2001 08 27 AGENDA
CHANHASSFAST CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2001
CHANHASSEN MUNICIPAL BUTLI}ING, 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
5:30 P.M.. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
A. CI~SED SESSION - Fox Property Condemnation.
6:00 P.M. . CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
B. 2002 Budget Discussion
7:00 P.M. - REGULAR M~ETING, cTrY COUNCH~ CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Alleeiance)
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
CONSENT AGENDA
All item listed under the Consent Agenda are considerexl to be routine by the city council and
will be considered as one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If
discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered
separately. City council action is based on the staff recommeridation for each item. Refer to the
council packet for each staff report.
1. a. Reject Bids on Construction Contract for Quinn Road Sanitary Sewer Project 01-02.
b. *Item Deleted.
c. *Item Deleted.
de
Approve Resolution for SuPtx~ for the Establishment of CSAH 15 from
CSAH 14 (Pioneer Trail) to CSAH 18 (Lyman Boulevard).
e. *Item Deleted.
Big Woods on Lotus Lake; Coif:man Development Services:
1) Final Plat Approval
2) Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development Contract.
g. Accept Utility Improvements in White Oak Addition, Project 130-10. '
h. Accept Streets & Storm Sewer Improvements in Marsh Glen, Project 00-06.
Approve Change Order Request from TMI for the Lake Lucy Water Reservoir
Project 00-02.
j. Approval of Bills.
k!
Approval of Minutes:
- City Council Work Session Minutes dated August 13, 2001
- City Council Minutes dated August 13, 2001
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Minutes dated August 7, 2001
- Park and Recreation Minutes dated July 24, 2001
Approve Amendment to the Planned Unit Development Agreement to Allow
Decks to Encroach 12 ft. into the Required 30 ft. Setback, Chaparral 2~d and 3
Additions.
m!
Approval of Site Plan Request to Convert and Expand a Self Car Wash Stall to a
Touch-Free Car Wash; and a Variance to the Impervious Surface Coverage and
Setbacks; 7901 Great Plains Boulevard; Ron Brown, Brown's Car Wash.
al
Resolution in Support of Grant Application for Congestion Mitigation Air Quality
(CMAQ) Grant Funds, Southwest Metro Transit.
VISITOR PRF~ENTATIONS
LAW ENFORCEMENT & FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATES
.
Dave Ports, Carver County Sheriff's Department
John Wolff, Fire Chief (verbal)
PUBLIC I-W~ARIN~
3. TH 101 Trail, Project 97-12-3:
a,
Public Hearing for the Minnesota DNR Outdoor Recreation Grant Program.
Consider Resolution for Grant Application.
Authorize Preparation of Feasibility Study; Approve Consultant Contract
Letter of Thanks to Representative Workman for his efforts in obtaining the DNR
Grant.
UNF1NIS~D BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS
1
Appeal Decision for a Request for a Side Yard Setback for the Construction of a Screened
Porch; 6800 Brule Circle, Nick Gassman.
1
Consider Request for a Land Use Amendment and Rezoning to Permit a Religious
Facility; Wetland Alteration Permit to Alter and Fill Wellands; Site Plan Review for the
First Phase of a Religious Campus; and a Variance from the District Regulations; 3101
Tanadoona Drive, Westwood Community Church.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS,
6. Council/Commission Liaison Update
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
CORRES~~ENCE DISCUSSION
A copy of the staff report and supporting documentation being sent to the city council will be
available after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. Please 'contact city hall at 937-1900 to verify that your
item has not been deleted from the agenda any time after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday.
*Items Published and Subsequently Deleted
lb. Award Contract for Meter Replacement Project PW02140.
Approve Consultant Contractor for Feasibility Study and Consultant Design for
the 2002 Residential Street Improvement Projects 01-10.
le.
Request for Extended Construction Hours for Powers Ridge Apartment Homes, Project
GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTA~ONS
Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting, In the interest of open communications, the Chanhszs~n City
Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Coundl. That opportunity is provided at
every r~gular City Council meeting during SrnUor
Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor.
When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the City
Council as a whole, not to any specific membetis) or to any person who is not a member of the City
Council.
2. If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the sam~ topic, please designate a spokespetson that
can summarize the issue.
3. Limit your comments to five minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If
you have written comments, provide a copy to the Council.
.
During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion.
Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough understanding
of your concern, suggestion or request.
Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual
either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed to the City
crrYoF
PO Boc I47
~ Minnaota 55317
Phone
952.93Z1900
952.93Z5739
952.93Z9152
952.934.2524
~,v~d.~m~
TO: Mayor
City Council
FROM: Bruce M. DeJong, Finance
DATE:
August 24, 2001
SUB. CT: Work Session Changes
Circumsmces have changed for sevaal item.~ on the work session portion of the
council meeting. Dave Mol from Tautges, Redpath is not available for Monday
evening. We will reschedule his presentation to either September 10 or 24
depending on your preference.
To take the place of the audit discussion, the Fox family attorney has made an
offer to settle the property condemnation. Todd Hot~m~ and Tom Scott of
Campbell, Knutson would like to discuss that offer with you and seek direction
regarding any further negotiations.
The final change is that the public safety update will be moved from the regular
council agenda to the work session- Dave Ports and John Wolff will make their
presentations at the work session on Monday.
MINNESOTA Department of Revenue
Property Tax Division
Mail Station 3340
Phone (612) 296-3155
St. Paul, MN 55146-:
Fax (612) 297-216~
Payable 2002 Overall Levy Limitation Notice
CHANHASSEN CITY OF
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
CITY HALL 690 CITY CENTER DR BOX 147
CHANtIASSEN MN 55317 0147
Augm 22,,~CEIVED
AUG 2 4 2001
CITY OF CHANHASS
The pnyable 2002 overnll levy limitation for your city is:
$ 6,689,004
The following is a listing of the factors used in detomaining your city's payable 2002
overall levy limitation. See the enclosed letter for an explanation of these factors and for
additional information concerning your city's overall levy limitation.
!
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
1. Adjusted Levy Limit Base for Payable 2000: $
2. Payable 2000 Matching Funds Special Levy: $
3. Beginning Levy Limit Base for Payable 2002 (1 + 2): $
4. Implicit Price Deflator Adjustment (March 2000/March 1999):
5. Household Growth Adjustment
a. 1998 Households:
b. 1999 Households:
c. Ratio of 1999 to 1998 Households Co/a, but not less than 1.000):
6. Adjustment for Pay' 2000 Market Value of New C/i Construction
a. Payable 1999 Total Taxable Market Value: $.
b. Payable 2000 Market Value of New C/I Construction: $
c. 50% of Line b (6b x 0.5): $
d. Adjustment (1 + Ratio of 6c to 6a):
Levy Limit Base Adjusted for Pay' 2001 Factors ( 3 x 4 x 5e x 6d): $
Alternative Levy Limit Base for Payable 2001 (Detail on Page 2): $
Effective Levy Limit Base for Payable 2001 (Greater of 7 or 8): $
Payable 2001 Opt-Out City Transit Services Levy: $
Levy Limit Base after Transit Services Levy Adj. (9 - 10): $
Implicit Price Deflator Adjustment (March 2001/March 2000):
Household Growth Adjustment
a. 1999 Households:
b. 2000 Households:
c. Ratio of 2000 to 1999 Households (b/a, but not less than 1.000):
14. Adjustment for Pay' 2001 Market Value of New Ca Construction
a. Payable 2000 Total Taxable Market Value: $
b. Payable 2001 Market Value of New CA Construction: $
c. 50% of Line b (14b x 0.5):
d. Adjustment (1 + Ratio of 14c to 14a):
6,001,924
6,001,924
1.043041
6,008
6,541
1.088715
1,288,176,100
11,198,000
5,599,000
1.004346
6,845,252
5,600,852
6,845,252
725,414
6,119,838
1.033630
6,541
6,914
1.057025
1,413,079,700
9,768,500
4,884,250
1.003456
.,In equal opportunity employer TTY/TDD: (612) 215-0069
15. Adjusted Levy Limit Base for Payable 2002 (11 x 12 x 13c x 14d):
16. New Net Tax Capacity-Based Referendum Levies:
17. 2002 Property Tax Aids
a. 2002 Local Government Aid (LGA):
b. 2002 Estimated Taconite Aids:
c. 2002 Existing Low Income Housing Aid:
d. 2002 New Construction Low Income Housing Aid:
e. 2002 Transit Property Tax Replacement Aid:
f. Total (a+b +c +al+e):
18. Adjustment for 2001 Local Tax Rate Excess Tax Inoroment Taxes:
19. Payable 2002 Ove~ll Levy Limitation (15 + 16- 17f- 18):
6,709,476
20,472
20,472
0
6,689,004
Detail of Alternative Levy Limit Base Calculation (for Line 8 Above):
1. Payable 2001 Total Certified Levy: $
2. Payable 2001 Debt Special Levies
a. Bonded Indebtedness: $
b. Certificates of Indebtedness: $
c. Bonds of Another Local Unit of Government: $
d. Principal and Interest on Armory Bonds: $
e. Total Debt special Levies (a + b + c + d): $
3. Payable 2001 Market Value Based Referendum Levies: $
4. Payable 2001 Natural Disasters Special Levy: $
5. Pay' 2001 Levy to Correct for Errors in Pay' 2000 Cert. Levy: $
6. Payable 2001 Economic Development Tax Abatement Levies: $
7. Payable 2001 Levy to Repay State or Federal Loan: $
8. Total Payable 2001 Special Levies Reported (2o+3+4+5+6+7): $
9. 2001 Property Tax Aids
a~ 2001 Certified Local Government Aid (LGA): $
b. 2001 Cert. Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA): $
c. 2001Taconite Aids: $
d. 2001 Certified Existing Low Income Housing Aid: $
e. 2001 Certified New Construction Low Income Housing Aid: $
f. Total (a+b + c + d+ e): $
10. Aitemative Levy Limit Base for Payable 2001 (1 - 8 + 90
(To Line 8 on Page 1): $
6,307,375
1,699,054
1,699,054
1,699,054
20,461
972,070
992,531
5,600,852
I
MINNESOTA Department of Revenue
Property Tax Division
Mail Station 3340
Phone (651) 296-3155
St. Paul, MN 55146-3340
Fax (651) 297-2166
·
August 21,2001
To: Finance Officials of Cities Over 2,500 Population
Re: Payable 2002 Overall Levy Limitation
Enclosed is the Payable 2002 Overall Levy Limitation Notice for your city. The factors
involved in the calculation of your city's payable 2002 overall levy limitation are shown
on the notice. The following is an explanation of the calculation factors. (Note: Lines 1
through 7 do not apply to a city that was not subject to the overall levy limitation
for the taxes payable year 2000.)
Line 1 -- Adjusted Lev}' Limit Base for Payable 2000: This amount is from line 5 of
your city's '~Payable 2000 Overall Levy Limitation Notice" that you received in 1999.
Line 2 - Payable 2000 Matching Funds Special Levy: This is the total amount of your
city's special levy for the increases in matching fund requirements for state or federal
grants that was approved by the Department of Revenue, based on your city's special
levy claims on its Payable 2000 PT Form 280. This amount is added to the levy limit
base since the new special levy for matching funds is based on the increase in the
required local share over the payable 2001 amount.
Line 3 - Beginning Levy Limit Base for Payable 2002: This is the sum of Line 1 and
Line 2.
Line 4 - Implicit Price Deflator Adjustment (March 2000/March 1999): This is the
ratio of the implicit price deflator for government consumption expenditures and gross
investment for state and local governments prepared by the Bureau of Economic Analysis
of the United States Department of Commerce for March 2000 compared to March 1999.
Line 5 - Household Growth Adjustment: Line 5a is the April 1, 1998 household
estimate for your city as determined by the State Demographer (for nonmetropolitan
cities) or by the Metropolitan Council (for cities within the seven county metropolitan
area). Line Sb is the April 1, 1999 household estimate for your city as detemained by the
State Demographer (for nonmetropolitan cities) or by the Metropolitan Council (for cities
within the seven county metropolitan area). Line 5c is the ratio of the 1999 household
estimate for your city to the 1998 household estimate for your city. If the calculated ratio
for your city is less than 1.000000 it has been changed to 1.000000.
Line 6- Adjustment for Pay' 2000 Market Value of New Cfi Construction: Line 6a
is the payable 1999 total taxable market value of all property for your city. Line 6b is the
Continued ....
,,In equal opportunity employer TTYflDD: (651} 215-0069
industrial property for your city. Line 14c is 50% of Line 14b. Line 14d is 1.000000
plus the ratio of Line 14c to Line 14a. .
Line 15 - Adjusted Levy Limit Base for Payable 2002: This is the Levy Limit Base
after Transit Services Levy Adj. (Line 11), multiplied by the Implicit Price Deflator
Adjustment (Line 12), multiplied by the Household Growth Adjustment (Line 13c), and
multiplied by the Adjustment for Pay' 2001 Market Value of New C/I Construction (Line
Line 16 - New Net Tax Capacity-Based Referendum Levies: This is the amount of
your city's new net tax capacity-based referendum levies, if any, for payable 2002
including (1) those that were approved by the voters at a referendm held in. 1997, 1998,
or 1999, provided that a levy is authorized for the taxes payable year 2002, and (2) those
approved by the voters in 2001 that are effective for the taxes payable year 2002.
Under M.S. 275.73 a county or a levy limit city may choose to go to the voters for
approval to levy an additional tax on net tax capacity rather than on market value. In
order to be effective for levy year 2001, taxes payable year 2002, a referendum under this
provision in 2001 would have to be held prior to September 1, 2001. A referendum held
after this date in 2001 could not be levied until levy year 2002, taxes payable year 2003.
If voter approval for the desired tax is required under another general or special law or
the provisions of a city charter, the levy would have to be on market value instead of on
net tax capacity. For example, if the city wants to issue new bonds and levy a property
tax for them, and the city is required to hold an election on the bonds and property tax
levy under the provisions of M.S. 475.58, any levy for the bonds would have to be on
market value instead of on net tax capacity.
If your city has a new net tax capacity-based referendum levy for payable 2002, it is to be
added to your city's levy limit base since it is an authorized additional levy rather than a
special levy authorized outside of your city's overall levy limitation.
Line 17 - 2002 Property Tax Aids: Thi~ is the amount of your city's property tax aids
for calendar year 2002. Line 17a is your city's certified amount of 2002 local
government aid (LGA). Line 17b is your city's estimated amount of 2002 taconite aids,
if any, under M.S. 298.28 and 298.282. Line 17c is your city's certified amount of 2002
existing low income housing aid, if any, under M.S. 477A. 06. Line 17d is your city's
eer'dfied amount of 2002 new construction low income housing aid, if any, under M.S.
477A.065. Line 17e is your city's 2002 transit property tax replacement aid. Line 17fis
the sum of Lines 17a through 17e. The 2002 property tax aids are to be deducted from
your city's adjusted levy limit base for payable 2002 since your city's overall levy
limitation is to change inversely with the change in your city's property tax aids.
Line 18 - Adjustment for 2001 Local Tax Rste Excess Tax Increment Taxes: M.S.
469.177, Subd. 9 provides that a tax increment (TIF) district does not get to keep the
portion of tax increments that are based on an increase in the total local tax rate over the
total rate that existed for the year in which the original local tax rates for the TIF district
were certified. These local tax rate excess tax inerement taxes are to be distributed to the
county, the city, and the school district (but not special taxing districts) based on their
respective percentages of the total local tax rate increase. This statute further provides
Line 6- Payable 2001 Economic Development Tax Abatement Levies: This is your
city's special levy (if any) for economic development tax abatements under M.S.
469.1815 reported on your city's Certification of Payable 2001 Special Levies.
Line 7- Payable 2001 Levy to Repay State or Federal Loan: This is your city's
special levy (if any) to repay a state or federal loan used to fund local government
spending due to a state or federal transportation project or other state or federal capital
project, as reported on your city's Certification of Payable 2001 Special Levies.
Line 8 - Total Payable 2001 Special Levies Reported: This is the sum of Line 2e and
Lines 3 through 7.
Line 9 - 2001 Property Tax Aids: This is the amount of your city's ProPerty tax aids
for calendar year 2001. Line 9a is your city's certified amount of 2001 local government
aid (LGA) before TIF aid reduction under M.S. 273.1399. Line 9b is your city's certified
amount of 2001 homestead and agricultural credit aid (Iq~CA) before TIF aid reduction
under M.S. 273.1399. Line 9e is your city's 2001 taeorfite aids, if any, under M.S.
298.28 and 298.282. Line 9d is your city's certified amount of 2001 existing low income
housing aid, if any, under M.S. 477A.06. Line 9e is your city's certified amount of 2001
new construction low income housing aid, if any, under M.S. 477A. 065. Line 9f is the
sum of Lines 9a through 9e.
Line 10 - Alternative Levy Limit Base for Payable 2001 (1 - 8 + 9f): This is yo.ur
city's Payable 2001 Total Certified Levy (Line 1) minus Total Payable 2001 Special
Levies Reported (Line 8) plus 2001 Property Tax Aids (Line 9f).
If you have any questions concerning this letter or the enclosed Payable 2002 Overall
Levy Limitation Notice, please contact me at (651) 296-3155 or Mike Bernard of the
Department of Revenue at (615) 297-1577.
Sincerely,
Richard B. Gardner
Research Analyst Supervisor Senior
Enclosures
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Available Cash Surplus vs. Potential Commitments
POTENTIAL AVAILABLE CASH
2,051,000
1,013,000
269,000
1,000,000
4,824,000
9,157,000
General Fund (Per Policy)
Closed Bond Fund
Net Cap Repl Fund (400+950-459)
Utility Fund
Historic Preservation Trust
POTENTIAL COMMITMENTS
Worst Case
287,000
13,000
600,000
1,026,000
712,000
1,067,000
7,639,000
500,000
11,824,000
93E Current Deficit
95B Current Deficit
95C Current Deficit
TIF 2-1Current Deficit
TIF 2-1Disputed Increment
TIF 2-1 Outstanding Debt
TIF 1
Brown & Cds Lawsuit
Best Case
267,000
13,000
600,000
1,026,000
1,067,000
1,900,000
4,873,000
CASH
POTENTIAL COM M ITM ENTS
POTENTIAL DEFICIT IF PROJECTIONS HOLD
9,157,000
(11,824,000)
(2,667,000)
POTENTIAL SURPLUS
9,157,000
(4,873,000)
4,284,000
CASH BALANCES REPORT
YEAR: THROUGH DECEMBER Date: 08/24/01
Time: 5:22pm
City of Chanhsasen Page: 1
Account NLmd~er Beginning BaLance Debit Credit Ending BaLance
Fund #: 101 GENERAL FUND
1010 Cash
Fund#: 101
Fund #: 203 FIREFIGHTERS~ RELIEF
1010 Cash
Fund #: 203
Fund #: 210 CABLE TV 1010 Cash
F~md #: 210
Fund #: 211ENVIRON#ENTAL PROTECTION
1010 Cash
Fund #: 211
Ft.r~ #: 220 CRIHE SAFETY 1010 Cash
Fund #: 220
5,600,661.84
5,600,661.84
9,985,558.90
9,985,558.90
10,700,478.14
10,700,478.14
4,885,742.60
4,885,742.60
0.00
0.00
147,970.93
147,970.93
5~,482.27
596,482.27
0.00
0.00
1,646.01
1,646.01
82,275.61
82,275.61
4,652.88
4,652.88
2,089.00
2,089.00
0.00
0.00
70,454.07
70,454.07
96,618.37
96,618.37
2,552.58
2,552.58
1,646.01
1,646.01
159,792.47
159,792.47
504,516.78
504,516.78
-463.58
-463.68
Fund #: 221 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SUPPLY
1010 Cash
Fund #: 221
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Fund #: 222 HONOR GUARD PROGRAN
1010 Cash
Fund #: 222
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
325.00
325.00 -
-325.00
-325.00
Fund #: 300 PERMANENT DEBT REVOLVING FUND
1010 Cash
Fund#: 300
Fund#: 301 1990A TAX INCREMENT REFUNOING
1010 Cash
Fund#: 301
Fund #: 302 19910 GO MUNICIPAL BLDG REFUND
1010 Cash
Fund #: 302
1,012,817.80
1,012,817.80
-95,257.07
-95,257.07
0.00
0.00
1,957.54
1,957.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
978.77
978.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,013,796.57
1,013,796.57
-95,257.07
-95,257.07
0.00
0.00
Fund #: 303 1991E GO REFUNDING BONDS
1010 Cash
Fund#: 303
Fund #: 306 1~93E GO REFUNDING BONDS
1010 Cash
Fund #: 306
Fund #: 310 1992A GO REFUNDING BONDS
1010 Cash
Fund#: 310
Fund #: 311 1992B TAX INCREMENT BONDS
1010 Cash
Fund #: 311
892,298.97
892,298.97
- 266,978.72
-266,978.72
134,025.12
134,025.12
7.36
7.36
116,182.20
116,182.20
0.00
0.00
111,209.18
111,209.18
0.00
0.00
5,886.54
5,886.54
0.00
0.00
55,355.13
55,355.13
0.00
0.00
1,002,594.63
1,002,594.63
-266,978.72
-266,978.72
189,879.17
189,879.17
7.36
7.36
Fund #: 316 1988 FIRE STATION & EQUIPMENT
1010 Cash
70,775.41
89,278.57
0.00
160,053.98
CASH BALANCES REPORT
U~: THROUGH DECEIVER Date: 08/24/01
Time: 5:22pm
~y of Chm~hassen Pa~e: 2
ccmmt k%rsber BeGinntr~ BaLance Debit Credtt Erglfr~ BaLance
~cl #: 316 lg88 FIRE STATIO# & EGUII~4ENT
1:l #: 316 70,775.41 89,278.57 0.00 160,053.98
~d #: 323 1989C REFERENDLN BONDS
1010 caah 77,668.13 56,146.23 0.00 133,814.36
~ #: 323 77,668.13 56,146.23 0.00 133,814.36
td #: 324 1990B GO IMPROVENENT BONDS
1010 Cash 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
~ #: 3~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
~ #: 326 lgglA GO I#PROVI94ENT BONDS
1010 Cash 118,759.40 62,514.38 7,192.58 174,081.20
m{ #: 3?.6 118,759.40 6~,514.38' 7,192.58 174,081.20
gl #: 327 1991B TAX INCREHENT BONDS
1010 cash - 106,~.33 0.00 0.00 - 106,699.33
td #: 327 -106,699.33 0.00 0.00 -106,699.33
x] #: 328 1991C TAX INCRE){ENT BONDS
1010 Cash 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
gl #: 328 O. O0 O. O0 O. O0 O. O0
gl #: 329 1~7~A TAX INCRENENT BONDS
1010 Cash 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
gl #: 329 O. O0 O. O0 O. O0 O. O0
· 1 #: 330 1993B TAX INCREHENT BONDS
1010 Cash 0.00 3,788.30 1,8~.15 1,894.15
d #: 330 0.00 3,788.30 1,894.15 1,894.15
d #: 331 1993C INPROVE#ENT BONDS
1010 Ceah 1,471,776.64 114,805.68 55,0~. 14 1,531,513.18
d #: 331 1,471,776.64 114,805.68 55,069.14 1,531,513.18
d #: 332 19930 TAX INCREHENT BONDS
1010 Cash 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
d #: 332 O. O0 0. O0 0. O0 O. O0
~ #: 333 1994A %#PROVEHENT REFUNDING
1010 cash
- 110,575.40 117,730.24 0.00 7,154.84
d #: 333 -110,575.40 117,730.24 0.00 7,154.8~
d #: 334 19949 INPROVENENT REFUNDING
I1010 cash -3,854.98 22,136.47 0.00 18,281.49
:1 ~ 334 -3,854.98 22,136.47 0.00 18,281.49
d#: 335 1994C TTAX INCREHENT REFUNDING
1010 cash '50,3~.66 0.00 0.00 -50,3Zm~.66
d #: 335 -50,3~.~ 0.00 0.00 -50,344.66
d #: 336 19940 TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING
1010 cash -34,694.76 0.00 0.00 '3~,894.76
d #: 336 -34,894.76 0.00 0.00 -34,894.76
d #: 337 1994E TAX I#CRE#ENT BONDS
1010 _P_-e-eh_. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CASH BALANCES REPORT
YEAR-. THROUGH DECEMBER Date: 08/24/01
City of Chanhasaen Time: 5:221~
Page: 3
Account NLInber Beginning BaLance Debit Credit
Fund#: 537 1994E TAX INCREMENT BONDS
Fund#: 337 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fund #: 338 1995 A TZD BONDS
1010 Cash
O. O0 O. O0 O. O0 O. O0
O. O0 O. O0 O. O0 O. O0
Fund #: 339 1995B IMPROVEMENT BONDS 1010 Cash
Fund#: 339
Fund #: 340 1995C GO BONDS 1010 Cash
Fund #: 340
FLffml #: 341 1996A [NPROVEMENT BONDS 1010 Cash
Fund #: 341
Fund#: 342 19968 IMPROVEMENT BONDS 1010 Cash
Fund #: 342
Fund #: 344 19960 IMPROVEMENT BONDS (CABS)
1010 Cash
Fund #: 344
Fund #: 345 1998A GO PARK REFERENDL~! BONDS
1010 Cash
Fund #: 345
Fund #: 346 1998B ZHPROVEMENT BONDS 1010 Cash
Fund #: 3/,6
Fund #: 34? 19980 TAX ZNCREMENT BONDS 1010 Cash
Fund #: 347
Fund #: 348 1998E TAX ZNCREMENT BONDS 1010 Caah
Fu~cl #: ~
Fund #: 349 1998F TAX iNCREMENT REFUNDING
1010 Cash
Fund#: 349
Fund #: 350 1998G TTAX INCREMENT REFUNDING
1010 Cash
Fund #: 350
'332,287.20 328,674.85 9,346.07 '12,958.42
-332,287.20 328,674.85 9,346.07 -12,958.42
-679,650.48 91,740.99 11,714.54 -599,624.03
-679,650.48 91,740.99 11,714.54 -599,624.03
0.00 70,316.32 32,956.01 37,360.31
0.00 70,316.32 32,956.01 37,360.31
3,690,078.63 511,309.64 221,429.04 3,979,959.23
3,690,07'8.63 511,309.64 221,429.04 3,979,959.23
933,129.32 155,632.55 27,842.97 1,060,918.90
933,129.32 155,632.55 27,842.9? 1,060,918.90
438,512.25 6,562.22 150.00 444,924.47
438,512.25 6,562.22 150.00 444,924.47
412,558.12 370,090.86 185,195.43 597,453.55
412,558.12 370,090.86. 185,195.43 597,453.55
-161,922.98 0.00 175.00 -162,097.98
-161,922.98 0.00 175.00 -162,097.98
-1,356,671.03 0.00 175.00 -1,356,846.03
-1,356,671.03 0.00 175.00 -1,356,846.03
'798,248.01 0.00 0.00 '798,248.01
'798,248.01 0.00 0.00 '798,248.01
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fund #: 351 1999A [HPROVEMENT BONDS
1010 Cash
Fund #: 351
332,879.16 313,658.56 145,742.23 500,795.49
332,879.16 313,658.56 145,742.23 500,795.49
FLa~d #: 352 2000 Rev Bonds - Lake Ann
1010 Cash
54,853.75 0.00 216.67 54,637.08
CASH BALANCES REPORT
R: THROUGH DECENBER Date: 08/26/01
Time: 5:221an
y of Chm~has~en Page: 6
:ca~t #ember Beginning h[ance Deb~t Credit Ending Balance
xJ #-- :552 2000 Rev Bonds - Lake Ann .........
~d #: 352 56,853.75 0.00 216.67' 56,637.08
~ #: 353 2001A GO Sb'~/ER & UATER REVENUE
1010 Cash 0.00 0.00 189.58 - 189.58
'd #: 353 0.00 0.00 189.58 -189.58
~ #: 356 2001B GO I#PR BONDS
1010 Cash 0.00 0.00 189.58 - 189.58
~ #: 356 0.00 0.00 189.58 -189.58
xl #: 355 :~001C GO EOUIPHENT CERT
1010 Cash 0.00 0.00 189.58 -189.58
td #: 355 0.00 0.00 189.58 -189.58
~ #: 356 2001D GO TIF REFUNDI#G BONDS
1010 cash 0.00 0.00 189.58 - 189.58
~ #: 356 0.00 0.00 189.58 -189.58
~1 #: 600 CAPITAL REPLACE)4EMT FUND
1010 Cash 1,881,158.6:~ 255,996.10 1,814,280.60 32:~,873.92
· 1 #: 44~0 1,881,158.62 255,996.10 1,814,280.60 322,873.9:~
~d #: 610 PARK ACQUISITION & DEVELOPMENT
1010 Cash 1,800,578.62 256,196,66 80,942.33 1,973,832.75
~ #: 410 1,800,578.62 254,1~6.66 80,942.33 1,g73,832.75
~1 #: 615 HUNICIPAL STATE AID FUND
1010 Cash 2?6,338.66 2,7'18.75 0.00 279,057.39
~ #: 615 276,338.64 2,718.75 0.00 279,057.39
· 1 #: 622 H~Y 212 R-O-W ACQ LOAN (RALF)
1010 Cash 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
d #: 622 O. O0 O. O0 O. O0 O. O0
cl #: 623 i~AFTA
1010 Cash 11,873.75 13,24~. 70 12,648.78 12,471.67
d #: 6Z3 11,873.75 13,2~6.70 12,648.78 12,671.67
cl #= 4~1 NEIGHBORHOO0 PARK IMPROVEMENT
1010 Cash 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
d #: 441 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
d #: 442 CI:~qUNITY PARK INPROVENENT
1010 Cash 0.00 0.00 6,500.00 -6,500.00
d #: 442 0.00 0.00 6,500.00 -6,500.00
d #: ~3 OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION
1010 Cash 166,656.19 0.00 3,392.08 163,264.11
~! #: ~ 166,656.19 0.00 3,392.1)8 163,264.11
g] #: 444 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION
1010 cash 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
,:1 #: ~ O. O0 O. O0 O. O0 O. O0
cf #: 659 GENERAL CAPITAL FACILITIES
1010 Cash 0.00 0.00 61,311.78 -61,311.78
CASH BALANCES REPORT
YEAR: THROUGH DECEHBER Date: 08/24/01
City of Chanhasaen Time: 5:22pm
Page: 5
Account N~mr~r Beginning BaLance Debtt Credit Ending BaLance
Fund #: 459 GENERAL CAptTAL FACILtT]ES
Fund #: 459
Fund #: 460 TAX I NCR I - DC)NNTC~N #025
1010 Cash
Fund. #-. 460
Fund #: 465 PEDESTRIAN BRZDGE ]$TEA
1010 Cash
Fund #: 465
Fund #: 468 TAX ]NCR 2-1 - McGLYNN ~026
1010 Cash
Fund #: 469 CONN DEV BLOCK GRANT 1010 Cash
Fund #: 469
Fund #: 673 HANUS PROPERTIES 1010 Cash
Fund #: 475 RAILROAO DEPOT 1010 Cash
Fund #: /.7S
Fund #: /*80 CARVER CO HIGH~/AY FUNOZNG
1010 Cash
Fund #: 490 TAX ZNCR 3 - HENNEPIN CO 1010 Cash
Fund #: 491 TAX INCR /*- ENTERTAINMENT #028
1010 Cash
Fund #: /.91
Fund #: /,92 TAX INCR 2-2 NATL k~THR SV #027
1010 Cash
Fund #: /*92
Fur~l #: /*93 School Oistrtct 112 TIF Agreem
1010 Cash
Fund #: 493
Fund #: 494 TAX INCR 5 - NORTH BAY #029
1010 Cash
Fund #: /*94
Fund #: /*95 TAX ZNCR 6 - GATE~/AY #024 1010 Cash
Fund #: 496 TAX ZNCR 4-1 1010 Cash
0.00 0.00 61,311.78 -61,311.78
-3,903,140.25 3,330,828.11 34,333.04 -606,645.18
-3,903,140.25 3,330,828.11 34,333.04 -606,645.18
0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
-865,108.25 0.00 315.20 -865,423.45
-865,108.25 0.00 315.20 -865,423.45
O. O0 O. O0 O. O0 O. O0
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 '0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
255,773.91 574,203.66 43,787.98 786,189.59
255,773.91 574,203.66 43,787.98 786,189.59
136,489.88 170,545.64 90,744.19 216,291.33
136,489.&B 170,545.64 90,744.19 216,291.33
-10,370.75 277,906.65 84,501.60 183,034.30
-10,370.75 277,906.65 84,501.60 183,034.30
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00
-17,878.99 46,540.07 1,650.00 27,011.08
-17,878.99 46,540.07 1,650.00 27,011.08
450,744.03 297,883.72 117,285.15 631,342.60
450,744.03 297,&83.72 117,285.15 631,342.60
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CASH BALANCES REPORT
THROUGH DECEMBER Date: 08/24/01
Time: 5:22pm
y of Chanhassen · Page: 6
Nmber Beginning BaLance Debit Credit Ending BaLance
#: 496 TAX I NCR 4-1
#:
1010
#:
#:
1010
#:
#:
1010
#:
#:
]010
#:
#:
496 O. O0 O. O0 0. O0 0. O0
49? TAX I NCR 7 - EDEN TRACE ~
Cash -53,374.37 113,755.92 67, o3~ .88 - 16,652.33
49? - 53,37~,. 37 113,755.92 67,033.88 - 16,652.33
600 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROJECTS
Cash -47,853.91 0.00 218,4~8.39 -266,322. .30
600 -47,853.91 0.00 218,4~8.39 -2~,322.30
623 LYtlAN/LAKE RILEY
Cash 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
. ......... ....... .-. ...... ... .... . .. .... ... .... .. ....... ........ ....
623 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
628 Dmmtoun Pubifc lmpr Project
CaNt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
628 0.00 O.OO 0.00 0.00
641 TH 101/Hwy 5 Realignment
Cash 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
441 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
656 Upper BLuff Creek - Phase II
rash 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
656 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
659 ARBORETLR/TH5 UTILITIES
Cash -996,967.90 0.00 399,261.64 -1,396,229.5~
659 - 996,967.90 0.00 399,261.54 - 1,3~, 229.54
6E~) 90'17 H~y 5 from 17 to 41
CaNt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
660 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
~al 92-3 U 78TH REALIGNHENT
Cash O. O0 0.00 0.00 0.00
64,1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6713 SCHOOL co-P
Cash 0.00 O.OO 0.00 0.00
670 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
672 g'5-2~ COULTER BLVD PHASE I I
Cash 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
672 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6'/'3 g3-?_~C COULTER TRAIL/UNDERPASS
cash O. O0 O. O0 247.68 - 247.68
673 O. O0 0. O0 247.68 - 247.68
674 CENTURY BLVD (82ND N COULTER)
C~ 924,994.98 0.00 0.00 924,994.98
674 924,994.98 O . O0 0.00 924,994.98
676 98-1 Lake Lucy Rd
Cash - 153,224.33 0.00 500.29 - 153,724
CASH BALANCES REPORT
YEAR; THROUGH DECEHBER Date: 08/24/01
C~ty of Chanhassen Time: 5:22pm
Page: 7
....... I .........................................................................................................................
Account NL~ber Beginning BaLance Debit Credit Ending BaLance
.................................................................. I ................................... i .......... I ..... I .... I ....
Fund~: 676 98-1 Lake Lucy Rd
Fund#: 676 -163,224.33 0.00 500.29 -163,724.62
Fund #= 677 97-1B-2 COULTER BLVD E OF CENT
1010 Cash -328,626.99 2,729.97 919.00 -326,816.02
Fund #: 677 -328,626.99 2,729.97 919.00 -326,816.02
Fund #: 678 97-10 COULTER BLVD W OF CENTUR
1010 Cash -752,169.73 0.00 2,405.25 -754,574.98
Fund #: 678 -752,169.73 0.00 2,405.25 -754,574.98
Fund #: 679 97-1B-3 Traf Sign 82nd/TH41
1010 Cash -109,247.02 0.00 0.00 -109,247.02
Fund #: 679 -109,247.02 0.00 0.00 -109,247.02
Fund #: 681 98-16 Lake Or. W.
1010 Cash 292,871.83 1,426.96 1,717.09 292,581.70
Fund #: 681 292,871.83 1,426.96 1,717.09 292,581.70
Fund #: 682 98-15 Stone Creek Dr.
1010 Cash
Fund #= 682
Fund #= 700 SEWER & WATER UTILITY FUND
1010 Cash
Fund#: 700
Fund #: 705 MUNICIPAL WELL #8 1010 Cash
Fund #= 705
-3,096.11 0.00 1,536.45 -4,632.56
-3,096.11 0.00 1,536.45 -4,632.56
5,887,141.67 1,918,844.49 1,859,890.50 5,946,095.66
5,8~7,141.67 1,918,844.49 1,859,890.50 5,946,095.66
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
O, O0 0,00 0.00 ' O, O0
Fund #: 706 97-1B-1 Water Tower
1010 Cash
Fund#: 706
O. O0 O. O0 O. O0 O. O0
O. O0 O. O0 O. O0 O. O0
Fund #: 710 SEgER & WATER EXPANSION FUND
1010 Cash
Fund #: 710
Fund #: 720 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT
1010 Cash
Fund #: 720
Fund #: 721 InfiLtration/InfLow Improv
1010 Cash
Fund#: 721
0.00 288,960.48 188,346.56 100,613.92
0.00 288,960.48 188,346.56 100,613.92
1,905,085.04 488,408.22 88,240.75 2,305,252.51
1,905,085.04 488,408.22 88,240.75 2,305,252.51
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Fund #: 800 HISTORIC PRESERVATION TRUST
1010 Cash
Fund#: BO0
Fund #: 803 INVESTMENT 1010 Cash
Fund#: 803
4,873,732.98 701.38 50,052.82 4,824,381.54
4,873,732.98 701.38 50,052.82 4,824,381.54
-21,373,241.42 5,369,911.36 0.00 '16,003,330.06
-21,373,241.42 5,369,911.36 0.00 -16,003,330.06
Fund #: 815 DEVELOPER ESCROW FIJgD
1010 Cash
602~415.30 118,161.00 150,888.00 569,688.30
THROUGH DECEMBER CASH BALANCES REPORT
Date: 08/24/01
of Chanhaasen Trine: 5:22pm
.................................................. Page: 8
Nceber gegfnnfng BaLance Debit ...........................
............................ Credit Ending BaLance
#: 815 DEVELOPER ESCROW/ FUND ........................................................................
#: 815 602,415.30 118,161.00 150,888.00 5~,688.30
gl: 820 PAYROLL CLEARING FUND
1010 Cash 0.00 2,363,375.50 2,287,682.70 75,692.80
gl: 820 0.00 2,363,375.50 2,287,682.70 75,692.80
gl: I~0 I~AFTA
1010 Caah 0.00 4,320.00 2,6~0.00 1,660.00
gl: 830 0.00 4,320.00 2,640.00 1,680.00
gl: ~00 PROPERTY DEVELOPNENT
1010 Cash 27,684.43 0.00 0.00 27,684.43
gl: 900 27,684.43 O. O0 O. OD 27,684.43
#: 90~ TANDEM-NZSSION HILLS
'1010 Cash 7,493.88 0.00 0.00 7,493.88
gl: 904 7,493.88 0.00 0.00 7,493.88
gl: 912 7-41 PARK NATZONAL BANK
1010 Cash 1,102.02 0.00 0.00 1,102.0:~
gl: 912 1,102.02 0.00 O.O0 1,102.02
gl: 913 ~ VALLEY AGG RESTORATION
1010 Cash 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
gl: 913 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
#: 916 STRATFORD RIDGE-JEDLZCKI
1010 Cash - 1,087.87 0.00 0.00 -1,087.87
gl: 916 - 1,087.87 O. O0 O. O0 - 1,087.87
gl: 917 BLUFF CREEK FEASIBILITY
1010 Caah 7,200. O0 O. O0 O. O0 7,200. O0
gl: 917 7,200.00 0.00 0.00 7,200.00
Il: 918 LYNAN FEASIBZLITY
1010 Cash 26,799.00 0.00 0.00 26,799.00
Il: 918 26,7T~. O0 0.00 0.00 26, 7'99.00
#: 920 SPEC]AL FEASIBILITY
t010 Cash 5,335.06 0.00 0.00 5,335.0~
#: 920 5,335.0~ 0.00 0.00 5,335.06
#: 930 ~ 212 R-O-Id ACQ LOAN FUND
Caah 17, 611.30 O. O0 O. O0 17, 611.30
#: 930 17,611.30 0.00 0.00 17,611.30
#: 950 VEHICLE AND EQUIP MAINTENANCE
Cash O. O0 7, 200. O0 195.96 7,004.04
gl: 950 O. O0 7, 200. O0 195.96 7,004.04
#: 997 GENERAL FIXED ASSETS ACCT GRP
Cash 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
gl: 997 O. O0 O. O0 O. O0 O. O0
ill: ~8 GENERAL LONG-TERN DEBT ACCT GR
Cash 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
CASH BALANCES REPORT
YEAR.' THROUGH DECEHBER Date: 08/24/01
Time: 5:22pm
City of Chanhaasen Page: 9
Account Number Beginning BaLance Debit Credtt Ending BaLance
Funcl #.' 998 GENERAL LONG-TERN DEBT ACCT GR
Fund #: 998 0.00 O, O0 0.00 0.00
Grand TotaL:- 2,911,553.32 28,521,818.52 19,304,225.54 12,129,156.30
CITYOF
PO Booc147
~ Minnesota 55317
952.93Z1900
C,~ Fax
952.93Z5739
952.93Z9152
Buikling ~nent Fax
952934.2524
l~Siu
~v u,u~ d. chanl~, m m us
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Mayor
City Council
Bruce M. DeJong, Finance Director
August 23, 2001
Audit Documents
The audit has been completed and the Co .mpre, hensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR) and required reports are enclosed for you to examine. We will have
Tautges Redpath present an analysis of the audit lin~.
Attachments:
CAF~
Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance'
Indepen~t Auditor's Report on Internal Control
C 0F
PO Box147
~, Minnmta 55317
952.93Z1900
952.93Z5739
952.93Z9152
&dlding Depan~tt Fax
952.934.2524
l~eb Sitt
wunuct~~.mn.u~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBS:
Teresa Burgess, Public Works Directnr/City Engineer
Mahmoud Swcid, m, En~~)
August 21, 2001
Rejection of Bids for Quinn Road Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Project No. 01-02
REQUESTED ACTION
Staff requests the City Council reject the eonsmmfion bids for the above-referene~
project
DISCUSSION
Bids for the project were opened on Monday, August 20, 2001. Five bids were received.
Kusske ~on~ Inc.
F. F. Jedlicki~ Inc.
G. L. Contmctins, Inc.
$20,557.50
$22~375.00
$28,760.00
$34~024.00
$35,175.88
The reason for the rg/ection is because of an error in the bid proposal form supplied by
the consultant. Legal counsel has advised that the bids be rejected and the project re-
advertised.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
Move to reject all bids received for t~ s~ T .mprovements and
return the bid bonds to the biddc~. Furth~ move to re-ad~se for bids with the
corrected bid proposal form
jm8
¢:
Dave Hutton, WSB & Associates
Shibaui Khera, WSB & Associates
F.F. Jedlicki, Inc.
G.L. Contracting, Inc.
Kusslm Construction, Inc.
Parrott Contracting, Inc.
Widmer, Inc.
by En neer
--
Approved by City Coundl
Ii:%enS~public%01 ~ of bid~l~
MEMORANDUM
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUB J:
Todd Ge~~ City Manag~
Teresa J. Burgess, Public Works Director/City
August 20, 2001
Approve Resolution for Support for the Establishment of CSAH
from CSAH 14 (Pioneer Trail) to CSAH 18 (Lyman Boulevard)
REQUESTED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution supporting
the establishment of CSAH 15 from CSAH 14 (Pioneer Trail) to CSAH 18 (Lyman
Boulevard).
DISCUSSION
Carver County has requested the
City of Chanhassen pass the
attached re, solution supporting
their request for County State
Aid Highway (CSAH) mileage
addition.
The request is in keeping with
both the Carver County and City
of Chanhassen Comprehensive
Plans.
A copy of the Carver County
2001 State Aid Highway
Mileage Request dated July
2001 is on file in the
F, ngin~'ing Dopartment.
Attachment: ~lution
CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Resolution
Support for the Establishment
of
County State Aid Highway 15 (CSAH 14 to CSAH 18)
Date
City Resolution No.
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER
SECONDED BYCOUNCILMEMBER
· I
WHEREAS, the Carver County 2020 Comprehensive Plan was approved by the Metropolitan Council In September, 2000, and
WHEREAS, the Carver County 2020 Comprehensive Plan was approved by the Carver Couhty Board of Commissioners In October, 2000,
and
WHEREAS, the 'transportation plan' element of the County 2020 Comprehensive Plan is divided Into five sections titled: 1) Existing
Conditions, 2) Future Transportation Needs, 3) System Plan, 4) Recommendations, and 5) ImplemantalJon, and
WHEREAS, the System Plan section of the 'transportation plan' contains the recommended system plan including the functional
classification system, a jurisdictional transfer plan, and a system designation plan, and
WHEREAS, the System Plan section of the 'transportation plan' contains a list of recommended County State Nd Highway (CSAH)
designation additions, and
WHEREAS, one of the recommended CSAH designation additions is County Road 17 (Audubon Road) between CSAH 14 (Pioneer Trail)
and CSAH 18 (Lyman Bouleva.rd) located In both the City of Chaska and the City of Chanhassen, and
WHEREAS, Carver County is requesting the County Screening Board and the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation
to approve the CSAH designation of said segment of County Road (CR) 17 as CSAH 15, and
WHEREAS, the location and establishment of said segment of CR 17 as a County State Nd Highway is consistent with the City of
Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chanhassen City Council supports the request by Carver County to astabllsh CR 17
(Audubon Road) between CSAH 14 (Pioneer Trail) and CSAH 18 (Lyman Boulevard) as a County State Nd Highway having the
idantl~cation of CSAH 15, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chanhassen City Council urges said request be approved by the County Screening Board and by the
Minnesota Commissioner of Transportation.
Passed and adopted by I~e City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota this
day of ,2001.
Attest
City Mayor City Manager
C YOF
MEIVlORANDUM
To: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
From: Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner
Date: August 23, 2001
Re:
Final Plat Approval for Subdivision g2001-03 with a variance to allow a
50 foot right-of-way for Big Woods on Lotus Lake, Coffman Development
BACKGROUND
On June 25, 2001, the City Council approved the preliminary plat for Subdivision
g2001-03 with a variance to allow a 50 foot right-of-way for Cmekwood for 9 lots
as shown on the plans dated May 1, 2001, subject to the following conditions:
.
Storm water shall not be discharged into any wetland basin prior to
pmtmatm~nt.
"/'his condition still applies.
2. No dock shall be placed on Lot 7 Without an encroachment agreement.
This condition still applies. The proposed plat dedicated a drainage
and utility easement along the lakeshore and creek on Lot 7. This
easement was provided by the applicant in good faith to protect the
integrity of the creek as a natural feature and as an important part of
the City's storm water infrastructure. This easement will also provide
access to the creek for main~ce when needed. The applicant has
voiced some concern regarding this condition and requested
reassurance that the city will not prohibit a dock on Lot 7. It has
always been salff's intention to allow this parcel to enjoy uses
permitted on other iakeshore prolwa~y..Since the applicant has
voluntarily agreed to provide this easement to protect the creek's
integrity and provide maintenance access, the City wiIl not pursue
additional drainage or utility uses within the easement. In order to
install a dock within this easement, the applicant must enter into an
encroachment agreement. Staff will change the wording of this
condition, which wm become part of the development agreement, to
reassure the applicant that the city does not intend to prohibit a dock
on this lot. The reworded condition will read "The applicant shall
enter into an encroachment agreement with the city prior to placi_'nff a
dock on Lot 7".
Big Woods on Lotus Lake
August 27, 2001
Page 2
!
No water oriented accessory structure shall be allowed on Lot 7 without aa encroachment
agreement.
Thi~ condition still applies. As in the previous condition, and for the same reasons,
staff will change the wording of this condition to read "The applicant shall enter
into an encroachment agreement with the city prior to placing a water oriented
accessory structure on Lot 7".
1
All structures shall maintain a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water level of the
creek. The slopes along the southern portion of LOt 6 shall be protected by a conservation
easement.
This condition still applies, however, it has been partially met and staff is proposing
some modification. The applicant submitted an exhibit showing the conservation
easement over the slopes along the southern portion of Lot 6. The applicant still
needs to provide a legal description of this easement. Also, staff needs to clarify that
Lot 7 is permitted one water oriented accessory structure and one dock. The
setbacks of the dock and water oriented accessory structure on Lot 7 shall be a
minimum of 10 feet from the ordinary high water 16vel on the South side of the creek
and 20 feet from the ordinary high water level on the north side of the creek. Staff
believes that these setbacks will be adequate to allow the City to perform
maintenance on the creek. The new condition will read: "All structures shall
maintain a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water level of the c .reek, except
for one dock and one water oriented accessory structure on LOt 7. These structures
shall maintain a minimum setback of 10 feet from the ordinary high water level on
the south side of the creek and 20 feet from the ordinary high water level on the
north side of the creek. The applicant shall supply the city with a legal description
of the conservation easement."
5. The applicant shall provide storm water calculations.
This condition still applies.
e
A detail of the skimmer proposed on the storm water pond shall be provided.
This condition has been met.
7~
A drainage and utility easement shall be provided over that portion of Lot 7 that is west of
the sanitary sewer easement.
This condition has been met.
8,
Drainage and utility easement shall be provided over all existing creeks and existing and
proposed storm water ponds.
Big Woods on Lores Lake
August 27, 2001
Page 3
This condition still applies.
1
Based on the proposed developed area of 6.3 acres, the water quality fees associated with
this project are estimated at $5,040 and the water quantity fees associated with thi~
project are estimated at $12,474. The applicant will be credited for water quality where
NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon
review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the
applicant's structures. The applicant will not be assessed with the SWMP or the
provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are
dedica~ ouflots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the
estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat .recording is
$17,514.
This condition has been modified to read, '-'Based on the proposed developed area of
6.3 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are estimated at $~,040
and the water quantity fees associated with this pro~]ect are estimated at $12,474.
The applicant has been credited for water quality because a NURP pond is provided
to treat runoff from the site. Credits have also been given for the provision of an
outlet structure. The SWMP fee has been credited $3,660 for the construction of a
storm water pond providing water quality benefits for 1,45 acres and one outlet
structure. The total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording is $13,8542'
10. Environmental Resource Specialist conditions:
a. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan showing 24 trees as replacement
plantings. Plan shall specify size, species and locations.
This condition has been partially met. The applicant submitted a landscaping
plan reflecting 24 trees specifying size, species and locations. The applicant is
proposing Norway Maples. Staff is recommending "The applicant shall replace
the Norway Maple with other Maple variety such as Sugar, red, etc."
b. All areas outside of grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation fencing.
Fencing shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each Iot.
This condition still applies.
11. Building Department conditions:
a. Demolition permits must be obtained from the Inspections Division before
demolishing any structures on the property.
Big Woods on Lotus Lake
August 27, 2001
Page 4
This condition still applies.
b. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before building permits will be issued.
This condition still applies.
12. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Submit proposed street name to Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval.
This condition still applies.
b.
A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to
ensure that the fire hydrants can be quickly located and Safely operated by firefighters.
Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
This condition still applies.
C.
When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire
protection is required to be installed such protection shall be installed and made
serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform
Fire Code Section 901.3.
This condition still applies.
d.
Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed
loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all
weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.2.
This condition still applies.
e.
Because of close proximity to neighboring houses no burning permits will be issued.
Trees or shrubs to be removed shall be either chipped on site or hauled off the
property.
This condition still applies.
With regards to Lots 7 and 8, houses must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department
Policy Premise Identification referencing, if structure is not visible from the street
additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Pursuant to Chanhassen
Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy g29-1992. Copy enclosed.
Big Woods on Lotus Lake
August 27, 2001
Page 5
This condition still applies.
13.
Park and trail fees shall be collected in lieu of land dedication pursuant to city ordinance.
This condition still applies.
14.
Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required for
each lot at the time of building permit application for city review and approval. In
addition, as-built surveys will be required on each lot prior to occupancy.
This condition still applies.
15.
If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant
will be required to supply the City with detailed haul mutes and traffic control plans.
This condition still applies.
16. The pond shall be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards.
This condition still applies.
17.
Staff needs to receive and review the water quantity ponding calculations prior to
preliminary plat approval by the City Council.
This condition has been met.
18.
The permanent utility easement around lift station #10 must be increased from a 50 foot
square area to a 60 foot square area. In addition, a 20 foot easement for access is required
off of the proposed cul-de-sac.
This condition still applies.
19.
Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations will need to be submitted. The
storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and
utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage
system including ponds up to the 100 year flood level. The minimum easement width
shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds will also be
required on the construction plans.
This condition has been met.
20.
Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handl~ok (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's
Big Woods on Lotus Lake
August 27, 2001
Page 6
Type HI erosion control fence, which is a heavy duty silt fence, be used for the area
adjacent to the existing creek. The final grading plan shall extend silt fence around the
north and south sides of the proposed cul-de-sac. In addition, tree preservation fencing
needs to be added around the construction limits.
This condition still applies.
21.
Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans
and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be
required to enter into a development contract with the City and to supply the necessary
financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation
of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval.
This condition still applies.
22.
Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at
the time of building permit issuance.
This condition still applies.
23. Revise the preliminary utility plan to show all of the existing utilities around the site.
This condition has been met.
24.
Revise the final grading plan to show all proposed and existing easements along with the
normal and high water elevations of the proposed pond.
This condition still applies.
25.
A second street shall be stubbed to the north property line across from Lot 4. This street
would be extended as properties to the north develop. Sanitary sewer and watermain
should also be stubbed to the north to serve future lots.- A sign shall be installed stating
that this street may be extended in 'the future.
This condition has been met.
26.
The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump
discharge from homes not adjacent to ponds.
This condition has been met.
Big Woods on Lotus Lake
August 27, 2001
Page 7
27.
Dedicate an additional 10 feet of right-of-way on the west side of the site, along Carver
Beach Road.
This condition has been met.
28. All plans must be signed by a registered engineer.
This condition has been met.
29. The applicant shall change the name of the proposed plat.
This condition has been met.
30.
Since the applicant has shown a plat that meets ordinance for lot sizes and building pads,
the applicant may revise the plat to straighten a property line between Lot 7 and 8. The
lot sizes must meet the ordinance and the applicant shall show a suitable house plan that
will meet all setbacks on Lot 8.
This condition has not been met, however, in order to maximize the buildable area
on Lot 8 and still be able to meet the required setback, the applicant must maintain
the current conflguratiom Therefore, this condition will be deleted.
31. Prior to final plat the retaining wall shall be removed from the fight-of-way.
This condition has been met.
32.
Prior to City Council presentation the applicant shall work with staff to specify
limitations regarding lake accessory structures in the encroachment agreement.
This condition has been met.
33.
The Planning Commission recommends the City Council consider allowing a 50 right-of-
way and 20 foot front yard setback for this subdivision based on the fact that the City
Council can grant a variance as part of a plat approval process and that this meets the
hardship requirements because it's the city's desire to preserve as many trees as possible.
This condition has been met.
34.
The City shall evaluate the capacity of the lift station and it's ability to serve the new
development and the existing neighborhood.
This condition still applies.
Big Woods on Lotus I.atke
August 27, 2001
Page 8
35.
The sewer services for the proposed lake lots of Creekwood shall be installed with
backflow preventers.
This condition still applies.
Also, on August 7, 2001, the Planning Commission approved Variance g2001-5 for a 10 foot
front yard setback variance for single family homes in the Creekwood subdivision to be located 20
feet from the front property line with the following conditions:
All lots within the Creekwood subdivision shall be permitted a 20 foot front yard setback
with the exception of Lot 7.
1
Lots 1 through 5 shall dedicated a 30 foot tree preservation easement along the southerly 30
feet. If the applicant elects to utilize the front yard setback variance, the rear yard setback
shall be increased to 40 feet.
1
The home on Lot 6 must be setback 20 feet from the front property line to maximize the
setback from the top of the slope. A preservation easement shall be dedicated over that
portion of Lot 6 located between the top of the slope and the most southerly prOperty line."
At this point, the applicant is requesting final plat approval. Staff is recommending approval of this
application with conditions.
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting final plat approval to subdivide 6.3 acres into 9 single family lots. The
property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family.
The average lot size is 25,166 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.4 units per acre and a
net density of 1.7 units per acre. The site is located east of Carver Beach Road, west of Lotus
Lake, and north of Shadowmere. Access to the subdivision will be provided via an extension of
a cul-de-sac off of Carver Beach Road. All lots are proposed to be served via an internal
residential street.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. There is one outlot shown on the plat. Ouflot A is a remnant lot created due to the
curvilinear design of the road. Staff informed the applicant that such lots are prohibited. The
applicant agreed to dedicate the ouflot to the property to the north. This will be a condition of
approval for the plat.
The site is heavily wooded. The existing woods consist mainly of large, mature oaks with an
understory of sugar maple, linden and ash. It's a healthy forest with very few invasive species.
Big Woods on Lotus Lake
August 27, 2001
Page 9
Development of the area should pay special attention to protecting the root zones of the large
oaks and preserving the maple understory.
In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well desi~ gfmor revisions will be
required. We are recommending that the subdivision be approved with conditions outlined in the
staff report.
FINAL PLAT
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 6.3 acre site into 9 single family lots. The density of the
proposed subdivision is 1.4 units per acre gross, and 1.7 units per acre net af~ removing the roads.
All the lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with aa average lot size of 25,166
square feet.
All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width, and depth requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. There is one 0utlot shown on the plat. Outlot A is a remnant lot and will be deeded to
the property to the north. It is a result of the curve in the street alignment. Staff directed the
applicant to change the name of the plat to distinguish it fi'om others in the community. The new
plat name is Big Woods on Lotus I. ake.
Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally comistent
with the Zoning Ordinance.
WETLANDS
There do not appear to be any wetlands present on-site; however, staff recommends that a
wetland delineator assess the site to verify the City's planning maps. A wetland does exist to the
west of this site. The plans indicate that the storm sewer that drains south under the entrance to
the subdivision will outlet into an existing pond. The applicant must show that storm water will
not be discharged into any wetland basin prior to pretreatment.
Lotus lake is a recreational development lake. The areas of riparian lots on recre, ati~
development lakes must be at least 20,000 square feet and the lot width at the shoreland setback
line must be at least 90 feet. The proposed riparian lots meet these requirements.
The ordinary high water elevation (OHW) of Lotus lake is 896.3 feet MSL. A 75-foot shoreland
setback is required from the OHW. The proposed house pads on Lots 7, 8 and 9 meet this setback
requirement.
There is no setback requirement from the creek; however, staff has requested the applicant maintain
a 50-foot setback from the edge of the creek to maintain the integrity of the creek.
Big Woods on Lotus Lake
August 27, 2001
Page 10
CREEl(
The creek that runs along the south side of this property (Carver Beach Creek) is not a DNR Public
Water; therefore, there is no specified setback from the OHW of the creek. A majority of the
homes in the subdivision directly south of the proposed project (Shadowmere) maintain a 50-'foot
setback from the creek. For purposes of water quality and erosion control, a 50-foot minimum
setback is recommended.
Staff needs to clarify that Lot 7 is permitted one water oriented accessory structure and one dock.
The setbacks of the dock and water oriented accessory structure on Lot 7 shall be a minimum of 10
feet from the ordinary high water level on the south side of the creek and 20 feet from the ordinary
high water level on the north side of the creek.
The placement of a dock on Lot 7 will require an encroachment agreement due to the combination
of a 50-foot setback from the creek and the proposed drainage and utility easement over the east end
of the lot. Staff also notes that no water-oriented accessory structure Will be allowed within the
setback and easement on Lot 7 without an encroachment agreement.
BLUFFS
There are steep slopes on the property adjacent to the creek (the eastern portion of Lot 6 and the
western portion of Lot 7). The applicant and staff examined this area against the criteria for a bluff
(the slope rises at least 25 feet above the toe of the bluff; the grade from the toe of the bluff to a
point 25 feet or more above the toe of the bluff averages 30 percent or greater; and an area with an
average slope of less than eighteen percent over a distance for fifty feet or more shall not be
considered part of the bluff. Nevertheless, the applicant is providing an easement over this area to
protect the slope and the creek.
The developer and the developer's surveyor met City staff on-site on June 14, 2001. The purpose
of the meeting was to establish the toe and the top of the slope so the surveyor could survey the
area and determine whether or not bluff existed on-site. The top and the toe of the slope were
established and it was concluded that most of the slope did not fit the conditions necessary to
classify it as bluff. (The grade of the slope averaged 30 percent or greater, but the slope did not
rise at least 25 feet from the toe of the bluff.) The area that can be classified as bluff is within the
westernmost portion of LOt 6. The 60 by 60 buildable area on LOt 6 meets the required 30-foot
setback from the top of the bluff.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
Storm Water Management
The applicant must provide storm water calculations. A detail of the skimmer proposed on the
storm water pond should also be provided.
Big Woods on Lotus Lake
August 27, 2001
Page 11
Easements
The preliminary plat. shows a drainage and utility easement over the storm water pond on Lot 7,
but not the storm water pipe that outlets into the pond. To facilitate maintenance of the pond and
pipe, a drainage and utility easement should be provided over that portion of Lot 7 that is west of
the sanitary sewer easement. If a drainage and utility easement is dedicated, an encroachment
agreement will be required for the driveway to the proposed building pad on Lot 7. Drainage and
utility easements should be provided over all existing creeks and storm water ponds.
Water Quality Fees
Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this
proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates of $800/acre.
Based on the proposed developed area of 6.3 acres, the water quality fees associated with this
project are $5,040.
Water Quantity Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different laud uses based on an average
citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition,
proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for nmoff storage. Single-
family residential developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. This
results in a water quantity fee of $12,474 for the proposed development~
SWMP Credits
This project proposes the construction of one NURP pond. The applicant has been credited for
water quality because a NURP pond is provided to treat nmoff from the site. Credits have also
been given for the provision of an outlet structure. The SWMP fee has been credited $3,660 for
the construction of a storm water pond providing water quality benefits for 1.45 acres and one
outlet structure.
The total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $13,854.
GRADING
The existing 6.3-acre parcel is heavily wooded. The site elevations range from a high of 942+ to
a low of 895+. As with any site that contains this much change in elevation, there are some
naturally occurring steep slopes on the property. In addition, the site contains two houses that
will have to be removed prior to any grading operations. Demolition permits will be required
from the building department prior to removal of the houses. The existing sewer and water
services for the homes are required to be capped and abandoned at the mains.
Due to the large amount of trees on the site, the developer is proposing to custom grade all of the
lots. The only areas that will be graded are for the proposed road and pond. Staff agrees that this
is the most environmentally sensitive way to develop the site. Detailed grading, drainage, tree
removal and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit
Big Woods on Lotus Lake
August 27, 2001
Page 12
application for City review and approval. In addition, as-built surveys will be required on each
lot prior to occupancy.
There are two proposed retaining walls shown on the plans that are located within drainage and
utility easements. These walls are nee~d for grading purposes and cannot be moved entirely out
of the easements. As such, encroachment agreements will be required for each of the walls
within the easements. Also, separate building permits will be required for each wall along with
engineered plans for any wall over four feet in height.
If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be
required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans.
DRAINAGE
The majority of the existing site drains to the creek and Lotus Lake in the east and southeast.
The remaining westerly portion of the property drains off-site to the southwest. The proposed
grading plan has been designed to match the existing topography and drainage patterns fairly
well. The majority of the eastern portion of the site drains to a proposed pond in the southeast
comer of the site. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program
(NURP) standards. The pond will treat the water before discharging it to the adjacent creek. The
applicant is proposing to drain the remaining western portion of the site to an existing pond on
the west side of Carver Beach Road. This is a regional type pond that has sufficient capacity to
handle the additional strormwater. The proposed drainage plan is consistent with the City's
Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP).
The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for water quantity; however, water quality
calculations are still needed. Storm sewer calculations for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event have
also been submitted. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat
over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the
100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows
from all stormwater ponds will also be required on the construction plans.
EROSION CONTROL
Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type Iff
erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the area adjacent to the
existing creek and Lotus Lake. In addition, two separate rows of Type Iff silt fence should be
added across the full width of the existing ditch in the southwest comer of the site. A rock
construction entrance has been shown at the proposed street access off of Carver Beach Road.
Big Woods on Lotus Lake
August 27, 2001
Page 13
Currently, public sanitary sewer is available to the property from the east side of the site. The
plans propose on connecting to this sewer line and extending it, approximately 750 feet, to the
west. This is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan.
This site contains City Lift Station #10 which is located near Lotus Lake. In the past, lift station
#10 has experienced capacity problems due to the size of its wet well. During the preliminary
plat discussion of this development, the City Council directed staff to hook-up and wire the City's
portable generator at lift station #10 until its wet well is upgraded in the near future. As such,
staff is recommending that the permanent utility easement around the lift station be increased
from a 50-foot square area to a 60-foot square area. In addition, a 20-foot easement for access
is required off of the proposed cul<le-sac.
Municipal water is available to the site from both Carver Beach Road and the east side of the
site. The plans propose on looping the watermain through the site. Also, due to the low floor
elevation of some of the proposed lots, in-home pressure reducing valves will be required on all
lots with a lowest floor elevation of 930 or less. This includes Lots 1 and 6 through 9.
In order to better fit the proposed housepad with the existing topography on Lot 8, the applicant
is proposing to reroute the existing sanitary sewer, sanitary forcemain, and watermain through
Lot 8. By moving these existing utilities approximst¢ 30 feet to the east, the housepad can be
moved to the west side of the utilities and further toward the cul-de-sac. This will create more of
a natural walk-out housepad and actually minimiT~ the amount of grading and tree removal
necessary on Lot 8. Staff does not have any issues with this proposal.
The site was previously assessed for utilities and these assessments have been paid. Each newly
created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time of
building permit issuance. The 2001 trunk utility hook up charges are $1,322 per unit for sanitary
sewer and $1,723 per unit for water.
All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in ~ce with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Upon completion of the utility
improvements, the utilities will be turned over to the City for maintenance and ownership. The
applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the
necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits fi'om the
appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA,
Department of Health, MCES, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, etc.
Big Woods on Lotus Lake
August 27, 2001
Page 14
STREET__S
There is one proposed access to the site off of Carver Beach Road. The applicant has shown a
second street to be stubbed to the north property line across from lot 4. This street would be
extended as properties to the north develop. Sanitary sewer and watermain will also be stubbed
to the north to serve future lots.
The proposed cul-de-sac is shown as a 28-foot wide street with curb and gutter within a 50-foot
wide public fight-of-way. The applicant has previously received approval for a 10-foot variance
from the required 60-foot fight-of-way. Staff feels that the 28-foot wide street is a better fit to
the Carver Beach area than the City standard of 31-foot wide streets. Many of the existing streets
in the Carver Beach area are 20-feet wide.
Due to the curvilinear nature of the street, two remnant outlots have been created along the north
property line of the site. These outlots are extremely small and narrow strips of land which serve
no purpose to the proposed development. Staff is recommending that these remnant outlots be
dedicated to the property owner to the north. Then, when the property develops, the outlots will
be included as a part of the lots which front onto the proposed Big Woods cul-de-sac.
PARK DEDICATION
COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN: The.City's Comprehensive Park Plan identifies Carver
Beach Park as the neighborhood park facility that will serve Big Woods on Lotus Lake.
COMPRENItENSIVE TRAIL PLAN: Big Woods on Lotus Lake will be served by a trail
connector between Carver Beach Road and Big Horn Drive that will connect pedestrians to the
city's larger trail system.
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this subdivision in June. The Director is
recommending that full park and trail fees be collected in lieu of land dedication.
TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING
Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Big Woods on Lotus Lake
development are as follows:
Total upland area (including ouflots)
Total canopy area (excluding wetlands)
Baseline canopy coverage
Minimum canopy coverage allowed
Proposed tree preservation
6.3 ac or 274,428 SF
5.8 ac or 252,648 SF
92%
55 % or 3.5 ac.
48% or 3.6 ac.
Big Woods on Lotus Lake
August 27, 2001
Page 15
The developer does meet minimum canopy coverage allowed.' This was accomplished by
reducing the right-of-way width to 50 feet. At the Planning Commission meeting, the
applicant stated that even though tree replacement is no longer required, they intend to
plant the 24 trees required under the previous plan which included a 60 foot right-of-way.
A replacement planting plan has been submitted to the city for approval. Included in the plan is
location, species and size of replacements. The applicant is proposing Norway Maples. Staff is
recommending "the applicant shall replace the Norway Maple with other Maple variety such as
Sugar, red, etc.". All replacements must meet minimum size requirements.
The existing woods consist mainly of large, mature oaks with an understory of sugar maple,
linden and ash. It's a healthy forest with very few invasive species. Development of the area
should pay special attention to protecting the root zones of the large oaks and pre~iw~g the
maple understory.
In the past, city approval has been given for variances that provide in~ tree pr ,ation. I~
this development, two adaptations to the plans could save significant mlmbers of trees. Reducing
the street width and decreasing the front yard setback would both help to ensure that many of the
large trees in the rear of the lots remain. By allowing a 50' right-of-way and 20' front yard
setbacks, over 10,000 s.f. of wooded area would be saved and would decrease the number of
replacement plantings by ten (10) trees. Not only are there visual benefits of seeing large trees
behind the houses, but the environmental benefits of reductions in CO, storm water runoff and
energy costs are far greater from mature trees than from the small young replacement plantings.
Lot Lot Lot Home
Area Widlh Depth Setback
Ordinance 15,000 non-riparian 90' 125'
20,000 riparian
BLOCK 1
Lotl
Comer LOt
LOt 2
Lot 3
Lot 4
Lot 5
17,570 139.89 147.5
15,689' 110 145.5
15,061 100 141.5
15,389 110 143.5
16,230 145 175
30' front/rear
10' sides
75' l. ake
50' Creek
30'/30'
10'
30'/30'
10'
30'/30'
10'
30'/30'
10'
30'/30'
Big Woods on Lotus Lake
August 27, 2001
Page 16
Lot 6 28,980 165 256.5
LOt 7 53,878 70 On Curve 507.5
Riparian LOt 188' Lake Frontage
LOt 8 34,653 64 On Curve 283
Riparian LOt 187' Lake Frontage
Lot 9 29,044 240 249
Ripadan Lot 188' Lake Frontage
10'
30750'
10'
30'/75'
10'
30'/75'
iff
30775'
Iff
SUBDIVISION- FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding[.' The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential
Single Family District.
.
The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding[.' The proposed subdivision is consistent with the subdivision ordinance.
.
The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding[.' The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions
specified in this report
J
The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding2 The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding2.' The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject
to conditions of approved. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas
to accommodate house pads.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Big Woods on Lotus Lake
August 27, 2001
Page 17
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but
rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
1
The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
aw
Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
Lack of adequate roads.
Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets.
As part of this plat approval, a variance to allow a 50-foot wide right-of-way was requested. The
City Council approved the variance as part of the preliminary plat after they found the application
complies with the following conditions:
Ii
4,
The hardship is not a mere inconvenience.
The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
conditions of the land.
The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally
applicable to other property.
The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is
in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and
comprehensive plan.
Finding:
The 50-foot wide right-of-way will minimi7~ environmental impact on the site and
allow the street to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood.
,RECOMMENDATION
The City Council approves the final plat for Subdivision g2001-03 with a variance to allow a 50
foot fight-of-way for Big Woods on Lotus.Lake for 9 lots as shown on the plans dated received
August 20, 2001, subject to the following conditions:
1. Storm water shall not be discharged into any wetland basin prior to pretreatment.
2~
The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreemem with the city prior to placing a
dock on Lot 7.
Big Woods on Lotus Lake
August 27, 2001
Page 18
1
The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the city prior to placing a
water oriented accessory structure on Lot 7.
1
.
All structures shall maintain a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water level of the
creek, except for one dock and one water oriented accessory structure on Lot 7. These
structures shall maintain a minimum setback of 10 feet from the ordinary high water level
on the south side of the creek and 20 feet from the ordinary high water level on the north
side of the creek. The applicant shall supply the city with a legal description of the
conservation easement.
The applicant shall provide storm water calculations.
,
Drainage and utility easement shall be provided over all existing creeks and existing and
proposed storm water ponds.
Based on the proposed developed area of 6.3 acres, the water quality fees associated with
this project are estimated at $5,040 and the water quantity fees associated with this
project are estimated at $12,474. The applic.ant has been credited for water quality
because a NURP pond is provided to treat runoff from the site. Credits have also been
given for the provision of an outlet structure. The SWMP fee has been credited $3,660
for the construction of a storm water pond providing water quality benefits for 1.45 acres
and one outlet structure. The total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording is $13,854.
8. Environmental Resource Specialist conditions:
a. The applicant shall replace the Norway Maple with other Maple variety such as
Sugar, red, etc.
b. All areas outside of grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation fencing.
Fencing shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot.
9. Building Department conditions:
10.
a. Demolition permits must be obtained from the Inspections Division before
demolishing any structures on the property.
b. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before building permits will be issued.
Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Submit proposed street name to Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval.
b. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to
Big Woods on Lotus Lake
August 27, 2001
Page 19
ensure that the fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters.
Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance gg-1.
C.
When fire protection including fire apparatus access marls and water supplies for fire
protection is required to be installed such protection shall be installed and made
serviceable prior to and during the time of consmmtion. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform
Fire Code Section 901.3.
d.
Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed
loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all
weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.2.
Because of close proximity to neighboring houses no burning permits will be issue&
Trees or shrubs to be removed shall be either chipped on site or hauled off the
property.
With regards to Lots 7 and 8, houses must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department
Policy Premise Identification referencing, if stmctm~ is not visible from the street
additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Pursuant to Chanhassen
Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy g'29-1992. Copy enclosed.
11. Park and trail fees shall be collected in lieu of land dedication pursuant to city ordinance.
12.
Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required for
each lot at the time of building permit application for city review and approval. In
addition, as-built surveys will be required on each lot prior to occupancy.
13.
If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant
will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans.
14. The pond shall be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards.
15.
The permanent utility easement around lift station #10 must be increased from a 50 foot
square area to a 60 foot square ama. In addition, a 20 foot easement for access is required
off of the proposed cul-de-sac.
16.
Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's
Type III erosion control fence, which is a heavy duty silt fence, be used for the area
adjacent to the existing creek. The final grading plan shall extend silt fence around the
north and south sides of the proposed cul-de-sac. In addition, tree preservation fencing
needs to be added around the construction limits.
Big Woods on Lotus Lake
August 27, 2001
Page 20
17.
Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standani Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans
and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be
required to enter into a development contract with the City and to supply the necessary
financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation
of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval.
18.
Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at
the time of building permit issuance.
19
Revise the final grading plan to show all proposed and existing easements along with the
normal and high water elevations of the proposed pond.
20.
The City shall evaluate the capacity of the lift station and it's ability to serve the new
development and the existing neighborhood.
21.
The sewer services for the proposed lake lots of Big Woods on Lores Lake shall be
installed with backflow preventers.
22.
Demolition permits will be required from the building department prior to removal of the
houses. The existing sewer and water services for the homes are required to be capped
and abandoned at the mains.
23.
The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for water quantity; however, water
quality calculations are still needed.
24.
In-home pressure reducing valves will be required on all lots with a lowest floor elevation
of 930 or less. This includes Lots ! and 6 through 9.
25.
Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but
not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MCES, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District, etc.
26. Work with staff to modify the construction plans in accordance with City specifications.
27.
Encroachment agreements will be required for each of the retaining walls within the
drainage and utility easements. Also, separate building permits will be required for each
wall along with engineered plans for any wall over four feet in height.
28.
Dedicate the two remnant outlots (shown as Ouflot A on the final plat) to the property
owner to the north.
Big Woods on Lotus Lake
August 27, 2001
Page 21
29.
Add a 50-foot drainage & utility easement from the centerline of the creek, on the final
plat.
30.
The City will need full-time access to the existing lift station during construction of the
project.
31. All structures shall be built in accordance with the compliance table."
ATTACHMENTS
il
Final Plat dated received August 20, 2001.
Conservation Easement Exhibit and Landscaping Plan.
0
CO
0
II
I
I
k,,j
C OF
~en, Minnesota 55317
TO:
FROM:
DAT~:
Tore, sa Burgess, D/rector of Public Works/City En~neer
Matt Saam, Project Engineer Pl~
August 22, 2001
952.93Z1900
952.93Z5739
952.93Z9152
952.934.2524
u,wuici, chat~hauen, mn.u$
SUBJ:
Approve Development Contract and Construction Plans and
Specifications for Big Woods on Lotus Lake - Project No. 01-12
The attached development contract incorporates the conditions of approval fi'om
the final platting and eonstmeti6n plans and specifications review process. Staff
has calculated the required financial security to guarantee compliance with the
terms of the development contract at $371,407 and the administration fees total of
$29,855 which includes 1/3 of the required Park/Trail fees and all SWMP fees.
The applicant has also submitt~ detailed construction plans and specifications for
staff review and City Council approval. Staff~ reviewed the plans and
specifications and finds the plans still need some minor modifi~om. Staff
requests that the City Couneil grant staff the flexibility to admiuist~vely approve
the plans a/~ work/ng with the at~licant's engineer to modify thc plans
accordingly. It is ther~for~ l'~commended th~ the construction plans and
specifications for Big Woods on Lotus Lake dated August 17, 2001, prepared by
Otto & Associates, Inc. and the development contract dated August 27, 2001 be
approved conditioned upon the following:
1. The applicant shall enter into the development contract and supply the City
with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $371,407 and pay an
administration fee of $29,855.
2. The applicant's engineer shall work with City staff in revising the construction
plans to meet City standards.
Attachments: 1. Development Contract dated August 27, 2001.
2. Co~on plans and specifications are available for
review in the Engineering Department.
3. Breakdown of administration fees dated April 3, 2001.
c: Bill Coffman, Co~ Development ~
Dave & Rachel Igel ~ NO. . -
,l ..... : ............... : ..... :,L .I .... I.~ ...... I: .... I...L . .L._.:...! ........... L--'..:.._L...: ........ J~,~..,'P~I,..I. 4 ....I~.} I: ........ L ...J,.l_.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
BIG WOODS ON LOTUS LAKE
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
PAGE
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
REQUEST FOR PLAT APPROVAL ............................................................................ SP-1
CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL ........................................................................ SP-1
DEVELOPMENT PLANS ......................................................... -. .................................. SP-1
IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................................ SP-2
TI/vIE OF PERFORMANCE .......................................................................................... SP-2
SECURITY ................................................................................................................... SP-2
NOTICES ........................................................................................................................ SP-3
OTHER SPECIAL CONDITIONS ................................................................................ SP-3
GENERAL CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ SP-6
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
7A.
