06-26 CC Minutes 7-10-06
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Resolution #2006-48: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that
the City Council approve a resolution vacating eight (8) feet of alley right-of-way located
along the north property line of Lot 3, Block 2, St. Hubertus. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
LAKESIDE, 125 LAKEVIEW ROAD, APPLICANT, SIENNA CORPORATION:
REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON 26.34 ACRES REZONING
THE PROPERTY FROM R12 HIGH DENSITY-RESIDENTIAL TO PUD-R, PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL WITH VARIANCES; PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR 29 BUILDING LOTS, TWO OUTLOTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PUBLIC
STREETS; SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 234 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
INCLUDING TWO, THREE, FOUR AND CONDOMINIUM UNIT BUILDINGS, AND A
COMMUNITY BUILDING; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT WITH VARIANCES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Lee Wear 17836 Bearpath Trail
T.J. Adams 154 Lakeview Road E.
Thomas J. Bastasz 179 Lakeview Road E.
John Bowlsky 18482 Bearpath Trail
David & Clara Adinolfo 18779 Bearpath Trail
Heidi & Scott Frederiksen 18626 Bearpath Trail
Stephanie & Tom Drees 14727 Boulder Point Road
Dan Brattland 18355 Nicklaus Way
Steven Schwieters 10072 Gristmill
Carter Nichols 18808 Bearpath Trail
Tom & Sue Knight 9154 Bearpath Trail
Ron Case 9237 LaRivier Court, Eden Prairie
Wallace Anderson 8067 Timber Lake Drive, Eden Prairie
9014 Lake Riley Road
Gail Thorpe 17543 Bearpath Trail
Pat Shepard 17615 Bearpath Trail
John Jeffries 18767 Bearpath Trail
Bruce Carlson 8988 English Turn, Eden Prairie
Valerie & Ken Ross 8976 English Turn, Eden Prairie
Ken Brooks 17894 Bearpath Trail
Melissa Shockley 18775 Melrose Chase
Chris Honaas & Craig Wildfang 18397 Nicklaus Way
Steven Tighe 17846 Bearpath Trail
Andy Birrell 17934 Bearpath Trail
4
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
Sue Phillips 17950 Bearpath Trail
Nancy Ness 17704 Bearpath Trail
Marlene McEwan 17627 Bearpath Trail
Nick Stockwell 17627 Bearpath Trail
Ginny Gospard 17615 Bearpath Trail
Warren & Mia Bielke 18719 Bearpath Trail
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. The subject site is located off of
Lyman Boulevard and currently has apartments on the site. The Lakeview Hills apartments. To
the south of there in the City of Chanhassen is a Rottlund project called North Bay. That
property was also guided for medium to high density, and then on the Eden Prairie side the
Bearpath property. The applicant is requesting a zoning change. It is zoned R-12, and I want to
take a few minutes to talk about the zoning change any why we ended up, the staff
recommending that, and then there are some variances requested with that. I’ll take some time to
talk about that. In addition they’ll be asking for a site plan approval, and besides the variance a
conditional use for a beachlot. The project itself again is requesting a PUD. I want to make
some corrections on some of the, or clarifications on some of the variance requests. But first I’d
like to talk about the entitlement on this property. It’s currently zoned R-12, and my tenure with
the city we only had one other piece of property that actually had a zoning in place and that was
a PUD project, the Lake Susan Hills which was done and that actually had a R-12 and actually
took almost 15-20 years to build out. This is also a piece of property that because it had
apartments on it, was zoned R-12 and has for a long, long time, so when it has a R-12 zoning on
it, there’s certain rights that go with it. Obviously the 12 units an acre being one. In the last few
years, working with the property owner Mr. Liefschultz, we met with specifically the last 2
years, met with numerous developers looking at what type of project would be coming in on this
piece of property, and looking at what also the city has, their housing goals. What’s also coming
into the city and there was at least 3 specific property owners, or developers that we did meet
with the City. I believe that there’s 3 specific ones that I’d like to talk about. Ryland Homes,
Centex and…and kind of some of their visions for the property and why staff supported this one
over the others that they were proposing in relation to some of our goals. The most recent
projects that we’ve approved have had a significant, in the 2005, a significant amount of
townhouses and certainly one of the goals that we look at, in looking at projects is diversity in
housing type, and then working with the underlying property owner, that was one of the things.
While they met the intent if they didn’t change it, they’re obligated to approve it. They met all
the requirements. We were certainly guiding them towards looking at different products. One
thing that we’ve always told you that we try to strive for looking at the larger piece is bringing in
2 or 3 different products, so we always had that as a goal. But everything that we were seeing on
some of the developments were a typical townhouse type project, which you’ve a lot, specifically
35 feet high with the large walls in the back which one of the issues that we just dealt recently
with the Town and Country project. Again when we looked at this one, now we do have this in
the city, but we always try to encourage a different type of product. This is one that was being
proposed for it again. This has underground parking. We do have this product moving forward
in the city now but at the time that we met with the developer, that was one of the products that
they were advancing. Again it’s common entry with an elevator and then underground parking.
And then the character, urban row which actually now we also had just recently approved in the
last 6 months. Some of this product too. So reviewing that with the applicants and the property
5
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
owners that we were talking to, we already felt that that was a pretty strong housing type we
already had in the market, and we wanted to encourage something different. So when we met
with the Sienna Corporation came in with again we always want to see the different products.
They came in with 3 different products, which we were excited about. The one being the
condominium. The two’s and the three’s, and we felt strongly that that met first off our goals.
Then we got into the land use and they certainly wanted to go forward with the entitlement of the
R-12 zoning. But for us to make it work, there’s some trade off’s that we wanted. One was a lot
of green, open space and actually look at, they hadn’t identified some of these products. They
certainly wanted to go with a more vertical product, but as they worked through and they went
out and sought partners to come in on the project, we wanted some green space. Some trails.
There’s the trail on the Eden Prairie side. Opening this up. Varying the heights as we talked
about with some of our projects that we looked at most recently. Different roof lines. Different
openings. And looked at that. And the current zoning on the property allows this property line,
…to Eden Prairie, right now the R-12 zoning allows you to be within 10 feet of that property
line. So we thought it was a trade off to that to do the PUD would allow greater setback. What
the staff report recommended was a variance from this line. So one of the first setbacks that
we’re looking at is the setback of the 50 feet. So you can, which the overall PUD requires for, as
we got clarification and I wanted to, I did put out for you a revised setback from the applicant
because they had most recently moved this building back. This is what the PUD ordinance says
in Section 20-50… For the single family, the clustered single family low density, you have to be
the 50 foot back, so that notification to them is right because some of these slightly move into
that line from the 50 foot. What it says for the multi family attached, it needs to be as high as the
building. I did get clarification from this interpretation from the city attorney and that Section
20-505. So what they’ve agreed to do is, submitted this model. Revised drawing. Moved the
building back. Now one of the condominium buildings actually has a flat roof and that was a
point of discussion too when they met with us early on is that we could make all the buildings
flat roofed, and that’s something that we’ve always encouraged in the city is actually a pitched
roof. If you look in the core of downtown, that’s one of our stronger themes is the pitched roof
for the residential look. So and the staff weighing, why do we support this design? The height
of the building. This is also in the shoreland district, the 35 feet. The height variance. We
would end up with a flatter roof, so the staff supported the height variance to get that look on this
corner. The Building B the condominium project that actually has the flatter roof and then
Building C would again have the pitched roof, and that would be up against the wall for the new
212. I’m not going to go through a lot of the products. I’m going to let the applicant just take a
few minutes to go through some of the products but I want to talk about the rationale. Does the
council have any questions on the rationale for the PUD? The setbacks. I think there was a
concern that they asked what to get some relief. We wanted that because we felt like looking at
the other products, to get the density, the entitlement that was there, we would have ended up
with maximized height of…is out there today and we wanted different looks out there and that
was our goal is to get some open space. In order to get the PUD ordinance…50% as opposed to
the 35%. They’re only at 42 so they didn’t maximize that. But we would have had to combine
products and gone to a different type of building in order to maximize that, or gone with a
different developer. Again staff supports this because you know 6 parties that we talked to, we
felt this was the strongest as far as design. And trying to balance that price point between North
Bay and Bearpath. So with that, that’s kind of the rationale so we talked about this building
being moved back 40 feet. So that would meet the setback requirements. Still needs the height
6
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
variance…shoreland regulations. These buildings along here would need to maintain the 50.
There still is an encroachment on some of those, probably 10 feet. Not to the 30. And again this
one would still need a height variance as would this building. Otherwise everything else would
need a height variance.
Mayor Furlong: Just to clarify, Building A you’re saying they’ve already modified to move that
back. They were at 30. Now they’re at.
Kate Aanenson: 42.
Mayor Furlong: 42, and Building C would also be 42? It’s height back from both the north and
east property line?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, there’s just a small triangular piece and we’ll work through that through
the design to make that work. Again the height of that…
Mayor Furlong: Alright.
Councilman Peterson: So that means the variance is no longer.
Kate Aanenson: But the setback on that site. Well the condominium project, it still would apply
to the lower density on that and be smaller, and I think we want to make sure we get that
clarified correct in the ordinance. This all, was late this afternoon that we got clarification on the
height issues. That staff actually interpreted incorrectly.
Mayor Furlong: I guess to clarify that. Would, if Building A is moved back to 42, which is it’s
current proposed height, if the height variance is granted, then at 42 they would meet the setback.
There would be no setback variance for A?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: And staff is recommending that all the twin homes on, or townhomes on the
east property line be pushed back to at least 50?
Kate Aanenson: No. We would still support the variance on those, yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I thought those were already at 50. They’re not?
Kate Aanenson: No, there’s a few that encroach in a line and that was part of, specifically on
Lot 11. On Lot 11. You need to zoom in on that Nann. The line runs through the lot. There’s a
small portion of probably 10 feet that would encroach in. Again the compromise is you can
make it work but you’re, what you’re doing is reducing some of the green space. There’s some
other, what we believe was some rationale basis for some of this. We have no condominium or
apartment building in the city that has 2 underground apartments. Two underground parking
spaces per unit. It’s a very unique building. Having said that, there also is typically when you
have one underneath and one guest parking, you can share that opportunity for that guest parking
7
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
when someone’s gone for the day, so we felt strongly we can make sure, that because they have a
beachlot and a common pool, that there was adequate parking for those uses too. So build up
some of the parking. Could we go with less parking and make it meet the impervious? Yes, I
guess. I think that would make it less inferior and… Another reason that the staff supported the
variances, all the projects that we looked at, and meeting with the developers, this certainly far
exceeded all the design standards as far as material and looks to anything we have in the city so
again that was another rational basis that we felt like. And again, looking at the proximity, there
is a beachlot across the street, so for this view shed here, and the distance between this and the
homes we felt was adequate too for that, and looking at that…variance. I’ll let the developer
again go through the units itself. I’ll just talk a little bit about the beachlot itself. There was
some concern, actually the beachlot meanders quite a ways and borders the Eden Prairie side,
kind of on the north, or southeast there. And some of the residents over there were concerned
about having two beachlots. Two sand areas. The developer did agree, while it is permitted on
the code, did agree to eliminate the one and just have the sand beachlot on the property here. It
does, based on the area, and the, of the property itself and the shoreline regs, does meet the
requirements to allow for 2 boats and up to 6 docks. So that’s common. I’m sorry, 6.
