be different for those that have views of the
property from their home but I think we’re making the best of what’s available and actually
making better than just what our simple ordinance would allow. And I appreciate all your input
into the process. So I’ve got a number of things. I think probably duplicate with a number of
other lists in terms of things we’re looking for. We want to try to move forward with a motion
we can certainly do that. Depending on the nature, some of the add’s we may want to defer but
let’s open it up and see what people think. We want to try to put a motion together and work
through it we can. Some of your thoughts and comments if there’s a desire to seek some
changes, we may want to give some specific direction. Not that we’re going to re-open or keep
everything open but try to gather some more information that we need as a council before we can
make a decision. So thoughts. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: Mayor, clarification. Kate. What, between preliminary and final, if we
were to go back to the County and ask that right-in/right-out question, that’s obviously going to
shift some buildings and stuff like that. Preference for you and your staff. Would you rather
have this tabled and come back in 2 weeks or would you rather have a condition about another
formal request for right-in/right-out and deal with the effect of that between preliminary and
final?
Kate Aanenson: Either way. I guess my concern is if we leave it open then we’re going to go
back. If we can just synthesize what the critical points are that you want us to work on, I’d be
comfortable with a table. I just, I know in talking to, at another meeting with Roger Gustafson,
some of the neighbors have contacted him directly. I can tell you what’s going to happen
tomorrow. He’s going to get a lot of phone calls and some arm twisting because he’s had some
of that already so you know, and we’re going to be up there too so I guess if we kind of stick to a
short list of…
Councilman Lundquist: Well here’s the crux of my point. I’m firm enough on the right-in/right-
out where I’m not going to wait 15 minutes going through this if you tell me that you want this
tabled to talk about a right-in/right-out, I’m going to make a motion to table and we won’t mess
with the rest of the stuff tonight and we’ll do it in 2 weeks. If you say, you think you can work
through it, then we’ll muddle through the motion and put that as a condition and go.
Kate Aanenson: But my concern is if you don’t get the right-in and right-out, then what?
Councilman Lundquist: Well we can word that condition such that it’s a formal request and not
a you know.
Kate Aanenson: I’ll defer that to the City Attorney what he thinks is probably the better way to
go.
Councilman Lundquist: Who’s the politician now?
45
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Roger Knutson: My issue with this, I don’t know how you can effectively approve it with taking
a look at right-in and right-out. I don’t know how that works. Let’s say the County says right-
in/right-out’s okay. Then I would assume from what I’m hearing, without being a planner, you’d
need a substantial redesign of the whole darn thing. Or you could. I don’t know.
Kate Aanenson: I would agree because more than likely if you’re going to put a right-in and out
you’d have to eliminate some of those buildings because you’re going to have to put a public
street in there. Right now you’d be coming, if you went on the other side of Lot 1, that’s a
driveway where there’s parking. And if you’re taking truck traffic, if that’s the goal, then you’d
have to make that a street so it would, I would agree that it’d take some significant so if you want
us to do that, then probably tabling is probably better. And then we can clean up the motion and
get all those conditions in regarding the lighting, the signage, the conservation easement, the
height and get that all modified into the conditions of approval.
Councilman Lundquist: Do we have any time restraints that we’re up against?
Roger Knutson: I believe we’re up against the 60 days but we can take another 60. I believe the
th
application was filed June 17.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Roger Knutson: So we have time.
Mayor Furlong: I think to the extent Councilman Lundquist, if that’s our request I’d like to see
the effect of that. If the County comes back and approves it, what’s the effect of that on the
design because ultimately again we’re dealing with balance. I think Councilman Peterson said
that and we, you know I’m not opposed to asking the question but I’m not going to pre-judge
that if we have a right-in/right-out that we’re going to end up with a better design. And so if
that’s the desire, there are a number of things here. What I would suggest is, let’s make sure,
let’s give the staff specific direction. Now that we have to revisit all the issues again when it
comes back up under old business but let’s give them specific direction on what we’d like to see
in terms of some of the issues and let’s get more information from staff on that and working with
the developer to say you know if we do this, here’s the effect. So that as a council we can look at
the effect of that. And cost benefit. Valuation. Does that make sense?