Si
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
RIGHT TO PROCEED ................................................................................................. GC-1
PHASE DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................... GC-1
EFFECT OF SUBDMSION APPROVAL .................................................................. GC-1
IMPROVEMENTS ................. ; ..... ~.: ............................................................................. GC-1
IRON MONUMENTS .................................................................................................. GC-2
LICENSE ...................................................................................................................... GC-2
SITE EROSION CONTROL ........................................................................................ GC-2
EROSION CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELI.~G OR OTI-IF_~
BUTt.DING .................................................................................................................... GC-2
CLEAN UP .............................................................................. , .................................... GC-2
ACCEPTANCE AND OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS .................................... GC-2
CLAIMS .............................. ~ ......................................................................................... GC-3
PARK AND TRAH. DEDICATION ............................................................................ GC-3
LANDSCAPING .......................................................................................................... GC-3
WARRANTY ........................................................................ ; ...................................... GC-4
LOT PLANS ................................................................................................................. GC-4
EX]STING ASSESSMENTS ....................................................................................... GC~
HOOK-UP CHARGES ................................................................................................. GC-4
PUBLIC STREET LIGHTING .............. - ................ . .......................................... GC-4
SIGNAGE .......................... : .................................................... ~ ......... : .............. : ............ GC-4
HOUSE'PADS .......................... ~ ....... : ........................................................... i ....... ~ ....... GC-4
RESPONSIBII.ITY FOR COSTS ................................................................................. GC~
DEVELOPER'S DEFAULT ........................................................................ ~ ................ GC-6
MISCELLANEOUS
A. Construction Trailers ........................................................................................ GC-6
B. Postal S~rvic¢ .................................................................................................... GC-6
C. Third Parties ...................................................................................................... GC-6
D. Breach of Contract ............................................................................................ GC-6
E. Severability ....................................................................................................... GC-6
Fi
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.
X.
Y.
Building Permits ............................................................................................... GC-6
Waivers/Amendments ....................................................................................... GC-7
Release .............................................................................................................. GC-?
Insurance ........................................................................................................... GC-7
Remedies ........................................................................................................... GC-7
Assignability ..................................................................................................... GC-?
Construction Hours ........................................................................................... GC-7
Noise Amplification ....................................................... . ................................... GC-8
Access ........................................................................... : .............. ~ .................... GC-8
Street Maintenance ............................................................................................ GC-8
Storm Sewer Maintenance ................................................................................ GC-8
Soil Treatment Systems .................................................................................... GC-8
Variances ........................................................................................................... GC-8
Compliance xvith Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations ...................................... GC-9
Proof of Title...' .................................................................................................. GC-9
Soil Conditions ................................................................................................. GC-9
Soil Correction .................................................................................................. GC-9
Haul Routes ............................................................................................................ GC-9
Development Signs .....: .......................................................................................... GC-9
Construction Plans ........................................................................................... J...GC-10
ii
CITY OF CItANHASSEN
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
BIG WOODS ON LOTUS LAKE
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
AGREEMENT dated August 27, 2001 by and between the crrY OF CHANHASSEN, a
Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), .and DAVID IGEL and RACHEL IGEL, husband
and wife (the "Developer").
1. Request for Plat Approval The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for
BIG WOODS ON LOTUS LAKE (refcaxed to in this Contxact as the "plat"). The land is legally
described on the attached Exhibit "A".
2. Conditions of Hat Approval The City hereby approves the plat on condition that
the Developer enter into this Contract and furnish the security required by it.
3. Development Plans. The plat shall be developed in accordance with the following
plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract With the exception of Plan A, the plans
may be prepared, subject to City approval, af~ entering the Contract, but before commencement of
any work in the plat. If the plans vary from the wrillen terms of this Contract, the written tea'ms
shall control. The plans are:
Plan A:
Final plat approved. August 27, 2001, prepared by Otto & Associates.
Plan B:
Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan dated August 17, 2001, prepared by
Otto & Associates.
Plan C:
Plans and Specifications for Improvements dated August 17, 2001, prepared by Otto
& Associates.
Plan D:
Landscape Plan dated August 20, 2001, prepared by Otto & Associates.
SP-1
4. Improvements. The Developer shall install a~d pay for the following:
A. Sanitary Sewer System
B. Water System
C. Storm Water Drainage System
D. Streets
E. Concrete Charb and Gutter
F. SWeet Lights
G. Site Grading/~estoration
H. Underground Utilities (e.g. gas, electric, telephone, CATV)
I. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments
J. Surveying and Staking
K. Landscapiug
L. Erosion Control
5. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required improvements by
August 15, 2002. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an
extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to
reflect cost increases and the extended completion date.
6. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Contract, payment of
special assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements, and' construction of all public
improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit from a bank or cash
escrow ("security") for $371~407.00. The amount of the security was calculated as 110% of the
following:
Site Grading/Restoration
$ 76,600.00
Sanitary Sewer
$ 50,309.00
Watermain $ 35,190.00
Storm Sewer, Drainage System, including cleaning and maintenance
$. 24,600.00
Streets $ 100,690.00
Street lights and signs
'$ 1,900.00
Erosion control $ 6,750.00
Engineering, surveying, and inspection
$. 29,604.00
Landscaping $ 12,000.00
TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC I3IPROVEMENTS
$ 337.643.00
SP-2
This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. The
security shall be subject to the approval of the City. The security shall be for a term ending
December 30, 2002. The City may draw down the security, without notice, for any violation of the
terms of this Contract. If the required public improvements are not completed at least thirty (30)
days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down. If the security is drawn
down, the draw shall be used to cure the default. With City approval, the security may be reduced
from time to time as financial obligations are paid, but in no case shall the security be reduced to a.
point less than 10% of the original amount until all improvements are complete and accepted by the
City.
7. Notice. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing and ahall be either
hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered
mail at the following address:
David & Rachel Igel
6195 Strawberry Lane
Shorewood, MN 55331
Phone: (952) 920-8300
Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or
mailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Manager at the following address:
Chanhassen City Hall, 690 City Center Drive, P.O. Box 147, Ctmnhassen, Minnesota 55317,
Telephone (952) 937-1900.
8. Other Special Conditions.
A. Storm water shall not be discharged into any wetland basin prior to prel~.,atment.
B,
The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the city prior to placing a
dock on Lot 7.
el
D.
The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the city prior to placing a
water oriented accessory structure on Lot 7.
All stmctta'es shall maintain a 50 foot setback fi'om the ordinary high water level of the
creek, except for one dock and one water oriented accessory stmcmm on Lot 7. These
structures shall maintain a minimum setback of 10 feet from the ordinary high water level
on the south side of the creek and 20 feet from the ordinary high water level on the north
side of the creek. The applicant shall supply the city with a legal description of the
conservation easement.
E. The applicant shall provide storm water calculations.
SP-3
F1
G.
H.
Drainage and utility easement shall be provided over all existing creeks and existing and
proposed storm water ponds.
Based on the proposed developed area of 6.3 acres, the water quality fees associated with
this project are estimated at $5,040 and the water quantity fees associated with this
project are estimated at $12,474. The applicant has been credited for water quality
because a NURP pond is provided to treat runoff from the site. Credits have also been
given for the provision of an outlet structure. The SWMP fee has been credited $3,660
for the construction of a storm water pond providing water quality benefits for 1.45 acres
and one outlet structure. The total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording is $13,854.
Environmental Resource Specialist conditions:
1. The applicant shall replace the Norway Maple with other Maple variety such as
Sugar, red, etc.
2. All areas outside of grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation fencing.
Fencing shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot.
Building Department conditions:
1. Demolition permits must be obtained from the Inspections Division before
demolishing any structures on the property.
2. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before building permits will be issued.
Fire Marshal conditions:
1. Submit proposed street name to Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval.
,
A 1 O-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to
ensure that the fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters.
Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire
protection is required to be installed such protection shall be installed and made
serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform
Fire Code Section 901.3.
.
Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed
loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all
weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.2.
SP-4
L.
M,
N.
O.
P,
Q,
R.
S.
.
Because of close pro×imity to neighboring houses no burning permits will be issued.
Trees or shrubs to be removed shall be either chipped on site or hauled off the
property.
.
With regards to Lots 7 and 8, houses must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department
Policy Premise Identification referencing, if structure is not visible from the street
additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Pursuant to Chanhsssen
Fire DepartmenffFire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed.
Park and trail fees shall be collected in lieu of land dedication pursuant to city ordinance.
Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required for
each lot at the time of building permit application for city review and approval. In
addition, as-built surveys will be required on each lot prior to occupancy.
If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant
will be required to supply the City with detailed haul mutes and traffic control plans.
The pond shall be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standaxds.
The permanent utility easement around ~ station #10 must be increased from a 50 foot
square area to a 60 foot square are~ In addition, a 20 foot easement for access is required
off of the proposed cul-de-sac.
Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in aceo~ce with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BM?H). Staff recommends that the City's
Type Iff erosion control fence, which is a heavy duty silt fence, be used for the area
adjacent to the existing creek. The final grading plan shall extend silt fence around the
north and south sides of the proposed cul-de,-sac. In addition, tree preservation fencing
needs to be added around the construction limits.
Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans
and specifications will be requix~ at the time of final p~g, .The applicant will also be
required to enter into a development contract with the City and to supply the.necess~ '
financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee ~on
of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval.
Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at
the time of building permit issuance.
Revise the final grading plan to show all proposed and existing easements along with the
normal and high water elevations of the proposed pond.
SP-5
Ti
U,
V.
W,
Xl
Y,
Z,
AAa
BB.
The City shall evaluate the capacity of the lift station and it's ability to serve the new
development and the existing neighborhood.
The sewer services for the proposed lake lots of Big Woods on Lotus Lake shall be
installed with backflow preventers.
Demolition permits will be required from the building department prior to removal of the
houses. The existing sewer and water services for the homes are required to be capped
and abandoned at the mains.
The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for water quantity; however, water
quality calculations are still needed.
In-home pressure reducing valves will be required on all lots with a lowest floor elevation
of 930 or less. This includes Lots 1 and 6 through 9.
Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but
not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, MCES, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District, etc.
Work with staff to modify the construction plans in accordance with City specifications.
Encroachment agreements will be required 'for each of the retaining walls within the
drainage and utility easements. Also, separate building permits will be required for each
wall along with engineered plans for any wall over four feet in height.
Dedicate the two remnant outlots (shown as Outlot A on the final plat) to the property
owner to the north.
CC. Add a 50-foot drainage & utility easement from the centerline of the creek, on the final
plat.
DD. The City will need full-time access to the existing lift station during construction of the
project.
EE. All structures shall be built in accordance with the compiiance table.
9. General Conditions. The general conditions of this Contract, approved by the City
Council on February 23, 1998 are attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein.
SP-6
(SEAL)
CITY OF CHANI-IASS~
BY:
Linda C. 1arisen, l~yor
Todd ~t, City Manager
DEVF_I,OPER: David & Rachel Igel
BY:
David Igel
BY:
Rachel Igel
STATE OF MINNF_,SOTA )
(ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
.
The foregoing instnm~ent was acknowledged before me this ~ day of
2001, by Linda C. Jansen, Mayor, and by Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen,
a Minnesota municipal coi'poration, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority
granted by its City Council.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss.
COUNTY OF )
NOTARY PUBLIC
20
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of
by
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 937-1900
NOTARY PUBLIC
SP-7
EXI-HBIT
TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBIECT PROPERTY:
Torrens Certificate No.
Beginning at a point in the centerline of Lakeview Drive, distant 352.023 feet on a bearing of South 22
degrees 21 minutes 40 seconds East from the point formed by the intersection of the centerline of Fern Road
and Lakeview Drive and rtmning from thence South 89 degrees 31 mutes 29 seconds East 965 plus or
minus feet along the line of lands now or formerly of Arnold J. Chulik to the high water mark of Long Lake;
thence in a Southeasterly direction along the high water mark of Long Lake 115 plus or minus feet to a point
100 feet at right angles to the first course when said course is projected Easterly; thence North 89 degrees 31
minutes 29 seconds West 1187 plus or minus feet along lands now or formerly of Dr. Evar F. Wessel to the
centerline of Lakeview Drive; thence North 22 degrees 21 minutes 40 seconds West 108.505 feet to the
point or place of beginning. Containing 2.37 ages. Being a part of Government Lot No. 6, Section 12,
Township 116, Range 23.
Torrens Certificate No.
All that part of the Northwest Quarter (NW ¼) of the Northwest Quarter (NW ¼) and all that part of U.S.
Government Lot No. 6 in Section Twelve (12), Township One Hundred Sixteen (116) North Range TwentY-
Three (23) West of the 5~' Principal Meridian, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows, to wit:
Commencing at a point in the center of Lakeview Drive, distant 460.528 feet on a bearing of South
22 degrees 21 minutes 40 seconds east from the point formed by the intersection of the centerlines
of Fern Road and said Lakeview Drive, as said Lakeview Drive and said Fern Road appear upon
and according to the recorded plat of Carver Beach at Long Lake, Carver County, Minnesota, which
said point of beginning is two hundred (200) feet south of the north line of said Section Twelve
(12); thence south 89 degrees 31 minutes 29 seconds east to Lotus Lake or Long Lake; thence
southeasterly along the shore of said Lotus or Long Lake to a point where said shore intersects a
line south of parallel to and two hundred (200) feet distant from the first course, if extended; thence
north 89 degrees 31 minutes 29 seconds west to a point which would be in the centerline of said
Lakeview Drive if it were projected southeasterly; thence north 22 degrees 21 minutes 40 seconds
west 217.01 feet, more or less, to the place of beginning; together with all riparian rights
appurtenant to said tract. It is the intention of-the parties of the first part to convey a strip of land
two hundred (200) feet wide having a northerly and southeHy line parallel to. one another extending
from th6 center line of Lakeview Drive if projected southeasterly to the shore of Long Lake or
Lotus Lake. Reserving, however, from the above-described parcel a strip of land 20 feet wide and
217.01 feet long along the westerly line of said parcel for a permanent right of way for said
Lakeview Drive when and if extended.
EXCEPT: All that part lying South of a line parallel to equi-distant from the North and South lines
thereof and West of a line at right angles to the South line thereof which line intersects said South
line at a point distant 421.63 feet East, measured along said South line, from the Southwest comer
of above described property.
SP-8
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
EXHIBIT "B"
.GENERAl.. CONDmONS
1. Right to Proceed. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not
grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, consmm sewer lines, water lines, streets,
utilities, public or private improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have
been satisfied: 1) this agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City
Clerk, 2) the necessary security and fees have been received by the City, 3) the plat has been
recorded with the County Recorder's Office of the County where the plat is located, and 4) the City
Engineer has issued a letter that the foregoing conditions have been satisfied and then the
Developer may proceed.
2. Phased Development. If the plat is a phase of a mulfiphased preliminary plat, the
City may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent phases if the Developer has breached this
Contract and the breach has not been remedied. Development of subsequent phases may not
proceed until Development Contracts for such phases are approved by the City.
3. Effect of Subdivision Approval. For two (2) years from the date of this Contract,
no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the
current urban service area, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density,
lot size, lot layout or dedications of the approved plat unless required by state or federal law or
agreed to in writing by thc City and thc Developer. Thezeathga', notwithstanding anything in this
Contract to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law thc City may require compliance
with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedication
requirements enacted ~ the date of this Contract.
4. Improvements. The imrm3vements specified in the Special Provisions of this
Contract shall be installed in accordance with City standards, ordimmces, and plans and
specifications which have been prepared and signed by a competent register~ professional
engineer furnished to the City and approved by the City En~neer. The Developer shall obtain all
necessary permits from the Metropolitan Coundl ~nvironm~ Services and other pertinent
agencies before proceeding with consmmtion- The City will, at the Developer's expense, have one
or more construction inspectors and a soil engineer inspect the Work on a full or part-time basis.
The Developer shall also provide a qualified inspector to perform site inspections on a daily basis.
Inspector qualifications shall be submitted in writing to the City Engineer. The Developer shall
instruct its project engineer/inspector to respond to questions from the City Inspector(s) and to
make periodic site visits to satisfy that the construction is being performed to an acceptable level of
quality in accordance with the engineer's design. The Developer or his engin~ shall schedule a
preeonstmction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at the City Council chambers with all parties
concerned, including the City staff, to review the program for the construction work.
5. Iron Monuments. Before the security for the completion of utilities is released, all
monuments must be correctly placed in the ground in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 505.02, Subd.
1. The Developers surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments
have been installed.
6. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and
contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the
City in conjunction with plat development.
7. Site Erosion Control Before the site is rough graded, and before any utility
construction is commenced or building permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be
implemented, inspected, and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control
requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling
operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. Except as
otherwise provided in the erosion control plan, seed shall be certified seed to provide a temporary
ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched, and disc
anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in
controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule of
supplementary instructions received f~om the City, the City may take such action as it deems
appropriate to control erosion at the Developer's expense. The City will endeavor to notify the
Developer in.advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the
Developers and City's rights or obligations hereunder. No development will be allowed and no
building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the erosion control
requirements. Erosion control needs to be maintained until vegetative cover has been restored,
even if construction has been completed and accepted. After the site has been stabilized to where,
in the opinion of the City, there is no longer a need for erosion control, the City will authorize the
removal of the erosion control, i.e. hay bales and silt fence. The Developer shall remove and
dispose of the erosion control measures.
7a. Erosion Control During Construction of a Dwelling or Other Building. Before
a building permit is issued for construction of a dwelling or other building on a lot, a $500.00 cash
escrow or letter of credit per lot shall also be furnished the City to guarant~ compliance with City
Code § 20-94.'
8. Clean up. The Developer shall maintain a neat and orderly work site and shall daily
clean, on and off site, dirt and debris, including blowables, fi'om streets and the surrounding area
that has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assi~.
9. Acceptance and Ownership of Improvements. Upon completion and acceptance
by the City of the work and construction required by this Contract, the improvements lying within
public easements shall become City property. After completion of the improvements, a
representative of the contractor, and a representative of the Developers en~ueer will make a final
inspection of the work with the City Engineer. Before the City accepts the impmve~nents, the City
Engineer shall be satisfied that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved
plans and specifications and the Developer and his engineer shall sutznit a written statement to the
City Engineer certi~.ng that the project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans
and specifications. The appropriate contractor waivers shall also be provided. Final acceptance of
the public improvements shall be by City Council resolution_
10. Claims. In the event that the City receives claims from laborers, mate~ialm~ or
others that work required by this Contract has been p~fformed, the sums due them have not been
paid, and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seoking payment out of the finan~ guarantees
posted with the City, and if the claims are not resolved at least ninety (90) days before'the security
required by this Contract will expire, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an
Interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts,
to draw upon the letters of credit in an mount up to 125% of the claim(s) and deposit the funds in
compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and
dismiss the City from any further pro~ as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the
District Court, except that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attom~' fees.
11. Park and Trail Dedication. At the time of issuance of building permits for
construction, the Developer, its mw. cessors or assigns, shall'pay to the City the park and trail
dedication fees then in force pmmmnt to Chanhassen City Ordinances and City Council resolutions.
One-thkd (1/3) of the park and trail cash contribtrdon shall be paid contemporaneously with the
City's approval of the subdivision_ The balance, calculated as follows, shall be paid at the time
building pemfits are issued: rate in effect when a building pea'mit is issued minus the amount
previously paid.
12. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be installed in acco~ce with Plan D. Trees
which can cause a public nuisance, such as cotton producing trees, or can be a public hazm~ such
as bug infestation or weak bark, are prohibited. The minimum tree size shall be two and one-half
(2½) inches caliper, either bare root in season, or balled and burial, ed. The trees may not be
planted in the boulevard (area between curb and property line). In addition to any sod required as a
part of the erosion control plan, Plan B, the Developer or lot purchaser shall sod the boulevard area
and all drainage ways on each lot utilizing a minimum of four (4) inches of topsoil as a base. Seed
or sod shall also be placed on all disturbed areas of the lot. If these i .mpmvements are not in place
at the time a certificate of occupancy is reques~ a finmacial guarantee` of $750.00 in the form of
cash or letter of credit shall be provided to the City. These conditions must-then be complied with
within two (2) months 'att~ the certifi~ of occupancy issued, except that if the ceifificate of
occupancy is issued between October I through May I these conditions must be complied with by
the following July 1st Upon expiration of the time period, inspections will be conducted by City
staff to verify satisfactory completion of all conditions. City staff will conduct inspections of
incomplete items with a $50.00 inspection fee deducted fa'om the escrow fund for each inspection_
A_tier satisfactory inspection, the financial guarautee shall be returned. If the requirements are not
satisfied, the City may use the security to satisfy the requirements. The City may also use the
escrowed funds for maintenance of erosion control ptastmat to City Code Section 20-94 or to
satisfy any other requirements of this Contract or of City ordimmees. These requirements
supplement, but do not replace, specific landscaping conditions that may have been required by the
City Council for project approval.
13. Warranty. The Developer warrants all work required to be performed by it against
poor material and faulty workmamhip for a period of two (2) years a_eter its completion and
acceptance by the City. All trees, grass, and sod shall be warranted to be alive, of good quality, and
disease free at the time of planting. All landscape plantings shall be warmuted for eighteen (18)
months from the time of formal acceptance by the City. The Developer or his contractor(s) shall
post a letter of credit or other security acceptable to the City to secure the warranties at the time Of
final acceptance. The security amount shall be 100% of the total construction cost.
14. Lot Plans. Prior to the issuance of building permits, an acceptable Grading,
Drainage, Erosion Control including silt fences, and Tree Removal Plan shall be submitted for each
lot for review and approval by the City En~neer. Each plan shall assure that drainage is maintained
away from buildings and that tree removal is consistent with development plans and City
Ordinance.
15. Existing Assessments. Any existing assessments against the plat will be re-spread
against the plat in accordance with City standards.
16. Hook-up Charges. The Developer also acknowledges overall sanitary sewer and
water tnmk availability to the site and the hook-up charges established by the' City as reasonable
compensation for oversizing costs previously incurred, as well as, long-term maintenance. Said
hook-up charges are collectible at time of building permit unless a written request is made to assess
the costs over a four year term at the rates in effect at time of application.
17. Public Street Lighting. The Developer shall have installed and pay for public
street lights in accordance with City standards. A plan shall be submitted for the City Engineer's
approval prior to the installation. Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall pay the
City a fee of $300.00 for each street light installed in the plat. The fee shall be used by the City for
furnishing electricity for each public street light for twenty (20) months.
18. Signage. All street signs, traffic signs, and wetland monumentation required by the
City as a part of the plat shall be furnished and installed by the City at the sole expense of the
Developer.
19; House Pads. The Developer shall promptly furnish the City "as-built" plans '
indicating the amount, type and limits of fill on any house pad location.
20. Responsibility for Costs.
A. The Developer shall pay an administrative fee in conjunction with the
installation of the plat improvements. This fee is to cover the cost of City Staff time and overhead
for items such as review of construction documents, preparation of the Development Contract,
monitoring construction progress, processing pay requests, processing security reductions, and final
acceptance of improvements. This fee does not cover the City's cost for consm~en im~ections.
The fee shall be calculated as follows:
i)
if the cost of the constn~on of public improvements is less than
$~00,000, three percent (3%) of construction costs;
if the cost of the constm~on of public improvements is between
$500,000 and $1,000,000, three percent (3%) of construction costs
for the first $500,000 snd two percent (2%) of construction costs
over $500,000;
iii)
if the cost of the construction of public improvements is over
$1,000,000, two and one-half p~r. ent (2½%) of constn~on costs
for the first $1,000,000 and one and one-half percent (1½%) of
construction costs over $1,000,000.
Before the City si~ the final plat, the Developer shall deposit with the City a fee based upon
construction estimates. After construction is completed, the final fee shall be ~ined based
upon actual construction costs. The cost of public improvements is defined in paragraph 6 of the
Special Provisions.
B. In addition to the administrative fee., tho Developer shall reimburse the City for
all costs incurred by the City for providing construction inspections. This cost will be periodically
billed directly to thc Developer based on the actual progress of the construction_ Payment shall be
due in accordance with Article 20E ofthi~ Agreement.
C. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless fix)m
claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting fi'om plat
approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its office~ and employees
for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims,
including attomcys' fees.
D. In addition to the adminismm've fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for
costs incun'ed in the enforcement of this Conm~ includi~ en~n~ and attorneys' fees.
E. The Developer shall pay in full all billg submitted to it by the City for obligations
incm'red under this Contract within thirty (30) days ~ receipt. If the bills are not paid on time,
the City may halt all .plat development work and co--on, including but not limited to the
issuance of building permits for lots which the Developer may or may not have sold, until the bills
are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accnm interest at the rate of 8% per year.
F. In addition to the charges and special assessments referred to herdn, other
charges and special assessments may be imposed such as, but not limited to, sewer availability
charges ("SAC"), City water connection charges, City sewer connection charges, and building
permit fees.
G. Private Utilities. The Developer shall have installed and pay for the installation
of electrical, natural gas, telephone, and cable television service in conjunction with the overall
development improvements. These services shall be provided in accordance with each of the
respective franchise agreements held with the City.
H. The developer shall pay the City a fee established by City Council resolution,
to reimburse the City for the cost of updating the City's base maps, GIS data base files, and
converting the plat and record drawings into an electronic format.
21. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work
to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer
shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is
first given notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This Contract is a
license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for
permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its
other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part.
22. Miscellaneous.
A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on-site construction trailers and temporary
job site offices shall be approved by the City Engineer as a part of the pre-construction meeting for
installation of public improvements. Trailers shall be removed from the-subject property within
thirty (30) days following the acceptance of the public improvements unless otherwise approved by
the City Engineer.
B. Postal Service. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of postal
service in accordance with the local Postmaster's request.
C. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this
Contract. The City is not a guarantor of the Developer's obligations under this Contract. The City
shall have no responsibility or liability to lot purchasers or others for the City's failure to enforce
this Contract or for allowing deviations from it.
D. Breach of Contract. Breach of the terms of this Contract by the Developer
shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. The City may
also issue a stop work order halting all plat development until the breach has been cured and the
City has received satisfactory assurance that the breach will not reoccur.
E. Severability. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or
phrase of this Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portion of this Contract.
F. Building Permits. Building permits will not be issued in the plat until sanitary
sewer, watermain, and storm sewer have been installed, tested, and accepted by the City, and the
streets needed for access have been paved with a bituminous ~ and the site graded and
revcgetated in acco~ce with Plan B of tho developmeat plans.
G. Waivers/Amendments. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a
waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, am~ents or waivers
shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council.
The Ci~s failure to promptly take legal action to enforce thi~ Contract shall not be a waiver or
release.
H. Release. This Contract shall nm with the land and may be recorded against the -
title to the property. After the Developer has completed the work required of'it under this Contract,
at the Developer's request the City Manager will issue a Certificate of Compliance. Prior to the
issuance of such a certifi~, individual lot owners may make as written request for a certificate
applicable to an individual lot allowing a minimum of ten (10) days for processi_'ng.
L Insurance. Developer shall take out and maintain until six (6) months after the
City has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering
personal injury, including death, and claims for prop~ damage which may arise out of
Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any
of them. Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than $500,000 for one person and
$1,000,000 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less than $500,000 for each
occurrence; or a combination single limit policy orS1,000,000 or more. The City shall be named as
an additional insured on the policy, and the Developer shall file with the City a certifi~
evidencing coverage prior to the City signing the plat. The certificate shall provide that the City
must be given ten (10) days advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance. The
certificate may not contain any disclaimer for fifil~ to give the required notice.
$. Remedies. Each right, power or remedy herein confeaxed upon the City is
cumulative and in addition to every other fight, power or remedy, expressed or implied, now or
hereafl~ arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and
every fight, power and remedy herein set fo~da or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time
to time as oi~n and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver
of the fight to exercise at any time thema/t~r any other fight, power or remedy.
K. Assignability. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written.
permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall-continue in full.force
and effect even'if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part ofit~
L. Construction Hours. Consmm'fion hours for required improvements under this
contract shall be from 7:00 a.m_ to 6:00 p.m_ on weekdays, from 9:00 am. to 5:00 p.m_ on
Saturdays with no such activity allowed on Sundays or any reco~i?~xl legal holidays. Under
emergency conditions, this limitation may be waived by the consent of the City Engineer. Any
approved work performed af~ dark shall be adequately illuminated. If co~on occurs outside
of the pemfitted construction hours, the Developer shall pay the following adminislxafive penalties:
First violation $
Second violation $
Third & subsequent violations
500.00
1,000.00
All sit~ developrnmat and
con~lmcfion n~st ~
for se~n (7) calendar days
M. Noise Amplification. The use of outdoor loudspeakers, bullhorns, intercoms,
and similar devices is prohibited in conjunction with the construction of homes, buildings, and the
improvements required under this contract. The administrative penalty for violation of construction
hours shall also apply to violation of the provisions in-this paragraph.
N. Access. All access to the plat prior to the City accepting the roadway
improvements shall be the responsibility of the Developer regardless if the City has issued building
permits or occupancy permits for lots within the plat.
O. Street Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for all street
maintenance until streets within the plat are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be plac~ by
the Developer when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on same .and
directing attention to detours. If streets become impassable, the City may order that such streets
shall be ban-leaded and closed. The Developer shall maintain a smooth roadway surface' and
provide proper surface drainage. The Developer may request, in writing, that the City plow snow
on the streets prior to final acceptance of the streets. The City shall have complete discretion to
approve or reject the request. The City shall not be responsible for reshaping or damage to the
street base or utilities because of snow plowing operations. The provision of City snow plowing
service does not constitute final acceptance of the streets by the City.
P. Storm Sewer Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for cleaning and
maintenance of the storm sewer system (including ponds, pipes, catch basins, culverts and swales)
within the plat and the adjacent off-site storm sewer system that receives storm water from the plat.
The Developer shall follow all instructions it receives from the City concerning the cleaning and
maintenance of the storm sewer system. The Developer's obligations under this paragraph shall end
two (2) years after the public street and storm drainage improvements in the plat have been
accepted by the City.
Q. Soil Treatment S~tems. If soil treatment systems are required, the Developer
shall clearly identi.fy in the field and protect from alteration, unless suitable alternative sites are first
provided, the two soil treatment sites identified during the platting process for each lot. · This shall
be done prior.to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Any violation/disturbance of these sites shall
render them as unacceptable and replacement sites will need to be located for each violated site in
order to obtain a building permit.
R. Variances. By approving the plat, the Developer represents that all lots in the
plat are buildable without the need for variances from the City's ordinance&
S. Compliance with Laws, Ord~n_ances, ~d Regul~fionu. In the development of the
plat the Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and mgulatiom of the following
authorities:
1. City of Chanhass~
2. State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and commism'ons;
3. United States Army Corps of Engineers;
4. Watershed District(s);
5. Metropolitan Government, its agencies, deparlments and commissions.
T. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall furnish the City with evidence
satisfactory to the City that it has the authority of the fee owners and contract for deed purchasers to
enter into this Development Contract.
U. Soil Conditions. The Developer acknowledges that the City makes no
representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the property or its fimess for
construction of the improvements or any other purpose for which the Developer may make use of
such property. The Developer further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the
City, its governing body members, officem, and employees fi'om arty claims or actions arising out of
the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or-pollutants on the property, unless hazardous wastes or
pollutants were caused to be there by the City.
V. Soil Correction. The Developer shall be respon~ble for soft correction work on
the property. The City makes no representation to the Developer concerning the nature of
suitability of soils nor the cost of correcting any unsuitable soft conditions which may exist. On lots
which have no fill material a soils report from a qualified soils engineer is not required unless the
City's building inspection department determines from observation that there may be a soils
problem. On lots with fill material that have been mass graded as part of a multi-lot grading
project, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils engineer shall be provided before the City
issues a building permit for the lot. On lots with fill material that have been custom graded, a
satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils en~neer shall be provided before the City inspects the
foundation for a building on the lot.
W. Haul Routes. Bluff Creek Drive from Trunk Highway 212 to Pioneer Trail
(CSAH 14) may not be used by the Developer, the Developer's contractors or subcontractors as a
haul route for the import or export of soil, construction mated.al, 'construction equipment or
construction debris, or any other purpose.
X. Development Signs. The Developer shall post a six foot by dight foot
development sign in accordance with City Detail Plate No. 5313 at each entrance to the project.
The sign shall be in place before construction of the required improvements commences and
shall be removed when the required improvements are completed, except for the final lffi of
asphalt on streets. The si~.q shall contain the following information: project name, name of
developer, developer's telephone number and designated contact person, allowed commuction
hours.
Y. Construction Plans. Upon final plat approval, the developer shall provide the
City with two complete sets of full-size construction plans and four sets of 11"x17" reduced
construction plan sets and three sets of specifications. Within sixty (60) days after the completion
of the utility improvements and base course pavement and before the security is released, the
Developer shall supply the City with the following: (1) a complete set of reproducible Mylar
as-built plans, (2) two complete full-size sets of blue line as-built plans, (3) two complete sets of
utility tie sheets, (4) location of buried fabric used for soil stabili~.ation,. (5) location stationing and.
swing ties of all utility stubs including draintile cleanouts, and (6) bench mark network. The
Developer is required to submit the final plat in electronic format. The electronic format shall be
either AutoCAD.DWG file or a .DXF file. All construction'record drawings (e.g., grading, utilities,
streets) shall be in electronic format in acco~ce with standard City specifications.
Z. As-Built Lot Survey. An as-built lot survey will be required on all lots prior to
the Certificate of Occupancy being issued. The as-built lot survey must be prepared, signed, and
dated by a Registered Land Surveyor.
GC-IO
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BIG WOODS ON LOTUS LAKE
PROJECT NO. 01-12
BREAKDOWN OF ADMINISTRATION FEES- 8/22/01
Estimated Total Cost of Public Improvements
$ 325,643.00
3% of Public Improvement Costs (up to $500,000)
$ 9,769.00
Street Lighting Charge (for electricity)
3 Light(s) @ $300.00
$ 900.00
Final Plat Process (Attorney Fee for Review and Recording of
Plat and Development Contract)
$ 450.00
Recording Fees
a. Development Contract
b. Plat Filing
c. Conservation Easement
$ 30.00
$ 3O.OO
$ 3O.OO
One-Third Park Fee
7 Lots @ $1,500/3
$ 3,500.00
One-Third Trail Fee
7 Lots @ $500/3
$ 1,167.00
Surface Water Management Fee
$ 13,854.00
GIS Fee ($25/plat and $10/parcel)
$ 125.00
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION FEES
$ 29,855.00
Big Woods. FEE
CITYOF
CHANHA
95ZgszIgO0
C, tnerd Fax
952.93Z5739
952.937.91~
952.934.2524
l~$ite
unvu~ d. d~ n hauen, mn. us
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Teresa J. Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Bill Bement, Engineering Technician IV~
August 22, 2001
Accept Utility Improvements in White Oak Addition
Project No. 00-10
Staffhas received a letter from Martin Campion, Project Engiaeer with Otto &
Associates, requesting the City consider acceptance of the utility improvements in
the abovo-mf~ project. According to Mr. Campion, the public utility
improvements have be~m complected in conformance with the ~rov~ plans and
specific~ons. City staffpa'fo~ a walk-through inspection of the project and
found the utilities are in safishctory condition- All testing has been mmc, essfully
completed as well
It is therefore recommended that the City Council accept the public utility
improvements in White Oak Addition, Project No. 00-1 O, for perpetual maintenance
and ownership conditioned upon the completion of all remaining utility punch list
items and the receipt of the required two-year maintenance bond.
jms
Attachments: 1. Location M~.
c:
Matt Saam, Project Engineer
Mr. Bill Coffman, Coffman Dovelopmeat
Mallin Campion, Otto & Associat~
A
WHITE OAK ADDITION
7100
75OO
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
PO &o:147
~ M~ 55317
95293Z1900
952.93Z5739
952.93Z9152
952.934.2524
Web Site
MF. MORANDUM
'TO:
FROM:
Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Eng/neer
Bill Bement, Engineering Technician IV/ln~ector
DATE: August 17, 2001
SUB J:
Accept Public Slreets and Storm Sewer- Marsh Glen
Project No. 00-06
Staffhas received a letter from Mr. Jonathan Faraci, Project Engineer with
Development Engineering Company, the City consider acc tance of the
public street and storm sewer improvements in the above-refa'enc~ project
According to Mr. Faraci, the public street and storm sewer improvements have been
completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.
It is therefore recommended that the City Council accept the public street and storm
sewer improvements in Marsh Glen for perpeh~ maintenau~ and ownm'ship
contingent upon completing any outstanding punch list items and rec~pt of an
acccp~lc maintenance bond.
jms
Attac~en~: 1. Location map.
c: Matt Saam, Project Eni/neer
gNmgymjccls~mrsh glm~ux~pt public util/t/e~.doc
i · i
__
Approved by C,'ty Engineer
Date -~lz,lm ~
--
Approved by City Council
!
~ ~e~#..4 ~,a~ud~ ~n, munitr ,v/t/, dean kin. ~alin, ~ a ~ d,,,i,,,t,~,,,,, tl../,h,, Iud,,,,,,,. ,od k~,t~l ~n~ ,~ ~ ,la,.. ~ #,. ,,,,,d, ,,,,I,1,,.
MARSH GLEN 00-06
C 0F
690 C~ ~ Dri~e
PO &x147
'.figafim~ Minnestt~ 55317
952.95Z1900
Genentl F~x
952.937.5739
952.93Z9152
952.934.2524
~nad. d~hm,n, mn. us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ':
Teresa J. Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engin~
August 20, 2001
Approve Change Order Request from TMI for the Lake Lucy
Water Reservoir Project No. 00-02
REQUESTED ACTION
City Council is recommended to approve a change order to the Construction
Contract for the Lake Lucy Water Reservoir in the amount of $3,555.
DISCUSSION
TMI Coatings has requested a change order in the amount of $5,085.00. AEC
En~neering and Staff have reviewed the request and are recommending approval
of $3,555 of the request. The $3~555 is based on the number of hours worked at
$100/hour (from the bid documents) and cost of materials and equipment.
Staff believes this is an acceptable compromine and agrees with AEC
Engineofing's rational for tho recommended Change Order.
Approval of the change order will allow the City to final this contract.
Attaehmex~t: Letter dated 8/1/01 fi'om Robert Kollmer, ~ En~noering
c: Robert Kollmer, AEC En~neering
AB(: ENGINEERING
400 1 ~t Avenue North
Suite 400
Minnmlpoli~, Mlnnesotn 55401
Phone: (812) 332-8905
Fax: (812) 334-3101
INQINiIR8
IN~PICTORe
August 1, 2001
Ms Teresa J. Burgess, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
By: U.S. Mall
CITY OF CHANRASSEN
Re: Cleaning, Repairing and Painting of the
3.5 MMG Steel Ground Storage Reservoir AUG 0 ,~ -7001
Lake Lucy Reservoir
City Project Number 00-02 ENGINEERING
AEC Project Number 200502-2708
Change Order Request from TMI, Inc.
Dear Ms Burgess:
TMI Coatings, Inc. has submitted a request for additional labor costs they occurred in
association with the exterior application of the wrong color on the Lake Lucy Reservoir. They
are asking for compensation of $5,085.00, this Includes all associated labor, travel &
subsistence and markup's. See attached letterdated June 12, 2001 for cost break down of
TMI's requested change order. I feel that TMI should not be including Travel & subsistance
because this is a local project or G &A plus a markup.
In my first conversations with Mr. Dan Imre after stopping the application of the exterior color,
he told me that they had 25 man/hours assoicated that day, plus materials and equipment. If
you use the Labor figure TMI quoted in there Bid Documents, labor is charged out at $100
mn/hr.
AEC recommends the following for this requested change order:
Labor 25 mn/hr x $100 $2,500
Materials 470
Equipment Costs 585
Total $3,555
I am also including TMI's application for Payment ~.
If you have any questions regarding AEC's recommendation please call me.
Sincerely,
AEC ENGINEERING, Inc.
Robert E. Kollmer
Supervisor Coating Department
Certified NACE International Coatings Inspector No. 1291
CITYOF
CHANHA EN
TO: Mayor
City Council
FROM:
DATE:
Bruce M. DeJong, Fkumce
August 23, 2001
Approval of Bills
The following claims are submittal for approval on August 27, 2001:
Cheek Numbers
106193-106425
Amoullt
$399,002.45
Total Claims
$399,002.45
I recommond approval of all claims as submitted. '
o8/27/Ol ~te, o8/21/Ol
3,429m
1
Vendor ~ ~ I~i~ ~i~l~ ~ ~te ~t
Fund~G~Llq~iD
101-0000-1025 Petty Camh ~4aNz~,.~.~ ~ 10619~ ~ ~-F~ 081301 08/13/01 300,00
101-0000-~005 Fi~ P~ g~ ~X~ ~~ ~ 106377 ~ ~~-~~ 080701 08/17/01 62.49~
101-0000-2005 ~ p~ ~X~ 106325 B~ ~ ~~ 101~4410 08/11/01 2?0.92
101-0000-2005 FI~ PX~ ~ ~ 106251 ~-~ 082101 08/21/01 90.25
101-0000-2005 FI~ P~ ~ ~ 106323 ~-~ 082101 08/21/01 250.00
101-0000-2012 ~Xth ~l ~X~ 106325 ~~ ~ 10~4410 08/11/01 732.88
101-0000-2021 GmXH ~ ~.~ ~~ ~ 106368 ~ ~~ ~ 0100583 08/20/01 S.19
101-0000-203~ 8~ ~y ~Y ~ ~C 106334 ~ ~ ~ 0101041 08/14/01 2.00
101-0000-3301 ~11~ ~Y ~ X~ 106334 ~ ~v.~ ~ 0101041 08/14/01 87.25
101-0000-3602 Vmr~o ~ ~ 10~26 ~ ~~ ~ ~/1633 08/20/01 75.00
101-0000-3605 ~T ~ ~ ~_~ ~06326 ~~Z~TX~ ~ ~/1633 08/20/01 50.00
101-0000-4901 ~g~ A~ Z ~ 106199 ~ ~~ 081601 08/16/01 14.50
101-0000-4901 ~E~ ~~ 106327 ~~~ ~555~ 0~/1~/01 15.39
101-0000-4901 ~E.~ ~ ~w~ ~ 106~8~ ~ ~~ 0101~5~ 0g/0g/01 5.00
101-0000-4901 ~,,~- ~ FX~ ~X~ 106352 ~ ~A~ 081301 08/13/01 10.35
101-0000-4901 ~E~ ~'8 ~ ~ 106203 ~ ~A~ 0101393 08/09/01 - 14.50
101-0000-4901 ~E~ ~ ~ ~ 106403 ~~~ 0101529 08/16/01 14.50
.................
.
2,000.21
D~: Imglmlatlv~
101-1110-4340 Pg~nttn~ ~ I~tl, XBH:T~IG CONPA~Y ~ 106350 ~ '01 ~~ ~Z~ 17409 08/08/01 6,839.43
101-1110-4340 ~tnt~ ~ 8~ ~l~ 106380 ~z'~SX~ 073101 07/31/01 278.~
.................
~ ~l~ct~ 7,118.34
101-11~0-4040 Inmurang~ M:~ LIIeB 106337 BE~ LZ~ ~ 12270045 08/15/01 40.65
101-1120-4040 X~B~ ~X~ 106325 9~ ~ ~~ 10124410 08/11/01 1,650.11
101-11~0-4300 ~tt~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 106256 BR ~Z~f 18598 08/10/01 31.25
101-1~0-4~00 ~tt~ ~~~TX~ ~ 106371 ~y ~ 669471 08/16/01 26.15
101-1~0-4340 ~ ~ G~ ~I~ 1063~0 ~~ 0~3101 0~/31/01 3~.31
101-1120-4410 ~tp ~ ~~ ~ ~ 106250 ~ ~ 7163~28~ 0~/05/01 6~4.92
Tol:~/ /~L~ilC~ttO~ .2,470,39
101-1130-&040 lneu.rang~ #I~i~8OTA LIF~ 106337 8~9T~M~A LXF~ 1'~ 12270045 08/15/01 23.17
101-1130-4040 T.~m ]~DZCA. 106325 8~~ ~~ 10124410 08/11/01 724.32
101-1130-4210 ~/~ ~~~ ~ 106~15 ~ ~ B~-~ p~1301 0~/13/01
101-1130-4300 ~lultt~ ~ ~ ~A~ ~ 106277 ~Z~ ~ 143142 07/31/01 5,430.25
101-1130-4300 ~tt~ ~ ~ ~A~ ~ 106277 P~BZ~ S~ 143142 07/31/01 415.00
101-11~0-4301 ~ ~ ~ ~PA~ L~ 106277 P~SZ~ 8~1~ 143142 07/31/01 7,061.00
101-1130-4301 ~t~ ~ ~ ~PA~ B~ 10627~ ~8I~ ~ 143142 07/~1/01 8,500.00
101-1130-4301 ~ltt~ ~ ~ ~P~ L~ 106277 ~l~ 8~ 143142 07/31/01 500.00
· ot&l F~ 22,737.74
~ept t T.,egul
101-1140-4302 I~al Feel ~ K)(%71'9(~8C0'~ & iq~ 106223 F~9 FO~L~L ~-~Y 07312001 07/31/01 8,134.43
101-1140-4302 ~ ~8 ~ & ~, ~ 106301 ~P ~~, P~ ~X~ 38856 08/14/01 783.28
~tll ~1 8,917.71
~, ~~ Zn~o~tt~ S~tm
101-1160-4040 ZMurm M~ LX~ 106337 88~ LZ~ ~ 12270045 08/15/01 9.90
101-1160-4040 Xn~m ~z~ 106325 ~~~ ~~ 10124410 08/11/01 -229.77
101-1160-4210 ~/~r ~Z~ ~VZG ~ B~5 106425 ~ ~~ 0~1401 08/14/01 14.9~
101-1160-4260 ~11 ~1 ~ ~I~ I~ 106420 ~-~ $2~204 0~/09/01 2~.~2
101-~60-4260 ~11 ~ ~ ~ ~ 106232 ~~ ~ ~6602~ 0~/09/01 242.2~
101-1160-4300 ~1t1~ ~ 106353 ~ ~ 0200768~ 08/01/01 524.85
101-1160-4530 ~p~ ~ 106381 ~~~ 0018153 08/17/01 300.00
101-1160-4703 ~ ~p ~ ~ ~ 106232 ~ ~98064 08/06/01 29.66
101-1160~703 ~ ~p ~ ~ ~ 106232 ~ ~, ~, ~E, ~9~ ~1159 07/19/01 868.06
101-1160-4703 ~ ~tp ~~ X~ 106232 ~ ~ ~ ~2956 08/01/01 59.78
101-1160-4~03 ~ ~p ~~ ~ 106232 ~ ~ ~3161 07/24/01 38.52
101-1160~03 OE~ ~lp ~ ~ ~ 10623~ ~ ~ ~ ~39~4 0~/2~/01 449.2~
.................
~1 ~ 1~t~ ~ 2,512.25
~t: City hi1 I~-t .m .e
101-1170-4040 Znmm NL~HF~3T~-LZF~ 106337 B~PT]~4B~ LZF~ ~ 12270045 08/15/01 7.20
101-1170-4040 Inlurm ~I~ 106325 8~ ~ ~~ 10124410 08/11/01 273.33
101-11~0-4110 ~t~ 8~ ~~ 106392 ~g ~-~ 10712701 08/07/01 102.03
101-1170-4110 ~lcl 8~ ~ ~X~ ~ 106408 O~X~ fl~Z~ 0~100 08/08/01 52.23
101-1170-4110 ~tce 8~ ~ ~ 106249 p~, ~, B~X~8 08/14/01 10.63
101-~?0-4110 ~i~ ~ ~~ ~8 106245 ~ S~X~ 24721709 07/19/01 110.33
101-11~0-4110 ~i~ ~ ~~ ~m 106245 MX~. ~X~ 24527053 06/29/01 64.46
101-11~0-4110 ~Et~ ~ ~~ ~88 106245 ~ P~, ~ XT~ 24528952 07/10/01 77.08
101-1170-4110 ~tce 8~ ~~ ~V~8 106245 ~ ~ ~ 24520316 07/12/01 276,30
101-1170-4110 ~EiCO ~ ~~ ~ 106245 ~ 24610588 06/29/01
101-1170~110 ~E~ fl~ ~~ ~ 106~5 ~ 24527775 07/10/01 27.3~
101-1170-4110 OEEt~ ~ ~~ ~ 106~S ~ ~, ~ 24740014 07/20/01 190.60
101-11q0-4110 Offtt~ B~ ~~ ~ 106245 ~ p~ 24739736 07/20/01 11.16
101-1170-4110 ~t~ ~ ~~ ~8 106245 ~, ~ p~ 25100620 08/07/01 82.13
101-1170-4110 O~t~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ 106348 P~ 100069 08/09/01 210.81
101-1170-4110 O~t~ ~ O~Z~ ~ 106351 ~ ~ Fl~ ~ ~Z~ 4097~92 07/11/01 115.00
101-1170-4110 ~61~ S~ ~Z~ ~ 106351 ~Z~ ~1~ 929~12 07/31/01 20.75
101-1170-4110 ~fft~ ~ ~X~ ~ 106351 ~X~ 8~98 863~13 08/01/01 6.06
101-11~0-4110 ~6t~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 10624~ ~ ~ ~20 08/08/0Z 2~1.~
101-1170-4110 ~tice Sup ~ ~ ~ 106244 ~ 14840 08/15/01 54.56
101-1170-4110 ~1~ ~ ~ O~l~ ~ 106408 ~ ~Z~ ~Z~ 0~6733 08/06/01 170.93
101-1170-4~0 ~1C8 ~ ~ ~ ~ 106214 ~ ~ 234641 07/17/01 148.04
101-1170-4110 ~tce ~p ~ 106210 ~/~ 13200552 08/13/01 121.80
101-11~0-~60 ~11 ~1 ~~ ~ 106378 TIN ~~ F~ 080801 08/08/01 19.53
101-11~0-4300 ~m~tt~ ~ ~ 106267 ~ ~ 07/31/01 260.00
101-11~0-4530 ~lp ~tn ~ ~ & ~ 106221 ~9~ ~ 4~299 08/13/01 89.5~
oo/27/Ol
o8/21/Ol
pt ~ C:L~'y 11all Halnt~nance
~c~ i~/ce/Clrvu~ Co Cont~ucc
01-1210-4040 ~nlu~u~o N3:NMESO/~ L~I~
D1-3~10-4040 TnmtLCln~e MBDIC~
· .~ ~1~1 1~z~v~tlo~ &
11-1220-4040 In~utlnc~
)1-1220-4040
ll-/320-4120 Kqu/p fJu~)
)1-122o-412o squ/p 8upp
)1-1220-4120 Bqu/p 8upp
J1-1220-4130 P~2g 8upp
)1-1220-4140 Veh 8upp
)1-1220-4140 v~h 8upp
)1-12204140 V-h 8upp
)1-122o41so
i1-1220-4~40
11-:1220-4240
)1-1220-4240
31-1220-4260 ~mll
11-/220-4290
1-1220-4300 C~mulc~M3
1-1230-4310
1-1220-4310
1-1220-4320 ~c111Ct0~
1-1220-4360 Membo~b/p
1-1230-4370
1-1320-4370
1 =1220 -4370 'rziv~:Ln
1-1220-4370
1-1220-4375
1-1220-4375
1-1220-4375
1-1220-4510
1-1220-4510 Bld~
1-1220-4510 8169 14m/nt-
1-1220-4510
1-1220-4530 Kqut~ Mutn
1-1220-4530 E~u/p
1-1220-4531 JLud/o Mmln
:: Anlmml
L-1260-4040 Xnwu.~ance
L-1260-4040 Xnmttcinc4
L-1260-4120 Equip Su~p
L-1260-4300 Conm~tlng
L-1260-4340
L-1260-4370 'l'~-~r~ n
.-1310-40&0
.-1310-4040
.-1310-4290 M/lc -Sump
.-1310-4300
.-1310-4360
106337
106325
106337
106325
1062~
106351
1062~
106217
1063~
1062~
10~35
106375
10~05
106379
1063~
106311
106311
10637O
10~
106421
106360
106~
106341
106240
106293
106267
106409
106366
106369
106369
106316
1063q8
106290
106385
106204
1227004,5 08/15/01
10124410 08/11/01
C~TCO pArr8
C~TC~) PM~II8 8~rZC~
BOY~! TaUC~ P&iZ/'~
12270o45 08/15/01
10124,110 08/11/01
7711 08/05/0~
3107~87 07/06/01
~0028~ 08/06/0X
2279S2 08/~0/0~
9578S6 08/~/0~
7516 08/16/01
~8 08/10/0~
~5272 08/~0/0~
85976 08/08/01
2~91 08/14/01
3325 08/01/01
92933 0~/19/0~
92933
081001 08/10/01
08~01 08/~/01
080101 08/01/01
08~60~ 08/~/0~
08/~6/0~
2065 07/30/01
08/20/01
00000065 08/09/01
08080~ 08/08/0~
QT/31/Q1
~850~ 08/~0/0~
477~0 08/14/01
· e22e 07/24/0~
1~ o7/27/Ol
08o8o~ 08/08/o~
43966 o8/~/o~
238650 08/08/01
~068~ 08/~/OZ
106~37
106325
106265
.106346
106306
106211
106244
12270O45 08/15/01
lO~4~o 08/3:L/01
55O46195 o8/o2/ol
4956661 08/1&/01
1794067 08/07/01
5791 08/07/01
14740 08/10/01
106337
106325
106288
106236
106380
106336
12270O45 08/15/01
10124410 08/:Lll01
080601 08/06/01
96056 07/31/01
073101 07/31/01
081101 08/11/01
106337
106325
106272
106371
106258
12270045 08/15/01
10124410 08//.l/01
3595- 08/13/01
666595 08/0~/01
o8/2o/ol
106337
106325
106224
10626~
106202
106259
106395
106395
106395
106395
10~59
10~76
106230
1~230
106230
1062~0
106219
106219
12270045 08/15/01
102.24410 08/11/01
1028915 08/07/01
O21821 oe/16/Ol
13211 08/01/01
122896O 08/06/01
Z941390 06/15/01
1961470 07/20/01
~8884~0 04/10/01
(:946300 06/14/01
11235401 08/20/01
6805 08/16/01
3-693/.1. 08/16/01
3-69313 08/16/01
3-69286 08/15/01
3-68299 08/06/01
3-68329 o8/o6/ol
3o4676 08/15/01
3o4867 08/15/01
2,746.27
8.10
273.33
281.43
20.88
913.10
410.00
52.16
1,489.00
102.18
14.90
33.00
55.06
35.02
37.38
48.54
70. O0
500.00
4~2.98
340.00
9.15
975.35
75.00
200.00
234.30
450.00
100.31
5Q.05
99.eS
39.90
91.00
109.56
800.00
1.44
545.11
49.44
60.00
8,522.83
79.92
4,341.69
93.98
149.57
867.50
536.78
531.44
.................
6,600.88
4.50
273.33
45.78
1,874.77
176.40
1,631.00
4,005.78
' 48.15
2,203.52
81.45
30.30
59.00
.................
2,422.42
63.36
3,174.05
248.99
526.28
19.17
953.18
288.00
249.05
266.25
-266.25
243.46
71.01
12.55
4.30
540.19
374.88
1.24
233.64
528.03
ZNVOTCR A~PROVAL LTBT BY FOND
o8/27/Ol
City o'ff C/mnhammen
Accotmt Ab~r~,~ Vendor N~me Number I~ice Description
Invoice
]~md, G~NERAL PQND
De~t t Steer Hatnt~n~m
101-1320-4140 Veh 8u~ ~ ~ p~ 106219 M ~ 304088
101-1~20-4140 Veh ~ ~ ~ p~ 106219 ~ 304697
101-1320-4140 Vmh ~ ~ ~ p~ 106219 ~R ~ 301651
101-1320-4140 Veh 8~ ~ ~ p~ 106219 ~ 303651
101-1320-4140 Veh 8~ ~ ~ p~ 106219 ~ ~ 303619
101-1320-4150 ~/nt ~1 Hl~ ~T ~TX~ 106335 F~ ~X ~ ~ 69355
101-1320-4150 ~ln= ~1 MI~ ~T ~~ 106335 ~ ~ F~ MIX 69292
101-1320-4150 ~tnt ~tl H~ ~T ~TI~ 106335 ~IT ~ 072001
101-1320-4300 ~aultt~ HI~A ~T~ ~~ 106338 ~ ~ ~ ~ 421
101-1320-4300 ~oul=t~ ~~ ~TI~ ~ ~ 106274 ~ ~ ~I~ 689515
101-1320-4300 ~aul=~ ~~P ~TI~ S~ ~ 106274 ~ ~ ~ 689326
101-1320-4520 Veh ~ J ~ R ~IA~ ~9AIR 106284 ~ ~IA~ 7362
101-1320-4520 Veh ~t J & R ~ ~PAIR 106284 ~FI~ ~ 7358
101-1320-4560 8t~ ~tnt ~ F ~ I~ 106255 ~X~ ~ ~ 9X~ 42273
101-1350-4320 U~lltttsm XCeL ENerGY INC
101-1350-4320 ~tlttte~ X~ ~ ~
101-1350-4550 W~r 8~ KI~ ~IC ~ ~
Deptz City GaraGe
101-1370-4040 Inlu~e MINNESOTA LXF~
101-1370-4040 Inlura~ce M~DIC~
101-1370-4260 ~11 ~1 ~'8 ~ 8~PLY
101-1370-4320 ~tlt~e8 X~ ~ ~C
De1:~.: Planutng Cogn/emton
101-1410-4340 Pr~_ntt~ 80~THWEST SUB~HBAN P~BLISHING
101-1410-4370 Tray/Train QUIENO'S
D~pt: Planntr~ A~ntnimtr&tton
101-1420-4040 Insurance MINNESOTA LIFE
101-1420-4040 Insures M~DIC~
101-1420-4360 Membermhip (]~J~4PI~IN PI~M~NINQ PRIG8
De.c: Se~tor Facility Co~eston
101-1430-4040 Insurance MINNESOTA LIFE
101-1430-4040 Insurance MEDICA
D~: Park Adm/nimtrmtton
101-1520-4040 Instance H~D[ESOTA LIFE
101-1520-4040 Insurance M~DICA
De,c, ~creac~ Center
101-1530-4040 Insurance MINNESOTA LIFE
101-1530-4110 Office Sup 8USANHAR~K
101-1530-4310 ~l~m
101-1530-4340 Printi~
101-1530-4410 ~tp
Dspt-: Parloual Training
101-1533-3631 Rect~crO~
D~])tt Dance
101-1534-3631 HecC~rO~ MARY
101-1534-4130 Pros Su[~ MARYANN PORTER
101-1534-4375 P~omotion SOts Iq~SP~
DeJ;)~t Llko Anll Park
101-1540-4130 Pros 8u~ ~TSOMCONPANY
101-1540-4130 Prcx3 8u~p N~T~OI( COMPANY
101-1540-4130 Pros
101-1540-4300 O~nsulttng PROTECTICX(01~E
101-1540-4310 Tell~ QMEGT
101-1540-4320 Uttlttlem XCeL
Park U~age Y0~NG~CA CORPORATICH~
De~t: Plcnicm
101-1541-3634
H I ~KSOTA LIFE
HEDICA
PRATEI'E ~ & GARDEN
~ )~DICAL 8ERV'/CI
SUBURBAN Of EVROLET
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COHPANY
ELK RrVER C~tqCHETK
t~X~iIA FARH SUPPLY
Dept: Park MaLntenance
101-1550-4040 Insurance
101-1550-4040
101-1550-4120 ~qutp 8upp
101=1550-4120 Equip Sup~
101-1550-4140 Veh
101-1550-4140 Veh Supp
101-1550-4150 Maint Marl
101-1550-4150 Matnt Mat1
101-1550-4150 Maint M~tl
Date, 08/21/01
Tlmot 3 t42ixn
Page i 3
Total Street Hatnta~ance
o8/14/Ol
08/15/Ol
o8/o7/ol
o8/13/Ol
o8/13/Ol
o7/21/Ol
o7/28/Ol
o7/2O/Ol
o8/o4/ol
O8/lO/Ol
o8/o3/ol
o8/o6/ol
o8/o6/ol
08/10/01
106421 ZL~T~.TCITY C~R~QE8
106421 ~L~CTRZCITY CPJ~QES
106302 R~PAIRS-~RB~H & 8X~U~
081601 08/16/01
08162001 08/16/01
96444066 07/31/01
106337 BEP/~4BE~ LIF~ INSURARC~
106325 SEPT~4BBRH]~ALT~ INSO~ANC~
106208 D~.I~J. BIT8
106421 F/~T~ICITY C~A~GE8
Total City ~ara~e
106380 ADVBRTISI~3
106364 DINNERS PeR PL,~RNI)~ C01~4ISSIO
12270045 08/15/01
10134410 08/11/01
12129 08/14/01
081601 08/16/01
073101 07/31/01
082101 08/21/01
Total Plann/ng
106337 8EPT'~4BKR LIFE INSURANC~ 12270045 08/15/01
106325 S~Vl~4B~ B~LTR ZNSO~C~ 10124410 08/11/01
106234 S~C~/P~IC~ 080101 08/01/01
~tal Pl~i~~ltrati~
461.27
223.27
281.63
43.59
47.04
4,733.71
1,915.97
-2,303.71
288.00
38.00
38.00
538.45
5,22
720.43
14,562.25
1,543.54
131.82
843.84
2,S19.20
26.91
1,426.70
751.53
554.74
2,759.88
470.30
76.55
546.85
36.93
1,263.09'
115.00'
.................
1,415.02
2.16
106325 S~ REALTH Z~TSUR~
Total Sen/or Facility
106337 8P~vl'EMBER LIFE INSURANC~ 13270045 08/15/01
106325 86~ ~ X~ 10124410 08/11/01
~1 Pa~ ~ntmtratt~
106337 S~ LX~ I~ 12270045 08/15/01
106390 O~X~ 8~Z~g 0~/20/01
106324 ~~ ~S 081101 08/11/01
106392 ~8 ~-~ & 8~ 10681101 07/23/01
106282 ~PX~ ~ 23955160 06/14/01
~tal ~r~=t~ ~n~er
106253 ~ - ~~ 56388 08/1~/01
~al ~1
106319 R~FQND = ~ANCE
106322 DANCE SUPPLIES
106388
Total
106414 ~ ~ ~SX~ ~PLI~
106414
106414
106363
106365
106~21
106422
~tal Ptcnic~
106337
106325 ~~ ~ I~
106362
106423 18T ~D
106386
106259
10625~
106413
106233
10124410 08/11/01 . 68.33
70.49
12.06
1,006.20
1,018.26
5.40
8.68
1.10
214.07
190.01
419.26
364.00
.
364.00
56542 08/16/01 70.00
08/20/01 270.58
437350 07/27/01 245.00
585.58
605101 0~/09/01 111.69
605587 08/15/02 -0.82
605645 08/16/01 114.12
08/10/01 86.27
081301 08/13/01 120.88
081601 08/16/01 617.86
1,050.00
08/20/01 50.00
50,00
12270045 08/15/01 57.96
10124410 08/11/01 3,130.49
28426 O8/lO/Ol 3.67
54158482 o8/01/Ol 30.71
185824 08/14/01 25.17
11238354 08/20/01 126.75
172007 08/15/01 130.41
146935 08/13/01 39.00
247247 07/31/01 145.65
ZMvozr'u APPROVAL T'TBT BY lq]ID
06/27/01 ])mt~ ~ 09/21/01
T'J.m z 3 ~421;m
31-1650-4160 l,b.:Lnt Mit1 C3IMJKJ~ BO/~D33EJ (~ITBR 106237 fK:~BMB 502539 08/20/01
3~-~650-4~S~ X~g ~ ~ DX~ ~ ~063~ ~ ~ ~356-0~ 08/0~/0~
)~-~50-4240 ~t~ ~ 10639~ ~ ~-~ 821~5 08/0~/01
I~-1550-4300 ~t~ ~ ~vs ~ ~06338 ~ ~ &GO 07/16/01
I1-1650-4360 ~ ~ ~~ ~, ~ 106349 ~ ~ 7608
11-~50-4560 8L~ ~ 81~ 1~379 ~ 8~ 233~ 07/31/01
I1-1551.-4320 Ut. iXitLm, ~ ~IERQY ]2lC 106421 KT.~C"J~/C:/"/"Z ~ 001601 00/16/01
~: Be~Lo~(~Ltt~ne Cen~er
11-/~60-4130 ~ ~ ~ 106391 PaCEXX~ ~ 1246968 07/24/01
~1-1660-4300 Cooou~t~ng On ~O~0nOun lOS29s ~ ~T/CJ(~TH 081301 08/13/01
'1-1600-4040 Zrmurange N~ LZFB 106337 fJ~P/'~(BB~ ~ ~~ ~270~5 08/16/01
'~-~600-4~0 Z~M ~Z~ 106325 ~~ ~~ 10~44~0 08/~/01
;1-~00-4130 ~ ~ ~ 106367 ~ ~~ ~978 07/24/01
i1-1600-&130 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 106406 4~Y~ ~ 148307 07/10/01
X-1600~130 p~ 8~ ~ 106391 ~ ~~~ 774686 08/08/01
1-16004130 ~ ~ ~ 106391 ~ ~v~ 82179~ 08/03/01
1-16004130 ~ ~ A ~ Z ~ ~ 106198 ~ ~ 143719 08/06/01
1-16004130 ~ ~ ~ ~C u~vbY 106338 ~ 53334 08/14/01
1-1600~320 ~11t~tea ~ ~ ~ 10~21 ~~ ~ 081601 08/16/01
1-1600-4380 Ml1~ ~ ~ 106209 ~ ~ 08/20/01
1-1600-4380 ~1~ ~,T~ ~ 106300 ~'~ ~ 08/20/01
1-1600-4380 Mtl~ ~~ 106299 ~ ~ 08/20/01
1-1600~380 Mtl~ ~ ~ 106396 ~ ~ 08/20/01
1-1600-4380 ~1~ ~ ~ 10~05 ~ ~n~ 08/20/01
Z-~600-4380 ~1~ ~~ 106307 ~~~ 08/20/01
~-1600-4380 ~1~ ~~~ 106206 ~~ 08/20/01
Z-1600-4380 M11~ ~ ~ ~0~92 ~ ~ 08/2~/0~
~-1600-4380 Htl~ ~~ 106374 ~ _ _ 08/21/01
1-1600-4380 M11~ ~~ 106275 ~~~ 08/21/01
Z-1600~380 M11~ ~ ~. 106246 ~ ~~ 08/21/01
.
~-1613-4130 ~ 8uj~;) ~
~-1613-4300 O~multtng HOFlq~MJ~T ~
~-1613-4340 PrtnCtn9 8OqTTBWBS~ uum~mAH 9~JB~TSH/:HG
L-1613-4400 Lmnd~Bl~9 D(PKIi/A~ POSIS~TKB~IKS
.-1~20-3630
.-1620-3630
.-1620-3630
.-1620-3630
.-1620-3630
.-1620-3630
.-1620-3630
.-1620-3630
-~20-3630
-1620-3630
-1620-3630
-1~0-3630
-1620-3630
-1620-3630
-1620-3630
-1620-3630
-1620-3630
-~0-3630
-1~0-3630
-1620-3630
-1620-3630
-1620-3630
-1~0-3630
~1620-3630
-1620-3630
-1620-3630
-1~0-3630
-1~0-3630
-1~0-3630
-1620-3630
.2~20-3S30
.2~0-363Q
~1~0-3630
~0-3630
'~20-3630
L~0-3630
L620-3630
L~0-3630
1o639~
106278
106380
106283
C1246853 07/28/01
081701 08/17/01
073101 07/31/01
5450 07/31/01
106207
106227
106226
106228
106231
106231
106238
106238
106239
1062~2
106243
106243
106270
106280
106280
106285
106285
106291
106294
106297
106298
106303
106303
106309
10633.3
106317
106321
106320
106320
106332
106347
106354
106356
106356
166357
106357
106382
106389
106389
106394
106394
106399
S6514
S6469
56498
56489
S6483
56511
56496
56515
56497
56512
5649O
56513
56478
56471
56472
56470
56500
56487
56516
56492
56488
56476
S6606
56508
56499
56502
56486
56477
56507
56491
56485
56475
56505
56473
56503
56481
56509
56495
56482
56510
56474
56504
56479
08/17/01
08/17/01
08/15/01
08/17/01
08/15/01
08/17/01
o8/17/ol
o8/33/Ol
08/17/01
08/17/01
o8/17/Ol
08/17/Ol
o8/17/Ol
08/17/01
08/17/01
08/17/01
oo/17/Ol
08/17/Ol
08/17/01
08/17/01
08/17/01
08/17/01
08/17/01
08/17/01
08/17/01
08/17/01
o8/17/Ol
o8117/Ol
o8/17/Ol
o8/17/Ol
o8/17/Ol
o8/17/Ol
o8/17/ol
o8/17/ol
o8/17/Ol
o8/17/Ol
o8/17/Ol
o8/x?/01
o8/17/Ol
o8/17/Ol
08/17/Ol
08/17/ol
08/17/01
41.64
89.30
100.05
721.50
300.00
47.93
4,990.23
502.04
502.04
-19.16
ZSO.QQ
130.84
12.10
437.33
10.09
538.67
13.42
2o.41
117.30
138.40
99.80
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
35.00
35.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
1,728.32
-5.08
500.00
'294.00
1,313.45
2,102.37
12.00
12.00
24.00
12.00
12.00
12,00
12.00
12.00
12.00
/.2.00
12.00
12.00
24.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
/.2.00 -
24.00
/.2.00
12.00
/2.00
12.00
24.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
34.00
/.2.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
3.2.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
/.2.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
12.00
INVOIC~ A~PROVA~ LXST BY FUND
08/27/01 Da ~e .- 08/21/01
Time, 3:42pm
C/ty of C/mnhaosen Page z 5
Depar~ GL Number Check Invoice Due
Aa~unt Ab~rev Vendor N~ Number Invoice Description Ntm~er ]:~te Amou~t
101-1620-3630 Rec Prog TOHDI 8(SZOBPP 106401 PROGP-M4 F. EFUND 56493 08/17/01
101-1620-3630 aec Prog T0~Y DRLOS~NZO 106402 PROGP~M Rglq~qD 56501 08/17/01
101-1620-3630 aec Prc~ N~NDY 8I]~OVY 106416 p___DO~___i~4 i~.WOND 56494 08/17/01
De~: 8elf-Su~por£1ng ProgrRmB
101-1700-4040 I,surance MINNESOTA LIFB
101-1700-4040 Inmurance MEDIC~
101-1700-4130 Pz'cg gu~ ~
Del~: Preschool Sports
101-1710-3636 81fGupPro~ LIRDABKUTKL
~t: Prsschool Actlvlttss
101-171/-3636 81fBu~Pro~
/~t, Youth Sports
101-1730-3636 81fSupProg LAURXE AND~RB0~
D~: Youth Acttv/ttes
101-1731-3636 81fSu~Prog LYBN PAULY
101-1731-3636 81fSupProg
101-1731-3636 81f~upPro~ LOCI
101-1731-4130
101-1731-4300 ~ul~
101-1~31-4300 ~ul~
101-1760-4130 Pro~ 8upp BOB
101-1760-4130 Pro9 8ug~ JEFF
101-1760-4300 Consultin9 TOCO NICELAUB
101-1760-4300 Consulting Pl~GIE ZO~RROF
101-1760-4300 C~nsultin9 LEE BRANDT
101-1760-4300 CormulCtng JEFF VOIGHT
101-1760-4300 Consulting MN RKCJUiAT/0H & PARK ASSOC.
101-1760-4300 Consulting C~AIG
101-1760-4300 Consulting GIN~ HANSOt(
Fund: CM~E TY
210-0000-4040 In, ur&rice M I H]~E. BOT~ LII;~
210-0000-4040 Inlurm~ce MEDIC~
D~pC, Lake ~nmg~enc
211-2350-4040 Ineurm~ce MI~OTA LIF~
211-2350-4360 Me~b~rshtp NALMB
211-2360-4040 Inmurance MINNESOTA LIFE
211-2360-4040 Insurance H~DZCA
211-2360-430Q Consulting FT.~.,D OF DREAH8 E.ECYCLZ~K] CTR
211-2360-4300 Consul~:LJ~
211-2360-4320 U~tlttieB
Dept,
220-0000-4130 Pro~
220-0000-4130 Prng 8upp
220-0000-4130 Pro9 Bup~
220-0000-4130 Prc~3 8upp
220-0000-4130 Prog ~
220-0000-4130 Prc~ 8t~p
220-0000-4130 ProG 8ui~
106337 8EP'I'EMBRR LZPE ]]~D~ANCR
106325 8E~'I'~4BBRHKALTH /~BURANCB
106391 BUPPLZB~
12270045 08/15/01
10124410 08/11/01
799442 07/24/01
Total 8elf-Supporting
106312 Rgiq]ND-PRBSC~0OLT-BALL
S6407 08/13/01
Total Pree~c~l 8~z~m
106383 ~EFU~ID-KINDgRDANC]g
56334 08/08/01
To~al Preschool Activitiem
56452 o0/14/Ol
Total Youth Spo~cs
106318 R.~FTmD-~ CAMP
106333 RRIK~D-SAFg'I~ ~
106314 R,gPQND-SA.11'ETYC~HP
106415 ~ ~ 8~I~
106229 ~l~ ~IC S~lg8
106305 ~I~ ~~
106262 ~ ~~
56204 07/27/01
56368 08/10/01
56348 08/09/01
08/17/01
404524 08/13/01
o8/2O/Ol
163964 07/31/01
To~al Youth ~u~ti~ritiem
106216 SOFFBALL
106287 8OFT~ALL UMPIRE
106400
106361 PI~ FI~8S ~S I~.
106310 ~T
106289 ~T
106341
106248 ~T
106266 ~T S~ ~I~
08/17/01
08/21/01
081701 08/17/01
081301 08/13/01
081701 08/17/01
081701 08/17/01
1961 08/16/01
082101 08/21/01
082101 08/21/01
Total Adult
Fun~Totll
12.00
12.00
24.00
624.00
3.02
109.33
78.37
190.72
30.00
.................
30.00
65.00
.................
65.00
35.00
35.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
113.32
246.50
203.00
166.00
773.82
260 00
940 00
20 00
1,278 20
120 O0
600 00
125 00
25.00
20.00
3,388.20
110,257.58
106337 8EPT~'R LIFg INSURANCE
106325 8glVl'~4BRR H~AT.,TH ZNSURANCg
Total
12270045 08/15/01
10124410 08/11/01
Fu~dTo~al
11.37
679.19
690.56
690.56
106337 EEg'I"~.~ LIFE ZNSUP.~K~
106325 SEFI"~'~.ER lr~J~./rR ZNSU~,MqC~
12270045 08/15/01
10124410 08/11/01
Total m~Fcl ~n~
106337 SEPTEMBg~ LIF~
106343
12270045 08/15/01
082001 08/20/01
106337 SEPT~0tRH LIPE INSURANOg
106325 88~ H~.~LTH ZNSUPANC~
106261 DZSPOGALOF DISEASED E~4 WOOD
106359 #ATER/NGZI~.AZR,.TE B~J~DING6
1O6379 CO~XBOAm) FPAMB
12270045 08/15/01
10124410 08/11/01
07/09/01
081101 08/20/01
23269 07/25/01
To~l aeforestatton
4.46
319.88
324.34
0.00
SO.O0
$0.00
3.06
251.55
6.00
185.00
510.14
.................
955.75
1,330.09
HARK LIT1TIN
U8 OFFICE ~
8C0~ & ABSOCIA/~8, I~.
SCO~T & ABSOCIAT~8, INC.
METRO TENT RENTAL
TARGET
106195 SAFETY C/d4P SUPPLIES
106408 OFFICE 8UPPLZR8
106376 SAFETY C~4P
106376 ~ ~
106329 ~~
106391 ~ ~ 8~Zgg
106215 ~l~B ~ ~ g~PLI~
TO~al
081301 08/13/01
01DP1410 08/10/01
96220 08/02/01
96219 08/02/01
081501 09/15/01
0716836 08/20/01
081401 08/14/01
159.41
9.45
?S.00
152.50
398.73
78.70
22.88
886.67
08/27/01
yof Chanha~en
d
Dmt:8: 08/21/01
T'J~fJ: 3:42pm
~)0-0000-1155 l:)eV 1'nip
)0-0000-'1 ~ 55 Dev lz~p
)0-0000-1155 DOY ~
)0-0000-4300 CO=I~ t. LJ:lg
~:: 'rbmx~mcl. XmmG/n9
)0.4182-4705 0th Bquip
10-4103-4705 O(:h ~l.tlp
10-4103-4705 0t:h Equip
i0.4105.4705 0t~ Equip
A:: X~ ~ Rs~lecementm
t0.4108.4704 V~hicle~
l: I~,R.KAg:~:J/BI'TXCBi' &DS'VELOi~
o-o0oo.412o squip
0-0000-4300
0-0000-4300 CozmuZting
0-0000-4300 Confultlm:d
0-0000.4302 L~jE1 reu
3-0000-4300
Consulting
..
[[0000.4300 Conlulting
-0000-4300 Conmllt:Lng
~ IIci4- IH'rII'TAXII~I02I
-0000.4300 Con~ultimj
-0000-4300 (~)nmul~ing
~ ZJICR2-2 ~T'L, WTHRS'V 1027
0000.4300 ~ulttng
~ /MC:RS - m~n'HGAY #029
0000.4300
]~md. ~ 888.67
M,aXAXi&.~mT0s :X]IC
~oYn mvY *rm~ 6AX,~8 & m'v
106271 ~,~1' 6758 08/15/01
106271 ~A.DDI"/'Z(B* 6765 08/15/01
1062?1 ~ CH'I'HB ~ 6'1'H 6754, 00/15/01
106269 ~x-J.J.,-,-~l~'X~ 1070188 07/31/01
106390 ~ /MNSZ~3 C]U(B~A 81252 07/31/01
106424 VALVE ~
106418 ll'miik~B~
106201 8UH~RS 2756 08/16/01
1O6218 ~rAm,.UU C~B & OmSsr. S 824122 00/06/01
ToCalDu~p/'~'uc]r~s
28048 08/08/01
345154 07/31/01
553.00
316.00
158.00
668.80
1,695.80
19,915.00
19,915.00
266.05
129.89
395.94
141.80
.................
141.80
54,254.00
54,254.00
76,402.94
HOXSZBTL'C~ _ ~rr~m~,m'.'m~ ~
lJOXSZHQTOM KOSQI~R ~
BOXSZRQ'I'Cll ~ G~O~P
C~qI~3KZJL IMUTSC~ 8CCFL'E & I~JC~8
106379 PARK mILCH 8ZGI~
'106279 M]LRBH(~I~/'EA.TL
106279 43]:R]11~1.88~1 8K~'T'B ~A.~K
106279
106223 FEES
23481 08/14/01
08/08/01
080801 08/08/01
08082001 o8/o8/ol
07312001 o7/31/Ol
4,158.77
514.75
663.00
617.55
679.16
6,633.23
6,633.23
106223
o7/31/Ol
684,.00
.................
684.00
684.00
106331 C3~MPOBLZCLZBRAI~
10210005 07/31/01
3-1,933.52
11,933.52
11,933.52
llLfl ~FI~3EH RIDPA.TH LTD
106277
TOe,B1
143142 07/31/01
lfu2:ldTotal
1,339.00
1,339.00
1,339.00
m'~ TA~A~8 R.BD~ATH LTD
(::MGn~l~.~. AmU.L'tS0H ~ & FLq.-d.H
106277
106223 I.,IGi/, ~dl.v~Cl~ - d-TK,Y
143142 07/31/01
dULY 07/31/01
1,335.00
672.00
2,007.00
2,007.00
106277
'l'o'cal
143142 07/31/01
1,335.00
1,335.00
1,335.00
HI,B ~ RKDPATH LTD
106277 x~xoloq~ 8~3tv'xc~
'rm:,tl
143142 07/31/01
Fund Toc. al
1,335.00
1,335.00
.................