Mayor Furlong: Two docks.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. Two docks, 6 slips. Thank you. So that is common with some of
the other beachlot associations that we have when we’ve approved that standard. Not just
leaving a little…and adequate size to make that work, and we believe that’s a nice enhancement.
The way it is being used right now is that, there is, it’s a non-conforming beachlot so by bringing
this project forward, you’re actually bringing the beachlot into conformance. It’s non-
conforming because there is an unmonitored boat launch there right now. So that would go
away. All launching would have to be done at the, at a controlled situation on the Eden Prairie
side. So we feel strongly that that’s a good thing that happens. Get that cleaned up. And more
control. The association itself would manage that beachlot as opposed to right now it’s a little bit
of a free for all out there, although we do try to regulate it… So any questions on the conditional
use itself?
Mayor Furlong: Questions? I guess for clarification. They’re still asking for the variance from
the 1,000 foot?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Do you want to address that?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, thank you. The beachlot itself is all association members of the
association have to be within 1,000 feet. Not all associations meet that requirement. We think it
makes sense to have everybody that belongs in this subdivision, belong to that association so we
are recommending a variance on that.
Mayor Furlong: And if I understood from the Planning Commission minutes, one of the reasons
is by re, the requirement is 80% of the units have to be within that 1,000 feet, is that correct?
8
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: So by re-platting or moving the boxes around, they could meet that
requirement.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Correct. And that also brings up another point. Actually
Building C doesn’t fall within the shoreline district either. So it would fall into that height
requirement, and I did include in your packet, in the update, we did include, we do have other
apartment buildings. For example when we did Villages on the Pond, the PUD, the Lake Susan
apartments which are in a shoreland district, that PUD was given an overall 50 feet in height and
those apartments out there are 48.5 feet in height. So, and I also gave you a table with the other
apartment buildings in town. The only one that we’ve approved recently at 35 feet was the most
recent one we did at Gateway North. At the new intersection of 101 and 212. Otherwise
everything else is 40 feet or above. So again I just want to reiterate the rationale for going with
the PUD. The setbacks were actually less under the current zoning so.
Mayor Furlong: And a point of clarification on the height. There’s a difference in terms of the
height to the peak versus to the average.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: 42 to the average?
Kate Aanenson: Or 41. 41.5. We just went to 42. I recommended they go to 42 just to be.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, but that’s to the average. And that’s the same standard used for the other
apartment buildings in the staff report?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Is to the average?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: So then we have actual.
Kate Aanenson: And that’s the same as we’d measure a residential home. The same
methodology. To the average peak. Mid point of the pitch of the roof.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: And again, we didn’t feel like a flat roof was appropriate for this design so. So
with that, I just want to point out on the conditions of approval. I know there’s a couple
questions that came up. Building C was left out of the design. The condos in Building A, the
more luxury, larger ones. In Building B, a little bit smaller. Building C, the architecture has to
remain. We’re approving the PUD standards as the buildings are represented and as the
9
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
developer will show you tonight with the materials. Those are all set out in the staff report on
the conditions. On page 25 of your staff report. A. So it says they must comply with the
development standards. If you wanted to add Building C, that those would be the design
standards. Approving, you’re approving the site plan but it is correct that Building C is not
shown in the architectural detail but it’s, it would be our recommendation that it mirrors the other
3 materials.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Would that come through for final approval? Building C, that would
come before us?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, for site plan, correct. And you will see all of these back for final.
Mayor Furlong: But would they have C completed by the final plat? Was that your question
Councilwoman Tjornhom?
Kate Aanenson: But what I’m saying is.
Mayor Furlong: We can put the condition in there.
Kate Aanenson: We had a, right. We have a footprint for C. No matter how it’s subdivided
internally, it has to match externally, so it would look exactly like the other two buildings in
material. The brick. The stone. The 80% brick and stone and that, and they’ve agreed to that. I
just want to make sure that you feel comfortable and that it’s in the condition that way.
Mayor Furlong: Which condition was that?
Kate Aanenson: That’s on page 25. Condition A. Where we say, incorporating the
development design standards and the staff report, we have design standards for all 3 products.
The townhouses, the club house, and then the condominium building. I think we want to say
buildings. And then we reference the two different, the site plan and then the building material
which they’ll be going through here in just a minute. So this would be.
Mayor Furlong: So you’re saying that would be in the A, the rezoning motion? If I’m following
you correctly.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. This is building, this is how they’re represented. There isn’t a sheet for
Building C so we’re saying it’s implied that these buildings look similar in style. That that
Building C would be of similar materials. So I just want to clarify there are four motions then
too. So one would be approving the rezoning. B would be the plat itself. Creating the lots. C
would be the site plan approval, with the variances. And then again you need to modify the
variances in the staff report. Including the different standards, the height of the condominium
buildings. And then D would be the conditional use for the beachlot, with the variance which
would include the entire project have access to the beachlot.
Councilman Peterson: Kate do you want to talk to, or can you talk or would you rather have the
applicant talk about the setbacks and the sight lines for the townhouses on the east property line?
10
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
I’m trying to get a sense of what the sight lines are going to be with the elevations of those
townhouses over there.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think they can go through that while they’re going through the materials
and…through their book. Otherwise if, when they’re done if you still have questions, I’d be
happy to answer those.
Mayor Furlong: We’ll probably have some more questions.
Kate Aanenson: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Unless there’s any right now. Did you want to address to staff? Go ahead.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: No, did you want to address the question with the trees?
Kate Aanenson: Sure, and they’ll address that too but you know I didn’t point out that it did go
th
to the Planning Commission on June 20 by a 5 to 1 vote. Majority of the Planning Commission
believed that by granting the variances they got a superior project, except for there was one that
was concerned about the height variance. The developer will talk about the trees. They’re
working to try to save the trees. I know there’s one issue too and that was the trail on the Eden
Prairie side. We want to make sure, I want to make sure we get that in the conditions and work
through the language on that. That it’s our understanding that the trail still goes through, and
that’s the one that goes out towards 212. Goes through…the Eden Prairie side, because they’ll
be putting sidewalk and trails connecting to that too.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good. Why don’t I invite the applicant up at this time and address
the council.
John Vogelbacher: Good evening. My name’s John Vogelbacher. I’m with Sienna Corporation
and we’re the developer of the Lakeside community. I also brought a number of our plan books,
if any of the council members or members of the audience would like to grab one of these books.
It’s basically our, primarily our application, excluding the engineering sheets, but it does
represent pretty much the whole scope of the project. If any of the audience members would like
to come up and grab one of these, they’re more than welcome.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Vogelbacher, is that the same one that we got emailed to us?
John Vogelbacher: Yes sir. I’ll try to be brief in my description of the project. I know that the
council has had an opportunity to review this in a workshop and there have been some changes
that we’ve made through the process over the last 6 weeks or so in terms of changes made to the
project. Primarily one of the changes, when we first made our application and came to the
council in the workshop was the trail that’s located on the eastern boundary of the Lakeside
project. When we first came to the council we proposed that trail on the western boundary of the
site. After review and application over at the City of Eden Prairie, they denied the application
for us, or the plan for us to move that public trail you know in through our project, and so it’s
located in Eden Prairie right on the eastern boundary of Lakeside. And so different than the
11
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
concept plan that we had shown you at that meeting, the trail is located on the east and there’s a
landscape plan that is proposed for the trail itself. There’s also some re-grading of that area, and
that is primarily for two purposes. One, to get the two sites to blend together so you have an
attractive land feature on the western side of the golf club. And also to take the trail and drop it
down so that it fits into the landform. It will eventually end up being over than what it currently
would have been planned in the city of Eden Prairie. What the existing topography is out there
now. Another modification was the condominium building A. That plan, if you recall, that was
kind of more of a traditional double loaded building. Meaning a hallway down the middle and
condominium units on both one side and either side of the hallway. Now this Building A, which
is called the Heritage, is a single loaded corridor, meaning you have glass and an exterior façade
on one side of the hallway and then you have condominium units on the other. There’s a total of
right now the plan, this particular plan would indicate 39, although Mr. Harriss, the architect can
elaborate. I think we’ve dropped that down now to 36 units. Very good looking building. 80%
brick or stone in it’s fascia treatment. And one of the things we wanted to do there too was we
wanted to put a roof on that building so that it fit more in terms of the residential setting that it
was in. It is a 3 story building and again, as Kate had indicated, there’s 2 parking spaces for
every, or actually in this particular building right now it’d be in excess of 2 spaces for every
condominium unit. Other components of the project is the beachfront lot and we would like to
combine the dock feature there into one dock and I believe by ordinance we’re allowed up to 6
boat slips. And what we’d have there is association owned and maintained boats for the use of
the residents. A lot of nice features there down on the lake with landscaping, a gazebo, a lot of
gardens and a beach, so that would be part of our amenity plan that’s on the lake. Another
important component of the project is the center park that runs between the town homes and that
has a 14 foot waterfall at the north end that has a 8 to 10 foot wide stream that runs from the
north back down to the south and recirculates, so there are some photographs in the book in
regards to that particular feature. The same company that built the stream at Windsong, which is
a golf course on the west side of town. That’s Rabine Construction would be building that
feature for our project. In our packet there’s a number of both private and public trails. We’d be
installing a public trail on Lyman Boulevard, and it would connect to the Eden Prairie system.
Bearpath would be constructing the Eden Prairie trail this year as well as the continuation of the
Lyman Boulevard trail, which is on the north side. The Chanhassen trail, but that will continue
down to the east, all the way down to Riley Creek on the north side of what is Riley Lake Road
and would do a connection and so we’d have a whole series of trails that would eventually run
and go up underneath 312 and over to Rice Marsh Lake and would create quite a very nice
feature there for both our residents as well as residents in the area. We have 3 different products
on the site. We have the condominium buildings which we’ve talked about. Charles Cudd
would be doing the townhomes that are fronting the golf course, and those are twin homes. In
the sense of moving this along, when the Planning Commission we had our builders give an
expression and describe their units. I think what we’d like to do tonight maybe is hold off on
that, and then if you have some questions about the style of the unit, or the look of the unit, we
can certainly have each one of the builders, Steve Schwieters from Wooddale is here. Rick
Denman from Charles Cudd, and John Harriss who is the architect for the condominium
buildings is here as well, so they’d be able to address any questions you have in regards to those
units. I think one of the issues that we had when we were at the Planning Commission was our
neighbors to the west. The North Bay residents that were there. We had some storm sewer
issues that was a concern of the residents and their ponding that’s on their property. We’ve
12
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
modified our storm sewer plan so that all of the storm water that comes off this site comes to our
sedimentation and treatment pond which is on the south end of the site before it exits and goes
through a series of pipes that runs over to a sedimentation pond that’s in the North Bay project,
and with that we believe we’ll have a higher degree of water quality as it leaves the site. We’ll
also have a pump and a recirculating irrigation system that would use that pond as it’s water
source, which again I think will keep the water clarity of that pond at it’s highest level, and of
course again I think assist in the type of clarity of water that would leave the site. As you know
Sienna is the developer of Bearpath Golf and Country Club and another issue at the Planning
Commission was the tree loss and the setback and the height of the condominium buildings as
they’re related to residents that are in Bearpath. At Sienna we have met with the homeowners
association and have met and talked with a number of residents on a number of occasions, and
we have, believe that we have attempted as best we very can to address that. We’ve moved the
building back and we’ve modified our emergency overflow grading plan which originally ran
right behind Building A, and to describe it in engineering sense, we do have catch basins and
storm pipe in the back yards of Cudd twin homes, but engineering requirements would provide
that you must have an over surface emergency overflow for that any rain events that would let’s
say over come or over spill your storm sewer system, or if you have a blocked catch basin.