Councilman Lundquist: Absolutely.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Lundquist: I was more trying to be respectful of the time for the developer to not
have another 2 weeks to wait but understand that…
Mayor Furlong: Yeah I think this is important enough to a number of people that taking the 2
weeks would make some sense, and I’m assuming by making that statement that we think that
we can get some of these answers back, or reasonable answers back within a 2 week period.
Kate and Mr. Merriman.
46
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Ben Merriman: Well it’s kind of a County issue.
Mayor Furlong: Well right but your issue is, and what information we’d be looking for is if the
County allows the right-in/right-out, what does that do to inside the development.
Ben Merriman: You redesign it. You redesign all of the projects…just reinventing the wheel to
the interior of the project.
Mayor Furlong: And for clarification here, what we’re looking for, what I’m hearing is not the
elimination of the access of Galpin but the addition of a right-in/right-out off Lyman. Is that, I
see heads going up and down so.
Kate Aanenson: To be clear we may come back with two plans. One showing the impact and
then the original plan and you can pick.
Mayor Furlong: And to the extent that there’s effects on the development from some of these
other things that we’ll talk through, I guess Mr. Merriman we’d be interested in hearing that as
well, you know in terms of building heights and maybe we should just, let’s formulate it as
specifically as we can some of the issues we’d like to see in terms of added conditions.
Councilman Peterson do you want to start with a couple of your’s or what you have?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah I’ll plant the seed with staff but limited signage and lighting to
minimize the impact on the neighborhood. To work with the developer to limit the building
height. I’m not ready to say a foot right now but see what is reasonable and prudent. Outlot C
with a dedication, permanent easement… Speakers. I think one of the conditions already
highlights tree protection during the building process. I mean it’s still going to be enforced. A
lot of what we’re doing is because of the trees so we may want to move our normal setback from
the, to another few feet out for the silt fencing. I think that’s all for me.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Any specifics?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know I think Councilman Peterson’s gotten a majority of them.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: The only other one we’ve got condition 54 in here now that talks about
the drainage issues with Lot 2. Like to see that modified to incorporate a generality with the
Trotters Ridge lots and then also if it’s possible to incorporate the Outlot C runoff as they spoke
in the drainage calculations.
Mayor Furlong: If I could concur. Rather than relating it to drainage on the development to the
north, let’s relate it to this development so Lot 6 and Lot C, Outlot C from the development
standpoint, storm water standpoint, and I think there was a question on storm water over on Lot 5
as well. Some request there so.
47
City Council Meeting – August 8, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: Then the others have been stated already. I would propose at this point
that I would be willing to support the 30 foot building height for Lots 5 and 6.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Lundquist: Whereas the rest would be left as in the design standards.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Labatt. Any specific direction or information requested of
staff?
Councilman Labatt: No, you guys hit them all. I support the 30 foot on…5 and 6 and that
includes the parapet. And everything else was hit so.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah. The only other thing was just working with the developer to evaluate
the, with the lowering of the building on Lot 1. What is the effect of traffic within there and we
may lose some opportunity if we have a right-in/right-out there and a public street, but we might
pick up on the, anything to save trees on the east side we might lose because we have to put a
public street in there so that’s, but what the effects would be in terms of traffic flow internally if
there are opportunities there on where the balancing points are. Is the other issue. Okay,
anything else? If not, with that direction to staff is there a motion to table.
Councilman Lundquist: I move that we table item A, B and C.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to table the request for
rezoning of property from Agricultural Estate (A2) to Planned Unit Development (PUD),
Preliminary Plat and Wetland Alteration Permit on property located on the northwest
corner of Lyman Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard, Chanhassen West Business Park,
Planning Case 05-23. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of
5 to 0.
(The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO PUD-R; SUBDIVISION
WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 91 ACRES INTO 84 LOTS, 3 OUTLOTS
AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 459 TOWNHOUSE
UNITS; WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
ALTERATION OF THE FLOOD PLAIN; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT LOCATED
EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD, SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, AND NORTH OF
PIONEER TRAIL, LIBERTY ON BLUFF CREEK. APPLICANT TOWN AND
COUNTRY HOMES, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-11.
48