1,335.00
Fund: ~ INCR 7 - ~ TRAC; #23
Dept:
497-0000-4300
co~sult/~g
Dept=: C~lt;rl~
600-6001-4759
600-6002-4752 Out ]h~:jine
600-6002-4753 In ~n~
~ept: Qu~Tm Rd
600-6003-4300 Con~ultin~
600-6003-4753 In lbig
Yundt ~M)RETI~4/TH5 UTILITIES ..
659-0000-4752 Out Engine
Ftu3d: S~WER & I~TEH UTILITY FUND
700-0000-3664 Heter ~le
700-0000-4040 Inlur&nce
700-0000-4040 Insurance
700-0000-4140 Veh Supp
700-0000-4140 Veh 8up~
700-0000-4150 Hatnt 14atl
700-0000-4150 H~tnt 14~tl
700-0000-4160 ChMn/c~lm
700-0000-4300 Conmult~
700-0000-4310 Telephone
700-0000-4320 U~tltttee
700-0000-4509 ~t
700-0000-4509 Rmmlt
700-0000-4510 Bl~g Maint
700-0000-4520 VehH~tnt
700-0000-4530 EquipMain
700-0000-4530 Equtp l4a~n
700-0000-4550 ~tr SyH
700-0000-4550 ~ Sirs
700-0000-4551 Sewer Syl
700-0000-4705 Oth Equip
l)~gt; ~ Lucy Tower Reconditioning
700-7001-4752 Out
Fungi BEI~ & MATER RXPANSI0~ FOND
Dept: ~ake Lucy Tower ~econd/tto~in~
710-7001-4752 Out Engine
Dep~z BC-7 ~E~2MX UTILITY
710-7002-4300 Consulting
Ftmd: SI]RF~MATERI~d~J~'T
Dept:
720-0000-4040 Ineu~ce
720-0000-4040 I~e
720-0000-4300 C~ltJ~3g
720-0000-4360 H~d:~lhtp
INVOICE APPROVAL LIST BY FOND
08/27/01
Check I~voice Duo
Nmnber TnVOtCe Delcrtptton NuBber D~te
RL~ TAUTQ~8 H~DPATH LTD
~NN~DY & GRAVEN, C~t~BRED
106277 P~0FE88 IOH~L
106301 TIF LITI(~TI0~, PAg. K~ HANNIFI
Total
143142 07/31/01
38856 08/14/01
HL~ TAUTQE8 R~DPAT1{ LTD
106277 l~K)FESSI~/, 8~[VIC~ 143142 07/31/01
Total
Fu~Total
WBB & ~880CZAT~8 /NC
W~B & ABSOC-TAT~8 INC
SOUTRWEST SQBU~BAN PUBLISHING
WSB & ~BBOCY. AT~8
106384 REIHBUR~g-~M4AQE TO DRAIN 080901 08/09/01
Total CreatviowCtrclo
106419 CKNTORY BLVD 8TRRET & ~TILITY 1339-004 08/08/01
106419 CENTURY BLVD STrEeT & ~TZLI/W/ 1339-003 08/08/01
Total Century Blvd Re,~___~tructton
106380 ADVERTISING 073101 07/31/01
106419 ~ E~ 8A~TARY SEWE~ 1339-012 08/08/01
Total Qulnn Rd
106271 HWY 5 & W 78~R ZHPRDV~Q~I~
Tot&l
6766 08/15/01
RRUB-BOTT~4A CfHqSTR/TCTIOH I/qC 106368
HIHNESOTA LIFE 106337
t4EDIC~ 106325
SUBURBAN CHB'V'ROLBT 106386
S~ ~ 106386
JD~ INDUSTRIES INC. 106286
BRYAN ~OCK P~ INC 106222
RANKIngS CHEMICRL 106273
~I;IN CITYMA~'E~CLINIC INC 106404
Q~ 106365
XCeL ~ INC 106421
I(~'I~ITAN C~IL 106330
MN D~'~OF H~,~LTH 106339
(~EA B~]'~DINQ C~ 106237
~C:HT~q~t~t~m8 LTD INC 106417
FI]~ST 8YST~48 T~C~ 106263
FI~.~T 8Y8'1~48 ~ 106263
V~-RIC~ CO ~C 106411
~-~ ~ ~ 106411
~VI~ ~ ~~ ~ 106252
~ ~ & ~ 106220
R~rtD,1DMA'I'~R HET~R CHaRgE8 0100583 08/20/01
SSP'R~R LII~ ~~ 12270045 08/15/01
SE~~ ~~ 10124410 08/11/01
~ 185566 08/13/01
B~ ~T/~/~~ 186056 08/15/01
~I~ ~I~ PAI~ 4018540 08/06/01
~ 081501 08/15/01
~I~ 369655 07/30/01
~R~I8-~~ ~ 7803 08/14/01
~ ~ 080101 08/01/01
~ZC~ ~S 081601 08/16/01
~~ S~Z~8 725738 08/07/01
~ ~I~ ~ 08070Z 08/07/01
8H~ 499013 07/19/01
~P~R ~ 8~T 363745 08/07/01
~ 7 & 8 ~E ~ B045-710 07/31/01
~~~-~ B047-75 07/31/01
~ ~ ~P~R 4479 06/15/01
~ ~PAIR 4478 06/15/01
O-H~, ~ 3074597 08/01/01
~P~ ~ 4060 08/10/01
Total
106200 GR0~ND ~ RESERVOIR
29146 07/31/01
Total ~ake IAzcy Tower
106271 SC7 & BC9 TR~iqK UTILITIES 6693 08/14/01
Total ~ Lucy Tower ~conditlo~J~3
106380 &DV~RTISZ~G 073101 07/31/01
Total BC-7 TRIJ~K IFI'ZLITY
MINNESOTA LIN
MEDICA
TMS CONSTEU~TI0~
NAU48
106337 8EPT~4BBR LZF~ Y.~URARC~
106325 S~ HEALTH I~URANC~
106397 ~BL~FF CREEK
106343 14~4B~RBflIP
12270045 08/15/01
10124410 08/11/01
508 05/20/01
082001 08/20/01
l~tem 08/21/01
~lm~m 3:42p~
Page, 7
A~t
1,335.00
45.00
1,380.00
1,380.00
1,335.00
1,335.00
1,335.00
260.93
260.93
8,682.50
1,037.34
9,719.84
70.47
2,472.00
2,542.47
12,523.24
7,626.25
7,626.25
7,626.25
84.99
56.93
3,409.76
23.78
56.63
506.52
293.15
2,352.81
45.00
260.00
19,881.30
75,480.67
8,028.00
26.67
183.54
740.00
360.00
1,858.71
1,968 68
79.82
5,385 71
121,o82 ?s
388 27
388 27
121,471 02
2,800.85
2,800.85
58.80
58.80
2,859.65
10.90
426.44
17,153.10
50.00
I]IVOTCE APIqU)VAL ~ST BY FI]ID
08/27/01 DUCe, 08/21/01
'720-0000-,I, 370 'l'L'av~ ~ ~
720-0000-4370 Tr~v/Tl:ain BBI~gM~ 8~
720-0000-4370 TLIv~4n Nil ERO61CM C(lrFEQL AHfJ~
I~z Z~'V'Kr, C)$~R I~C3K)ff LuqllD
Kit z UDtmTCBI ~
015-8202-2024 BICFOV Ply ~ K:ZZ, ZMI
015-8202-2024 BICE'OV Eg.y ~ 8HRABRY
015-8204-2024 EIC._Y'Ow ~
I1 'q-820,1.-2024 BlCtOV ~
106213
106213
106340 RIQIB'Z'RA_q'ZClr-H]~AK
082001 08/20/01 50.00
08202001 08/20/01 50.00
081601 08/16/01 55.00
27,795.53
]Pu:GdTotL~ 27,795.53
106194 ~ IRQBI(][ ~ ~ 081301 08/13/01
106196 REJIiHD~I~:~ZG~ ~ ~ 081301 08/23/01
TotL1. ElU38'r~! ~
106355 ~ 8:T.~ff ES(3UIW DM/247g 08/20/01
106360 RKIF[HD81(~' ~ DW/987 08/09/01
TOt:Lt BI(mr
J20-0000-2005 Flex Plin CAROL IX]MIJMOS~ 106225
120-0000-2005 Flex Plrl.U DClfA,~I]IO~H 106254
J20-0000-2005 Flex p~tn m _.m~n'.~ 106296
J20-0000-200S Flex PI.in KIN MI'UWISS~I 106304
J20-O0OO-2OQ5 F~ex Pl.~n PAllh ~ 106358
~0-0000-3005 Flex Plan ~ ~ 106393
·
t20-0000-2005 r2ex Plan 'I'Q[I) GIRH]t2DT 106398
820-0000~2008 Flex Plan ~ HO~'MA~ 106399
120-0000-2006 Deduct Ply ~I'I'I'BDMAY 106407
U0-0000-2009 DeC Ccxlp ~ 106345
U0-0000-2009 DU~ Comp USCM ~ CCIO 106410
U0-0000-2009 De~ Cosp ~C)i~ iirr2RDinn' MID 'Tlms'r 106281
82o-oooo-2Oll Li~e lnl. ~ T.TIF'~ 106337
U0-0000-2011 Lifo ~nJ. 383200-1K:Pl]m (3RCXIP L..IJ'E I!8106197
~0-0000-2022 R6alth Zn~ ~)ZC:& 10632S
a20-0000-2023 DSm'AL PAY H~C~[R.I"I~ I.,IFE I]fHURAIK~ CD 106377
250.00
5O0.0O
750.00
100.00
100.00
200.00
950.00
JlI.,BX-~ 082102 08/22/02 139.08
FT_.,~-H:I]~ 083102 08/21/01 155.00
JFLEX-ItZ]t.~ 082101 08/21/01 166.00
II'r-.~Z-I]i-YCM~MIDH~J~'H 082101 08/21/01 224.76
~-~ 082101 08/21/01 217.39
~-~~~ 08~101 08/~1/01 801.30
~-~~~ 082101 08/~1/01 93.58
~-~ 082101 08/~1/01 ~5.33
~ ~'l~H-~ 083101 08/17/01 688.50
~ ~-~ 082401 0~/]0/01 165.00
~~ ~-~ ~ ~ 08~01 08/]0/01
~ ~ ~-~ ~ 08~701 08/20/01 ~S.O0
~ ~ ~~ ~70~5 08/~/01 318.56
~ ~ ~-~ 9~ ~~' 082401 08/20/01 ]55.00
~~~ ~ 101]~10 08/~/01 ~,~1.59
~ ~~-~ 080701 08/17/01 ~80.06
.................
~ 18,2~7.57
.................
~~ 18,~7.57
.................
~~ 399,002.45
CHECK REGISTER REPORT
BANK: CHANHASSEN BANK Date: 08/21/01
08/27/01 Time: 3:45pm
City of Char~hassen Page: 1
Check Check Veer
N~r Date Stat~ N~r Vendor N~ Check Description ~t
106193 08/13/01 Printed DANWAS DANIELLE WASHBURN PETTY CASH-FINANCE 300.00
106194 08/13/01 Printed DONKIL DONALD KILIAN REFUND EROSION CONTROL ESCROW 250.00
106195 08/13/01 Printed MARLIT HARK LITTFIN SAFETY CAHP SUPPLIES 159.41
106196 08/13/01 Printed TOSHEA TON SHEASBY REFUND EROSION CONTROL ESCROg 500.00
106197 08/27/01 Printed NCPERS 383200-NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS EMP DEF COHP-2ND PAY IN AUGUST 255.00
106198 08/27/01 Printed AZREN A TO Z RENTAL CENTER CANOPY RENTAL 117.30
106199 08/27/01 Printed AZRO0 A TO Z ROOFING REFUND OVERPAYMENT 14.50
106200 08/27/01 Printed AECENG AEC ENGINEERING GROUND STORAGE RESERVOIR 388.27
106201 08/27/01 Printed ALEAIR ALEX AIR APPARATUS INC SUSPENDERS 141.80
106202 08/27/01 Printed ALLMET ALL METRO SUPPLIES SOD 19.17
106203 08/27/01 Printed AMEBES AMERICAmS BEST ROOFING REFUND OVERPAYMENT 14.50
106204 08/27/01 Printed ANCTEC ANCON TECHNICAL CENTER PROGRAM PAGERS 60.00
106205 08/27/01 Printed ANDBAB ANDREA BABEL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 30.00
106206 08/27/01 Printed ANDWER ANDREA WERMERSKIRCHEN MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 35.00
106207 08/27/01 Printed ANNONE ANN O~NEILL PROGRN~ REFUND 12.00
106208 08/27/01 Printed ANNTOO ANN~S TOOL SUPPLY DRILL BITS 751,53
106209 08/27/01 Printed ANNRYA ANNE RYAN MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 30,00
106210 08/27/01 Printed ARAHAR ARAHARK COFFEE/CREAH 121.80
106211 08/27/01 Printed BANFOR BANN FORMS TECHNOLOGY INSPECTION RECORD CARDS 536.78
106212 08/27/01 Printed BAYWES BAY WEST SORBENT BOON 1,489.00
106213 08/27/01 Printed BELS~/C BELTRAMI SWCD REGISTRATION-HAAK 100.00
106214 08/27/01 Printed BERCOF BERRY COFFEE CO~IPANY COFFEE CUPS 1/~8.04
106215 08/27/01 Printed HOISET BETH HOISETH REIMBURSE SAFETY CAMP SUPPLIES 22.88
106216 08/27/01 Printed BOBLAN BOB LANZI SOFTBALL UMPIRE 260.00
106217 08/27/01 Printed BOUTRE BOUND TREE PARR, LLC ICE PICKS 102.18
106218 08/27/01 Printed BOYHEA BOYER HEAVY TRUCK SALES & SERV STERLING CAB & CHASSIS 54,254.00
10~219 08/27/01 Printed BOYTRU BOYER TRUCK PARTS ARH REST 1,818.47
106220 08/27/01 Printed BRAPUM BRAUN PUMP & CONTROLS REPLACEMENT PUMP 5,385.71
106221 08/27/01 Printed BRITV BRIANS TV & TANNING REPAIR TV 89.58
106222 08/27/01 Printed BRYROC BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC ROCK 293.15
106223 08/27/01 Printed CAMKNU CAMPBELL KNUTSON SCOTT & FUCHS LEGAL SERVICES - JULY 10,169.59
106224 08/27/01 Printed CARTRA CARLSON TRACTOR & EQUIP CO HOSES, SEALS 248.99
106225 08/27/01 Printed CARDUN CAROL DUNSMORE FLEX-HEALTH 139.08
106226 08/27/01 Printed CARWEI CAROLYN WE[BY PROGRAM REFUND 24.00
106227 08/27/01 Printed CARBER CARRIE BERGSTRON PROGRAM REFUND 12.00
106228 08/27/01 Printed CARLUR CARRIE LURA PROGRAM REFUND 12.00
106229 08/27/01 Printed CARRED CARVER COUNTY RED CROSS BABYSITTING CLINIC SUPPLIES 246.50
106230 08/27/01 Printed CATPAR CATCO PARTS SERVICE GASKET 933.16
106231 08/27/01 Printed CATJOH CATHERINE JOHNSON PROGRAM REFUND 24.00
106232 08/27/01 Printed CDWGOV COW GOVERNMENT INC VACUUM TONER/REPLACEMENT BAGS 1,687.58
106233 08/27/01 Printed CEMPRO CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO LAKE ANN FLAGPOLE 145.65
106234 08/27/01 Printed CHAPLA CHAHPLAIN PLANNING PRESS SUBSCRIPTION 115.00
106235 08/27/01 Printed CHAGO0 CHANHASSEN GOODYEAR TIRE 55.06
106236 08/27/01 Printed CHAVET CHANHASSEN VETERINARY JULY SERVICES 1,874.77
106237 08/27/01 Printed CHABUI CHASKA BUILDING CENTER SCREWS 68.31
106238 08/27/01 Printed CHRVAS CHRISTA VASSALLO PROGRAM REFUND 24.00
106239 08/27/01 Printed CINWAL CINDY WALSH PROGRAM REFUND 12.00
106240 08/27/01 Printed MINNEA CITY OF HINNEAPOLIS RENTAL OF BURN BUILDING 450.00
106241 08/27/01 Printed CLUINN CLUB 40 INN FIVE HOTEL ROONS- DIVE TEAM 234.30
106242 08/27/01 Printed CONKLI CONNIE KLINGELHUTZ PROGRAM REFUND 12.00
106243 08/27/01 Printed CONMO0 CONNIE MOORE PROGRAM REFUND 24.00
106244 08/27/01 Printed COPIHA COPY IMAGES INC STAPLES 586.00
106245 08/27/01 Printed COREXP CORPORATE EXPRESS FOLDERS~ PUSH PINS 812.06
106246 08/27/01 Printed COUMIC COURTNEY MICHEL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 30.00
106247 08/27/01 Printed CRABTR CRABTREE COMPANIES INC TONER CARTRIDGES 271.73
106248 08/27/01 Printed CRAPET CRAIG PETERSON ADULT SOFTBALL UMPIRE 25.00
106249 08/27/01 Printed DALLAR DALE LARSEN PLATES, FORKS, SUPPLIES 10.63
106250 08/27/01 Printed DANKA DANKA OFFICE IMAGING COMPANY ADMIN COPIER 684.92
106251 08/27/01 Printed DAVDRE DAVE DRESSLER FLEX-HEALTH 90.25
106252 08/27/01 Printed DAVNAT DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO O-RINGS, GASKETS 79.82
106253 08/27/01 Printed DELYOU DELORES YOUNGDAHL REFUND - ONE TO ONE 364.00
106254 08/27/01 Printed DONASH DON ASHWORTH FLEX-HEALTH 155.00
106255 08/27/01 Printed EARANO EARL F ANOERSEN INC ASHLING MEAOOWS STREET SIGNS 720.43
106256 08/27/01 Printed EHLERS EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC SR HOUSING TIF 31.25
106257 08/27/01 Printed ELKRIV ELK RIVER CONCRETE PRODUCTS RINGS 130.41
106258 08/27/01 Printed ENGNEW ENGINEERING NEWS-RECORD MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION 59.00
106259 08/27/01 Printed FACMOT FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CONPANY BATTERIES 1,323.39
106260 08/27/01 Printed FDSOA FDSOA HEMBERSHIP 75.00
106261 08/27/01 Printed FIEDRE FIELD OF DREAMS RECYCLING CTR DISPOSAL OF DISEASED ELH WOOD 6.00
106262 08/27/01 Printed FIRSTU FIRST STUDENT INC BEAVER MOUNTAIN BUS 166.00
106263 08/27/01 printed FIRSYS FIRST SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY SCAOA COMPUTER LOCK-UP 1,I00.00
106264 08/27/01 Printed FROPLU FRONTLINE PLUS FIRE & RESCUE CLASS A FOAM 410.00
~k Ver~r
Date Stat~ N~doer
106265 08/27/01 Printed GALLS
1067.66 08/27/01 Printed GINHAN
10~7 08/27/01 Printed GLEFLO
10~ 08/27/01 Printed BRARAG
l__r~__~ 08/27/01 Printed GOPSTA
.106270 08/27/01 Printed GREHIL
106271 08/27/01 Printed HANTHO
1067.7~ 08/27/01 Printed HARCRE
106273 08/27/01 Printed HAWCHE
106274 08/27/01 Printed HEAEVU
106275 08/27/01 Printed HEARUD
106276 08/27/01 Printed HENEOU
105277 08/27/01 Printed HLBTAU
106278 08/27/01 Prtnted HOFTAL
106279 08/27/01 Prtnted HO%KOE
10~.80 08/27/01 Printed HOLDOV
1067.81 08/27/01 Printed ICMA
106282 08/27/01 Printed IKOOFF
1057.83 08/27/01 Printed I#PPOR
106284 08/27/01 Printed JRRAD
1067.85 08/27/01 Printed JANCLA
10628~ 08/27/01 Printed JDLIND
106287 08/27/01 Printed JEFLON
10~.88 08/27/01 Prtnted JEF#EI
1067.89 08/27/01 Printed JEFV06
.106~0 08/27/01 Printed JEFFIR
'10~91 08/27/01 Printed JENLOR
10E2~ 08/27/01 Printed JEN$CH
106293 08/27/01 Printed JOATYL
106294 08/27/01 Printed JUDCHR
106~)5 08/27/01 Printed KARWI C
1062~ 08/27/01 Printed KARENn
106297 08/27/01 Printed KARPOW
106298 08/27/01 Printed KELLUN
1062~) 08/27/01 Printed KELBUR
106300 08/27/01 Printed KELCUL
106301 08/27/01 Printed KENnRA
106302 08/27/01 Printed KILELE
10~303 08/27/01 Printed K%MHAL
106304 08/27/01 Printed KIMHEU
10~05 08/27/01 Printed I(R% SCH
10~306 08/27/01 Printed LANEND
106307 08/27/01 Printed LALNON
106308 08/27/01 Printed LAUAND
106309 08/27/01 Printed LAUHOF
10~310 08/27/01 Printed LEEBRA
106311 08/27/01 Printed LEELAK
106312 08/27/01 Printed LINBEU
106313 08/27/01 Printed LONBRA
10~14 08/27/01 Printed LORIX)S
106315 08/27/01 Printed LONEDU
106316 08/27/01 Printed LUNPAX
106317 08/27/01 Printed LYNECK
106318 08/27/01 Printed LYHPAU
106319 08/27/01 Printed HARYHA
106320 08/27/01 Printed HARHAN
10~21 08/27/01 Printed HARI(R !
106322 08/27/01 Pr t nted HARPOR
106323 08/27/01 Printed HATSAA
106324 08/27/01 Printed MCIWOR
106325 08/27/01 Printed MED%CA
10~326 08/27/01 Printed MERHIJD
i06327 08/27/01 Printed METAIR
106328 08/27/01 Printed METATH
1063~x) 08/27/01 Printed METTEN
106330 08/27/01 Printed HETC02
06331 08/27/01 Printed MEYSCH
0533~ 08/27/01 Prtnted M[CLOV
06333 08/27/01 Printed MICREN
0633~ 08/27/01 Printed MIDRO0
06335 08/27/01 Printed MIDASP
063~ 08/27/01 Printed MINCOM
CHECK REGISTER REPORT
BANK: CHANHASSEN BANK
08/27/01
Ver~or N~e
GALLS %NC
GINA I~U4SON
GLENROSE FLORAL
GOOOYEU SUP UGU TZRE
GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
GRETCHEN HILL
HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON
HARDUO00 CREEl( LI.NBER [NC
EAkI(I NS CHEHICAL
HEALTHCONP EVALUATION SVCS COR
HEATHER RUGNICKI
HE#MEN EQUII:q,IENT INC
HLB TAIJTGES REDPATH LTD
HOFFNAN TALENT AGENCY
HOISINGTON KOEGLER GRCXJP
HOLLY OOVICH
ICMA RETZRE]qENT ,AND TRUST
II(ON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
IMPERIAL PORTA THRONES
J & R RADIATOR REPAIR
JANE CLAGUE
JDL INDUSTRIES INC.
JEFF LONENSON
JEFF MEI)OIER
JEFF VOIGHT
JEFFERSON FIRE SAFETY IRC
JENNIFER LORGE
JENNY SCHRLR
dOANN TYLER
JUDY CHRISTENSEN
I(ARA WICKENHAUSER
I(AREN ENGELHARDT
ICARE# PC)~ERS
ICELLI E LUNIXIUI ST
KELLY BURAU
KELLY CULLEN
KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED
KILLMER ELECTRIC CO
KIM HALLER
KRISTA SCHIqIDT
LANDS END CORPONAT;: SALES
LAURA
LAUR I E ANDERSON
LAURIE HOFFHAN
LEE SRANDT
LEECH LAKE DISTRIBUTORS IRC
LTNDA BEUTEL
LONDA BRAUN
LORI IX)SEN
LOI~IAN EDUCATION SERVICES
LUND'S PAINTING
LYNN ECKHOFF
LYNN PAULY
HARY HARPER
MARY JO HARRINGTON
MARY KRIPPEN
MARYANN PORTER
HATT SAAH
MCI WONLDCON COHM SERVICE
MEDICA
MERRY HUOLO~
METRO AIR
METRO ATHLETIC SI.~PLY
METRO TENT RENTAL INC
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
MEYER SCHERER & ROCKCAS?LE LTD
MICHELLE LOVE
MICHELLE RENNINGER
MIOWAY ROOFING INC
MIl)WEST ASPHALT CORPORATION
MINNEAPOLIS COMMUNITY AND
Check Description
RECHARGEABLE FLASHLIGHT
ADULT SOFTSALL UNPIRE
PLANT IqA% NTENANCE
TIRES
UTILITY LOCATES
PROORAH REFUND
BC7 & BC8 TRUNK UTi~LITIES
HUBS/LATH
CHEMICALS
RANDON DRUG TESTING
MILEAGE REINBLIRSENENT
PLATES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
DEPOSIT-4TH JULY ENTERTAINNENT
CHANHASSEN/FOX TRAIL
PROGRAH REFOND
BqPLOYEE DEF COHP-2#D PAY AUG
COPIER RENTAL
P~TABLES FOR 4TH OF JULY
MUFFLER
PROGRAN REFIJND
WHITE REFLECTIVE PAINT
SOFTBALL UNPIRE
MET TO CATCH CATS
ADULT SOFTBALL UNPIRE
THER~L [I~GI#G CAHERA
PROGRAN REFUND
MILEAGE REIMBUNSENENT
FOOO/BUSINESS MEETING
PROGRNq REFUND
WILDER PAGEANT. TICKETS
FLEX-HEALTH
PROGRAH REFUND
PROGRAH REFUND
MILEAGE REIHBURSEMENT
MILEAGE REIMBURSE)lENT
TIF LITIr-ATION, PARKER HANNIFI
REPAIRS-I(ERBER & SIERRA
PROGRAN REFUND
FLEX-DAYCARE AND HEALTH
BABYSITTING INSTRUCTOR
SHIRTS
#ILEAGE REIMBURSENENT
REFUND - SOCCER PRESCHOOL
PROGRAM REFUND
ADULT SOFTBALL URPIRE
X-15 GPS
REFUND-PRESCHOOL T-BALL
PROGRAH REFUND
REFUND-SAFETY CANP
SALES TAX SI3qINAR-IqANUAL
PAI#T]NG DOOR-STATION !
PROGRAH REFUND
REFUND-SAFETY CAMP -
REFUND - DANCE
PRO6RAHS REFUND
PROGRAH REFUND
DANCE SUPPLIES
FLEX-HEALTH
TELEPHONE CHARGES
SEPTBqBER HEALTH INSURANCE
REFUND APPLICATION FEE
REFUND OVERPAYlqENT
MEGAPHONE
SAFETY CAHP
WASTEWATER SERVICES
CHAN PUDL ! C L I BRARY
PROGRNq REFUNDS
REFUND-SAFETY CAMP
REFUND CANCELED PERMIT
C~EDIT BALANCE
MEI)OIER TUITION
Date: 08/21/01
Time: 3:451~n
Page: 1
A~o~t
93.98
20.00
310.05
5?.6.28
668.80
24.00
11,454.10
81
2,352.81
76.00
71.01
29,920.Z5
500.00
1,795.30
24.00
845.00
190.01
1,313.45
576.67
24.00
506.52
940.00
45.78
~0.00
20,~.11
12.00
35.00
100.31
24.00
150.00
166.00
12.00
12.00
30.00
30.00
24.00
224.76
203.00
867.50
30.00
35.00
24.00
120.00
30.00
12.00
15.00
84.00
800. O0
12.00
15.00
70.00
~6.00
12.00
270.58
250.00
10.2.5
34,670.69
1~.00
15.38
1~.~
75,480.67
11,933.52
12.00
15.00
89.25
4,3~5.97
1,631.00
CHECK REGISTER REPORT
BANK: CHANHASSEN BANK Date: 08/21/01
08/27/01 Time: 3:45pm
City of Chanhaasen Page: 2
Check Check Vendor
Number Date b'catus Nt~ber Vendor Name Check Description Amount
106337 08/27/01 Printed HNLIFE MINNESOTA LIFE SEPTEHBER LIFE INSURANCE 867.74
1063~8
106:139
106340
106~41
106342
10634~
106344
106345
106346
106347
106348
106349
106350
106351
106:152
106353
106354
106355
106356
106357
106358
106359
106360
106361
106363
106364
106365
106366
106367
106368
106369
106370
106371
106372
106373
106374
106376
106377
106378
106379
106381
106382
10638~
106385
106386
106387
106388
106389
106390
106391
106392
106393
106394
106395
106396
106397
106398
106399
106400
106401
106402
106403
106405
106406
106407
106408
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
OE f27/01
OE f27/01
O8 f27/01
08 f27/01
08 427/01
08 I27/01
O8 I27/01
O8/27/O 1
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08t27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
08/27/01
Printed MINNAT MINNESOTA NATIVE LANDSCAPES
Printed MNHEAL MN DEPT OF HEALTH
Printed MNEROS MN EROSION CONTROL ASSN
Printed MRPA MN RECREATION & PARK ASSOC.
Printed MTIDIS MTI DISTRIBUTING INC
Printed NALMS NALMS
Printed NAPA NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS
Printed NAS NAS
Printed NATBAG NATIONAL BAG
Printed NICJOH NICOLE JOHNSON
Printed NORREP NORTHSTAR REPRO PROOUCTS INC
Printed NRGPRO NRC PROCESSING SOLUTIONS, LLC
Printed NYSPUB NYSTROR PUBLISHING COMPANY lNC
Printed OFFMAX OFFICE MAX
Printed OLSFIR OLSEN FIRE PROTECTION
Printed ONVOY ONVOY
Printed PANGOL PAN GOLENZER
Printed PARHAN PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION
Printed PATFLA PATTI FLAKNE
Printed PATHUG PATTY HUGH
Printed PAUEKH PAUL EKHOLH
Printed PAUOLS PAUL OLSON
Printed PAUPUD PAUL PUDLITZKE
Printed PEGZOE PEGGIE ZOERHOF
Printed PRALAW PRAIRIE LAWN & GAROEN
Printed PROONE PROTECTION ONE
Printed QUIZNO GUIZNO'S
Printed QWEST QWEST
Printed RDHAN RD HANSON ASSOCIATES INC
Printed REAGEM REAL GEM
Printed REUBOT REUS-BOTTEHA CONSTRUCTION INC
Printed RIDDO0 RIDGE DOOR SALES & SERVICE INC
Printed RIDBUS RIDGEVIEW BUSINESS HEALTH
Printed ROARUN ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION INC
Printed RUMRIV RUM RIVER EMBROIOERY
Printed RWHAG RW HAGEN
Printed SARTHO SARAH THOMAS
Printed SAVSUP SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC
Printed SCOTT SCOTT & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Printed SECLIF SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE CO
Printed SHOTRU SHORENOOD TRUE VALUE
Printed SIGNSO SIGNSOURCE
Printed SOUSUB SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING
Printed SOVRAN SOVRAN
Printed STASPE STACIA SPEIGHT
Printed STEHAR STEFANIE HARNER
Printed STEHER STEVE HERRON
Printed STREIC STREICHER'S
Printed SUBCHE SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
Printed SUBEXT SUBURBAN EXTERIORS INC
Printed SUNNEW SUN NEWSPAPERS
Printed SUSJEN SUSAN dENSEN
Printed SUSMAR SUSAN MAREK
Printed TARGET TARGET
Printed TECGRA TECHNAGRAPHICS
Printed TERBUR TERESA BURGESS
Printed TERFOS TERESA FOSTER
Printed HARCOM THE HARTFEIL COHPANY
Printed TIFPRO TIFFANY PROSEN
Printed TNSCON THS CONSTRUCTION
Printed TODGER TODD GERHARDT
Printed TODHOF TODD HOFFMAN
Printed TODNIC TODD NICKLAUS
Printed TONSCH TONDI SCHOEPP
Printed TONDEL TONY DELORENZO
Printed TWIRO0 TWIN CITY ROOFING
Printed TWICIT TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC INC
Printed UNIUNL UNIFORMS UNLIMITED
Printed UNIREN UNITEO RENTALS INC
Printed UNIWAY UNITED WAY
Printed USOFF us OFFICE PRODUCTS
WALNUT GROVE POND CLEANING
WATER SERVICE FEE
REGISTRATION-HAAK
SOFTBALL TOURNAMENT BERTH
DIAPHRAGM KIT
MEMBERSHIP
BELT
EHP DEF COMP-ALIGUST
PERMIT BAGS
PROGRAM REFUND
PAPER
JUNK t~:)OD
FALL '01CHANHASSEN CONNECTION
OFFICE SUPPLIES
REFUND OVERPAYMENT
INTERNET CHARGES
PROGRAM REFUND
REFUND SIGN ESCROU
PROGRAM REFUND
PROGPJLM REFUND
FLEX-DAYCARE
WATERING PRAIRIE SEEDINGS
REFUND SIGN ESCROW
PILATES FITNESS CLASS INSTR.
CHOKE ROD
LK ANN SECURITY MONITORING
DINNERS FOR PLANNING COHNISSIO
TELEPHONE CHARGES
2 CASES POPCORN
FISHING CONTEST WINNERS
REFUNO WATER METER CHARGES
REPAIR OVERHEAO
DIVER PROTOCOL WORK UP
DELIVERY CHARGES
NAME TAGS
JULY OIVE TRAINING
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
BOWL CLEANER
SAFETY CAMP
DENTAL INSURANCE-SEPTEMBER
ELECTRICAL COVERS
HELMET MARKERS
ADVERTISING
TROUBLESHOOT/TESTED MOOEM
PROGRAM REFUND
REFUND-KINDER DANCE
REIMBURSE-DAMAGE TO DRAIN
LIGHT BULBS
BUSHING KIT/HANDLE/INSULATOR
REFUNO OVERPAYMENT
DANCE AO
PROGRAM REFUNO
OFFICE SUPPLIES
SAFETY C/U4P SUPPLIES
BUSINESS CAROS-ANN & SUSAN
FLEX-OAYCARE ANO HEALTH
PROGRAM REFUNO
VALVES
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
LONER BLUFF CREEK
FLEX-HEALTH ANO OAYCARE
FLEX-HEALTH
UMPIRE. CO-REC SOFTBALL
PROGRAN REFUNO
PROGRAM REFUNO
REFUND OVERPAYMENT
WATER ANALYSIS-CHAPARRAL LANE
EMT PATCHES
4TH JULY CONE RENTAL
EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS M-A
MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,009.50
8,028.00
55.00
125.00
89.30
100.00
14,90
165.00
149.57
12.00
210.81
300.00
6,839.43
19'3.97
10.35
524.85
24.00
100.00
24. O0
24.00
217.39
185. O0
100.00
1,278.20
3.67
86.27
76.55
380.88
39.90
10.89
90.18
200.56
340.00
56.45
70.00
200.00
30.00
35.02
227.50
842.55
20.97
4,765.38
1,386.19
300.00
12.00
65.00
260.93
49.44
105.58
5.00
2~5.00
24.00
8.68
266.71
316,10
801.30
24.00
537.05
30.00
17,153.10
93.58
237.33
20.00
12.00
12.00
14.50
45.00
37.38
538.67
688.50
232.61
CHECK REGISTER REPORT
BANK: CHANHASSEN BANK Date: 08/21/01
08/27/01 Time: ]:45pm
ty of Chanhasaen Page: ]
........ .................. .........................................................................................
tuber Date Status Ncmnber Vendor Name Check Deacrlptfo~ . Amocmt
106~0g 08/27/01 Printed USTOY US TOY CO HATS 99.85
10~410 08/27/01 Printed USON USCJq DEFERRED C~NP I~IPLOYEE DEF CONP-2ND ]N AUG 5,611.42
10~411 08/27/01 Printed VALRIC VALLEY-RICH CO INC VALVE REPAIR 3,827.39
100412 08/27/01 Printed VER%ZO VERIZON WIRELESS CELLUt. AR PHONE CH~LRGES Z8.17
10~13 08/27/01 Printed WACFAR WACONIA FARM SUPPLY TWINE 39.00
106414 08/27/01 Printed WATSON WATSON COMPANY LK ANN CONCESSION SUPPLIES 224.99
106415 08/27/01 Printed WENBER WENDY BERKLAND ADVENTURE CA#P SUPPLIES 113.$2
106~16 08/27/01 Printed ~IENS]R UENDY SIROVY PROGRAN REFUND Z4.00
1(]~17 08/27/01 Printed I~ICLTD ~I]CHTF. R#AN"S LTD INC REPAIR TRUCK SEAT 183.54
106418 08/27/01 Printed ~ISDAR I&S DARLEY & CO. FEHALE CONNECTORS 129.89
106~1g 08/27/01 Printed klSB klSB & ASSOCIATES INC CENTURY BLVD STREET & UTILITY 12,191.8~
106420 08/27/01 Printed k"~GRA IJ~ GRAINGER INC NULTI-NETER 20~.72
10~421 08/27/01 Printed XCEL XCEL ENERGY ]NC ELECTRICITY CHARGES 24,306.53
106~22 08/27/01 Printed YOUN~E YOUNG N~ER]CA CORPORATZON P]CN]C REFUND 50.00
106~23 08/27/01 Printed ZEE)lED ZEE #ED]CAL SERVICE 1ST AID SUPPLIES 30.71
106424 08/27/01 Printed ZEP]ND ZEPHYR INDUSTRIES INC VALVE HOLDERS 2~6.05
106425 08/27/01 Printed ZIFDAV ZIFF DAVIS SJ~JLRT BUS]NESS ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION 14.g7
Total Check~: 233 Bank TotaL: 399,002.45
Total Checks: 233 Grand TotaL: 39g,002.45
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCH.,
WORK SESSION
AUGUST 13, 2001
Mayor Jansen called the work session meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.
,COUNCILMEMBERS PRF~ENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman Peterson,
Councilman Labatt and Councilman Boyle
~TAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Acting City Manager, and Bruce DeJong, Finance Direct~
2002 BUDGET DISCIJ~SION.
Bruce DeJong began the discussion by providing bac~und information and providing the good news
and bad news for the upcoming year. Councilman Ayotte asked about the risk of paying increased
interest by pushing the library bonding out until next year. He stated he wanted to see taxes go down
while serving the debt service. Todd Gerhardt explained the time line associated with using funds to
build the library versus the construction time and the legal limits for using that funding.
Bruce DeJong then explained the local government aid sheet that outlined how that city funds received
from the State were being impacted due to the recent legislative changes. There was talk of the city's
levy limit and state funding available. Todd Gertmrdt explained that the State will be taxing co~
industrial and cabin properties to make up the difference for school funding that has been taken away..
Bruce I)e.long stated that the city was on target as far as building permit revenues for this year and
expected it to be okay next year as well. Other revenue from ~ taxes would include two TiP
districts decertifying next year and being put back on the tax rolls.
There was discussion about the McGlynn TIF district and looking for revenue sources to fund the debt
that's been incurred. Bruce De.long stated if funding soumes could not be found, the city will have to put
the amount on the tax levy. Councilman Peterson stated he would like to see the fund balances and fund
balances expected at the end of this year and for the ensuing year. Mayor Jansen stated she would like to
see a worksheet showing the total debt levy and a co~ to last year and what the bottom line
i~t on taxpayers is and options available.
Mayor Jansen then stated this was an initial run through of the budget and that council should e-mail any
specific questions to the Finance Director. Councilman Peterson requested to see the results from 5%,
10%, etc cuts across the board from the budget. The next step will be talking with the individual
department heads and going over their specific budgets. Todd Gerhaxdt stated that he has already asked
the department heads to start looking at possible cuts.
Mayor Jansen adjourned the work session meeting at 6:55 p.m.
Submitted by Todd ~t
Acting City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
RF~ULAR MEETING
AUGUST 13, 2001
Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:0S pmL The meeting was opened with the Pledge to
the Flag.
COUN~ER~ ~: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Boyle,
Councilman Ayotte, and Councilman Peterson
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Bob Generous, Teresa Burgess,
Todd Hoffman, Brace DeJong, Jerry Ruegemor, and Lori Haak
PUBLIC PRF.,~NT FOR ALL ~:
J~rry & Jan~ Paulsen
Deb Lloyd
7305 Laredo Drive
7302 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PRESENTATION OF MINNF-qOTA RECREATION AND
PARK ASSOCIATION AWARD OF EXCELLENCE TO ~ CITY OF CFIAN~AS.~qEN FOR
DAVE HUFFMAN MEMORIAL RACE.
Sandy Wefts: Hi. I'm Sandy Werts. I work for the City of Eden Prairie but I'm here on behalf of the
Minnesota Recreation and Park Association~ . So Mayor, members of the City Council and the Dave
Huffman Memorial Race Committee, Fm very pleased to be hbre this evening on behal.f of the Minnesota
Recreation And Park Association to present this 2001 Award of Excellence. The MRPA Award of
Excellence program recognizes agencies and organizations in Minnesota for outstanding achievements in
parks, recreation and leisure services. Awards of Excellence are awarded in the following categories.
Facility, Administrative or Management Strategies, Volunteer Initiatives, Sponsorships and Parmerships,
Cormnunicstlons, Technology, Programming and Events. Each application is judged for the planning
process, funding plan, collaboration with others, community support, originality-and the evaluation
process. So is the committee going to come up? Okay. So tonight I am very pleased to present this 2001
Award of Excellence in the Programming and Events category to the City of .Chanhassen and the Dave
Huffman Memorial Race Committee for the 2000 Dave Huffinan 5K Memorial Race.
Mayor Jansen: Wonderful and congratulations. Thank you for the award and our gratitude to the
committee for having pulled this wonderful event together and we realize that we're anticipating a
growth in this event as we're coming into this year, September correct? September 1.5~ so hopefully
everyone will turn out and participate in the next Dave Huffman Memorial Race. Appreciate it and
congratulations. Thank you for the award.
CON~ENT AGENDA:
Mayor Jansen: Moving onto the consent agenda, are there any council members that have any items on
the consent agenda that they'd like to have removed for separate discussion?
Councilman Ayotte: Madam Mayor, I would request to have an item put onto the consent agenda~ In
order to demonstrate council support to Highway 101 trail, I would like to make a motion to move item
number 6 to the consent agenda. I further move that the council direct staff to 1, develop a scope and
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
solicit bids for the construction of the trail, including a variety of design options to afford the council a
rneam of assessing the best bang for the buck. Number 2, work in concert with MnDot and other public
agents to solidify the scope for the close-in repair of 101. Number 3, obtain formal recognition of trail
construction from MnDot. Number 4, secure a date and the generic long range plan for the
reconstruction of 101. And number 5, send a note to Representative Workman thanking him for the
money and ask him to get some more.
Councilman Boyle: I will second that motion.
Mayor Jansen: Discussion of the motion. Though I can certainly appreciate the enthusiasm of wanting
to put something of that significance forward with a unanimous vote, I think it only faii' to staff, as well
as council, to allow for there to be some discussion and their presentation of where we stand as far as the
funding and the impacts on the community, which I believe is the intent of staff having put this under
unfinished business is to allow for that open discussion and comment. And certainly it'~ anticipated then
that that will, as the motion is under 6, call for the public hearing, which is a requirement of our being
able to discuss that application.
Councilman Ayotte: Could I have clarification from Mr. Knutson? We have a motion and a second, can
that go onto the consent agenda?
Roger Knutson: The item can go on the consent agenda if the council so chooses. You have to vote on
your motion obviously.
Councilman Ayotte: Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: And that is the discussion of the motion that we're having currenfl~,. Since there is a
motion on the table, I've opened it for discussion of the motion. Any additional discussion?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah Madam Mayor, I think I agree 100% with all of Mr. Ayotte's comments. I
guess I would be interested to hear staff's currant status report before making that decision. And again,
on the surface I 100% agree with everything he said. But I think it's worthy, actually the people that are
here to hear the current status. If we put it on the consent agenda, they won't hear the current status and
it won't be discussed so I think there's some merit to that point
Councilman Labatt: All we're doing here is just calling for public hearing to be put on the next agenda.
So I don't have a problem with it on the consent agenda because all of the discussion with staff or not,
the residents can be done in 2 weeks or 4 weeks, whenever it gets on the next agenda. Then that gives
everybody more time to receive input. So I don't have a problem moving it to the consent agenda. We're
just calling for public hearing, that's all we're doing.
Mayor Jansen: If you were to simply take number 6 and move it to the consent agenda I would certainly
agree with that comment, though I would still appreciate being able to hear staff's update. However the
motion was not phrased specific to item number 6 simply being moved. There was a great deal more
added without the background and input from staff to be able to address that. So my only concern is
better understanding the motion and being able to allow staff to be able to review and comment on those
steps and the impacts then on the community so that we could have that perspective. However, if you
would like to make the motion for number 6 to go to the consent agenda, then that would be a separate
issue.
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Councilman Ayotte: Say again?
Mayor Jansen: If you wanted to just simply move 6.
Councilman Ayotte: No, I want my motion to stand and.
Mayor Jansen: And we're going to vote on that right now.
Councilman Ayotte: Let me finish my comment. I want the motion to stand and then that the council on
it, and if there is a decision at some point to gain more information after the staff goes and responds to
what I've asked for, then that will give more information to the community but I want to lock thiR in to
demonstrate that the council does support the 101 trail. That's my motivation for making thiR motion.
And the parmneters I put on for additional information is to'fttrther solidify the position that I think we
ought to make and I'm just asking for the rest of the council to vote on it. How's that?
Councilman Peterson: So would it be your intent not to hear from staff tonight then?
Councilman Ayotte: I really don't think that the staff can gather all the information needed. If they have
information to share, that's fine but my motion stands as is. I'd like to vote on it. And if staff can
comment on it, fine. Otherwise, we can wait another week or two but I wanted to make it as a matter of
public record that the council supports the trail and that we should continue to go forward as Teresa
Burgess has been going forward to continue the proc~, s. And I don't want it to be interrupted. I think
the motion I've stated would allow the process to continue in a professional, smooth fashion.
Mayor Jansen: Understood.
Councilman Ayotte: Without hiccups. Without any politicizing of the issue. I want to go forward with
it.
Councilman Peterson: The other way to gain all that is to, after we hear the discussion with staff, you
could still make that same motion in the council presentations so that you have the information. You
have more information than what you have now. Again, I'm not trying to circumvent the process. I just
want to be as informed as we can, and the community as informed as we can prior to making that
decision. If it's just calling for a public hearing, then I'm not adverse to putting it on the consent agenda
for a public hearing.
Mayor Jansen: And I would agree with what Councilman Peterson just expressed. Is that during the
unfinished business, after the staff presentation when the community's had an opportunity to hear the
update and we have that we review.
Councilman Ayotte: I think in a few weeks we can get more information and share more information
with the community at large. I'd like to get this pushed through. My motion stands. I have a second. I
think we should vote on it.
Mayor Jansen: We will, and I do want to also, because you have emphasized that part of the motivation
here is to emphasize that the council supports the trail, this council has come out and voted and is in
support of the trail. What is being evaluated is how we go about doing that, and we now have another
proposal before us and additional funding available with staff prepared now to be able to speak to that
and the impacts. With the motion on the table, we have a motion and a second.
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Councilman Peterson: Madam Mayor, I'd like to interrupt just one mom time. Before we vote on that
I'd like you to re-state your motion so I.
Councilman Ayotte: You can't read it can you Craig.
Councilman Peterson: No I can't. I tried but I can't read your writing so.
Councilman Ayotte: I left this out for everybody to see and they couldn't figure out what the heck I was
going to say because they can't read my writing. In order to demonstrate council support of the Highway
101 trail, I'd like to make a motion to move item number 6 to consent agenda. I further move that the
council direct staff to number 1, develop a scope and solicit bids for the actual construction of the trail,
including a variety of design options to afford council a means of assessing the best bang for the buck.
Referring primarily to Representative Workman's 500K but additional monies. Number 2, Work in
concert with MnDot and other public agents to solidify the scope of the close-in repair. The things that
we've got to get done now on 101. Number 3, to obtain a formal recognition from.MnDot as far as the
trail is concerned, the trail construction. Make sure that they give us a nod and understand that we have
500K to go forward. Number 4, to secure a date on the generic long range plan for the reconstruction of
101. One of these days there will be discussions about the reconstruction of 101 down the road. No pun
intended. Whether that's 10 years or 15 years, I think we should just kind of put a mark in the sand.
Number 5, and I wasn't saying that tongue in cheek. I think we ought to give a note from this council and
the city staff for Representative Workman's efforts on getting the 500K. 'That's my motion.
Mayor Jansen: I have a question for staff as far as where we are currently, as far as developing the scope
and soliciting the bids for the trail. We do currently have a set of plans and specifications, Correct? Did
we make it that far.
· .
Teresa Burgess: We do not have a set of plans and specs. What we have is a concept set of plans. We
prepared plans that were, what we understood MnBot needed for review of the trail. MnDot then came
back and said they needed additional information. We have not pursued that at this time. The grant is
something that just came out of the legislature so we did not have the sufficient funds. We only had the
$800,000, not the $1.3 necessary. We could certainly, I took Mr. Ayotte's comment to mean that he
wants us to prepare plans with design options to be brought back to the council for approval so that we
know which set to take for construction bids. And so we certainly have, we have a consultant on board
that would complete those plans still waiting from when we did the concept plans.
Mayor Jansen: And as far as the permit to be able to construct this in MnDot's right-of-way, what is the
status on that?
Teresa Burgess: We do not have a permit to construct in MnDot right-of-way. Today we received a fax
from MnDot that stated their willingness to work with us to construct in the fight-of-way, but we do not
have a formal permit. We only have their statement of desire to work with us.
Mayor Jansen: So we do still have all of these steps that we need to take in order to be able to move the
project forward, and that is what staff has been directed in the previous discussion of 101 to go back and
continue to work on those issues. Correct as far as the permit for building in the right-of-way. You've
still been working with MnDot. You've been working with the other jurisdictions.
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Teresa Burgess: We are currently working our way through the DNR grant process. Even though the
legislature directed the DNR to give us a grant, we still need to go through the application process. We
just know the end result. And so that's currently what we're working through. Once we have worked
through that process, then we would initiate phns and specs for the trail. We need to make sure that we
understand all of the requirements of DNR. At the Same time we would be meeting with MnDot to find
out what their requirements are. My understanding from the letter from MnDot today, and Todd
Gerhardt and I both discussed it afler'~ the letter, is that they are re-evaluating their position, on the
trail. Presumably based on the DNR grant, realizing that there is some momentum for thig trail, they are
looking at it again.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I had one question for Teresa. There's no way we could have altexnatives
available in 2 weeks, is there?
Teresa Burgess: Not in 2 weeks. We would need to go through the entire design process. That is going
to take probably at least a month because we would need to go out and do a topographical survey to do a
decent job, and to do the design alternatives.
Mayor Jansen: And the cost of that particular part of the project..
Teresa Burgess: We have estimated, based on the MnDot comments, that we are probably looking a~
about $300,000 worth of engineering total. That would be both design and construction. Approxims.t_~ly
half of that is probably.going to go into design. I have not sat down with the ~onsultant to.get an estimate
for the actual design. We may be able to negotiate a better price with the consultant than our estima~
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And I guess that's going to my initial comments that there's a great deal entailed
in this motion as far as some of the detail and the effects of it that I guess I would appreciate being able
to pose this motion to staff and enable them the time to be able to react and give us feedback as to what
the implementation of this motion would be. I certainly can appreciate wanting to show our support and
as stated, this council, one of the very first projects that we started discussing was the Highway i01
project and we brought it forward with staff and started encouraging and directed staff to go back to the
table and get this discussion underway. And it certainly is a very positive step that we're at now to have
been presented with additional funding, but we have not had the clear report yet from staff as to what we
need to do and we need to get the application in in order to be able to receive the DNR funds. So that is
the item that's on the agenda this evening. We have a motion and a second.
Councilman Peterson: I'd like to ask for.a friendly amen~t. That we, I agree with everything that
was, Mr. Ayotte has offered and at least I'd like the opportunity for staff to make the presentation, on item
number 6 when it comes up so we have an update for the people that are here and for ourselves so, I just
want to have staff, give the staff an opportunity tonight to articulate what infonmfion they've gathered
over the last 2 weeks.
Councilman Ayotte: I would have no problem with the staff doing a presentation if we could still vote on
my moving this to the consent agenda so that there's direction to go forward and then listen to the staff as
a mechanism to educate the public here on what's going on. But I'd like to keep my motion as is and
vote on it.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, well.
City Council Meeting- August 13, 2001
Councilman Peterson: I think he accepted my friendly amendment.
Mayor Jansen: So that we have discussion under item number 6 still. That we're not necessarily
removing it, but there is a motion on the consent agenda as stated by Councilman Ayotte, but when we do
get to item number 6 on the agenda, we will have discussion as planned on the update and status of
Highway 101, which is where the motion stands currently. Is the friendly amendment seconded?
Councilman Boyle: Yes it is.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Friendly amendment is seconded. All those in favor? Oh, we were doing the
consent agenda. I think we had one amendment that we needed, Mr. Knutson? Mr. Knutson please.
Roger Knutson: I believe, as I understand your motion, your motion is to put what the council member
said on the consent agenda. You're not moving the consent agenda. You're moving to put this on the
consent agenda. Then you have a separate motion to move the consent agenda.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Ayotte: I'm confused as heck now.
Mayor Jansen: We're voting to put your motion on the consent agenda. We're not approving the
consent agenda right now. So if I could-have.
Councilman Ayotte: So my efforts to get it on the consent agenda and then have us approve the consent
agenda, then we've just gone full circle.
Roger Knutson: No, as I understand your motion, it's a two step process. You made your motion with
the various parts and if it passes now, it will be on the consent agenda. Then you'll vote on the whole
consent agenda at once.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: Got it?
Councilman Ayotte: Got it.
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to move item number 6, Call Public
Hearing to Discuss Application for the Minnesota DNR Outdoor Recreation Grant Program onto
the consent agenda, with the following directions to staff:
1. Develop a scope and solicit bids for the construction of the trail, including a variety of design
options to afford the council a means of assessing the best bang for the buck.
2. Work in concert with MnDot and other public agents to solidify the scope for the close-in repair
of 101.
3. Obtain formal recognition of trail construction from MnDot.
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
4. Secure a date and the generic long range plan for the reconstruction of 101.
5. Send a note to Representative Workman thanking him for the money and ask him to get some
more.
Ail voted in favor, except Mayor Jnn~en who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Jansen: Excuse n~. If we could please honor the council protocol for our meetings and have as
little disruption as possible. We certainly appreciate of all your enthusiasm around this project, but if we
could maybe have a little less disruption and certainly we appreciate, as I said, your enthusiasm. The rest
of the consent agenda please. Were there items that needed to be amended7
Councilman Labatt: Under (h), approving the bills. I'd like to remove under the special assessrmnt
projects, Check #106104 for $8,684.78.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any other changes to the consent agenda?
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda
items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Approve Consultant Contract for Feasibility Study and Consultant Design for the 2002.
Municipal State Aid ~vement, Project 01-08.
b. Approve Consultant Contract for Feasibility Study and Consultant Design for Kings Road
Improvements.
c. Resolution 02001-46: Approve Resolution for No Parking on the North Side of Pleasant View
Road from TH 101 to Timber Hill Road.
d. Approve Revision to City Code Chapter 7, Initiating As-Built Grading Survey Requirement.
e. Adjust Consultant Contract for Crestview Circle, Project 00-05.
f. Resolution ~f2001~7: Accept Public Utilities in Vandemore Addition, Project 00-12.
g. Resolution ~,001-48: Resolution Giving the City of Chaska 6 Months Notice to Terminate an
Existing Maintenance Agreement for West 82~d Street, PF_I}67El.
h. Approval of Bills amended to delete Check #106104 in the amount of $8,684.78.
i. Approval of Minutes:
- City Council Minutes dated July 23, 2001
- City Council Work Session Minutes dated July 23, 2001
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Minutes dated July 17, 2001
Call Public Hearing to Discuss Application for the Minnesota DNR Outdoor Recreation Grant
Program with the following direction to staff:
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
1. Develop a scope and solicit bids for the construction of the trail, including a variety of
design options to afford the council a ~s of assessing the best bang for the buck.
2. Work in concert with MnDot and other public agents to solidify the scope for the close-in
repair of 101.
3. Obtain formal recognition of trail construction from MnDot.
4. Secure a date and the generic long range plan for the reconstruction of 101.
5. Send a note to Representative Workman thanking him for the money and ask him to get
some more.
All voted in favor, except Mayor Jansen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
VISITOR PRF_SENTATIONS:
Mayor Jansen: Moving on to visitor presentations. The council meetings allow for citizen comment at
this time on city business. If there are members in the audience who have city business issues that you
would like to discuss at this time, we ask that you hold your comments to a 5 minute presentation. And if
we can restrict comments to professional and non-personai comments, we will be following the protocol
then of our City Council meetings so that would be appreciated. And since there are so many of you
present who would like to speak to the 101 issue, so that you have the benefit of hearing the staff
presentation prior to making your comments, I will open up that item on the agenda for public comment
after staff has done their presentation and you're able to hear any of the updated information. So if
anyone else would like to come to the podi.urn, state your name and address for the record.
Alex Wagenaar: Hi. Thank you very much. I'm Alex Wagenaar and I live at 890 Fox Court in the Fox
Chase subdivision and I am here to speak in favor of the item number 5 on unfinished business to
authorize a budget amendment and complete the project Fox Chase trail connector. This is a trail
easement that has been in the public record for many, many years. At least a decade I believe and this is
to finally improve that trail and make it a fully usable trail. We've had several meetings in the Fox Chase
neighborhood about this and previous councils have addressed this issue. Recently a petition was
circulated, I believe 42 out of 45 households signed in favor of completing this trail connection. I would
urge you to not delay this any longer. Many people have waited 5 or 10 years for the completion of this
trail. To vote this through and complete this relatively short trail connector down to Lotus Lake from the
Fox Chase subdivision. Thank you very much.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else who would like to address the council7 Please state your name'
and address for the record.
Bob Mortenson: Bob Mortenson, 7371 Kurvers Point Road, Chanhassen. I just had a question about the
resurfacing recently. They did some with pebble stuff on the tar, and I was wondering why they didn't
do the ends of the cul-de-sacs. Anybody know? They did the main streets, but at all the ends of the cul-
de-sacs they didn't do...some good reason.
Mayor Jansen: We do have our city engineer here this evening and Teresa could probably answer that
question for you.
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Teresa Burgess: Actually we have a very good reason for not doing that. The majori~ of our
complaints, we estimate approximately 99%, 95 to 99% of our complaints come from those cul-de-sacs.
With the turning movements it tears up the rock and we get a lot of seepage of the oil. So this year we
chose not to do the cul-de-sac bulbs. It works very well through the straight away's, but by leaving the
cul-de-sac bulbs we will go back and not do it as often but we will actually do a thin overlay instead of
the sealcoat project. Less often but still treat~g those streets.
Bob Mortenson: Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else caring to address the council at this time? Please approach the
podium. Okay. Moving on with the agenda. Oh, excuse me.
Steve Donen: I'd like to discuss the, oh my name's Steve Donen and I live at 7636 South Shore Drive.
My discussion is on the Lotus Lake no wake restrictions. I think that's on the agenda for tonight.
Mayor Jansen: It is actually under our public hearings so when we get to item ntunber 3, that will be
open for public comment. Thank you very much.
Steve Donen: Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: You can come back up at that time..Certainly, come forward. If you'll just state your
name and address for the record please.
Ann Miller: Yes, my name is Ann Miller. I live at 6561 Fox Path and I too am talking to you this
evening about the Fox Chase trail. Or access onto Lotus Lake and I know that the present figure I believe
is $46,000 something and, dollars to have that trail put in and I just want you to know too that-I have the
entire grading plan in my possession this evening from Wendt Engineering. I'm not sure ff that would
help save money but I'm sure it's in the city files too but I do have that in my possession if they would
like to use it. And I would apprec~te that you vote that we do get a trail.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you very much.
Barb I-Iecllund: Hi. My name's Barb Hedlund. I live at 748 Lake Point~ We own Lot 19, which has
been in the middle of thi~ thing with the trail. First of all I'd like to say we've always been in favor, my
husband and I, of a trail. I think it was close to 2 years ago we talked to the city about it and they talked
us into giving 6 feet of our land to help the Kreisler's out to do a straight trail because we were told that
the other trail was unsafe because of the grade. Now all of a sudden it's not unsafe anymore. So we
would just like to state that we want no liability if somebody gets hurt on this trail. We have 32 steps
that go down to the lake on our property. And you're doing it in 6 so.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Barb I-Iedlund: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else who would like to address the council so I don't close this too
quickly? Okay. We'll move on then to our public hearings.
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AN AUTO SERVICE (~ENTER LOCATED
ON WF_~T 82~ STREET~ ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARI~ MICHAEL SCHLANGEN:
A. CONSIDER LAND SALE (NORTH 200 FT. OF THAT PART OF T}Hr~ SOUTH HALF OF
THE NW QUARTER SECTION 16~ TOWNSHIP 116~ RANGE 23).
B. REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO
ALLOW AN AUTO SERVICE CENTER AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 7~800 SQ.
FT. AUTO SERVICE BUILDING.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and City Council members. The first item is a public hearing. Under State statute
the City of Chanhassen must hold a public hearing when disposing of city owned property. Attached in
your packet is a purchase agreement with the Gateway Partners. The terms and conditions of the
purchase agreement are $2.78 a square foot, coming to a total purchase price of $177,000. Earnest
money of $25,000 and a proposed closing date of October 1,2001. At this time staff would ask that you
solicit public comments.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff before we go to public hearing? Okay, this
item is a public hearing, ff there's anyone present who would like to address the council on this issue,
please step forward to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Going, going, okay.
We'll bring this back to council. Reviewing item 2(a). Any discussion? Otherwise if I could have a
motion please.
Councilman Labatt: Move approval.
Mayor Jansen: I have a motion to approve item 2(a). A second please.
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the Purchase Agreement with
Chaska Gateway Partners Limited Partnership for the purchase price of $177,302.84. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: Agenda item 2Co). Staff report please.
Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. The second part of this is for an
amendment to the Planned Unit Development. Originally as part of the Arboretum Business Park, or
Gateway Development, auto services were a prohibited use. The property immediately to the south of
this, the Wrase property is located on 41. North 82"a Street is down to the south. The property to the
south developed with the Citgo. Over time that property owner then came in and requested that the city
look at amending this site to permit an auto services center. The type of commercial we wanted in this
development is support commercial. We believe that is a good support use for that area. There are
industrial parks that don't have this type of service for their employees and so staff is recommending
approval of that amendment. The second part of the request is for a site plan review for the actual auto
services building. It's a 700-800 square foot building located on the top of the bluff. It's sort of hidden
in there. The access is via a right-in/right-out off of Highway 41 and they do have a driveway connection
through the Citgo site. The only issue we have with this one was we'd like them to provide additional
articulation on the building and they've agreed to add a stripe to help highlight the south and north
elevation and they are willing to relocate some existing trees on the property so they'll be able to re-use
some of the trees that are there. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions
in our report. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions.
10
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for staff council? Again this is a public hearing. If there's
anyone present who would like to speak to this issue, if you'd approach the podium. Seeing no one,
bring it back to council. Any discussion? If I could have a motion please.
Councilman Boyle: So moved.
Mayor Jansen: And a second.
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the amendment to the Planned
Unit Development (PUD #92-6) to permit an Auto Services Center on the "Wrase" property with
the stipulation that auto body repair is prohibited on the site, and to approve Site Plan W2001-8,
plans prepared by Steiner Development, Inc., dated ~/4/01, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. The grading plan shall be revised to show the placement of silt fence.
.
.
All areas disturbed as a result of consmmtion activities shall be immediately restored with seed
and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of cgmplefion of each activi.ty
in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
. . . _ . .
The applicant shall provide stormwater calculations to demonstrate that off-site ponding Will be
adequate to meet all applicable city water quality and water quantity requirements. Submit storm
sewer sizing design data for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event.
.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropfiam regulatory agen6ies, i.e.
Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Reso~,
Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their
conditions of approval.
6. All signs shall require a separate sign permit
1
A decorative show box fixture 20 foot tall, 400 watt metal Halide lot light with a square
ornamental pole shall be used for area lighting. All light .fixtures shall be shielded with a 90
degree light cut-off. Any Wall mounted lighting shall be shielded from direct off-site view.
8. The developer shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage.
Add five deciduous overstory trees adjacent to the parking area and specify species in the plant
schedule. Submit revised plan to City.
10.
The applicant shall plant a ~ of 30 shrubs between the south property line and the
parking area. The locations and species shall be noted in a revised landscape plan.
11
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
41
26.
The applicant shall install tree protection fencing prior to grading around all trees to be saved.
The developer shall work with staff to identify and move all the trees on the northern portion of
the site.
Add the following 2001 City of Chanhassen Detail Plates to the plans: 1004., 1006, 3101, 3102,
5203, 5300, and 5301.
Prior to building permit issuance, all plans must be signed by a professional civil engineer
registered in the State of Minnesota.
Provide the City with a copy of the Watershed District permit for the site.
Add an approved fence on the top of all retaining walls over 4 feet in height.
Add silt fence at the bottom of the slope off of the southwest corner of the parking lot. Tree
protection fencing must be added around all trees that are planned to be saved. Silt fence and
tree protection fencing must be removed after construction.
Add a benchmark to the plans.
Any off-site grading or construction will require easements.
Revise the slopes along the south and east property lines to meet the City's maximum slope grade
of 3:'1 or install retaining walls.
A private utility easement is required over the portion of the water service that {s outside of the
property limits.
The property has not been previously assessed for utilities. As such, the property is subject to
city sewer and water hook-up and connection charges. The 2001 connection charges for both
sanitary sewer and water are $4,144 a piece. The 2001 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,322
per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,723 per unit for water. The 2001 SAC charge is $1,225 per
unit. These charges are collected prior to the building permit being issued.
A cross access easement is required over the shared portion of the TH 41 driveway access which
serves both the subject property and the Citgo property.
Increase the length of the parking stalls along the south side of the building to be 18 feet long and
provide acceptable turnaround areas at the east ends of the parking lot; as required by City code.
On the grading plan:
a. Show all existing utility pipe information including: pipe type, slope, invert, etc.
b. Show one standard size for all manhole structures.
c. Delete the retaining wall that is shown on the property to the east.
On the utility plan:
12
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
7.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
a. Include a note near the watermain connection that says, "Restore Water Tower Drive With
Heavy-Duty Bituminous Section (See Grading Plan)".
b. Add north arrow and bar scale.
c. Show the proposed water pipe easement.
d. Under the Construction Notes add, "All connections to existing manholes shall be core-
drilled".
e. Rename the proposed storm CB2 to CBMH2.
f. Rename MHI to STMH1.
g. Revise existing 1~-I4 invert to be 988.35.
h. Add a storm sewer schedule.
Invert for the existing sanitary manhole is 992.65.
Show one standard size for all manhole ~.
Lower the storm sewer line between CBMH2 to STMI-tl so it's below the rim elevation of
STMH1.
i. Show all existing utility pipe information including: pipe type, slope, invert, etc.
The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing sys~m.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
The access aisle for the accessible parking space, must be a minimum of 8 feet wide.
The service area toilet room must be adaptable as required by Minnesota State Building Code
Chapter 1341.
A 1 hour fire resistive occupancy separation is required between the service area and the
customer area.
Detailed occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted.
The utility plans will be reviewed during the permit process.
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
A post indicator valve (PIV) will need to be added to the water line going into the building. This
is to shut down fire protection in the event of an emergency in the building.
Add a hydrant on either side of the main entrance onto the property. One hydrant is not
sufficient for this project.
The applicant shall work with staff to add additional architectural interest to the south elevation
of the building.
The developer shall provide a five-foot concrete sidewalk access to any trail built on the east side
of Highway 41.
The applicant shall work with staff to make the tree inventory consistent and accurate.
13
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
40. No outdoor loud speakers will be allowed on the site.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE TQ ADOPT SLQW NO
WAKE RF.~TRICTIONS FOR LOTUS I,AKE DURING TIMI*~S OF HIGH WATER
Public Present:
. Name Address
Gina Mooty
Steve Donen
Sandra Resnick
Chad Taylor
Greg Fletcher
6871 Sand Ridge Road, Eden Prairie
7636 South Shore Drive
7490 Chanhassen Road
7616 South Shore Drive
Lori Haak: Madam Mayor, Council members. As you are all aware, we had some fairly high water this
spring and with that we got some phone calls and some concern from residents regarding those high
water levels and the damage that was done to private properties. The DN'R requires a public hearing
before municipalities can adopt surface water regulations and so that is what this is fulfilling this
evening. Because of the volume of calls we received, council directed staff to prepare a slow no-wake
ordinance. In the staff report you can find a synopsis of the issues related to slow no-wake ordinances.
The city has considered amendments to the slow no-wake ordinance in the past and has not adopted those
in the past because the water levels tend to stay at those real high elevations for a ~ery short period of
time. Typically less than a week. In addit, ion, implementation and enforcement of those ordinances are
challenging. Currently the city does not have a public safety department. There is one water patrolmen
for entire Carver County and his time is limited so enforcement has been a concern in the past. On
August 25"' of 1997 the City Council approved an ordinance, a temporary slow no-wake ordinance that
basically established a slow no-wake elevation for an undetermined period of time and that ordinance
was never put in the role book and it was never rescinded. So part of the proposal before you this
evening is actually to get rid of that old, what staff meant as a temporary ordinance and is now proposing
this additional slow no-wake ordinance only for Lotus Lake instead of all the lakes in Chanhassen. And
the reasons for that are detailed in the staff report. There are several other communities that have slow
no-wake ordinances such as Prior Lake, Plymouth, Lake Elmo and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation
District. Basically the ordinance you have before you this evening is a combination of those. The salient
points of the proposed ordinance are that above the ordinary high water elevation of 896.3 feet MSL,
Mean Sea Level, there would be a, once that elevation is exceeded for 3 days or more, a slow no-wake
period would be in effect. That would be posted primarily at the lake access. The public access on Lotus
l.,ake. In addition staff would contact the Villager in hopes that they would write an article about the
slow no-wake conditions on Lotus Lake. In addition we would post it as a public notice in the paper.
The problem with that is that timing doesn't always work out so the other thing that staff is proposing is
that we would contact the homeowners associations on the lake and potentially the Lotus Lake
Association itself, although that's been kind of off and on for quite some time now. We encourage the
organization to revitalize for this purpose and in hopes of disseminating information that way, through
the homeowners associations. Through the Lotus Lake Association. At this point I guess the staff
recommendation is to adopt the ordinance as outlined in your staff report with the condition of DNR
approval. Following the public hearing this evening the DNR will have to take a look at our ordinance
14
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
and give us their blessing so to speak and staff is recommending that you make that a condition of
approval and that, and I guess I'd just as a side note, this would Come back on, most likely on the consent
agenda after we've received that DNR approval and made any minor Inodifi~ons that they might call
for. With that I'm willing to answer any questions you might have.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Council, any questions for staff prior to opening for the public
hearing?
Councilman Ayotte: Yes Mayor.
Mayor Jansen: Councilman Ayotte.
Councilman Ayotte: First off I agree with passing the ordinance. Don't get wonied Todd, but I always
am concerned about the ability to enforce and I know we only have one boat and so forth, but have we
had any dialogue through our public safety department to Carver County Sheriff?
Loft Haak: I have been the staff person most involved in this particular ordinance. I have spoken with
the sheriff's department and basically this spring especially we had a lot of dialogue about this particular
problem. Basically the word that I received from the sheriff's department is that they will enforce what
we have on the books.
Councilman Ayotte: So in other words the answer is y.es.
Lori Haak: Yes, sorry.
Councilman Ayotte: And I would also, you've had discussions with the associations on Lotus I. atlm?
Did you say that?
Lori Haak: I have not had meetings with the associations, but I have sent letters alerting the associations
that this would he on the agenda and have asked them to contact their me~ so that the memlx~hip of
the lake was aware that this was going on. The members of those associations.
Councilman Ayotte: If this is approved, will you schedule meetings with the associations to discuss their
involvement on assisting us with it's.
Lori Haak: I can certainly do that.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay, thank you Mayor.
Mayor Jansen: Sure. This is a public hearing. If there's anyone' present this evening who'd like to
address the council on this issue, if you'd step forward and state your name and address for the ~
Now's the time.
Steve Donen: Well I live on the lake also and we found it very confusing this year because ~ was
rumors going around the lake that there was a no-wake that had been put in place. Rumors that there
were signs posted. It was very poorly handled and we did not know what the rules were. Now as living
on the lake, well I guess I had one question first of all. How much time this year would the lake been
shut down had we had this ordinance in place?
15
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Loft Haak: Because we did not know the location of the gauge on the lake, and we didn't know some of
the things, it's very difficult to determine exactly how long it would have been. My guess is it would
have been about a week, and it would have been, we do have data from the end of April and the
beginning of May. So my guess is a week somewhere in them.
Steve Donen: Well I haven't seen your reports or heard from what the analysis are. I can only go by my
dock level, okay and I would believe we would have probably lost about a month of the season this year.
For those of us who are either driving our fishing boats quickly to one end of the lake or water skiing,
and me personally I spend a lot of time with my children. It's a month that's very important to me and
my kids water skiing on the lake. So you know where I'm coming fron~ I'm coming from the standpoint
. of, I believe the rain, the wind, God himself does far more damage to our yards than the few boats that
actually end up on the lake in April. There's only a few of us out there that are crazy enough to be out
there water skiing at that time of the year, okay. So I firmly believe that a no-wake zone for purposes of
communication, purposes of enforcement, for purposes of time that we already are limited on the lake, I
am very much against and we would have lost a lot of time this year. From my dock. Now I'll tell you
honesty, my dock, the wind and the rain and the waves did knock my dock off. It took all the tops off.
Blew them into shore. And all those things did happen. So I was affected and it was not because other
boats were floating by, it was because God did it. Okay. And so I don't know, I believe honesty that a
no-wake zone on a lake like Lotus doesn't, isn't going to make that much difference in people's damage
because I personally can't go out and say well that boat going by caused that little wake and that made
the damage on the lake. What really happened was God did a lot of damage this year guys. The wind
was blowing. The waves were sometimes 2 and 3 feet tall and it did, so I'm not in favor of a no-wake
zone on Lotus Lake at all.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
Sandra Resnick: My name is Sandra Resnick. I've probably spoken to all of you because I'm one of
those people who said it's about time we do something to protect Lotus Lake. I totally disagree with the
gentleman before me. If you've stood out when you watched how high the water was, it clearly was at
least 3 weeks of higher water than any of us have seen since I've been out there for 10 years, alright.
And it was a 3 week kind of thing and the water seemed to keep rising because we had more and'more
rain and as it accumulated, I watched as the water was almost to the top of my dock. And God doesn't
create a wake unless you're on a ocean like a speed boat coming across the lake. And if it's not one
speed boat, then it's 2, 3, 4, 5 speed boats, all going, pulling water skiers and if you stood on the
shoreline you would see the waves coming back. You would see the waves beating across the shoreline.
If you went out to look at Lotus Lake today, there probably are at least 5 or 6 more places where people
have tried to protect their shoreline from going into the lake. And you can see the new rock shoreline.
You can see people trying to sheer up what they had to begin with. This is not just about water skiing,
this is about water skiing 10 years from now. This is about water skiing 20 years from now. This is so
that your grandchildren can use the lake and your great grandchildren can use the lake. Because when
the shoreline comes caving in, Lotus is not a very deep lake to begin with. I'd like to know where all the
shoreline goes once it goes washing back into the lake. It makes the lake shallower. It not only damages
the shoreline, it is not good for the entire environment of it, so yes I understand that it will inconvenience -
some people who want to go water skiing, but for many people who would like to maintain the shoreline
and have that shoreline viable in years to come, I think you had to have been out there and watched what
damage those boats did because the rains came and the rains didn't, well they washed out lots of things
but when you watch a speed boat coming across, full speed with the lake being higher than ever and you
watch what the wake looks like, you can't not say that it doesn't cause damage to a shoreline.
16
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else who would like to address the council on this issue, if you'd
come forward at this time. And state your name and address for the record.
Chad Taylor: My name is Chad Taylor. I live on 7490 Chanhassen Road. Number one, we are a
member of an association down that whole row and I guess I would ask how many she referred to
multiple complaints. Is there a vehicle that we can have access to find out what the complaints were
exactly? Is there a specific area of erosion? I know the lake was high. It rained and it rained a lot but I
don't think the enforcement of being able t~ tell everybody hey, you guys have a bound or it's going to
work We don't see any signs. We don't go down to the boat dock. We don't go to the launch'and
you're referring to how many police officers are out there. I see 3 everyday out there now so there are
more out there, but what I'd like to see is them enforce how many boats they allow at the landing. We
have people parking on 101. That creates more erosion than saying the~'s a no-wake zone so that's my
say.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Lori, do we by chance have a record from this year of the number of
complaints that were received? I know I had received 3 or 4 from off of Lotus.
Loft Haak: That's what I recall off-hand. I don't have a count available this evening. That's something
that I could go back and reconstruct if the council was interested.
Mayor Jansen: But right now it's probably pretty close to say it'was 3 or 4.
Loft Haak: There are 3 or 4 that I recall clearly.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And as far as our being able to rest/itt 'the number of boats onto the lakes, I'knoin'
that living on Lake Riley we've raised that as an association issue and that's not something that we can in
fact restrict. Is that the case With Lotus as well?
Lori Haak: I believe that's the case. We've restricted parking. There are 10 spots for boats. Rather
vehicles with trailers to park at that public landing and I believe that's the most restrictive that we can be.
It becomes a matter of, it's a public access. It's a public water body.
Mayor Jansen: And if they're parking along 101, I'm gathering they're nmning the risk of getting towed
or ticketed?
Lori Haak: Yes. Unless there's an area that I'mnot aware of that's.
Teresa Burgess: Parking on 101 would not be allowed and those cars should be towed or ticketed. If it
comes to the deputies attention, they will ticket. But it does have to be brought to their attention if
they're not in the area so certainly those property owners should be contacting dispatch to let them know
if they're seeing people parking there. .
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I know that too has been an issue in our area but they managed to come walking
from a 5 mile distance beyond the no parking area or they get a lift from a friend. Okay. I think those
were the two issues that were raised. Anyone else who would like to ad_d_re, ss the council on this issue.
Greg Fletcher: Hi, I'm Greg Fletcher. I live at 7616 South Shore Drive;so I live on the lake as well and
I'm against the ordinance. I don't think it's justified. I agree with Mr. Donen's comments that I think the
wind and waves, just natural wind causes more damage than the boats and I also feel it's unwarranted
17
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
that we single out this lake that's only had 3 or 4 calls versus enacting something across the whole city
for all lakes.
· Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you for your comments. Anyone else who would like to address the council
on this issue at this time? Seeing no one, I will bring this back to council. Any questions for staff as far
as any of the issues that were raised during the public hearing?
Councilman Ayotte: Yes.
Mayor Jansen: Councilman Ayotte.
Councilman Ayotte: I've been fishing on Lotus lake. I'm sorry, that's not tree. I've been trying to fish
on Lotus Lake without much success, but one of the things I have noticed is a lot of traffic. I personally
at this point favor the ordinance but one thing I see missing that, in a comparable situation Mr. Hoffman
resolved was interaction with the associations. When he cracked the nut on the Fox Chase thing, and
we're going to talk about that a little bit later on this evening, there was more dialogue with the
associations and what I see missing here too is the staff does not have much impurical data to
demonstrate the type of damage that we're experiencing. Maybe we need a more stringent ordinance.