Where would the water go? So that, our preliminary plat submittal, that particular, this is… land
behind Building A and to the south down to Lyman Boulevard. We’ve since gone back and
looked at the engineering on that and modified that to take it back out to the street, which would
be run between Building A and the twin home there. The first twin home to the north of
Building A, and that allows us to keep the existing grade behind Building A at it’s existing
condition. And so with that, what we have is the ability to save a number of different large
significant trees that are behind that building. So in addition to the additional setback that we’ve
provided for, that Kate had talked about, we’re also able to save 3 large significant trees that are
within that corridor between the condominium building and the golf course. One is a 33 inch
burl oak which is a magnificent tree. It’s a beautiful tree. It’s two 33 inch stems that come out
of the base and it’s canopy is probably 150 feet of width and it’s probably maybe 40 to 50 feet
tall. Right next to it is a 13 inch hickory. And then to the north is a 28 inch ash which is
probably 60 feet tall, and I think these, this representation there is pretty accurate relative to the
canopy of these trees. They’re significant. They’re large and I think it does provide for a
screening or a buffering and a softening of this large building. As we talked to the residents of
Bearpath, there’s no question that by building this building that the golfers, the residents, they’re
going to see it. We believe it’s a very, very good looking building and it’s well done. It’s very
high caliber building. We like the fact that there’s a roof on there because it gives you a lot of
variance in the depth of the roof line itself. There’s probably as many as 12 to 15 valley’s and
gables just on the face that overlooks the golf course. And we do believe that the trees that
we’ve been able to preserve will soften that building and even help it set itself into the golf
course in a much more attractive situation. Other than that I believe that the plan itself is pretty
consistent with what we talked about at the Planning Commission and the workshop that we
were at. I won’t necessarily go through all the different sheets in here. We do have a number of
different illustrations in here and I guess what I’d like to do is maybe just answer any questions
and sort of open that up. If any of our questions would be towards our builders, we can address
that. I’m sure our Bearpath residents have quite a bit to say and we’re certainly, we welcome
them. And if I can mention to you and to them, we’ve done really the very best we can to put an
excellent, high quality project on this site. We tried to address their concerns the very best that
13
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
we can. This particular site, it’s made to have observation and views of the golf course. We
think we’ve done it in a professional and high quality manner and we think that the landscaping
that we provided will help mitigate some of the tree loss that occurs as we re-grade this area.
We’re actually planting as many trees as we take down, and I think it’d be a very attractive and a
benefit for the Bearpath community in the sense that something was going to happen on this
property and we’re certainly as the golf course owners that we’re involved in it so we can do
something that’s a very, very high quality. So I’ll just step away from the podium and let the
council, if you have any questions, I’ll be glad to answer them.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Vogelbacher.
Councilman Peterson: John, going back to my earlier question. Can you paint us a picture of
two things. I’d like to get some sense as to what the sight lines are going to be with the town
houses on the east side, particularly the ones that are going into the setback area. You know
there’s a berm out there now and there’s a fence on top of that. I guess I’m, I also want to get a
sense of where the property line is. And then secondly, speak if you will about the trail on the
Eden Prairie side and how many trees are going to have to be taken out because of that, if any.
John Vogelbacher: The fence that’s currently on the site is not the property line. The fence is
generally somewhere between 40 to 50 feet east of the Chanhassen boundary and our property
line. So that’s a dimension relative to let’s say a perspective from looking at the golf course or
looking at from a housing perspective, it’s really not the property line but it tends to kind of look
that way when you see it. Our particular plan includes re-grading what would be the west side of
that berm. Generally would not go any farther than the existing fence that’s there. In some areas
it might but it’d be very marginal. Maybe 10 or 15 feet, and the purpose there is to, is to shape
and combine these two properties together so that right now if you looked at the existing
contours between Chanhassen and Eden Prairie, you have steep slope. You have an irregular
boundary that as the two sites come together and not very attractive. And this is a very high
quality project. It’s at the very top end of the market, and for us to build something like this, we
need to go and we need to re-shape that so it looks like a golf course. And so that would be what
we would do. As it relates to the fence, we would take the fence down. It’s currently a chainlink
fence and then we would install a new fence which would be an ornamental fence which is what
you see on the Pioneer Trail. That’s the type of fence that’s a wrought iron looking fence. That
fence would be set down below let’s say the top of the berm so that from a golfing perspective in
many areas you would not even see the fence. On both sides of that fence we landscape so it’s
attractive from the west side. From the Chanhassen side, and we also need to create kind of
some separation between the public views, which is bound on the east by the fence, and of
course we don’t have a, we’re not installing a fence on the west side or on the Chanhassen side,
but we are installing trees and shrubbery to kind of define space so that there’s a public area and
then there’s a private area which are the back yards of the townhomes and the rear side of
Building A, the condominium. I hope I answered your question. Is that?
Councilman Peterson: Well as a follow-up, just to give me a sense, as you walk out the rear of
one of those townhomes, are you going to walk straight out and then kind of down to the
fairway, just to give me a sight line view.
14
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
John Vogelbacher: Yeah, the berm stays just as it is today and so that, the top of that berm, let’s
say at it’s highest point is around 916 and that would be about the elevation of our street. So the
first floor elevation of the townhomes is at about the elevation of the top of the berm. And those
are walkout units so the trail and the landscaping and the re-shaping of the golf course on it’s
western side would be pretty much at back yard grade. Or down lower. Might be a little higher
in some areas, and what we’re trying to do is we’re just trying to keep with the existing grade the
best that we can. Re-shape it and then in some areas again there’s not a very large berm on the
golf course. It’s almost at grade, and so in some areas you won’t see the ornamental fence from
the golf course. Not much different than what you see today. But primarily most of the
perspective from the housing and from the golf course, you would not see the fence at all from
the golf course. I hope that answered your question.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah it did. What about the trail on the Eden Prairie side and the number
of trees that might have to be removed?
John Vogelbacher: Generally to re-shape the property we would take out primarily most of the
trees that are inbetween Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. Right now there’s 4 significant trees and
Eden Prairie has a different code relative to how they categorize tree loss and what they ask
developers to do. So right now there are 4 trees within Eden Prairie that we would be required
to inventory, and of those 4, 3 of them are the ones that I had shown on this plan that we’d be
saving. And the fourth one is farther to the north and would be right in this drainage area that we
have to create, and that’s also another issue is to get the water out of that site you really have to
re-grade that property in the back so that you have overflow storm water protection for the
residents that are in Chanhassen. A lot of the trees that are in through there, they’re box elder.
Quaking aspen. Elm. You know there are some trees there, I’m not disputing that there are trees
in there and they do provide foliage and a back drop for the residents as they look across from
Eden Prairie or from Bearpath back to the west. In terms of the type of trees that they are, many
of them are, are not very good trees. It’s, and in fact we do have a complete inventory of all the
trees that are through there. So the significant trees that we have, those 3 of the 4 we’re saving
and I’d also mention that none of the trees on the golf course come down. Anything that’s on the
east side of the fence, you know isn’t graded. It’s the golf course is what it is and there’s
probably 50 or 60 trees from tee to green on the golf course itself that are east of the fence.
Councilman Peterson: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have some questions regarding Building A and the public parking
spot. How did you come to that calculation? I count what, 12, 13? Is that enough? I know
there’s underground parking for the residents but for visitors, was there some sort of equation
you used to decide that was how many you needed? Or you needed.
John Vogelbacher: Well it exceeds the code requirements for parking. Our plan does. And
what we’ve done is we’ve, our particular project is total property is the condominium, so unless
you’re in a townhome where you have a driveway, all parking throughout the property is
available for any resident from any building. And so there is additional parking on the street as
15
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
you come in, that is in front of Building B. And there’s additional parking on the street as you
go back up towards the townhomes, quite a bit. And so I mean is there enough guest parking for
Building A? I think in some instances, no. There wouldn’t be but there’s certainly enough in the
immediate area that people have a place to park and they’d have to walk maybe 100 or a couple
hundred feet, but there’s plenty of guest parking on that property and it certainly exceeds the
code requirement.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Is there parking along the streets Kate?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. That was one of the issues that we did spend quite a bit of time on
because it meets the parking requirements as a whole, but we know because there’s a pool
amenity that some people may choose to drive down and park next to that. Also that if there was
activities where people had guests that you wanted to have enough, so we looked at a couple
different iterations of parking where it was kind of more located at one end of the project, but we
felt it made more sense to equally distribute that so because they are private streets, there is
parking in front. It’s pretty much equally distributed. Certainly as you get down towards
Building C, we also made sure that there was adequate visitor parking on there too so there is on
street parking also.
John Vogelbacher: And you might not be able to tell by the illustration but in front of all the
townhome buildings, there is parallel parking and kind of curb bump outs. So the street was kept
narrow and that I think is for the purpose of kind of creating some ambience and reducing traffic
speed within the project, but there are bump outs pretty much for every building to provide
additional on street parking. And Building C, B and A, they all have guest parking and there is a
large bank of parking right behind Building B there right as you come into the project.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions?
Councilman Lundquist: John, sight lines for A, or A’s going to be, Building A, those first four
units would be at grade at the top of the berm as well, like the town?
John Vogelbacher: Generally yes. Yes, that elevation, the first floor elevation there is 910. And
then the grade there at the golf course is at about the same elevation.
Councilman Lundquist: And C as well, along that same? The building in the back will be
roughly where the level of the golf course is at that point too?
John Vogelbacher: You know I’m not sure that I know that the plan grade is 917 for Building C,
but Kate you might have to help me on that. I’m not sure what the grade is at the golf course at
the far north end there. I think it falls off a little bit. The tee is a little higher but there’s a pond
back behind the tee and the grade kind of slopes back down to the north.
Kate Aanenson: You’re at 907 looks like for the.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I think that where you enter into the garage.
16
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
Kate Aanenson: Finished floor 917.
John Vogelbacher: Yeah, it looks to me like the golf course just directly east of the
condominium C is at 910. So the building, first floor would be about 7 feet above that.
Councilman Lundquist: As we look, and Kate we have a variance for, we’re looking at a
variance for height on Building B as well?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Lundquist: And that one has a flat roof?
Kate Aanenson: Um yes.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. And that variance over the 35 feet, so that’s four story?