And so one of the things I'm going to voice is the concern that we don't have impurical data to depict
sufficiently the parameters and constraints of the ordinance. Number two, I'd like to see more interaction
and dialogue with the associations to improve the ordinance. But let me go on record, I do want
something for Lotus Lake. Not just because of my inability to catch fish, but I really think that we have
to get more data. When I do this subjectivity of bringing God into the discussion, that's an indication to
me that we have to gather more data so that's where I'm at. I ask my fellow council to either agree or
disagree but I want you folks to hear what I'm thinking. Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any other questions or we can begin comments at this time. No questions
Craig?
Councilman Peterson: No.
Councilman Labatt: Lori the only question I have is, in the event this does pass, I have an issue with
number 3, monitoring of the lakes. Is there a better way to monitor the level rather than lease
somebody's private rain gauge that can be manipulated?
Lori Haak: This is actually a gauge that's put in. It's installed annually by the DNR and surveyed in by
the DNR. The only catch per se is that it is located off shore of private property and we do have a letter,
I've spoken with this individual who has the gauge and he has agreed to let me on the property to take a
look at this. He reads it weekly for the DNR is the reason it's out there and he has verbally agreed to
provide staff with notification I guess when the water level reaches whatever threshold staff determines
would be close. I would end up making, or staff would end up making the final determination of the
level, but they would be the person on the ground letting us know when it was getting close, because it is,
it's kind of a trek to go up there.
Councilman Labatt: Would it be easier to have something installed at the launch itself on one of the
concrete, having something permanently installed on this little concrete ramp things as you drive in the
lake? To make the ordinary high water mark...
18
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Loft Haalc I would, it's certainly an option and something that we could consider, although I would be
concerned about vandalism in a public location like thac And with frost heave and ice and things like
that, that's why the DNR puts in and takes out the gauge every year is because of the ice and the freezing
and thawing we get. It does change the level over a number of years can change that markedly:
Mayor Jansen: Does that an.qwer your question?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah. That's the only comment I had.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I guess I have mixed feelings about putting the cmtinan~ in place. I know looking
at this year and that 3 week period that the water was so high, was such an anomaly and I'm speaking
from being a lakeshore property owner and watching what happened actually on Lake Riley. And the
impacts that we had as a lakeshore owner were coming from vehicle traffic that was coming from not
your home associations. None of your iakeshore owners. When you're living on the lake you're more
conscious of that water level. It was the people who were tmilcaSng into the lake that weren't as
conscious of the fact that the water levels were as high as they were, and we were watching other
people's docks floating away as people were skiing and far too close to the docks because of the water
level. But I don't think we would have really had that restriction in place where we were for maybe a
week. I think we're talking about a very short period of time and water quality being the issue that it is,
watching the amount of erosion that does occur from the boating traffic as Ms. Resnick was speaking to,
we watched those boulders literally get washed down into the lake. So I think the intention of this
ordinance and placing a sign at the public hunches would be an informational vehicle for lhe people who
are visiting the lake. Again I think the lake association or lakeshore owners are more conscious of those
high levels and we see them, if anything being more conscious of not going at those wake speeds and
being mere sensitive to the effects that we're having on shore-.' I'm letining towards being in favor of the
ordinance, with the DNR approval of course, and definitely as Councilman Ayotte expresseck the
interaction with the associations is certainly helpful as far as an information tool so everyone's aware of
what the ordinance is trying to accomplish and there's the short window that we're not trying to restrict
activity on the lake. That it is very early spring. It's after the thaws. It's after those heavy rains and it's
not impacting as many people as we might be fearful of if this was around 4a~ of July or into the August
time period. As far as more impurical data being collected, I think we're taJking a simpler situation than
that and the DNR being sensitive to the ordinary high water mark, and I know it's typically what they're
watching and the erosion, I'd hate to spend too much time trying to substantiate the fact that that is an
environmental impact that we should be trying to buffer as much as possible versus having staff spend
more time on this. That it is more simple and a shorter period of time.
Councilman Ayotte: Well I'm just, a question for clarification. In terms of timing, we're close to the end
of the season now. And so there is some amount of time, and when I say imp~ data for clarificatico,
there's other soumes for impurical data besides the DNR. 'And what I'm referring to is maybe some
gathering information where you either add, delete or change the parameters of the ordinance. I would '
just like to table it to get input from the association and get some additional data points on what's already
been provided for that validation. And I don't see any risk at this point only because we're towards the
end of the summer. And that's my thinking. I think this is too ~t, even though it may be
considered overkill, l_xnus Lake, like other lakes, we have 11 and it's a tremendously impommt asset to
this city and if we do a good job with this, it will serve as a template for the other 10 lakes. So I think we
should spend a little bit more time and get more data points.
~ Haak: Madam Mayor, I have a question for Councilman Ayotte.
19
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Sure.
Lori Haak: My question to you is what types of impurical data would you be looking for?
Councilman Ayotte: I don't know Loft, you're the expert. I'm just saying there are people much, I mean
this gentleman brought in God into it. I mean you're asking for, I don't know. But I think we have to do
look at other pieces of information simply to validate. If nothing else, get input from the people who live
there. The associations are pretty dam strong. I think they'd welcome meetings to discuss the points and
possibly bring up some information.
Councilman Boyle: You know we've heard comments from 3 days to 3 weeks. We have a very short
summer. If it's 3 weeks, that's a whole lot different than 3 days so if the type of data that we gets say
hey,'on an average it would be 3 days or 5 days or 3 weeks, I think it's going to make a difference.
Mayor Jansen: That's a good point. If you've got historical data for us as to high water marks that's
collected, okay. Any other comments? The public hearing is actually closed at this time. Thank you.
Councilman Labatt: I've got a couple. I spent 6 years in my profession on Lake Mirmetonka enforcing
water rules and I would say 90% of the violators live on the lake. When they had the slow no-wake
ordinance up there. So it's kind of like 101. Speeding on 101. A lot of the, or on Pleasant View, lived
on Pleasant View. Kind of look in the mirror is when you want to look at these ordinances. So I've got
mixed emotions on this ordinance you know. I can see the benefit to it when you live in one of the
narrower parts of the lake. If you live on one of the ends of the bays, you know heck I'd want to go out
water skiing too so I kind of favor Mr. Ayotte's recommendation of tabling it to gather a little bit more
information about the lakeshore associations to see if they really want this. And if this does go through,
the only addition to the ordinance we need to make is that this ordinance exclude-the Carver County
Sheriff' s office watercrafts, Chanhassen Fire Department and the Minnesota DNR Conservation officers
acting under their duties in an emergency situation. If we don't exclude that then by all rights they
should be ticketed if they go out there and somebody's hurt and speeding. So we need to put exclusions
for law enforcement and fire and DNR. If we need to table this to get a little more information, I'm okay
with that.
Mayor Jansen: Okay with that if I could have a motion please.
Councilman Labatt: It was your idea Bob.
Councilman Ayotte: Wait a minute, I did the last one.
Councilman Labatt: Go ahead with this one too.
Mayor Jansen: Could I have a motion please7
Councilman Ayotte: I'm coming. I'd like to make a motion to table this particular action until staff is
able to provide more data and involve the associations as one, but not limited to that particular source for
more impurical data to either delete, add or change the parameters of the ordinance as stated.
Mayor Jansen: And do I have a second please?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
20
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Councilman Ayotte moved, Colm~qlmnn Labatt seconded to table action on the amendment to City
Code to adopt Slow No-Wake Restrictions on Lotus Lake during times of high water and direct
staff to provide more data and involve the associations as one, but not limited to that particular
source for more impurical data to either delete, add or change the parameters of the ordinance as
stated. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to O.
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY
EASEMENTS ON ~ COMMON LOT LIN BETWEEN LOTS 3 AND 4~ BLOCK 1~ Wm'I'E
OAK ADDITION (3920 WHITE OAK LANE) TO PERMIT COMBINING ~ LOT FOR
CONS Rt CrION OF A Sm( L . FA n.Y ROM , L GRA HOM .
Teresa Burgess: City staff has received an application from the pmpe~ owners of Lots 3 and 4, Block
1, White Oak Addition, the two shaded lots you can see on the map. This is Lake Minnewashta. Kings
Road. Minnewashta Parkway. The existing drainage and utility easement was dedicated to the city as a
part of the White Oak Addition plat. That is standard practice when plats are done to dedicate a 5 foot
easement on either side of the lot line, and I know that one's hard to see. These are the easements in
question shaded down the middle of the lot line. Property owner is proposing to build one house on both
lots. Combine the two lots into one under the zoning lot that's governed by city code 20-903 that allows
us to do that. If the property owner ever desired to re-split the groperty so you had two lots again, he
would have to go through the planning process to split those ~es. Would be subject 'to the city's
zoning subdivision ordinance in which case we woul. d require rededication Of those easements. The
property is in compliance with the single family requirements. By doing this we do get one large lot with
a nice home on it and staff does recommend approval of the request tonight. The staff has drafted a
motion for council, has recommended a motion. It is on the back side of the staff .report If there's any
questions I'd be happy to answer those.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for staff prior to the public hearing7 Okay. We'll open this
item on the agenda to the public heating. Anyone wishing to address the council at this time, please
come forward to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, bringing this
back to council. Discussion council.
Councilman Peterson: It's a reasonable request. I think we should move forward.
Mayor Jansen: The only comment that came to me from the public involved the trail connector again,
and I know we have our Parks and Rec Director in the audience with us this evening. I did not hear
anyone come up from the public to address that issue but it's my understanding that that trail connector
was in fact eliminated through the last round of reviews, correct? If you might come forward Mr.
Hoffman, I appreciate it. Thanks Todd.
Todd Hoffrnan: Mayor Jansen, I'm glad to answer that question. The first time that the larger
development of the lots was reviewed some years ago, there was a call for a ~ easement right at this
location to allow connection to a trail loop that winds down through the park. At that time there was a
recommendation to the Park and Recreation Commission not to connect, make that connection based on
citizen input at the time, and thus it was never taken as a part of the platting process, that trail easement.
The second go around with the discussions of that occttrred when the adjoining property was platted,
down through this area, and again a trail connector was sought in one of those locations between those
lots and again that request was not approved by the city at that time and the trail connection was not put
through for reasons of just privacy reasons, the narrowness of the lots as they're only 90 foot lots, very
21
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
narrow lots, and the fact that there was a precedence set that it was reviewed on a much larger scale when
it certainly could have easily been put in place and it was determined at that time it was not desirable for
the community at that particular time. In this case I think, I'm not even sure Kate if just combining lots,
or maybe Roger can answer this, combining lots, would that give the city the opportunity to go ahead and
require a trail easement at that location?
Roger Knutson: No. The consolidation is not a subdivision.
Todd Hoffman:' So at this time we don't even have the opportunity to make that requirement.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I appreciate your having addressed that for the record. Thank you very much.
Council if there' s no other discussion of agenda item, if I could have a motion please.
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve.
Mayor Jansen: And a second.
Councilman Boyle: Second.
Resolution ~,001-49: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to approve a
resolution vacating the existing drainage and utility easement located on the common property line
of Lots 3 & 4, Block 1, White Oak Addition as deEmed.in the attached vacation description, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The developer must combine the two lots under a single property identification number.
2. Setbacks from the common lot line between Lots 3 & 4 shall be disregarded.
3. After designation of a zoning lot, the lot may not be subdivided without complying with the
City's subdivision ordinance.
4. The building permit will not be issued until the City has received verification from the County
that the lots have been combined and have been recorded.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
CONSIDER PLAN AND AUTHORIZE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO COMPLETE THE
PROJECT~ FOX CHASE TRAIL CONNECTOR.
Public Present:
Name Address -
Carolyn Hudson
Rebecca McMillen
Jerry & Barbara Kreisler
Chris Pelletier
George Assie
David Sanford
6541 Fox Path
880 Fox Court
764 Lake Point
6420 Fox Path
6430 Fox Path
6440 Fox Path
22
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Bob Doran
Chuck Nagel
Barb & Greg Hedlund
David Callaway
Marti Nyman
Jim Manders
788 Lake Point
6340 Fox Path
748 Lake Point
8320 Fox Path
6341 Fox Path
6791 Chaparral Lane
Todd Hoffman: Madam Mayor, membem of the City Council. The last time that you reviewed this was
on Monday, July 9"'. The City Council tabled action with the understanding that staff take one more
oppommity to interface with the community and gain some sort of consensus about thi~ trail. To'
accomplish that a neighborhood meeting was held on Monday, July 30a at 7:00 p.m. If you recall it was
one of those 90 degree nights, plus the humidity. We had a cooler of pop. If we would have had burgers
and brats and a cooler of beer I think we would have just been done with the entire meeting and went on
with a neighborhood picnic. It was a good gathering and a sense of a neighborhood coming together to
talk about an issue so we had business to do, not a celebration at that time. The meeting was notified in a
variety of ways, due to the fact that at previous conversations there was question about notification.
Articles were posted in the Lakeshore Weekly News, on the front cover, in the Chanhassen Villager.
There was a neighborhood ma/ling to all residents in Carver Beach, and all residents in Fox Chase. I'm
not sure how it happens but some people in Carver Beach receive 3 or 4 mailings, some in Fox Chase did
not receive any. Once they go outside of our door and you have the mailing list' in your packet, alter that
it's within the realm of the postal service to get them to your front door so we trust that they're doing
their job. Lastly my daughter and I also delivered 100 notification letters door to door on July 25"', so I
believe we had the notification element covered. The location of the trail easements between Lots 19 and
. .
20 were staked. Field staked the week prior to the meeting so people interested in this issue could go out
and take a look in the field. See where those two easements' ~ere at and the staking included the 15 fobt'
easement between Lots 19 and 20. The 10 foot easement going down to the lake, and then staking of the
road fight-of-way down along Lotus Lake. So all those elements of the trail connector were staked for
the public to witness. That evening we had 38 people sign the attendance sheet. A large gathering. With
such a large gathering it wasn't as if we were going sit around in a Small conversation and gain a
consensus so I opened the meeting with an overview of the history of the trail connector.- After that we
opened' the floor for public comment. I would say approximately half or estimate approximately haft of
those in attendance made comments amongst themselves and to the neighbors. We utilized the drawing
of the trail as it was currently being proposed to facilitate that conversation. To narrow the scope of the
conversation there was a hand vote taken at one point to determine if the long route, ~g the L route,
was desirable or just a simple cut through down to Mohawk. The overwhelming emphasis was on the
full trail down to Lotus Lake and so discussion about the cut through was eliminated. Upon conclusion
of the discussion that evening, Mr. David Sandberg, who is here in the audience this evening, proposed
that the trail plan with a single modification he approved. And that modification is the narrowing of the
trail at this location, just so it goes from 5 to 4 feet to get past this side of the home on Lot' 202 In
addition to that, the utilities at thia location be moved as necessary to allow for that trail to hug the
property line at that location. That motion was seconded by Marjorie Nagel and a hand vote indicated
that 32 of the residents present were in favor and that 6 were in opposition to that plan. With that, .with
those findings and that motion from the neighborhood, it was recommended that the City Council
approve the Fox Chase trail connector plan as modified at the July 30"' neighborhood ~g, and
authorize staff to indicate a budget amendment not to exceed $50,000 to finance the project. The funding
source being park and trail acquisition and development dollars. This project has been on and off the
budget rolls over the past dozen years. It happens that it's not on there this time so it's not as if it's an
unbudgeted, not that it's a new item and so that budget amendment is no surtnSse to you, the park
commission or the City Council. With that I'll answer any questions of the council.
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Thank you, and I want to thank you for your efforts and the time that you spent getting
back out with the neighborhood and bringing everyone together and opening up this kind of dialogue so
that you could come back with this sort of validation from out of the neighborhood and our appreciation
to then too the neighbors for having participated in this rather lengthy discussion over this connector and
staying with us as we were building this consensus. I had one question that came up in the visitor
presentations as to the liability issue around the stairs and the slope of the trail. The liability I'm
assuming is on the city. Could you speak to that for us Mr. Hoffman?
Todd Hoffman: I can speak to it. Roger can speak to it. Liability, this is a public improvement made by
the City of Chanhassen. Any issues regarding liability would certainly come back to us. It's a public
easement for trail purposes. Roger, as far as I know, there is no responsibility upon the property owner
or private property owner.
Roger Knutson: That's correct. It would be our easement. It would be our trail. It would be our stairs.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Todd Hoffman: Clarification on the stairs. There are 6 sets of approximately 6 treads so there's
approximately 36 treads leading down to the lake. But they're spaced apart by about 4 feet so you travel
down 6 stairs and you walk forward on a flat 4 foot stainvay and then you go down again.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. And 'that was obviously well understood as you approached the
neighborhood and you were showing them the plan that these steps are present. Okay. Any additional
comments or I'm sorry, any questions for staff at this time7
Councilman Ayotte: Not to exceed a $50,000 has gone down because we originally had a cost estimate
around 57, was it. Could you explain that delta?
· Todd Hoffman: Why it went down?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah.
Todd Hoffman: There were some errors in quantity based on the consulting engineering work and so
they had this trail extending down to Carver Beach and so the quantities were wrong.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. And but you still have to do a full up design now so we'll see, you're just
putting that $50,000 as a not to exceed and we do have some?
Todd Hoffman: As of right now we're ready to solicit quotes. The City can perform this project on a
quote basis. Anything over $50,000 necessitate a formal bid so we're ready to go out with this plans for
quote process.
Councilman Ayotte: Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, any additional questions for staff7
Councilman Labatt: What do you anticipate completion?
24
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Todd Hoffman: I would hope late this fall, if we can get a contractor on site and get them working.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you Mr. Hoffman. Council discussion. Otherv~e I'll call for a motion.
Councilman Peterson: I think they an.~wered our questions that we sent them out to answer so let's move
Mayor Jansen: If I could have a motion please.
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve as staff ~econm~nded.
Mayor Jansen: And a second?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Coundlman Peterson moved, Coundlman Labatt seconded to approve the Fox Chase Trail
Connector Plan as modified at the July 30, 2001 neighborhood meeting and authorize staff to
execute a budget amendment not to exceed $50,000 to finance the project. The funding source
being Park and Trail Acquisition and Development dollars. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously S to 0.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you again to everyone that stayed, with us as far as getting this issue taken care of.
Appreciate it.
..
UPDATE ON HIGHWAY 101 TRAIl. AND STATE TURNBACK~ PRO,[ECT 97-12.
Public Present:
Name Address
Rebekkah Moscatelli
Jay Strolunaier
Steve Donen
Kim Current
Steve Frankwitz
Tim & Diane McHugh
Susan & Neil Libson
Tom Workman
Mark Perkins
Steve & Liza Bloom
Jim & Sue Lacey
Carey Bohn
Charles & Paula B. Hallau
Evan Niefeld
Pat Miller
Janet Wolter
Bryan & Tesa Laskin
Tom & Dorothy Jamieson
102 Sandy Hook Road
80 Sandy Hook Road
7636 South Shore Drive
7001 Dakota Avenue
6770 Brule Circle
7450 Chanhassen Road
140 Choctaw Circle
181 South Shore Court
160 South Shore Court
6781 Brule Circle
121 Choctaw Circle
160 Choctaw Circle
115 Choctaw Circle
7016 Dakota Circle
71 Choctaw Circle
6850 Chanhassen Road
7002 Sandy Hook Circle
30 Sandy Hook Road
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Leon Narem
Peter Sperling
Rich & Char B orotz
Rathana & Chantha Bo
Steve & Monica Posnick
Joan & Rich Wright
Colleen McCreight
Brian & Lynn Thompson
Harvey & Carol Parker
Carolyn & Dave Wetterlin
Jim & Carolyn
John Host
Karen Hoffner
Cindy Russ
Barbara J. Vernes
Gordie Hampton
Sandy & Tim Love
Philip & Paula Mosley
Terese Krulik
Jim Manders
Beth ?
20 Sandy Hook Road
7021 Cheyenne Trail
6750 Bmle Circle
7004 Sandy Hook Circle
7010 Dakota Avenue
6640 Lotus Trail
6561 Foxtail Court
41 Hill Street
7480 Chanhassen Road
7420 Chanhassen Road
7008 Sandy Hook Circle
191 South Shore Court
150 Choctaw Cimle
6791 Brule Circle
83 Castle Ridge Court
7003 Sandy Hook Circle
7010 Sandy Hook Circle
7012 Sandy Hook Circle
6509 Gray Fox Curve
6791 Chaparral Lane
7013 Sandy Hook Circle
Teresa Burgess: Thank you Madam Mayor. Tonight's agenda item was intended to call the public
hearing and also because we do have a new council member since our last update. And the addition of
the grants being awarded, we wanted to give a quick update on the trail. We did not have a lot of
information.at the time this was added to the agenda. Since that time we have heard more from MnDot
so real quickly, we have received word from the DNR and also through Representative Workman that we
have received a $500,000 grant from the Minnesota DNR. That is for a trail along Highway 101 due to
it's environmental issues that are related to that. The cost of the trail has been estimated based on MnDot
comments at 1.3 million dollars. That would leave the remainder of the project to be funded through
alternative funding through the city. We do need to match the $500,000 grant to receive it. The city is
required to complete the application for the grant program to receive the funds, even though we have
received, they have been directed to give us the grant, we have not officially accepted it yet. We must go
through the public hearing process and the application and resolution process to obtain the grant itself.
The council is being asked to call the public hearing on the 27~. At that time we will be hearing from the
public on their, whether they believe is a good project and whether they feel that we should be obtaining
this grant and also then the council would be discussing the resolution and approving that resolution to
apply for the grant. We cannot apply for the grant through the resolution until after the public hearing.
We do have to follow the steps in order. At this time we have received a letter from MnDot. That came
through today. It is my understanding that is probably due to efforts both by members of council who'
have spoken with people and also through discussions Representative Workman has been having with
MnDot to get them to move off of their statement previously that they would not take a position on the
trail.
Councilman Ayotte: Off of their what?
Teresa Burgess: Off of their position. This is a public, you know this is publicly on TV. I try to keep
my language clean. As far a the Trunk Highway 101 project, it is not part of the public hearing but I did
want to give a brief update because we do have a new council member that was not part of those
26
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
discussions. The city has officially adopted Option lA. This council has not moved from that option.
We have not adopted a revised resolution. Until we do that that is our official position. However, we
have been in discussions with I-lennepin County, Ca~er County, Eden Prairie and MnDot on potential
im.nrovements to that roadway. It is the position of all involved that that road does need to be i .reproved.
Most likely that will involve some form of widening at a minimum for safety issues at the intersecti~,
and also the addition of traffic signals at Pleasant View and Valley View. At this time there is not a
consensus on how much work needs to be done on 101 and that is continued in negotiation. In the
meantime MnDot has proposed a mill and overlay project. That is a temporary solution. We will
hopefully get 10 to 15 years out of that project. At that time we would then approach that project to
eventually do the reconstruction after the mill and overlay has left it's, has extended it's life. That
project would be done with, similar to this one was only hopefully' with better public involvement to look
at what that road is intended for. To look at how we make that road function as it should and to do it's
intended purpose. And hopefully by giving ourselves the 10 to 15 years we can get the public
involvement so that we don't have the, at the very end, the tail end of the process everyone coming
forward and saying we don't want this project. They've been involved and have actually been
participating in the decision making process. That's all I have for this evening. I did go through and do
some quick calculations. I have to apologize, I do not have hard numbers on this and to be honest it
makes me very nervous to even give you the ones I do have. What I've used is Highway 5 as a
comparison. Highway 5 is a completely different project. However it is a MnDot project and it's the
best I have for comparison process at this time. Looking at the signals that are being installed on
Highway 5, they are approximately $394,500 per signal that's being installed. We're loOking at two
signals. The city share of each of those signals is appm. ximately $177,000. So looking at that we would
have two of those that we would need to install as a c. czyperative agreement. I'm assuming a 25%
participation because I of the 4 legs on each of those intersections that would need a signal is a city of
Chanhassen intersection. City of Chanhassen roadway. The other 3 would be either Carver, Hennepin or
Eden Prairie roadway sections. The trail itself is estimated at 1.3 million dollars. We have been
designated for the $500,000 grant. That leaves $800,000 for the City of Chanhas~ to cover. So that
would be our share of that project, the $800,000 plus, I didn't total it up so excuse me just a second.
Before I say the wrong number. I apologize. $1,155,000 would be the city's share if we were to do the
safety improvements. ~ do not have any cost estimates for mm Lanes. There were two areas that turn
lanes were proposed. I do not have cost estimates for those. Due to the nature of 101 it's really hard to
do that until we do design. That area does have poor sub-soils in which case we're going to be looking at
substantial work. There's also the potential for either retaining walls or right-of-way acquisition. For
comparison purposes I did pull what we actually paid' on the Highway 15 and West 78~' Street and trail. I
have eliminated the watermain, and I've also eliminated Phase TI of that project. We added a
supplemental to do from Century to Highway 41. We have not received that total amount yet. So the
city share of that project was $686,320. The total project cost for the Highway 5 project and West 78~h
Street and trail, just to let you know what our share of that was, $4,110,212. So that's just for
comparison purposes. I do caution you on those numfiers, they are very preliminary and they are '
comparisons of apples to oranges. But it does give you an idea where we are. Going back to the old SRF
report, and I know there's a lot of sore feelings about this but it is the best we have for cost estimating.
The 4 lane undivided section is estimsted to cost a total of $9,310,000 for the Highway 101 widening to 4
lanes plus trail. Of that the city, county share, which would be both Eden Prairie and Chanhas~n and
also both Hennepin and Carver, so the 4 of us sharing it, is $480,000 of that total amount. The tumback
funds have been turned back into the program. They were reallocated to other projects. It looks at this
time like the earliest we would be eligible for turnback funds is 2008. Potentially later because we have
not jumped to get the 2008 date locked in. At this time we are not on the schedule for turnback funds.
We have been placed in a position that we are on the program, but we have not been assigned a date. If
there's any questions from the council I'd be happy to answer those. Also for the public, the public
27
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
hearing that we'll be holding in 2 weeks is intended to discuss the grant. It is not intended to discuss the
road itself. We are trying to move forward with the grant and the trail and address both issues as a
separate and complete issues.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. I had one question as I was reading through this. The $1.3 million
estimate on the trail, that was for that concept design that we had. Correct?
Teresa Burgess: The 1.3 is based on, we had submitted a concept plan.to MnDot. we were estimating
at that time $800,000, which is why we have $800,000 in the budget. MnDot's comments when they
came back to us drove that price up. The 1.3 is based on those MnDot comments that came from our
concept plans.
Mayor Jansen: Is there an opportunity, working with MnDot, to get the 1.3 million to come back down
towards that $800,000, realizing that there may have been some ulterior motives to driving that number
up so that this $500,000 maybe addresses more of the project.
Teresa Burgess: Up until today I would have said no. At 3:30 today I did receive a fax from MnDot
stating their support with working with the City of Chanhassen. I have not had an opportunity to discuss
with them what they mean by that, but it does sound like they are willing to at least talk to us about
getting this trail constructed in a more fiscally responsible manner than driving the cost up. And also
realizing that this is a temporary trail. It is not intended for a 30 year life span. It is intended for a 10 to
15 year life span.
Councilman Boyle: Do we have to match the $500,0007
Teresa Burgess: We have to match the $500,000, but there is not a dollar amount for the match. It's
just that we do have to put money into the project. There's not a percentage that we have to match at.
Councilman Boyle: Okay. But we're looking at a million dollars, is that correct?
Teresa Burgess: We're looking at $1.3 million at this time.
Councilman Boyle: Estimate, but I mean a minimum of 1 million.
Teresa Burgess: I can't answer that. There is not a percent match requirement.
Councilman Boyle: I understand.
Mayor Jansen: So it sounds like it could be less than the grant amount. Which is why I was inquiring as
to whether we could get that number back down closer to what those original estimates were working
with MnDot so that we're costing ourselves maybe a substantially smaller dollar amount, so there is an
opportunity to maybe reduce the scope of the project somewhat working with MnDot from what you're
saying.
Teresa Burgess: Correct. I have voiced that concern to Representative Workman that the 500 is great
and we're very appreciative, but that only brings us back to where we were last year. And we would
really like to bring the cost of the project back to where we were last year plus the $500,000. We were
straggling last year to come to terms with an $800,000 trail. Now to be at a point where we're talking
about an $800,000 contribution is still difficult for the city. It is something that I know the council
28
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
members have all struggled with and so I have been, I have talked with him that it would really make it
much ea~sier for us to make a decision and to move forward if we could bring the trail costs down instead
of leaving it clear up there. Or even an assurance that.it's not going to climb higher as we work with
MnDot.
Mayor Jansen: Exactly, because there were se~oxneuts within the concept plan, I'm thinking of one in
particular, that it came down to a 3 foot width on the trail so I think there were still some issues even with
the concept plan that are going to need to be addressed and would affect the cost.
Teresa Burgess: Correct. The 3 foot section was intended to address a situation when we are very close
to a home and we are looking at a steep slope and it was om'...
Mayor Jansen: ...issues to flush out but it would be encouraging and what you're saying this evening to
know that MnDot might work with us on this. Then conceivably this $500,000 . grant is helping to
alleviate some of those environmental i ,mpacts that are making this trail so much more significantly
costly than the other trails in the community, because it's my understanding it's because of the
topography that this one right now is costing out about 3 times what the other trails cost us.
Teresa Burgess: It's a combination of the topography and also drainage. Wetland issues. The water
issues do drive the cost of this trail up significantly and the right-of-way is very constrained in thi~ area
because of topography, we cannot make use of the entire right-of-way width.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. One of the other catching points that we had reviewed in the last round of
discussions was the concept that once the road is in 10 to 15 years potentiafly widen.ed and we lose'flae
trail, will the city then be responsible for the full cost of rebuilding the trail outside of the'road pr0. j6c~? ~ '
Teresa Burgess: In 10 to 15 years we would be looking at a project similar to the ttwn~k project that
we were discussing before I came to the city. In that discussion they did include a trail. What the
limited use permit that we would be obtaining from MnDot would require, it is standard language. We
put them in our's when utilities come to us for. an LUP. That is that trail needs to be removed for any
reason, that we can required to remove it at no cost to the State, and if we want it back prior to that
turnback project we would have to reconstruct it. If it is because of a tm.nback project that the trail is
being removed, that would be part of that discussion, who pays for the removal and the recons~tion
would be part of the turnback project. If they were to come through with something other than that, that
they needed to relocate that trail for some reason, it would be our responsibility financially to see that the
trail was removed and if we want it replaced.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
-
Councilman Ayotte: Point of clarification. However, if we predictably estab~ a project for a trail with-
a specific life cycle, programmed to be aligned with the future reconstruction, it's a wash.
Teresa Burgess: That's a tough one to answer. We are investing now in a trail. We would be required
to participate in the cost of the turnback project also. So we would be looking at om. 10%, assuming we
get federal financing. 10% share of the trail. So it's not a complete wash, but by doing the trail now it's
not asking us to pay the total amount for the trail now and again.
Councilman Ayotte: It'd be like a warrantied roof. If you have a roof with a 15 year cycle and you go
after a warranty claim on the 15a' year, it's much less than going on thc first year.
29
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Teresa Burgess: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: Other than the fact that we would be moving the location of the trail so would you not
then incur the duplicate costs of the engineering and design then when we come back on the second
project? It's not like a re-surfacing or the maintenance of a trail in it's current location.
Teresa Burgess: The second project would include the trail into the tumback and the design would be
completely different because you would be re-locating. There also would be significant grading work
being done with the tumback project. And that is based on the assumption that we will be looking at a
significant widening in 10 to 15 years. That is still MnDot's position. That is still every, the county's
position. That this road does need to be widened to accommodate it's function and as we see traffic
continue to increase, it is more likely that we will have to agree with that situation. That the road does
need to be widened. There is no discussion on how wide that is though.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. As they're doing the mill and overlay, I know some concerns have been raised that
as they come in and they're doing this construction on 101, it just sort of does the creep out a little bit on
us. What sorts of controls would the city have as they come in to do this to avoid some creep and this
becoming a wider roadway?
Teresa Burgess: The city 'does not have any way of stopping that from happening. MnDot does own the
roadway. It is their jurisdiction. They have the legal right to come in and do the maintenance as they see
fit as long as they do not ask for our financial backing. It would be similar to Highway 101 at Highway
212. As we were told by MnDot, at this time we have agreed to 212. Unless they ask for our money we
can't stop it. Same thing on Highway 101. Unless they ask us to participate in the cost of the mill and
overlay, we do not have approval authority of the plans.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So the only real restriction to them then would be the cost because they would
obviously have to do a lot more grading in a lot of areas to be able to really widened it at all. Is that a
decent assumption as far a there not being able to fund an expansion at this time with the mill and
overlay plan.
Teresa Burgess: That would not be a restriction for them. The restriction for them is the program they
would like to put this in is the turnback program. To make a significant investment at this time would not
be within their project guidelines and their desire is to do a temporary solution until such time as a
tumback can be done. They do not want to keep this road. They want to turn it back to the county.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. That sounds somewhat promising. On the turn signal issue where you said the
25% to the city, that really one of the lights would be the city responsibility. And maybe I misunderstood
you but is everyone then held responsible with the other 3 jurisdictions to be' participating in the cost of
those signals?
Teresa Burgess: That 25% is based on past practice of MnDot. What it is is we own, what they
typically do is they look at the 4 legs of the intersection. The 4 street pieces coming into it and they look
at it and they say your share is what is your jurisdiction. We would be going through for those signal
projects we would most likely be going through the cooperative agreement program, which means
Chanhassen would go to the State and write an agreement between the State and Chanhassen that we
want to do this project and we're willing to put our money in if you're willing to put your's in. In past
practice they have looked at it for 25%. Unless Eden Prairie and I4_ennepin County wanted to participate,
30
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
MnDot, it would be up to MnDot whether they wanted to force them or not~ Carver County would be in
the same situation. Unless they wanted to participate, we would hope that Carver would join us in that
application, but there's nothing that says they have to participate unless 1MnDot goes back to them. The
Highway 5 project that came through with the signals on that project, we did not ask to participate.
MnDot approached us and so that would be an option for MnDot but we do not have control unless they
were to participate in the application with us. We certainly would invite them all to do that and hope that
they would feel, that they could do that with us.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Obviously the lights are a major safety issue for everyone and aH of the neighbors
so I guess I would just want to maybe have a little bit more information on that and the guaran~ that
we could get those signals located. Having not seen that agreement from Mnnoc I'm sorry, did you say
that now you have seen it?
Teresa Burgess: No. We would need to apply for that~ It would be a cooperative agreement application
and in doing that we compete against all of the other applications across the State. There's a pot of
money and the applications are ranked based on ira?acts to a State mute. Suptx~ of the adjacent
communities, financially and politically. And once that is done then the projects are funded. We may
not receive 75% funding. We may receive less than that, in which case then we would have to decide if
it's something we want to pursue or not but certainly I would recommend that we put in that application
the next round when they come out again and that was my last discussion with MnDot, that was what I
was told was the process to go through. Was the cooperative agreement program. There's no guarantee.
we would receive money but we certainly would malce Our best effort.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And hopefully with Mr. Workman's efforts, he could help us with that and maybe
we can get the other jurisdictions to get involved becaus6 of the sa~et3/issue on that. You mentioned the
next round. Do you have any feel for when that would be timing wise?
Teresa Burgess: I remember putting in one for the trail, and that was prior to January but I do not
remember the exact timing. I do remember there was part of the switching to council that we had
discussed that we had put in an application and received the negative answer on the trail for a coopea'ative
agreement. They do those agreements once, it's either once a year or once every 2 years. We would
have to look into it. There's also the possibility that with si_.t, nificant effort that we could maybe do a
project and work with MnDot outside that program, or outside the normal time~ of that program.
We need to work with them and have discussions on what can be done. I know that there have been a-lot
of discussions on Highway 101 that have taken place at MnDot, between MnDot personnel trying to get
this project moving forward.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, very good. Did council have additional questions for staff'?
Councilman Peterson: Teresa, if this council moves with efficiency and dispatch and if we assume that '
we were to approve this, why don't you kind of walk through the timing as to what's the next steps and
what is the possible timing and when we can start putting blacktop on a trail.
Mayor Jansen: We are probably looking at a trail next year during consmLefion season. There's no way
we can get it done yet this year. It would probably be late next year at the very earliest. It may be
delayed if we ran into snags into the following year. I am assuming that MnDot is as motivated as
Chanhassen is to move this forward when I say that we could do it next year. At this time we need to do
the public hearing. Once we have a public hearing, we need to do a council resolution, and I cam
complete the application at that time. We will then receive our grant. We have 36 months to spend the
31
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
$500,000 or it reverts back to the DNR. We also need to get our limited use permit from MnDot and I
am assuming that the council is interested in pursuing funding from at least Carver County if possible.
And we would be looking at their budget cycle also. Assuming everything fell into place and just
looking at our process for plans and specs we would be looking at the fall of next year. If any of the
other agencies involved were to hold us up, we would be looking at spring of 2003 at the very earliest.
Councilman Peterson: Okay. Lastly, would it be safe to assume that if we do have to go with the 4 lane
road 15-20 years from now, and we were obligated to replace the trail but the cost of that new trail
because of the new road going in would be substantially less than it would be now. Dollars being the
same. Is that a fair assurapfion?
Teresa Burgess: It would significantly be lower because the road work, typically when MnDot does the
trails as part of a project, they do all of the grading work and we are only required to participate in the
cost of the trail itself. The sub-grade work would be done as part of the roadway so it' s a significant cost
savings, which is why as you look at the costs of the SRF study that the city and county share is so low, is
because they are incorporating all that sub-grade work into the roadway work. In addition, as part of a
turnback or MnDot project, MnDot has the ability to sponsor one of these projects for federal aid funding
under the IS'rEA Bill T-21. And that funding then can be used to offset the cost of the trail. That is the
funding we are using on Highway 5 for the trail, and in that case the federal funds are offsetting
approximately 90% of the new trail that is being constructed on Highway 5 and West 78t~ Street. The
city is required to come up with/he remaining 10% of the project.
Councilman Peterson: Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Excellent. Any other questions for staff?. Okay. So at this point we do have the public
hearing then already scheduled for August 27"` and that will be our first step then towards pursuing that
$500,000 grant. Correct?
Teresa Burgess: Right. If I could stress, just because I am very nervous about these numbers and I want
to make sure everybody understands. These are incredibly preliminary, they're based on looking at
Highway 5 and trying to project from there what it will cost to do 101. Please, nobody hold me to these
if we get there and we find out that we're higher or lower. Hopefully lower but this is the best I could
come up with based on the information we have and I know the council is very concerned about those
dollars and trying to keep track of where we're going. That we're going in a fiscally responsible
direction. We will keep you updated on those dollar amounts as we get better information.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And what would you speculate the timing could be for you to be able to approach
Mn.Dot to see about negotiating back down the cost of this trail7
Teresa Burgess: I am scheduled to be at MnDot next week for a different meeting. Based on the letter I'
got today, it's my intention to see if I can meet with the person that sent it to me, Lezlie Vermillion who
is the person that sent it to me. As long as I'm going to be in the building I'm going to see if I can meet
with her for a half an hour and see if she can give me more direction on what the intention of MnDot
was, and if she can also help us with trying to facilitate that negotiation. If there's any room for
negotiations, or if we are looking at, it has to be this price and then we can make a reasonable
determination. I'm hoping to have that discussion next week. If I can't have it next week, I will schedule
another meeting hopefully before the public heating on the 27"'.
32
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Okay, very good. If you could keep us updated on those conversations as you have them.
Obviously as you were to move forward with any of the design options, it will be i .mpacted by what
MnDot decides to require the city with all those drainage issues that they brought up. Very good. Okay.
Council ready for me to open this up for public conversation? .Anyone who would like to make
comments on this issue, if you could approach the podium and state your name and address for the
record. And if we could please try to just hold everyone's co~ts to 5 minutes apiece, we can
potentially allow everyone to be able to speak without going to midnight. Thank you. Good to see you
Frank.
Frank Mendez: Good to see you too. Thank you very much City Council and Mayor. Earlier today I
Was very, very delighted.
Mayor Jansen: I threw you off. I need you to state your ~O0ress. Name and address please.
Frank Mendez: I'm sorry. Frank Mendez, 7361 Kurvers Point Road, Chanhassen.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Frank Mendez: Again, I'd like to thank the City Council for taking the direction and initiative which it
seems to have started at the start of this particular meeting. The direction that we're taking and the
immediate implementation of the desires of the people who are here will'do a tremendous amount to
really relieve anxiety and stress and worry, and more than that really od~O to, it a~d~d~resses our safety
concerns and our connection with the City of Chanhassen. I had written something earlier so I'm just
going to kind of read through it. The past City Council set aside $800,000 for the 101 trail as an amount
conFu'med as still set aside by the city manager this past week. In addition now, through Representative
Tom Workman's pro-active approach to his constituents' desires, Mr. Workman working with
neighborhood leaders, sought and obtained legislative approval for a $500,000 grant towards the 101 trail
project. That is a total of $1.3 million. Your constituents would like to continue to challenge the City
Council to proceed expeditiously with the 101 trail project. Let's take advantage of Representative
Workman's interest as well as support, after all he is head of the Transportation Funding Committee, and
let's fulfill the promises from the city and get going with the well needed trail. Quite simply, many of us.
have been involved in this process over the course of the years. Some people have wanted trails over 18
years. In the last 2 Va years I know many of you here have spent hundreds of hours dedicating yourselves
to this, and some over thousands. This trail simply allows us to be, to nnify our comillunity ttlld that's
what we're really looking at tonight. We desire to be connected, not disconnected. Unified, not
fragmented or isolated. We would like our children to be able to bike to the library and elderly to walk
into Chanhassen and our families to be able to celebrate a walk on a trail which welcomes them to our
city. Tom Workman over the years has worked untiring, for the citizens of Chanhassen and has once
again given the entire City Council an opportunity to shine. We welcome your expediate follow through
on the implementation of the 101 trail. And Fd like to state also that some of you don't know this but
Tom Workman is here tonight. Back up-over here, and I'll point him out. Back over here in that
particular comer, so although he hasn't said anything, he was invited to .be here and I'm very thankfitl
that he is and I'd like to encourage you to speak to him ~ards. Thank you very much.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Steve Frankwitz: Steve Frankwitz~ 6770 Brule Circle and I just thank the council members and
everybody for this opportunity, and I'm here on behalf of my 2 year old son who doesn't know how to
ride a bike yet, but this trail is something that we need as a family to be able to get across the street, to go
33
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
into other communities and for other communities you know to come on our side of the road. And I do
have a question for Teresa and I would hope that you would be able to give us some type of idea if the
stop lights at Pleasant View and Valley View are going to hold up our project for moving forward, and if
there's a possibility that we don't have money to put those in, will the project move forward? And can
we wait until that tumback money comes at 2008 to put those lights in and maybe do some research and
find out, you know that's obviously going to cost us more money if we put those lights in after our
project and the trail and the 101 constmction's started and finished.
Teresa Burgess: Madam Mayor, if you'd like me to answer that now.
Mayor Jansen: Please. Thank you.
Teresa Burgess: The signals are typically put in by a different contractor than that would do trail work
so we would propose to do those as two completely separate contracts. It cuts down on the cost for doing
that type of work. Otherwise we see mark-up on either the signals or the trail as we have a prime
contractor that's having to administer our contract he doesn't normally deal with. So it would not impact
the time line of the trail.
Steve Frankwitz: Thank you. I would also like to address the Mayor and let you know that everybody
here is really fired up because we've heard that we've got this $500,000 and we're excited. We can't
help it. I mean if anybody in here would want to, 'we would probably stand up and give Tom Workman a
big round of applause which he deserves. I'm sorry that I had to bring that up but I'm telling you, you
can't shut us down.
Councilman Ayotte: Did Workman' put you up to that.*
Mayor Jansen: No. No need to apologize. I appreciate your having recognized him.
Steve Frankwitz: We appreciate it and I know you're trying to keep this meeting together and without
excitement and try to move forward and there's lot of things on the agenda, but...
Mayor Jansen: No, I appreciate your having given that recognition.
Steve Frankwitz: And he needs that recognition because that's part of his job. Sometimes he doesn't get
that and we needed to give that to him. So thank you very much for your time.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you.
Bob Mortenson: Bob Mortenson, 7371 Kurvers Point Road. I too would like to thank Tom Worm. I
think he's done a wonderful job and the City Council, it's refreshing to see everybody kind of pulling
together to make this project come' together. A lot of people have worked a long time to get this done.
I'd like to ask the city engineer that as you're working with the plan, remember that again a consensus
has been hammered out with all the homeowners adjacent to 101 and it's been the general consensus that
they wanted a minimum impact trail, hopefully meandering through the trees to the best of our ability.
Staying on the other side of the berms so we're not in people's back yards to the best of our ability. And
if we stay within those confines and the spirit of that arrangement I think we'll have a wonderful trail. I
want to thank all of you.
34
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Anyone else' who would like to address the council on this issue? You're
certainly welcome to come forward and state your name and address for the record. Okay. One more
speaker.
Terese Krulik: Good evening. I'm Terese Krnlik. I live at 6509 Gray Fox Curve in Fox Hollow, and my
home back yard abuts 101. I feel fortunate because our home is set quite a ways back, but.there are
people further down' the road that I can see would even be much more close. But my appeal is when you
consider the road, I just wanted to make this point, that there is every day you open up the newspaper and
there's concern about the environment and paving over all of these suburbs and people move further and
further out because they want to get closer, or the feeling of being away from the city. And I have that
feeling on 101. There are wetlands. Great deal of undeveloped property around Lotus Lake that will
never be developed. All those homes are pretty well established and the lots are plotted out. And the
other day I saw a fox. We have raccoons, pheasants. There's a great amount of wildlife and I would hate
to see going overboard and inviting more traffic because I do believe if you build it, they will come. And
I don't, right now it is so noisy when trucks come along there. My family would love a trail. We feel
very disconnected because our children go to l~Sinnetonka schools, so we also have that feeling of being
pulled that way and my heart just absolutely loves Chanhassem I grew up in this area. It's my greatest,
fondest dream that I can live here. And I hope you'll consider main~g the integrity. There are like
30, approximately 30-32 driveways that enter 101 and Crosstown, if you look in comparison, there just is
no comparison. That is not a neighborhood feeling how they've blocked and run the 4 lane road down
there. I guess you could put up big walls and we could feel like we live in Richfield. I have, the previous
owners planted 6 evergreens and have grown for 18 years I believe and it's a natural, wonderful buffer.
As I said, my home's further back but I enjoy all this wildlife and I would like to maintain the integrity, of
the wetlands and the'profusion of the feeling that I live out in the country and yet I'm 15 minutes from '
Southdale so please keep that in mind. My children would '10ve to go to Chanhassen on a regular.' basis'
and so I want the safety but please try to keep everything ~y invasive. I know Minnetonka has no
plans anywhere in the near future to make their segment of 4 lane from Crosstown to 7. And there's no
plans to make the 7 further north and Gray's Bay bridge is only at 2 lane so I don't want to, I don't think
our segment needs to be signaled out. This is not something we sought the road for. We want the trail.
So thank you for listening.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you very much. Actually I think some of the pluses of what I'm hearing hem this
evening affirmed by our engineer having spoken with MnDot, is that we're looking at the roadway
remaining in it's current configuration for 10 to 15 years and potentially there are enough constraints
around the project scope to make sure that MnDot in fact doesn't do a creep on us a they're working on
this roadway, so I don't think the roadway size is a consideration. Or a concern. If anything it sounds
like this maybe guarantees us for 10 to 15 years. I'm hearing that we can explore the lights furth~ and
· I'd certainly like more of an update on that safety issue because I know that that was just constantly a
message we heard from the neighborhood. Both of those lights and to give us an update on moving that
part of the project forward, and then also those discussions with MnDot to negotiate on some of those
issues in reducing the cost of the trail. As the last speaker was addressing all of those environmental
issues, I have to give Mr. Workman kudo's for having pursued a DNR grant and having acknowledged
the environmental sensitivity of this issue and having been creative enough to switch over to that funding
vehicle to address those issues so much appreciated and admire your creative use of resources there at the
State to get that addressed. You know it would also then be significant to get the cost of the trail down a
little bit so that we're not maybe getting gouged more than is necessary and have it be a more significant
part of the total. So thank you. Council, I'm sure we would all like to acknowledge Mr. Workman and
his efforts so much appreciated. And thank you for being here this evening. I did not see you over in the
corner for thanks Frank for identifying him over there. Those were my concerns that I was hearing and
35
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
maybe...these two agreements and then we'll ail be back here discussing approving the DNR grant.
Submitting for the DNR grant at our next meeting. Council, any additional information at this time?
Councilman Labatt: No. Save that for the 27th.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you to everyone for being here. We do appreciate all of your input and
council continues to be in support of getting this trail accomplished and providing for the safety issues in
this corridor. So much appreciated and we will take a 5 minute break in order to allow for everyone to be
able to head out tonight. Thank you.
(The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION UPDATE.
Mayor Jansen: Welcome Pat.
Pat Mackey: Thank you. I'm Pat Mackey...architects in Minneapolis. Thank you for waiting around to
hear what we have to say about the library tonight. We have some information that was sent to the
council and I'd like to walk you through where we are at this point. About 2/3 of the way through design
development. We'd better start with the sketches here and show you kind of an aeriai perspective
rendering of, this is about a month old but this is aboul~ the basic form of the building right now. As you
remember.., fi.om June and our earlier meetings where at the southwest corner of the site immediately
adjacent to this building, lust south of this building. You get a good sense of what it would look like
fi.om the southwest, or the southeast in this aerial perspective and it's generai relationship to city hall
here. Our model as well. And some of you may or may not have seen this in some of the community
meetings and in the Planning Commission meetings. We've got the basic formula built in and we're
focusing right now, working with, through the library staff and the engineers certainly and trying to make
sure that the plan configuration as you have it works. My overview. The north is this direction. Here's
the existing city hall. The site is entered by car in any one of three points. The east parking lot which
plays off the existing parking lot. The west parking lot which comes in roughly oppo.site, actuaily a little
bit south of the Byerly's parking lot. About where Coulter comes through now, and the north parking lot
which is extended with a parking ramp, or a parking deck that has parking on the upper level of the law
enforcement parking lot, and underneath for library patrons. The entry of the library is lined up with the
stair that would take visitors down fi.om the upper parking deck and I think from there, we've got a line
between the library and the city hail, kind of a major and minor green space plaza. This is a much more
open landscape plaza down here and a little more formal, a little more urban courtyard. Urban's maybe
not the right touch word to use...but a little more intimate, smaller plaza giving a dialogue between the
buildings. Playing off of that relationship.. I think to make some sense of the elevations that are in the
packet, to point out where the exterior material palate that we're looking at fight now is. A lot of this is
under development but we've got kind of the development, the large direction somewhat nailed down.
We've got what we're referring to as Carver County brick...eompliment with what's going on with the
existing City Hall building without actually duplicating it. What we're looking at is a longer bond cailed
a Norman bond that will play up, using some interesting proportional things. It's an older style of brick
bond. We'd like to get some use out of the texture and the different subtle variation you can see in the
color of the brielc Looking in the windows, underneath the windows a base of either polished or flamed
black granite as you can see here, and what we're trying to do is give the, if not the actuality, then the
illusion of these openings that we see on some of the elevations of being larger than they are and being
able to play up the vertical of the brick tiers that wrap around the building. We're looking at a couple of
different trim materials, primarily for windows. We're looking at either a champagne aluminum or we're
36
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
sm_qing to play around with a clear anodized aluminum which is a little nx~re, it's a lot more bright.
Little satiny aluminum finish that you've probably seen. And for the roof, what we'd like to pursue is on
these elements. You cnn see in the elevation but certainly the curved roof forms here and the parapet is
copper. We're pretty confident right now that copper can be achieved in the budget, and we're also
confident that if it became a budget item, copper's one of those materiais that becomes an easy target if
bids come in over the detailing and all of the associated work associated with it is the same as a standard
standing seam metal roof. That's the palate we're looking at that you can reference when we talk about
these elevations. The north elevation here is what you would see coming from the parking deck or from
city hall. Again it just helps give you some undea-standing of the mass of the building. The amount
of...and we've got an entry defined right here that is about 3 iterations old. It's no longer current on this
but we're working with the building commi_ff_ee, the staff and our engineers to kind of refine what this is
doing and how it cnn bring the most kind of visibility and prominence to this front entry on the north.
We've got, maybe you cnn kind of, if we get to the plan so we can tmders~ what's driving some of the
massing of the building. F ve got the enlxy right here coming in on a north/soS axis. And really the
terminus to that entry is the reference desk right here, roughly cent~ of the building. That's what we
want first kind of point of interaction to be other than dropping off books. You've got the toilet rooms
here. This dashed line represents where the library could be secun~l off with a broken grill gate. Still
allowing access to the meeting room which right now is shown as seating 117 people. There's, other
than toilets and storage and friends of the library and vending, a lounge area up here with views out to the
plaza between the library and city hall. Off to this side we've got the staff work room and further back
the mechanical area, and delivery drop off. As you get to the reference desk, you hit the other major.
cross access to the building which is the major east/west higher space. This is about a 20 foot vaulted
ceiling space here with clear story windows on the no/th to bring in lots of natural light and a scoop
ceiling. From there the ceiling drops again to still a bit of pretty high Volume of about 14 feet, which is
what, where the bulk of the collection is located. Non-fiction and th~ fiction and then these masses are
kind of punctuated by these porch light areas down here with lower ceilings. This higher vaulted
periodical space would be a bay here and the fireplace, the two sided firep~. Again more of the little
refinements to the massing up here, or the bmnp-outs. Similar to the periodicals or children story time in
that the end of either ~s of the major access. Either side there. We've got a 20 person conference
room and a teen room, which kind of caps the teen/young adult area here. This is the children's area
right here. Again just to remind you this is not... This is how the, kind of a cleaner representation of the
general location and interaction of all these pieces on the site...relates to parking and the landscape areas
around that. And I guess from there I'd ask if there are any questions.
Mayor Jansen: At this point for council's information, the Planning Commission has reviewed all of this
information, correct? Maybe not the most recent internal but they had done the external as well as the
materials.
Pat Mackey: Correct. And we're working with the library staff too to continuously finesse the
interaction of all the pushing and pull in here. This is the stage of the project at which it's not very
exciting going from one week to the next. You don't see a lot of changes in the plan. It's all a lot of
litXle changes throughout. There aren't any great leaps and flips of the design. If there were we'd be in
worse shape.
Mayor Jansen: Sure. And as far as any of the detail of the site plan, at this point we haven't addressed
any of the landscaping or sidewalks and those sorts of things. Those come in the next phase.
Pat Mackey: Those will come in the next phase. They come in a parallel phase. What we have
determined with our engineers, both structural and civil is the elevation of the building which unlike the
37
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
flat paper here we've got quite an active site here with the high portion, the upper level of city hall sits
on_ What happens to all that water as it comes down and you're trying to park cars underneath the deck
and so forth. We've come to what we're very happy with is a general site grading scheme that solves
many, many more problems than it creates so considering where we could have gone with that, there's
some challenges to the water on the site. I think we've got those fairly licked.
Mayor Jansen: Great. Any questions or comments from council?
Councilman Peterson: A couple. One easy and one more difficult and lengthy perhaps. What are we up
to current square footage?
Pat Mm:key: It's probably around 32,400. Again that changes from day to day but not substantially.
Councilman Peterson: Realizing that most of weren't involved in the initial thoughts of the building and
size and structure, just for my own edification perhaps some of my other council people, two story versus
one story. Walk me through why we're at one story. The costs of the two and just to give me a sense of.
Pat Mackey: It's about what we were figuring. Well first of all, again we're at 32,000 square feet.
That's kind of a controlling number there. That's the point at which, above there you can make the
rationalization sometimes pretty easily for going to two stories of a 16,000 square foot footprint. What
you, what it boils down to is not so much building cost. It's slightly, there's some premiums obviously to
go to two story building. You've got elevators. You've got vertical circulation but where the real hit
occurs on a long term basis is the cost of staffing. It's essentially almost, it boils down to adding about
3/5 the number of staff to have a presence of both floors to kind of have a, an additional 3/5 to have
enough of a staff density to one, address patron needs and two, just the rest of complexities of moving
materials up and down. We hit that one fairly early on but it is kind of a nagging question because there
are obvious benefits to going to two stories. You free up quite a bit of land area but I think we hit that
one pretty.
Mayor Jansen: That one extensively debated going through both building committee, Planning
Commission and council. Sure.
Pat Mackey: What we're trying to do is get some of the, rather than making this a pancake, on the other
hand, a one story building at 32,000 square feet, if not done carefully can really appear to be just a big,
flat, a slice of bread on a fairly nice site. We wanted to avoid that. What we're going for is these higher
vaulted area here. The meeting room, the periodicals, the spine here and the entry spine, as well as kind
Of taking advantage of what doesn't seem to be a sloping site, but from this point at the entry to this point
here is, depending which line you take, 5 to 6 feet of drop-off. That's an old number I'm pulling out of
my hat here. We may be looking at from further out at the end of the canopy here but still, when you get
further down the sidewalk, the southern end of the site, you really do see a kind of significant drop. And
it happens actually if you stand outside the senior center, you can really see how this works into the
slope, really drops away in this direction. So my point being with that is that the building actually kind
of comes out at around 4, it's about 7 feet above ground level there giving, with the size of the space,
giving a good presence on the street just in the landscaping, rather than being on a 12 foot tall...
Councilman Peterson: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Ayotte: The two types of roofing material you're using. Copper for the one level, is that
just a typical, are you specking out just a simple BUR roof or?
38
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Pat Mackey: Yeah, it would be built up. We don't, have had enough experience with membrane roofs
that we, it'd be a shame to put a 100 year roof on the copper area and 5 year or 15 year roof everywhere
else. We're going to use the built up there.
Councilman Ayotte: So the life of the copper roof would be about?
Again if done properly, which we aim to do, 100 years.
Ayotte: So there's no concern about working on a BUR to take care of the copper and vice
Pat Mackey:
Councilman
versa?
Pat Mackey: As fax as?
Councilman Ayotte: Well if you're got a 100 year life for the copper, it's not going to fail before the
BUR.
Pat Mackey: Oh no. No. No, and the BUR is just more of a regular maintenance issue but when a built
up roof, BUR fails it's easy to find the failure point and it's often serf correcting.
Councilman Ayotte: Is there any big PM requirement for the copper? I don't know.
. .
Pat Mackey: As far as?
. .
Councilman Ayotte: Preventative maintenance and servicing.
Pat Mackey: It's just the flashings. You know any good metal siding...can be applied. Just straight
metal flashing or copper. The copper, you just make sure to isolate the copper shd any other structural
metals.., and blow right through the copper but again, any of those situations would be within the first
year and would be under the building warranty. Like a weld spot coming fight through the copper.
Councilman Ayotte: Thank you.
Councilman Boyle: I have no questions.
Mayor Jansen: And Gary, we'll need to make sure that we get you a copy of the needs assessment that
was done for the library so that you have that detail. Mr. Gerha_~t, if you could maybe make a note to
get Mr. Boyle a copy of the needs assessment on the library so he does have some of that documentation,
I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Councilman Labatt?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah. I just wanted to go over the interior layout again. So on the southeast corner
is the non-fiction area?
Pat Mackey: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: And what's directly west of thi.~ area?
Pat Mackey: This is an extension of the reference area. This is kind of the core, the heart down here.
And this actually may expand. This is where you find things such as the small business section. The do
39
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
it yourself section. Consumer reference. All these things. Kind of as far as reference would go, this is
· kind of, if people have a specific deal they come right to this area.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then left of that is?
Pat Mackey: Left of that is kind of some spill over of the fiction area. Split between the collections but
more prominently this higher.., which we perceive is kind of the place to kind of come.
Councilman Labatt: Where is the fireplace? Is it that dog bone?
Pat Mackey: The fireplace is this, yeah the dog bone shape.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. So the north of that is fiction up here. North of the fkeplace.
Pat Mackey: Oh, north of the firepl~'ce?
Councilman Labatt: Still up here, that's all fiction'/
Pat Mackey: Is fiction. A/V' s, CD' s; videotapes and DVD' s. A couple listening stations there, and then
these bags of interaction computers right here. There's a staff kind of, we kind of got lucky in this one
the way things played out. I'm sure you've all heard in recent years kind of the, some of the monitoring
complications needed for internet use at public libraries and we think we've executed that. Kind of again
by a good stroke of luck by, this is a staff opening right here that pretty much is going to be kind of like
the entry to a beehive. They're going to be in and out of here all day. And kind of prevents just by a
simple policing of somebody who may be watching you. There are a couple things that would influence
the placement to each other. They work well together. We're fairly happy and I believe I can't speak for
staff but I think they know it' s there.
Councilman Labatt: Then to the east of the reference desk along that curved wall.
Pat Mackey: Along here, yeah.
Councilman Labatt: What's that there?
Pat Mackey: This is the separated teen/young adult section. Kind of all the pieces of a larger public
collection are kind of distilled out into a mini-kind of a mini-library onto itself there. Again finding that
teenagers, young adults, people in that kind of 12 to 16 range before they stop going to libraries
· altogether, 12 to 18 I should say, tend to use the space a lot better, and they come a lot more if you kind
of tailor it to their patterns which is they tend to cling in small groups or cliques a lot more. And we're
trying to give them somewhat of their own space without it being private and unmanaged. There are
partial height walls here but to this height, something that doesn't screen off acoustics, doesn't screen off
a lot of any kind of bad behavior that you wouldn't what happening. And then there's...room here which
is heavily laced through here and that's one of the challenges remaining is to make sure that this teen
room can be monitored effectively.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. The children's section is just north of the teen adult area. Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Pat, can you tell them the idea of the teen area, the tables, what you're planuing for in
that area?
40
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Pat Mackey: What we're looking at here is, we're kind of in a round about way looking at Some defining
a way of making it so that the kids can all sit together and somebody said well what about like a booth at
a restaurant and it just, it seemed almost too simple at the time but it's really working out Well. That's
what we're looking at here is more like study booths. Large oversized booths that you can get anywbem
from 2 to 4 to 6 young people at at a time. Because that's kind of the critical mass at which they ~
together. I've learned a lot from kind of talking to other teens in other communities, other libraries and
this is kind of the trend that's really coming out. It's kind of, if we want teens and young adults of this
age to use the library, you kind of have to build it to them a little bit...
Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then you said that meeting room is 117 people?
Pat Mackey: 117 right now, and it can be used, I should point out, by children's story time for events.
When you get large crowds. Jim the Juggler apparently is quite a big draw. And that can be used there.
The meeting mom I should point out again has a vertical open ceiling scooping up'to the north. You get
lots of light in through the, considerable amount of light in through here and we've broken these up with
some French doors to the...kind of cross over there. Without worrying about the...
Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then those tables out in the library area7 Those that are just to the east
of the door.
Pat Mackey: Right. Those are, again we've got a meeting with the building committee, friends and I
think some more community involvement on this because they're leftover from what was being call .~. a
coffee lounge. And what we've, you know the idea was that in some libraries and in a lot of bookstores
you get a really good kind of interplay between someplace'that serves sandwiches and coffee and then all'
the resources of the library. But we're in the shadow of Byerly's which is the 800 pound gorilla, of coffee
and sandwiches so there's really no point in, we're realizing trying to provide a competing enterprise
there. So the use of that lounge area, other than simply a place to enjoy what you got from the vending
machines or just simply take your material without leaving the library is something that's going to be
developing over time. We've got the envelope. I should point out that we're looking at a couple of
options on this envelope. Maybe bringing this...we have structure en~neers looking at a couple'options
on just what that...
Councilman Labatt: Okay, thanks.
Councilman Peterson: My first reaction to the idea of competing with Byerly's is I don't necessarily
agree with that. I ~ that means we should pull the pop machine out of here then. I mean there's a
point where reasonableness and people aren't going to walk over to Byerly's and bring back coffee
necessarily here.
Pat Mackey: What we were talking about is a viable commercial enterprise that would be responsible for
itself, for it's own profits and leasing the space here. Certainly, in fact we've talked about talking to -
Byerly's about kind of a cooperative here where there's runners back and forth bringing the coffee over
here. Enjoy the closeness without having to exactly trek over 300 yards...
Mayor Jansen: Okay, excellent. Appreciate your giving us the latest update on the project and
appreciate your continuing to work with the building committee and community so thank you very much.
Pat Mackey: Thank you.
41
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Exciting project. It's looking great.
Councilman Ayotte: Nice job.
Councilman Peterson: Pat, as you're leaving. I have to ask the question on the south elevation. The
balloons hanging from, or going up from the.
Pat Mackey: 4th of July. Just for our own reference. Those are structural grid lines, 30 feet 8 inches on
center so we can.
Councilman Peterson: I should have known that.
Pat Mackey: A lot of people ask that question. Unless you look at the numbers, people don't know. I
guess I'd also like to point out briefly, since I know there are some questions about the schedule. We're
still on the schedule. Like I said, we're 2/3 of the way through design development. We plan on, and
don't see any reason why we won't be ready to start CD's or construction documents September 1st. Be
able to bid, put the building out to bid middle of January, January 15th and begin construction as soon as
weather permits. Could be early March. Could be early April. That depends on basically what the
winter's like. And there's another question which I was asked, which concerns the vacation of the bank
building on the site and how late that rental property could be maintained. It's nbt really foreseen as a
problem until about May. I think after May you get to a point obviously without talking to the
contractors, it's our opinion, but you can get to about May. A couple months under construction without
causing significant delays.., get around the bank building so if anybody has questions about that.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCE TO DEVELOP WITHIN
THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT AND TO OPERATE A CONTRACTOR'S YARDi
AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 25~139 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUll.DING (PHAS
I} ON A 6.3 ACRE PARCELi LOCATED AT 1850 LAKE DRIVE WESTi LOT 2~ BLOCK 11
CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 3m~ Ar}DITION~ DAYCO I-IEADQUARTERS~ DAYCO
CONCRETE COMPANY.
Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, City Council members. This property is located within Chart
Business Center, which is an office industrial planned unit development in this city. It's also located
within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The Chart Business Center was begun in 1992. This is the 3~
Addition of which this lot is located was approved in 1995. The Bluff Creek Ooerlay District was
adopted in 1998. The site grading for this property is approximately to the line where staff has estimated
that the primary zone boundaries are. The Bluff Creek Overlay District requlres a 40 foot setback from
that for the building. After the developer had originally submitted the plans, on investing the site we
determined that the zoning map had been shown incorrectly. Showed the line and their building was too
close to this. We worked with the developer to provide, to determine some compromise to change the
site. They were.., standards in the city ordinance so we were able to move the building so that it is 15
feet away from the primary zone boundary. We thought that the developer was very willing to look at
this compromise. They were also able to shift the retaining wall from outside of the primary zone into
the secondary zone. However to do this project they still need a variance from the overlay district
setback standards and so staff is recommending approval of that as part of their conditional use permit for
developing within the overlay district. The site plan itself is fairly straight forward. It's a two story
42
City Council Meeting- August 13, 2001
building in the office component of the structure which is located in the southeast corner of the building.
It's highly articulated. They use block material to give it a sense of enlrance. The entrance is oriented
towards Lake Drive West. We believe they did a great job of meeting our design standards within the
Chan Business Center. Again they worked with staff to meet some of our concerns. They looked at
providing additional landscaping on the east elevation to give some more horizontal elements to that.
The building itself is 25,139 square feet. There is room on the site for a second building. That would be
located to the south. As part of...they're not concerned that the overhead doors will be too conspicuous
because the second building will h.elp to screen that area in the future. The Planning Commiasion
reviewed this and recommended approval of the conditional use permit for the development within the
overlay district as well as the contractors yard and approval of the site plan. With that staff is
recommending approval and we'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for staff council? Otherwise if I Could have a motion please.
CounciLman Peterson: Motion to approve.
Mayor Jansen: And a second?
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit.
g2001-2 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District with variances for
alteration within the buffer area and a 15 foot variance from the 40 foot primary zone setback, and
to permit a contractor's yard on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhass~ Business Center 3~ Addition based on
the findings of fact and subject to the following condifionsi "
1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement for the property.
2. No outside storage of material or equipment shall be permitted.
.
The boundaries of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary and secondary corridors shall be
shown on the grading plan.
4. The retaining wall must be located outside the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone.
AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve Site Plan ~O,001-5, plans
prepared by Lampert Architects, dated May 4, 2001, based on the findings of fact and-subject to
the following conditions:
.
A separate sign permit application is required for'the installation of signage. Wall signage is
permitted on only one elevation.
2. The retaining wall shall be located outside the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone.
,
A minimum 25 foot building setback shall be maintained from the Bluff Creek Overlay District
Primary Zone.
43
City Council Meeting- August 13, 2001
4~
.
1
ge
.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
The applicant shall increase understory plantings along the north property line by 4 trees for a
total of 20 and increase the number of understory plantings along the west property line by 1 tree
for a total of 13 trees.
A revised landscape plan that meets minimum requirements be submitted to the city prior to
building permit approval. The applicant shall work with staff to increase plantings along the
south property line. Transferring from the east and north is acceptable.
If these landscape peninsulas are less than 10 feet in width, then aeration tubing shall be
installed.
All new landscaped areas shall have an irrigation system installed.
The developer shall work with staff to provide additional articulation to the north half of the
eastern building elevation. Tall arborvitae or evergreen landscaping is an acceptable solution.
The applicant shall provide storm water calculations to demonstrate that the existing pond has
adequate capacity to accommodate storm water from this site.
The developer shall revise the storm sewer design to tie into the existing storm manhole and
pond inlet of the existing 48 inch storm sewer that runs along the eastern property line in order to
minimize the number of pipes draining into the storm water pond.
Park fees in the amount of $18,926 shall be paid at the time of building permit approval.
The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles fou~td during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by'the City Engineer.
The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer sizing calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm
event prior to building pe .rmit approval.
Silt fence adjacent to the existing pond and wetland on the north and west sides of the site must
be Type 3 heavy-duty.
Specify what kind of material is being used at the north and south parts of the proposed building.
On the grading plan, add City Detail Plate Nos. 5215 and 5302. Also, show the benchmark used
for the site survey.
Revise the rock construction entrance to be 75 feet in length as per city detail plate #5301.
Add a 6 foot wide sidewalk along the west side of the drive entrance from the cul-de-sac.
Bituminous is acceptable until Phase II is completed. Applicant shall escrow funds to install a 6
foot wide sidewalk along the west side of the driveway entrance from the cul-de-sac to be built
within 2 years.
Show the most current version of City Detail Plate Nos. 1004 and 5207 on the utility plan.
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
20. Remove the northerly 35 feet of the proposed retaining wall from the public drainage and utility
easement.
21. Add straw bale inlet filters around the two existing catch basins in Lake Drive West.
22. Utilize the existing 8 inch sanitary stub on the south side of the site.
23. Temporary bituminous curb is acceptable for 2 years. Applicant shall escrow funds to install
curb and gutter around the entire parking and drive area for the site within 2 years from the
building permit approval.
24. Replace the casting on the western most catch basin in Lake Drive West with a drive over type
25. Revise the plans to show the following:
a. The existing pond along with the NWL and HWL.
b. Existing street light locations in I. ake Drive West.
26. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishin~ system.
27. The building plans must be prepared and sign.ed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
28. Three (3) accessible parking spaces are required for the 62 spaces provided.
29. Detailed occupancy retailed requirements will not be reviewed until complete plans are
submitted.
30. Utility Plan: The HDPE pipe specified for the storm sewer requires an air test and must have
watertight fittings. The sanitary sewer service into the building must be schedule 40 pipe.
31. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
32. The 6 inch water service coming into the building will need a post indicator valve. 1999 NFPA
13 Section 5-14.1.1.8.
33. In accordance with city policy please ensure that th~'e is a 10 foot clear space around all fire
hydrants, Siamese connection, post indicator valves, etc. on site.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously $ to 0.
REQUF~T FOR AN AMENDMI~NT TO ~ VII.LAGF~ ON ~ PONDS PLANNl~ UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ALLOW DRIVE THRU WINDQW~, LOTUS REALTY.
Bob Generous: Thank you Mod_sm Mayor, Council members. The applicant is requesting an
amendment to the design standards for Villages on the Ponds. As the City developed and established the
criteria for this, we were looking at standards that were non-typical for us within the community. We
45
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
wanted to create a more pedestrian oriented environment. To do that we created build to lines within the
project, required pedestrian connections within parking areas, and also requested that parking be located
to the side and rear of the projects. Additionally through the park and sharing that we envisioned with
this project because of the non-competing hours of uses, we reduced the number of overall parking stalls
by approximately 2,000. However, as part of that the design standards prohibited the drive thru windows
that are typical in suburban development with your fast food restaurants or with some other uses. The
applicant is looking specifically at amending the design standards to permit a drive .thru on this site. Staff
is recommending approval, or denial of that amendment. However we provided, if council desires to
recommend approval we've prepared a draft ordinance that provides some criteria that would point out
that would require the screening of the drive thru area, shielding of any loudspeakers on this site, and
assurances that any back-up from the drive thru would not go into the common parking area. Again staff
is recommending denial of the PUD amendment. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Jansen: I had a question on page 3. Your calculations on the trip generation levels. Am I reading
this correctly under the prototype hybrid, is that what we're looking at potentially being on this site on
the traffic generation from this particular amendment?
Bob Generous: That's correct.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Because I'm not clear if in the draft ordinance with the conditions attached, would
we still be restricting fast food from this site?
Bob Generous: Yes.
Mayor Jansen: It would still be restricted. Okay. So this is showing average dally trip generation in the
development going up about 24%, correct? I mean currently you're saying the EAW was saying at a rate
of 130 vehicles average daily. This could potentially take it up by another 32 trips.
Bob Generous: That's correct.
Mayor Jansen: Versus with fast food that would take it up by 330 trips. Okay. So it is a significantly
different establishment than we might have foreseen when we were initially doing the PUD and
restricting the fast food. Okay. That was my main question as I was reading through this. Do other
council people have questions for staff?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah I was, and maybe this is premature to ask this. Where on this map are we
looking at going.*
Bob Generous: Lot 1, Block 1 of the' 2~ Addition is located right here. This is Highway 5 over here.
Great Plains Boulevard. Lake Drive is here.
Councilman Labatt: So they're going to go in that little red building right there?
Bob Generous: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Bob Generous: Yes. To the east, this is where the Quizno's is. The coffee shop and then Bell
Mortgage. And Houlihan's across the Village Pond.
46
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Councilman Labatt: So now the Plar~ning Commi,~sion denied this, correct?
Bob Generous: They recommended denial.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: The one public comment that was really s_ddressed at the Planning Commission was
concern with the traffic levels potentially being generated through the development, which led to.
Bob Generous: Preparation of this table and analysis of the difference.
Mayor Jansen: The Planning Commission, if I'm not mistaken, didn't have this analysis as far as the
actual increase in traffic generated or the figures, correct?
Kate Aanenson: I think the other thing we tried to do with this report was to show you, there's a bigger
depth and breadth of types of drive thru windows. You're probably be seeing one shortly of a drive thru
pharmacy dry cleaners so we tried to do some analysis. They do generate different trips. Again what we
were looking at in this type of development was more traditional pedestrian. What we tried to do is look
at what other potential uses and how, if you were inclined to allow one type of thing and how do you
preclude something else? Whether you look at it for criteria. Whether it's trips or type of use, that sort
of thing. There is opportunities for other drive thru's. It doesn't have to be a re~aurant. We're saying
somebody can still put a drive thru, dry cleaning in for example on the end of a bull.ding so that's some..of
the concerns that we had.
Councilman Boyle: Is the concern that you're setting a precedent that you might have to live with in the
future? Was that the concern?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, I think what we tried to establish is some criteria/hat allowed a specific, if you
wanted to put a specific use in there, fight.
Councilman Peterson: I think that along with following the standards that have already been set forth
within that project. Which they are the strictest of any that we have in Chanhassen.
Mayor Jansen: And with your suggested conditions, realizing you're not suggesting we do this but with
the conditions that you would attach if we did, you've restricted it to this particular parcel in this
development.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: So we would not be giving a blanket approval for all of the open property within the
Villages, correct?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. But I guess what we're saying is someone always has the opportunity to
come back.
Mayor Jansen: And if you've done it once, will you do it again?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
47
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Mayor Jansen: Understood.
Councilman Labatt: I'm struggling with this one. How would they run a drive thru...situated? Can you
answer that?
Kate Aanenson: Well, in looking at the dynamics of use, which we have. We've looked at it. I've gone
up there during the day to look at what the circulation is. It is a busy place right there right now in front
of that, which is great. That's what we wanted. But this type of fast food, you can see the typical hybrid,
which we're calling this, is not the same volume as a typical fast food which generates the highest.
Would it be similar to a dry cleaner?
Councilman Labatt: It's not like a McDonald's?
Kate Aanenson: It's not a typical fast food. The volun~ isn't nearly the same. It's like a third of that.
Councilman Peterson: A third of McDonald's is still quite a bit of traffic. I mean.
Councilman Labatt: But did you...the trip generation of that?
Kate Aanenson: Right. Well I guess the other concern is what is the dynamics of the center when you've
got cross over traffic and you're trying to make it pedestrian friendly. That was the other component and
I think that's what Craig was alluding to. Is what does that do to the dynamic of what we were trying to
create there. Something different. We don't have the stacking of cars. Or the queuing of people going
through. Now again that's a third less but you're still going to have times when it's, people are queuing.
Councilman Boyle: Well an increase of 130 to 162 doesn't seem like that much increase to me. Maybe,
I mean if I look at the 130 to 496 for a fast food, then it's wow. That's a beck of an increase. But this is,
I don't know what that means.
Kate Aanenson: Well that's what we struggled with. How does that interplay with What we were trying'
to originally create. Now remember what, the city had certain goals in creating this district. There was a
lot of flexibility given and certainly, I mean the Planning Commission struggled with, nobody wanted to
say no to ice cream and some of those sort of, some of the other types of things that we want to go in
there, but traffic is a concern.
Councilman Boyle: Is one of the concerns.
Kate Aanenson: One of the concerns, sure.
Councilman Boyle: The primary is staying with what we established at the beginning?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Peterson: Just a little bit of additional background. The vision really for that, of that whole
area was having apartments. Having apartments above retail. Walking that main area. Walking from
your apartment to go eat was less of a concern for traffic. And so philosophically, I spent it seemed like
a couple of years on this project so, it actually was a couple years on this project. But the intent that we
really tried to focus staff on is to maintain that theme and to maintain the standards. So not even
48
City Council Meeting- August 13, 2001
knowing the detail of what's going in here, a drive thru just doesn't fit philosophically to what our intent
was. Now do we need to change that intent? I don't know but this certainly does change the intent.
Councilman Boyle: Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: I know one of the criteria that I looked at as I was considering this was the location of
~tfis particular site because it is so close to Highway 5 and this other entrance going on Lake Drive. And
again, Fm feeling somewhat tortured over trying to figure out whether amending this PUD is the right
thing to do. I certainly embrace the concept that this was planned with and the intention of the city, and I
think I of course go to the convenience aspect of it for our residents. Now how much are we holding to
the principle that we planned this development around without taking into account this particular site.
Getting down to something that isn't fast food. Looking at a trip generation that to Gary's point, doesn't
seem that much more significant. Is there a little wiggle room if only because of those considerations?
Location to the major access points. The odditional guidelines that staff has drafl~ as far as being able
to buffer the sight lines, protect from the noise, have it actually not look like a drive thru. I'm looking at
this is how do you almost hide the fact that it's a drive thru. Yes Fm ~ the precedent. How do you
now deny the next request potentially in this development to put another drive thru in here, and I guess I
go back to my argument the location of the site seems to make it more conducive, rather than if it was
located in the center of the development. Now you're taking all of that traffic and taking up the entire
way through. Not to say that people won't do that anyway, but at least they've got a quicker ~s off of
5. I guess that' s one of the things I'ra weighing into trying to make this decision. Just to throw that out.
Kate Aanenson: ff I could just add to the wiggle room. This PUD didn't exclude bank drive thm's
which we kind of were looking at that and we did, a bank drive thru, which they had proposed which we
were very concerned about. This amendment would then prohibit any other drive thru's. So it fixes a
bigger problem that we wouldn't allow any other. Now certainly they can come back and ask for an
amendment to that but that was in place. A bank could have come in, which we did have concerns about
too. Again for certainly stacking. Significant stacking certain days of the week at a bank. So by doing
this PUD amendment it would solve that problem too because that would prohibit any Other drive thru's
unless you specifically sat them in this location it seems to work. So that would solve that problem.
Councilman Peterson: We could do that without approving this one.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct~ Or they can come back and ask for an amendment too, that's correct.
Mayor Jansen: Appreciate your mentioning that. Do we need to continue discussion?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, if we're looking for general comments. I really have been swayed. I just
don't think it's appropriate for the intent of the PUD. It's pretty simple to, I don't see a compelling
reason to change it. It's really whenever I look at a PUD change, is there a compelling reason to change
it? You don't change it because you want a certain business to come in. That's the wrong reason to do
it.
Mayor Jansen: And that is why we had requested that staff separate this PUD amendment from any
proposal on a particular issue and bring it before us, at least in as general a concept as possible so that
we're more so looking at it in concept versus looking at it as a specific business decision. And again, oh
Kate another question. Where else in the community would we be able to put a drive thru? Are there
other locations currently?
49
City Council Meeting -August 13, 2001
Kate Aanenson: The piece behind the Richfield Bank would allow for a drive thru. The other property
that the city owns has a PUD excluding drive thru' s.
Todd Gerhardt: And it excludes fast food restaurants.
Kate Aanenson: The piece that the city owns by Applebee' s. So probably there and, there's not a lot of
commercial pieces left in the city.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah, exactly. And I guess where, and I think the compelling reason, as a good issue and
a good benchmark to challenge myself also, so as I'm looking at this being so close and adjacent to the
downtown and trying to draw more people into this whole area, I guess convenience still comes to mind,
and especially with all of our young families.
Councilman Peterson: But you're drawing vehicles than you are drawing pedestrian. Pedestrians is
what, we're not trying to draw vehicles into the Villages on the Ponds. We're trying to draw people so
your point doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense if you want to draw people. I don't know.
Mayor Jansen: If it's a destination point, and they're just coming for that, and they're not coming to
mingle, I almost look at the pedestrian aspect as the draw for the apartments that are across the street.
They now have the pedestrian access into Villages to be able to shop that area. As the apartments that
will potentially exist right on that development versus across the street on 101. I'm looking at the
pedestrian friendly is can you park once and walk.
Councilman Peterson: So how does that, I still don't see the correlation between needing a drive thru.
To your point then, you wouldn't have a drive thru. You'd make them park. Go in 'and be serviced, and
then walk around the rest of the development.
Mayor Jansen: If it's a convenience service though, you're going to the destination, like a drive thru
windows on a cleaners or what were some of the others that you gave?
Kate Aanenson: Photomat, coffee shop, bank.
Mayor Jansen: I mem~ if you're going to that destination and you're looking for the quick trip through,
you're not necessarily looking to then wander the other shops and.
Councilman Peterson: Well that's my whole point. Is that what we're trying to get there is pedestrian
friendly businesses that are located there to keep the cars away. I'd be much more amenable to taking the
property by Applebee's and changing that PUD because we're not as, I'm just trying to make a point. I
think that is much less sensitive an area to make a PUD change than this one would be.
Todd Gerhardt: It's not a PUD down there. It's a covenant so you have to.
Councilman Peterson: Well you can still change covenants so.
Todd Gerhardt: You've got to get Applebee's and Tires Plus to sign on the line.
Councilman Labatt: Cold day there.
Mayor Jansen: There you go. There's a jump.
50
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Kate Aanenson: Just to add again to, looking back, focusing back on the traffic study. There are some
higher turnover, Starbuck's. Quizno's, some of those as we looked at the traffic study, the higher
turnover. Again going back to what you're saying. We were looking not only the drive thru but what it
does to circulation patterns. But just to be clear, some of those other uses, people go in for a 40 ~nute
lunch. Cup of coffee, visit with somebody so some of those also are creating, what do I want to say,
shorter stays or that sort of thing too. Just to be fair in how we're evaluating this. Some of our concern
is, does it change the dynamics? Are we moving away from kind of the plan7 Is it okay just to let one go
in if there's something else coming in and what does it do to the dynamics? Because I just want to be
sure in saying, some of the other uses in there do have quicker stays. Shox~r stays I guess.
Mayor Jansen: And right within that comer too.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: That you pointed out, okay. Thank you.
Councilman Labatt: Kate let me, say for instance this amendment gets approved. And 2 months from
now we see a project come on board and the drive up window's in a position where we don't like it. Too
visible from Highway 5. Cars stacked up along there. Do we still have the position to say no at that
point?
Kate Aanenson: I guess I would make it a conditional use then if you wanted to ~dd something to
mitigate the 'impacts. Make it a conditional use, the drive thru. Then you could add a condition to
mitigate that.
Councilman Labatt: I'm just trying to envision where the drive up window would be in this property.
Kate Aanenson: We've looked at that. The opportunities. Again we did see a bank on this site. We did
see some other you know. It's been in the works. I mean as Craig alluded to, when we put this PUD
together we all had certain vision and the one thing we have learned is we had to be a liRle bit flexible as
we've seen with the apartments and some of that. Things that we try to, some flexibility built into what
we put in place a number of years ago. But certainly we had that concern too that we would want to put
the drive thru in a spot that has the least imp, acC Again, we hear from the neighbors at the Planning
Commission regarding noise and traffic and they came up with a concern when we had the two
restaurants there too. People sitting outside. What would that, it's whatever comes in there we would
want an outdoor patio. Whether it's fast food or where people can sit outside and enjoy that atmosphere.
I was out there today just to see what the traffic was like at noon. I sat outside. It's a nice experience.
So we would want that no matter what it is so I would double check with the city a~cu'ney but that would
he my recommendation if you want to put a conditional use or something. How amended that, I don't
know what language you'd put on there to restrict or control of the location.
Mayor Jansen: Would you like to hear a comment from Roger please?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah.
Roger Knutson: A conditional use for.
51
City Council Meeting -August 13, 2001
Kate Aanenson: Just the drive up portion. How would you restrict it so they would have the comfort of
where they can, if their concern is the location of the window.
Roger Knutson: You could make it a conditional use within the PUD.
Kate Aanenson: Right, that's what I had said. My suggestion.
Roger Knutson: You could do that.
Kate Aanenson: Then we could mitigate that.
Mayor Jansen: And it could be a conditional use within the PUD for that site.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. We did put some standards in there. I think as Bob has pointed out, in Section 3.
If you' re comfortable with that or you want something stronger but what we put in there is that provides
sufficient stacking to insure traffic is not backed up into the parking lot aisles and loud speakers used for
ordering food shall be shielded so that noise is not heard from off-site. And that the drive thru shall be
screened from off-site views. So if you wanted something stronger than that but that was our attempt to
try to mitigate that.
Councilman Labatt: I still don't want to say no but I...
Kate Aanenson: I guess our position on that would be, we would put it in the, what we believe to be the
least visible place to put it. And that was the concern when we looked at the design standards from due
beginning. Is what would your view be from Highway 5.* That we're not going to see, when.we looked
at that originally that we did strip commercial on that segment of Highway 5 so that would be the attempt
to screen.
Councilman Peterson: There's no way, actually I shouldn't say, it's very difficult to prevent sight line of
cars being backed up 2 or 3 in a row. I've said enough.
Councilman Boyle: It is always very difficult to say no to any type of business that's trying to come into
town just because of a drive in or a drive thru or whatever you want to call it but my personal opinion
now from what I've heard and read up to this point is that we probably should stay with the concept that
was intended. And do we further move away from the dynamics? So I'm kind of, as difficult as it is, I'm
leaning more towards denial.
Mayor Jansen: And I guess where I have been on the fence, having now heard that we could make the
drive thru a conditional use, I feel as it would give staff even more control over how to guide how this is
actually placed. And again, I'm trying to not be so restrictive of what the original intent was of this
PUD. I can certainly appreciate the concept and all the effort that went into the planning in this area, but
I keep coming back to what are the concerns of our residents? Are our residents so hung up over our
increasing the traffic in this area by 31 vehicles a day that they would want to see us being inflexible on
this PUD. I feel as though we have enough control over the location within the development, how it's
screened, what it is, because I mean we're not adding one of these high traffic businesses or opening it up
for that. I'm having a tendency to lean towards changing this and I've had more of a tendency to not
change PUD's. But this one, because of the location to our downtown, the insignificant and I realize
traffic is an issue whatever the increase as far as our residents are concerned. But I am looking at that as
insignificant for the service and convenience that would be provided at that comer.
52
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Councilman Ayotte: I agree with you. I'm thinking, based not only on the survey, but the challenge to,
and I know we're not supposed to be affecting the plan to draw business in, especially after I just passed
one business going out, one establishment out of business this past week and it bothered the heek out of
me. Whatever we can do to enhance success is something I'd like to go towards so Mayor, I'd tend to
agree with you on this one. And I love Butter Burgers.
Kate Aanenson: That would be a hybrid burger.
Mayor Jansen: You love hybrids. Okay, are we doing further discussion or would council like me to call
for a motion? I'm not meaning to rush you Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: No, I'm just boy. Well I think we know where the vote could go here. I'm just
trying to think how to word one to tell you the truth.
Councilman Ayotte: And it's 4 to 1 that has to go, right?
Roger Knutson: Not anymore. As of May 30~ it is, you need 3 votes to pass it.
Councilman Ayotte: Oh, then you've got a mistake in your write-up there.
Bob Generous: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: Sorry.
Mayor Jansen: It's been a change in the legislation. Mr Gerhardt, did you want to make comment on this
issue? I don't mean to put you on the spot. You looked like you wanted to speak.
Todd Gerhardt: No. I have been th. inking about this as the discussions have gone on and as I drive
through the community and talk to businesses in the community I see the Taco Bell's, the Lee. ann Chin's,
the Perkins, the restaurants during the noon hour, their parking lots are full and we're approximately
halfway built out in this community. And the need for those type of restaurants for our business
community, the employees that work here, tend to go to those type of places. They're on a short work
hour and we stopped at Subway the other day and we were outside the door. To think that you don't
have a drive thru there and so I would think that this would help alleviate some of our other problems
with...to take off. Every real estate deal that Vernelle and Brad bring to us are very i .mpommt to that
project to continue to move ahead. I think this is.a key element to the furore of the Village on the Ponds.
I know it doesn't originally meet the intent of the tmdestrian orientation for the development but I believe
Starbucks closes 5:00 or 6:00. 7:00? And so you know there's not an evening activity on that end cap
down there. So I have, I think that more restaurants of this sort in that'area would he helpful. So I would
encourage it. I think you have somebody here that wants to be in the community and it's not your
traditional fast food. I've been to the.
Mayor Jansen: Keep in mind we're evaluating a hybrid.
Todd Gerhardt: It's a hybrid. I didn't say the C word. And I've been to similar restaurants over in
Navarre like this and that drive thru isn't even similar to the one at McDonald's. You don't see the long
lines there and I've heard that comment from other individuals that have seen these hybrids.
53
City Council Meeting - August 13,2001
Mayor Jansen: Thank you, appreciate your comments. Councilman Labatt, did you want to?
Councilman Labatt: Okay, I'm going to take a stab at it.
Councilman Boyle: Can I have one more question? Just one more.
Councilman Labatt: Sure, go ahead.
Councilman Boyle: What's the seating capacity inside?
Kate Aanenson: We're not at site plan yet.
Councilman Boyle: Well how about square foot?
Councilman Labatt: 4768.
Mayor Jansen: That's allowed on this site in general.
Kate Aanenson: Based on any of the restaurant it's approximate square foot, around 5,000 would be the
maximum based on the pad area.
Councilman Boyle: Thank you.
Councilman Labatt: Ready?
Mayor Jansen: Ready. Give it a shot.
Councilman Labatt: I move the City Council approve an amendment to the planned unit development
standards permitting a conditional use permit for a drive up window, drive thru window based upon the
ordinance supplied by Mr. Generous.
Roger Knutson: Just so we're clear, that's on Lot 1, Block 1.
Councilman Labatt: Lot 1, Block 1.
Mayor Jansen: LOt 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2"~ Addition.
Councilman Labatt: LOt 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2"a Addition.
Mayor Jansen: Does that cover us appropriately?
Roger Knutson: Yes it does.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Without doing it as an amendment. Okay. Do I have a second for the motion?
Councilman Ayotte: Fine, I second.
54
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve an amendment to the Planned
Unit Development Standards permitting a drive thru window as a conditional use as outlined in
the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE AMF. NDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CI-IANHASS~ CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE,
BY RF.2~NING CERTAIN PROPERTY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's zoning ordinance, is hereby amended by
amending the PUD, Planned Unit Development, for all ~ within the following:
Villages on the Ponds
Section 2. The Development Design Standards, b. Permitted Uses, Commercial/Retail, shall be amended
by deleting: restaurant-no drive through.
Section 3. The Development Design Standards, b. Permitted Uses, Com~etail, shall be
amended by adding: restaurant-no drive through, except by Conditional Use Permit on Lot 1, Block 1,
Villages on the Ponds 2~d Addition and compliance with the following standards - the drive through shall -
provide sufficient stacking to assure that traffic is not backed into the p.arking lot drive aisles; loud
speakers used for ordering shall be shielded so that noise is not heard off-site, and the drive through shall
be screened from off-site views.
Section 4. The Development Design Standards, b. Prohibited Uses shall be amended by adding: Drive
through/drive in windows and facilities, except as part of a restaurant on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the
Ponds 2~ Addition.
Section 5. The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the aforesaid'
zoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office for the
purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all of the notations,
references, and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of
this ordinance.
Section 6. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication.
All voted in favor, except Coun~lmnn Peterson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of
4tol.
Vemelle Clayton: Thank you very much and I think we won't disappoint you. We will have the
pedestrian orientation in the core. This is a little bit outside the core: It will work.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you Vemelle.
APPOINTMENT TO TI-IF~ ENVIRONMENTAL COM341~ON.
Mayor Jansen: Do I have a motion please?
55
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
Councilman Labatt: Sure. The first item, the two candidates are gift horses. I'm really excited for us so
with excitement I will move that we appoint Steve Nalefski and Deborah Yungner to the Environmental
Commission filling the remaining term of the two vacant terms, and those will expire on 3/31/02. In
addition to appointing them to the 3 year term running 3/31/2002 to 3/31/2005.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Do I have a second please?
Councilman Boyle: I will second that motion.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to appoint Steve Nalefski and Deborah
Yungner to the Environmental Commission ~ling the remaining term of the two vacant terms,
and those will expire on 3/31/02. In addition to appointing them to the 3 year term running
3/31/2002 to 3/31/2005. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: And I will agree with Councilman Labatt, our appreciation for such strong candidates
stepping forward to serve on one of our commissions and they certainly have the credentials to bring
some talent to our environmental commission so welcome aboard.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: COUNCIL/COMMISSION LIAISON UPDATE.
Mayor Jansen: Any comments from council from your commissions?
Councilman Ayotte: The Environmental Commission is off the month of August. Them has been no
activity with the exception of the appointments tonight.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, great.
Councilman Labatt: I was out of town for the Park and Rec.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I want tO compliment the Planning Commission on their decision to not take on a
policy issue. In fact there was a little bit of a feeling on the commission that they really wanted to change
a policy and there was a direction that that was certainly something that should come to council and we
just mistakenly did not catch that as it hit their agenda. We have been trying very hard all year to be sure
that council addresses policy issues prior to their going to the commission so they're not put in that
position, but I was pleased to see them make the decision to not change policy, but more it onto council
and let council take that position so I thought they made an excellent call on that one and it was
appreciated. The other conversation that we started in our last meeting was the discussion of whether
council members are looking for rotation at this point off of their current assignments on a commission.
And of course Councilman Peterson sat out the first round and we have Mr. Boyle, Councilman Boyle
joining us at this point, and we have the commission position with the Seniors open at this point so I'd
like to see about any discussion council would care to have on that rotation. I would be in fact happy to
continue to serve what is the higher time commitment on the Planning Commission. I have skipped the
meetings where they're in fact mainly reviewing ordinances and issues that I really should not be
commenting on with council's perspective so that they can in fact delve through those issues and bring
their recommendations forward. So there have been a few that I have skipped knowing that they would
not need council direction on issues.
Councilman Ayotte: I'd kind of like to stay with the Environmental Commission a little longer because
of the new commissioners on board and because 6f some initiatives started there and the fact that there's
56
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
been a break so I'd like to continue. But I really think and I've sat in with the Senior Commission a
couple of times and I think it would be very good idea for us to liaison with them if there's someway we
could work it out. In some fashion.
Mayor Jansen: We just had that break as we had the position on the council vacated and with Mr. Boyle
coming on board we can certainly address that at this point, sure.
Councilman Boyle: Sounds like a hint to me. I don't want to jun~ in Craig, I mean you would have first
pick I know.
Councilman Peterson: Well I mean philosophically I don't agree With the liaison in the first place so it's
part of the issue I have to deal with internally. I just don't see the necessity or the gaining of value of it
so I'm more than willing to let you guys do that. I don't feel comfortable speaking on behalf of the
council in any fashion as it relate to that so.
Mayor Jansen: And that was one of the issues that we covered when we were reviewing serving as
liaisons. That in fact if there isn't a council position on an issue, certainly as a liaison you can't express
the council's position but you can certainly bring that issue to council and get that worked out and get
that information back to the commissions so that they're more in the loop and there's better
communication between council and commissions and they can continue to do their work and feel more
connection with the council. It was more as a communication connection between'the two and avoiding
any issues. More so on Planning Commission there have been times when they've needed direction on
you know should we table and work it through some more? Should we move it onto council and I've at
least been able to help with some of those.
Councilman Boyle: Do we need that on with the Senior Commission do you think?
Mayor Jansen: I think it's, you know Mr. Ayotte, Councilman Ayotte has comrnen~ that in attending
the Senior Commission he's seeming to suggest that.
Councilman Boyle: You feel that there should be a liaison there?
Councilman Ayotte: I find a lot of worth to it because they'll ask for pieces of information I'll bring
back to council. It's not often but it really does, I think it solidifies but you've re. ally got to watch the
approach. So often you want to go but, you know as long as you control that. And selfishly, I learn a
beck of a lot on the environmental issues so I us~ it as an educational arm for me.
Councilman Boyle: Why don't I try it for a while and we'll determine.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. You'd like to be the Senior liaison7
Councilman Boyle: Well I'll give it a whirl.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Councilman Labatt, you have the Parks and Rec.
Councilman Labatt: Well quite frankly, my winters get real busy with hockey and my family so if I could
take a vacancy Craig I would appreciate that. If you want to take the Parks and Rec.
57
City Council Meeting -August 13, 2001
Councilman Peterson: Well I have a philosophical problem with it. I can go to the meetings but I really
don't feel comfortable. You know I think that we have staff that can bring the issues back to council as
effectively as we could. I've got to think about it.
Councilman Labatt: ...a job share.
Councilman Peterson: We can chat about it.
Councilman Labatt: We'll chat. Craig and I will figure something out.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And to that point, the other reason for the liaison was to eliminate staff's need,
which in fact isn't their job, to communicate between council and commission. The commissions are
there to advise us and staff had been put in a position of being more the communication vehicle and that
was one of the issues that Mr. Botcher addressed with me very early on in the year and he had
encouraged us to put the council liaisons in place for that communication capability. And to take that
responsibility off of staff. He thought it was a significant move on our behalf. How would we like to go
about taking care of the, and maybe we shouldn't talk about it tonight because it's getting late, but we
had mentioned that with Councilman Boyle joining us we have the opening on the EDA. The EDA. The
Economic Development Authority. And at one point we had started the discussion of changing that
membership and the consistency so that instead of having the entire council be on the EDA, we have
more community or business members present 'and only 2 council people. So that it's less of a
representation of the council so you don't have that appearance of council making the decision at the
EDA and then having the blessing of the council. There's 'always been that issue. There are
communities where the council does not serve in it's entirety on the EDA.
Councilman Boyle: We were that way at one time.
Todd Gerhardt: Gary do you want to, Gary and I have scars over that item.
Councilman Boyle: Yes, many.
Councilman Labatt: Let's see what We get for applicants.
Councilman Ayotte: I'm a little fried. I want to think about it. I'm a little fried.
Councilman Peterson: I mean that's a pretty strategic decision that I've got some strong opinions on. I'd
be happy to articulate tonight but I'm losing Bob so.
Councilman Labatt: When we lose Bob man, I'm done then...
Mayor Jansen: That's why I prefaced with that.
Todd Gerhardt: Just so you're aware, the ad was in the paper last Villager. To solicit EDA members to
fill the vacancy. I was directed at the last meeting to do that.
Mayor Jansen: Whoever's speaking with the applicants, you might want to be a little open about how
many positions we might be looking for so that we're not restricting the number of applicants because
they only see one seat. That council needs to have that discussion. If you might put it on, oh gosh. I
58
City Council Meeting - August 13, 2001
don't know if it's a work session discussion. Would we be more comfortable, yeah. And maybe for
some open dialogue at one of the work sessions. Mr. Gerhardt, if you could put it on an agenda.
Councilman Peterson: I don't foresee it taking a haft an hour. It may take 10-15 minutes.
Mayor Jansen: Sure. Okay.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESE~A~QNS.
Mayor Jansen: Mr. Gerhardt, anything?
Todd Gerhardt: Just if you have any comments on the cca'respondence that I put in the administrative
section. That's one of the ways I'd like to communicate with council is any docmnentation that comes
across my desk I try to put in the Administrative Section so you're updated on that. Other than that,
that's it.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, very good. The only other issue that council is handling is tomorrow we are doing
the interviews of the city manager candidates. With conversation then at the end of the evening. There's
no expectation of there necessarily being a decision made. tomorrow evening but maybe more a
discussion of what the next step is on applicants so we'll be doing that tomorrow.
Councilman Boyle: I would hope that all the applicants get a good night sleep tonight
. .
Mayor Jansen: Hopefully so. With that, do we have a motion to adjourn?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman A~otte seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carri~ The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
Acting City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
59
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REG~AR MEETING
AUGUST 7, 2001
Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich Slagle, IAl~nn Sidney, Bruce Feik, Alison Blackowiak, Uli Sacchet,
Craig Claybaugh, and Deb Kind
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director, Matt Saaxn, Project Engineer,
Julie Hoium, Planner I; and Bob Generous, Senior Planner
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Jerry & Janet Paulsen
Debbie Lloyd
7305 I_aredo Drive
7302 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM ~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE
DISTRIf~TI' (A2) REGULATIONS TO DEVELOP A PARCEL ~ THAN 2.5 ACRES WITH'A
SINGLE FAMILY HOMF-n 1800 FLYING CLOUD DRIVF_n DENNY NYSTROM.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on thi~ item_ Taping of the. discussion was delayed.
Commissioners asked staff to clarify items brought up in the staff report The applicant was providing
comn~nts when the taping began.
Denny Nystrom: ...not put the house a lot closer to the highway for obvious reasons. I mean I like my.
privacy and we're minimiziug it on 212 there so I will follow where that line is at the 140 and the 110 to
protect that area and stay along the buffer. That's what I would like to do.
Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. This item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to ask
questions or make comments, please come to the microphone and state your name and od_dress for the
record. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, does anyone have comments on
this item? LuAnn, want to start?
Sidney: Well I think the request is reasonable. We're following through on City Council's
recommendation or actual approval of the moving of the house. Since the applicant has stated that he
agrees and will comply, with the conditions, I feel comfortable in approving thi~ application
recommending approval.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. No comments? Bruce any?
Feilc No.
Blackowiak: Any other comments? Uti?
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Sacchet: I appreciate, I do get a sense that you will take care of that place well. It's very sensitive area
with that fen right behind it. Rather than put more restriction on it, I'd rather see it cultivate into it well
and leave it at the 15% and trust that you will do what is in the best interest of the place there.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any commenm Deb?
Kind: I agree with staff's findings, h's a parcel of record. It's a reasonable use to have a single family
home on that lot. I support staff's recommendation for approval.
Blackowiak: Okay. And I agree with what's been said. My only comments would be that if I had to
rank conditions, I think number 1 is much more important in terms of keeping the 140 and 110 foot
setbacks in order than moving the house closer. Now if we could move the house a little closer, fine but I
mean I think the back is much important in this case so I would, if I had to rank them I'd say that would
be definitely number one for me so with that I'd like a motion.
Sidney: I'll make a motion Madam Chair. That the Planning Commission approve the variance g2001-4
from a 2.5 acre minimum lot size to permit the development of a 1.1 acre parcel located at 1800 Flying
Cloud subject to the following conditions 1 through 11.
Blackowiak: Okay, I have a motion. Is there a second?
Sacchet: I second that.
Sidney moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Comminsion approves Variance g2001-4 from
the 2.5 acre minimum lot size to permit the development of a 1.1 acre parcel located at 1800 Flying
Cloud subject to the foUowing conditions:
In order to ensure a high level of protection, the northernmost portion of the lot shall be
preserved in an undeveloped state through a conservation easement being recorded. CThe
southernmost boundary of the easement results from a line being drawn between a point 140 feet
from the northern property corner along the northwest property line and a point 110 feet from the
northern property corner along the northeast property line.) No vegetation shall be removed,
mowed, cut or otherwise altered within this area. In addition, no structures shall be permitted
within this area.
2. Impervious surfaces shall not cover more than 15% of the site.
3. Add a benchmark within 20 feet of the proposed house on the front setback line.
4. Consider moving the house closer to the road to better fit the existing grade and, topography. -
.
Show all proposed and existing contour lines. Also, add direction of drainage arrows to the
survey.
6. Show all existing easements and sLructures within the property lines.
7. Show the location of the proposed on-site septic and well areas.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
The developer shall provide a tree removal plan. The developer shall install tree protection
fencing near the building pad or adjacent to site grading to protect trees during construction. The
existing trees in front of the property should be preserved.
,
The proposed driveway shall be of a hard surface variety (bituminous, concrete, or brick paver).
Also, show the proposed driveway grade.
10.
Two individual sewage treaunent sites (ISTS) must be located for the lot. The sites must be
evaluated by a licensed ISTS designer and must be submitted for approval by the city in
accordance with Chanhassen City Code Chapter 19, Article IV.
11.
Building permits must be obtained from the City of Chanhassen before be~nning any '
construction.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
Blackowiak: It has already been to City Council so what happens now Kate? Does it just, building
Aanenson: That's it.
Blackowiak: Okay, we're done with this one.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE REQUEST TO AMEND Tm~. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO AIJ~W
DECKS TO ENCROACH 12 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT SETBACK~ CHAPARRAL
2~ AND 3g° ADDITIONS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Ron tCramer 1022 Pontiac Lane
Merry Hudlow 1022 Pontiac Lane
Julie Holum presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions of staff7 Uli, you're nodding. Go ahead.
Sacchet: Yes, I do have questions. First of all we're s. aying that we have these 4 applications that
triggered this. You don't state how much they actually encroach. I would assume it's just the 2 feet is
pretty much.
Hoium: Correct.
Sacchet: That's what we're talking about is encroaching the 2 feet. Not more than 2 feet.
Hoiurrr All of them at 2 feet.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Saechet: Then when you did the math, you give in here the breakdown. That was very helpful of how
many units there are. How many have porches and so forth. Looking at this data I basically come out
that about 10% in that development are an issue. Now my question is, out of the ones that do have decks,
the 12 that are non-conforming. It's about 8%, how did they become non-conforming?
Hoium: When this PUD was originally approved, somehow some of the quad units got built with decks
on them originally. Some of they just did not get caught when they were originally built.
Sacchet: So this just kind of happened.
Hoiurm Just kind of accidentally, yeah.
Sacchet: Just kind of happened. Okay. Now in order, nit picky question. Out of those that axe not built
you say 4 would have an issue with the setback. Would they be okay with the 10 foot but not okay with
the 12 foot?
Hoium: The 4 that would not have an issue?
Sacehet: In your tabulation you say that 20 units have no deck and 4 of those, if they build a deck would
have an issue with the setback. My question is, out of those 4 would they be, they'd have an issue to
want to make a 12 foot deck. Would they have an issue to make a 10 foot deck7
Hoium: No.
Sacchet: Okay. Then when we're talking about replacing the decks, we also include the option that they
would turn the deck into a screened porch. Is that somewhat synonymous? Are we talking about the
decks being rebuilt periodically?
Hoium: Axe you asking can, if they have a porch can that be rebuilt?
Sacchet: Well if they have a deck and want to turn it into a porch.
Hoium: Currently with the current development contract, if they have a 12 foot deck they would need a
variance. If they have a l0 foot deck they would add a porch.
Sacehet: Okay. And then we have a special case where, these are duplexes.
Hoium: Four-plexes.
Saechet: Four-plexes, okay. But they come in pairs where the porches are. If one has a 12 foot deck on
it, a porch that is conforming, but the one next to it would have an issue putting in 12 foot, and in order to
be conforming would have to make a 10 foot. Are there a lot of those?
Hoium: There are not a lot of them There are a few. This is an example. It unfortunately couldn't get a
picture from the front to show it. I would say there are approximately 3 or 4 that have this issue.
Sacchet: So small enough in number that it'd be reasonable to make variances rather than blanket cover.
Okay. That's my questions, thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowialc Any other questions commissioners?
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. Did staff consider re-looking at the porch situation in conjunction with this
deck so we can maybe neaten up the whole thing?
Hoiurm That was a consideration. If they maintain the 20 foot setback as with the 10 foot deck in the
current standards, it should not be a problem. However I would leave that up to you.
Kind: Our current ordinance says that screened porches or any kind of porch would have to be 10 feet in
depth.
Hoiurm Correct.
Kind: So I'm submitting to my fellow commissioners that maybe it makes sense to tak~ a look at that at
the same time here. That's all.
Blackowiak: And I guess I have one question too. Kind of in that same vein. We have decks that are
non-conforming, less than 20 feet from the property line. If they want to rebuild, and our ordinance says
that you cannot further a non-conformance. What do we tell them? Apply for a variance. Is that their
sole remedy or what is their option in that case?
Hoium: They can, according to our ordinance and after talking with th~ city attorney, they can maintain
and repair their decks.
Blackowiak: Okay, what if they have to rebuild them? I mean what if it burns? ~omething happens and
it's destroyed.
Aanenson: If it's less than 50% of the value, they can rebuild it. And if you add that to the value of the
home, more than likely they could rebuild it.
Blackowiak: Okay, and if it's totally gone.
Aanenson: It'd be the value of the unit, not just the deck. So more than likely they can rebuild it.
Blackowiak: And I kind of had an issue with that too. I was surprised that it was considering the value
of the entire unit. That surprised me but...and I'm not going there so, okay. Well. if you don't have any
more questions. Would the applicant or their designee like to ma~ a presentation? And if so, please.
come to the microphone and state your name and address.
Merry Hudlow: My name is Merry Hudlow and I'm at 1022 Pontiac Lane. And we have applied for a
variance for a 12 foot deck. When we purchased the home in March we were told that we would be able
to build the deck. There is no deck there at all right now. Our neighbor that we share a parting wall with
has a 12 foot deck. The association would like us to build a 12 foot deck in order to match. They also
allow season porches. The association also allows 4 season, or 3 season porches now that you can add
and if we were restricted to a 10 foot, that would clearly make a very small season porch. You know also
we were required to list a hardship for why a 10 foot deck would be a hardship. Well it would have
definitely changed our priorities in purchasing the home. We came from an apartment. We're very big
on being outside, sitting outside, enjoying the outdoors. We did look at two existing homes that had
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
existing decks but for various reasons opted not to purchase them We purchased this one with plans of a
12 foot deck in the future improvement. Any questions?
Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant?
Claybaugh: Yes I have a question. Could you expand on your intentions for the screened porch. As I
understand fight now that's limited to 10 feet on the current ordinance.
Ron Kramer: My name is Ron Kramer and I live with Merry at 1022 Pontiac l_ane. Under just the
definition of what you just described earlier about the screened porch or the 3 season porch up above,
requirements if we were to go wider than 10 feet, that would require a variance because that's what your
roles are now, correct? Well the way I have constructed the foundation of this, because we were, we
could only do a 10 by 20 originally so I have footings at the 10 by 20 mark.
Claybaugh: So you're just going to cant out the deck?
Ron Kramer: Yes, my intentions are to cant out 2 feet and so if a 10 foot, this is the first news I heard. It
was news to me that it's 10 foot wide is the limit, or 10 feet rather is the limit for a porch. Well then it
could be built within the, where the footing posts are, from the inside out and that would stay within the
10 foot requirement.
Claybaugh: For the screen porch?
Ron Kramer: The porches would. And then I'd have a little place to put flower pots or even walk around
and wash outside windows. And I have a permit for that and I have the footings dug and they're two-24
inch diameters so the footings are in for any possible future use.
Claybaugh: It seems to be a fundamental conflict between the deck and the porch. What is the reasoning
for the discrepancy between the two distances if they're considering a 12 foot for deck versus screen
porch? Since it would be back to the table relatively soon discussing the issue of the porch.
Hoium: This here is a picture of his property. It is at, the structure itself is at 30 feet. It's got a 30 foot
setback. So the 12 foot deck would be 18, have an 18 foot setback no matter what would require a
variance if they were allowed to build a 12 foot deck.
Sacchet: Point of clarification. The deck at the neighbors is 12 foot.
Hoium: Yes.
Claybaugh: But an adjacent neighbor who has a 12 foot deck, or can accommodate a 12 foot deck, you
still maintain that 20 foot setback. Could they put a screen porch in further out than 10 feet? Under the
current ordinance.
Hoiurm That's what we need to decide. Right now under the current ordinance, no.
Claybaugh: Okay.
Ron Kramer: I guess we're not planning on building a screen porch right away. Hopefully that will get,
add a porch up above fight away. Hopefully that will be resolved...
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Claybaugh: ff you build on a 12 foot deck and come by in 2 years and look at a 10 foot screen porch, it's
going to look like you got caught in a code loop here and made the best of a bad situation and I don't
think that's the intention of the fellow commissioners or the staff either so.
Blackowiak: Deb do you have a question?
Kind: Yes. The staff's recommendation right now would not help these folks at thi.~ moment.
Hoium: No. Not for a porch.
Kind: Not for a deck either.
Aanenson: Right.
Kind: ...no matter what because they're 30 feet right now. Just want to clarify that. But their neighbors
have a 12 foot deck so they're currently encroaching 2 feet into the setback, so they're one of those little
fluky things that happened.
Hoiurm Correct.
Merry Hudlow: Right where we live there's just a slight curve and that's what'bottled up everything.
The bottleneck right in there and if you look down, we live at the end of a cul-de-sac. If you look at the
next 10 townhomes facing the road, they're all 12 foot decks..
Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions about this applicant?
Sacchet: You're aware that you could apply for a variance obviously. I mean it doesn't mean you.cannot
do your 12 foot. It's just that you would have to apply for a variance and get a variance approved. I
mean the way this works doesn't say it's i ,mpossible for you to make it 12 foot, but it's that you would
need a variance. That's correct right?
Aanenson: That's what they're applying for, yes.
Merry Hudlow: I understand that someone is going for an amendment for the whole area, but because we
are separate from that...
Hoium: A blanket type of variance.
Aanenson: That's what we're recommending is a blanket one.
something you can include if you want to look beyond that.
Claybaugh: So we're actually addressing two issues?
Aanenson: Correct. Right.
Claybaugh: This is the big issue and the global issue of the...
Merry Hudlow: We were 1 of the 4.
It still wouldn't solve this but that's
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Saeehet: Madam Chair, point of clarification. So we don't really have their variance application in front
of us because that's a separate thing?
Hoiurm It's kind of combined as a blanket variance for the whole PUD.
Kind: It doesn't solve their problern.
Hoiurm And this doesn't solve their problerm
Sacchet: Could we add it onto this that we grant their variance but we would need a write-up and stuff.
We can't do that...
Aanenson: We noticed the whole subdivision of Chaparral...
Blackowiak: I'm sorry Kate, could you clarify this a little bit more. So we're going to go, let's say we
go through and approve this amendment. Okay. They still do not have their variance. Okay.
Amendment passes. Assuming that. They have no variance. They still have to come and get a variance,
correct?
Aanenson: Right, but I guess what we're saying is that if you want to go beyond the staff's
recommendation to accomplish it. Now we did notice the variance for this entire subdivision.
Blackowiak: So what you're saying is if we chose to say like 18 feet for example, that would accomplish
not only granting that variance this evening.
Aanenson: Or because there's an anomaly because they're on a cul-de-sac. If you want to find some
other findings of those, and that's what I think they're saying is that there is a unique circumstance with
the cul-de-sac there that' s pinching their property. If you want to give that as a rationale for...
Blackowiak: I just don't want them to come tonight and have to come back again. I guess that's kind of
my whole thought.
Merry Hudlow: I also have a question.
Blackowiak: Certainly, go ahead.
Merry Hudlow: You know we're new to this. We've never done this so we were kind of surprised when
this came up as an amendment and then going to City Council. I guess I was under the assumption that
we were applying for ourselves and our lot, and then after tonight we would be allowed to proceed if you
should approve it to build.
Blackowiak: Okay, that's not quite how it was written. Kate, if you want to address that question or
Julie.
Aanenson: If it's the PUD amendment, that would have to go to the City Council too.
Blackowiak: So that would have to be.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Ron Kramer: Are we lumped into...
Blackowiak: Yeah I was going to say. Would a vaxiance, could that supercede a PUD amendment? I
mean no, it couldn't.
Merry Hudlow: We've paid the money. We'~e fried out all the forms for a variance.
Blackowiak: Right. How was this noticed in the newspaper? PUD amendment?
Hoiunc Correct.
Aanenson: The staff's recommendation is, this isn't the only anomaly that's out there so instead of
trying to solve it on a one lot basis, was to look at the entire PUD and say that's the way to solve the
problem.
Clayhaugh: And that makes sense. It' s just that we have some petitioners in front of us, even if we vote
to the affirmative, it still doesn't address their problem.
Aanenson: That's correct. So the other alternative was to say, give them that specific lot or those lots
that are on the cul-de-sac relief from that and make a different standard.
Merry Hudlow: I realize that this is a problem but we've been doing thi.~ since May. We found out, you
know no this, no that and we had to apply for a variance and then we were too late for the July, or June
meeting. Then we got bumped from July.
Blackowiak: Oh you didn't want to be there anyway, it was a long one. I mean you wouldn't want to
have been them.
Sacchet: May I ask another question?
Blackowiak: Certainly.
Sacchet: What is unique to theft situation that could be added to the conditions here so they're covered
because I really like what you worked out. I don't think it should be a free for all. I thought you found a
very good balance, and I think in all fairness to the 80% of homeowners that respected that 20 foot
setback and 8% that didn't, we don't want to make it a free for all that everybody all of a sudden can do
what we, because if we aren't fair to those that respected it and made it 10 foot instead of 12 foot. But
what's unique to their situation that would make us want to grant their variance?
Hoiurm One issue that's unique is that their neighbor does have a 12 foot.
Sacchet: The neighbor has a 12 foot. Anything else?
Hoiumz It's in a cul-de-sac.
Sacchet: How many others are in cul-de-sac?
Claybaugh: There's a number of cul-de-sac's in there.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blaekowiak: Sorry if we're bogging you down with numbers here but Deb pointed out something that, as
it was noticed I believe that it allows the amendment is to allow decks to encroach 12 feet into the 30 foot
setback, which would accommodate their request, okay. So in other words, by granting this request, if
we change decks must maintain an 18 foot setback, if we chose as a commission to go that route, then
that would be resolved this evening, am I correct in assuming that?
Hoium: Yes.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Hoiun~ If I could add one thing. One of the other reasons we chose to do this as a blanket amendment.
This, the homeowners association replaces decks yearly. I believe you have a copy of this. The
projected years that decks get replaced so this is an issue that could continually come up so we thought if
we just did one blanket, it might solve some of the problems in the future.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Merry Hudlow: Which I can appreciate, you know the whole amendment idea. I guess we just want...
Blackowiak: You just want a deck. I understand. Bottom line we want a deck.
Merry Hudlow: We waited for 5 months.
Feik: I need to clarify something for myself as it relates to the petition here. If we in your
recommendation change your item number 1 to an 18 foot setback, does this then need to go to the City
Council?
Aanenson: Yes.
Feik: And what is the delay for these folks in that process?
Hoium: What is the delay?
Feilc Delay.
Hoium: 2 weeks.
Feik: Because otherwise they could get a variance tonight and be done and they could be constructing,
assuming permits tomorrow.
Blackowiak: No.
Aanenson: It'd still have to be recorded.
Sacchet: And we don't have the documentation for the variance in our package. We can't give the
variance.
Merry Hudlow: That's originally what we applied for and we had our carpenter out.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: Yeah, it can happen. Any other questions of the applicant?
Feilc Well on behalf of the council and staff, I apologize for this unintended delay that this might cause
you.
Blackowiak: 2 weeks.
Sacchet: Monday.
Blackowiak: No, it would not be that Monday. It has to be in 2 newspapers so.
Ron Kramer: Then do we have to apply for a variance?
Blackowiak: No.
Sacchet: We'll take care of it.
Merry Hudlow: So you're telling us we cannot apply individually tonight as originally planned and start
construction?
Blackowiak: Excuse me Uli, Kate. So this is not an individual variance tonight. I mean I want to get
this straight. It was noticed as an amendment to the PUD so if it goes to council it would be 8-28,
correct?
Aanenson: Correct.
Blackowiak: August 28t~.
Sacchet: There is a possibility that we will cover your situation with this so if you just bear with us for a
little bit. Don't give up, okay?
Ron Kramer: Because we had nothing to do with trying to do an amendment or change the PUD. We
just want...
Blackowiak: No, I understand. It's just that when multiple variances come in at one time we ask
ourselves a question, does it make sense to look at the entire area as opposed to doing item by item
Merry Hudlow: Which I understand.
Blackowiak: We're trying to take a bigger picture here. So actually I have a question for staff but did
you have anything else you'd like to add?
Ron Kramer: ...be able to make that work with construction be~nning the 25e?
Blackowiak: I would not say that. Let's just wait until the vote's over and then we'll tell you. We'll
give you the information after our vote is over, okay? Alright, thank you so much.
Merry Hudlow: Thank you for your time. Thank you.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: And I noticed that there were several other applicants as well. Is there anybody else who
would like to speak to this issue? Any other applicants this evening? No? Okay. Kate, before we move
on I have a question. We're talking about Chaparral 2~a, 3ra and 4t~ Additions in the baclq~ound and the
amendment to only the 2~ and 34. Is 4th single family or what's the difference?
Hoium: 4t~ is non-existent.
Blackowiak: Oh, okay. So we'll just cross that off. Okay, that takes care of that. Okay so, this item is
open for public hearing so if anybody would like to make comments or ask questions, please come to the
microphone and state your name and address for the record.
Jerry Paulsen: Good evening commissioners, Jerry Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. There are a
couple of things that you .should keep in mind when considering this request for a variance. One of the
repercussions of making a blanket approval of course would be that the other homeowners will expect
similar treatment if you do this. It'd be difficult to deny another subdivision the same thing. If you're
going to make an exception in this case. The other factor that you should be aware of is the requirement
for impervious surface. Looking at the definition of impervious surface in the code it says any material
that substantially...gravel driveways, parking areas, buildings and structures. The definition for
structure, if you look at that includes boardwalks. Last year we gave the city a copy of a letter we
received from the DNR. The DNR specifically stated that impervious surface includes a deck. We have
copies of that letter if you want to see that. It's only logical that if a boardwalk is considered to be
impervious surface, why isn't a deck considered to be impervious surface? If the planning department
believes that a deck is not impervious surface, you should be aware that there are products on the market
that you can put under your deck and make it an impervious surface so are you going to restrict this
product from being used on decks if that's tree? And the city would have to specifically perhaps forbid
the use of that product, which is a little unreasonable I think. I don't think you can argue that the DNR
definition of a deck has an impervious surface applies only to the shoreland. If it's impervious in
shoreland, it's impervious no matter where it is. Logical. Therefore keep in mind that setting a
precedent for granting the variance will likely result in a request for variance from other property owners
and secondly that the, certainly the deck area should be...in the category of impervious surface. And
taking into account the decks in this area. Nowhere in the staff report is there any data on existing
impervious surface for these homes. They're called low density so there's a requirement I believe of
30% for PUD. I liked Commissioner Sacchet's remark about avoiding the blanket variances as opposed
to granting an individual variance which could be well warranted in some cases. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission at this time? Kate and/or
Julie, a couple comments. Impervious surface as I calculated, that would be approximately 20 square feet
per non-conforming deck. If this were to go through, do you have any idea of what the impervious
surface coverage is right now? 200?
Kind: 10 times 20.
Blackowiak: I thought it was 2, an additional. From what is allowed times 10. So that would be only 20
per deck. Yeah. Do we know what impervious is at this point?
Hoium: Per unit?
Blackowiak: Isn't it a per project basis on a PUD?
12
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Hoium: I'm not sure what the i .mpervious is. There is a large open space, part of this.
Blackowiak: Is that Meadow Green Park7 Is that part of this7
Hoium: Correct. It's on the map if you want to show.
Blackowiak: Yeah, I know.
Hoium: Several of these lots are large per unit Which also has more i .ml~.xvious, or open land. I do not
know the exact amount of impervious surface.
Blackowiak: Okay. And then what about the question of setting a precedent. Do you feel that there are
any other PUD's in the city that would be potentially affected by an amendment such as this? Do we
need to worry about that or?
Aanenson: What we've given you is a schedule of the decks that are in place. Decks that are going to
come in for refurbishing. Some of the requests that we've received in the past. The city has not
interpreted as we have a cantilever, a window, a fireplace as the irr~e, r~ous underneath. We haven't
calculated it that way before. The DNR did say on the lakeshore that they would be, but we haven't
interpreted it that way in the past.
Claybaugh: Have they made a distinction between a ground level deck and an upper level deck?
Aanenson: That's how we have in the past.
Claybaugh: Right. Does the DNR make that distinction?
Aanenson: On the lakeshore lot. That was their interpretation on a lakeshore lot.
Blackowialc Kate I'm sorry, I guess my question was is there another PUD or another area? In other
words, if we were to go ahead and approve this amendment tonight, do you feel that there's any other
area that would be impacted potentially by such an amendment? I mean would we be setting a precedent
or opening a door to another PUD or is that not a concern for us this evening?
Aanenson: Well we're doing a blanket variance request on the next subdivision. We have done them.
It's not that uncomn~n. I guess we're not trying to over penalize one person in that subdivision. We're
trying everybody that's in that subdivision, in that homeowner associations following the same general
type of rules, and that's why we did explain this to the applicant. Maybe we didn't explain it clearly.
What direction we were going. How we were noticing it when it got tabled. We made that decision to
do it so while we don't want to penalize them, we also want to treat everybody, the other 3 applicants in
the same light so that was the staff's position on that. To treat everybody similarly. Instead of sitting
here with 4 requests deciding who gets it and who doesn't, to try and look at it in a bigger picture.
Blackowiak: Right, I understand totally what you're trying to do. Okay, do you have a question of staff7
Sacchet: Yeah, point of clarification. You kind of indicated this as a neighborhood as a PUD has a fair
amount of green space. Is it safe to deduct from that that this whole thing is not very close to the limit Of
impervious? I mean it'd be nice to have this really specific and nailed down. Can you at least be very
13
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
clear about what, how you see that? I mean if they're not talking about a huge amount of additional
impervious surface. We're talking about this 20 or what?
Blackowiak: 20 feet.
Sacchet: 20 square feet per location.
Blackowiak: Per non-conforming deck. There are some that are conforming.
Sacchet: Which we already established about 10% so we're talking like a dozen or so of those. I mean is
a couple hundred square feet additional impervious potentially an issue there? I mean it seems like if it
was planned with kind of a generous amount of green space I would have a hard time believing that it
would be, but I'd like to hear where you have a sense of that.
Aanenson: I guess that's our opinion. This was done in 1979. Park was extracted as part of the open
space for this development and I guess that's the opinion that we would be having.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Any other? Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: Madam Chair. If I can ask Kate and Julie, compared to the last meeting where we had the
request for a variance approval from the home on the east side of Lotus Lake regarding a 3 season porch,
is the main difference between what's being presented today and then the hardship only? I guess I'm
having somewhat of a difficult time trying to think back to the meeting where we were somewhat pretty
clear as to what we decided and then I'm getting today's input and going huh, you know.
Aanenson: Well I think there was a neighborhood standard in place here where most of the units do have
decks or porches and that's the homeowners association standard.
Slagle: Whether done legally or by accident.
Aanenson: Right. Again the original plat was done in 1979 so it goes back a number of years. So those
standards again treating the association as one PUD. I'll let Julie answer the questions on how this was
treated differently.
Hoium: In the last variance, it was a side yard variance and they were single family homes. It's trying to
keep structures away from each other in single family resident areas.
Slagle: And I'm with you. I'm just going back to where in that situation the next door neighbor was in
favor of allowing that to be built into the side setback.
Aanenson: Right, and were there other design options in the other one? Probably. This one they all have
to go, they go towards the front so whether it's 10 or 12, the only option they have is towards the front of
the street. I guess and that was our position, was there other choices to put the porch when you' ye got a
narrow, to get around the side of the house and those sort of issues. So this one it's, they're all going to
the front of the units. Or the back.
Hoium: And they're all designed to have a deck.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Slagle: Okay. Just wanted to hear your thoughts.
Blackowialc Any other questions I guess or does anyone have comments?
Slagle: Did we close the hearing?
Blackowialc You know what, I should probably do that. I guess I didn't see anybody else. If anybody
else would like to make a presentation, please do so at this time. I don't see anybody else. I will close
the public hearing so commissioners, if anyone has comments? We'll start down at this end. LuAnn?
Rich? Bruce, any comments?
Feik: Well you know it'd be nice to solve this once if we could.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any comments? No? Rich? Deb?
Kind: I support granting an 18 foot setback to be consistent with the entire PUD. That was the way it
was noticed in the paper and I think that would solve the applicant's situation this evening. I would also
like to add a condition that before going to the council staff shall calculate the potential maximum of
impervious surface for the entire PUD so they have that information in reviewing our recommendations.
And I also would like it to include porches as well as decks.
Blackowiak: Okay. And then Kate I don't have a date but would it be August 28tu, was I correct in
saying that that would be the City Council date should this go forward? Ok~.y. Thank you.
Aanenson: 27'~.
Blackowiak: 27th? Why am at the 28'h?
Aanenson: Tuesday.
Blackowiak: Okay. 27"', thank you. Uli, comments.
Sacchet: Absolutely, I have to make a comment. I very much agree with you Deb that we should include
porches, screen patios, whatever they're called, in this. And that we should ask for i ~mpervious
information to go to council. However, I totally disagree with you Deb on making it a blanket 18 foot. I
think that's totally unfair to 80 or 90 percent of the people in that neighborhood that built the 10 foot
deck and tried to conform and now all of a sudden the 10 or what percent that is left that hasn't built it,
and the 10 that built it without asking, they can build a 12 foot. That's not fair to the 80% that built a 10
foot. However, however. I would like to add a condition that states for those units that have a 12 foot
deck next to them and haven't built one, that could allow to build a 12 foot so it matches up with the
neighboring one. Which would cover our people that spoke, it would cover their situation. They could
forward, doing their deck but I'm very vehemently opposed to make thi.~ a blanket free for all extra 2
foot. I think it's very unfair to how many people?
Blackowiak: What would you suggest then? I mean maintain a 20 foot setback except in eases?
15
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Sacchet: I would say the additional condition would say for those with a 12 foot structure next door, 12
foot deck or patio, they would be allowed to encroach a maximum of 2 foot into the 20 foot setback, but I
really think we need to maintain the 20 foot setback requirement in order.
Blackowiak: Okay, and then the same condition number 2. Decks shall not exceed a depth of 12 feet,
would you be comfortable with that?
Saeehet: Yes, leave the other ones the way they are. Basically at that one.
Blackowiak: Okay, Craig you have any comments on this item?
Claybaugh: A question of staff here. I want to come back to the city's definition of hard cover with
respect to cantilevers and that. Do you include that in your calculations for hard cover?
Aanenson: No.
Claybaugh: Okay. So in my mind an upper level deck would fall under the same criteria. Certainly
when you look in the context of additional 2 feet, there's room for green space underneath. For ground
catch. Were the non-conforming decks in this subdivision or this PUD, were those all built solely by the
builder at the time that the buildings were constructed or?
Hoium: I do not believe so. I do not know for sure.
Claybaugh: Okay. Initially that's what was stated or previously that was stated. They were built at that
time and it's just something that slipped through. Is that an accurate statement?
Hoium: Yes.
Claybaugh: Okay, so it isn't a question of what my respected colleague would call a free for all. Okay?
Okay. So I would agree with Deb. I think that porches should be included. I'd like to see the hard cover
calculations and have it identified that it does or does not include those deck calculations, cants and such
in the hard cover calculations. Maintain a 12 foot maximum deck projection and go with the 18 foot
setback as Deb had initiated there.
Kind: Madam Chair, may I have a rebuttal to Uli? I want to make a case for changing it to 18 for all of
them because many of the decks are going to be repaired. They're at that age now where many of them
are being replaced and those folks that have the 10 foot deck I'm sure would love to add the 2 feet and as
long as they're within the setback that's fair for everybody else, I think they should be able to do that.
When they rebuild their deck.
Sacchet: Out of those that have 10 foot, do we know how many could actually expand to 12 without
encroaching? Sorry, that's kind of an unfair question to ask on the spot.
Blackowiak: One point I guess I'd like to make too before we start getting into all these numbers, is that
I am guessing that, I think this was a PUD that was established in 1979, over 22 years ago. We probably
don't have a lot of original owners there. So I guess one thing I would like everyone to consider is, you
know whichever way we go, and I'm not trying to sway anybody, but that we should maybe consider that
these people possibly, probably, I don't know, weren't the ones that initially put in the decks. So what's
16
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
a reasonable standard for the neighborhood if we're going to go from that point? And you two look like
you're going to duke it out so I'll stay out of it.
Slagle: Madam Chair?
Blackowiak: Go right ahead.
Slagle: Could the argument also be made that there is a fair number of 10 x 12's or 12 x 20's that need to
be replaced too that potentially could be replaced with a 10 x 20 or a 10 x 12 if we adhere to that, that
minimum size, or excuse me maximum sized. I just got to tell you, I uncle~a~ the sensitivity of the
development. The uniqueness if you will of the cul-de-sac's and what not but my hesitation on voting for
this currently is the fact that in essence we could be rewarding folks who don't, even though they might
not live there anymore, not adhering to the rules. Building x, y, Z structures and then the neighbor comes
2 years later and says, guess what? I want to build this, and the only way it's going to match up
aesthetically to my neighbor, who might not have done it right, is to do this. And if you do a blanket,
then the difficulty is taking it situation by situation. Now the down side to that is lots of times and lots of
variance requests here at city hall. But I'm just telling you, that's how I feel.
Blackowiak: Very valid.
Kind: Madam Chair, can I respond to Rich? The problems, the advantage of changing the PUD is
people don't have to come and get a variance and prove hardship. With the PUD they don't have to
prove hardship tonight and I think it would be difficult for them to pr~ove hardship so we wouldn't be
granting these variances. The only way to do it is to do a blanket PUD amendment.
Slagle: But aren't we in a way by this being presented as a PUD, we're in essence forgetting what's
happened and.
Kind: I understand.
Slagle: I know what you're saying Deb, absolutely. But I'm just trying to apply this now-city wide and
to folks in other neighborhoods are saying gosh, you know. Like the gentleman at Lotus Lake, we can
argue that back and forth but gosh, I got rejected. And I had the neighbors supporting me and these folks,
not Merry and her friend, but just anybody coming and saying because the guy next to me has his deck 2
feet longer and it encroaches, not within code, I want to build it because aesthetically it looks right. So I
have the answer to that.
Blackowiak: Craig, did you have a comment7
Claybaugh: Yeah I do. Back in 1979 1 think the focus probably wasn't on outdoor decks and certainly
wasn't on finishing basements but over the past 20 years certainly things have changed. A lot more
emphasis on outdoor spaces and certainly I think most.people could agree that a minimum standard deck
on something like that wouldn't be 10 feet anymore. It'd be closex to that 12 foot. I think that's why
you're seeing some people push the envelope there and try and get that additional 2 feet. And certainly a
screened porch put on top of a 10 foot deck I don't think is in keeping with what today's standards are
either so I'm looking at it in the context of what people expect and what these people need to do to keep
their properties current in the marketplace, I think that needs to be taken into consideration as well.
Kind: I'll make a motion.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: I was going to say. We've got a lot to think about so if somebody would like to make a
motion, please feel free.
Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission recommends approval to amend the development
contract for Chaparral 2~ and 3r~ Additions to allow porches and decks on the four-plex units if they
meet the following. Number 1. The decks and porches must maintain 18 foot setback. Number 2. The
decks and porches shall not exceed a depth of 12 feet. Number 3. Before going to council staff shall
calculate the potential maximum of impervious surface for the entire PUD.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second?
Claybaugh: I'll second with the following addition.
Blackowiak: We just need a second first.
Claybaugh: Okay I'll second it.
Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. Any comments I guess.
Claybaugh: I'd like to include the word minimum 20 foot setback.
Kind: Minimum of 18 foot setback?
Claybaugh: I'm sorry, 18 foot. Decks must maintain a minimum of 18 foot setback.
Kind: Accepted.
Blackowiak: And porches?
Claybaugh: And porches, yes.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any other comments?
Kind moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval to amend
the development contract for Chaparral 2~ and 3ra Additions to allow porches and decks on the
four-plex units subject to the following conditions:
1. The decks and porches must maintain a minimum 18 foot setback.
2. The decks and porches shall not exceed a depth of 12 feet.
3. Before going to council staff shall calculate the potential maximum of impervious surface for the
entire PUD.
All voted in favor, except Sacchet and Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5
to2.
Blackowiak: Okay, motion carries 5-2. Commissioners who voted nay, any further comments?
18
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Sacchet: I believe I made my position clear. I don't think a blanket 18 foot is fair overall. I see your
point but I definitely oppose it.
Slagle: Likewise.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well I guess this one then goes to City Council on August 27~. So the applicants,
Merry Hudlow and sorry, I didn't get the other name.
Aanenson: There were 3.
· Blackowiak: Well yeah, just the ones that spoke this evening. I guess I'm .addressing her.. Staff, I'm
assuming you'll talk to them but it will be resolved.
Aanenson: Yes.
Blackowiak: It will be resolved on August 27~ so please talk to staff about what happens between now
and then.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A 10 FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE TO ~ liF. QUIRi~ 30
FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW HOMES TO BE LOCATED 20 FEET FROM
THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE~ CREEKWOOD ADDmON (610 & 620 CARVER BEAC1]
ROAD)~ COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT SERVIC~ INC.
Public Present:
Name Address
Maria Lundsley
Karl Romportl
Bill Coffman
Kirk Friedline
10 Hill Street
620 Carver Beach Road
600 W. 78m Street g250 '
620 Fox Hill Road
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
-
Blackowiak: Okay Kate, before we go to questions I would just like to make a point. We had this. as a
variance free application and the reason though it's coming back with a variance is because of
reconunendations we made, is that correct?
Aanenson: That is correct, and the council also directed. It's going for final plat approval and the
council did recommend before final plat approval that it come back to this process with a variance
request.
Blackowiak: Okay, and the variances would give us increased tree protection, potential of houses pulled
a little closer to the driveway and street, and so you feel that this would be generally in the city'g best
interest to do something like this?
19
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Aanenson: Well what we are getting.
Blackowiak: What are we getting, yes?
Aanenson: It's always a balance because again it depends on the home type that's going to go. Whether
it be again a two story or rambler. Whether it's elongated. The trees in the front are always the most
difficult to save because that's where all your delivery is going. That's where the grading. That's where
your most impacts are so based on that, by pulling them forward we're trying to save the trees in the back
and we try to balance where the existing two driveways are in place. There's already been, it's devoid so
if you pull the house forward you're kind of sliding into that area that's already devoid of vegetation. So
what we're getting on the back is we're getting a permanent easement on the back of those and there are
some significant trees so that's the trade-off.
Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you so much for clarifying that. So with that are there any questions of staff7
Slagle: Kate, can we see that map again on the overhead? There we go. Okay. So it's safe to say we're
not going to talk about the lift station tonight? I'm kidding Kate. Okay. So you're take Kate then is the
tree loss on the front, by creating that preserve area or preservation area in the back, we are coming out
ahead?
Aanenson: We hope so. Again, based on past experiences, the trees in the front are always the hardest
to save. We have a driveway location cutting for utility service when you try to bring the laterals in.
That's where the most degradation occurs. So with this,, we can attach a condition and .that's the
conservation easement and there are some significant trees that are on the back side.
Slagle: The developer pretty sensitive to that front, wherever they can?
Aanenson: He has done other development in wooded areas so I'm assuming that people looking at these
lots are hoping to buy them because they're wooded and that's what they're looking for so.
Slagle: Okay, that's it.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any other questions of staff?. Uli, go ahead.
Sacchet: Yeah, I do have a few questions. When we say that we do put an easement on the slopes, how
do we define the top of the slope? Basically where it starts going steep?
Aanenson: That's the 30%, yeah. That was all, when we talked about it in the previous-subdivision,
there was a lot of discussion whether or not that was a bluff. It was not detelTained to be a bluff based on
the survey. There's a narrow band in there that is steep but the entire slope does not meet the definition
of a bluff. We did take an easement over it because of the creek and that's on Lot 7. The area that was
shown in blue on that plat and that's the slope easement and then the area down by the lakeshore, the
other area in blue so we already have an easement on that and that would be the creek easement.
Sacchet: So it's basically the line where the incline starts, changes.
Aanenson: Correct. Yes.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Sacchet: So that's the top. I just want to be real clear what we say there. Now on Lot 8 we say the
house could possibly be moving closer. Is it really realistic to move that across the utilities there, the
water and sewer? I have a little bit of problem believing that.
Aanenson: There's enough depth that again it really depends on the style of home that you're going to
put there. It could be done. I mean it meets the, it could stay where it is right now. We're giving them
the option of whether they want to move it or not but.
Sacchet: Yeah, it seems awfully crowded to try to put it across.
Aanenson: Right.
Sacchet: Now when we say these conditions are not generally applicable, well' they sort of are. But it's
in the benefit of the city, I mean it's a reasonable thing. We recommend it and so we want to do it but I
think we're doing a little bit of misstatement when we say this is not applicable generally to other places.
I think generally we want to try to find the best balance. Is that a fair st_s~t~ement?
Aanenson: ...to have it meet. If we're getting additional preservation, then I think that's the trade-off
and we are.
Sacchet: Then the last question is kind of-a technical nature. We say that when this front setback is
coming down to 20 or is less than 30, then the back has to be added. Are we saying that that would
happen proportionately? Let's say they make it 25 in front, do they need a 35 in back?
Aanenson: No.
Sacchet: Or are we saying that if they take any of the encroachment 'into the 30 foot, then they have to
make it 40 in the back? I mean what are we saying there?
Aanenson: If you want to make it proportionally, we can do that. I guess in.
Sacchet: But what was your intent Kate?
Aanenson: That we have room in the back outside the conser, if they're going forward then we also want
to say that you've got room in the back.
Sacchet: In order to be specific, what we're actually asking for, are we saying if they encroach at all into
the front setback, then they have to give us 40 in the back or what's the idea? I think that's i ,mportant to
be specific about so they know what we're actually asking them to do. Because the~ are several ways
we could go. We could say well the sum between the 2 has to be 60, because it's 30 and 30. Or if they
go 20, then it's 40. If they go, you know. Or we could say if they encroach at all, then it has to be,
maybe we didn't think quite that far but I think we should nail that down.
Aanenson: I guess my response if we try to keep it as simplistic as possible. I mean if we want to say 1
for 1, that's probably the most simplistic. They go 25 feet instead of.
Sacchet: Maybe the applicant will want to say a statement about that. I'll wait with that.
Blackowiak: Okay. Is that it?
21
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Sacchet: That's it.
Blackowiak: Any other questions of staff?
Claybaugh: I've got a question for the applicant. I can wait.
Blackowiak: Okay. Well we'll get to that then. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a
presentation? If so, please come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record.
Bill Coffman: Madam Chair, members of the commission. My name is Bill Coffman of Coffman
Development. We basically concur with staff's recommendations for these variances and I also agree
with Uli's comments about making it proportionate to what we use in the front, added to the back on a 1
to 1 basis. We would be agreeable to that. Other than that, we concur and I'd be available for any
questions.
Blackowiak: Okay. Commissioners, are there questions of the applicant?
Claybaugh: The pads that are shown on the site plan here, what size are those?
Bill Coffman: Those are 60 by 60.
Claybaugh: Okay.
Sacchet: So basically you're fine with all the, like tree preservation and the slope preservation idea.
That's all fine with you?
Bill Coffman: Yeah, absolutely. We have wooded, you know it's a wooded area. We're selling wooded
lots. It's to our advantage to preserve the natural topographic features that make this site interesting. As
you can tell we are preserving pretty much all of the very interesting features. The bluff, the creek, the
slopes and so forth and that's my intent. I have several other subdivisions I think demonstrate the ability
to save trees, as well as saving trees in the front yard as in Shadow Ridge on Lake Lucy Road. We've got
numerous trees in the front so many homes that have in fact survived for close to 8-10 years. So it is
possible to save trees in the front. If given that flexibility to adjust with that front yard. Give us some
wiggle room we can save more trees.
Sacchet: Now if we say there will be a 30 foot tree preservation easement in the back, that wouldn't
create a limitation for those lots where we may not want to move close to the road or?
Bill Coffman: No. No, I'm comfortable with the 30 foot tree preservation.
Sacchet: And you would like to see proportional in terms of as much as encroach into the front, so that
much you would want to increase in the back?
Bill Coffman: Correct. If we went with a 25 foot front yard setback, we'd have a 35 foot rear yard
setback.
Sacchet: That's the limits? Okay.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Bill Coffrnan: That's correct.
Sacchet: That sounds reasonable. Thank you.
Bill Coffman: It is reasonable in my opinion.
Blackowiak: Alright. Any other questions of the applicant?
Sidney: Madam Chair I guess back to the be~nning. It almost seems like we're ending up kind of
discussing things that would be discussed in a PUD, such as flexibility and development of the site and
such things which I don't associate with a variance. Why wasn't this brought forward as a PUD in the
beginning?
Bill Coffman: Well historically PUD's are very difficult to get approved because of opposition from
people who live in the city that maybe aren't even associated in this neighborhood, and people like
myself, developers, we often take the path of least resistance and we came in with a variance free plat.
Out of necessity quite honestly. And it's unfortunate that a PUD would not have been more appropriate
under these circumstances. It wasn't appropriate.
Sidney: Well I guess I still think that we're at the same point of discussing flexibility in development so
standard subdivision plus variances equals a PUD and I guess I would you know, recommend people in
the future that just go for the PUD because we're talking about the same kinds of issues right now.
Blackowiak: Any other questions of the applicant? Deb, any questions?
Kind: No, I don't.
Blackowiak: I don't have any questions either. Alright. Thank you. This item is open for a public
hearing so if anybody would like to speak before the commission, please come to the podium. State your
name and address for the record
Kirk Friedline: My name is Kirk Friedline. I'm at 625 Fox. Hill Drive. It's about 2 blocks down from
this development. I have a question about future development in the area and if this variance is given,
does it give me the right to maybe come to that 20 foot line with my ~ also? Or at least approach
that with the council? And not only me but the neighbors, if the neighbors to the, would be north, decide
to sell their property to a developer also, are they automatically going to get this 20 foot variance? How
far do you go within the community to allow this?
Blackowiak: Kate, would you like to answer that?
Aanenson: Hence the staff's original recommendation. Herein lies the problem. I think in the past what
we've done is there's single family subdivisions. There's been accusations that we've been giving things
away so we made this, it was a staff's recommendation that this come in as a straight subdivision. The
Planning Commission and the Council redirected this application to come in with variance requests. It
wasn't at the request of the staff. The reason it's being supported is for tree preservations and certainly
anybody coming in and subdividing has a request to ask for any variances as a part of their plat, and if
they were to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission and the City Council that it had
merits, then I'm certain that they would consider that.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Kirk Friedline: So there's no 2 block radius or 5 block radius?
Aanenson: No. It's specific to this plat.
Kirk Friedline: How many houses originally came in on the non-variance?
Aanenson: There was 2 original homes on the site.
Kirk Friedline: But there was an original.
Sacchet: It was the same.
Blackowiak: Yeah, it's the same.
Kirk Friedline: It was 9 houses?
Sacchet: It was the same.
Blackowiak: This came through initially as a variance free submission and because the Planning
Commission felt that there was possible merits in moving homes forward a little bit and possibly saving
more trees, we asked the, we passed it through as a variance free submission but asked the City Council
to take a look at it and to see what they felt. So the City Council decided that there would be some value.
That was their decision so that's why we're seeing it again tonight.
Sacchet: I think that's, if I may comment Madam Chair, I think it's very important to understand that.
That if this variance goes through, it doesn't allow them to put more houses on there. It went through
totally variance free and in order to be more sensitive to the environment, to preserve more trees, it was
just that we considered this variance. It's very important to be clear about that. We're not saying that
people can go make a development, a subdivision and count on the 20 foot. That's not how this came in.
Kirk Friedline: Right, but in the future does that, does it set a precedence that I can do that? With my
property.
Blackowiak: No. It has nothing to do with any other property. It has to do with this property. And
bottom line is it went through as a variance free and it's been approved that way and if it does not, City
Council has final say so they will either say yes for the 20 foot or no for the 20 foot, and they look at
each project on it's own merits.
Slagle: But because we're requesting a zoning variance, the reason it was not passed because it was not a
public hearing.
Blackowiak: The first time.
$1agle: Publicized.
Blackowiak: Correct. Because it didn't need to be because they weren't asking for it.
Slagle: Correct. But we then asked for it.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: We asked for it, yes. We said, we thought there was some merit to it so that's why we're
seeing it again.
Slagle: And do we still believe that?
Blackowiak: We're just going to have to figure that out aren't we.
Slagle: Open ended question.
Blackowiak: Okay, it is a public hearing. If anyone else would like to come up and ~ake connnents.
Debbie Lloyd: Hello. My name is Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive and I think my
mathematics, I don't know you tell me how this goes. The city, or you originally approved the plat with a
60 foot wide street.
Kind: Right-of-way.
Debbie Lloyd: Right-of-way. Okay. Now it's 50. So the city is giving up 10 feet there. Now you're
giving up another 10, which you're balancing off with the conservation easement but the city still comes
out short 10 feet the way I do my math. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Kate can you comment? Do we, what was our original right-of-way?
Aanenson: They showed a 60 foot. You recommended 50 foot right-of-way with asphalt width of 32 I
believe.
Saam: 28.
Aanenson: 28 foot.
Blackowiak: Which was slightly substandard but mirrored by the...
Saam: It's within the city code. 28 to 32. Our standard is 31 but.
Aanenson: For a cul-de-sac, sure.
Blackowiak: So do you have any comment to that? Or no? Okay. Alrighty. Anyone else like to make
comments? Okay, seeing no one else I will close the public hearing...Commissioners, do you have any
comments on this item? Rich, do you want to?
Slagle: Let me start. I would say this, that the benefits so far from what I've seen and what we had done
previously outweigh my concern. - I just share that I did get an overwhelming sense that the benefits of -'
the preservation area in the back outweigh the reduction if you will with the front setback. I mean it
sounds like it's going to be somewhat better but, and that's the only now concern like gosh, you know. I
thought it was going to be a much better value for the community and the city by including that
preservation and extending it if you will, so I'd just like to hear maybe Kate ~s that at some point.
If you can. That might be too tough Kate, I'm sorry.
Blackowiak: Kate would you like to jump in now?
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Aanenson: All I can say is, you'll have to make that decision. You know whether you feel like that.
Blackowiak: Okay, that's fair. Any other comments?
Sidney: Well since I made a comment and I still think we're talking about PUD language with the
variance and I guess if somebody on the commission has some good ideas about how to state hardship,
why is there hardship, I think that's the most important point in recommending approval. Do we have a
solid case for that?
Sacchet: May I address that?
Blackowiak: No. Let's just do our comments. Okay, anything else? No? Bruce.
Feik: Just want to reiterate that this did come through as a variance free development. If this were not
passed, I guess it's a question for Kate. Would the applicant have the ability to go resurrect the 60 foot
wide street or 60 foot wide easement and did so and also conform with the setback. The normal front
setback. How much more of these trees would we lose7 If my calculations are correct, it's close to 20
feet.
Aanenson: Yes. It would be slid back, the house. Yes.
Feik: So we're going to lose, or the developer and the homeowners and everybody's going to lose
another 20 feet of these mature trees. I mean they have the option to do this if we don't~
Aanenson: We have to step back a little bit and say, you know we're looking at boxes and this is the
point I'm trying to make with you before. We're looking at a 60 by 60 box. That does not necessarily
represent the home. It could come in at a completely different configuration so we have to be careful
about that. I guess that we have to go by is our experience with people that are buying a wooded lot, for
the most part are buying a wooded lot because they want to save the trees.
Feilc I guess what I'm getting to is most of this was done to accommodate this body.
Aanenson: Right, and to give flexibility to say if there's a way to slide the house so we can save a tree,
we don't have to come back, hold somebody up. Exactly. And the other thing is we are getting a
permanent easement, which we didn't extract with the first subdivision. We're getting something
permanent in perpetuity that has some significant trees in the back.
Feik: Okay, thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, Deb. Any comments?
Kind: I support this variance. I think it was my idea in the first place. So I think it's a great idea. I'd
like to add some language about minimum of 20 feet rather than saying it's 20 feet because the builder
may decide to put the home at the 30 foot and I'd like to give some flexibility there depending on what
significant trees could be saved. I agree with clearing up the language in the second condition about the
give and take with the, whether the front yard setback is used or not and have the back yard change
accordingly. I think it's a good idea. I think it's worth it to save more trees if that's possible.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
B lackowiak: Okay, Uli. Comments.
Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few comments. First I'd like to address LuAnn's comment and question about
the hardship. Because the hardship is the question and so if whether it's, that it's not applicable
generally to other properties. Those two things don't stand. I agree with that. However, it's my
understanding that our evaluation is not just based on hardship. It's also based on the reasonableness of
the request and now this request was actually suggested by us, by the council because we feel it is
reasonable. Now I mean if you want to be...certainly hardship on the trees that are going to be cut but I
don't think that would apply too far. But it's reasonable. It's a reasonable request to try to preserve
more trees. Now I think we would have to clean up that language in the findin~ because there is no
hardship. It's a reasonable request. That was suggested by the city for the purpose of saving more trees.
And that this situation is somewhat applicable to other properties but as we've discussed with the
gentleman that came and made comment, it's a very specific context. It's the context where an applicant
comes in with a subdivision that does conform, in this case 100% totally variance free. And then in order
to make it a little better, and more sensitive to the environment, we grant this variance. We're not setting
a precedence that people can start planning, they can make subdivisions and plan their pads 20 foot away
because that's definitely not what we're. I think this is clarification. We're on safe grounds and then if
we put in an aspect that this is proportionately how much it encroaches in the front setback, that the back
setback has increased and we get a very tangible benefit. We get that tree preserv~on easement, which I
think is very significant. It's very important, and it was not part of it before, was it?
Aanenson: No.
Sacchet: And'that the applicant is happy with that. In addition to that, we get a preservation easement of
the sloped area, the creek area, which I think is als0 very significant and is a huge benefit to the city so -
I'm very clear. I'd like this to go through.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any other comments about this? Okay. Alright. And I don't have a lot
to add. I felt that what came through before as a variance free application was good. I think what is
before us tonight is a little bit better and I think that I do feel that the city is rmdcing a gain in some sense.
Of the trees, the easements, the conservation easements. I think that makes sense and it makes just a
better application. And we have to remember that we're the ones that requested it so that's something to
think about too. And again the City Council can do with it as they please. If they decided that they like
the original one better, then so be it. But at this point I would be comfortable with this going forward so.
Kind: Madam Chair, point of clarification. Variances, we have the final say on, is that right?
Blackowiak: However they can be appealed within 4 days, correct Kate?
Aanenson: Yes.
Blackowiak: Excuse me, 4 days. So if somebody would like to appeal the variance, they can appeal.
Kind: On either side.
Blackowiak: On either side can be appealed directly to the City Council within 4 days of our meeting.
Kind: I just wanted to clarify that.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: Comrr~nt?
Sidney: Yes, thank you Uli. I think the point is well taken that the language in the findings needs to be
strengthen and I'd like to see that.
Blackowiak: Okay. Alrighty, with those comments. Would someone like to make a motion?
Sacchet: Sum, I make the motion that the Planning Commission approves variance ~2001-5 for a 10 foot
yard setback variance from the, for single family homes in the Creekwood subdivision tO be located 20
feet from the front property line, located a minimum of 20 feet. Is that?.
Kind: Yeah.
Sacchet: A minimum of 20 feet. Add the word minimum. Minimum 20 feet from the property line with
the following conditions 1 through 3 with change to condition 2. The second sentence. If the applicant
elects to utilize the front yard setback variance, the rear yard shall be increased proportionately. I believe
solely within the context of our discussion that will be clear enough. That's my motion.
Kind: I'll second that motion.
Blackowiak: There is a motion and a second. Any comments?
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance ff2.001-5 for a 10
foot front yard setback variance for single family homes in the Creekwood subdivision to be
located at a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line, with the following conditions:
All lots within the Creekwood subdivision shall be permitted a 20 foot front setback with the
exception of Lot 7.
.
Lots 1 through 5 shall dedicate a 30 foot tree preservation easement along the southerly 30 feet.
If the applicant elects to utilize the front yard setback variance, the rear yard setback shall be
increased proportionately.
The home on LOt 6 must be setback 20 feet from the front property line to maximize the setback
from the top of the slope. A preservation easement shall be dedicated over that portion of LOt 6
located between the top of the slope and the most southerly property line.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT AND REZONING TO PERMIT
A RELIGIOUS FACILITY~ A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER AND FILL
WETLANDS~ SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE FIRST PHASE OF A RELIGIOUS CAMPUS~
AND A VARIANCE FROM THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3101 TANADOONA DRIVEl WESTWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH.