John Vogelbacher: Yes. Yes, Building B is 48 feet in height. If we can get in closer to that
right there but Building B is 48 feet at this point right here, at the main roof of the Building B.
And again what we’ve done there is on the western boundary we’ve stepped that building down,
because as you get closer to the North Bay residents, that we’ve addressed that. Those are
actually garden floors there on that end of the building where we’ve got shrubbery and plantings
on the roof itself, and so as you get to review an elevation of Building B as it relates to the North
Bay residents, this particular illustration gives you an idea of what happens because of that step
down in the building. So as you’re in the front yard or driving down the street, as you look back
towards that building, the landscaping and the step down of the building provides that the actual
height of the building is very difficult to view from that western side of the project.
Councilman Peterson: What about the eastern side? What are going to see from Bearpath as you
look at that building, anything?
John Vogelbacher: I don’t believe you’ll see Building B from Bearpath. I don’t believe so.
Mayor Furlong: I guess that was my question. It looks like on page 11 of the handout it shows
A and B there, if I’m correct. Is it true because of the topography that B, even though it’s 4
stories is lower than the 3 story building?
John Vogelbacher: Well I just think if we drew an elevation of that, the home sites over in
Bearpath are at around 900. The first floor elevations of the homes that are across the fairway,
there’s about 7 residence that look out back toward the east, or towards the west. That first floor
is right at about 890. And so right now Building A actually, just by grade there is at that 910.
And so if you kind of draw a line through there, you’d just be looking over the top of Building A
or the townhomes. I don’t believe you’ll see, you might see a little bit of B but I don’t think very
much. We haven’t done a profile of that but just by the grades there, it seems to be very
difficult.
17
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
Councilman Lundquist: The condos that are along, or the townhouses that are along the fifteenth
fairway, what do we have opportunity there to push those back out of that setback as well? Will
we give up green space between the two units or two types of homes if we squeeze them along
the babbling brook?
Kate Aanenson: Yep. Yes.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess the question is, what’s, how far in? What’s the effect?
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah we’re what, 10 or 12 feet or so.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, just on 11 and 10.
Councilman Lundquist: Two end ones.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Yeah, correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Now are those at 41 foot setback or 50?
Kate Aanenson: To get to the, they would be 50. They would need to be 50 because it’s a low
density according to the PUD, so I think it’s, you could shorten up the driveway possibly on 10.
It’d be building 11 would be really the one that’d probably need that 10 foot variance.
Councilman Lundquist: And the, look at alternatives on A. Well I guess along all of that too. I
mean obviously if you want to live along the golf course, you want to see the golf course but
those people who live across the other side don’t really want to see you looking at the golf course
right. So do we have any opportunity to look at that grading so that those, the first four units
wouldn’t have a full view of the golf course. You drop that down a few feet to drop the level so
the buildings and reduce that sight line from across the fairway.
John Vogelbacher: Well no, and you could. I mean you very well could. You could…so you
might not see any of the project. We could. But then we don’t have a project. I mean that’s a
very integral part of the design of the project and it’s value that’s there. You’ve got units there
that are $800,000 to $900,000 for a half of a twin home. Part of that is you know they want to
see the golf course. And so that’s part of the whole component of what makes the project what it
is, is the ability to attract Charles Cudd to build those units is directly related to having a view of
the golf course. I would like to address that. You know the fence itself, which is let’s say for
purposes of identifying what’s the golf course and what’s on the other side of the fence. That
dimension from the property line is 40 to 50 feet. And you add another 30 feet at a very
minimum. In some cases 40 to 50 feet with the townhomes, really from a viewing perspective,
that building is actually back from what is currently considered a golf course as much as 80 to 90
feet. And I would say from the center line of the golf hole, there probably isn’t any property in
Bearpath that is that far back from the center line of the golf hole. This is a very big, wide
fairway. It’s the biggest fairway and the biggest corridor we have on the golf course, and so I
think from a perspective of let’s say crowding the golf course or creating a tunnel, that won’t
happen and we didn’t do that purposely. I mean we certainly designed it, and in fact two
18
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
condominium buildings really only make up about 30% of the frontage on the fairway. The rest
of it is single story, walkout ramblers which will be as nice as anything you’ll see in Bearpath. If
not nicer. In terms of the attached product that’s designed for this subdivision. So the Charles
Cudd units are very, very good looking. They’re first class. They’re designed architecturally on
all four sides. Very good looking buildings. I could have Rick give you a better description of
it, which he could, but we’re very pleased with that product and we think from the viewing
perspective from across the fairway, it’d be very attractive and good looking.
Councilman Lundquist: Right now, I mean right now there’s nothing. So it will be a change
looking at that 15, across the fifteenth obviously.
John Vogelbacher: Yeah, there is 5 apartment buildings.
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah. But you can’t see them from the fairway.
John Vogelbacher: Not very much. No you can’t.
Councilman Lundquist: And so now the view from the lake. If I, across, let’s say across the
lake. Looking at these, what’s my, what’s that going to look like from across the lake versus
what’s there now. Those frontages of buildings A and B primarily I’m assuming is what you’re
going to see.
John Vogelbacher: Well I think you’ll see, I think you’ll see the buildings you know. They’ll be
certainly muted by the trees that are on the lake. I mean there’s a lot of big hardwoods. Oaks
and maples along the lake. And those would stay. We don’t have any plans to take those down.
We’d like to certainly clean up the lakeshore. Make it attractive. And so I think certainly you’re
going to see those buildings but for example Building B is probably as far back as 300 feet back
from the lake. Considerable distance back from the lake. You know A is a little bit closer but
still the amount of foliage that’s on the lake I think will provide an ample amount of screening so
that you know it’s not as if we’ll be able to see the whole building. In fact it will be very much
muted.
Councilman Lundquist: When you see the apartment, Kate can you see the apartment building
from the lake now? I guess I’ve never.
Kate Aanenson: They’re set back a little bit further.
John Vogelbacher: I don’t think you can. I don’t think you can see the apartments from the
lake. I don’t believe so.
Councilman Lundquist: That’s good.
Mayor Furlong: Good for now?
Councilman Lundquist: Yep.
19
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Building C. John. We don’t have anything specific on that one. That’s also a 3
story building, is that correct?
John Vogelbacher: That’d be 4 story.
Mayor Furlong: That’s 4 story?
John Vogelbacher: With a flat roof, yes. I think Kate had mentioned, it was going to have a
pitched roof.
Kate Aanenson: Oh I’m sorry, yep.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry?
John Vogelbacher: It will be a building very similar to Building B. Very similar in style…
Mayor Furlong: Okay, I thought I saw in the Planning Commission it was similar to A.
John Vogelbacher: …with parapets and a flat roof.
Mayor Furlong: Has that always been that case even when we talked about the concept? I
thought in the Planning Commission minutes that it said it was more similar to A, so that’s why
I’m asking the question.
John Vogelbacher: Yeah, no. It’d be more similar to B. And in fact I think in the past what
we’ve always thought would be a reasonable, would be as we come back through with a site plan
review would be to leave Building C open so that the council could review our plans. Look at
what we’re doing and again what we’re representing is it would be very similar in terms of
architectural and building materials to Building B. And in fact actually Building B and A are
very similar. One just has a flat roof and the other one has a pitched roof on it. But in terms of
the way the buildings will look, the materials will be very, very similar.
Mayor Furlong: So that would, if we go forward with this, Building C would have to come back
for a site plan?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. If you wanted to do it that way. But what we’re saying with approval
of this document, even when it comes back for site plan, it’s still be included in the design
standard of this development. So it would still have to be materially on the outside, but you still
may want to look, talk about…later that you want to do a different type of roof. So things that
you can look at.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Lundquist: Just one quick again. You currently own the property now, right?
John Vogelbacher: Yes.
20
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
Councilman Lundquist: And timing or planned timing for what you’re thinking about getting
into the ground yet this year or wait until the spring or?
John Vogelbacher: Well I’ll give you an update on what we’re doing with the tenants that are
there. We didn’t quite get into covering that but I’d like to express that it was important to us to
manage that in the very best way possible so when we purchased the building there was just a
little over 100 residents in the building and what they are currently on is a month to month lease.
All of them. But the lease provides for a 60 day notice, which we’ve done so they all have the
right to stay in the building for 60 days. To date we have probably about 45 residents in the
building and those 55 that have left probably have on average received somewhere between
$1,200 to $1,500 cash when they vacate their apartment. We provided a truck to help them
move. We give them their security deposit back immediately. We give them, we had a nice
little cookout for them. Hot dogs and ice cream and had a neighborhood meeting, and provided
them with resources and lists of places that they can go look at. We’ve had interpreters on the
property and people that we can contact to help, 80%, 90% of the residents are Hispanic. Many
of them do not speak English, so that’s gone very well, and we’re pleased with them. We’ve got
a ways to go yet but what our timing would be would be to obtain a vacant building within the
next 2 to 3 weeks. And then what we’d like to do is apply for our demolition permit and start to
tear the buildings down and start our project. We’d like to start our project with the buildings
there. We have a townhome building we’d like to start. They would all be outside the realm of
the apartment building itself. I believe that the property owner, if you were desiring to add onto
the apartment building, which you could on that site because there’s probably only 35% of that
site’s actually developed. I mean certainly an apartment would be able to add onto his building
without actually having to vacate the building, so we realize there’s some safety issues with that
and we would provide and work with the staff a safety plan to do that, but that’s what we’d like
to do in terms of timing is to receive our preliminary plat approval and go through a developer’s
agreement. Submit a final plat and start our project is what we’d like to do. We would like to
have our streets and our utilities and our amenities in by the end of the year.
Councilman Lundquist: And then A, I’m assuming A goes in first?
John Vogelbacher: We’re not sure. We have some situations there where we’ve got some sales
that we have to achieve in the building and so that may occur in the fall. Maybe next spring.
The townhome buildings we would start you know right away. And so the condominium is
really more market driven than the townhomes.
Mayor Furlong: I guess follow up question. John you mentioned storm water and the changes
you made. I guess for engineering staff. Who reviewed that and do we concur with the changes
that they made in terms of redirecting the storm water to the pond on site and the emergency
overflow or is that something that still needs to be reviewed?
Paul Oehme: I think we’re pretty close to that final design so we’ve looked at it from
engineering standpoint and you know we were comfortable with where the water’s going. We
still need to get some additional modeling I think from the developer but all indications are that it
should be adequate.
21
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I think that addresses some of the issues raised at the Planning
Commission meeting?
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other questions at this time? Very good, thank you. I
guess what I would like, and stay close John. We’ll probably have some other things to say, and
Kate too. Some people have requested the opportunity to address the council in public and I
certainly want to honor those requests. The official public hearing occurred at the Planning
Commission. I know many of you were there, but to the extent that there’s a desire to speak to
the council, I certainly want to do that. What I would ask from an efficiency standpoint is if
there are issues of common concern, have an individual address those issues rather than having
multiple people come up and re-state the same issue for expediency sake. But at this point I
would open up the podium for some public comment, at least for a limited time here and invite
interested parties to come forward. Please state your name and address. Depending on the
nature of your discussion, we may have the applicant or staff address some of your concerns.