Public Present:
Name Address
28
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Bob Bergan
Lori Johnson
Sandra Steelman
Jan Quist
Martin & Donna Jones
Dan & Gretchen Starks
Bill Coffman
Bill Naegele
Pat J. Connolly
Brady Halverson
John Justus
Steve Lattu
James I-Iaugen
Dan Russ
Jim Tiggelaar
John G-etsch
Peter Brandt
Scott Vergin
Maren Christopher
Alan Dirks
Karen Dirks
3241 Tanadoona Drive
Camp. Tanadoona, 3300 Tanadoona Drive
Camp, Tanadoona, 3300 Tanadoona Drive
7331 Dogwood Road
7321 Dogwood Road
3301 Tanadoona Drive
600 West 78"` Street, g250
3301 Shore Drive
2008 Grand Avenue, St. Paul
701 Washington Avenue, Minneapolis
840 Fox Court
600 West 79"' Street
6791 Brule Circle
701 Washington Avenue, Minneapolis
7530 Dogwood Road
7570 Dogwood Road
7311 Dogwood Road
7311 Dogwood Road
9203 Lake Riley Blvd.
7431 Dogwood Road
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Okay, commissioners do we have any questions of staff7
Sacchet: Yeah I do have questions2 Some are pretty specific details. The mechanical, electrical and
trash piece that's on the northeast side of the structure, that's underground?
Generous: It is partially underground.
Sacchet: It's underground from the parking lot side and then you have the wall. Yeah, okay. I just want
to be clear because that wasn't totally clear. Now, one thing I'm a little confused about, when we talk
about the height guidelines, we talk about office industrial district and we also talk about the highway
commercial district. Do they both apply?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: They both apply?
Generous: Office institutional and highway corridor districts are both impacting this
Sacchet: They're both applicable, okay. Just want to be real clear about that. Now, you say you
calculate the building height to be 42 ½ foot. How do you calculate?
Generous: The ordinance specifies for building height, you take the highest ground level next to the
building or if it's a lot, 10 feet above the lowest ground level and the average of the gable height.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Saechet: Okay, so you take the average of the gable and you take like from the parking lot.
Generous: No, then you take the lower level and go up 10 feet.
Sacchet: And that's how you come up with the 42 ½. I just want to understand how you do that. Now,
when we talk about Highway 41 and West 48t~ Street eventually connecting there. 78"'. Yeah, get my
numbers straight here. We're saying that this will become the primary access?
Aanenson: Correct. It's our opinion and that's why we did the wetland permitting at this time is that
ultimately if there's a signal, that's where that would be their, as they expand and they develop that side
of it, would be the entrance.
Sacchet: That's something I want to hear from the applicant because the way I see their layout, it's not
necessarily laid out that that would necessarily be the primary. You say the only significant stand of
trees would be lost if the water level is allowed to be higher, so by keeping the water level the way it is
we would basically see safe that stand of trees there, is that correct?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: Now when we all, and I think you stated that. I want to be real clear about that. We will also
ensure the runoff would stay the same for the Arboretum property to the south.
Generous: Yes, the rate of runoff must be maintained at pre-development rates.
Sacchet: While we allow them to raise the water level it wouldn't?
Generous: No. They would still maintain it. It's just we would kill all the mature trees.
Sacchet: So the runoff would be mitigated either way?
Generous: Right.
Sacchet: Okay. Now I didn't see a tree inventory and I don't know, is that because the trees are in a
wetland?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: Are there trees that are not in a wetland that are impacted?
Aanenson: Yes. Not impacted, no. There's additional trees on the site in the back.
Sacchet: But they're not impacted?
Aanenson: No.
Sacchet: Okay, that's a good answer. In the comparison of required and proposed landscaping, there is
one, only one item...where we say we require 24 island/peninsulas and they're proposing 8 islands and
peninsulas. However they make the whole thing orchard style so I assume that's why you didn't focus in
on that? I mean can you explain that please7
3O
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Generous: That's correct. We're giving, they're trying to do a unique project in there for the parking lot
landscaping.
Aanenson: Do you remember the Arboretum wetland permit that we looked at where they were trying to
do the water gardens? That's similar to what, we're doing some experimental with that on a smaller
scale on this project.
Sacchet: Similar idea there?
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. Then we allow them to do smaller plantings to have more plants 'rather than the size?
Aanenson: That was Jill's recommendation.
Sacchet: Is that something we generally allow because it sounded like we're really changing ordinance
by allowing them to do that.
Aanenson: Well I think Jill made that interpretation based on the scale of this project. It's so large, to
get for the size of that proportional, to try to get more trees on the site. To allow them to put smaller
trees.
Sacchet: I don't have a problem with the concept. My potential issue i~ that you're effectively changing.
the ordinance. We say well if you.
.- .
Aanenson: No, it's just caliper. It's you have to replace caliper.
Sacchet: Yeah. So we're, our requirement is caliper, not number of trees in general? That's my
question.
Aanenson: Yes. That was Jill's interpretation, yeah.
Sacchet: Alright. The wetland fill, and that's probably more a question for the applicant but from staff
point of view, why does that need to happen now? I mean if that street is not going to go in til second
phase. I mean if we refer to the applicant but I wonder...
Aanenson: No, I'd be happy to answer it. I guess we always wanted to. make :clea~ that they can .
accommodate the wetland working on site. Again we believe that there is pending development. You're
going to hear from them tonight, that would like to see this road built to 'provide access. We want to
ensure that a driveway at a minimum can be placed on the site and that they. can accomrnod_~te the
wetland mitigation on site at this time. It is not boxed out at a furore'date so we believe that permitting
now ensures in the future, as for the same reason we asked for full disclosure on what the ultimate build-
out's going to be and so they're doing it in a piecemeal fashion. We want you to see ultimately what the
campus is going to look like. What the church and what additional facilities they have so we felt that it
was important that we can show you how that would work so we don't have to come back and try.
We've eliminated that as an option. That driveway.
Sacchet: So from your point of view it's beneficial to do the wetland alteration up front?
31
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Aanenson: Correct.
Generous: Specifically the mitigation. Now we leave it up to the developer to determine when they want
to do the impact.
Sacchet: And that's generally our approach. That mitigation has to happen before construction so we're
trying to be consistent with that.
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay, that's a good answer.
Aanens0n: So we're not trying to come back later and fudge it somewhere, right.
Sacchet: The traffic. You're confident that this is good traffic level? I guess Matt, that's more a
question for you.
Saam: With this phase, yes. I would defer to the traffic study that Bob spoke of. An independent fn'm
completed one and while they, I believe they said at Tanadoona and 41, it would be a level of service D.
That is acceptable. It's not the best. However, prior to any additional development we would for sure
want another access.
Sacchet: Thank you Matt. You shouldn't ask me to ask the questions first.
Blackowiak: I'm so sorry. It won't happen again.
Sacchet: The wetland boundaries established were inaccurate. It states in your-report, so is the. revision,
the revised plat is accurate. Is that what it is?
C-enemus: Yes. That was the intent of them having...
Sacchet: Okay. Because I'm not very clear. I mean the new one doesn't show buffer while the previous
one did, and it says the square footage for the mitigation to the east. It actually looks smaller in the new
plat so I'm a little disoriented to be honest about that.
Aanenson: If you stay with the conditions of the approval, those would still remain the same.
Sacchet: It doesn't change what we're approving, yeah okay. Then it refers to a drained wetland basin
that does not get impacted. Is that the piece to the northeast that overlaps into what the Pulte people are
supposed to mitigate?
Aanenson: No.
Sacchet: No.
Generous: The city, there's a wetland located on the city's property which is to the east, and then on the
prospectus this may be a wetland and We'll determine that.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Saechet: Okay. That's the one we're referring to?
Generous: Yes, that shows up in the national wethmd inventory.
Sacchet: The one that is being restored by the Pulte development, does that at all touch onto this
property?
Generous: Not that I'm aware of. The city's doing a project up here.
Sacchet: That's separate. Totally separate. There's nothing, okay. That's what I wanted to know about
that one. Vegetative depressed areas within parking lot. Is that those ovals in the islands?
Aanenson: Yes.
Sacchet: So I would like to think they were hills but they're actually depressions?
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: How is the water going to get in there? Are there gutters? If there's no gutters so the water can
flow in?
Aanenson: We'll let their landscape person describe that. They'd be happy to talk to you about that.
But that's similar to what we looked at with the Arboretum project.
Sacchet: Okay. Well that sounds intriguing.' The 'variance findings. The' variance is basically for the -
height, fight?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: That's the one thing we're doing a variance about. If called by another name, belfry or tower, it
would not require a variance. Well I can understand how a huge roof like that would not be called a
tower. That would be a little bit of a stretch. How, you're stating that there is a hardship here. Can you
elaborate on the hardship?
Generous: Well it's based on what their vision is for that building as your social, community center.
And to do that they need a significant architectural feature and this is it. They've gone with the big roof.
They could have gone with a tower.
Sacchet: Well I don't have a problem with, actually I think it's a wonderful building but I do have a
problem with how they're wording it because I don't see the hardship. But we'll get back to that. This
project development is unique project. Well, does St. Hubert's qualify as a religious campus? Does
Eckankar qualify as a religious campus?
Generous: Eckankar is a religious campus.
Sacchet: So it's not unique. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not serf-created. What does that mean?
Due to the confluence of ordinance requirements and requirements of the congregation. That sounds like
an awfully big...of words.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Generous: The highway corridor district says they can have 3 stories. The OI district says they can only
have 2 stories, but they don't have a height limitation, and then we revised the ordinance recently to say
what that third story was.
Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, the hardship is that there's an ordinance. That's a little tricky to define. Then I
think we, you collected that in your handout that conditions 13 through 23 of the wetland alteration
permit really go with the site plan, correct?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. That's my questions. Thanks for bearing with me.
Blackowiak: Okay.'Deb, do I dare?
Kind: Believe it or not I have more. But I crossed off a bunch of them because of Uli. The road, the
future road that will basically extend to West 78th Street, would also benefit future development of the
Zimmerman property, which is further to the west. And I believe that was, I was at a City Council
meeting where that was being discussed about sewer and water and that sort of thing. Wouldn't it make
sense to have that road extend into the Zimmerman property and benefit, be another outlet for that area
that's back on Dogwood Road?
Generous: Yes.
Aanenson: Sure.
Kind: The answer's yes, okay. That was a quick answer. Moving along, page 4. Wetland restoration
normally is something that the city in the past has embraced and specifically Village on the Ponds area
where there's now standing water where there was none before and some trees are in the standing water
that are sort of surviving, or maybe are dying. I'm not sure what state they're in. And in the past our
Water Resources Coordinator, Phillip Elkin has advised, or been an advocate for doing wetland
restorations, for instance on the O'Shaughnessy property. He was interested in raising the height of that
by 2 feet so there'd be standing water and the wetland that's between the Pulte project and Longaeres,
same deal. And certainly there were trees in those situations as well. How is this different than those
situations?
Generous: Well based on what Lori's told us, they're looking at, as part of the wetland conservation at
providing habitat diversity and enhancement. The legislation is to promote that you create open water so
that geese and ducks would have habitat. Well now they're saying we need other diversified habitat as
pan of that so they're not as gung ho on having open water.
Aanenson: Can I just add another comment on the Villages on the Pond. If you recall we spent a lot of
time 'talking about, they wanted a more formalized landscaping and we said we wanted something more
natural. There was a lot of discussion on that and we ended up eventually going to the more natural, and
I guess we did meet with the applicants today and that really is what I think we came to concurrence on.
Is that we're willing to work with them on some of the areas to make them look better. If they want to
put some different vegetation. Take some of the buckthom, reed canary out but it's our intent that
they're going for a natural setting, looking at the building. We think because that's the trees sitting there,
that we want to enhance that natural feature and I think we're in concurrence on, understanding what
34
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
they want and they understand where we're going. We want it to look nice but looking nice doesn't have
to be highly maintained, manicured type so I think we're in concuxrence oil thaL
Kind: Okay, thank you. Page 6. I'm not even sure where I wrote this here. I think I relate to the
landscaping. I have some concerns about pedestrian moverment. Some minor concerns, and being the
visual person that I am, I drew on this drawing. I'm going to just pop it down here so everybody can see
it.
This is the planting plan, and I extended sidewalks. This was the only plan I could find that showed the
sidewalks were being proposed. My concern is that if you park here, how do you get to the building?
There's no way to get across these islands because what's being proposed are tall, native grasses which
basically don't encourage people to cross them. So I was wondering if it made sense to add a simil~
kind of island was going on here, in this area to encourage people who are walking along here to cross
down on this sidewalk and these people to cross 'that way and provide sidewalks to get them across to the
main sanctuary. Same here. The sidewalk that extends on the north side of the church area, I would like
to see extended so that people parking here can get off the street, out of the parking area sooner and walk
along the edge of the church to the main sanctuary. Probably use this path down there. And possibly
extend then to the...creating another access point fi'om the parking lot to this lovely pad area, which I just
think is wonderful having this pedestrian trail system in here. Similar to what Eckankar has. There are
two access points here and here for this parking lot, but this parking lot is really, I didn't see an obvious
way to get onto the path. Those are my thoughts there. I do have more questions. Oh, the trees, we have
double the amount of trees. I just want to make sure that our tree person has taken a look at the distance
between trees to make sure that they will mature nicely.
Generous: She's reviewed the plans, yes.
Kind: Thank you. And about on page 7, and it talks about it in other places as Well. This access point
that's on West 78th Street essentially requires the street to'go through an existing home that's there, and
I'm assuming Westwood does not own this home. And it's sort of, I don't know, a concern to me that we
require a street to go through somebody's home that's not even being discussed here.
Aanenson: Right now it's proposed as a driveway. It's not a public street.
Kind: Okay, we're looking at a proposal that requires a driveway to go through somebody else's house
that they don't own.
Aanenson: We're not requesting it at this time. If they do any future development, they're going to have
to accommodate that. Correct.
Kind: Just a little concerning to me. Oh, the traffic report, I did not 'see on there, and maybe it's there.
It's kind of hard to read them sometimes but was there a study done for what the traffic would be if this
was developed as residential, which is what it's guided for?
Aanenson: That was the addendum that we e-mailed everybody.
Kind: I didn't get that.
Aanenson: Sorry. We can go through that real quick
35
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Generous: We requested that the applicant, or their developer, engineer look at one, the preschool that is
part of the project, and also whether or not, if this property had developed as single family residential.
We told them 100 units. They could probably get more in there. The outcome of that is it changes the
peak hour traffic. The a.~ peak hour traffic goes up to 100 trips per day. 75 that are generated by the
project and then 25 that are incoming trips, so it would have, it would increase the number of a.m. peak
hour trips. These would be the first phase in the development during the weekday.
Kind: So net net, if this was not rezoned, it actually would generate more traffic during the normal peak
times7
Generous: The peak hour genera.ms, yes.
Kind: The Sunday time is obviously the time of biggest concern for the traffic. Has there been any
discuss about other traffic management options like a police officer or just kind of a small time zone that
they could help with the traffic flow7
Generous: Well there was a little bit of discussion today when we went over the wetland mitigation plan,
and they were looking people will do some, change their behavior if it becomes inconvenient. Nothing
formal within our recommendation though.
Kind: Because I know that's quite common. My church does that. They have a police officer helping
with traffic flow but it's not a state highway, so I'm just curious whether that's even a possibility or not.
Generous: Yeah I'm not sure about, at least a police officer. Definitely traffic demand management
strategies could be incorporated. The carpooling. Use of shuttle buses. Things like that, or changing
hours of operation.
Kind: Okay. I'm almost done, almost done. Oh Bob, on the conditions. I called you earlier today about
cleaning up some of these conditions. Are those incorporated in this handout tonight?
Generous: No. That was just a revision to straighten out what should be in the.
Kind: Rats. I think that' s it. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay. Brace, you have any questions?
Feik: Yeah I' ve got a couple. I'd like to go back to the traffic study. If this was developed as residential.
That traffic study compared the first phase of this only, if I recall with if it were 100 units of residential
which would be more than what encompasses this first phase. 100 units would take this entire parcel.
Generous: Right.
Feik: Right. So there was no traffic study done to my knowledge then which takes in consideration the
total use of this property with their vision, their long term vision of how the rest of the parcel would be
used.
Generous: Well they did that as far as, that's where the level of service F scenario came in. That's their
buildout scenario. But at least on our condition they would have to revise that and say, what would the
traffic look like with West 78~, or at least that access point in there. And we think that would drop
36
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Tanadoona way down because we think people would go to that light, especially if they're making that
left hand turn out onto 41.
Feilc Okay. The other question I had, and I didn't have until you were giving your talk about this, you
had mentioned that based upon the initial development, the size and scope of this did not require an
environmental impact.
Generous: Assessment, correct.
Feik: Assessment. If they had come in with the entire project, would it have required?
Generous: No, we looked at the cumulative impact of the project.
.'
Aanenson: Right, and again that was our original directive to the applicant. We wanted full disclosure
of what the entire, they could have come in and just asked for a conditional use for a church but we
asked, and they agreed, that's the way to go was to show ultimately what their plans are for the property.
Feik: And then even if they were to come in for approval for the entire parcel today with all of their
vision, it would still not require an environmental assessment.
Aanenson: Correct.-
Feik: Okay. I just want to be clear on that.
Aanenson: But based on the traffic study, they would need some additional.-
Feik: Right. Okay, thank you.
Blackowiak: LuAnn questions.
Sidney: Of the applicant.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions?
Slagle: Sust a couple of quick questions. Again regarding the traffic study. Was there a traffic count or
study done of the current situation at the high school? Do you know?
Aanenson: Of Westwood at the Chaska location?
Slagle: Correct, at the Chaska location.
Aanenson: No.
Slagle: Okay. I think that's it for right now.
Blackowiak: Actually I just have a couple quick questions of staff. Since we're on the traffic theme
here. If there's somebody that's coming up on 41 going north, they have come off Highway 5, they mm
north going on 41. I'm assuming there will be a left turn lane to get onto this ~wposed West 78~. Am I
correct Matt? I'm kind of looking at you but would that be a correct assurr,m, tion?
37
Planning Commission Meeting - August ?, 2001
Saam: Yes, I believe it's a straight left through.
Blackowiak: So what does that mean?
Saam: So in other words there's not the 3 lanes there. I don't believe right now there's going to be 3
lanes on 41 as MnDot's doing it. There will be a straight and then a left lane and then a right lane for
people to go around.
Blackowiak: Okay. So we're not worried at all about stacking or coming off of, that was kind of my
concem.
Saam: Yeah, that's what the traffic study looks at. Level of.
Blackowiak: At the stacking?
Saam: Well the level of service rating takes into account stacking, the time you're waiting, queuing at
lights, that sort of thing. So that's what brings that level of service grade down.
Blackowiak: Alrighty. Bob or Kate, Bluff Creek Overlay District. Does it have anything to do with this
property at all7 I'm sorry.
Generous: No. It's located to the east...
Blackowiak: Okay, so basically we don't have to be concerned about that at all?
Generous: No.
Blackowiak: You just gave me a look. On the southeast comer of the project, I didn't get out my ruler
and compute this but do we have any bluffs over here on the southeast comer?
Generous: No bluffs. I had that same concern but then I looked at the plans. They're 1 foot contours
instead of 2 feet so it looks steeper than it is.
Blackowiak: Yeah, that's what I was wondering. They looked a little close together so I just wanted to
make sure we didn't have to deal with that. Okay. Well that's it for my questions of staff. Would the
applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? And if so, please come to the podium and state
your name and address for the record.
John Justus: Hi. My name is John Justus. I'm an architect with Hammel, Green, Abrahamson. We
have offices in Minneapolis. 701 Washington Avenue. We just moved Monday so I've got to remember
our address. We have a number of people here from the church and we also have other consultants that
could assist us tonight. And I'd like to introduce just a couple of people, if that'd be alright with you.
And it would be nice if the senior pastor, Joel Johnson... I'd just like to introduce, this is Pastor Joel and
I draw for a living and he speaks so I'll let him give him a chance up here. And we have James Haugen,
Steve Lattu with the church. They're both with the church. And Brady Halverson is our landscape
architect. Pat Connolly is involved with project management for the entire process. Jim Tiggelaar in the
plaid shirt is our civil engineer. So I think as we, they might have information that's specific to their
expertise so they can help answer at some point tonight so first Joel, thank you.
38
.Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Joel Johnson: Joel Johnson. I live at 1806 Valley Ridge Trail North hem in Chanhassen and it's good to
be here. We were actually here several years ago. We didn't think it would be another several years
before we would come again but this is an exciting time for us obviously. But just a brief history.
Westwood Community Church is the daughter to the Wooddale Church in Eden Prairie and we started
services here in Chanhassen on Easter Sunday, 1995. We met at that time in the Chanhassen Dinner
Theater in the Fireside Room for about 6 months. We outgrew that room and we went into the main
dinner theater because there was no facility in this area that could aceommnaat~, us at the time so it was a
bit unconventional to be in the main dinner theater when you come to church and have to choose a 2 top,
4 top or 6 top for our seating capacity but it worked very well and we stayed them until Dece~ of
1997 when we moved to the Chaska High School, and they have been exceptional to work with. We're
really grateful for the wonderful facilities that are there that have met our needs in a great way and we
think we've been able to help facilitate good partnership with the high school and district 112, as well as
the Chanhassen Recreation Center, St. Hubert's Church. When you don't have your own church home,
you use whatever you can get and there's been a gracious attitude in the community. We've been
grateful for that. And we have been very patient in moving forwmxl with a building plan, partly because
we wanted to understand what we were going to be about. Partly because we wanted to focus on
building people within community before we built a building, and we find now being 6 ½ years old, have
identify. We've established a healthy church. We have a commitment to community. It's our middle
name. Westwood Community Church. And we seek to partner together with other agencies in the
community and look forward to a great future so jusf a little bit of historical perspective of where I am.
Kind: Thank you.
John Sustus: I think staff did a great job in presenting the project so far.. I'd lille to maybe just highlight .
a few other things if I could, and of course be available for any of your dialogue or comments or
questions. If we can go back to the site plan. I think you have a really good understanding of the site
context and we've tried very hard to work within the context. We like to think of a broader context of
being these large parcels of land that start with Minnewashta Park, the Campfire Girls, Camp Tanadoona.
This large parcel and then the Arboretum so we want to make sure that we preserve the character or build
upon the character of those 4 parcels. And we feel that suburbia is kind of encroaching upon Highway 41
and there's kind of a different character beyond 41 to the west, and we would like to preserve the rural
nature of the land, which really begins I think at that location and so it's been our intent to be very
respectful of this parcel. It's a wonderful piece of land. It's agricultural. It's rolling. It has kind of it's
own wonderful beauty and it's a privilege to be an architect to work on such a parcel. We also want to
make sure that the building dignifies the land and that the land also compliments the building so I think
it's important that we provide balance in the design between our buildings and the land. That's what
we've tried to do very strongly to link these properties and also to respect this rural character. When we
'were beginning the master plan, we tried to find the geometric center of the site, and we wanted to make
sure that the buildings centered or found the heart of the site as much as we could so that we preserve the
open space as it abutted the different residential properties, the Arboretum, the Camp Tanadoonm We
also tried to set the buildings not at the high point, and a lot of times in religious architecture you set
church structures at the high point of the site. And I think the high point of the site is 1037 or something
like that. It's more towards the west up the hill. We tried to bring the center of the site and the buildings
down the slope somewhat to kind of find the middle ground in elevation so that they didn't stand out but
they begin to harmonize more with the ground, and we constantly were thinking about how can we
integrate this structure into this rolling land. And so that was an i ,mpol'ta~ ingredient. The master plan is
organized informally. It's not a formal outlay of buildings but we tried to configure them so it was more
informal and to preserve again the natural qualifies. We developed 4 main s~ in the master plan.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
There's the initial phase has been described as an interim worship space. It's about 70,000 square feet on
3 levels. We tried to make it as compact as we could. We tried to locate the third level, kind of nested
into the roof structure so that it didn't appear to be a 3 level building. It appears to be 2 level but there's
actually rooms and facilities in that third level. So the initial structure is about 70,000 square feet. The
footprint is about less than 1% of the total acreage of this site. And the other 3 buildings, and I'll say in
the furore. One will be a large social gathering space where you call it a lobby to the main worship
space. And I know some of you have been to facilities. There's a large gathering space. It's a social
place where community is built. The other third facility would be the, what I'll call the permanent
worship space, and that will be about 2,400 seats. 2,400. So it's a good size room So you have the
permanent worship space, which is located at this location on the site. This is the gathering space, this
round circle. This is the Phase I. Then this is more of a facility for students. Gymnasium, youth room,
that sort of thing for junior and senior high. The first phase of parking is configured into 2 lots and we
wanted to learn from the orchards that are along Highway 5. They're kind of beautiful geometric forms.
They have kind of a man made imposition on the land and we thought that'd be kind of an interesting cue
for us to organize our parking lots like orchards so they have a linear quality. As you look at them from a
distance, they have this orchard kind of feeling to them. And they're a cue that we saw from the area is
that there's linear stands of coniferous trees and we just thought it'd be very nice to reintroduce that on
the site. We did it on the northwest portion of the site right here to suggest the entry and to provide a
wind row because whether we like it or not, there is strong winds that come across that lake from the
northwest. So the first phase parking, or it's broken up into 2 lots, and then the future parking on your
drawing is identified as number 11. So these would be future parking 'lots, 1, 2, 3 and 4 so eventually it
will be 6 parking lots. We try to break up the parking lots in a geometric forms but they're kind of
scattered around the site. More closely related to the setbacks of parallel property lines than relate to the
buildings. They're kind of at just a position to the building to create their own individual form, Number
10 on your site plan is a play area for students or for youth and right behind that is a 9, which would be a
small chapel nestled into the woods. I think it was stated earlier, the only wooded area of the site really
falls beyond element number 10. This entire area is heavily wooded. We've tried to keep from
interrupting that, except for maybe a small chapel which would be really a nice contemplative
environment back in that area. In the foreground there's a parking lot in the future and a building which
is kind of is undesignated right now. It would be a building that would be a shared use with the
community in some way, but we just haven't identified what it is but there's an attitude that what can we
give back to Chanhassen? How can they, the neighbors utilize this site? We've talked about the main
access points and Phase I, Tanadoona will be the main drive to the site, and thus the development kind of
tends toward the north. And this drawing doesn't show it but we've already talked about that Tanadoona
will be realigned to meet 41 in a perpendicular fashion. The two dashed lines here and here represent the
right-of-way alignments. The 100 foot distance of where 78th Street will meet Highway 41, and so the
driveway that would be for future phases would be along that, the center line would be about this point
and it would not have to go directly through the house, but the right-of-way from 78th does go through the
house. That is an issue for the future. So I think the issue was discussed about primary access. You
.know where is it going to be? And I think because this would eventually be signalized, this probably will
become the primary access I will call it, and then once when it was on the site, you could, there was a
driveway located in the future that would parallel the sight line heading west. Site property, or one could
come around this wetland feature and head north back towards the Phase I access. So I think you're
probably right that that will become a primary access point. I think that you've already discussed the
nature of the program, education the lower level. Interim worship space, which eventually become a
fellowship hall on the main level, and then offices on the third. I think you have a good understanding of
that I believe. I want to talk a little bit about the architecture and why we came up with what we have.
Maybe we can, we'd like to call this, it's not a very good word but call it park architecture and I think
what we did is we studied architecture from the 20's and 30's that was developed around the country and
40
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
you see it in national parks and different pavilions. And so we flied to learn from that and you see how
that was properly integrated into the landscape and into sites all over the country, and how could that
application to this particular site because of this desire to preserve this park like feeling from one parcel
to the next. We wanted to anchor the building and so the ground is i ,rnlx~mnt and the church has a
philosophy about their own foundation which is theological. I won't get into but we did want to anchor
the building and have it grow out of the site, and so thus we developed a sense of solidity to the base.
We developed a rock exterior that has a strength to it. A sense of permanence so that the building's
properly anchored to this site. And then we wanted to cre4~ a light.., above that so we developed a
fairly open exterior which gets one really great views to this piece of property and it allows light to come
into the future fellowship hall interim worship space so it could be a really wonderful space to dine or to
socialize and look out onto this beautiful site. So we developed pretty much a continuous band of
windows above this stone base which separate the stone base fxom thi~, I'll call it thi~ tent like roof. And
we wanted to emphasize the horizontal in the roof so it kind of created a contrast in the rolling natllre of
the land and this tent, which is kind of resting upon it. So the roof has a certain scale to it. We don't
have belfries. We don't have towers, which could be really a great much greater height. We flied to
devise the roof structure such that the roof wasn't too flat, nor was it too steep and we looked quite a bit
at the proportions of the roof to make sure that it had a dignified scale, but yet it didn't become too loi~y.
So we settled upon, those of you that are carpenters or builders, it's a 7:12 pitcE We looked at lower
than that. We thought it was a little too squat. We looked at higher than that, we thought it was probably
too lofty. And we needed a certain amount of volume within the space. We'd like to have a column free,
pretty much a column free interior space for worship so we don't interfere with sight lines, and because
it's over 100 feet of span, we do need quite a bit of depth of structure. Thus the height rises for a
structure like this. Is there a hardship? It only becomes in the sense ~:hat you need structural depth to
accomplish these spans. And it's nice to have a certain amount of volume within a room of- this size so
that you don't feel like the ceiling or roof is coming down on one, but you need a little bit of volume for
music and for speech, that sort of thing. For acoustical reasons so thus the 42 ~ feet that's calculated.
And so from the south, from the east you can see this view'of the strong base, which is stone, and I think
we brought some samples. I don't know if you wanted to see those. Just so you get a feel for the type of
materials we're thinking about, they're all natural and Westwood's a good name. Wood, but this is the
color of stone we had proposed and it would surround the base. Provide this solidity. We have a glass
and metallic windows in the middle of the building, and then the roof as Bob stated, would be either
wood shingles or a color which you see very often in the residential communities that is as close as we
can get to what wood shingles would look like, and they call it weathered wood or something of that
type. We'd go with a fairly heavy shingle so it would be an approximation of what wood shingles would
be like, so we just haven't made that final decision at thi~ time. These wood samples would reflect the
type of wood that would trim the building and at the gable ends there's some greater portion of that. The
other view, I'll be done just a minute. Sorry I'm taking so long. The other view I.think is very nice, it's
as when comes in the drive from Tanadoona and as one enters the site, the building .really is more one to
two stories from that northwestern side and you can see the base projecting out as a walkout would. The
glass band, which kind of gives this building it's aixiness, and emphasizes the view so, I could go on but I
should probably stop. And we are more than, we'd love to answer any questions you might have or enter
into some sort of dialogue if you'd like.
Blackowiak: Commissioners, are there any questions of this presenter? Rich?
Slagle: I've got a couple. As you're looking nox'chwest, these 4 doors, what are those?
John Justus: I'll pull it up so you can see. The air handling equipment for this portion of the building,
the western side of the building. Or the southern side of the building is located in that area and those
41
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
would be air intake and exhaust louvers. They aren't doors but they'd be louvered. Air intake into that
portion of the building.
Slagle: Okay. And one last question. On your site overview, before we put the samples up, if the
access, the primary access coming from West 78'h, where do you see that road again? I just want to make
sure I understand our driveway or whatever we want to call it.
John Justus: You can see the alignment of West 78~ is right here. The two dashed lines. That's the 100
foot right-of-way and I think the drive would have to align with some sort of, with that West 78a Street.
Slagle: Okay, so if I could ask as you go west, now west of that private property, where do you see the
road, right there? And then going...
John Justus: Yes, it would probably be at almost the center line on the right-of-way I would guess. I'm
not a traffic engineer but I would guess it would.
Slagle: So you would see then the traffic flow going into the parking lot, as you indicate 11 on the
southeast side of the property, and then winding up past number 8 into the next parking lot. Is that?
John Justus: Yeah, I think your drawing, the drawing behind you also, you have two options when you
enter on the southeast comer. You could head toward the north and go around the wetlands. Or you
could cross over and go towards the west.
Slagle: Okay.
John Justus: So essentially it'd almost be like a ring road you know.
Slagle: Gotch ya. Okay. Okay, that's all.
Sidney: Madam Chair. Question about materials. You were saying that you haven't quite decided
between shakes or asphalt shingles. I guess my feeling would be that shakes would really help the
building dignify the land, like he said. I say we put that in with the vote for going more natural in terms
of building materials. The other question, well question. Well the question I have I guess is about field
stone and you said there are decorative concrete masonry items. Where do those fall? Are we talking
field stone? Where we have the drawings and it's depicted as stoneware with these concrete decorative
things?
John Justus: There are products. You can lay up a stone wall, just stone from the site or stone brought
in, or there are products available which replicate stone, which we would like to research because of cost.
There's a good difference between an all natural stone wall, real stone and what I'd call a decorative
stone wall or something that typifies that. And we'd just like the opportunity to look at those two
products. It's a' cost difference really.
Sidney: Yeah, well still, but you're putting a lot into this whole site and the whole congregation is. I'd
really vote for as best you can do here. I guess I was thinking if we're talking decorative concrete
masonry like you're taking concrete and then making... No, nothing like that please.
Claybaugh: You're talking about a cultured stone product.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
John Justus: We call it cultured stone. Yeah, kind of a big word.
Sidney: So anyway, I guess that would be good I think for City Council to understand where those
elements would be. Where you might have different products on the building.
John .lustus: Yes, we would have one or the other.
Sidney: Yeah, one or the other.
John Justus: Yeah. It wouldn't be, they wouldn't be combined. It'd just be a ma~r of, the same as the
wood shingles. Either we have all wood shingles or all asphalt. And there's quite a difference in cost
between the two.
Sidney: Oh certainly, yes but like I said, it may be worth it. And though I think the building is lovely.
John Justus: Thank you very much.
Blackowiak: Okay, any questions? No? Any questions of thia applicant?
Kind: Yes. I can't remember what it was. Oh, what did you think about my sidewalk ideas?
John Justus: I wonder if you can come in and apply tomorrow to our firnx I think that those are good
suggestions. When you go to the Arboretum parking area there are no sidewalks at all in the parking
area. You walk in the road and I think a lot of us are used to that when We go to different shopping are~.
and I think it's always better to separate cars and people. You're absolutely right' And perhaps we could'
look at that and see if that would make some sense, because that's a long nm there, and add- some-
additional sidewalks. I think we could definitely look at that.
Kind: I think you'd end up with trampled perennials if you don't give people a way across.
John Justus: I didn't talk enough about the parking lots. They really have been designed. They're not
just a sea of pavement, but we really made an effort to change their elevations. Introduce some new ideas
inbetween. It's 20 feet between parking bays. Single bays are 20 feet. We're going to landscape that.
Change elevations. I think it's, and also deal with some of the nmoff ma _tt_oa's so I like the creativity that's
gone in the parking lots.
Kind: And then my other question has to do with that drive going, extending West 78~ Street. What are
your thoughts on negotiating with that homeowner to extend the right-of-way through that property?
Could you elaborate?
John Justus: You know I can't elaborate, but someone from the church would have more knowledge of
what the process would be involved in acquiring that piece of property. Whatever may happen. Would
someone like to address that? Is anyone brave enough to?
Blackowiak: And if you could just please state your name and od_dress for the record.
Steve Lattu: Steve Lattu, 840 Fox Court, Chanhassen. And we have been in contact with the
homeowner. Just to give them an idea of our ultimate build-out and what it would entail and obviously
because the plan showed a dotted line right through his house it's kind of, we were kind of nexvous about
43
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
that so we have had dialogue with the homeowner and expressed our desires to work together for that
ultimate access.
Kind: Thank you. I understand this is way off in the future but that was my concern that the homeowner
would see a dotted line through their house and be a little concerned. The other point I wanted to clarify
I think for Uli and Rich is that number 6 on that illustrative site plan is going to be the future main
sanctuary so that's the primary destination on Sunday mornings.
Sacchet: 6.
Kind: Yep. Does that help you see that in the future that West 78~ Street would be the main entrance?
Slagle: Somewhat.
Sacchet: That helps.
Slagle: It helps and I know that' s what it is. I have just concerns about the traffic. Can I ask a question,
more to staff but it might involve an answer from the applicant? We talk about Pulte having a
responsibility or a commitment to share the costs of a West 78th intersection. We have this applicant who
would receive benefit from that as well. We have other applicants which I'm not sure, quite sure who
they are yet, that might also receive benefit from this extension of West 78t~. My question is this. Has
anybody determined what the actual cost of that intersection is, and in essence brought the parties
together, including Pulte's commitment and sort of said okay it's x. We do have to buy a property. I
certainly don't want to even speak to whether they'd be open tO that or not. But I guess what I'm trying
to say is, we keep talking like this is way out in the future and I'm not quite, how do I say it, convinced.
But I'm not comfortable yet with the traffic pattern and the study with respect to just Tanadoona handling
the church, just to be honest. And so my question I guess, has that dialogue started or can you give us an
update?
Aanenson: Sure, I'd be happy to answer that. There are two potential development properties to the, I
guess it would be to the west of this and right now, because this is not a subdivision, a public street
cannot be extracted. The only way to make this a public street would be someone to petition the city to
ask for a public street. At that point the city would conduct a feasibility study. If they were determined a
feasibility study and they would decide who's the benefiting parties. This project needs a driveway only,
not a public street. So that's going to be an issue that the feasibility study and the council's going to have
to address to say, if it' s a public street, who' s going to pay for that cost? And also, if the house was to be
relocated or bought, that would be a part of that too. But fight now the only thing the church would need
would be a driveway access. The right-of-way coming across from Pulte is 100 foot. If this-is a drive, it
certainly doesn't need to be 100 foot. We look at leaving a local street 60, or a driveway significantly
less than that. So if somebody else wants a public street to service their property, the procedure which
we've explained to those parties would be to petition the city for a public street and they would conduct' a
feasibility study. So that's the process, and that has been explained.
Slagle: So if I hear you fight, with this applicant a driveway is the only thing required and the 100 foot
or, in essence they could get around cutting across this house?
Aanenson: I don't believe so. I think it's their position in good faith that that's probably not the best
way to try to fudge something. The Arboretum doesn't want it to cross their property. We've met with
them. They've met with them. I think, I don't want to speak for them but they want to do the fight thing
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
and ultimately put the driveway in. If somebody else wants a public street or needs a public su'eet, then
the process would be to come to the city and petition for a public street. Or the two parties could work
together and figure out a mutual, and that has been suggested. I'm not sure the dialogue's gone...
Slagle: So I guess just my question is, and I'm trying to raise that awareness level that I think that that
dialogue hopefully happens. And the sooner it can happen I think the better so that's all.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Deb, did you have further questions?
Kind: No, I didn't.
Blackowialc Of the applicant, no? Any other questions for the applicant?
Sacchet: Yeah, as a matter of fact I do. Thank you Madam Chair. Maintaining the existing water level.
We seem to have a little bit of a discrepancy of opinion. The staff report says it would decrease
diversity, and actually I think in some of the documentation of the applicant there's a statement made that
raising the water level would increase diversity. Do you want to speak to that at all?
John Justus: I would like to have someone assist me in that. Speak to that, if that'd be alright. Perhaps
Jim or.
Aanenson: Just let me comment on that. I asked, Lori has been gone for the last couple weeks. I asked-
her not to appear and if we're going to go into that dialogue, I would reco~d that we wait on that and
have, because we're not prepared to address that at that level. So if you want to. go in that direction, I'm
uncomfortable if you want to talk about that because'we don't have the expertise here to address that.
Sacchet: So you would say that could be a topic that gets postponed to the council decision, assuming
this passes tonight?
Aanenson: Yes.
John Jusms: Yeah I think we have all the, we can work with the city staff and their expertise to resolve
any issues...We have a good relationship. We can work out to what would be pleasing to them~ And to
us so I think that's possible.
Sacchet: Yeah, I'm comfortable with that.
Aanenson: Yes, we had a meeting about that today and I think we're, everybody's on the same page so.
Sacchet: Yeah, and if that's an issue that you want to bring up to represent to the council that will be
fine. With this driveway. For one thing I wondered, currently the way you do the wetland mitigation you
I think somewhere state in the documentation in the staff report it's stated that it's kept to as narrow as
possible to minimize the wetland impact. But then we heard some thought tonight that maybe this could
be a street that could go through to the west side. It seems like there's possibly a conflict there in terms
of, and I don't know even by from the church side, from you guys and that is something you would at all
consider to have that drive become a street that goes through to the neighborhood to the west. Is that
something you'd say anything about?
45
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
John Justus: I really don't have a comment about that. I agree with, I think we've talked enough about
the fact that we need to enter into a dialogue about that but all we need is a driveway, which would have
as minimal an impact as possible in crossing this water flow and wetlands so that's our intent. But
someone else may want to do something else.
Aanenson: I can answer that. The design does accommodate a public street if that were to happen.
Sacchet: Again please.
Aanenson: The design does accommodate a public street.
Sacchet: It would accommodate it the way it's designed?
Aanenson: Yes. If it became a public street.
Sacchet: Okay. It could accommodate it without impacting further.
Generous: This is the maximum area.
Sacchet: Okay, good. That's a very good answer.- In terms of traffic. There are a couple of aspects. I
actually got calls from concerned residents that were concerned about the traffic impact. Now personally
the church that I participate in only has one access. It's a little less people. It's probably in the 400 to
500 people amount, and I thought well how does this compare7 And so I have a question to you, which is
probably more to the pastors than to the architect. When people arrive, do they pretty much arrive at the
same time? And then even more importantly, when they leave, do they all leave at once because like in
my case, people, they somewhat arrive relatively close. Again not really that close. Kind of scattered up
but especially when they leave, it's very much spread out. I mean some people leave right away. Others
hang out. Others go to kind of fellowship gathering. Have a cup of tea or what have you. And I wonder
what's your practice because I think that does impact the traffic. I mean if you say amen and it's finished
and everybody flies the coop, I think then you have a traffic problem with 1,000 or so people hitting that
road at once but if your practice is to have some fellowship afterwards, some socializing, a cookie, what
have you and people leave over the spread of an hour, I think it' s not going to be quite as severe so is that
something you would be able to give me a reference point please.
Joel Johnson: Yeah I think one of the things you're seeing in churches today, and even in the
architectural design is they're combining space for gathering. 20 years ago you would see a fairly small
vestibule or exit place because generally people left but now they gather. They stay and so the exiting
does vary and people do stay longer. In fact you saw it in the design here, the dedicated space for
gathering because people do want to stay and fellowship together and spend time together.
Sacchet: Thank you. And just one comment, it's definitely very dignified proposal. I just want to
commend you. I think you did a tremendous job.
John Justus: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Blackowiak: Any questions of the applicant?
Claybaugh: Yeah, I would just like to comment that the full build-out initially, I don't have any
substantial concerns about the traffic but towards the latter end of the build-out, on it's full campus
46
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
setting, I have substantial concerns so. You commented that you had a dialogue with the adjacent
neighbor there. Could you comment as to the status of that or how it was received or?
Steve Lattu: The dialogue with Kevin and...
Claybaugh: Just an initial meeting. Okay. Like you said, you're just required to have a driveway in. I
guess that's took the form a comment. I come back to what Bob had expanded about the diversity of the
wetlands, the different classifications and because a wetland habitat contains water doesn't mean that it
necessarily supports more wildlife so that's, I think he made a very good comment on that and clarified
that so that speaks to the water level there. Big concern is, like my fellow commissioners, the traffic.
My understanding not required at this point but I'd like the concern noted.
Slagle: Madam Chair, can I just ask one question?
Bhckowiak: Yes.
Slagle: Is the applicant open to if somehow we deem it necessary or some series of events, would you be
open to allow it on Highway 41 to have a law enforcement officer, some traffic assistance there at
Tanadoona? ' '
John Justus: I wouldn't know how to answer that. I know it's a state highway. I don't know what kind
of jurisdiction would be involved with that.
Slagle: Well the answer, I guess if it' s.
John Justus: If it's deemed necessary, certainly. I would think that they would, a~ part of a management
program. I wouldn't know why they wouldn't be concerned about their own people gaining access to the
site in a safe manner. I don't have a good answer but I'm sure it can be resolved.
Slagle: Okay.
Blackowiak: Okay. Do you have any other presentation7 Any other members from your group wanting
to get up and share anything with us this evening? I don't want to cut anybody off.
John Justus: Well I think the landscape design is an excellent one and if there's more comments or
questions about it, Brady can answer those but I just appreciate your willingness to listen to us and your
comments are really well taken. And I guess we want to provide a facility for the church and for
Chanhassen that you're all proud of. That you'll take your relatives and show them that this is a great.
building for Chanhassen so that's what we're hoping. Thank you very much.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. However, before I do that I have
had a couple requests to take a brief recess. So we will recess for just a few minutes.and we will be back.
shortly after 10:00 to continue with the public hearing.
The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point.
Blackowiak: I'd like to call this meeting back to order. This item is open for a public hearing so at this
point in time if there's anyone who would like to get up and make any commm~ts, please step to the
podium and state your name and address for the record.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Peter Brandt: I'm Peter Brandt. For Kate's benefit, wife of Deanna. I know you guys talk quite a bit.
I'm going to actually talk from the perspective of kind of two interests in this whole thing. One of the
interests is if you look at the map. Our property is just to the west of the development, the church.
There's actually 2 properties there and both of us are planning on entering into some kind of
development in the future. Hopefully the near furore, so that's one perspective I want to make sure you
sort of understand in terms of perspectives. The other perspective is, as a member of the neighborhood
that is on Dogwood Road which is connected to Tanadoona. That's our access point out to Highway 41.
So a couple things I'd like to say from a neighborhood perspective first. I think you've already said it
and you've seen it and we're very excited by the development that the church is proposing. If you look at
it any way you want to, their intent to keep the theme of the land, the architectural, the architecture of the
buildings, just the great use of how they're trying to use the land, it's a great thing. So all those things
are really, really positive and I think from a neighborhood perspective, you know if you look at
alternatives to this, this is a great alternative for us. Now having said that we also have some interest and
some issues. Interests are again from my perspective and my neighbor's perspective next door, and
actually some other neighbors, the feasibility for doing future development there again within the near
term hopefully. And that creates an economic interest in the neighborhood. The other thing that I think
has been mentioned is there's a sewer and water feasibility study that's in process for the entire
neighborhood and if the development doesn't proceed forward, then that makes the feasibility of doing a
sewer and water project much less feasible for us as a neighborhood. So there's an economic interest
there. There's also a shared economic interest with the church in terms of access to the properties.
There's also an issue, or an interest around timing. Again, no proposals have been brought forward yet to
the Planning Commission or the Council on the development, but we intend to do that in the near future.
And also within the context of the neighborhood, we're all looking for sort of continued by and from the
neighborhood in general and making sure that we're all working together. And so far I think we feel like
a lot of these interests are being fairly represented as we sort of stand here together today. Again the key
issue for us, and I think you've all sort of started to detect that is around traffic flow. We have recently
started meeting with the church. We had our first meeting in June to actually look at the plans for what
the church was trying to do. Again, you know my comments earlier about in favor of the architecture and
land use and all that stuff, again I'll reiterate that. We are very much in favor of that. The one issue that
we raised at our meeting in June was around the traffic. And we realize traffic study has been done and
all that stuff. We have since met with the church, as recently as Saturday and have agreed to start to
work together to try to mitigate that issue as we go forward. And feel like we are making progress.
We're not there yet but we're making progress. So again just to kind of reiterate, fully in favor of this
whole thing. If we can work through the issue around the traffic and part of the issue really comes back
to that West 78'h Street extension if you will, and when that gets done and what that starts to look like.
So I think we have the idea that we'll all start working together as we go forward. That's the
commitment that we feel we've gotten from the church as we go forward. Assuming that happens,
assuming that we all work together and try to resolve the issues around the traffic and so forth and I think
we're them so, if you have any questions for me, I'm perfectly willing to answer or try to answer
questions.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you commissioners. Any questions for...
Sacchet: Since you offer. Can you be specific about, do you have an interest in West 78th Street coming
through to your property'/
Peter Brandt: Yes. Yes I do. Again if I, I'm the abutting property right to the west. As we've looked at
alternatives for development of those properties, and there's 2 of them put together, it becomes very clear
48
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
quickly that the feasibility of going through on a West 78~ Street kind of access is much more feasible,
both economically and from keeping the look and feel of the entire neighborhood than trying to go
through on the Dogwood Road side. I don't know if any of you have driven back there but it has a very
unique looking feel and there's a very clear intent on the neighborhood side to try to keep that look and
feel if we can.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Loft Johnson: Hi, I'm Lori Johnson. I represent Campfire Boys and Girls, which is the owner and
operator of Camp Tanadoona since 1924. Our address is 3300 Tanadoona Drive. I too am eager to
welcome the church as a new neighbor. They have put a lot of time and effort'and have come up with
some wonderful plans. Our only concern at this point is the traffic issue. I only got to glance through the
traffic study and so I'm not aware of exactly when it was done, you know as calendar wise but I think
things were not probably taken into consideration that Tanadoona has some very sporadic large use that
goes up and down Tanadoona Drive. Large events which are primarily on weekends, 300, 400, 500
people. Our large Halloween event. The fact that in the summer for 12 weeks 50 staff people live there
and come and go. So for about 3-4 months of the year we have very high use. We have 150 day campers
that are dropped off by their parents each morning and picked up each afternoon between 7:00 and 9:00
a.m. and 4:00 and 6:00 p.m.. Then we have resident campers that come, all 100 of them that come with
their families on Sunday between 2:00 and 4:00 as church would he, hopefully we'd just mi.qs maybe but,
so we have a lot of large use and yes, in our wintertime things are much slower at Camp but spring and
fall are quite busy and it seems to hit the weekend time when church might be kind of conflicting so.we
are concerned about that Tanadoona Drive traffic. So I thank you for your time.
Blackowiak: Thank you. I should ask commissioners if they have any questions of her.
Dan Starks: My name is Dan Starks. My family and I live at 3301 Tanadoona. This is my Wife's and
my first opportunity to come to this commission's-meeting and we're certainly very i ,repressed with the
fair mindedness of the group. We're new residents to the neighborhood. I'd like to express just two
concerns. The first on the traffic side. Purely from a lay perspective, I certainly don't know what the
expert process is to evaluate traffic but if we work to just come out on, pardon me but as we just work to
come out on regular mornings, we have a check of a time making a left hand turn on 41. When that
traffic light goes on 5, we get a bows of traffic and when the uaffic light tums on 7, we get a bows of
traffic back and I just can't imagine how we would be able to really get out with a significant increase in
traffic at that intersection given the trouble that we have with really fairly light use today. That's the first
thing. And so I just want to, from a practical perspective just kind of add that little bit of common sense
that the, to kind of question the expert process to make that assessment. The second thing would be,
when we researched our purchase of the property, we were especially concerned about what's the church
going to do. We didn't want to live in a rural setting'with something that would he obnoxious or that
would disrupt the wildlife, and we've got quite a little bit of prairie investment and really would like to
he a good neighbor in that respect maintaining as much of a natural look as we can and we bought as
much buffer property as we could to help do our part to maintain as natural a setting as we could and
accommodate the wildlife. And we kind of through our realtor got the assurances from the church that
this was going to blend into the environment just as much as possible and so we thought this could be a
pretty good neighbor situation and we'd very much like it to be a good neighbor situation and do our part
and hope that the church would he very diligent in doing it's part as well. What struck me that was very
much a surprise was fitting in with the environment. I really didn't expect to hear about a request for a
49
Planning Commission M~ting - August 7, 2001
height variance and ~hat to me, I appreciated every bit of the words on the attitude to me saying, and then
besides we're going to build something that's above what the ordinance permits. That jarred my
expectations and I really didn't appreciate the idea that we ought to be able to do this because if you
don't like that, we really could have built a tower. I mean you know that again, it just was not quite the
attitude that I'd like to see as a neighbor, or even just looking at what's objective. I just, I do have a third
minor point in here. I don't have a conclusion from it and would just ask the expertise of this group. I'm
always concerned with a zoning variance, or zoning change thinking, I appreciate all of the high hopes of
this particular owner. I appreciate that as time goes by ownership situations fail and financial
circumstances change and this is quite ambitious investment overall over a period of time and the
question that comes in my mind is, with a zoning change, if this owner then changes and disposes of the
property, have we then put ourselves into an environment that is within the completion of the Planning
Commission and of the neighborhood and I'd just leave that as an open question. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Excuse me, could I get your last name again? I kind of missed that.
Dan Starks: Starks, S-t-a-r-k-s.
Blackowiak: Thank you very much. Did you have a question?
Sacchet: Yes. I'm kind of interested to hear from you, with you looking at this proposal do you feel that
this proposal is sensitive to the environment? You really didn't address. You said well you have an
interest in that, but you didn't express whether you thought that this approach from the applicant actually
satisfies that or are you dissatisfied with it?
Dan Starks: I don't know this group. I don't know future plans. The one thing that I could, there are
parts of this that I very much appreciate that to me display exactly the kind of sensitivity we would hope
to see from the neighbor. What didn't display that was the height and I see the, where this property there
where that 21 acres, I see the parking lot abutting right up against this. It's not clear to me what level of
tree protection we've got. I'd like to add my own to add as much buffer as possible, and then I'm also
thinking as we get a, as there's a request for a height variance for the first property, this isn't the main
chapel. What's the main chapel going to look like when that plan comes and what kind of environment
are we establishing with already a height variance on the first building for future buildings. And I
appreciate the level of assurances that have been offered, but on the other hand this is out of spec for
height and that is a little unsettling.
Saeehet: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Kate the last two people have talked about traffic and a little bit about the
zoning and variances. Do you want to just take a brief moment to make any comments?
Aanenson: I'll let them team talk about the traffic study but the background should include, .they did
include traffic counters. Should have picked up the background traffic. We do recognize and the traffic
study says the most difficult turn movement coming out is going north on 41 from Tanadoona. That will
be the most difficult turn movement. Again looking at this with the peak hours, recognizing the morning
peak hours are the most difficult, or will be coming from the Pulte development, morning peak hours.
Excuse me, that would be evening peak hours. And the industrial park is morning peak hours. Again
looking at this when we compared it to a residential, there will be congestion but it should be offsetting,
most of it. Now the Campfire Girls, again we'll have to take that into consideration in working with
50
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
them. Looking at the events and we're going to have to coordinate some of that with the church.
Looking at that.
Blackowiak: I'm wondering if those, would the Caunp Tanadoona numbers have been incorporated into
the traffic count.
Aanenson: They should have been. There were traffic counters out there. Yep, traffic counters picking
up the bac~und data so there's modeling and traffic counters out there so there should...
Blackowiak: Chxrrently, so that we're getting the high peak of the camp. at this point?
Aanenson: Yes. I' 11 have to let them speak to it.
Blackowiak: Alrighty.
Alan Dirks: Do you have time for one more?
Blackowiak: Certainly, come on up.
Alan Dirks: My name's Alan Dirks. My wife and I and family are new residents on Dogwood and first
of all I want to say that I fully support Westwood in the fact that they're going to be a neighbor. I think
it's an ideal neighborhood. Or neighbor for the neighborhood. I like what they're doing. I hadn't really
thought about things Dan had thought about, and I thought he brought up some good points about what
the future buildings would be, but I was thinking that the 2 ½ foot variance wasn't very much considering
they weren't building on the highest point of the land. ff they were building on the highest point of the
land and also going for a variance, that might be a thought but then Dan when I was listening to you talk I
thought well he's right. We really don't know what the next buildings are but that would be something to
keep a watchful eye but it did seem like they were trying to work within the intent of the ordinance,
which was keep the profiles down so I appreciated they weren't on the high spot. The traffic on
Tanadoona without a means of guidance seems to me to be a little bit crazy and so both in the terms of
turning left when you're going north, coming, off of 41 and turning onto Tanadoona or Tanadoona trying
to get onto 41 going north, either way. But there's been a little bit of talk about this building right here,
and I think that it was kind of almost pointed at the church that this aiignment, there's a reference made
about this alignment going through that neighbor's property and it's unfommate but I also think it
shouldn't be hung on the church because they didn't line up 78m from 41 in the first place. A little bit of,
and I'm not here to point blame at ail. I'm just saying that that comment was made that well, are you
planning? What are you doing with that resident? Well, bottom line is they didn't line it up from the
east to begin with and so they're kind of stuck with where they're at-So my personal view is that this is-
going to be the main entrance. It would be great, we have plenty of ~ before the church opens. It
seems like the parties that are going to benefit from the traffic would be, I was writing a little list of them
here. There' s the West property of course that was already spoken about. Thexe's the church and there's
the Arboretum. Whether or not like Dan said exactly, we don't know when the Arboretum gets
developed or who knows if it will get developed. They could sell that tomorrow as soon as the apples
study is done. And then there's Tanadoona and Dogwood. Or anybody who's off of those two roads is
going to benefit. There's the Pulte neighborhood that's going to be impacted by additionai traffic on 41.
There's the other neighborhoods that are on the east side of 41. Certainly all those people would benefit
from the intersection on 78m. That's a good chunk of people, residents in the city. It seems to me that as
part of this process moving forward, since there is plenty of time, the city could go ahead and use some
of your influence to put all those parties together and say listen. There's a lot of benefit right now. I
51
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
don't think it's fair to the church to go ahead and say okay church, you may only need a driveway but we
know you'd like to have 78~. I think if, and I don't want to, I'm not putting words in anybody's mouth.
I'm just saying if they had a choice and money was not an issue, and it is an issue certainly for a church
that's supported by private parties, is that they would rather have a controlled intersection that was
planned for that kind of traffic. Certainly I think if the city would just go ahead and get behind and help
them and help the neighbors, help the properties to the west and put a little initiative behind this rascal
and figure out how we can handle that traffic and move it up to 78t~. One other thing. Is that I have a
little extra incentive for this, is that I'm from a greedy standpoint. I mean we're on Dogwood. It is a
beautiful neighborhood and there's going to be pressure to develop this property here off Dogwood,
which would really be crazy. It's already a long cul-de-sac and we want to keep the narrowness of the
road to preserve the trees. We' ye already seen in a previous one where the emphasis has been to preserve
trees. So certainly we would object to that very strongly to go ahead and say well, they already have
access to that other development so the city doesn't need to look at further development of West 78"'. So
in summation, take that part of the city. Get those parties together and make, don't saddle or don't put
the monkey on the church's back or just one property owner's back because there's a lot of parties that
are going to benefit from 78th, that access to this property. Thanks.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Bob Bergan: Hi, I'm Bob Bergan. I live, my wife and I live in, well in the church's parking lot. Well on
the other side of the church's parking lot. And well my wife is a ehurc'h worker and we really appreciate
the fact that there's a church coming in and not 385 Pulte houses. The only thing we have a concern with
too is the road. I always feel like I'm going to get hit from behind coming on 41 getting onto Tanadoona
Drive and the sooner that we can get the 78th Street through the better. Now the city has tried to put
Dogwood through, all the way through to Highway 5 and the main concern, and I haven't even heard this
tonight, the main concern is safety. I've had fire engines that have sat in my front yard because they
can't get down the roads with the big ladder trucks and stuff. If there's a fire at one of the places down
on Dogwood, or now the new developments back in here, there's just no way they can get back down in
there. And they've been, we've had studies go through there before where they've tried to get the roads
widened and they've tried to do different things but when it comes right down to it, they just can't get
through there. It's a dead end. When you go down Tanadoona, it's...Anyway, that's all I have to say.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Karen Dirks: Hi. I'm Karen Dirks. The other half and I just really, I just wanted to say one thing. I
know that that traffic study was supposedly done, but I can't believe it. I think that they forgot a lot of
things, number one construction is now going on on Highway 7 and on Highway 5 and on Highway 41 so
there's a lot of people I think that are probably avoiding the area so how can you do a logical traffic
count right now. That just doesn't make any sense. I for one would avoid that area if I could. I think
that they forgot preschool when they first did it. They forgot all the major events that was already
mentioned at Camp Tanadoona. I don't know that they considered fully all the development or the traffic
coming that will come in with the Pulte development or the new business parks across 41 and there's
always Southwest Christian High School that's just south on 41 which is growing, growing, growing.
And all the residential developments that are on the other side of 41 that were briefly mentioned so I
highly question the traffic studies.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
52
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
John Getsch: My name is John Getsch and I have property at 7500 Dogwood Road. We've owned
property out there for 30 some years now. It's changed a lot. It's going to be changing a lot more. We
are extremely happy to see the church's proposal. With the same caveats that most people have
expressed about the traffic. I do want to make one comment that I haven't heard people say. The
realignment of Tanadoona Road makes a lot of sense. The church does need two accesses. Even one just
on West 78~ it would still make sense to have a good access at Tanadoona Road. This proposal does
provide that. It does take a step in the fight direction but the West 78~ seems to make a lot of sense for
the whole area. The infrastructure of the whole quadrant or whatever you want to call it. If you just look
singularly at the church property, it doesn't really need it- Highly desirable but if you look at the whole
area, it comes screaming out so I just want to make that comment-
Blackowiak: Thanks. Is there anyone else who would like to comment this evening? If not, I am going
to close the public hearing and before asking for commissioners comments, I'll just let you know we are
going to finish item 5 tonight. So if you're here for item 5, Brown's Car Wash, we will be dealing with
that this evening. Item number 6, review design standards we are going to move that to our next Planning
Commission meeting as old business. There's no time line that we need to do on that so that's going to
be at the next Planning Commission meeting so if you want to hear about design standards, you'll have to
come back and see us again. But Brown's Car Wash will be on tonight- With that, Commissioners.
Time for your comments and I'll look down Rich's way. Would you like to start?
Slagle: Sure. Let me start by saying this. I approach this from 3 different viewpoints. One is, obviously
as an appointed member of the Planning Commission. Second is a neighbor in that my family and I live
in the Longacres development. And thirdly, I approach this as an attendee of this church and having
expressed that in and revealed that to the group a long time ago, feel very comfox~ble in seeing this as
objective as I can. It's wonderful. I mean plain, simple, this is a wonderful proposal. Excited, tickled as
you could be. All of that said, as that appointed member of this commission,/he overall community
benefit in my mind is there with this proposal. The only thing I have concerns about and express that is
the traffic. And I want to ask one 'question of staff. Am I to assume correctly that there will be an
intersection at West 78e~. It just won't extend westward. Is that com~?
Aanenson: That's what we're trying to get a meeting of the minds. I think that's what we're saying. At
a minimum.
Slagle: But today as we stand, where will West 78a', it will end at Highway 41.
Aanenson: Correct.
Slagle: So there is an intersection there. It just isn't going westward on West 78~. Chaxently as we sit
here.
Aanenson: Correct.
Slagle: But there will be an intersection?
Aanenson: Right.
Slagle: And so that said, it's just a difficult situation with the traffic and one of the things I just, as I
started just noting things down here and looking at the proposal, I noticed on the traffic study, and this is
headed up on page 5, it says Mr. John Sustus. It talks.about the use, expected Sunday trip generation and
53
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
I'm not quite sure I understand church 2003, and I'm sorry I didn't bring this up before. But if I look at
the number of I think cars going in and coming out, I'm still left with a fairly decent number after 1:00
that are still in the church, I think if I figured that out right, and I don't have to have an answer now but
staff if you can look into that. It just seemed to me that there were a fairly good size number of cars
theoretically still in the church after 1:00. And so I'm just wondering again about the numbers. And that
again is on page 5. Stated in Tables 1, 2 and 3. Show the result at Sunday, Wednesday and weekday, so
forth and so forth. So to make a long story short, I concur with the gentleman over here that hopefully
the groups can get together and talk about that West 78'~ because otherwise West 78a' is not put in, I have
a serious concerns, more so from being an attendee at Chaska High School, and then also as a neighbor
trying to get out on 41. I mean I can tell you that similar to the description of I think Dan, wherever he
went, when you're trying to take a left and the flow, you can tell when the lights are there. When they're
on and someone's proceeding and when there's a red light. I mean you can definitely tell. What I just
don't know enough about is what a Sunday morning would be like so that's all I have.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn.
Sidney: I think that's an outstanding proposal. The building architectural elements are lovely. I guess I
had comments about the building materials, which I won't repeat but overall it's just a tremendous
proposal and it will be a tremendous addition to the community. I do share concerns with just about
everybody in the room. I think about the traffic and I think we do have data that could be gathered at
Chaska High School on Sundays to understand what the current traffic situation is like, and I guess I
would put that forward as a possibility that to supplement your traffic study, to actually do some studies
at the high school and we could understand what the traffic situation was like there. That might give us
more information to make some recommendations. That's it.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Bruce.
Feik: I too like the project very much. I did have a quick question for Kate, if I could digress briefly. As
I understand, everybody has a traffic concern here, and rightfully so. Do two non-regulated or two
accesses to 41, neither of which have a stop light, does that benefit this project in any way? And if it
does, is there a potential for the applicant to petition the city for a temporary egress midway through that
parcel to the east and north of that private homeowner, for an additional access until such time as the
West 78"` Street intersection could be completed.
Aanenson: Part of that would be a question for MnDot because they have jurisdiction on access points in
that road. That's something we can look into.
Feik: If it doesn't require a metered stop light at this point and everybody thinks that this is going to be
very beneficial to the community as a whole, and we are in control of that, we being the City of
Chanhassen is in control of that.
Aanenson: I'm not sure it's going to, if you've got an offset intersection that close to the West 78"'
coming out, I'm not sure what that would do because you're actually offsetting it slightly so. You're still
going to, the left turn.
Feik: It'd only be a couple hundred yards apart. They're not going to be more than another 100 yards to
get to the other...
54
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Aanenson: Right, and generally the spacing requirements on a collector street a quarter of a mile so, I'm
just saying with the offset so, we can look at that.
Blackowiak: And Kate, is that tl4e primary zone right there? I'm son3t, I'm going back to the primary
zone but yeah we can't, could we even go across the primary zone?
Aanenson: We own the property. We may have to cut down trees. You know.
Blackowialc Would we want to I guess is the question maybe.
Aanenson: Right.
Blackowiak: Because it's Bluff Creek primary zone.
Feik: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Deb, comments?
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I think'Westwood Church is and will continue to be a great community asset
and I'm excited to see this project. Hearing about it for a long time. I think the architecture's beautiful. I
love the architecture concept. I think you're going to get a lot of new me~ who just want to go to the
space so that will be neat. I support the variance. I support the zoning changes. I think they are
necessary to bring this forward. I would like to see a couple conditions added. One for the pedestrian
movement. One to encourage the applicant to, and I think with the help' of staff, get together and discus
that future road and the traffic signal. And I would also like to see a condition that requires the applicant'
to come up with traffic demands, strategies if the city deems it necessary. This first phase I'm not as
worried about. It's the future that we need to take a look at. I also have a few other tweaks to the
conditions that I talked to Bob about earlier today. Mostly just to neaten them up a little bit. The height
variance of 2 ½ feet I think is very reasonable, considering this is not next to any other buildings. The
scope of the project. It's 57 acres and it's not on the highest point on the land. I think 2 ½ feet is very
reasonable so I support that. And I guess that's all.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli, comments.
Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few comments. I'm not the type of person who gets excited having a church on
every street comer, even though I certainly consider myself a religious person in my own way, but that
said I do think this is a fantastic proposal. I'm very i ,repressed with the quality of the proposal and the
amount of effort that went into it. The thoroughness with which it was .thought through and everything.
Very, very impressive and I don't have a problem with it. I think it's a great asset to our community to
have that come in. I do have a concern about traffic and I have a real big problem with the findings, the
way they're worded for the variance. I don't have a problem with the variance of making this 2 ½ foot
higher than the literal ordinance require. As you stated, it'snot on the 'high point and it makes sense. It's
a, I think to me it's a good thing. However, the way the findings are worded in the staff report, the first
finding, the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. I have a very hard time
seeing a hardship in not being able to have the roof quite as high as you want. So I would want to say
well there is some hardship, but there's certainly not undue hardship. But that we had in a previous issue
this evening, fortunately from a legal viewpoint, it's my understanding that we have to balance not just
hardship but we have to balance it with the aspect of reasonable. And I would say that it's definitely
reasonable to have that height under this circumstances, particularly but there is some hardship. There is
55
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
not undue hardship and I'm very clear about that. Then the second finding, the proposed development is
a unique project. We have at least one other religious campus in town. Again I think it's reasonable
aspect but it's not unique and I would want to say the proposed development is reasonable, though not
unique to this city because it isn't. We're misrepresenting when we say it is unique. And then I have a
particular issue with the continuation of that finding. This building is intended to be the focal point for
the Westwood Community Church. I don't have an issue with that but the issue that comes after that.
And as such, it's architectural design should raise one's spirit. Now first of all that's not how it's worded
in the staff report. That's how it's worded in the legal document that's to be signed so I have an issue
that we have a discrepancy. But I have even a bigger issue with the fact, I'm part of the clergy in my
church so I certainly myself so I certainly consider myself spiritual, but in this place, this statement is
way out of place. This does not belong into this document so I would like that stricken from that. And
then the third aspect that I have an issue with, the alleged difficulty or hardship is not self created
hardship but due to the confluence of ordinance requirements and the requirements of the congregation.
Well, to be blunt we might as well say it's not self-created. It's created because the ordinance is not
allowing it. None of the hardships have ever been self-created because they're all created because the
ordinance oppose it. And that doesn't work, so I would say we should say something like the alleged
difficulty or hardship is not completely self-created hardship but partially to all these big words,
confluence and so forth. And I think that should be sufficient to have a legal basis to pass this variance
because I would like to pass this variance, but with accurate statements please and not referring to raising
the spirit because we're not raising the spirit here. We're building a building. That's two separate
things. I think it's very fundamentally separation of religion and whatever the other thing is. Now about
the traffic. I asked this question when everybody leaves in one lump and that was somewhat reassuring
that they're spread out but having lived before in the neighborhood just n~xt to where the new St.
Hubert's Church was built, I wasn't there very long because I' moved to, actually near to 41 so I have
both experiences in my back, but when new St. Hubert's Church, and that I would think is a smaller
congregation that we're going to have at Westwood. When they came in it was literally impossible to get
out of my neighborhood when they let out from a service. It was real issue. I mean it was very
unpleasant. And now living at 41, I just live east of 41, if I want to take a turn, a left turn ontn 41 or off
of 41, it doesn't bother me when cars zip by me like less than a foot away at 65 miles an hour, but I know
a lot of people it does and so I would think we have to be very sensitive to that. I wonder what we can do
because, and I agree with the comment that was made that it's not fair to put this whole burden onto the
church here with this one project, and I want to be very clear about this because I feel that if the city
approves this proposal, the city approves, I assume some responsibility for the traffic situation there. I
think that we have to be very clear about that. And I don't know how best to mitigate that but ideally I
would like to see a time table for a studying and pinning down the possibility of having West 78t~ Street
extending into the church property, and eventually cross it to the Dogwood neighborhood on the other
side. And I'm a little bit hard pressed to think that that doesn't need to be done until second phase. I
think that is something that should be looked at before. Actually somewhat in parallel with implementing
the first phase because I would expect that could be a real issue with Tanadoona Drive. I think we're
asking for a difficult situation. I can see that we can hire a policeman to go wave his arms when it's
tough, but that's a band-aid. That's not a really permanent solid solution and I think we should, from the
city side, from the applicant's side, from the neighborhood side, make an effort. Define what that effort
is. Put a time line to it as to something like a year to study this situation and then determine what the
time frame is to implement something within another year or so. Something to that effect. That's my
comments thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Craig, any comments?
56
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Claybaugh: I've got a question for staff. One of the petitioners or speakers that identified that there was
a feasibility study being done on extending the utilities on 78~ over to the Dogwood.
Aanenson: That was coming the other way. It's Tanadoona coming down.
Claybaugh: It's Tanadoona coming down?
Aanenson: Correct.
Claybaugh: Right down along?
Aanenson: Right, the city's project, BC-7, BC-8.
Claybaugh: ' Parallel with 41 ?
Aanenson: Correct. It goes down Tanadoona. If the development wants to request additional service to
get down there, there's a petition and that'd be a separate petition for that. And that's to get municipal
services down Dogwood. Or an alternative site is also looked at, going along the lake for the sewer. And
that petition is in, isn't it Matt?
Saam: Yep. They're currently looking at putting.
Aanenson: And that's for utilities only.
Saam: Putting sanitary along the lake and water and'Dogwood.
Slagle: Craig if I might add, I was there today. Talked to a survey crew. The gentleman there mentioned
that the plan was to go along the lake but there was a recent effort to maybe take it up along Dogwood.
Aanenson: Other way around. Flip flopped. Other way. It was going to go along Dogwood.
Slagle: Okay, and now they're down at the lake?
Aanenson: Right. Just less degradation, correct. So we'll look at the difference.
Claybaugh: I agree with all the fellow commissioners. I think it's a fantastic project. I think that a lot
of thought, a lot of soul searching's gone into the design of it. Again that being said, with respect to the
height, I agree. I'm big on...pipes but it needs to be pointed out that, you said a 100 foot span. About
'100 foot span between a 6 and a 7:12 pitch is 4.2. You're asking'for another 2 ½ feet. The difference is
negligible, but I'm certainly swayed by the argument that it wasn't built on the highest point of the land
but I think that needs to be said. I am curious about the following buildings. Identified that this building,
the initial building, Phase I was going to be the focal point in the overall vision for future buildings to see
the worship hall competing with that or exceeding that. I'd ldnd of like you to expand on what your
thoughts are at this time on that. If you could please.
Blackowiak: Craig, actually our public hearing is closed. Kate, what do, procedure.
Aanenson: It's up to you.
57
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: Yeah, at the time, that was the kind of questions. Stand up quickly if you want to give a
couple minutes.
Claybaugh: I apologize for not asking it earlier but it's just a question...
Blackowiak: Yeah, this is just our comment time so we need to kind of.
John Justus: We'd be glad to provide studies that would show heights of future buildings and what our
thinking is and work with staff. See staff on that. And bring them as you would like so, we're prepared
to do that.
Claybaugh: Okay. But you do see this building as the mainstay in terms of.
John Justus: Yeah, I didn't ever use the terminology it was the focal point. That was staff terminology.
Claybaugh: Okay.
John Justus: So I didn't introduce that.
Claybaugh: Alright, thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, any other comments at all?
Claybaugh: Yeah, like everybody else, substantial concerns with respect to the traffic and how to
address it. Don't have any new ideas. Just substantial concern.
Blackowiak: And I pretty much agree with my fellow commissioners. I think the project is very nice.
Well thought out. I'm glad we saw the whole thing at once because it's often difficult to see the big
picture if you get a little piece at a time so it' s nice to have the entire campus laid out in front of us so we
can get a feel for what's being planned and what we can expect to see in the furore. And I think if the
future buildings resemble or are compatible with what you're showing us this evening, we'll be very
happy with what's going to be out there because I think it's a very nice building that we're seeing this
evening. The theme is traffic. I mean I think we can all agree that that's just a huge issue. However, I
guess my point or my thoughts on West 78th are that, if what is recluired is a driveway and that's all that's
required, correct me if I'm wrong Kate, we cannot ask, can we ask anything further or?
Aanenson: We've asked for the two parties to meet. What we've also suggested is the party that wants
to develop petition the city for a feasibility study for a public street.
Blackowiak: Okay. So then that's just basically, that's the other party. It really has nothing to do with
Westwood this evening is what you're saying? In terms of meeting with the neighbors.
Aanenson: ...site design, we've asked them to accommodate if that was to happen and there may be
some benefit to therm The city would maintain a street for their driveway purposes, that sort of thing so
yeah. There are mechanisms to, and we' 11 continue to try to have a dialogue between the parties.
Blackowiak: Alright. Looking through the findings and recommendations I certainly, well I guess for
the most part I agree with what Uli suggested for changes. I guess I'm.
58
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Aanenson: I apologize. They were recommended changes. They didn't get transferred to their findings.
They were changed in the original ones but they did not get changed in the second. Were proof read and
changed so if you take the findings that were in the original text of that, that's what should have been in
the findings in the second.
Blackowiak: Okay. I just wanted to make that clear. But overall I just thinlc it's a very nice looking
project and will be a wonderful addition to the city and the area. So with that I would like a motion or a
series of motions please.
Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the land use amendment
from Residential-Low Density to Public/Semi-Public based on the findings in the staff report.
Sacchet: Second.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion?
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commtn~ion recommelld8 approval of the land
use amendment from Residential-Low Density to Public/Semi-Public based on the findings in the
staff report. AH voted in favor and the motion carried tmanimonnly 7 to 0.
Blackowiak: Could I have another motion please.
Sacchet: Yes Madam Chair, I make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the rezoning of the property from Rural Residential, RR to Office and Institutional, OI based on the
findings in the staff report.
Blackowiak: Okay, is there a second?
Sidney: Second.
Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded'that the Planning Commlnsion recommends approval of the
rezoning of the property from Rural Residential, RR to Office and Innfltutional, OI based on the
findings in the staff report. AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
Blackowiak: Next motion please.
Kind: Madam Chair, I make the motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of-Site Plan
02001-10, plans prepared by Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. dated July 6, 2001 with a 2.5 foot
variance from the Highway Corridor District building height regulations and a one story variance from
the Office and Institutional District regulations based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the
following conditions 1 through 37. And do I need to specify that this is a new, new report?
Aanenson: You can say revised.
Kind: The revised report that we received before our meeting tonight, with the following changes, and
bear with me group here. I have a few. I'll start at the very be~nning. I would like to strengthen
condition number 3, the last sentence to read, regular maintenance shall be required to keep the area
59
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
aesthetically pleasing and functioning properly. Number 4. I would like to add this sentence. An
easement for access is also required for future maintenance of wetlands. Number 5, I would like to delete
because it's redundant with number 24. Number 23, I would like to delete because it's redundant with
number 4, which I just revised. Number 24, I would like to add Uli's favorite condition which adds a
sentence saying the silt fences shall be removed upon completion of Phase I. Number 27. Wait, I don't
know what number we're add. I would like to add a new condition.
Sacchet: 38.
Kind: 38, thank you. The City may require the applicant to provide alternate traffic demand strategies.
For instance, carpooling, scheduling, traffic, police, shuttle, etc. Another condition, are we up to 39.
The applicant shall consider improving pedestrian movement by adding sidewalks on the southeast
islands of the western parking lot. And adding sidewalks north of the turf area further to the east to
connect with the mowed trail. I hope that makes sense. You'll have to look at the visual example. I'll
submit that. Am I at number 40 now? Condition that staff facilitate meetings with interested parties to
negotiate an agreement regarding future West 78th Street extension and a traffic signal that would be
mutually beneficial to all parties within, help me out here.
Sacchet: One year.
Kind: One year of approval by the. City Council. That' s it. That's my motion.
Blackowiak: Okay there's a motion. Is there a second?
Sacchet: I'll second that.
Blackowiak: Any discussion?
Sacchet: Yeah. Is this the place to also mention the rewording of the findings?
Aanenson: It should be.
Sacchet: Okay. If I may add that the finding A be reworded to read, the literal enforcement of this
chapter would cause some hardship and is reasonable. And then cross out the whole rest because we're
not doing towers here. Then B. The proposed development is reasonable, though not unique to our city,
and cross out the whole rest because as the applicant has indicated, the idea of this being the focal point
is not from them.and the other part we discussed. And then finding D. The alleged difficulty or hardship
is not completely self created hardship but partially due to the confluence of all the wonderful stuff.
Kind: I'll accept those.
Blackowiak: Okay, so there's a motion and a second.
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commi~ion recommends approval of Site Plan
g2001-10, plans prepared by Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc., dated July 6, 2001, with a 2.5
foot variance from the highway corridor district building height regulations and a one story
variance from the Office and Institutional district regulations, based on the findings in the staff
report, as amended, and subject to the following conditions:
60
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
1
,
1
1
1
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
The proposed culverts under the southern road embankment shall be installed at grade.
All proposed vegetated, depressed areas within the parking lots shall be maintained on a regular
basis to remove sand and sediment. Regular maintenance shall keep the area aesthetica~y
pleasing and functioning properly.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation
areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit and storm water ponds. An easement for access is
also required for future main~~ of wethmd&
All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two week~ of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbool~
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, 1V[innesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Deparunent of Natural Resources and Army Corps of En~neers and comply with their
conditions of approval.
No burning allowed, trees removed need to be. chipped or hauled off.
Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to site grading.
All signs shall require a separate sign permit.
Include the south and north parts of the site in a minimum 50 scale drawing.
Add the benchmark to the plans that was used for the site survey.
Show the NWL and HWL of the proposed ponds on the plans.
Add all existing and proposed easements to the grading plan. Also, show the storm sewer on the
grading plan.
Define all of the different line types and symbols in the legend on the plans.
For all proposed and existing utilities, show the pipe type, slope, manhole rim and invert
elevations. Also, call out all watermain tees, bends, etc.
Add a detail sheet to the plan set, using all applicable city of Chanhassen detail plates.
Show a proposed concrete driveway apron at the entrance off of Tanadoona.
Should earthwork quantifies not balance on site and materials need to be imported or exported
from the site, the developer will need to supply the city with a detailed haul route for review and
approval by staff. In addition, if material is proposed to be exported to another location in
61
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Chanhassen, if should be noted that the properties would be required to obtain an earthwork
permit from the City.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction related activity must be sodded and/or seeded and
disc mulched within two weeks of disturbance.
Both storm water ponds must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) water
quality standards and provide rate control that meets the pre-developed conditions for a 10 year
and 100 year, 24 hour storm event. Staff has received drainage calculations for rate control of
the ponds but water quality calculations are still required.
Prior to building permit approval, storm sewer design calculations will need to be submitted.
The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event.
Show all erosion control on the grading plan. In addition, silt fence should be added along the
south property line at the edge of the grading limits. All sift fence adjacent to ponds, creeks,
wetlands, etc must be Type rrt heavy-duty fence. Add a wood fiber blanket over the steep slopes
on each side of the proposed building. A rock construction entrance must also be added at the
access drive to the site. All silt fence shall be removed upon completion of construction.
All of the utility lines within the development will be considered private and will require permits
and inspections through the City's Building Department.
Prior to any development after Phase I, a second access point to the site is required at the
intersection of Trunk Highway 41 and West 78t~ Street.
The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system
The building must be of Type I, ILF.R., II one-hour, Ill one-hour or Type IV construction.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
Detailed construction and occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete
plans are submitted.
The owner and/or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that the fire
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance #9-1.
Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact
curbs to be painted and exact location of fire lane signs. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #6-1991 and Section 904-1 1997 Minnesota
Uniform Fire Code.
62
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
32.
Required access. Per 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.1 fire apparatus access roads shall
be provided in accordance with Section 901 and 902.2 for every facility, building or portion of a
building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction when any portion of the
facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than
150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the
building or facility. See also Section 902.3 for personnel ~s to the building. Exception #1.
When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system the
provisions of Section 902.2.1 and 902.2.2 may be modified by the chief. Exception g2. When
access roads cannot be installed due to location on property, topography, waterways, non-
negotiable grades or other similar conditions, the chief is authorized to require additional fire
protection as specified in Section 1001.9. Summary: because of the topography and non-
negotiable grades and wetland alterations, in lieu of fire apparatus access roads, the fire
department will allow the site plan as submitted with the addition of the fire department
standpipes to be located in areas so designated by the fire department. These fire department
standpipes will be equipped with 2 ½ inch outlets. The fire sprinkler contractors bidding the
project should be made aware of the fact that standpipes will be required even though the fire
code does not require standpipes. The architect must contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
the number of and locations for the standpipes.
33.
When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection
is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable to and during
the time of construction. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support
the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with the surface so as to provide all
weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Section 902.2.2.2 1997 Uniform Fire Code. This
access road shall be made serviceable and maintained prior to construction. Submit plans for
road design to the City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval prior to
permit being signed by the Fire Marshal.
34.
The fire hydrant shown on page C-501 will need to be re-located a short distance. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact re-location of hydrant.
35.
The developer will be responsible for a portion of the cost of the future traffic signal at the
intersection of Trunk Highway 41 and West 78th Slreet.
36.
The City may require the applicant to provide alternate traffic demand strategies e.g.
carpooling, scheduling, traffic, police, shuttle, etc.
37.
The applicant shall consider improving pedestrian movement by adding sidewalks on the
southeast islands of the western parking lot. And adding sidewalks north of the turf area
further to the cast to connect with the mowed trail
Staff shall facilitate meetings with interested parties to negotiate an agreement regarding
future West 78a Street extension and a traffic signal that would be mutually beneficial to
all parties within one year of City Council approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimoualy 7 to 0.
Blackowiak: Okay, and one more motion please. Wetlands. Are you ready Uli?
63
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Sacchet: I put it away already.
Kind: I can do it. I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Wetland Alteration
Permit to alter and fill 32,315 square feet, which is .74 acres of wetland subject to the following
conditions, 1 through 12. And I have no changes to those.
Blackowiak: There's been a motion made, is there a second?
Feik: Second.
Blackowiak: Any discussion?
Sacchet: I just want to point out that this is based on the revised wording we got today and not on the
wording that was in the staff report because the wording in the staff report had 23 conditions, through 23
which were not part of this motion, just to be clear about that.
Aanenson: Correct, thank you.
Kind moved Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Wetland
Alteration Permit to alter and fill 32,315 square feet (0.74 acres) of wetlands subject to the
following conditions:
1. All applicable plan sheets shall be modified to incorporate the revised wetland boundary.
2. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall submit a complete wetland replacement plan
that includes a wetland monitoring plan.
3. The City shall approve a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact Occurring.
4. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for
Replacement Wetland.
5. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained
around all existing and proposed wetlands. (Those buffers proposed to be counted as PVC shall
maintain a minimum width of 16.5 feet).
6. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's
wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of
city staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign.
7. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
8. The proposed culverts under the southern road embankment shall be installed at grade.
9. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation
areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit ad storm water ponds.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
10. Type Ill sift fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as
buffer, or if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge.
11. Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDot ~ mix 25A or a similar seed mix
that is approved for wetland soil conditions.
12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Deparm~nt of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their
conditions of approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimon~ly 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONVERT AND EXPAND A
SELF CAR WASH STALL TO A TOUCH FREE CAR WASH AND A VARIANCE TO ~
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AND SETBACK,q ON PROPERTY LOCATE'q) AT 7901
GREAT PLAINS BLVD. RON BROWN~ BROWN'S CAR WASH..
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item,
Blackowiak: Okay, commissioners to you have any questions of staff?. Craig, any questions at all?
Claybaugh: I don't have any questions right now.
Sacchet: Yes, I do have questions. First of all, there is talk about the two parcels have been previously
put into one zoning lot, but then in another place it talks about, there's a condition that they have to be
combined into one lot. Can you elaborate on that?
Generous: The building official put that in because he's concerned about requirements for setbacks from
property lines. This has been done previously. We just need to provide the back-up materials.
Sacchet: It needs to be established clearer?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: But it's in place?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. That answers that. Then next, we're talking about the impact on this ~ cost by
the widening of, was it.
Generous: Great Plains.
Sacchet: Great Plains Boulevard, and that impacted the lot size aspect. Before that it was not.
65
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Generous: It was in excess of 20,000.
Sacehet: It was in excess of the minimum lot size. Now my question is, was it also okay with the
impervious surface? The impervious surface percentage, was that okay before that impact happened by
the road?
Generous: Under the original site plan which was approved as part of a central business district zoning
yes. But by rezoning it we change the standards so that they're 6596 coverage.
Sacchet: Okay. And then, yeah and that kind of leads to my next question in that where these findings
we have this recurring theme, due to city action, due to city action, to overcome previous city action and
due to city action. It's a very convincing item here. It's basically that this has been caused by city
period. Is that...
Generous: ...acquisition of right-of-way, yes.
Sacchet: Okay, that's my questions.
Blackowiak: Thank you, questions?
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. The acquisitions you framed it in the staff report, on page 2 that 14 feet of
right-of-way was taken from the property. I'm assuming that the applicant was compensated for it.
Generous: Sure.
Kind: So, I mean they got paid for that land that was taken.
Generous: So did we take it's entire value by buying 14 feet? We reduced it below 20,000 square foot
through that acquisition. We need to rectify that if you will.
Kind: Okay. That's my only question.
Blackowiak: Okay, any questions?
Slagle: I've got to understand that again Bob. So we took some land from this applicant, compensated
him somehow, and your last comment I didn't understand.
Generous: Well by taking the land we brought him below the minimum lot size requirement. And so to.
Aanenson: Did we compensate him for that portion of it I guess is what we're saying.
Generous: Yeah, this is enough that he doesn't have, he can't use the property.
Aanenson: Right, making it non-conforming.
Slagle: Okay, I just wanted to understand.
Blackowiak: Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a
presentation? Name and address please.
66
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Ron Bwwn: Ron Brown, 8102 Dakota Lame. I don't know if you've looked at this whole packet here. I
would assume that you did. But, well this is upside down. What we're really heading onto here is only 3
feet into the grass here. This out here is pretty much all parking lot now so as far as taking green space
away...it's not taking away that much at all. We're going to match this building with all the matei4.als on
this building. Same metal roofing, same siding. Same garage door, same everything. It's kind of
something here. The siding matches the other building right next door so does the metal roof. These
garage doors are used on everything...so I think it will turn out okay.
Blackowialc Okay. Is there questions of the applicant?
Slagle: Are you okay with the siguage concerns?
Ron Brown: Yeah. Yep, yep. That was something that I guess has been going on'for quite a while from
what my father told me. We no issues with that at all.
Blackowiak: Questions for the applicant?
Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few questions. You proposed widening the driveway to West 79m and staff,
they're suggesting it stays the same.
Ron Brown: Yeah. I was out there and walked the area and put little buckets out and dro~e in there and
it will be fight you know but I think they'll be okay.
-.
Sacchet: It's doable, okay.
Ron Brown: It's doable.
Sacchet: It's not a major issue?
Ron Brown: No, I don't feel it's a major issue at all.
Sacchet: Adding all these extra trees, do you have an issue with that? It took me a while to figure out
where they all go but then they're quite understandable.
Ron Brown: Yeah, it did me too. I guess they were talking about putting trees in this area down here.
This is open. It wouldn't create any problems at all. Nor would this. As far as in here, what they had
talked about I guess we would just have to be careful that we don't put something in there that's going to
grow to be 15 feet wide before it gets to be 20 feet tall so it doesn't hang over the driveways or the road.'
Slagle: Or block views.
Ron Brown: Well, block views is another issue but there are both entnmces here so I mean you're not
going to block, a car coming in here has to come in here, the exit way over here so I don't think the views
would be too much of an issue. I guess you've just got to be real careful.
Sacchet: So it's doable.
Ron Brown: It's doable.
67
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Sacchet: Okay. And then I wasn't sure whether I fully understood this. There was some sequencing
with the signs like some signs have to come down at some point and some signs at a later point. You're
all fine with that?
Ron Brown: I know exactly what they're talking about.
Sacchet: You know what they're talking about? Well are you fine, I want to know whether you're fine
with it?
Ron Brown: Yeah, I'm okay with that. It seems that the building we built, the touch free car wash we
have now, the signs do not comply so they want us to get them to comply. And there's also one sign on
the building that we're going to remodel right out on the street here, there's a wall mounted sign that in
1984 when that was built I'm sure was in compliance, but now that we're rebuilding the building they
want us to put a new one up that complies with everything. I'm fine.
Sacchet: And then my final question, the last condition talks about maintaining a green area south of the
storage door on the building expansion with the exception of an area immediately in front of the door.
You're alright with that one?
Ron Brown: Yeah, that' s going to be a little tough. You know if we could, I guess what I don' t
understand is, if you have a 3 foot apron out there Bob, is that what they're talking about that they want
us to just stay with is the 3 foot apron?
Generous: Yes.
Ron Brown: Rather than have this out here? The only thing we do is we bring a forklift in to bring salt
in. If that's a real big issue I'll get a couple pieces of plywood laid down...I don't want to turn that into
an issue, no. It's something I can live with.
Sacchet: Okay, that's my questions.
Blackowiak: Any other questions of the applicant?
Slagle: I've got just two additional Alison.
Blackowiak: Sure, go ahead.
Slagle: More to Bob as well but as I sit and look at this rendition, this drawing here, and then Bob's idea
of saving some additional green space by making that curve. I actually go there quite frequently. Do you
take the new 5 dollar bills yet?
Ron Brown: That wasn't our fault. That was the government.
Slagle: But I'm raising the question of the curb because in, I usually go to the green side of things but I
know like in our Suburban, you know it's hard to sort of judge where you are when you're coming up to
the bank ATM's or what not, and I'm just wondering is it smarter just to have it as a straight line so
people can pull in and just so, you know what I mean? I mean I'm just throwing this out to the group and
68
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
also the applicant. Because I'm starting to think maybe just a quick, if we don't need that. I don't know.
I mean your view on it.
Ron Brown: On our part, seeing that you do have a Suburban, where the box is, oh where the heck are we
looking here? Where the box is that you would put your new 5 dollar bill in, there's going to be a big
steel pipe in front of it.
Slagle: In a round about way I'm also suggesting Heather drives the Suburban.
Ron Brown: As far as I'm concerned, I would rather cut the curb straight- Of course I think it would
look better, it'd be easier to get in. If that's going to be an issue from stopping the project.
Blackowiak: Okay? Alrighty. Thank you.
Ron Brown: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, this item is open for a public hearing. So if anybody would like to speak on this, no?
Okay. Had to give you your chance. You're here late. Alright, seeing no one ehe, close the public
hearing. Commissioners, your comments please.
Kind: I think improving the looks of that older building will be a nice addition. I think that's an
important street in our town being close proximity to the Dinner Theater. A lot of new people see our
town for the first time. And this opportunity to bring signs in compliance I think is kind of an added
bonus. And I think it looks good. I think it's a good project.
Blackowiak: Uli, any coinments?
Sacchet: Yeah, I have two questions from staff. First, where in the conditions does it refer to that bubble
in the driveway need to stay? I don't see it. And I don't know if it's because it's 11:15 or what-
Ron Brown: Number 11.
Sacchet: Number 11 ? Oh okay. Okay, it's that and then also, so and then, it's together with the one
about that green space in front of the door. I would be comfortable getting rid of that number 11 to be
honest- I don't think we gain much by doing that and I think it's a safety issue. I tried to, I would want
the plantings. I would want the tree plantings a required, but I think on that bubble there is more of a
safety hazard than an enhancement of green space personally. And the green in front of the, whatever
door we call it, storage door, it's kind of, I think it's kind of funny. I mean if you need to go in there with
a forklift, it's in the middle of town. It's a utility place and I think the trees will give it some of the
character of green space that we try to add and I don't think the little extra green space is going to make a
difference in that sense. And also in the context that the impe, rvious surface issue was originally also
alright, according to what you answered my question earlier similar to this lot size, I think it would be
fair to be little bit flexible here. That's my comment-
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any comments?
Chyhaugh: I agree with Uli's comments with respect to the utility function standpoint. And I think it
will turn out okay.
69
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay. Yeah, and I guess I don't have anything new to add. Straighter seems better. I mean
anybody that drives a large car can attest to that. I certainly can, but I would be, you know, I guess I
could be persuaded either way. So I guess I don't have a strong feeling. It's getting late so, I need a
motion please.
Sacchet: Alright, I make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
g2001-9 shown on the plans prepared by Peter Curtis Architect, dated July 6, 2001 with an 8.8 percent
variance to the lot coverage and a 1,309 square foot variance to the lot area based on the findings of fact
and subject to the following conditions 1 through 10. And please note not 11.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second?
Kind: I'll second that with one question. Does that cover your getting rid of the plantings in front of the
service door?
Sacchet: Yes, with those pulled.
Kind: That was in 11 too? Got it.
Sacchet: The number of plantings, is the number of plantings in 11 ?
Generous: No.
Sacchet: That's a separate one so we're covered, yes. I think we're covered.
Blaekowiak: Okay, moved and seconded. Any more discussion?
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
g2001-9 shown on the plans prepared by Peter Curtis Architect, dated July 6, 200I with an 8.8
percent variance to the lot coverage and a 1,309 square foot variance to the lot area based on the
findings of fact and subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. Add a benchmark to the plans which was used for the site survey.
3. Add a legend to the site plan'.
4. Show all proposed and existing contour lines.
m
The proposed addition cannot be built across the property line therefore Tract B and Parcel A
must be combined into one lot.
6. Detailed retail occupancy requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted.
1
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
7O
Planning Commission Meeting- August 7, 2001
1
The developer shall plant eight trees on site in the following locations: two ornamental trees at
the north end of the grass area between the buildings, one overstory deciduous tree in the
peninsula to the east, one ornamental tree in the northeast comer of the property, three overstory
deciduous trees in the southeast comer of the property.
9. The developer shall submit a landscape plan to the city prior to the building permit.
10.
Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the expansion, the si~ on the touch free
buildings shall be replaced. Ail non-conforming signs on the serf service car wash building shall
be removed. New signs on the serf-serve car wash building will be installed after the remodeling.
A separate sign permit is required for each sign.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
Blackowiak: Okay and again, item number 6, review design standards will be at the Planning
Commission work session on, tell me the du_t_¢ again please Kate?
Aanenson: The 21".
Blackowiak: August 21't. So if everyone would please keep your packets.
Feik: What's the date again?
Blackowiak: August 21".
Sacchet: That's when we meet at 5:00?.
Blackowiak: Are we going to do it at 5:00 o'clock that evening?
Aanenson: Yeah, we're starting the meeting at 5:00.
Slagle: When you say keep your packets meaning?
Blackowiak: Number 6 and the supplemental design standards. If you want to just keep those two.
Because I'm guessing nothing's going to change between now and then. So okay Kate, back to new
business.
NEW BUSI~.
Aanenson: I'm just going to tell you what else is on. We'll put the design standards on and then there's
two other code amendments on that night in the work session.
Blackowiak: Do you have an itinerary or what are we doing for the work session? Are we going out to
look at things or?
Aanenson: We're going to say that for our regular one in October. I thought it would be helpful to put
together some things that I think would help to talk about. Level of discretion, the review procedure,
reasonableness. Talk about some of the issues with the Bluff Creek Overlay District. we did the
71
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
mapping with 1987 aerial photography and we've overlapped some things so we're working on that right
now so I'm going to show you where we're at with that. Again a little refresher on Robert's Rules of
Order. Meeting formats and code interpretation things. So if you have any other suggestions, kind of
more nuts and bolts stuff. We'll go out in the fall on a regular one and tour some projects. Also going to
put together a slide show for you too on that meeting on the 21't. Just some things that are happening this
summer since we can't get out to show you.
Blackowiak: Any other old business? '
Aanenson: I don't think so.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Uli Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings
dated June 19, 2001 and July 17, 2001 as presented.
ONGOING ITEMS.
Aanenson: Did you have something you want to add? That's where it should go. It doesn't go.
Kind: Is that where it should go, or under open discussion?
Aanenson: I need to have Vicki take, open discussion by our by-laws is when we've noticed something
that we're kind of going to a work session for. If we put something on that we're going to discuss in an
informal setting, that's open discussion. Ongoing items is.
Kind: Is where I should bring up ideas for, to add to the list? I appreciate this being in my packet. I
want to give positive feedback for that. And you're like me I noticed, you put things that are already
done on a list. Couple things that came up tonight that I think it would be great if staff could look into
them and report back. One is review building height restrictions for non-residential districts. Just to kind
of bring them in snyc. We have an issue tonight where one district defines story as a limiter but not
height and I'm wondering if we could just go with height alone.
Aanenson: Do you remember we talked about the design standards. You remember we had the
discussion when we said in the bluff, the limiting factor on that was the Highway 5 corridor study.
Remember when we talked about the design standards, we said do we want to go with the limitations of
the Highway 5 or do we want to break away from that and go with the underlying district?
Kind: Right.
Aanenson: I'm not sure we reconciled that. There's a note to that in the design standards but that's what
we should talk about.
Kind: Yeah, so I just want to highlight that. And then the other ordinance that came up tonight that I'd
like us to take a look at is this caliper concept for being an okay way to meet our buffer ordinance.
Whether we think that's a good idea or not to change our ordinance to say, maybe to meet a certain
amount of caliper inches rather than a certain amount of trees. Because I like the solution. We get more
trees and I think it' s so tree that the smaller the tree, the better the chances of survival are. And in a few
years they end up being the same size anyway.
72
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Aanenson: I guess yeah, and a point to that was being, based on the scale of that project, by just putting
the requirement, they're way exceeding that we felt more was better in that circumstance. Right.
Kind: Right. And maybe that's not appropriate. I'd be interested in staff taking a look at that. Whether
we want to put that caveat in our ordinance or not.
Feik: I had one real quick.
Blackowiak: Go right aheaut.
Feik: The applicant for the deck that came in thi.~ evening, when was that original application put in, do
you have any idea?
Aanenson: They were contacted. It was the meeting that we had backed up because we went til 11:30
the last time and they were contacted. Told about the position that we were taking because 2 other
people, 3 other people from that same neighborhood came in.
Feik: What I'm getting at is, Fm wondering since it seems as if that issue was a little hijacked as it
relates to those individuals, whether or not a refund could be given on their application fee. I don't think.
that we should be charging them for that.
Aauenson: I can see if it was because the homeowner association put one in too so I can Check on that,
sur~.
Kind: Good idea.
Blackowiak: Any other comments?
Sacchet: Yeah, I have two real quick ones. One thing I like to clarify that I'm a little confused'about in
the context of the Puke development, it's my recollection that when we talked about wetland mitigation
for them that I seem to recall that they would have to do that wetland mitigation work before they do
construction.
Aanenson: That's correct. Pulte has not started. We had a pre-con meeting last week. We were again
informed that they have to do that fu'st or sequentially. And people that are working out there is MnDot
over our project. Pulte has not started yet.
Sacchet: All that grading is.
Kind: That's a lot of dirt. Wow.
Sacchet: Oh my god. That I'm glad is still being recorded. The other thing, this is startling. Since we're
talking about the fen setback ordinance as being worked, I don't know whether you guys get the Friends
of Minnesota Valley thing. They're talking about fen in there so I brought my copy in case you would
want that so I'll pass that onto you.
Aanenson: And did you get your planning magazine this month7 Read that in relation to our design
review. That might give you some more time. There's some great, it ties back into the city comforts
which I've gone through before. What makes good design.
73
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Kind: I've got two. Which one are you?
Aanenson: The Planning Commission Journal.
Kind: The one that's more magazine like? Okay...
Blackowiak: Okay, anybody else? We're adjourned.
Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:25 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
74
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR
JULY 24, 2001
Clmirwom~n Lash called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBER~ PRF_~ENT: Jan Lash, Frank Spizale, Rod Prankg, Tom Kelly and Mike Howe
MEMBERS AB/~'NT: Dave Moes and/ay Karlovich
~TAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Hoffman: I have probably what I would call an adjustment. I don't know if you've noticed the note on
the CIP to the residents was not included in the first Villager that I sent it out for. It was included just
this past Thursday. I received one e-mail which is in your packet on your desk. It included all of your
phone numbers I believe, if somebody calls today, so we can discuss it but then probably table it and
we'll be meeting twice in August. Is it August? Yes, we're going to go to the Waconia facility the
second week so we can talk about the CIP that evening and finalize it or at ow regular meeting in August..
I think we should discuss it and talk about some of the issues that are raised this evening and then table it
until a future agenda.
Lash: Sounds good. Anyone else?
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTE~: Howe moved, Franks seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and
Recreation Commission dated June 26, 2001 as .presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
2002 PARK AND TRAIL ACQUISITION AND DEVEI.OPM~NT CrAP~AL IMPRO~
PROGRAM (CIP).
Hoffman: Thank you Chair Lash, members of the comminsion. The last time we talked about this I
believe was in April or May. You have all the sheets in front of you. I think what is most telling is that
if you add up all the items which are tentatively identified under the 5 year capital i ,ml'~avernent program;
you have a million and a half dollars. Ourenfly our fund balance is a million 7. Obviously over those 5
years additional million dollars or so would be generated so you could bump that up. But I would
characterize the existing CIP is not overly aggressive. In fact there are some ~ items that are simply
not included so the reason I think we need to spend a good deal of time talking about these CIP programs
is because it makes, you put the money to the best use and I want to mak~ sure that we thought these
things through before we make reconumad~ons to the City Council. That is the reason that I raise these
issues of trail connections. You read this evening's agenda. Before I go to the City Council and discuss
with them feasibility studies which would give us an initial estirr~te of the cost of these connections, I
want to make sure that the commission is on board and supportive of those connections.-Specifically
they are the two underpasses at Highway 5. People are aJready taking advantage of the new frontage
road trail. In fact Oreg..., one of our neighbors said for the first time he went to Lake Ann west on the
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
frontage road trail to Ga]pM. North on Galpin and then all the way back so they're going to start using
those trails, but to connect the south side we have to make sure that we continue those trail connections at
the creek fight there at Iatke Ann Park. So if you go out there today and look at the underpasses, there's
a large underpass...culvert for the frontage road and then there's a smaller underpass which is just the
trail itself, not the water. The water goes under a culvert under Highway 5, and then the trail will dump
out. Terminate on the south side of Highway 5 right at the state highway right-of-way. They'll say that's
it city. It's your's from here. And if you can visualize where that is, there's a ste~ ravine in there.
Wooden ravine. It heads down adjacent to Prince's property with his studio there on the one side. And
then it comes out by the location called Park Road, or Park Court which is that cul-de-sac which was
never developed because of poor soils and the city's HRA actually owns that property. So we are
responsible for building that trail from the sidewalk on, all of you have driven Park Drive. You know the
industrial street that goes from Audubon and then east to Powers. We need to connect those people down
to that concrete sidewalk which is on the south side of Park Road. Expensive project and should be taken
care of next year so people can start making those connections. We're going to have millions and
millions of dollars worth of improvements on the north side of Highway 5 that they're going to want to
get to. The next one is a much simpler connection. It's right there at the school. At Bluff Creek
Elementary/Chan Rec Center and the simpler connection, we already have that trail sitting on Bluff
Creek Park and the route is not as steep. It's not as heavily wooded and so that one will be much easier.
And then the final connection, which people call me about on an intermittent basis is, they start arriving
south from Southern Chanhassen and they stop at Bandimere and they go whoa. Wait a minute. I want
to get to town and the trail between Chanhassen Hills and Bandimere is not complete. It's really one of
the, 101 North and 101 South, those are the thru trail connectors' which we shoUld be taking a look at
finishing. So those are 3 that I'd like to hear from the commission on and if you took a look at all of
those projects and included them in a 2002 CIP, you're up over half a million dollars so that would be
more aggressive than most years when we dedicate about a quarter million dollars to the CIP so, we're
talking about some other things already in the planning stages in your packet and then we have these
items to add as well. The 101 North trail at $800,000 still remains in the CIP this year and then so I don't
see that the trail will be completed or the road project even started this year or next year but, so there's
those items to talk about and then traditionally we post that press release and I think you have a copy of it
in here. For the public to give a call and the one individual sent an e;mail and asked for your
consideration on a Chanhassen dog park and I think that' s always very valuable to solicit the input of the
residents to hear what they have to say as well. So with that Jan I'll let you folks talk about these things
and give me some direction on what you would like me to do with the recommendations to the City
Council.
Lash: Okay. I tend to think it's easiest if we just go through starting with the front one. Anybody...
Okay, so if we start with Bandimere Community Park. I had one question Todd and that's on play
equipment Phase I. Is that being done?
Hoffman: Being done right now.
Lash: Okay, so we could put a check by it?
Hoffrnan: Yep, they're out there working on it.
Lash: And my other question is, and I'm probably just not remembering things but how come it was cut
from $60,000 to $30,0007
Hoffman: Boy oh boy. I don't recall. I know that's what we spent was the 30.
Park and Rex: Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Lash: Does anybody else remember? Do you remember ~? Rod?
Franks: No.
Lash: Did we get donations, weren't we trying to get donations from like hockey and soccer and all
those kinds of people?
Hoffman: Yeah, but that was to meet the fi01 think.
Lash: So maybe the 30 is just our's, but you think totally we only spent 30?
Hoff-man: That's all we spent. That's all we had in the budget.
Lash: So did we not get any donations?
Hoffman: No. Remember we sent the letters out.
Lash: Okay. So did we have to skimp then? I mean did we not do all the phases?
Hoffman: No, we bought a $54,000 playground that was displayed at the grounds in, Turf and Ground
Show in Atlanta, Georgia and for $30,000 we bought it and they shipped it up.
Lash: And then did we have a Phase Il slated on the plan?
Hoffman: Not in that plan, no.
Lash: This would be it?
Hoffman: This is it. Independent, 6 to 12, 5 to 12 and so if we go with another one we'll have to do the
younger age group. This one is on concrete with a concrete curb with the pour in place pad. 3 story
enclosed. You know with the enclosures do you'll see it, it will be going up out there over the next
couple of weeks. It will be a nice playground.
Franks: Are you suggesting that Phase II play equipment is not necessary?
Hoffman: It would be a nice addition but it will be independent of this. It's not like we're adding onto
the space. It would be independent so you could pick a ship. Some of that companion stuff which is
popular nowadays so. :
Lash: So is it something we should of penciling in :5 years down the road or?
Hoffman: Little bit less than that.
Franks: It's already in.
Howe: 2004. $40,000.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Lash: Oh! Okay, didn't see it. I just didn't see it. And then how are you feeling on the $25,000? Do
you think that's adequate for this silo restoration'/
Hoffman: I hope so. With the pace of restoration projects, you never know.
Spizale: What is the silo?
Lash: The original silo that was on the site. We didn't take it down.
Franks: It's still up there. Kind of right up on the comer.
Kelly: What would they restore them for?
Lash: Just kind of as a landmark. Remember that the farm was there. If you think the one that's on 41
and Hundtmark, we don't want to copy that but something along those lines.
Hoffman: It's probably worth talking about the hard court play area. $15,000 would only buy you a half
court basketball and the area which was slated for that was, if you parked up by the baseball fields and
then you walk all the way between the two fields towards the lake, it's behind the field so it would be
down that first base line so it's not very convenient. In the original plan they had tennis courts planned
back there and hard surface play area, but it was not in the original plan. It kind of took a back seat.
Well it definitely took a back seat to the other field sports out there so I don't know if it's something that
we.
Lash: So we' 11 never be able to put tennis in there?
Hoffman: We could but I don't think it would be in a great location. It's going to be out in the, behind
the outfields of the ballparks. So to make that investment and then convenient to parking and those type
of things.
Lash: How about ice?
Hoffman: We have to put it in the, either you can put it in the outfield, and so we could easily put an ice
rink there. Out in one of the outfields of the, or excuse me, the infields.
Lash: I mean that's something we could think about as far as location. I think we always intended when
we came up with our ice spots, that there would be one there. With all those houses...
Kelly: Are lights ever slated for the softball fields? Baseball fields or not?
Hoffman: They were talked about and they were included and the fact that the city would light those
fields was included in all of the housing transactions in the neighboring, the Lundgren developments and
they were aware that lights would be coming in there.
Lash: Lights are very expensive. Very. But if this is our time to think of all these things, then.
Franks: You know when I think about that area, considering the location of the hard court play area and
that Springfield development itself and it's neighborhood park has it's own half court basketball and then
you take Kiowa Trail. That little also association park, they also have a half court.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Lash: Oh they do?
Franks: And you know it's kind of that circle of houses. They're built around the circle and the interior
of the circle.
Hoffman: Okay yep, you're fight.
Franks: And so I don't even know really, as far as like neighborhood play, how necessary it would be to
have that as part of the park. What I've been watching is people are going to Bandimere for the spo~
activity. It's to go there and watch the soccer and I think we really take care of the younger kids being
able to recreate while the older kids or parents are with the play equipment.
Hoffman: Well it'd probably be more appropriate to put a haft court down below the hill in the
neighborhood park.
Franks: Bandimere Heights Park? That's what I would suggest if we're going to put it in, put it in
below.
Lash: Because there's nothing down there anymore is there?
Hoffrnan: Playground equipment. ..
.'.
Lash: Oh, there still is...
Hoffman: But then the soccer field doesn't need to be used anymore down there because it will be
vacated to go up above.
Lash: So is that something you'd like to.
Franks: I'd like to see the hard court play area come out of Bandimere Community Park_
Howe: I would agree.
Kelly: Would we be able to upgrade the play. Take that $50,000 and upgrade the play equipment are do
we just transfer. Do you just transfer that money to Bandimere Heights?
Franks: Well that would be something to consider. I think if we're looking at for a younger children's
phase II play equipment, $40,000 probably would be pretty...
Lash: But the $15,000, that'd be enough wouldn't it to do a basketball?
Franks: Because there's nothing slated for Bandimere... I'd keep it in 4.
Hoffman: See if people warm up to it.
Lash: Okay. Anybody have anything else for Bandimere? Okay, in the vending machine shelter is
scrapped. Has there been requests from people for concessions there?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Hoffman: Yes.
Lash: Or picnic shelter?
Hoffrnan: Yes.
Lash: That too?
Hoffman: Covers for the dugouts.
Freaks: You know there isn't just anyway to have one of those rolled park shelter vending machine
things, you know that's got the metal roll down door and you shut off the vending machines you know.
Hoffman: We had that included, well the rolling thing?
Howe: The roll down doors.
Franks: With the roll down doors it covers up like during the winter or whenever it is that secures the
place.
Hoffrnan: Well that's what this is. There's one at, has anyone seen the one at Minnewashta Regional
Park? The beach? That's exactly what this is taken from.
Franks: Okay. $90,000 for one of those?
Hoffman: Unbelievable. You should see it? You can't believe it. There it is. Just a little block
building.
Lash: What were we paying for those little shelters that we put in neighborhood parks7 They were
about, how much were they, $25',000?
Hoffman: Yeah, 20 to 35, yeah. Depending on the size. There was two different sizes. Three different
sizes.
Lash: Well even if we just put one of those in. Some picnic tables. It gives you a little shade and sit up
there and eat before a game or after the game or something.
Hoffman: I can guarantee if you were out there this wee.kend, shade was a precious, precious
commodity.
Franks: The shelter at like Power Hill Park. How much for that one?
Hoffman: That one was the smallest one. About $18,000 1 recall and the largest is done at Meadow
Green. That was just over 30,000.
Kelly: Todd, do the vending machines generate a lot of revenue?
Hoffman: We do not operate vending machines in our system. They can generate revenue, but they're
never going to pay back the $90,000 debt. They're simply a convenience to people. The Boy Scouts
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - ~uly 24, 2001
operated concessions this weekend at Bluff Creek and were very pleased with their success out there, and
I think that's a phase people are looking for. When they have it, they put on concessions when they're
hosting tournaments. That's another way of generating revenue for their club during these tournaments
so they're looking to the community to provide an oppommity for them so it's not as if we're going to
look to this as a revenue generating endeavor. It's sirra, ly another amenity to the park when visitors come
from out of town they want, it's nice to have that availability because otherwise sometimes there's not
very much time between those tournament games and they can't get to town so they want the concessions
there and so it's either a building or you can actually have the club serving.
Lash: That requires power and.
Hoffman: Yeah, oh yeah.
Lash: It gets spendy.
Hoffman: The shelter at Bluff Creek was $240,000. Warming house, bathrooms, shelter and then
concession area.
Lash: Well I thought we should just completely eliminate any hope of some kind of shelter there. I mean
it's a large community park. It services a lot of people.
Hoffman: A park shelter is probably the most appropriate.. There's a planned area for that right adjacent
to the memorial and thc playground. With bathrooms and an area where we can serve, they can do it all
in one. So you know you've got bathrooms, you have a window where you can serve concessions and'a
shelter and that's a couple hundred thousand dollars.
Franks: Is that what you're saying is most appropriate?
Hoffman: I would think so. I mean if you want to satisfy all those needs. If you don't want indoor
bathrooms and all you want is just a covered shelter for people to get out, then I would build a large
shelter there so it would be $75,000 for one of these large covered shelters With a concrete area and
strictly go at it that way. Whatever you do out there, it has to be on a community park scale and so the
Power Hill or the Meadow Green is not going to cut it at Bandimere. We'd just simply be throwing
money away.
Lash: I'd be more inclined I think to do the shelter, skip the bathrooms. Go with the, keep the Biffs.
Have a nice big shelter and they can still be able to do concessions.
Hoffman: Well they'd just have to throw a few tables up underneath it and square off a comer. You can
do that for a weekend tournament. You don't have to have the availabih'ty of offter things but to have a
focal point where you can get out of the sun and have a concessions there at the shelter.
Franks: It's what they did at Eden Prairie, the Lake Riley Park. There they have the beach and the boat
landing and now the new sports fields and the volleyball courts and tennis courts. It's pretty high
volume... That's an open shelter.
Hoffman: Yeah, and it's pretty elaborate. That's more than $75,000.
Franks: Yeah.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Lash: Well what do you think would be, you know if we were to try and place something like that in for
maybe 2005 ?
Hoffman: Yeah, I'll put, I'll just look the number up for you. I'll bring some photos down to the
commission.
Lash: Okay. Anything else? Okay, under Bandimere Heights then we said we'd put in the basketball, if
there's interest in that in 2004. Anything else for that? Okay, Bluff Creek Preserve. Anybody have
anything for that one? Okay. Carver Beach Park. Anybody have anything for that?
Hoffman: For Jack and Tom, as we go through, we'll just make sure you know where these all are at.
Carver Beach Park and Carver Beach Playground. The park is the one down on the lake, and so it's the
little beaches, and then the playground is the one up on top in the Carver Beach neighborhood. That little
square and it's got a playground and a trail loop and a ballfield.
Howe: Is the trail that we're talking about, that's already been budgeted for? The meeting that's going
to be next week? The trail from that neighborhood to the beach.
Hoffman: That one is not budgeted in here and it's unbudgeted in your 2001 CIP so if the council goes
ahead and approves it, they'll be taking that money out of 410 as, you know it's been in and out of the
CIP because it's been proposed for 12 years and so they would take that money;
Howe: How much was that about7
Hoffman: About $50,000 with the stairway. And that meeting is next Monday night.
Howe: At the spot.
Hoffman: At the cul-de-sac. At 7:00 you're welcome to come out. Did you receive a mailing?
Lash: Yes. It also was in our packet. Okay, anything under Chan Estates Park. That's the little one over
by McDonald' s. Okay, how about your's Rod? Chanhassen Hills, anything that needs to get done'/ The
Rec Center. We' ve got the monument sign and the illuminated wall sign.
Hoffman: Yep, done.
Lash: They're both done?
Hoffman: It's got to be hooked up to the electricity, the Wall sign.
Lash: Anything else that you can think of for the rec center?
Hoffman: New trees but they're going to go in this fall as part of the maintenance budget.
Lash: And under City Center, the hockey boards. That got scratched because we're not going to have
hockey there?
Hoffman: Yeah, the skate park area.
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Franks: Skate park.
Hoffman: The second set of hockey boards was.
Lash: Oh, it's the second set. Okay. And then the senior garden got scratched out but that needs to go
back in.
Franks: What price tag on that plan that we looked at today, what was the price tag for that?
Hoffman: Over $100,000 but I think we Should get that closer to something like 75. We just need to
down, they have raised beds in there which you don't necessarily have to have.
Howe: That's up in the comer of the park.
Hoffman: Yeah, if you want to keep $100,000 in there, it would be easier to complete. The shelter
would be nicer. It doesn't take long to spend that kind of money in that kind of project.
Lash: Well the shelter has to stay in. We mad?. that as sort of a priority. That needs to get done.
Hoffman: Yep.
Howe: So that will be like the one at Bluff Creek, that similar amenities?
Hoffman: Yes. If that stays in and then all the other trails stay in, you're going to be spending $750,000
in 2002. Making that recommendation so that's the one. This is the only big ticket item in 2002 so it's
the one that you need to, when you start looking at priorities, those trail connections you know almc~st
have to have it and 101 doesn't have to happen down south. This doesn't have to happen and those two
trail connections are somewhere over $300,000 for the two of those and then you can go from there in
making a recommendation.
Lash: I don't have a problem with...
Hoffman: With the exception of that at City Center, there's rea~lly nothing else slated on the master plan.
The senior garden and the warming shelter.
Lash: Could we move, if we can...that warming house off a year, I'd like to try and see if we can still
keep the garden in 2004 if possible.
Hoffman: Okay. At$100,O00?
Lash: ...in my mind with the south to Bandimere trail to Chart I-Fills should be a priority too and I'd like
to see that done. Actually I would see that done before anything else because I think it's...if we have to
choose. You want this trail?
Franks: Well I'm thinking. It sounds really kind of silly but the trails have to be done. You know as I
watch the city develop out and develop out at a faster pace now, it's not like just a litlle pockets of
neighborhoods here and there and so the demand and pressure to make these trail connections earlier than
it was before when heck, you just kind of waited until things filled in because there were farm fields
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
mixed in the neighborhoods. Not the way it is now. And also the use demand on City Center Park is also
increasing and so it might just be that this is a timing issue where we have to spend it now to get it in.
We're just going to be spending more later with greater pressure to get it done and it's like maybe these
are just amenities you can start putting in now to get them in. I mean the park shelter at City Center Park
is going to go in. I mean it's got to go in to complete that park. I mean it's going together.
Howe: Could we realize any economies of scale when the library's built if we built, no? Okay.
Franks: If we have a million 7 now and then over the next 5 years collect what, close to another million
and we're talking about in 2002 spending 750 in projects that are not, they're not like.
Lash: Maintenance replacement.
Franks: Yeah but it's, well. I can't, they're not just completely discretionary type projects. They're
projects that have to happen and maybe it's just as expeditious to really line them up and get them on line
now. Just do' it, and then start banking our money again and that was always our philosophy. Was to be
able to bank our money and move when we needed to move and you know start things happening when it
was time for them to happen, and I really think that it is time for these things to happen. We already put
out the park shelter already. We've already done that, and the trail connectors have to happen and it's
time for the park shelter to happen and we've already put it off.
Lash: Well if we can' do it, I don't have a problem doing it. I'm afraid we're going to be totally.
Franks: Well then that's what will happen.
Spizale: Well I think that'd be a great recommendation from us. You know it's a shame because I think
the people an use these trail systems. They can get to the other parks and it's like from-my neighborhood
on the south side, to be able to safely, you know the kids bike underneath 5. Now that 5's going to be
done, it'd be so nice to put in stuff that they could use the other side of the road without us worrying
about them getting hit by a car getting over there and I think those trail systems being done with 5 being
done would be fantastic. And I agree. I think now's the time to do it.
Lash: Okay, anything else for City Center?
Howe: What do we have for the senior garden, $100,000 in '04?
Hoffman: 100 1 think would be more appropriate.
Lash: Well what all really do we have to do? I mean we have to do the grading, right?
Hoffman: Grading. The shelter. The aggregate paths are very expensive. The raised beds and so
between the aggregate paths, which are cobblestone and then gravel on the outskirts, and the cobblestone
paths. The shelter and the raised beds.
Franks: You know, have they even considered though just a Class V limestone, crushed limestone?
Hoffman: A majority of them are that. It's just the main ones.
10
Park and Rec Commission M~ting - July 24, 2001
Lash: You know that would be a project that I would see to do the Class V but then if we were going to
have stones, some sort of stones, one of those donation things with a name too. I would think that the
seniors would really.
Hoffman: We can take care of that.
Lash: I think that would really catch on. Is if they bought a stone and then somebody-dies and they go
over them, you know what I mean? I can see where that could be a nice addition to that. And then the
shelter, what' s the shelter now too that' s supposed to be going in them. Kind of a gazebo look?
Hoffman: Yeah, gazebo would be $30 to $40,000 for this gazebo. It's a fancier fini~,h to it because it's
sitting in a formal garden setting.
Lash: So would that have to go in though?
Hoffman: It doesn't have to go in.
Lash: From the very beginning. Because if we get cut back, I me, an I think the flowers are what's...
Hoffman: The supplier that shows up and says how am I supposed to build tl~t shelter in the...
Spizale: Plus I think the seniors really need the shade.
.
Hoffman: Yep they do.
·
.
Spizale: I mean they forget the age they're at. I was just at the Arboretum with my mother-in-law'and .
we walked through there and boy every shade ipot we got was a gazebo and something else, she'd
actually sit and rest and stuff. They do need it.
Franks: How long did Stone Creek wait after the installation of Phase I play equipment before we put in
Phase II?
Hoffman: 4 years.
Howe: 4 years anyway. I think it was '96 when the first one went in, wasn't it? So almost over 4 years.
Franks: Well if it starts to get fight in 2004, one of the things I would ~ would be to push the
Phase II play equipment at Bandimere Community Park out to '05. Just change the phase numbers Todd
and that would be something that I would be more than comfortable with considering.
Lash: Okay. Anything else for City Center? Oury Farms. Wasn't there something we were going to
try and do? Fill in.
Hoffman: Oh we've been doing that since the park was built.
Lash: I see we got the new playground slated. ..
Hoffman: It's a sinking park.
11
Park and Rex: Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Lash: It just continues, we do it all the time?
Hoffman: Yeah.
Lash: Well wasn't there a ballfield we were going to take out or?
Franks: Or to change the backstop.
Hoffman: But they want their ballfield and so we just keep patching it and this spring, you might as well
go fishing down there instead of playing ball. It was a marsh. It should have never been taken. It could
have been taken as park. It should never have been developed into an active park and park dedication
should never have been given towards it because we spend so much time mending it.
Lash: But they want to keep the ballfield?
Hoffman: Yep.
Lash: They'd rather do that than have it be turned into some kind of a nature, natural.
Hoffrnan:
Lash: Oh.
Hoffman:
If we took out the ballfield, cattails would grow. And they don't want that.
They want' grass. They paid for grass. They like grass.
Lash: Okay. How about Herman Field?
Howe: How about Herman Field?
Franks: Active dog park. I'm telling you, that's.
Lash: If we did a dog run somewhere, would that have to be completely fenced in?
Hoffman: Most of them are.
Spizale: For safety point you probably would.
Lash: So what about the big, just that big grassy area that's off that really doesn't get used for much?
Hoffman: At Herman Field?
Lash: Yes.
Hoffman: I think you're nuts.
Franks: What, you don't like the idea of making a bigger problem out of a problem7
12
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Hoffman: I love the idea of the dog park but it needs to be in a corrmmnity park where you don't have to
drive through a neighborhood to get to it. There's no hassles, and those people there would, first you ask
them if you can take their playground away. Now if you ask them if you can put a dog park in there.
Lash: Okay.
Kelly: Is there a good spot for a dog park?
Hoffm : If there is and I think we'd have one because we're so aggressive in our program that if there's
a good spot for one, we'd have one and the only spot that I could even think that it might work, but it's
too small, would be the edge of the ballfield at Lake Susan where you could fence off down to that pond
and so you could fence off, up from the pond and down along the trail and then back along. They could
drive in and park in the community park. Take your dog over, and utilize that space.
Lash: Is that where the archery?
Hoffman: Well yeah, the archery range is down farther. This would be.
Lash: Does that ever get used?
Hoffman: Oh yeah, all the time.
Lash: Oh.
Hoffrnan: This would be right next to the, just off of what would be the third base line. So you could
fence that area. You know you often think about we have a lot of parks but we're not that land rich in
areas, you know, no place for disc goff. Some of the kids would like to see a disc goff like they have in
Eden Prairie. We don't have a spot for that. Dog park. And so what do you do7 And what I've been
doing is harping on Marty Walsh out at the Regional Park. You're the guy for the dog park.
Lash: How about at Lake Ann, up on the north side of the ballfields, you know'where there's that one
parking area and then it comes down around like that. There's a big grassy area up there. What about
that.* Would that be big enough?
Hoffman: Again, it's right there in that, you know where it's large enough but I think for the popularity
we would soon find ourselves not large enough. I know fight where, it's just a lilxle bowl that sits
between the two parking areas. And then you fence the area off so. It might be something to look at
there. I hadn't thought about that spot. They're very popular. They're just going to be like a skate park
for adults and dogs because it's going to be like that once you put it in.
Franks: Well just my view was that, if we got people that were using that for a recreational purpose, it's
going to drive the fun out of people who are using it for other than recreational purposes. I mean it's
being used, it identifies as that thing that's going to come here. I don't know, I kind of thought it was
offensive to the neighbors...a park for dogs would be kind of a detriment.
Lash: Well but there's not really a lot of houses right there.
Hoffman: But the ones that are most active in the management of the park are the first five right outside
the road. And what they're going to tell you is oh fine, now we're going to have barking dogs up until a
13
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
legal park hours and then after park hours, they're gone and now we have the other people so you haven't
solved a thing. Because that's what they really came across.
Lash: Okay.
Hoffman: Herman Field just needs to be, we just need to lay low on Herman Field and continue to work
with the Neighborhood Crime Watch and the neighborhood and the police and try to clear up what we
have there currently.
Lash: How about Kerber Pond Park? Interpretative park trail for 2003.
Kelly: What exactly is an interpretative? I know there's like a soft grass trail that goes around the pond.
Is that what the interpretative trail is or?
Hoffman: That's what it would be and then you would put in signage such as an arboretum has where
you have certain species are identified. Interpretative signage and so as people take this walk, they can
expand on their experiences and say, you know point out to them, the children and the other people with
them, here's this kind of tree or this kind of grass or flower. Landscape. Look at the history.
Lash: How about Lake Ann9. We talked...the whole idea of a dog run in that open space.
Hoffman: That'd be a good place to look at it. Everybody to contemplate while they're out there.
Lash: And then I know over the years we've got it slated in somewhere, another picnic shelter for...
Hoffman: Right on top of the hill at the ballfields for concessions, bathrooms.
·
Lash: Oh, I was thinking that was a picnic shelter. Another picnic shelter.
Hoffman: Oh, at the Parkview. Yep, that's been talked about.
Lash: But that could be in the dog run side, isn't it?
Hoffman: No. It'd be in the other side unless you were, you were talking about north of the ball parks
on the east side. This is just on the west side. Parkview's a very popular picnic area. 50% of the people
that reserve it bring a tent. They rent a tent and so if you would put a shelter up there, then it would just
provide that much more of an amenity. And then a concession stand has been discussed at the ballfields,
and so instead of the buildings up there you would have a larger facility with flush toilets and those type
of things. Many of those amenities, you know such as the future shelter are things that 20 years from
now the community can take care of. It's portable toilets for the summer softball season, peopIe can live
with it and yeah, at some point when everything else in done and they're looking around to gussy up their
park district they can say, oh. Let's put that shelter in with the flush toilets.
Howe: That's in the $250,000 range?
Hoffman: Yep. Every one of those.
Lash: Okay, does anybody else have anything else down...
14
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Franks: ...as a part of maintenance this winter at the swim beach with non-ski&
Hoffman: Yeah. We may just even before that take that dock out and replace it.
Franks: That'd be good. You will replace the dock?
Hoffman: Yes.
Lash: And Lake Susan Park. Anything there?
Hoffman: Town lights were also talked about over the years at Lake Susan for the athletic facility there.
Baseball field.
Lash: Does that even get used anymore?
Hoffman: Yeah, it's scheduled.
Lash: Isn't that a Babe Ruth?
Hoffrnan: Yes. That's the older kids. Remember nation wide, baseball numbers dropping. Girls
softball numbers dropping. 25% from 1995 to 2000. Nationwide 25% reduction in team sports across
the entire country. Organized team sports so, for a while we didn't have enough adult softball fields.
They wanted to tear down trees at Lake .Ann and build softball fields and now we have less teams then
we did 5 years ago. We have fewer teams than we did 10 years, ago. And youth sports is still the same
way. Children are participating in highly stimulating computer games. Video games. Skate parks.
Those type of things and they're just dropping out of the standing in the outfield waiting for the fly ball
so that's the changing times.
Lash: Okay, under Meadow Green. We talked about playground replacement, that was fimded for there
wasn't it?
Hoffman: When the time comes and these $40,000 probably won't do it. You should probably bun~
that up to 50 because $10,000, well actually it's more than that. $15,000 in a border.
Lash: We might as well do it now.
Hoffman: The park sees a lot of use. People talk about if we could i .reprove it with draintile, which
would be a major budget item. I don't see the activities going away down there. The neighborhood has
grown accustomed to it and the people just absolutely need it for their Organized sports. Something to
look at.
Lash: Minnewashta Heights Park. Anybody have anything for that?
Hoffman: If you have a chance to take a look, they've done such a nice job with their entryway
landscaping. Hud Hollenbeck and his group and the city planted trees on our side of the park. And so he
fought for his neighborhood, the association, very devisive argument. Tearing down what was there. It
was big and overgrown but it did provide a sound block to Highway 7. He persevered and they are very
15
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
nice planting now. Worked with Jill Sinclair up there and they made a very nice addition to their
neighborhood so that's what counts.
Lash: Okay, North Lores Lake. Anything for there? Didn't we talk about a trail at one time down.
Hoffman: At where?
Howe: Where the parking lot is.
Hoffman: It's in.
Lash: ...that was down along the lake kind of.
Hoffman: It's in.
Lash: Oh it's done, okay.
Hoffman: As part of their trail, and by the way. They love those trails that went in North Lotus, Carver
Beach. Neighborhood use out at North Lotus increased probably 30% because of that one single
amenity.
Lash: So while we're trying to figure what we should do.
Hoffman: Little neighborhood trail loops. They love them.
Lash: Okay, Pheasant Hill Park. Anything on that one?
Hoffman: It's a nice park. Jerry will talk to you about the skating rink later on. It's just not getting used.
Howe: Is that seeing more use now that those homes have gone in on the west side of Galpin? Does that
other park serve that other service area?
Hoffman: West side of Galpin.
Howe: Yeah, what do they call it?
Hoffman: The people that use that park are just immediately to the north of that.
Lash: How about Power Hill?
Hoffman: I don't think I've ever gotten a call on Phase 11.
Lash: Yeah I would think that, if it's not a demand thing.
Hoffman: It's pretty full right now and I don't think $20,000 would buy the Phase II in 2004 but.
Lash: I say we.
Howe: Get rid of it?
16
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Lash: Yeah. If we get a call about it sometime...
Franks: I know a lot of people that live over there and no one's said anything to me.
Lash: Well there just...space really.
Hoffman: There's a space in there for it. But it seems, every time I've been there it seems to work.
Lash: Okay. How about Prairie Knoll Park? That one's.
Hoffman: Colorful park.
Franks: Love that color.
Lash: Rainbow. Rainbow slides.
Franks: Can we get the bench up on the knoll?
Hoffman: Sure. Do we have a spot for it?
Franks: There's a spot up on the knoll.
.'.
Hoffman: We'll have to mow a trail up them.
Franks: Yeah, mow a trail.
Lash: That's all that was ever supposed to be there.
Franks: I want the bench up on the knoll. Every time I drive by or come by on the bike.
Lash: ...Rice Marsh Lake. I don't'think they need anything either, do they?
Franks: No.
Lash: How long ago did they get their new playground?
Hoffman: Probably during the referendum, '98.
Lash: So they had their little funky shelter that.'
Hoffman: Yep, we built.
Lash: Round House, we got a little update from De, anne so we'll have to wait and see on that. Anything
else for the park itself? Should it not be Phase H to the playground?
Hoffman: There should be. They ask about that one a lot.
17
Park and Rex: Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Lash: I know. 4 or 57 Probably some far out thinking that the round house itself isn't renovated, we
could just use the $40,000 for playground?
Hoffman: Sure. 2004, $30,000.
Lash: Don't tell anyone that that's the Plan B.
Hoffman: Consolation prize.
Lash: Anything else for Round House? We had originally talked about hockey there. So that's
completely it?
Hoffman: No, still the plan. The park was designed for it. There's a space for a hockey board assembly
there, but with the question of the round house unresolved and if you have a warming house for there or
not. Chm'ently we flood it for open skating so if the neighborhood, you know for the city to say okay
we're going to plunge $120,000, you're going to have to have a neighborhood group there banging on
your door to make that happen. I just don't see the City Council saying oh, yeah good idea to put in a
hockey rink. Has anybody been talking about that? The master plan has it and if people start saying hey,
this is the deal we want, let's get it done. I think for that kind of improvement, that's what it will take.
Lash: South Lotus. Anything on that? That's sitting okay isn't it?
Hoffman: Nice park.
.Lash: Stone Creek. Mike?
Howe: Put a check there on Phase II. It's done.
Lash: Anything else that you can think of that your wife desires.
Howe: No, nothing we can do.
Hoffman: Out of space. Out of money.
Howe: No, it's fine. It's a wonderful park. The neighbors love it. Very heavy use.
Franks: That trail, is the bridge holding up good?
Howe: Yep, seems to be.
Lash: And no equipment down there...
Franks: ...and with that newest development going in, we secured another ouflot to that development
contingent to Stone Creek Park.
Hoffman: Park dedication only. The ouflot they kept and gave it to the homeowners. We thought we'd
get the whole Bluff Creek ouflot, but they said hah. If you aren't going to pay us for it, we'll keep it.
Howe: ...building going on. Two houses it looks like to me going up.
18
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Lash: So they gave it to the neighbors?
Hoffman: Yes.
Lash: And so?
Hoffman: It will stay in open space.
Lash; How about Sugarbush. That one's pretty much done, isn't it?
Hoffman: It has a Phase H but it's fairly brand new and we came in there and punched a whole ton on
money in there right up front so I don't think anybody was.
Howe: I've see a fair amount of use when I drive down Galpin..There's usually cars there morning,
noon and night. Kids going in and people walking on the trails.
Lash: Okay, Sunset Ridge. Any calls on that?
Hoffman: No calls. We put a trail connector in them which has been received well and there's a hockey
rink slated there as well but I don't think it's going to be.
Lash: I don't think that's ever going to happen.
Franks: Are the apartments going back there?
Hoffman: Yep. Power Ridge.
Franks: Power Ridge Apartments.
Hoffman: They're grading out there. That will be a neighbor to this.
Franks: So are we expecting that they there is going to be significant, because those are family apa_mnem
units from what I remember. Are we expecting a significant increase in traffic and usage at Sunset Ridge
Park?
Hoffman: No, because they have such elaborate on site recreation componem that people may go over
there for large sport activities and the other stuff. They're going to stay at the pool.
Franks: Okay, great.
Kelly: Could we go back to the...it was talking about pushing out the Phase H past 2004. I kind of think
Bandimere needs that stage H if the Phase I is for older kids because you've got the soccer families and
the baseball families there. The older kids are playing a sport. It'd be nice to have a facility where the
younger of the two, or the younger siblings can play while their older brothers and sisters are playing
soccer and baseball.
Lash: What did you say, it's almost, it'd be 5 to 127
19
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Hoffrnan: Yeah. The tots, the 2 to 5 is the second. You have to separate them physically so. I had the
same thought Tom because there's lots of families out there. It'd be nice to put it in. They're going to
play on the one that goes up but it's not there for their site.
Howe: Get it out to 04.
Hoffrnan: The teams that come in from out of town, they just can't say enough about that park.
Unfortunately the entrance is the only down side.
Lash: I saw a nasty accident one day coming home from work. Yeah, it had just happened. The police
weren't even there yet. The people were running all over.
Hoffman: Yeah. The one idea is to actually, one of the cause of these accidents is people are watching
the activity on the soccer field as they're driving south and so to screen that off with pine trees. And so
they have to concentrate on the, it's a much better intersection now with the islands and the traffic flow
but still people are making the error. They're turning before looking so.
Lash: How about some kind of, how about like lilac bushes or something. Pine trees take forever to
grow.
Hoffman: Yep, some kind of a hedge there and we can simply do that and just blind people and focus
them on the intersection. It will take until 101 is upgraded for that to be taken Out of there and leveled
off. The intensity, the public outcry was just huge before the improvements to the intersection. Since
that time I've not talked to anybody but I'm well aware that accidents continue and near misses
continues, which is something we don't want to do. We want to promote health and safety, not traffic
accidents.
Lash: Well should we plunk some money in for landscaping?
Hoffman: That'd be a great idea.
Lash: Like 20027
Howe: Yeah, it should be soon.
Lash: That's a safety issue. Why don't you put some kind of figure in there... You know I love a row of
pine trees but it would take 15 years.
Hoffman: Lilacs would be great.
Franks: How about a row of buckthom?
Hoffman: No thanks.
Lash: Okay, then with the trail improvements.
Hoffman: This is where we have to add all those in.
20
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Lash: Yep, well and the Bandimem to Chart I-Iills one is deleted out which, I don't think any of us want
it deleted out. It needs to be moved to 2002. And the Whitetail Ridge Court to Lake Lucy Lane, I'm
having a little trouble remembering.
Howe: It's where Jay lives.
Lash: Was that that one?
Hoffnmn: Yep.
Franks: Through those back yards?
Hoffman: Yeah.
Lash: You mean, there wasn't really a big outcry to get it done, was there?
Hoffman: Just the one resident that called. That's why it was put on the agenda. The residents in
Whitetail from his neighborhood. Because we went out there that night
Howe: There's more important trails.
Franks: Yes, I would agree.
Hoffman: In 2002 we're going to add the underpasses.
Howe: Yeah, I think those are important.
I.ash: And the Marsh Glen. That was done?
Hoffman: It's currently the city part of the trail, the plans are just about final.
Lash: Now that's the one, isn't it over by Mission I-Iills?
Hoffman: It comes out of there. Our watershed permit is in application for the watershed district. We
have to culvert for a bridge across Riley Creek at that location, so that permit has been applied for, and
then currently working with the developer. We went out there to keep track of what was going on with
the easement between the lots. It wasn't graded. It was supposed to be graded. There was a utility box
in the middle of it so we called for a meeting and these things are so cute when you get out there. You
stand with the developer and you stand out there and you say, what's this utility box? I know. Who put
that utility box right there? Who did that? So he looks at his right hand man, who put the .utility box
right there? Todd, I can't believe that. We'll have to take care of that. Can we move the trail around? I
said well, if it fits we can look at it but get it done. So they have their work to do and we' have our work
to do and then.., this fall. Great connector.
Lash: And then Highway 101 one, that's north, correct? And who knows when that's ever going to
happen. Do we know?
Hoffman: We don't know. Tom Workman has secured a $250,00 DNIL quarter million or half a
million? Half a million dollar DNR grant if we can get it done in 36 months.
21
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Lash: I think quarter of a million, 250.
Hoffman: I think it was $. What did he tell me today? Half a million I think.
Howe: For the trail?
Hoffman: Yeah, for the trail.
Franks: From the DNR?
Hoffman: Yeah. For trails and highway grant.
Lash: Way to go Tom.
Hoffman: But you've got to get the road built and you have to have it done and submit the bill in 36
months.
Franks: You mean only as a part of the road reconstruction?
Hoffman: Correct.
Lash: Okay so on this we would need to add the other two connectors, correct7
Hofflmn: The underpasses?
Lash: Yeah.
Howe: What do you figure, those are 150-2507
Hoffman: 250 and then the other one is closer, around 100. So 250 is the Lake Ann and Bluff Creek is
about $100,000. Those again are rough estimates. I want to secure those numbers through some
engineer estimates, feasibility studies.
Howe: Plus we want to do Bandimere to Chan Hills, right7
Franks: And we're still making that $200,000 for Bandimere to Chan Hills?
Hoffrnan: Probably 200 to 250. Again, if we, ff you would like to see that happen I'd like to get those
feasibility studies prepared. S~ if the council, {f they buy in the feas{bility study, obviously they'd buy
into the capital.
Lash: Well that really is something that has to happen. It's got to happen and we can put it off as long as
we want to, it's just going to keep costing more and more money. It has to happen so.
Howe: Safety issue.
Kelly: I mean is it a Bandimere Park for the Springfield residents...to the south.
22
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Lash: Yeah, it's one for everyone south to get to town. Or down to the park. If they're north, it gets
them to the park.
Kelly: And as a side benefit it will link up, it links up to the LRT trail Because you go to the park and
get on the trail on 101 to Pioneer then take it right, because Eden Prairie's doing some nice work at that
trail entrance. Really an LRT trail
Franks: That trail down to the LRT at the lift station, that's all in now?
Hoffman: We built that and the city of Eden Prairie.
Lash: Anything else on the trails that anybody can think of?-Okay, and then under basic other
improvements. That's just always pretty much.
Hoffman: The skate park kids would like about 7 to 7,500 bucks which I don't see as a big issue to keep
that thing going in 2002.
Lash: Is that something the Chamber would be willing to pony up for?
Hoffman: There is no money in service groups. I mean they don't have charitable gambling. The
Chamber doesn't have $7,500. You know we would like to think that like this thing would be a Rotary
or a Lion's, but they just don't have the cash without the gambling. But something I would like you to, -
keeping those groups involved in some smaller activities I think i.sjust good community relations so, I
happen to be joining the Rotary so I think it's a good-connection now in that group, and same thing, with
the Lion's. We have Gary Boyle on the council who's a strong Lion's memlxm When you go to these
out state communities, I mean that's really a big part of the deal. They have Lion's Park, o~ Rotary Park.
or they buy things and the Rotary has done, or'the Lion's, they have donated over $50,000 cash to the
lights at Field ge[ and they have the money out there that was dedicated that evening and they keep
giving. They make about $5,000 in Christmas trees and they're going to send it up to city hall to pay for
their lights so.
Lash: They can make some pretty good money at the 4a of July too.
Hoffman: The Rotary did. They made about $10,000.
Lash: And February Fest too.
Hoffman: Lion' s. That's pretty small change, but the beer garden at the Rotary is the. biggest money
maker for the year. They grossed about 14 and made about $10,000 cash in 4 hours.
..
Lash: Well the Rotary they can set up Bingo at the 4a of July. They could make.
Hoffman: They just' don't have enough members. They barely have enougti membem to staff the beer
tent.
Lash: Okay. Anything else? We always have the basic stuff.
Hoffman: Yeah, trees and a lot of that stuff. Okay, I'll add it up and...
Park and Rex: Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
RECREATION PROGRAMS: 4TM OF JULY CELEBRATION EVALUATION
Franks: Thank you Chair Lash and members of the commission. Excuse me but I do have to leave to
relieve the babysitter, but before I go I'd like to make a comment on the 4a~ of July celebration. I thought
it was great. Great celebration. Great fireworks display this year. It was fantastic. And I'm looking at
the suggestions for 2002, and I'm seeing under number 2, look at adding new and exciting activities and I
would propose that we really look at significantly expanding the offerings at the July 4a~ festival to not
only be inclusive of families and small children. The children' s games, but really look at involving the
teens, older teens and younger adults in something more than the street dance and food vendors. The best
way I think to do that would be to consider, and maybe start looking into adding a carnival vendor up in
City Center Park. You know if they're successful, it's not one that costs us. We actually would probably
the way I understand the system works, is we would actually end up generating revenue from the carnival
vendors so, so I really think that, I know I will be pursuing some various vendors and passing those onto
Jerry so he can take a look at them and hopefully he can come back with some information at a later date.
Hoffman: I support the concept.
Lash: That's why he wanted to leave. Drop that bomb and run.
Franks: Other than that.
Hoffman: Our family spent 8 hours at the...carnival. Those kids went absolutely nuts.
Franks: Absolutely nuts.
Hoffm : $15 bucks. Well it was 12 because pre-sales so, 12 bucks a kid and they went for 8 hours.
Mom and I just trapsed behind them. They had a blast.
Franks: And the Dippin Dots guy needs to bring way more material.
Lash: Did he run out?
Hoffman: He ran out, yeah. Ran out early.
Lash: I told him that the thing, at the Art festival to bring lots. He didn't believe me. He just thought I
was some dumb broad.
Franks: Thank you.
Hoffman: See you Rod. The Rotary served 40-16 gallon kegs in 4 hours. A lot of consumption. Did
you see the article in the paper? Got another call on that as well.
Lash: Actually I had a couple comments from folks who were concerned, not as much I don't think with
the overall consumption as underage consumption that they thought was going on. Personally I didn't
see it but, and how do you know. I mean people just looking around. There's 21 year olds that look
young so we don't know.
Hoffman: Well and they carded but then they could just buy beer and hand it out. So that's part of the
reason we're looking at these increased security measures with the fencing and this and that.
24
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Lash: I had a couple comments too, and I know this probably is going to sound like old foggie comments
but, the volume of the band. I thought the band was just way too loud. I don't know if that's something
we can ask them if they can turn it down just a smidge or whaL
Hoffman: We've asked them every year. This year the Rotary thought it was actually less so, I think
what we're going to do is just in the layout, make it larger and tell them to keep the volume to, they love
volume those bands. If you tell them to turn down their volume, I think it's like some sort of insult
because they, we say, I remember the Rotary really got hot on that about 3-4 years ago and I went right
up to these people and I said you know, we're writing your check.' We want the volume down and they
almost ignored you so. Yeah, yeah, whatever.
Spizale: They couldn't hear you.
Hoffman: Yeah, they couldn't hear you so we'll work on that. It's a discussion I have every year.
Lash: Okay. Anybody else have anything?
Kelly: I know a couple people asked me about the start time of the parade. They're wondering why is it
in the middle of the aftem~. If it's possible to move it up in the morning'so it doesn't break up the day
as much as it does now. You don't get hit in the heat of the day either. I don:t know if it's just tradition
that it' s always in the afternoon or if you want to accommodate the events that lead up to the.
Hoffman: Yeah, it was the accommodation of the events that led up to the parade but there's really
nothing sacred about that start time. You try to build up tradition but if it's the wrong tradition, you
know the best time to change it is the next year.
Lash: Food for thought.
Hoffman: Yeah. I've never heard that comment. It's something to think about.
Lash: It is. It does get hot.
Kelly: And it nap time for some of the younger, I mean people that have very young kids.
Lash: Well and it's little kids who really enjoy the parade. Older kids.
Hoffman: I know the one, another reason is the band that comes out of Waconla plays 3 parades in
Delano before it gets here and so if you want, that's been the only marching band which they've routinely
been able to contract with and you have to, they come here at our parade and then they leave here and
they go to Apple Valley after that so that's one part of the tradition. For that marching band. Deb Kind
will no longer he the chair so there's a spot available for the pars_d_e chair so pass that word around. I
know some people did not like the longer route because people stopped playing once they got up to this
end of town and they wanted it changed back, but it can't change back because the library road will be
gone. So the route has to stay the longer route.
Lash: Okay. Anything else? Do you have anything else Tom? Jack, what did you think?
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Spizale: I thought the 4th of July thing was great. The fireworks were great. I think we were involved in
everything that was going on and we had an absolute ball both days. Big time.
Hoffman: The comment made at the Chamber luncheon today was that, you know our community
without a high school so people don't meet and greet at the Friday night games and they were talking,
what is it? What is it? What's the community event and they said it's the 4th of July. It's the one thing
we've got that we can hang our hat on so keep it going.
Lash: It's huge and it was great. Tell Corey it was a great job. His first time because he was nervous.
Everything went off. One little thing, and this could have just been because of the smaller tent and I
know a lot of tables and chairs were set up outside because it was hot but it seemed like once the band
started there was kind of a mad rush to get chairs in the tent area.
Hoffman: There was.
Lash: Were we short on chairs or was there just that many more people7
Hoffman: More people. Same number of chairs but I think a bit more people. And smaller tent so.
Lash: Can we up the number of chairs?
Hoffman: Yep, absolutely.
Lash: You know when it's that hot people would probably sit outside of the tent anyway just as overflow
if we had enough for thew
Hoffman: Yeah the whole layout will just be expanded. We saved $2,800 because, I think it was 28.
2,600 because we went with that smaller tent, but it ended up to be a mistake anyway. They have a larger
tent, this same company. It was up in Princeton or somewhere that day so we' ve already booked it for
next year. So it's still less expensive with this company but it's another 20 feet wide which we need.
And then we're just going to keep expanding it. I mean you look at the whole layout before it starts and
you say boy, it looks like a lot of room and by the time you pack all those people in there and food and,
we had a couple of vendors drop at the last minute, and walking around that event and I talked to so many
people that say wow, look at the people. Look at how much money they're making. Can we do that?
You know softball associations and so we're going to try to keep blocking them in there and get them
over there. Everybody should serve. I mean look at the money you could make there in 4 hours.
Howe: How were the lines at the food vendors?
Hoffman: Long.
Howe: They were long again?
Lash: I had a hamburger and I walked right up and that was the Boy Scouts but that might have been.
Hoffman: Was that early?
Lash: Well it was before I started working so yeah. It was probably 6:00 maybe.
26
Park and Rex: Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Kelly: We had a heck of a wait in line when we went both times.
Hoffman: And we had more than we did last year so we've just got to keep building it and keep building
it. You know people like Frankie's or Dominoes, why can't they come out.
Howe: Subway. They could be making sandwiches for 3 days before. I mean-people...who cares. They
eat it.
Hoffman: We're going to be actively out there seekin~ those people to come on up and.
Howe: Local people, they could make a lot of money.
Hoffman: A pizza vendor could make a ton of money that night.
Lash: Well Frankie's has got one of those big round things fight? All they'd need is power. Load them
up and oh yeah.
Hoffman: So we'll be out there after them. I mean the complexity of this thing is you have to have
everything for 4 hours and so it takes a lot of set-up and a lot of thi.~ but that' s the event. I mean people
want to have a good memory. We want people to have a good time there and so yeah, you have to pull
out all the stops for 4 or 5 hours but that's what they want.
Lash: How about the Girl Scouts? Do they, axe they interested in. games or food?
Hoffman: We sent it to all, we contacted all those groups and that's why there was increased
participation this year from the hockey people and those type of people because we'sent all those letters
out but.
Lash: They could order lots of extra cookies and sell cookies or some, thing. I mean really anything
would sell. You know do we have somebody serving caramel apples don't we already? Get the Girl
Scouts to do that. You pour in the apple and pour some caramel on it and sell it for $2.50.
Hoffman: The Mexican Fried Cake guy, he backed out so there was one mi.~sing.
Howe: Who backed out?
Hoffman: Mexican fry cake. The batter. What do they call that thing?
Lash: Funnel cake.
Hoffman: Yeah, funnel cakes.
Lash: I was so busy working I didn't even get a chance to even get Dippin Dots.
Hoffman: So we'll get you a layout of the new site and how that is fill going to work and.
Lash: Well I thought it was great. He did a great job and I liked seeing the little game things. Whatever
you call it.
27
Park and Rex: Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Hoffman: Community stuff.
Lash: Yeah. I mean easy fund raiser. It' s so easy and there' s lots of places they could go. I still think
bingo would be huge. I mean huge. St. Hubert's or somebody to operate bingo, they'd make a ton.
Howe: Do they get a permit for that7
Lash: Yeah, I think you've got to get a gambling permit.. They do it at their other thing but maybe one of
the other churches wants to. But we used to have it, or was that at Oktobeffest. Septemberfest.
Hoffman: Septemberfest, yeah.
Lash: And there was always people, people were always in there playing bingo.
Hoffman: That was the Rotary. Rotary bingo.
Lash: It wouldn't take that much to operate. Okay, anything else7
SELF-SUPPORTING PROGRAMS: FALL ADULT SOFTBALL.
Lash: Anybody have. questions about that?
,ADMINISTRATIVE: WESTWOOD COMMUNITY CHURCH.
Hoffman: Westwood Community Church is locating west of Highway 41, off of Dogwood Avenue. I
don't know if you've seen those plans. I have them upstairs. I'll bring them down for you after the
meeting but.
Lash: Where is that?
Hoffman: I'll show you on the map, because the most interesting part.
Lash: Oh, it' s over by Lake Minnewashta, right? Just north of Arboretum.
Hoffman: The main mason for talking about it would be the extension of, 41 comes down to 5 and the
new frontage road will stop right here. And this will be Pulte on both sides of the road right here. Susan
Markert, that's her property. The little farm right here. And then Tanadoona, the Arboretum, right
across from this there' s two private lots and then the Arboretum owns all of this and then Dogwood
comes back to Lake Minnewashta over here. And the church bought all this property right in here. And
they're going tO build their church up on the hill overlooking this low lying area, and then in the future if
they want to expand their other uses, their youth center and their expansion and those type of things, this
road has to continue. And so they have to buy these properties and extend West 78th back to here and
then there's going to be a large chunk of land that's going to develop here as well and so, you're going to
have another road, the extension of the parkway, so as all of this land develops, we start thinking about
well, where are these people receiving their recreational services. And what's going to happen hopefully
is that trail connection north to the regional park and we have 400 acres of park just north of there. So
there's no subdivision here so there's no opportunity for the city to acquire land or charge fees and the
people who consulted with the church, it's obviously, they could subdivide this for, and get some benefit
out of it but it's going to cost them a million dollars in park and trail dedication fees and they're not
28
Park and Rec Commission M~g - July 24, 2001
going to do it. So no subdivision. Identical to Eckankar. When Eckan~r went in, no subdivision
because then the park board has access to those dedication dollars so we don't have to formally review
this but I wanted to bring it to your attention so you're aware when people are now talking in the street
that this thing is coming in. A big chunk of land. Many.of our residents are me~ out there.
Growing church. Probably the largest church in the city next to St. Hubert's by the time it's all said and
done.
Howe: When are they starting on that Todd?
Hoffman: I think they'll start on it next spring.
Lash: Just since you brought up Eckankar, and this is not on our agenda at all but when they put in their
request for all the different things that they wanted to'do, that didn't require any kind of change of
anything for them?
Hoffman: They were approved for that in their original proposal. For those buildings.
Lash: In their original proposal?
Hoffman: They had to go through a, I'll have to ask what the process was.
Lash: Is there anybody left besides you around here?
.-.
Hoffman: Gerhardt
-.
Lash: It'd be interesting for somebody to, and I'm assuming when they made this request it was done
and actually I mentioned it to one of our formei' city council membem at the time when that was on their
agenda but it really sticks in my mind that their conditional use permit was based on the fact that they
would never approach the city for any other additions to their initial building and that was a condition put
on at the time of that approval. And that if they ever came back and asked that their conditional use
permit would be pulled. I was really surprised when that went through with not even a blink.
Hoffman: Not even a question, yeah.
Lash: Yeah.
Hoffman: Nine buildings I think.
Lash: I was just really shocked that that went through because I was pr~ involved at that time in that
whole thing because I live right there and I usually have a pretty good memory for that kind of sttiff.
Hoffman: Usually.
Lash: I could be mistaken but I'd be interested in seeing...because I was surprised it went through.
Okay.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMrI'i'~:~: REPORTS.
I..uh: You got anything Mike?
29
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Howe: Race committee. Just a brief mee~g. I need volunteers. If you don't want to nm in the race or
walk the race, I do need some volunteers. Now I don't know exactly what you'll be doing but.
Lash: Prize board?
Howe: You have a great memory. I'll find something for you, so I need some volunteers. Things can
still continue to gel with the Vikings.
Lash: Have you registered Vikings?
Howe: Yeah, they'll be there. And the cheerleaders. But that's really all. Get your application in if
you want to mn. So that's all I have.
Spizale: What's the date on that?
Howe: September 15th.
Kelly: I think the Chaska Run is this Saturday or Sunday.
Howe: In River Days or someth~.ng?
Kelly: Yeah.
Howe: ...Thank you, that's all I had.
Lash: Go back to reports for just one second. Sorry Mike. Did we book Casablanca for next year?
Hoffman: I don't know. I'll ask. I assume so.
Howe: I think we did. I think he said he did already in the packet.
Hoffman: If they're still in business, we need them back.
Lash: I think they're playing in Chaska on Saturday night.., so they're copying us.
Hoffman: Noooo, not Chaska.
Lash: Any other committee reports? Gee I wish I had something to say about Memorial Parle Do we
even have a committee anymore?
COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS:
Lash: Commission member presentations. Tom, you got anything?
Kelly: No.
Lash: Michael?
30
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Howe: No.
Lash: Jack? I don't either.
ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET.
Lash: Administrative packet. Anybody have any?