Scott Frederiksen: Hello. My name is Scott Frederiksen. I’m a resident of Bearpath. I’m also
part of the firm Welsh Companies. We’re a large commercial real estate firm. I’ve been elected
to speak on behalf of a number of the residents. Not maybe all of them but. I think it’s fair to
say that as a resident of Bearpath that we would be hard pressed to pick this development apart
and say it’s not a nice development. Clearly we’re probably aligned with your goals, and that is
to get rid of that apartment building and redevelop the site into something more palatable and
more presentable in the city. We’ve got issues. Some of the issues came up at Planning
Commission and some of them revolve around how it was handled. We were kept in the dark on
this thing. Many of us heard about it for the first time when we got our notice from the Planning
Commission and although we found out later that the, they were in workshops with City Council
and staff and stuff for over a year. Nobody ever came and talked to us about it, and obviously
that’s disappointing. There’s significant broken promises that exist with result of those trails.
Craig you asked about how many of the trails, or the trees are being kept. There’s between 50
and 100 trees. They’re keeping 3 so you know they’re, John used the term at planning
committee, we’re going to clear cut it basically so they’re clearly going to come in there and
level all the trees. When we built our homes along Bearpath, we were told by Sienna when that
site ever gets developed, those trees will stay. That will be a natural buffer. We can add to those
trees. We can do all kinds of things to protect your homes in Bearpath from being basically
looked down upon from the other side. So now they secretly kind of come and under cloak and
dagger propose this development that we hear about, but I’m not going to talk about the trees so
much tonight because that really is outside of the realm of Chanhassen since a lot of it is sitting
in Eden Prairie. I want to talk about the variances a little bit, and ironically I kind of feel like the
residents of the apartment buildings are being treated a little better than the residents of Bearpath
by Sienna. I don’t, you talked about the green space a little bit and your desire to have green
space but clearly rezoning this as a PUD in order to get better impervious surface coverage, so it
would seem to me that if you were concerned about green space, you wouldn’t go to a PUD.
You would leave the existing zoning which wouldn’t allow as much impervious surface
coverage of this so, they needed the PUD in order to really cover it with more road, parking lot,
22
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
things like that. Streets, but they have the benefits of the existing zoning. They don’t want to
live with the setbacks of height, or setback from the property line. They don’t want to live with
the height setbacks. They want the benefits of the PUD, but they really don’t want to live with
the restrictions that it places on the property. I haven’t heard anyone really talk about why the
variances need to be granted. I came up with a short list while I was sitting there of 6 reasons
why you wouldn’t grant the variances. Number one, there’s absolutely no public benefit to any
of the variances they’re requesting. Number two, there’s really no undue hardship, and if you go
to Minnesota State Statute, which many of you got an e-mail from us, there’s a little phrase in
there that says, economic considerations alone shall not constitute undue hardship. So clearly
economics are driving the request of the variances. They want to put the building as close as
they possibly can to the golf course. They want to build it as tall as they possibly can to
maximize the density, but there’s really no economic reasoning for the variance. Number three.
It really doesn’t meet any of the criteria that are outlined in your Chanhassen City Code. If you
go to your code, Section 20-58.3 it says that variances can only be granted if the purpose of the
variance is not based on a desire to increase the value or income potential of a parcel of land.
And so just looking back at your own code you say in your code that you can’t do it if the
desire’s to increase the value, and clearly that’s what they’re trying to do here. They’re trying to
maximize the profit. The fourth reason is that there’s significant case law all over Minnesota
that opposes granting these variances, and Ken Ross sent the City Council and staff a bunch of e-
mails with a long list of case law that clearly states that you can’t grant them. Number five, if
you pass them, there was a recent ruling by the Minnesota Attorney General that said that that
may in fact become defacto code in your city, and I’m not sure you want to do that, so all of a
sudden you pass it tonight and rah rah. We get our development and Sienna gets to proceed, but
then you’ve got serious repercussions going forward. Firms like mine or Ryan or Opus who are
going to come in here and want that same treatment going forward, because we’re going to want
the same thing. We’re going to want any time we have an opportunity to get more profit, to get
the same variances that you’re going to grant Sienna. And then number six, and I think this is
significant. They’re going to go forward with or without these variances. They did something
almost unheard of. They closed on the property before they got the zoning or the approvals, and
that’s something that in my world, in the development community, almost never happens. We
never close on land until we get all our approvals. Well they know darn well that with or without
these variances they’re going to go forward and build something over there because there’s just a
massive amount of profit that they stand to garner here and so, if you just take simple math and
you say 230 units, conservatively a half a million dollars a unit. And roughly 20% of that
value’s allocated toward land, that’s $23 million dollars. They might have 10 or 11 into the
apartment building and demolition and site work so, you know it’s going to be 10 to 12 million
dollars that they’re going to make on this development so, whether or not they get 13 more units
on the top of Building A, or whether or not that thing is 5 feet further back clearly isn’t going to
determine whether or not they go forward. They might make 9 instead of 13 million dollars but
they’re going to make a significant amount of money. So what would make sense to me is to just
take off the top 13 units of Building A. Put it back where it’s supposed to be per the PUD and
make it a 2 story building and maintain the vaulted roofs and everything else and I think it would
significantly change the whole appearance. You’ve got a building that starts at the highest point
on the property and then goes up 50 feet from there, so you’re going to be down on this golf
course and you’re going to look at this couple hundred foot wide building, 50 feet above the
highest point in the area and it’s going to be ridiculous looking. It’s going to change the whole
23
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
character of the neighborhood, not only on our side, but from Lake Riley. From the other side of
Lake Point. I mean it’s going to look weird, and everybody’s going to go after the fact. By
gosh, I can’t believe we really passed that thing. Look at that. You can see that from half the
city so, I think you’ve got to look hard at that and really think twice about it before you pass it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Ron Case: Mayor, council members. Chanhassen residents and particularly Eden Prairie
residents. My name is Ron Case and I serve on the Eden Prairie City Council and I’ve been on
for 12 years. I don’t usually stand on this side. It’s somewhat intimidating so I suppose some of
you should try that sometime. I particularly want to greet tonight Councilmember Craig
Peterson. He and I serve on the Southwest Metro Transit Commission and I just want to say to
all the residents of Chanhassen and Eden Prairie, he does a really great and fair job as Chair of
that commission so he represents all of us very well. I think probably a decade ago or so there
was an issue that came before the Eden Prairie City Council regarding some land that was to the
west of Highway 169 as it comes into 494 and a lot of people don’t realize 169 makes a jog
there, and actually creates a little pocket of Bloomington land on the west side of 169, and we
had an issue up there where we were putting in a fairly large building on Anderson Lake and the
Bloomington residents were really upset, and I did go out and meet with them and pretty much
go door to door, and although they couldn’t vote for me and they weren’t officially my
constituents, I did, I hope at least in their mind, I treated them like their opinions mattered, and it
should be clear tonight to all of you that this issue certainly matters to Eden Prairie residents.
And although I know that you can do whatever is legal, my request tonight of you would be that
you would treat this project approval as if both Sienna projects were within your city limits. And
I hope you feel that it’s also ethically important, as I think I’ve heard you say and from your
questions you’ve very well with this, ethically important to at least try to help the residents of
Eden Prairie understand why you feel this it the best project and in their best interest as well as
Chanhassen residents. And the only issue I’d like you to take really closer look at is to really
demand transitional screening. The kind that you really would require if both projects were in
Chanhassen and if you transition townhomes, even though they are $800,000 townhomes, onto a
golf course or next to a golf course with multi million dollar homes so, I would really ask that
you be very careful on that transitioning so, good luck. Thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Bruce Carlson: Hi. My name’s Bruce Carlson and I’m a resident of Bearpath as well. I really,
other than support for what’s already been said, wanted to raise the issue of whether or not you
put for the requirement for any sort of bonding for completion of the project. I think that it
would be in the interest of Chanhassen of having a viable project that generates tax revenue as
the residents you anticipate supporting your merchants and adding to the…of the community,
that everything get done that you anticipate being done. And whereas the builders here,
Wooddale and Charles Cudd have extended reputations, Lakeside LLC is, as far as I know, brand
new. Unproven, and in many cases, as I’m sure you’ve seen before, you have entities created
just to do a project. And largely that’s done to insulate past successes from either the investors
or the other organizations so that if there’s any failure, that those assets are not used or required
to complete a project. I think in light of the fact that the condominium and townhouse market,
24
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
the real estate markets are softening. How far that’s going to go is unknown. There’s a lot of
concern about higher financing and whether or not we will see the demand that will be required
to fill this project so I would urge the council, in their best interest as well as our’s, I think the
worst thing that could be happening is if they go ahead, clear cut everything. Start the project
and are unable to finish it so I would advocate that you give great consideration to having a bond
so that everybody can be assured that the projects get done in a manner that you’re anticipating
in any approval. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Anyone else. Ms. Lloyd you had said earlier you wanted to, oh. Sorry.
Wally Anderson: Yeah, my name is Wally Anderson. I live at 9014 Lake Riley Road, and I
welcome Sienna Corporation doing something, but my big concern with the 234 units, John
mentioned there’s 100 people living in apartments there now and we have an absolute Nastrack
raceway coming down Lake Riley Road. And more than once people have come close to getting
killed walking on that road. So I would urge that we didn’t have that many units. I’d like to see
them do something with it but I’m a bit worried about the bigness of the project. Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Just stay close. We’ll keep it moving.
Tom Bastasz: Good evening.
Mayor Furlong: Good evening.
Tom Bastasz: My name is Tom Bastasz. I’m a resident of Chanhassen at 179 Lakeview Road.
As you know that’s in the North Bay Addition which is 76 individual homes immediately to the
west of the planned Lakeside development. I currently serve as President of the North Bay
Homeowners Association. When we first learned of this very large development we had some
concerns, and I’m pleased to report that the concerns that we’ve had have been answered in our
belief quite well. We believe that the setback that Sienna Corporation has provided on the
eastern side of our property, along with the landscaping in their plan, would be very compatible
with the homes on the eastern side of our property. We appreciate the setbacks that they have
made on the condominium Building B so that there’s not a massive appearance for our North
Bay residents in that area. And finally there was a potentially serious problem, in our opinion,
with stormwater runoff which Sienna Corporation has agreed to answer to the best of our
satisfaction. So in sum, we believe that this development would be good neighbors and we
recommend that the City Council approve the development as proposed. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I really kind of reorganized my thoughts as I
was sitting there tonight so, Miss Detail here. On the west elevation of the condominium
building, it looks as though the elevation is 58 feet 6 inches.
Mayor Furlong: What page number is that?
Kate Aanenson: It’s the average grade.
25
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry?
Kate Aanenson: We take it from average grade so. That’s just one plan perspective so.
Debbie Lloyd: So one perspective it’s 58 feet 6 inches.
Kate Aanenson: At one peak, correct.
Debbie Lloyd: Well, and one side of the entire building. I just think that’s important to know.
Councilman Peterson: That’s building, which building are you looking at?
Debbie Lloyd: The west elevation of condominium B.
Kate Aanenson: It’s from average grade and that’s a separated building.
Debbie Lloyd: I think the average grades, the parapet discussion in the staff report isn’t
according to the way the code reads about the gable and I think that you thing you’re approving
48 feet, and then you realize it’s 58 feet on one side, that’s a big difference. Okay. Another
question I have is, what do, how do we know what the impervious surface coverage is if the
OHW isn’t on at the preliminary plat. The OHW is supposed to be on the preliminary plat. The
OHW defines where the area is that you can measure for the land, and I think that is, I brought
this up before about the preliminary plat not being complete. I don’t think you should approve a
preliminary plat without all the details on it. There are many changes on the plan tonight that are
not officially recorded. I think you get into a dangerous area there when you proceed like that.
The justification for rezoning to PUD. For our comprehensive plan it states it should provide a
full range of housing opportunities. To rezone, a balanced housing supply…available for people
of all income levels. Boy, I don’t see the benefit of this PUD relating to those…of our
comprehensive plan. And in the staff report page 19, it does say that the project provides
diversity in housing types to accommodate individual taste and expectations. Taste and
expectations. That’s not what our comprehensive plan reads. Someone else mentioned traffic.
No mention of a traffic study with the increased units.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, just to clarify. Didn’t we have that information in our staff report?
Debbie Lloyd: You did?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, it’s in the staff report.
Debbie Lloyd: Okay. I must have missed that one. I guess my first question tonight is, I was
going to beg the question. Why so many variances? Why do we want to do this? What’s in it
for Chanhassen? In the findings of fact, point 7. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall
not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following
facts. I’m not going to read point A. You know what it reads. Undue hardship. Then I read,
7(d). The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship, but is due to the city
26
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
expectations and requirements for the redevelopment of the site. I would say city, who? City
staff? City Council? Who? I as a citizen would really like to know. It’s a beautiful
development. I’m not from Eden Prairie. I’m not, I have concerns about Bearpath neighborhood
but that’s not my main concern. It’s all these variances we continue grant. You’ve heard me dub
before one of our developments here Varianca. It’s going to become the City of Varianca. Not
just a development of Varianca. I guess I’m getting more emotional tonight than I planned to but
I just really hope that you deliberate hard about this and think about what is the intent behind
this. What about shoreland regulations and the 30 foot height? 35 foot height. What about the
OHW? What about the high impact? We’re going to higher density with this development.
What is the City really gaining? I guess tax revenue. I guess higher class citizens because we
don’t see that diversity in housing. I just want to know really, what is the intent? What are we
really trying to do? And who’s driving it? Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Anybody else? I guess what I’d like to do, and thank you.
Appreciate everyone’s involvement. I’d also like to thank a number of individuals from both
cities that sent e-mails and made phone calls to the council members. We appreciate you taking
the time to do that. It helps us focus in on some issues for your interest so I do appreciate not
only the comments here this evening, but also everyone that sent e-mails to the council and
contacted us by other means. With that I guess I would like to follow up and I didn’t keep,
perhaps didn’t keep a comprehensive list here. I tried to with some of the comments but I would
like to get some feedback from the applicant and staff on some of the issues raised, and so I
certainly welcome other councilors to ask questions as well. I guess there were a number of
issues about ordinance and what constitutes a variance. I guess perhaps Mr. Knutson, if I could
go to you first. Hardship, that seems to come up quite a bit in terms of what’s required. Also
issues on, there were some issues raised on case law and such like that. I guess the first question
if you can give us some guidance with regard to hardship, other issues in granting a variance, and
then also if there are any concerns under any of the case issues.
Roger Knutson: Thank you Mayor. I’ll just briefly read part of the statute, just telling to the
point. Undue hardship is used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property
in question can not be put to any reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the
official controls. ...word strange enough is, not put to any reasonable use. That means you don’t
look to determine whether without the variance they have no reasonable use, or they have a
reasonable use. It doesn’t matter under the standard whether even without a variance would have
a reasonable use. The question is, is the proposed use, is what they’re asking to approve a
reasonable use. That’s been established in Minnesota case law for 20 years. I think that’s clear.
There’s a lot of misunderstanding. A lot of people interpret that to mean, understand it to mean
that if you have a reasonable use without the variance, you’re not entitled to a variance. Not so.
Again the question is, is the proposed use reasonable. And that is for the council to determine.
And I’ve got a bunch of case law if you want to read it…
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thanks fine. There were other issues raised and I guess the question is,
and at this point with regard to the proposal that’s being brought here and concerns at this point
with regard to defacto changes and other ordinances.
27
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
Roger Knutson: Under the courts and attorney general in 1991 and just bottom line is it’s not
relevant to what you’re talking about here tonight. The question that the attorney general was
asked to answer, may the City fail…to enforce their comments with zoning ordinance by
ignoring them. And the AG says, no. You shouldn’t ignore your ordinances. Follow the law.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. There were issues about assuring performance and the question…
Kate Aanenson: And I have a couple I’d like to add to that one too. Yep. That was one of the
reasons why we recommended the PUD because the PUD locks in the architectural standards, so
if Charles Cudd walked away, someone else would come in and have to build that same product
because that’s what we approved. That product. That’s what we’re approving. That look. That
style on the exterior, so that’s what we’re approving, and that was again one of the benefits that
we wanted and we’ve learned through the history of time, a letter of credit was required by the
public improvements and that would also include landscaping and the like. If I can just segway
to the density issue. This project is coming in under the allotted density. It’s 25 acres gross. It’s
allowed 12 units an acre. The point I was making at the very beginning, the residents may feel
like we’ve been working with Sienna for a year. We haven’t. It’s been less than 6 months.
We’ve been working with a lot of different developers hot and cold over the last few years.
Actually probably going back 4 years ago, 5 years ago, the underlying property owner, Mr.
Liefschultz actually was looking at redeveloping the site and leaving the existing buildings in
place and try to retrofit and looking at doing a tax credit project, and that was one of the
proposals. Again we’ve always tried to look at how do we balance between the two projects that
we have in place, and looking at a different price point. This project comes under the allotted
density. It’s not maximizing it. While there’s only 100 residents there now, and there’s over
100, or closer to 200 units and trust me, there’s more than that in the units. There’s more than
100, while there’s 167 units there, there’s a lot more people than that living there, so that traffic
is probably going to be equal to or less than probably what’s going in place, so you have to kind
of keep that in balance. Again the reason that we recommended the PUD to keep in place is
underneath the density requirement, and we wanted to come in with a different look. We wanted
to, again we said that the side yard setbacks right now are 10 foot. While this property, the
buildings right now are set back quite a ways back, and the parking is close to that current
property line. So we’re trying to work within that framework of coming up with a project that
kind of meets both sides needs. Both the project in North Bay and Sienna so we really were the
ones, if we want to be the ones to holler at, we were the ones that steered the developer towards
the PUD. They were…as far as trying to get the, through the approval process but we felt that
was a way to assure that we get the quality that we’ve been committed to. That the one
gentleman spoke to. And that we get that assurance. We’re getting the project that we expect.
So we felt the trade off’s for that, again looking at getting greater setbacks than we would have.
Again as I indicated, we would have had a different type of product had we stick with the
underlying zoning. We saw a lot of apartments. A lot of back to back to townhouses. Again
we’re trying to get something besides that product in this area.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, what’s the hard cover.
28
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
Kate Aanenson: Under the current zoning?
Councilman Lundquist: The R-12.
Kate Aanenson: 35%. And this is coming in at 42, so they’re slightly over.
Mayor Furlong: But with the PUD, what’s allowed under PUD?
Kate Aanenson: 50.
Mayor Furlong: 50. So, my issue was raised about calculating that without.
Kate Aanenson: We’ll double check on that. The OHW. I didn’t look through the entire plans.
I didn’t catch that at the Planning Commission. That that was an issue, but we’ll certainly check
on that. They meet all the setbacks. I’m not sure it’s going to be an issue as far as the
impervious but we’ll, and again as I said, we could take off some of that interior parking but we
believe again that that’s the thing that makes it an interesting project, and we spent a lot of time
looking at those specific issues. The hard cover. What were the trade off’s and you know what
we want to represent, the staff, is bringing forward to you the best project that we can do, and we
felt like compromising to say, well we’re just going to say meet the standards and then
compromise on that. We didn’t think that was the best way to go so we, the staff recommended
the deal for the variance. Had it not been the shoreline district, as we indicated before, we have
PUD’s and apartment buildings throughout the city that are in excess of 40 feet. The senior
housing project, when we did that rezoning right next to the single family neighborhood
overlooking the creek, similarly with it’s... As well the apartments on Lake Susan. They sit up
high. Those people love those views. They’re very well received.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Let me see, we’re talking about units. Traffic. Although we did have a
traffic study, I guess just comment briefly on that. What’s the expectation there?
Paul Oehme: Minimal traffic increases from the trips. I think the projection was a little over 200
trips per day.
Audience: Mayor? When was the traffic study done? ...in June. Believe me, I’m out there
every day…
th
Paul Oehme: The report’s dated June 8.
th
Mayor Furlong: June 8? Okay.
Kate Aanenson: To be clear too on that, on the safety issues, we’ve got sidewalks on all of our
projects. There is no sidewalk on the Eden Prairie side, which we have discussed with them.
City of Eden Prairie.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. There’s a question about…and I guess maybe this is a question for the
applicant in terms of trees again. I think that was raised by Councilman Peterson. Where the
29
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
current fence is. That basically defines the western portion of the golf course, is that correct?
But not necessarily the property line. Property line’s an additional 40 to the west of there, am I
remembering correctly?
John Vogelbacher: The fence would be anywhere from 40 to 50 feet east of our property line.
Councilman Peterson: Okay, great.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And that fence, or a fence is staying in that same location.
John Vogelbacher: Generally, yes. Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the trees on the east side of that fence, on the rough of 15, are those
being removed at all?
John Vogelbacher: No.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. The removal is in the additional 40 feet to the west of the fence
and then in the, inside the property line as well?
John Vogelbacher: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: For purposes of putting in the trail and matching grades, okay. Alright, thank
you. Any other, there may have been some other things. Again if I missed something it wasn’t,
it wasn’t malicious trust me, but what else did I miss councilors or follow up questions that we
had for staff or for the applicant based upon the public comment and other issues discussed?
Were there any? Okay. It may come up in our discussion. Why don’t we open up discussion
then. At the council standpoint and just try to get a sense where we are. Maybe overall thoughts
and then talk about some of the specific items. Who’d like to start? Councilman Peterson?
Councilman Peterson: I certainly can. Clearly this is not an easy one. First of all, the project
and the product itself, I think is…if not one of the best we’ll probably have in the city. Kate, I
don’t think we have any that are requesting 80% brick and stone.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilman Peterson: Anywhere in the city. You know it’s, I’ve been the flag waver for
architectural standards for years and this project, I don’t think you heard me critique other than
saying it’s wonderful, you know so the project itself, from an architectural standpoint, from a fit
perspective on the site, not taking anything else into consideration, I think it’s a phenomenal
project. Now the issues as it relates to the two surrounding neighborhoods is really what the crux
of what we need to deal with tonight is. The fact that we went to a PUD I think is a prudent
decision. You know it is zoned R-12, as we already discussed, and if going to a PUD it’s about
negotiating to get the best product we can for our community and our neighbors. I think that, the
variances are two fold. One is the setback, which again if you go back to R-12, it could be 10
feet, which is dramatically different than what they’re requesting. And again when you’re in a
30
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
PUD you’re about negotiating to get the best product. You may have to give and take and my
concern is, the landowner rights in this case. We have to obviously be cognizant of those, and
what, and Scott to your point of landowner. Will they do this if we push them harder? It all goes
back to, it’s a guess. Are they going to walk if we push harder? It’s a gamble and I think what I
want to hear tonight from the rest of my council members is, do we believe that we can push
them harder to get a better product for the surrounding community? Or have we pushed them
enough where they would walk and come back and put in a 10 foot setback and a R-12 product.
And I would presume if you ask 50 people in this room, you’d probably get 30 different answers
related to how far we’re going to push and what we can ask them to reasonably do. Whether it
be the height variance or the setback variance. So that’s my ultimate concern is, is are we going
to push too hard or can we push harder? And that’s what I want to probably discuss tonight.
The height variance, you know if this was backed up to another housing development, i.e.
townhouses or without a golf course inbetween, you know I’d certainly say we need to buffer it
to, as Councilman Case said, we need to buffer transitions. We do that everywhere else, and
we’re not doing it here because of the golf course. How do I deal with that? I don’t know how
to deal with that effectively other than it’s conducive. Because it goes back to landowner rights
again. If it is the normal situation, we’d buffer it and make the transition smoother, but again
there’s a golf course there and houses are hundreds of feet away so there’s a more natural buffer
there than most of our transition zones so. In summary, in general I’m in favor of the PUD. The
project is edging on phenomenal. The question is can we make it better? Mr. Frederiksen’s idea
of lowering a whole floor, I hadn’t thought about that before. You know I think that’s something
we maybe discuss tonight too. The setback I’m comfortable with. I think it’s reasonable. Again
partially because of where it is. And you know on record I’d like to certainly have the City of
Eden Prairie look at the trail scenario and see if we can be creative and save more trees than
there are, so I’d like to put that back on their shoulders and I think they’ve already accepted that
responsibility. So anyway, I’d like to hear more conversation. Generally I’m in favor of what
we talked about and can we get more is the question.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay, here we go. I am a City Councilwoman from Chanhassen and
I’m going to tell you right now that, you know I’m going to do what I think is best for
Chanhassen. I sat here and I saw many townhouse projects that I did not like because I did not
think they were right for Chanhassen, and so I look at this and I finally see something that we
don’t have. I see architectural standards we don’t have. I see amenities we don’t have. With
PUD’s there are give and takes. With variances there are give and takes. I think for what I’m
having to give, I get an exceptional development. I get a development, underground parking
with 2 stalls. I get a park. A small totlot. I get a pool. I get a clubhouse. I get a well planned
beach, and I take a beachlot that was not conforming and I turn it into a conforming beach front
and that is something that we wrestle with all the time on the council. So for me these are things
that, these are positive things for my city I think. We’re getting a good development. We’re
getting a development that also entails life cycling which I really feel strongly about. We once
had a survey saying that most of, or some of our empty nesters leave and they go somewhere
else, and I think this is an opportunity to keep our residents in Chanhassen because they have an
opportunity to buy something they couldn’t buy here now. They won’t be going to Eden Prairie.
They won’t be going to Edina. They’ll be staying here where…stay. I think also it gives an
31
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
opportunity for young professionals to have a place to live in Chanhassen other than your typical
townhouse developments, which I think is also a very positive thing. So there are different
lifestyle cycles and there are opportunities for different people with different economic standings
to be able to purchase a home and make this their home and make this community even better
than it already is. I guess that’s just where I am. This is my city and I’m proud of this
development and I think it will be an asset to our town. When I do look at a development, I look
by it and I think, is this something I can drive by in 10 years and point to my children and say I
was a part of this and I’m proud of it and this is one of those properties…I could say that. This is
a place I’d like to live in our town and yes, absolutely once again, this is a great place. I would
like to live here so I am in full support of this project.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: Craig I do, talking I had to laugh a little bit because it wasn’t more than
about a month or two ago where we were talking about 610 boxes of you know much less
architectural quality and everything else here, and trying to make that one better so maybe we’re
just greedy or maybe we feel like we have to do something but I’m with you there. Overall, I
can’t argue that this is a monumental improvement from what’s out there now so. Overall again
if you look at it in a box, we’re probably not going to find one as good or better in the city, so
I’m very excited about the possibilities here. But I am concerned really with a couple of things.
Mainly the height. I commend the developer, Sienna for looking at that setback. Pushing that
back. I would like to see if there’s something that we can do, you know again in the interest of
just pushing a little more on that last unit along the golf course to see if we can’t push that out
and eliminate that setback variance all together. Makes it a little cleaner and easier. The height
is I think the one, the beachlot variance I have no problem. I mean that makes sense. You don’t
want to have a line going through a condo complex that you know you can play on the beach and
you can’t. That doesn’t make any sense at all so, that one I have no issue with. The really the
height around, my main concern really is on a, I think you know to some point B. And not only
from the Bearpath side, but from the lake side as well. Either when you, it’s kind of funny. I
was watching the Cheaper by the Dozen Two movie when they got the big thing across the lake
and that’s kind of what I envisioned as we were watching it this weekend, so you know
obviously it won’t be that dramatic and standing out but I want to make sure that all around Lake
Riley, I guess with the exception of that apartment building that’s there now, that we’ve got
some large lots. We’ve got some very nicely done developments and I’m sensitive to putting a
50 foot or 48 or you know, I’ll call it 50 foot for rounding there. A 50 foot building on top of
that hill. In it, you know it is going to be rather dramatic. I think if I’m living across the fairway
on 15 and I’m Mr. and Mrs. Frederiksen are sitting out at the pool, I’m not sure that I want
people on the third floor of Building A you know looking down across there so, you know it’s
always a challenge when we get into an existing neighborhood, which we’ve done a lot of in the
last couple years. Trying to plop these developments in the middle of a neighborhood because
everybody always likes it the way it was. That’s what you’re used to, and especially if you
moved in when it was already there, so got to, you know I want to be sensitive to not only the
Bearpath residents but also you know what’s it going to look like from our residents in
Chanhassen as they drive. We heard from the North Bay, and appreciate your viewpoints there
to do that and to give that developer credit for making those concessions. That’s something we
don’t often hear so we do appreciate hearing that as well. But I’d like to see if there isn’t
32
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
something that we can do, and I’m willing to settle, or you know compromise if we can look at
Building A a little harder, or the variance on B and C as they’re back in the site more. You know
obviously I’d prefer to have the only variance be for the beachlot piece on that but as Craig and
Bethany both said, it’s about a compromise here and I don’t want to lose sight of the fact that
overall this is a very, very high quality development and I’m confident that we can find a way,
with the combination of you know maybe pushing a unit back a little or taking some of the
height out of one or two of those buildings and some addition of some screening along that, the
golf course side and making sure that we watch the shoreline on the lake to guard some of that as
well. That we can get something in there that has a minimal impact because it is Building A and
Building B and well on C for that matter are, they’re big buildings. You know we put apartment
buildings up in this city but they’re essentially downtown, and you know hotels and things like
that. We don’t, you know we haven’t gone out and dropped a 50 foot tall building out away
from kind of the core of downtown so, but that complex is there now. Obviously it’s been there
for a while but this is going to be a whole different, whole different look and a whole different
feel out there so I want to be sensitive to that. And again stress overall that I think we’re all
fighting the same battle here. That I would absolutely agree that overall it’s a much improved
for the site and a fantastic development. The architecture is great and excited to see what our
compromise is if we can get something in there a little bit better.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. There’s been comments, all three of my fellow council
members have commented about the quality of the overall development. The architecture. And
I concur with that. This is a very nice development and even with some of the comments and e-
mails that we received where people had concerns about some of the variances. Many of them
also commented about the fact that this was a very nice development, and I think in terms of
complimenting the developments, both to the east and the west, this does that. Are there some
issues and preferences by some of the neighbors? …this property affords and both to the south,
to the lake, and to the east, to the golf course. So I think that yet they’ve tried to do it. In a way
that also, also to the most part works. The issues, and we’ve talked a lot about variances and
how we’ve been accused of giving out a lot of variances. I think part of the value of the process,
the public process that I’ve come to appreciate is that it takes some time and some people can say
government moves too slow. I think there are times when government should move slow, and I
think in terms of making development approvals and moving onto development projects, slow is
a little bit better than fast. Because it gives people time to get involved and to muddle it around
and think about it and kick things around and get some feedback to the developer and they can
move some things and that’s happened here. There have been some from when this council first
saw the concept, there’s been movement. A lot of things have stayed the same, but there’s been
some movement and I think for the most part that movement has been good. We saw some of it
just recently as I understand this afternoon. One of the variances that was being requested that
the Planning Commission approved was the setback variance, and now I know we need to
confirm here but it sounds like at least with Building A, that by moving that back from 30 to 42,
or approximately 44, there will be no variance required for Building A. The issue of, are down
with the tri-home, 10 feet or so. If we get down to one or two units with 10 feet, we’ve done a
pretty good job, because of the process, moving things and kind of pushing things around. The
beachlot I concur with Councilman Lundquist and my sense is with my other council members
too. That’s a make sense. That’s a common sense type of request, and that’s something that we
want to do is apply common sense when we approve developments. That will be an
33
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
improvement for the beachlot, both in terms of taking a non-conforming situation, making it
conforming. And I think add to the lakeshore without significant loss of trees around the
lakeshore. That’s a positive to anybody using the lake. Chanhassen, Eden Prairie or any other
resident. So I think they’ve done some good things. You know when we look at a lot of
development issues and we’ve had opportunities in this city and I know other cities do as well.
The fact of the matter is there are lines on a map and there are borders and sometimes there are
developments in one city that affect the residents in others. We’ve had a situation recently with a
development in Chanhassen up along our Highway 7, along Shorewood, where some of the
Shorewood residents had some concerns and those concerns were relayed back to the developer
and I think that one is still in the process. We’ve not seen that because there were some concerns
about storm water that needed to be addressed, and so that is something that we do. Whether or
not the neighboring property owners are Chanhassen residents or not, and I think that’s the right
thing to do. Above all it’s, as each of our cities seeks to grow and develop and have the best
products in terms of housing created, that’s when we all thrive and I think that’s a good thing.
What it really gets down to from a variance standpoint, that I’m seeing right now. But for
possibly a setback variance along the east property line, are the height issues and that’s what it’s
coming down to. It was suggested tonight on Building A that by keeping the pitched roof we can
take off the top floor and not come into a variance standpoint. There’s another option there and
that is making it flat roofed and keeping it 3 floors. I don’t think, but that would also meet the
requirements, I don’t think that would give us the architectural goal that this development
currently has, and I think we always get into that issue and that challenge. Councilman Peterson
addressed it with regard to property rights of neighboring property owners wanting to direct the
development, and sometimes we’ve got to be careful what we ask for. We might be able to
avoid the height variance on A, but it might not be as good a looking building as what they’re
asking for here. And I look at it, you know is that height variance on A, because of the pitched
roofs, is the proposed use a reasonable use? Yeah, I think it is. I mean to me that is. Is it going
to be a different view for property owners to the east? Sure. Anything, any building, whether
it’s a flat roof or 2 or 3 stories is going to be different. I think to the extent that there is shielding
from trees on the golf course side already, having been out there. Some of those trees are
starting to take, get some height and as those continue to grow I think that will address some of
the shielding issues and maybe there’s some more that can be done and I would, you know I
think it would be prudent for staff to talk to them about that. Maybe there’s some, something
that could be done even along the twin homes there. Along that property to help do that but,
overall I think you know we could not go with the height variance on A, but it may not be as
good a looking building, and so I think we lose something there and I think there’s probably
benefit to everybody for that. Some of the other comments Councilman Peterson made in terms
of why a PUD. I think this is a make sense PUD. We could have had a number of apartment
buildings. Square boxes. Beige. All the way along, 10 feet along the property line and I don’t
think anybody would like that but given the zoning that’s currently in place, as I understand it,
that would be a possible development scenario.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: That wouldn’t require and obtain for the City some of the added features that
we have here, so overall I guess, you know a little concerned about not seeing much on C. In
terms of design, but my understanding was that was closer to an A versus a B, but I haven’t
34
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
heard much concern about that either so, maybe we need to look at that and understand that. I
think overall what I’m hearing and what I would concur with is, this is a very good development.
A couple of tweaks perhaps and you know, can we do something on the setback for the property
line, to Councilman Lundquist’s request? Let’s look at that. I think we should look at that. See
what can be done. See what the effect is to bring that into compliance and then we can evaluate
whether or not that’s something that we should ask for. I think to the extent that we can obtain
fewer variances. We should do that, but in this case the real issue from a variance standpoint is
the height and overall I think that’s a fair and reasonable request based upon the overall
development and it’s something I think, as I said, is reasonable. I guess there are, and I certainly
don’t want to close discussion. Be happy to you know keep that open. My sense is, given some
immediate changes with the building setback that came in today, there were some questions on
changing some of the conditions with regard to Building C. I know the trail, we also talked
about some details on the plat. It may be prudent for us to, and my general sense here is, let’s get
the issues and maybe staff can work with the developer on. There’s some clean-up issues that
have been requested by the council with our comments. Let’s get that done and make sure we’ve
got something clean here. Also with regard to, my sense is we’re moving towards agreement and
I certainly you know, don’t want to push too quickly but if that’s the case, my suggestion for this
evening, let’s get everything on the table and then table and allow staff time to work through
some of the details to make sure we have it clean both from the conditions, findings of fact, and
the whole complete set, because there have been appropriate, some issues of perhaps submission
or some clarification that need to be made and I think we want to make sure that this is clean.
With that said, you’ve heard my comments and others. Councilman Peterson, any other thoughts
or?
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, or even my other council members. Speak to me, and my
issue I’ve been struggling with is, is transition. You know I’m still debating with myself you
know, do we need transition? If so, how much? From high density to low density residential.
Again the golf course is the trump card there but should, is that enough to prevent buffering that
we would normally request in projects?
Mayor Furlong: Well buffering is usually what, setbacks? It could be different product styles.
Councilman Peterson: That and berming and landscaping often times. So I’m still struggling
with that.
th
Councilman Lundquist: I think Craig if you get on that 15 hole and look up at the hill’s pretty
steep and then imagine a 50 foot building on top of that, it will be daunting. No doubt about it.
That doesn’t mean it’s bad. It’s different obviously because all there is is trees there now. So
different doesn’t mean it’s good or bad but I don’t think you can go from wide open fairway with
some, you know scattered trees along there to a, that much wall space and then they’ve broken it
up nicely with you know a jog back and forth, some things like that but you know it’s 100 or
150, 200 foot long, 40 some feet high. You can’t miss it. And you know when you walk up the,
th
or across the street from the 14 green, you see that, I mean you’ll see it. Most definitely so, and
that can be worked out I think with some different things. You know maybe some steps on a
building on A, like we looked at, like we did on B. Going towards North Bay or some things
like that that can potentially break that up and not make it look like a big building.
35
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
Councilman Peterson: Brian, I understand what you’re.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But then would that be blocking the views from Building A onto the
golf course, because that is why Building A is there. To have that view.
Councilman Lundquist: Sure it is.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And so then you’re back to, why? You know why are we building,
that’s why it’s there…
Councilman Lundquist: Or back to the you know Carver Beach argument. You’re not planting a
tree in front of the house because you want to see the whole lake or do you have to have it.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well that was a different.
Councilman Lundquist: Look around a tree.
Councilman Peterson: Very similar. It’s identity.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well, was it originally supposed to be that way or did nature,
proposing 100 feet of open space or was that kind of over the years cultivated so, that’s a
different issue as opposed to this.
Councilman Lundquist: But do you want a wide, open view of the golf course or do you want a,
you know have something break it up.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well I think we’re arguing who gets the views.
Mayor Furlong: Well, let me ask the question, and maybe this is a question for the applicant, or
something for staff and the applicant to work on, and that is the landscaping plan along that
eastern property line. Has that been discussed?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, but I’ll go back to, actually Councilman Peterson hit it right how our
buffering ordinance works. Is that you create the buffer by, if it’s a narrow buffer, very small
buffer between transition uses, and this is how the code’s set up, then you have to landscape
more. If the setback is great, then it’s minimal landscaping. In this circumstance, when you’re
th
standing on the 15 hole, we can’t protect people even walking on the trail from seeing that
building. What we’re trying to buffer is the home, which is a couple hundred feet away, and that
was the goal. To say someone out walking on the fairway, or even walking on the trail is going
to see a tall building. So the way our ordinance is set up, it’s been the houses, that transitional,
yeah.
th
Mayor Furlong: So you’d be looking then at the houses on the east side of the 15 fairway?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
36
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
th
Mayor Furlong: Of the 15 hole.
Kate Aanenson: Correct, and that’s what we looked at and the rational basis that we gave for
supporting that variance is that there wasn’t, yeah there’s going to be people on the fairway, and
then we’re still on the trail, but the houses had the greatest setback. …setback and that’s what
we looked at.
Mayor Furlong: Well and again, distance is about 40 feet from a setback from the property line
th
then additional 40 to the golf course than the 15 hole.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. And then the additional trees that are on the back side of the golf
course so.
Mayor Furlong: …something to the point that we can review?
Kate Aanenson: Absolutely. We’ll look at that.
Mayor Furlong: And see if there’s things that can be done. You know, and I don’t think that’s
an unreasonable request. I think that’s something to look at. You’re going to see the building.
You’re not not going to see the building. Absolutely. Absolutely. Are there some things that
we can look at? To do there that, I think that’s a reasonable request.
Councilman Peterson: To further answer your question Mr. Mayor, I agree with the tabling
perspective to give us some time to do some more detail work. I guess to that end, the only other
request that I would like to do, Brian I think you brought it up a little bit is to look at Building A
from the height perspective and can we potentially do some tiering on that, on the east side of it,
or the northeast row of condos. Can we do 2 story there and do 3 stories towards the water? I
don’t know, but it’s just thinking outside the box. Further mitigate my concerns about the
abruptness of the height so. Unfortunately I will not be here in 2 weeks so.
Mayor Furlong: Well how much time do we have on it?
Kate Aanenson: Well we can ask for an additional 60 days so.
Mayor Furlong: Automatically?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
John Hankanson: Mayor, may I make a comment?
Mayor Furlong: Regarding?
John Hankanson: I’m John Hankanson from Sienna.
Mayor Furlong: What’s it about?
37
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
John Hankanson: We are the owners of Bearpath.
Mayor Furlong: Right.
John Hankanson: I would like to talk to you about if you did delay this project, we think, and
I’ll get some laughter here, but we were the best thing that ever happened with this project from
Bearpath standpoint. Anybody else could come in and build 312 units, all apartment with a 10
foot setback. If we were greedy developers, that’s what we’ll do…
Mayor Furlong: Sir. And that’s something that we’ve been talking about already and we’re
aware of that point so.
John Hankanson: So, we worked with your staff very diligently to come up with a product that
we think works.
Mayor Furlong: And I think you heard from the council tonight that we appreciate the effort.
John Hankanson: Now you’re going to cost us another $80,000 because you’re going to delay it
for a month or whatever and come back. That is unacceptable to us.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you sir. When was the application submittal? What’s our
available time?
th
Kate Aanenson: Yeah it’s, the deadline date for the 60 days was July 18 but we have the right
to ask for an additional 60 days…
Mayor Furlong: And that’s normal and that’s what I guess from what you’ve heard tonight, do
you think it’s going to take the entire 60 days to accomplish that?
Kate Aanenson: No. We can turn this around, like I said.
Mayor Furlong: Within a reasonable time period.
Kate Aanenson: Exactly. And we could have it on in 2 weeks. I mean I’m not sure who’s all
going to be here but I think what we really need to do is go through and make sure the changes
that they’ve made, or look at those different iterations and put everything in a format, right.
Mayor Furlong: The different changes today.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Put those in a format that you can approve conditions with those
changes made…
Mayor Furlong: And I certainly understand the comments, delays cost money and we appreciate
that. At the same time it is a, it’s a significant project. It’s important to the city and to a lot of
38
City Council Meeting – July 10, 2006
residents. Both to the east and the west, and I think it would still be my suggestion to make sure
we get it right.
Councilman Peterson: And I would think we should be able to turn it around in 2 weeks.
Mayor Furlong: I mean we can. I mean there are issues here that need to be addressed and if we
can do that, that’d be great. Let’s turn it around as quickly as possible would be our
recommendation. Other thoughts and comments at this point or issues to, I mean I don’t want to
start repeating and, repeating and being redundant.
Councilman Lundquist: Given even the, ask the questions about the height of the other buildings
with the other things that have been brought up and the changes of the conditions, I don’t want to
have one where we’re you know, you know what she said.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, no. No, absolutely.
Councilman Peterson: Motion to table.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council table
Planning Case 06-26 for Lakeside development. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman
Tjornhom who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
THOMAS SCHWARTZ, 7376 BENT BOW TRAIL: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO
ALLOW STRUCTURES WITHIN THE 40 FOOT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK.
Public Present:
Name Address
Eric V. Doremus 7371 Bent Bow Trail
Paula & Thomas Schwartz 7376 Bent Bow Trail
Michael Nelson 7357 Bent Bow Trail
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. I just wanted to point out to the council, I did hand out
conservation easement. I just wanted to explain that. There is a conservation easement that’s
associated to this application and that’s some standard language for a conservation easement. So
I’ll go through that in a minute after we go through the staff report. The variance request before
you tonight is, the Schwartz case on 7376 Bent Bow Trail, located here in the Longacres
subdivision. This is the lot itself. While the lot is very large, it’s actually encumbered by a
couple different types of easements and I guess that’s one of the reasons why I pulled out the
39