Howe: Just a couple comments. On the picnic evaluations. Some fxiends of mine and neighbors were at
Lake Susan and I haven't been there in a while. Maybe it was the'heat or the sum The beach they said
was pretty crappy, I guess that might not be the word I'd used officially but with the birds and I think the
water. I know that's a small shallow lake and the water gets that green ting~ so I haven't seen it but I did
have a few people tell me that. It was the beach, they didn't really, I mean I think they had a good time.
It was a hot day but the beach was not in the shape I would think it should have been. My understanding
with birds and with the way it was, with the sunlight and the weather we've had, could be a possibility.
Hoffman: At Lake Susan it's not just possible. It' s inevitable. We were so aware of that when we put
that beach in that there was never a beach there but then remember the neighbors said yeah, let's put it in.
Let's put it in.
Howe: That's what I said.
Hoffman: And early in the season I might go in there. La~er in the season, it's crappy at Lake Susan.
No doubt about it. And there's nothing we can do about that. The water quality, I mean we can take a'
look at it if we need to rake the beach, we'll do that. I'll let the guys know about that but I'm not
surprised to hear that comment.
Lash: So before we adjourn let's look at the couple of handouts that we just got tonight, The one about
the Fox Chase thing. Anybody have anything on it?
Howe: No, I expect to be there because I do the August 13~ City Council meeting. I'll be there to see
what's going on. This is the place we looked at between the two houses, right?
Lash: Or it's too close to the house.
Howe: Alright.
Hoffman: A lot of jockeying going on.
Howe: Really?
Hoffman: Oh yeah.
Lash: Well I guess I'm kind of surprised af~ everything that we went through with this, I know it was
several years ago but we kind of eliminated, I can't even remember right offnow but I know we
eliminated the concept of having an L and go down to the lake. We'd have them just go out to Mohawk,
and that was our recommendation. Correct?
Hoffinan: Correct.
31
Park and Rex; Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Lash: So then it went to the City Council and I was there that night with all the neighbors and so then
they went back to this plan.
Hoffman: They wanted the L.
Lash: Because that's what the neighbors wanted.
Hoffman: Correct.
Lash: I'm trying to remember why we eliminated the L. Was it a cost factor or was it that we didn't
figure we could have the easement if we, we were trying to move it off of our...
Howe: Did they move? Are they still there?
Hoffman: Yep, they're still there. Yeah, that was a negotiation to remove it. Take the burden off of
them. Put it over onto the Hedlund's but for that the Hedlund's would get rid of the other one down to
the lake.
Lash: Right. So how did this all fall, I just sort of feel like you know people came and talked to us. We
took what they said at face value and we made our recommendation based on what they said, and then all
of a sudden. Well not all of a sudden. A couple years later they go to the City Council and did an about
face on it.
Howe: 360.
Lash: Yeah, so then we kind of end up looking like either we weren't listening to people or we don't
know what we're doing.
Hoffman: It's still 100% up in the air. It's still, they could change completely again at this meeting next
Monday night and then what they want is a complete consensus. Well that is never going to happen.
And so the people, they're going to come up with something that they want to present to the City Council
on that night. There's going to be some people that walk away that aren't happy that can still come down
to the City Council and say we still don't like what you got going here so. It's just so dynamic. We
made a recommendation and the people stood up that liked the recommendation and said we want to
change. And they changed. Council said let's change. And then the council said to present a plan so we
presented a plan and then they changed, they didn't like that. They changed again so it's one of those,
it's why it's been around for 12 to 13 years.
Lash: I guess my frustration isn't necessarily with the residents or what, it's sort of the process that
again, they're just going directly to the City Council and so why are we here? If people are going to just
go straight to the City Council and take care of the business there. What are we doing?
Hoffman: Well, we went through the process. We made a recommendation and then, now there's this
negotiation taking place at the council level. There' s not a lot of heat about that.
Howe: A couple years ago?
Hoffman: Two years ago.
32
Park and Rec Commission Meeting - July 24, 2001
Howe: The house wasn't built on that one lot.
Hoffman: It's still not.
Howe: It's still not. People still use, they're using the trail now. It's not officially graded or paved.
Hoffman: Correct.
Lash: Okay. And then on the Round House thing with Deanna, ! guess we just have to wait and see.
Yeah, it's like we're down to the wire. Okay, and we talked about...the dog run.
Hoffman: Yeah, why don't we just all take a look at those sites when we're driving around. Dog park.
Lash: And then it looks like we're...geese.
Hoffman: Yeah, what the goose report says is that there's not as many geese in town. What'd they
catch? 44 or 60. Normally they catch 2 to 3 times that many.
Lash: Usually that many at one location.
Hoffman: So between the removal program: the falL, early hunting season and the fact that it was a wet
spring, these geese laid their eggs and they were drown. So the water comes up that high and so it was
poor nesting across the state this year so the goose population was reduced by that.
Lash: Good. Okay, anybody have anything else? Nothing? Todd, do you have anything else? Is there a
motion to adjourn?
Howe moved, Spizale seconded to adjourn the Park and Recreation Commls~ion meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Recreation Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
33
CITYOF
pO Bax I47
~~55317
phone
95~93Z1900
952.93Z5739
95293Z9152
~il~n~ Dep~no~t F~x
952.934.2524
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
DATE:
Mayor & City Council
Julie Hoium, Planner I
August 20, 2001
SUBJ:
Amendment to the Chaparral 2"d and 3~ Additions Development
Contract to AHow Decks to Encroach 12 Feet into the Required 30
foot Setback
This report has been updated. All new information is in bold.
REQUEST
Staff received four variance applications to allow decks to be added on existing
(quad) four-plex units to encroach into the required 20-foot front yard setback.
Since the Chaparral 2~ and 3nt Additions consist of 39. quad units, staff, decided to
look at the entire area. It was determined a better approach is to examine the
PUD regulations governing this area and unifying the standards rather than
processing individual variances for each deck that may encroach into a setback.
The site is located east of Powers Boulevard, west of Pima Lane and Meadow
Green Park, and south of Kerber Boulevard and Pontiac Lane; The neighborhood
consists of 39 quad units.
BACKGROUND
On November 9, 1979, the City entered into a development contract: "Planned
Residential Development Contract Plat of Chaparral and Chaparral 2~, 3~, and 4ta
Additions. The original development contract required all smicmms in the
subdivision to maintain a 30-foot front yard setback, including the four-plex units.
The main structures were built in compliance with this requirement, however
.many decks did not meet this setback.
On August 22, 1988, the City amended.the devel.opment contract to allow decks
to encroach 10 feet into the-required 30-foot setback. The amendment
specifically stated:
1. The deck cannot extend from the building further than 10 feet.
2. The deck must maintain a 20-foot front and rear setbacL
3. The deck must be constructed to the 10' x 20' dimension.
Amendment to Chaparral 2"a and 3~ Additions
July20, 2001
Page 2
On June 28, 1999, the City once again amended the development contract to allow screened
patios and enclosed porches on the four-plex units.. The revised amendment stated:
1. The screened patios and porches cannot extend from the building further than 10 feet.
2. The screened patios and porches must maintain a 20-foot front and rear setback.
3. The screened patios and porches may not exceed a 10-foot by 20-foot dimension.
In June 2001, the city received requests for variances from the 20-foot setback (as outlined in the
development contract amendment) for decks on four separate four-plex units. Upon receiving
the requests there were two approaches that could have been taken. One, let each variance
request come in individually or two, amend the PUD. Amending the PUD was the more
practical approach. New Concepts management group for Cimarwn Homeowners Association is
requesting the PUD amendment.
The reason for the amendment request is three of the four homes currently have existing 12' x
20' foot decks, which they want to completely rebuild. The fourth unit would like to build a new
deck that matches the 12' x 20' deck of their adjoining neighbor.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
As mentioned earlier, these two additions consist of 39 four-plexes or 156 units. The majority of
them have existing decks. The breakdown is as follows:
· Thirty-four (34) decks have a depth of 12 feet. Twelve-(12) of these decks are legal
nonconforming since they are located less than 20 feet from the property line.
· There are twenty-two (22) units that do not have decks. Of those, four (4) will be located
less than 20 feet from the property line if they elected to build a 12-foot deep deck.
· There are 103 decks that have a depth of 10 feet or less.
In the past, staff has made the interpretation to allow 12-foot deep decks on units that can
maintain the 20-foot setback required by the PUD.
Section 20-72 (e) of the zoning ordinance states ".Maintenance and repair of nonconforming
structures is permitted. Removal or destruction ora nonconforming structure to the b. xtent of
more than fifty (50) percent of its estimated value, excluding land balue and as determined by the
city, shall terminate the right to continue the nonconforming structure."
Staff consulted with the city attorney to determine the legal meaning or definition of yglue of
non-conformin~ structure to ascertain if a building permit can be issued for replacement of the
non-conforming deck. The city attorney stated, "You should consider the value of the entire
house not just the deck". As such, all existing non-conforming decks, that do not meet the
required 20-foot setback, can be replaced (This includes three of the four decks that initiated this
PUD amendment). We also note that the Cimarron Homeowner's Association replaces decks on
Amendment to Chaparral 2"d and 3~ Additions
July 20, 2001
Page 3
a regular basis for upkeep and maintenance purposes. Therefore, this issue will repeatedly
present itself (see Attachment 4deck replacement survey).
The issues that staff evaluated are as follow:
If a unit does not have a deck and wishes to construct one that is 12 feet deep to minor
the adjoining neighbor's deck, yet cannot meet the 20-foot setback requirement, should
they be permitted to do so? From an aesthetic standpoint, it is more appealing to
maintain a consistent depth on adjoining units, giving a sense of uniformity. That is not
to say that decks with different depths stick out like a "sore thumb". The PUD permits
decks to be enclosed and used as a three-season porch. If that is the case, the roofline of
the porch is typically centered between the two decks. Exterior walls on the three-season
porch need to maintain a similar depth between adjoining units. Consistency within
adjoining units needs to be observed and maintained.
Setbacks within this PUD have been revisited on several occasions. Each occasion
asked the questions: where, why and how much of a setback is required7 Staff has
examined safety and aesthetics (sightlines, encroachment into easements, access,
parking, existing vegetation, snow removal, etc.) as they relate to the placement of decks
on these units. Staffs conclusion is that none of these issues will be impacted with'a 10
or a 12-foot depth for a deck (18 or 20 foot setback). Both numbers are arbitrary,
however, the 20-foot setback has been used consistently within similar developments.
CONCLUSION
Deck sizes and setbacks have been an ongoing issue for the quad units within this PUD
development. The existing deck sizes and setbacks are inconsistent throughout the
development, with setbacks ranging from 18 to 20 feet. The homeowners association has a
set schedule for the replacement of decks on the quad units, thus this issue will continually
come before the City. As stated earlier, the setback distances are arbitrary. In an effort to
bring consistency to this development and eliminate the need for future variance requestS,
an 18-foot setback should be established, and 12 x 20 foot decks should be permitted for all
the units. This 18.foot setback will not conflict with any easements of record, utilities, or
obstruct visibility.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On August 7, 2001 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item. The
commission voted 5 to 2 to recommend approval to amend the development contract to
allow 12 x 20 foot decks and porches on 4-plex units to maintain an 18-foot setback. Decks
Amendment to Chaparral 2"a and 3rd Additions
July 20, 2001
Page 4
currently maintain setbacks that range from 18 to 20 feet. The commi~tsion felt that an 18-
foot setback would provide consistency within the entire PUD.
Those opposed expressed concern that changing the setback would be unfair to a moJority
of the units who have 10 x 20 foot decks and maintain a 20-foot setback. A m~ority of the
commi~sion felt that because many of the decks are at an age where they need to be
repaired, many would be able to add two feet thus creating the same setbacks throughout
the development.
As a condition of approval, staff was directed to determine the potential impervious surface
calculations for the entire PUD. Staff spent approximately 20 hours calculating the
approximate impervious surface coverage. Due to time constraints and a desire to use staff
time efficiently, the impervious surface for each individual lot was not calculated. The lot
sizes for all the four-plex & quad units were determined. The square footage of all structm~
on these lots was calculated (duplexes, quad units, driveways, etc). However, staff only
selected 3 to 4 lots within each block of the single-family homes. The lot sizes & im?ervlous
surfaces on these lots were calculated, and then used to determine the average impervious
surface coverage for all the single-family lots within the PUD. The impervious surface fo~' the
entire PUD, not including decks and porches was estimated at 14%. In addition, staff
estimated the impervious surface for the PUD, including decks and porches~ Assuming that
all quad units, duplexes & single-family homes have decks or porches the impervious surface
was estimated to be 17%. The maximum impervious surface allowed is 30%. The data used
to obtain these calculations is located in Attachment 6.
RECOMMENDATION
'~rhe Planning Commission recommends approval to amend the development contract for -
nd rd
Chaparral 2 and 3 Additions to allow decks on the four-plex units if they meet the following:
1. The decks must maintain an gO18-foot setback.
2. The decks shall not exceed a depth of 12 feet."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Applications
2. Site Plan (existing deck depths)
3. Deck Replacement Survey, site plan with addresses
4. Public hearing notice and property owners
5. Minutes from the August 7, 2001 Planning Commission meeting
6. Impervious surface calculations
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 65317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCATION
'J'ELEPHONE{Daytime).7~?-~ 4~"~ ~
OWNER:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Use Permit
inter~n Use Permit
· J,Jon-conformlng Use Permit
PJanned Unit Development*
Sign Permits
Sign PJan Review
,
Site PJan Review*
SubdlvL~l~*
· .
!
. Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
..~. variance
' ' Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
!
Notification Sign
. X. Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CUP/SPR~AC/VAR/WAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE $
Alist of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the
applicatlo~
:Bal~'Ing material samples must be submitted with site plan review&
"Twenty-slx full size .folded coples of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8W'X 11" reduced copy of
~'ax~parency for each plan sheet.
will be required for other applications through the development contract
3~D3'E-~ mu]tiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
'3'DT.N. ACREA~E
]3g]~J'~ USE DESIGNATION
LAND USE DESIGNATION
FOR TH~ REQUEST
'Th'fs'apgrJca~n must be completed in full and be typewfltIen or clearly printed and must be accompanied by ali Information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer ~ the Planning
.Oejaadza~t ~ determine the specific ordinance and proc~, ural requirements applicable to your application.
,R Cr,~,,,;,,~c,, of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of appllcaJJon submittal. A Written
3-~Zice of ~.r~~ deficJencles shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
'R'3'~'ts'to cerltly 1trot I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for coml~ng w~
all Cay requirements with regard to this request. This app~n should be processed In my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to thls applicat~n. I have aItached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owners Duplicate Certificate of-Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
2his e, al)lica~n and the fee owner has also signed this application.
1 ~ leaep mys~ Informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this app--. I further
.unde~ 1hat additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibil~ studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
auth~ to proceed with the study. The documents and Information I-have submitted am tree and correct-to-the best-of .....
The ~~ r=ttles the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
mquTaaments and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extemkm for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
exmar, bra am arpoved by me app~k~t.
Date
on Fee Paid Receipt No.
sttould contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
Jfz~t ~ a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
~iI -- .
Lind .qur~yml ·
II.M~ Off~ 571 ~
la87s H~ghwi¥ No ~ N.E.
Certific~te
South Off~c~ ~90-~610
! 101 Cliff Road
BLe'newlb, Mlnnamta BS332
of Survey
for
NEW:.HQRJZ ,ON' 'HOMES,.
I horBby certify Ih.! thlt is a true ..nd correct reprosenlolti~n of . survey of the boundaries of the abova
delcrlbed land, and of the locution of ~11 bulldlngs~ therein, and all visible encreachmmn~s, If uny~ fr~m ~ ~
said land. ~l lurveyed by me thll~dey ef ~'" . A.D. 19~ '
ISUIURiA~ ENGINIIIING,~ J i
-_
.... ."~"~'~'""" ~ ~ I- ' '
t : L.~._--~ L_ il i ~-..~---'~
i:.."~ "~'~- ..... ~ ..... ~ ._i. -
~ ._ . ; : 1 ~ ~-, ..:: ~ : ~ j -
'. ~ I i ~ ~ ~ ~ ' , ' ~ ~ - ~ ---
H--~~t -i-'-~-;~"-b--'T ...... :. i--h · ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ -: ~' ~
I '' ~1 ! i i
~ I . , ,,. , ~ ~. , , , __J .... ,. . . , ~_~
- ~ , - - I ] . , , ~ · t ~
~-~-'r-~'~'-~f~¢%_~ ~,7~,r,~~- I fli i~l'. ,~tm~ ~
i--2~--.~4 .... ; .... ;---~ ..... ,.-- ~-.i.--¢-~ -i-W~ ,, , , ~- , ' , ,-. ~ ~-- ~ ~ i , .....
h"¢ ~ ~:-'-r-F, I ~ ~ ~ r I I ~ i ~ 1 I I ' ~ ~ ~ i . ,. '
I ¢ ~ ; t ~ , ' i ~ t I ' ~ I Ii i ~ ~ I !_ t_ ! ~ _ ;. ~ ~ ~ : ..~ .
~'-~ .... I''-~'--, .... m~''l ..... t'"~ ..... ~'-'~-","-~'T~TM -] -~ .... ~ r ~ I ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ] I '
.... ':~-"4--i'. -- ,--- ,- ';".,::~:~,,I ..... t -..1-.- ~--~ ...... ~ ..... ~,t ' ' ~~~ ~ ].t ' ] ' ~': : --
~~--, .......... ~" ~---T ....... !'-- i---I .... %'-~ ...... ~ ..... ~ ........ - : .... i ' ~ ' i ·
.-~..M.-~- ; ................. · ...... ~-- ' -~---~ ........ - , - i- i ' ' ' ....
' ~ · ' - ' ....... ;--4.- -,. ' ' ---' ..... ' ] ] . ~ i ~ ]
~ .... 4 ....... i - ~ .... ~'"~'' ~'" ~ ....... l ~ .... ~---r ...... ~ "- - , ~ ~ , ' :
- , - · . - ~ · , · , 1 - 1 t , ,
: ; : : , ~ .... · .... L..~ ......... ~ M .... i '~ .......... -- i i r~- - : .....
.......... ~ : ...... : .... ~-b ,, . -~ t , , ~ ~ I ,
-~ ....... I ...... i - - ~r1-~ ..... ~. -~ .... ~- -r - "~ .... ~'-- -- , .... ! ~ . .
' ~ . · · ' : ~ , ' ' I ~ . I , ~
~ : . . - : .. · , - : - : ~ : I ; .... j ...... .- ....... .
-.. ~._~.~... ~- . ~-_,~..~, __~. .~...~ ...... ~ ..,._. : , - ~-. ~ ~ I
-__ ~ _.~ ..... ~ .... ~~' ~ ~-j .....................
' , , '.' L , , ~ ''' · ~ '" -- ........... ' ...........
b-:--.,b .... , ....... ,.,..~, ...... ~..-.-~t.--.-~ ,--r-,---,~--~d- ~ ~- ~ -t .
' ' ; ~ ' ~ ' ' : ~ ; "' l'-~'-"~'~~---m'~i ~ , I~ -* ..... .......... . ..... ~ ........ [, .....
.... ~-":-' '~','~ '-;-'~~'i'"'"", .... .'~ I
--.~.-- b---i .... 1" ~'" ;~ "'S"' i ...... ' *~"-',. ' ........... : - - =l ' :- ~ ..... r
-, · ~ : , I -a~ ~'~ ..-.,,.. ~ ] . : , 1 ~ ~
t--s -~'" ~ ..... i .... '.--~ ..... :-~ .... ~"T-"t' ~'~-"I-q-~- ~;'~- -:--I _ -%- -~ ~,' ] I ~
- ~ · ,, · ~ : . ~ ~- ' . ~ ..... ', -~ ; t ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ .......... '__
r ~ ~ : I ' ; --: _,_ ;-.z~'_~ , ..... ,__~..-;--~~J _~,_~; ~ ..... -~;~ ....... ~ .... ~-~ -
,_.?._....., ........... ,. .. .. ,
;- ';'' :' ~ , I, t ..: . ~ __ ..:_ ,~ --~ ...... ,,---,- ,--.-
............. iii ~ ,.._f .,~ [ ~ .~;~.-4.- ~-.~~ ~ ~
t
--- . t- , · . : , - . ~ ,, ~ ~ r
..... , ] . , ~ . .
---:---~--.~.~-;., ii ; ; p I.
: . : ~. ... ii .. : .... t _- ................ ]~: ~ _~_. ~ i i :; _- ..... -- ~-- ~ ~ - : . - -~l
"-' .... .... +'--' ............ .. ,,""*"-'~. .............. t,bt z~l~t.T~l ~ . . -, ,'---' . ~ .~ ~ ,~.~ ,,~' ~,,..~I.~__.
..~ ~...~...,..~.. .,, ~..~..,-. ~.-+-~.,.,.~~- ........ __._.. _.,. ..... ~ , ........ ,,_ _.
!----~--~---. .... ~-.--'~~--,'-*--~:'--[--t--~~i : '.~'~::--~ ~ ~ .... ~-:x~ :~ ~:'-~2~~.
................. ~''~, - .... ~-~n ," ~---i ..... ~. , '; , ~ : ; ~,, :~ . :~,
/ ': .... ~'~ ....... k-'::~--*"='~=--~n~-,t ~': ' ..... i I I ~ ; ~ i ; ~ ~ I ; ~
"~ ........... ; ......... ''..:-.-= .;. · ~-.4-~ .... ~"~"~' ' ' ': : -" .... ', ..... -'', ; '- i ' - : - '
I-. ' : .'-'-'*';"-"" :-~". -"': : : : . ~,:, ,i ~- i !, t 1~ i~, !' .... ..... '-'~ ...... F: .... '-i"''. .... I. ....... t I~
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(.1=)
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCATION
TELEPHD~ ~ay time). ~ ~ "~'~g'
OWNER:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
I I
, Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
·
Alon-conforming Use Permit
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Variance
,
Wetland Alteration Permit
'"~r- PJanned Unit Development*
Rezoning
Sign Perm~
Sign. plan Review
Site Plan Review*
II I I
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Notification Sign ......................................
;X; Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VA~AP~e~s
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE $
ilst o/all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the
.t~ulMlng material samples must be submitted with site plan review&
'"i'wenty-slx full slze .folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8W' X 11" reduced copy of
/ransparency for each plan sheet.
-*Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
:3~:TJE-~ mul~le applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
USE DESIGNAtiON
'J=JEDI.a=~J~ ~ USE DESIGNATION
~ FD~ Ti-aS REQUEST
'Ttas ar~rea~n must be completed In full and be typewfltten or clearly printed, and must be acc0mpanled by all Information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
/::~_.,=rtme,~_ ~0 __~,A=,,mine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your applicstion.
· ,~ Of completeness of the application shall be m~ade within ten business days of appian submittal.- A Written
.aetk:e ~aAo~a~on deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant wtthln ten business days of applicalk~.
~sto =efftfy ~ 1 am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for coml~ylng.wtth '
-all City mqulnmtents with regard to this request. This appllca~, n should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
1he City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have _ _a~__ __~hed a copy of proof of ownership (either
~Of Ownm's D~ Ceffiflcate of. Title, Abstract of Til/e or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
2bls aj~xal~n ara:l the fee owner has also signed this application.
1 ~ ~ myse~ Informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application.. I further
authorization to.aoceed wtth the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to-the best-of--~
'J'he dlt]r ~ notilies the app~ that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
· mqr,drements and agency review. Therefore, the city is noblylrtg the appllcant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
~a~emion for devel~rnent review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless addltlonai review
~are,~3pmve~ by me ~
?-/2
' Date
:rhea~lac~t s~Uld contact ~,aff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
~,rmt coz~ac~ a copy of the report will be mailed to the appllcar~s addre~.
0
' XO00.O
(000.0)
Denotes Iron Monument
Denotes Wood Stake
Denotes Existing Elevation
Denotes Proposed Elevation Per D~v. F/on
Denotes Direction of Surface Drainage
Proposed Top of Foundation Eievatlon-
Proposed Garage Floor Elevation- 976.7
Proposed Lowest Floor Elevation.-
I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of:.
-,
Lots 45, 46, 47, and 48,'Block 1, CHAPARRAL 3RD ADDITION, Carver-County,
Hinnesota.
· And of the location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments; if any, from Or
on said land. It also shows the location of the stakes as set for a proposed building. As surveyed
by me or under my direct supervision'this 5t:h day of Sanuar), ,19.83 ,
Land Surveyor, Minn. Reg. No. 10 93 8
ML~cc '~"~0' CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
~;._-;p-~-~,~.~ OMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. for
NEW t401 IZON HOM£$
't + '~- -"1"'
.,--4-_ +-'i- -'~. '-- .... :---~----i-.-
.
.- :- ~..~-..;.. 4.. :. 4-.--~- ; .... ~-' '!" ''~--
---.-..~--.?~.-~. .'. : ....... E ..... ; .. :--."~. t ....
.
~ .' ! · . .
', · ......... .-'1.--I' "~"~'-"I,--:."1 .....
' .,
·
·
·
·
'T 'i .........
~------~ ' ; ' '-'.. i.-'--:~-.-:._.z_-;.'.':.:
-.....~.. ,.. ~ -..._, .... E...:..,. ..... !_. -; _ :, _ F._ ~--
: "*'""';' "f .... : ...... ~ - F- ."'F-'
. ~. , . . ' ! '~ ,'I, ~ [ ' i '
-.- "~'- . -'r -.'- .'~'f
'-] : '-i'~" ; ~--ar, m 'r' "". ,
: ;
- '.. --,- ,-
'--~,'---~,-'-- ..... :-'~'~. r
~ ,
";-"~ -~.-' ~--~'"'7 .....
. _ ..... .~._.~. ,
-~ ...... i ..... .
~ .... ~._. _ -' : .~ -~ .... ....
· -
' '
· ....................
_.,~ ..... ].- ---f - .-
..... .-,_ ~ . .,.. .. ~, .. ~. .... 4 .... ~.-.-J-.-.i
.-~--~ -i~' ........ -;i ~.~ -i'~'~-~.~ .....
--:-. i . ~. - ~ "~ 1/~' ": "~';~'~-~c~- .,'--' -,--
. ' / ~ -.-,~. ,l.~.: .
- ., ..., - , .-;..,~.':'~1,'- -, .... ',-----l;,
· : I-'"'~ ..,,~'!
4 .... ;''~'"' ['" .... !"'"---: '"'F
· ~ ~ [ ~ .
~.. ..
....
· '~' : ~ ' ~' .... ~" ~" 'i ''~'~ ~'"T' ''-~ ....
.-o~ ......
! ( -
·
' ' '- : ...... :- ~-' ~ ....... f-'-.?3
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCATION
/~ OWNER:
ADDRESS: /43/,/
TELEPHONE:.
, ·
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
interim Use Permit
Non-conforming Use Permit
Pianned Unit Development*
S~gn Permits
· Sign P~an Review
...
Site Plan Review*
Subdivision*
I
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
.z~ vaflance
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Notification Sign
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CU PIS PP,/VAC/VAR/WAP/IVletes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE $
A llst of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the
application.
:Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
'Twenty-six full slze ,folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8W' X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
'* Escro~ will be required for other applications through the development contract
-When mu~ple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
~:r.a.u=~; =u ZON~G
· '~ LAND USE DESIGNATION
LAND USE DESIGNATION
[~ ~=~ltS{:~l~l FDR THIS REQUEST
'Thls appl'~ must be completed In full and be typewritten or ~early printed and must be accompanied by all Information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance pmvislo~. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
/)a.~/o determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your app.llcatlon.
.~
,% Gu~u,,,,;,-~.~ Of completeness of the application shall be made wtthin ten business days of appllca0on submittaL A Written
~of appaca/Jon deficiencies shall be marled to the applicant wflbin ten business days of application.
'1'h~'ts lo =ertify that 1 am making application for the described action by the City and that ! am responsible for complying with
all C'dy requlrements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
1he City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this ~oplicatlon. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of. Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authortzed person to make
.1bis a~p~aticm and the fee owner has also signed this appllcatbn.
1 ~II l<eep ~ Informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this app~n. I further
~'=lera'tand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authoflzatton to proceed with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and-correct to-the best 'of ........
The c~ 1~ tm~tes the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to publ~ hearing
'*requlmmer~s and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automa~ 60 day
:~xl~msioa f~r development review. Development review shall be completed wll~in 120 days unless additional review
, exa~s~asare approved by the appllca~
. sjgm d,Fee ~ Date
on Fee Paid Receipt No.
app~ slmuld contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
ff~ot =oatacted, a copy of the report will be marled to the applicant's addreaa.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHA$SEN, MN 65317
(612) 9374900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCATION
/P ', I~,~. m.
RECEIVED
JUN 1 ~_ 2001
CITY OF CHANH^$$EN
OWNER:
ADDRESS:.
TELEPHONE (Daytime).
I
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
,
interim Use Permit
Non-conforming Use Permit
TELEPHONE:
~/f-~- 73~-~777"
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
~' Variance $
PJanned Unit Devel:~
Rezoning
Sign Permits
,
Sign Plan Review
Site PJan Review*
. . ·
Subdivision*
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Notification Sign
I I I
X. Escro,,w-'fclr Filing Fees/Attgq~y, Cost"
.. (~.~ U P/S P R/VAC~A~PNAP~etes
and Bounds, $400 MrfiSr SUB)
TOTAL FEE $
A llst of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the
application.
-Bulldlng-materlal-samples.must.be-submitted-with-eite.plan-revlews,
<r~vent~slx~ulFs~ze-fold~m~=oples~eHheplans~nusfl3e~u bmittedrlncludlng~a~~redu~ copv_oL
-transj~.e~~n~
'* Escrm~ will be required for other applications through the development contract
~ID'~- When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
/NO
3=3:[,t=RI=NT I.AND USE DESlGNATiON
3:tEDUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
FOR THIS REQUEST
A b JA-¢ E'/U 7--
'l'h'ls appli~ must be completed in full and be typewritten or dearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, YOU should confer with the Planning
~~m. ent to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your appllcation.
A detmm~na~on of completeness of the application shall be made wfthln ten business days of application submittel. A written
J~3tice of apprmation deficlancles shall be mailed'to the applicant within ten business days of application.
'Th~s ~s to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
-all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
· the City'should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this ~tpplication. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owners Duplicate Certirmate of-Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
.1his appl~ and the fee owner has also signed this application.
keep myself Informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
undemland that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility stucr~s, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authoriza~n to proceed with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
xn.V~ed~. .
'ihs city bern'ay natlfles the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notlyng the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
exte~sbr~ am approved by the app!icant.
I$~m~m of ~ Date
') - - o I
RecelptNo. D~t.) /4~
app~lcarft should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
if z,J3t canXacted, a copy of the mi)od will be mailed to the applicant's address.
$ o e,,-~A-c_6, cO ouch. ..F~ .~.. .....................
......... ~f!t~5£ ~cdsro..,O~. ...... co. &&_ES_.e_o._,o ¢~.
foot deep decks
12 foot deep decks
~J No decks
.-
o!
C. oo~,T
DECK SURVEY PAINT 2002
12f1100
6950 Pima Lan~ Ye~ 2002 '-! 0 x 104 x 4 P 1 x 6 T
6952 Piton L-an, ' ~,.es 2002 " 10 x l0 4 x 4~p----l- x 6 T ·
6954 ?lnd La~ Yes '"2002 !Ox 20 4 x 4 ? l'x' 6 T
6956 P-ima ~ Ye~ · " 2002 -i 0 x 10 4 x'~ P I x 6 T
6970 Pima La~ Ygs' 2007 ' '1:/x 20 4 x 6 P 5/4 C ....
69"/2Pima Lay Yes 1992- 2007' 12'x 20 4 x 6-p 5/4 T =
6974 Pima Lan~ Yon 2'007 l0 x 20 ~-X 6 P 5/4 C'-
6976 Plma La~ No
6990 Pima L~ No
6992Pimal..an~"' yes 1997 2012 'i'Ox 10 4x6P 5]-4-C ......
' 7000 Pima Lan~ Yes ..... 2002 -'i 0 x 206'~ ~ is 2 x 6 T OS~
7004 Pima Lan~ Yes 2002 12 x 20 4 x 4~P ! X 6-T-OSR
7020 Pima Lan~ No
7022 Pima' ~ : Yes ! 994- 2012 6 x 10 6 x 6 P 5/4 C '
7024 Piton Lan. : Yes 1990 2007 12 x 20 4 x 4 P 5/4 T
7026 Pima Lan: Yes ' 2002 -i2 x20 4 x 4 P"5/4 T. OSR
s
7030 Piton Lan ) No
7032 Pima/..an ) Yes 2007 12 x 20 4 x 4 P 2 x 6T
7034Piton Lan) Yes '" 1994 2012 12-x 20 6 x 6 P 5/4 ~'
7036 Pin~~ Ye~ 1995 2012 12 x 2~ '6 x 6 P 5/4C
7040 Pinut Lm,~ Yes =/990 2007 12 x 20 6 x 6 P 5/4C '"
~7644PimaLan~: yes 1997~.~. 20i2 10x20 6x4P 5/4C
1022 Pontiac I.~ tn No
102~'Pcrafi~ ~.' tc~ Yes 1997 2012 ' 'J'~'x 206 x 4 P 5/4 C
1030 Pontiac L~ to ~ Ye~ 2007 12 x 20--4 x 6 ? 5/4 T
1032 Pontiac L~ to Yes 2007- 12 x 20 4 ~c 6 J~ 5/4 T
1034 P~ti~ I~te No '-
1036 Pontiac i~ te Yes 1993 2007 12 x 20 6 x 6 P 2 x 6T
1040 Pontia~ L~ ~e Yes i/~)3 2007 12 x 20 4 X6-P 5/4 T '
1042 Ponti~ I~ te Yes 1993 2007 12x20 ¥'~6P 5/4T
1/)44 Ponti~ L~ ~e NO .......
1046 Pontiac'L~ Yes 1993 2007 10 x 20 ' ,~'/~ x P 5/4C
1050 Pontinc La~ Y~s 1997 20t2 12 x 20 4 x 4 P 5/4 C
1054 Pontiac La/e Y~ 1993 2007 12 x 1-0- 4-X'6 P 5/4 T
7321 Pontiac'Ch'Jo Yen -2007 10 x 20 6 ~ 6 P' 5/4 T
732~ ~ontlac Cir ,/e Y~s 1994 2012 12 x 20-6 x 6 ? 2 x 6 T
71 ! 0'Pontiac Cir d~ No "'
'~112 Pontiac Cir '.Jo Yes 1995 2012 10 x 1-~6 x 6 P 5/4 C
7114 Ponfi~ Cirde No
~'7116 Pont/ac Ci~ ,.Q'~' yes 1993 2012 10 x 2-0~ x 6 P 5/4 C "
C = Cedar D~gn8 T - Tre~t~ D~king CP = Compodte Deck/nE
P = Posts OSR - Old Style Railing
DECK SURVEY PAINT 2000
;.' '- ~,_, '. ,
! 'i'-:,'.1.:."':~ ...."' '~;,: i" ':: i' ' .... ,-,= ,' '.
: .......... ,. i!:ff.::'..'. ·
, L*: ;'.,:.' ..: ,'l .; ' .~'" .' '.. · · ' ': ':,',',il ,~
...... ; ...... .1-.., ., ,: '. ;'
~.'.; ........ ,,,,,.] . ,. , -., '.' . , . · ~. .... ,.1.,~,
........ ,, , ~;';'.~ I ;-'.: ',..:. C, :... "; ': -: ....... ; , :,,
7:311 ?ontino Ci~ J,~ Yes 2005 ! 0 x 20 6 x 6P I x 6 T
7313 P0n:t:i~ C~i't~ ,1~ Yes.... 5-00.5 10 x 2~) 4x4 ~"'1
7~"17 Pontiac Ci~;,l¢ Yes' 2b05 10 x 20 4 x 4 P 'i x 6 T
7301 Pontiao Ci~ ~le Yoa 20~'~ 10 x 20 6 x 6 P 5/4 T
7303 Pont{ac Gi~ ,,1¢y-cZ .- 2005 i0 x 10
~/303 Poniiac Ci~ ,,1¢Y~s " 2005 10 x 20 '~-x 4 P I x 6 T '
736~ Pontiac (2i~ ~1~-yes "' 2005- 10 x 26 '4 x 4 P I x 6T .....
7291Pontiac-Civile "Yes 2000 ' '2015 1~ x 20 6 x 6 P'-'5-/4 ~.P
-7293 PontiacCi~:le Yes 2000 20i'~ 10x20 6x6P 5/4C'P
. --
72~ Pontiao GiX~le.... Yes" 2005 -i0 x 20 '4 x 4 P 1 x 6 T
7297 Pontiac Ci~ ,,leYes ' 2005 10 x 20 4 x 4-P 1 x 6 T
'7281 Pontian Ci~:l~o Yes - 2005 10 x 10 '4 x 4 P 1 x 6 T ........
~283 PontiacCirfl¢ Yes 2000 20i'~' 10x20 6x6~ 5/4CI; ....
7~85 Ponfi~ CirfieYes " 2005 --10 x 20 4 x z[ 1~'' 1 x 6 T '
7287-P6ntiac Cir ,,l-e- yes 2005 1 {J x 20 4 x 4 P 1x 6 T ....
7271 Pbntlac Cir :1¢Yos 200-~' 10 x 20 4X4-~ 1 x 6'T
727J Pontiac Cir :I~Yo$ .... 2005 10 x 20 4 x 41a l"x 6 T '
7275 Pontiac Cir :~e-'Yes 2605 10 x 20 4x 4 P 1 x 6 T
~277 Pontt~ Cix:1oyes 2005 16 x 20 4 x 4 P 1 x 6 T
7261Pontia~Cir:lo Yes ~'0~'0 2015 10x20 '6x6P 5/4CP '
7263 P~ntiac Ci~ :1¢ Ye~ 2005 "' 10 x 10 4 x 4 P I x 6
7265 Pontiac Cfr :le '~es 20--0~; 10 x 20 '4'x'4 p 1 x 6 T"
7267 Pontiac Cir fie Yos ' ' 20(J5 --- 10 x 20 4 x 4 P 1 x 6 T
7251 Pontiac Clx :le ~re-~1999 ' 202-5 10 x 20 6 x ~5'~" 5/4 C
7253 Pontiac Ctr :1¢ Yes 2000 2010 10 x 20 6 x 6 P 1 x 6 T
'7255 Pontiac Cix :1~ Ye~ ~005 10 x 20 4 x 41s i'x 6 T ' '
"~57 Pontiac Clx fie Yes " :~005 10 x 20 4 x 4-P 1 x 6 T ......
7241 Pontiac Chfie Yes ' 2005 -1-0-X20 4 x 4 P 5/4 C
72~3 Po~tt~' Cir :lc Yes 2005 '1'0 k 10 ' '4 x'4 P I x 6 T
7245Pontia~cixfle Yes 1993 ' ,,2010 10x20 4x4-P 1 x6C .....
-72~TPofittacCiri~' Yes '1993 20-1-0 10x20 '4x4'Y'I x6T
7231Pontia~Cix~l¢ Yes :~305 10x20 4x'4P I X6T "
--7233 Pontta~ Clx ~le .... yes 2005 --i0 x' 20. 4 x 4 P i'~ 6 T
7235 Pontiac Clx :1¢ Yea "- 2005 1 (~ x 204 x 4 P 1 x 6 T
";/237 Pontiac Cix :1¢ Ye~ 2005 -'-10 x 20 4 x 4 ~P 1 x 6-T ·
'7221 Pontiac Cix :1¢ Yes ' 20'{~3' 10 x 20 4 x 4 P 1 x 6 T-
7223 Pontiao Clx :lc Yez 1994 20'~'~ 10 x 20 6 x {51a l-X-6 C '"
7225 Pontiac Ch:1~ Yes 1995 .... 2005 10 x 20 6 x 6 p- i-x 6 T ....
7227 Pontiac Cfi :lc Yes 2000 2025 ' 10 x 20 6 x 6~P ~/4 CP '-
C ~- ~ D ~¢king T - Treated De~king C..P = Composite Decking
P = Posts OSR = Old Style Pa/ling
. o
DECK SURVEY PAINT 2001 .
:' ii! .... .......
~.i:~_!~.. ......
· ..,."':.::'*~. -.. . .i ..... t:......-
......... .- .... q.,., ..".': ,.,.,.. 's~:'.,-:...:. ~., ¶;.
7211 Pontiao Circ e Yes 1994 2009 10 x 20 6x 6 P 5/4 C
7213 Pontiac Ch~ te Y~ 1994 2609 10 x 10 6 x 6 P ~/4 C"
7235 'Pontiac Cin le Yes 1990 2006 ~0 x 20 6- x 6 P 2 x 6 C "
7217 Ponti~ C~ lo Ycs 199/~ 2011 '10x l0 6x6P 5/4C '
7201 P0nthe Ci~ Yes 2001 !0 x 20 4 · 6 P 2 x 6 T OSR
7203 Ponflfu: Ci Yes 2000 " 202S 10 x 20 6 x 6P 2 x ~ T-
720~' Pontiac C] r Yes " :2001 12 x 20 4 x 6 P 2'x 6 T OSR '
7207' Pontiac C~ le' No ' '
7111 Ponti~C~ ie Yes 199/; 20ii ' 10 x 20 6 x 6 P $/4C '
7113 Pontiac Cin ~c Yes 1996 20i-1 10 x 10 6 x 6 P 5/4-C ·
711'~ pontiac Ci~ ile ¥cs 1990" 2006 1 ~)'x 206 x 6~P :2 x 6 T ·
7117PonfiacCi~:lc Yes' 1996 201'1 10x20 6'~6P $/4C--
71bl Pontiac C/ ~ Yes 2001 10 x 2~ 4 · 4~ ~/4 T
71-03Pont/acClnio yes' 1994 :2011 10x20- $x6~) 2x6T '
?~0S Pontl~ C~ ~"'Yes 2001 10 x 2/~'4 · 4 P 1 x 6 T" OSR
7107 Pontiac Ch~ lc No .....
981 Poi'the La] ~e Y~ 20(/1 10 · 20 4 x'4'~) 5/4 T OSR-'"
9S~PontiaaLa~i "Yes 199~ 2011 10x20 6x/;P ~/4C--
7081 ls~ntiac Ci~ ,,leYos ! 996' 2011' ~ 0 g 20 /; x 6 p- f/4 C '
7083 P~ntiac C r Yes ' 2001 -'10 x 10 4-x 4 p' 5/4 T OSR '
7100 Pontiac Ci~ ,,le Yes 1996- 2i)11 10x20 6'~6P $/4C
7102 Pontiac Ci~ 'lc Yes 1994 2011 10x20 6x6P 2x6T
7104 Pontiac Ch~ 'le Y~ 1996 2011 10 x2(}' 6x6P ~/4C "
7106}ontiac Ci~ le Y~s 1996 2011 ' 10 x 20 6 x 4 P 5/4 C.
7300 Pontiac Ci~ ,,le No '-
7302 Pont/ac Cir ,le Yes '1996 2011 'i2 x 20 6 x6 P 5/4 C -
7~04 Pontiac Cir ~1~ Yes ~0& ~0 x 20 4 x':4 p $/4 T '=
7306 Pontiac Cir de Yes ~-005 10 x 20 ~ x 4 P ~/4 T .....
lb21PontiacLa~' Yes 1994 "'2011 10x20 6x6P 5/4-C
1023 Pontiac La ~e Yes 2006 10 x 20 4 x 6-P 5/4 ~' --
10'25 Pontiac La mY~s 1995 2011 12x20 6x6P' $/4C
1027 Pontiac ~ m Ye~ - 2006 12 x 20 6 x 6 P 5/4 C '"
1011 P~ntiao La u~ Yes 2006 12 x 20 6k 6 P ~/4 T
1013PontiacL~m Yes 1989 .... 200~ 10x20 '6x6p b'74-T ..
1015 Pontiac La u~Yes "1995 20il 1'2x20 6x6P 5/4C '
101~Pontia~La~e Yes 2006 ' 12x20 4x4"P 5/4T
1001 Pontiac I~ ~e No
1003 Pontiac I~ ne Yes -- - 2001 12 · :20 4 x 4 P 5/4 THew Pos~
Floor
1005PontiaoLa~e Y~s 1993 2011 12x20 6x6P lx6C "
1007 Pontiac M ~c Yes ' 2006 12 x 20 4 x 4 P 5/4 T '
C - Cedar D ~cking T - Treat~l Decking CP = Composite Decking
P = Posts OSP.- Old Style Railins
DECK SURVEY PAINT 2004
" ......... - ..... . 1~ '-- "'~ ~.i: .:'.~_': .: i'.,. ,- ....... · .......... '.'¥: '. '
·, ,::i Yel , .
............. i ....... · ...... ~,: .' : ' · '.':":~t~ '~'- ' 4:~'4~4~l ?)-~".. ': ' '.'-':l~'l'.:
,~ .... ~.-,, , " ...... ~ . ' ......... · ....
.............~nla~., ~,~.., ,,,/ .~:~:~'" ....~..:';.. ':,.::.~,,~t:~.,~
........ · ....... . ...........
991Po~i~~: Y~ 1995 2010 12x20 -6x6P 5/4C
99~P~~ Y~ f994 ~010 12x~ 6x6P
7082 Fo~ ~ ,la Yes 199~ 2010 1~ x 20 6 x 6~ 2 x 6 C
7086 Po~ac ~ k Y~ 1995 ~i0 12 x 10 6 x 6 P 5/4 C
7200 P~fl~ Ci~ i6- Y~ 2009 10 x ~0 ' 6 x 6 P 5/4 T
-7~2~~ E~ ie .... y~ 2009 i0 x 20 6 x 6 P 5/4T ....
-
~ 72~ P~fi~ C~ ,16' Y~ 1994 "~0~ 10 x 20 6 x 6 P
72'~6 Ponfi~ Ci~ ;I~ Yes 19-94 "~009
7230 P~ C]~ le y~-'- 199~ ' 20~ 10~ 20 6 x ~ 5/4 ~ "-
-7232P~C~e- Yes 1999 20~" '10x~0---~ 6x~P 5/4C
7234 Pon~ac c~ ,1~ No
7236'Pon~ C~ ~1o No
7250 P~nfi~ ~r':le Y~ 1994 "-2009 10 x 20 '- 6 x 6 P 5/4 C "
7252 Pd~ Ci~ ~1~ Y~ " 1994 2009 10 x 20 6 x 6 P 5/~ C
7254 Ponfi~ ~r~ :le Y~s 1999 '2024 10 x 20 "6 k 6 P 5/4 ~ ' ' '
7256 Poa6~ C~ :la No
7~0 Pon~c C~ :lc Y~ 19~ 20ff~ 10 x 20 6 x 6 P 5/4 C "
7f~ Po~ Ck ~1~ ~s 1991 2009 " 10 x 20 6 x 6 P 5/~ T OSR
1013 Ponfi~ Co~ ~ No
1015 Pon~ Co, ~ Yos ' 20~ 10 x 20 4 x 4 P l'x 6 T "'
'i014 Ponfi~ Co'~ '" ~ea 1994 2009 ' '10 x 20 6 x 6 P 5~4 C
1016 P~fl~ Co'~ Yes 1994 2009
7290 Po~' Cir :le Yes 1 ~94 2009 ' 10 x 20 6 x 6P 5/4 C "
-7294 9~ Ck, :~ Yoa 1996 20i]- 10 ~ 20 6 x 6 P 5/4'C "'
7~OPonfi~C~l· Y~'~ 1995 ---2009 12x20 6x6P 5/4~
7320 Pon~- Git :~ ~ 199~ ~009 6 x i0--- 6 x 6 P 5/4 C .....
1031 P6n~ ~ xe ~o ' '
1035 Pon~ La xc ~0 ' '
1000 P~fl~ Co ~ Yes 19~5 2010 12'x 20 6 x 6 p- 5/4 C '
f0~ Pon~ Corn "' yea 1990 2005' 10 x 10 ~- x 4 P i x 6 c '-'
1004 Pon~ Eom No "-
1006P~fi~Co'm Yes' 1993 2009 '10x20 :6x6P
1001 Ponfi~ Go m Y~ 20~ 12 x 2~ 4 x 4 P
~ 003 Pon~ Co'~ No .....
160~ Pon~c Co'~ No ....
'1007 Ponfi~ Co'~'~ '"No ' '
C ~ Ccd~ D~g T = T~a~d De~ng ~ - ~m~aitc D~k~g
P = Porn OSR = Old $~le
' i
i
..
i
ii !
Fax Sheet
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
Senior
July 27, 2001
Julle H.
Maddnich
Manager
TIME:
PHONE:
FAX: 9624)37-5739
PHONE: 952-922. -2~0
FAX: 962-922.-5400
Hoj~ thb
Ttum~
of pages InGludi. ng cover iheet: 6
i
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 2001 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL: Amendment to Planned
Unit Development
APPLICANT: New Concepts
LOCATION: Chaparral 2nd and 3rd Additions
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, New
Concepts, is requesting to amend the Planned Unit Development to allow decks to encroach 12 feet Into
the required 30' setback, Chaparral 2nd and 3rd Additions.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to Inform you about the applicant's
request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during
office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,
please contact Julle 937-1900 ext. 117.' If you choose to submit written comments, it Is helpful to have one
copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 26, 2001.
.~ Y';ABETH K HAMILTON
954 PIMA LN
~IANHASSEN MN 55317
;ARY I SEMAN
950 PIMA LN
HANHASSEN
MN 55317
IARBARA F WIIJ~
952 PIMA LN
55317
M WILSON
MN
55317
55317
M CARLTON
PIMA LN
MN
55317
T OSMONDSON
PIMA LN
MN 55317
BENSON
PIMA BAY
MN 55317
PETERSON
PIMA LN
MN
55317
H KELLY &
KELLY
MN 55317
DORIS P MI~.KE
7O00 PIMA LN
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
SAMUEL V & SI-m'~ J.Ry D NISKA
7004 PIMA LN
CI-IANI-IASS~ MN 55317
MARY ANN ASHLEY
7024 PIMA LN
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
JANETB~OI~
7020PIMALN
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
CATHERINE A MA!.~-CHA ErAL
7022 PIMA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JULIE M SPINNER
7026 PIMA LN
CHANI-IASSF~
MN 55317
CHRIS & YVONNE ERICKSON
7034 PIMA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LARRY & SAt J.Y DREWIANKA
7030 PIMA BAY
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
WH.t.TAM S N-~-~EN &
BARBARA J MAROS
7032 PIMA LN
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
I-m J.ARY L WUJ.TAMS
7036 PIMA LN
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
THOMAS P BYE &
LINDA L CARTER
7040 lIMA LN
55317
DIANE $ FORSBERG
7044 PIMA LN
CHANHASSEN
55317
MERRY A HUDLOW
1022 PONTIAC LN
CHANHASSEN
55317
DAVID L S'I'EINKAMP
1026 PONTIAC LN
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
ANNETTE G FRISCH
1034 PONTIAC LN
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
lAMES R LAUDERDALE Ill &
NANCY ~ LAUDERDAT-R
1030 PONTIAC LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MARY A HAIDEN
1032 PONTIAC I...N
(~IANHASSEN
MN 55317
SARAH BUSSMANN
1036 PONTIAC LN
CHANHASSEN
55317
JANET K WALTER
624 1/2 IST ST W
CHASKA
55318
DENNIS A GEURTS
1040 PONTIAC LN
CHANHASSEN
55317
DENISE C JOHNSON
1042 PONTIAC LN
CHANHASSEN
55317
AUDREY A CRONICK
1023 PONTIAC LN
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
SHARMIN M A AL-JAFF
1005 PONTIAC LN
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
GEORGE E HOLASEK
1046 PONTIAC LN
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
ROBIN L O~BORSKY
1027 PONTIAC I.aN
CHANHASSEN
55317
SAMF_,S H CLARK &
LEANNE M MANDELKOW CLARK
1001 PONTIAC LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
KURT D SM1TH &
NICOLE M EVANGELISTA SMITH
1054 PONTIAC LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
STEPHEN E REGAN
1025 PONTIAC LN
CHANI-IASSEN
55317
GERALD F & LINDA J PELACH
993 PONTIAC LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MATTHEW A & TRESSA K ELVEHJEM
1050 PONTIAC l. aN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BETTE J NELSON
1021 PONTIAC LN
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
THOMAS J & EDNA K SCHOENECKI
7082 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAMES F DECK
7321 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
HOWARD M & RITA G LEUTHNER
1013 PONTIAC LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JAMES M LAING
7086 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
MARK C ANDRADA
7325 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN
MN
55317
SANDRA J SWEGLE
1017 PONTIAC LN
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
WIIJJIAM JOHN
991 PONTIAC LN
CHANHASSEN
55317
MARK A CZECZOK
7320 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN
55317
DAVID S & JUNE E GUCKENBERG
7221 CO RD 34
FINLAYSON MN 55735
TIMOTHY C PETERSON
7313 PONTIAC
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
SCOTT H TRICK
7310 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
MARION JEAN HARTLEY
1011 PONTIAC LN SW
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
ALBERT N FARHA
7317 PONTIAC DR
CHANHASSEN
55317
MARTIN J & TANYA J MEIERS
1035 PONTIAC LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ALLAN G DOLD
1003 PONTIAC LN
CHANHASSEN
MN
55317
GREG D GARDNER
7315 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN
MN
55317
MARJORIE A JOHNSON
1031 PONITAC LN
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
SANDRA J CLASING
1007 PONTIAC LN
CHANHASSEN
MN
55317
JOHN T HUBER &
PATRICIA A PUI-IL
7311 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN
MN
55317
~.VID L BORNEMAN
~,61 ALPII~ CT
URRIHTA CA
92563
RICHARD K SF.,IFERT
7285 PONTIAC C1R
CI-IANI-IASSEN MN
55317
SAxJ-Y J'O Gl~nm=,
7253 PONTIAC CIR
CI-IANI-IASSEN
MN 55317
3NALD H 8: FLORENCE CARRUTH
07 PONTIAC CIR
tANHASSEN MN 55317
PAUL R BLAD &
ROBERT C BLAD
7602 ERIE AVE
CHANHASS~
MN 55317
THOMA~ W 8:: BRENDA F ATIONS
7257 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHAS~ MN 55317
,'EFHEN S PETERSON
05 PONTIAC CIR
tANHASS~ MN
55317
ROGER ~I & LU_(~t J.~. M LINS
7273 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ALICE A & AARON E POTTER
7255 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHA~SEN MN 55317
FFREY S & SI/ZAN M HOSKINS
01 PONTIAC CIR
tANI-IASSEN MN 55317
DANTe- R & MARH.m~- J' DUNSMORE
7277 PONTIAC CIR
CHANI-IASSEN MN 55317
R CONRAD & GEORGIA A SCHMID
7251 PONTIAC CIR
CItANHA~SEN MN 55317
3BERT (3 & DONNA HOBAN
93 PONTIAC CIR
5ANI-IASSEN MN 55317
1~7 37ABE'I~ M PITSCH
1736 FAIRCI-m.D BAY
LAKE HAVASU CIT AZ
864O4
JEAN M SOVA'
· 7243 PONTIAC CIR.
55317
~ISCHJA A BIJRSCH
PO BOX 98
tANHASSEN MN 55317
TERRY L HAMM
7271 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN
55317
!.I~OY L & ALICE M BERG
7247 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
%ROL M DAUWALTER
,95 PONTIAC CIR
{ANHASSF~ MN
55317
VIRGINIA KOEHNEN
7263 PONTIAC CIR'
CI-IANHASS~ MN
55317
NANCY L HANKINSON
C/O MCCd3WAN
5040 THOMAS AVE S
MINNEAPOLIS MN
55410
tARAE L HOGAN
,91 PONTIAC CIR
tANHASSEN
55317
PAUL J PETTINGER &
JEAN M ~ERER
7267 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHAS~ MN
55317
MARY ANN MEYER
7241 PONTIAC CIR
CI-IANHASSEN
MN 55317
a'qICE J LEIFERMANN
183 PONTIAC CIR
MN
55317
MICH3g-I. & BARBARA COLDAGm J
7265 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MORRIS G & DELORES A NESS
9442 CAMIN1TO CABANA
SAN DIECK) CA 92126
ANN~
PONTIAC CIR
MN
55317
SHIRLEY A VINKEMF~
7261 PONTIAC CIR
CHANI-IASSEN MN
55317
EVERETT V & }-lh'l.~rN L CLAUSON
7237 PONTIAC CIR
CI-IANI-IAS~ MN 55317
FRANCIS X & EILEEN C MCGINN
7235 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ARLENE P VERBRAKEN
7203 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
MICHAEL T QUINN
7105 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
BARBARA A KERBER
7231 PONTIAC CIR
CHAN-HASSEN MN
55317
STEVEN B I-[ENO
7207 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
GEORGE E & MARJORIE A HAND
7101 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
STEPHANIE L FRASER
7223 PONTIAC CIR
CHANI-IASSEN MN
55317
JAMES A & BRENDA BARNHOLDT
7205 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
WESLEY E & ALICE I FLANDERS
7081 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MARTHA X PARKER
PO BOX 552
EKCELSIOR MN 55331
MARY M WILLETTE
7201 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
DENNIS & DEBRA WINR. OW
7083 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
.lEAN M BROWN
7225 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
GLYNIS $ CATON
7113 PONTIAC CIR.
CHANHASSEN
MN
55317
SHERYL LARAE MICKRI.SEN
981 PONTIAC LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
STEVEN L BEST
7221 PONTIAC CIR
CHANIq. ASSEN
MN
55317
DAN T CONKEY
7117 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
JULI C JONES
983 PONTIAC I_aN
CHANI-LASSEN
MN 55317
LEONEMARIEHUNTER
7213 PONTIAC CIR
CHA_NHASSF~ MN
55317
DEFOREST B & MARY L STEWART
7115 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
HELEN C BKANCEL
7306 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
LYDIA E PORTER
TRUSTEE OF LYDIA PORTER TRUST
7217 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LINDA J NIEMI
7111 PONTIAC CIR-
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
DOUGLAS A & ROBYN L BROBERG
1124 SOUTH REDBUD DR
LAPORTE IN 46350
KATHLEEN L DELSING
7215 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
JAMES C & CHRISTINE A ERICKSON
7103 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GERALD & JOEY WOODARD
7300 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHARLES W & MARGARET BECKER
7211 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ANDREW H & KATRINA CLEMENS
7107 PONTIAC CIR
CHANI-IASSEN MN 55317
LAWRENCE R MITCHELL &
MARILYN A MITCHELL
7304 PONTIAC ClR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
NATHAN D GORDER
7294 PONTIAC CIR
(/-IANtIASSEN MN
55317
PENNY R GARRET/'
1007 PONTIAC CT
CH. ANHASSEN
MN 55317
MARIANNE J LAURENT
7236 PONTIAC CIR
CI-IANHASSEN MN
55317
ROBERT C &NANCY CEVANGELISTA
~CIR MN 55317
I.~ AND MYRON & MARALYN J OI.301'
1003 PONTIAC CT
CHANI-{ASSEN MN 55317
SUSAN M BREYER
7232 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
SARAH L BREN
1016 PONTIAC CT
[IHANHASSEN
MN 55317
ANDREW J & JODILYNN F OLSON
1013 PONTIAC CT
CHANI-IASSEN MN 55317
~ PATRICI~ MCGOUGH &
BRENDA L MCC~UGH
7230 PONTIAC
CHANI-IAS~ MN 55317
SUE BROOK
1014 PONTIAC CF
55317
LINDA D k'~OMAN
1015 PONTIAC CT
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
DEBORAH A SAKALOS
7234 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
55317
JACK D & FRANCIS E BARNES
7198 FRONTIER TRL PO BOX 246
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
LORA L KETZ
7206 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN
55317
A & MARILYN R DUHN
.006 PONTIAC CT
MN 55317
KERI R PRESCOTT
7264 PONTIAC ClR
CHANHASSEN
NIN 55317.
JERAD R RASMUSSEN
7202 PONTIAC CIR
55317
L KOHLS
004 PONTIAC cr
MN 55317
7256 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
RU'I~ M PD'L~~
7200 PONTIAC CIR.
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
A JURACEK
PONTIAC CT
MN
55317
ARTHUR L BE'TZ &
/ULIA I SCOGGINS
7252 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
HAIti.Ky V & JACQIJlk':I' JNE MORLOCK
7204 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
,AVID D & LINDA S MOORE
PONTIAC CT
MN 55317
JEROME P & JOANNE T OMAN
7250 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASS~ MN 55317
TERESA J 7~.KA
7116 PONTIAC (/IR
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
GIFF/N
PONTIAC CT
SEN
MN 55317
~ J-EN A YOUNGBERG
7254 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
DARTJgNE L LOVING
7112 PONTIAC CIR.
CHANI-IASSEN MN
55317
DAVID A NEI~ON
7110 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
RICHARD B SR & MARILYN J BROWN
7114 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID R & PATRICIA F GADBERRY
7106 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CAROL 3EAN COBURN
7102 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
DAT.I=. L & EILEEN H SIMONETTE
7 I00 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID R & JULE A B A1LRETT
7104 PONTIAC CIR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7; 2001
m
The developer shall provide a tree removal plato The developer shall install tree protection
fencing near the building pad or adjacent to site grading to protect trees during construction. The
existing trees in front of the property should be preserved.
The proposed driveway shall be of a hard surface variety (bituminous, concrete, or brick paver).
Also, show the proposed driveway grade.
10.
Two individual sewage treatment sites (ISTS) must be located for the lot. The sites must be
evaluated by a licensed ISTS designer and must be submitted for approval by the city in
accordance with Chanhassen City Code Chapter 19, Article IV.
11.
Building permits must be obtained from the City of Chanhassen before be~nning any
construction.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
Blackowiak: It has already been to City Council so what happens now Kate? Does it just, building
Aanenson: That's it.
Blackowiak: Okay, we're done with this one.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE REQUF_~T TO AMEND THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW
DECKS TO ENCROACH 12 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT SETBACl~ CHAPARRAL
2~ AND 3m~ ADDITIONS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Ron Kramer
Merry Hudlow
1022 Pontiac Lane
1022 Pontiac Lane
JuNe Hoium presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions of staff?. Uli, you're nodding. Go ahead.
Sacchet: Yes, I do have questions. First of all we're saying tt~ we have these 4 applications that
triggered this. You don't state how much they actually encroach. I would assume it's just the 2 feet is
pretty much.
Hoiunc Correct
Sacchet: That's what we're talking about is encroaching the 2 feet. Not more than 2 feet.
Hoiurm All of them at 2 feet.
Planning Commission Meeting -August 7, 2001
Sacchet: Then when you did the math, you give in here the breakdown. That was very helpful of how
many units there are. How many have porches and so forth. Looking at this data I basically come out
that about 10% in that development are an issue. Now my question is, out of the ones that do have decks,
the 12 that are non-conforming. It's about 8%, how did they become non-conforming?
Hoium: When this PUD was originally approved, somehow some of the quad units got built with decks
on them originally. Some of they just did not get caught when they were originally built.
Saccbet: So this just kind of happened.
Hoium: Just kind of accidentally, yeah.
Sacchet: lust kind of happened. Okay. Now in order, nit picky question. Out of those that are not built
you say 4 would have an issue with the setback. Would they be okay with the 10 foot but not okay with
the 12 foot?
Hoium: The 4 that would not have an issue?
Sacchet: In your tabulation you say that 20 units have no deck and 4 of those, if they build a deck would
have an issue with the setback. My question is, out of those 4 would they be, they'd have an issue tO
want to make a 12 foot deck. Would they have an issue to make a 10 foot deck?
Hoium: No.
Sacchet: Okay. Then when we're talking about replacing the decks, we also include the option that they
would turn the deck into a screened porch. Is that somewhat synonymous? Are we talking about the
decks being rebuilt periodically?
Hoium: Are you asking can, if they have a porch can that be rebuilt?
Sacchet: Well if they have a deck and want to turn it into a porch.
Hoium: Currently with the current development contract, if they have a 12 foot deck they would need a
variance. If they have a 10 foot deck they would add a porch.
Sacchet: Okay. And then we have a special case where, these are duplexes.
Hoium: Four-plexes.
Sacchet: Four-plexes, okay. But they come in pairs where the porches are. If one has a 12 foot deck on
it, a porch that is conforming, but the one next to it would have an issue putting in 12 foot, and in order to
be conforming would have to make a 10 foot. Are there a lot of those?
Hoium: There are not a lot of them~ There are a few. This is an example. It unfortunately couldn't get a
picture from the front to show it. I would say there are approximately 3 or 4 that have this issue.
Sacchet: So small enough in number that it'd be reasonable to make variances rather than blanket cover.
Okay. That's my questions, thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowialc Any other questions commissioners?
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. Did staff consider re-looking at the porch situation in conjunction with this
deck so we can maybe neaten up the whole thing?
Hoiurm That was a consideration. If they maintain the 20 foot setback as with the 10 foot deck in the
current standards, it should not be a problem- However I would leave that u.p to you.
Kind: Our current ordinance says that screened porches or any kind of porch would have to be 10 feet in
depth.
Hoium: Correct_
Kind: So I'm submitting to my fellow commissioners that maybe it makes sense to take a look at that at
the same time here. That's all.
Blackowiak: And I guess I have one question too. Kind of in that same vein. We have decks that am
non-conforming, less than 20 feet from the property line. If they want to rebuild, and our ordinance says
that you cannot further a non-conformance. What do we tell them? Apply for a variance. Is that their
sole remedy or what is their option in that case?
Hoium: They can, according to our ordinance and after talking with the city attorney, they can maintain
and repair their decks. -
Blackowiak: Okay, what if they have to rebuild them? I mean what if it bums? Something happens, and
it's destroyed.
Aanenson: If it's less than 50% of the value, they can rebuild it. And if you add that to the value of the
home, more than likely they could rebuild it.
Blackowiak: Okay, and if it's totally gone.
Aanenson: It'd be the value of the unit, not just the declc So more than likely they can rebuild it.
Blackowiak: And I kind of had an issue with that too. I was surprised that it was considering the value
of the entire unit. That surprised me but...and I'm not going there so, okay. Well if you don't have any
more questions. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? And if so, please
come to the microphone and state your name and address.
Merry Hudlow: My name is Merry Hudlow and I'm at 1022 Pontiac Lane. And we have applied for a
variance for a 12 foot deck. When we purchased the home in March we were told that we would be able
to build the deck. There is no deck there at all right now. Our neighbor that we share a parting wall with
has a 12 foot deck. The association would like us to build a 12 foot deck in order to m~teh. They also
allow season porches. The association also allows 4 season, or 3 season porches now that you can
and if we were restricted to a 10 foot, that would clearly make a very small season porch. You know also
we were required to list a hardship for why a 10 foot deck would be a hardship. Well it would have
definitely changed our priorities in purchasing the home. We came from an apartment. We're very big
on being outside, sitting outside, enjoying the outdoors. We did look at two existing homes that had
Planning Commission Meeting- August 7, 2001
existing decks but for various reasons opted not to purchase them. We purchased this one with plans of a
12 foot deck in the future improvement. Any questions?
Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant?
Claybaugh: Yes I have a question. Could you expand on your intentions for the screened porch. As I
understand right now that's limited to 10 feet on the current ordinance.
Ron Kramer: My name is Ron Kramer and I live with Merry at 1022 Pontiac Lane. Under just the
definition of what you just described earlier about the screened po.reh or the 3 season porch up above,
requirements if we were to go wider than 10 feet, that would require a variance because that's what your
rules are now, correct? Well the way I have constructed the foundation of this, because we were, we
could only do a 10 by 20 originally so I have footings at the 10 by 20 mark.
Claybaugh: So you're just going to cant out the deck?
Ron Kramer: Yes, my intentions are to cant out 2 feet and so if a 10 foot, this is the first news I heard. It
was news to me that it's 10 foot wide is the limit, or 10 feet rather is the limit for a porch. Well then it
could be built within the, where the footing posts are, from the inside out and that would stay within the
10 foot requirement.
Claybaugh: For the screen porch?
Ron Kramer: The porches would. And then I'd have a little place to put flower pots or even walk around
and wash outside windows. And I have a permit for that and I have the footings dug and they're two-24
inch diameters so the footings are in for any possible future use.
Claybaugh: It seems to be a fundamental conflict between the deck and the porch. What is the reasoning
for the discrepancy between the two distances if they're considering a 12 foot for deck versus screen
porch? Since it would be back to the table relatively soon discussing the issue of the porch.
Hoium: This here is a picture of his property. It is at, the structure itself is at 30 feet. It's got a 30 foot
setback. So the 12 foot deck would be 18, have an 18 foot setback no matter what would require a
variance if they were allowed to build a 12 foot deck.
Sacchet: Point of clarification. The deck at the neighbors is 12 foot.
Hoiura: Yes.
Claybaugh: But an adjacent neighbor who has a 12 foot deck, or can accommodate a 12 foot deck, you
still maintain that 20 foot setback. Could they put a screen porch in' further out than 10 feet? Under the
current ordinance.
Hoiurm That's what we need to decide. Right now under the current ordinance, no.
Claybaugh: Okay.
Ron Krarner: I guess we're not planning on building a screen porch right away. Hopefully that will get,
add a porch up above right away. Hopefully that will be resolved...
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Claybaugh: If you build on a 12 foot deck and come by in 2 years and look at a 10 foot screen porch, it's
going to look like you got caught in a code loop here and made the best of a bad situation and I don't
think that's the intention of the fellow commissioners or the staff either so.
Blackowiak: Deb do you have a question?
Kind: Yes. The staff's recommendation right now would not help these folks at this moment.
..
Hoiunc No. Not for a porch.
Kind: Not for a deck either.
Aanenson: Right.
Kind: ...no matter what because they're 30 feet right now. Just want to clarify that. But their neighbors
have a 12 foot deck so they're currently encroaching 2 feet into the setback, so they:re one of those little
fluky things that happened.
Hoium: Correct.
Merry Hudlow: Right where we live there's just a slight curve and that's what bottled up everything.
The bottleneck right in there and if you look down, we live at the end of a cul-de-sac. If you look at the
next 10 townhomes facing the road, they're all 12 foot decks.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions about this applicant?
Sacchet: You're aware that you could apply for a variance obviously. I mean it doesn't mean you cannot
do your 12 foot. It's just that you would have to apply for a variance and get a variance approved. I
mean the way this works doesn't say it's impossible for you to make it 12 foot, but it's that you would
need a variance. That's correct right?
Aanenson: That's what they're applying for, yes.
Merry Hudlow: I understand that someone is going for an amendment for the whole area, but because we
are separate from that...
Hoium: A blanket type of variance.
Aanenson: That's what we're recommending is a blanket one. It still wouldn't solve this but that's
something you can include if you want to look beyond that.
Claybaugh: So we're actually addressing two issues?
Aanenson: Correct. Right.
Claybaugh: This is the big issue and the global issue of the...
Merry Hudlow: We were I of the 4.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Sacchet: Madam Chair, point of clarification. So we don't really have their variance application in front
of us because that's a separate thing?
Hoium: It' s kind of combined as a blanket variance for the whole PUD.
Kind: It doesn't solve their problem.
Hoium: And this doesn't solve their problem.
Sacchet: Could we add it onto this that we grant their variance but we would need a write-up and stuff.
We can't do that...
Aanenson: We noticed the whole subdivision of Chaparral...
Blackowiak: I'm sorry Kate, could you clarify this a little bit more. So we're going to go, let's say we
go through and approve this amendment. Okay. They still do not have their variance. Okay.
Amendment passes. Assuming that. They have no variance. They still have to come and get a variance,
correct?
.-
Aanenson: Right, but I guess what we're saying is that if you want to go beyond the staff's
recommendation to accomplish it. Now we did notice the variance for this entire subdivision.
Blackowiak: So what you're saying is if we chose to say like 18 feet for example, that would accomplish
not only granting that variance this evening.
Aanenson: Or because there's an anomaly because they're on a cul-de-sac. If you want to find some
other findings of those, and that's what I think they're saying is that there is a unique circumstance with
the cul-de-sac there that's pinching their property. If you want to give that as a rationale for...
Blackowiak: I just don't want them to come tonight and have to come back again. I guess that's kind of
my whole thought.
Merry Hudlow: I also have a question.
Blackowiak: Certainly, go ahead.
Merry Hudlow: You know we're new to this. We've never done this so we were kind of surprised, when
this came up as an amendment and then going to City Council. I guess I was under the assumption that
we were applying for ourselves and our lot, and then after tonight we would be allowed to proce, ed if you
should approve it to build.
Blackowiak: Okay, that's not quite how it was written. Kate, if you want to address that question or
Julie.
Aanenson: If it's the PUD amendment, that would have to go to the City Council too.
Blackowiak: So that would have to be.
Planning Commission Meeting - August ?, 2001
Ron Krarner: Are we lmnped into...
Blackowiak: Yeah I was going to say. Would a variance, could that supercede a PUD ame~t? I
mean no, it couldn't.
Merry Hudlow: We've paid the money. We've filled out all the forms for a variance.
Blackowiak: Right. How was this noticed in the newspaper? PUD amendment?
Aanenson: The staff's recommendation is, this isn't the only anomaly that's out there so instead of
frying to solve it on a one lot basis, was to look at the entire PUD and say that's the waY to solve the
problem.
Claybaugh: And that makes sense. It's just that we have some petitioners in front of us, even if we vote
to the affirmative, it still doesn't address their problem.
Aanenson: That's correct. So the other alternative was to say, give them that specific lot or those lots
that are on the cul-de-sac relief from that and make a different standard.
Merry Hudlow: I realize that this is a problem but we've been doing this since .May. We found out, you
know no this, no that and we had to apply for a variance and then we were too late.for the J;uly, or June
meeting. Then we got bumped from July.
Blackowiak: Oh you didn't want to be there anyway, it was a long one. I mean you wouldn't want to
have been there~
Sacchet: May I ask another question?
Blackowiaic Certainly.
Sacchet: What is unique to their situation that could be added to the conditions here so they're covered
because I really like what you worked out. I don't think it should be a flee for all. ! thought you found a
very good balance, and I think in all fairness to the 80% of homeowners that respected that 20 foot
setback and 8% that didn't, we don't want to make it a free for all that everybody all of a sudden can do
what we, because if we aren't fair to those that respected it and made it 10 foot instead of 12 foot. But
what's unique to their situation that would make us want to grant their variance?
Hoiurm One issue that's unique is that their neighbor does have a 12 foot. -
Sacchet: The neighbor has a 12 foot. Anything else?
Hoium: It's in a cul-de-sac.
Sacchet: How many others are in cul-de-sac?
Claybaugh: There's a number of cul-de-sac' s in there.
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: Sorry if we're bogging you down with numbers here but Deb pointed out something that, as
it was noticed I believe that it allows the amendment is to allow decks to encroach 12 feet into the 30 foot
setback, which would accommodate their request, okay. So in other words, by granting this request, if
we change decks must maintain an 18 foot setback, if we chose as a commission to go that route, then
that would be resolved this evening, am I correct in assuming that?
Hoium: Yes.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Hoium: If I could add one thing. One of the other reasons we chose to do this as a blanket amendment.
This, the homeowners association replaces decks yearly. I believe you have a copy of this. The
projected years that decks get replaced so this is an issue that could continually come up so we thought if
we just did one blanket, it might solve some of the problems in the future.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Merry Hudlow: Which I can appreciate, you know the whole amendment idea. I guess we just want...
Blackowiak: You just want a deck. I understand. Bottom line we want a deck.
Merry Hudlow: We waited for 5 months.
Feik: I need to clarify something for myself as it relates to the petition here. If 'we in your
recommendation change your item number 1 to an 18 foot setback, does this then need to go to the City
Council?
Aanenson: Yes.
Feik: And what is the delay for these folks in that process?
Hoium: What is the delay?
Feik: Delay.
Hoium: 2 weeks.
Feik: Because otherwise they could get a variance tonight and be done and they could be constructing,
assuming permits tomorrow.
Blackowiak: No.
Aanenson: It'd still have to be recorded.
Sacchet: And we don't have the documentation for the variance in our package. We can't give the
variance.
Merry Hudlow: That's originally what we applied for and we had our carpenter out.
I0
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak Yeah, it can happen. Any other questions of the applicant?
Feik: Well on behalf of the council and staff, I apologize for this unintended delay that this might cause
you.
Blackowiak: 2 weeks.
Sacchet: Monday.
Blackowiak: No, it would not be that Monday. It has to be in 2 newspapers so.
Rcm Kramer: Then do we have to apply for a variance?
Blackowiak: No.
Sacchet: We'll take care of it.
Merry Hudlow:. So you're telling us we cannot apply individually tonight as originally planned and start
construction?
Blackowiak: Excuse me Uli, Kate. So this is not an individual variance tonight. I mean I waet to get
this straight. It was noticed as an amendment to the PUD so if it goes to council it-would be 8-28,
correct?
·
Aanenson: Correct.
Blackowialc August 28th.
Sacchet: There is a possibility that we will cover your situation with this so if you just bear with us for a
little bit. Don't give up, okay?
Ron Kramer. Because we had nothing to do with trying to do an amen~t or change the PUD. We
just want...
Blackowiak: No, I understand. It's just that when multiple variances come in at one time we ask
ourselves a question, does it make sense to look at the entire area as opposed to doing item by item_
Merry Hudlow: Which I understand.
Blackowiak: We're trying to take a bigger picture here. So actually I have a question for staff but did
you have anything else you'd like to add?
Rcm Kralner....be able to make that work with construction beginning the
Blackowiak: I would not say that. Let's just wait until the vote's over and then we'll tell you. We'll
give you the information after our vote is over, okay? Alright, thank you so much.
Merry Hudlow: Thank you for your time. Thank you.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: And I noticed that there were several other applicants as well. Is there anybody else who
would like to speak to this issue? Any other applicants this evening? No? Okay. Kate, before we move
on I have a question. We're talking about Chaparral 2~, 3~ and 4~Addifions in the background and the
amendment to only the 2~ and 3'~. Is 4~ single family or what's the difference?
Hoium: 4t~ is non-existent.
Blackowiak: Oh, okay. So we'll just cross that off. Okay, that takes care of that. Okay so, this item is
open for public hearing so if anybody would like to make comments or ask questions, please come to the
microphone and state your name and address for the record.
Jerry Paulsen: Good evening commissioners, Jerry Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. There are a
couple of things that you should keep in mind when considering this request for a variance. One of the
repercussions of making a blanket approval of course would be that the other homeowners will expect
similar treatment if you do this. It'd be difficult to deny another subdivision the same thing. If you're
going to make an exception in this case. The other factor that you should be aware of is the requirement
for impervious surface. Looking at the definition of impervious surface in the code it says any material
that substantially...gravel driveways, parking areas, buildings and structures. The definition for
structure, if you look at that includes boardwalks. Last year we gave the city a copy of a letter we
received from the DNR. The DNR specifically stated that impervious surface includes a deck. We have.
copies of that letter if you want to see that. It's only logical that if a boardwalk is considered to be
impervious surface, why isn't a deck considered to be impervious surface? If the planning department
believes that a deck is not impervious surface, you should be aware that there are products on the market
that you can put under your deck and make it an impervious surface so are you going to restrict this
product from being used on decks if that's true? And the city would have to specifically perhaps forbid
the use of that product, which is a little unreasonable I think. I don't think you can argue that the DNR
definition of a deck has an impervious surface applies only to the shoreland. If it's impervious in
shoreland, it's impervious no matter where it is. Logical. Therefore keep in mind that setting a
precedent for granting the variance will likely result in a request for variance from other property owners
and secondly that the, certainly the deck area should be...in the category of impervious surface. And
taking into account the decks in this area. Nowhere in the staff report is there any data on existing -
impervious surface for these homes. They're called low density so there's a requirement I believe of
30% for PUD. I liked Commissioner Sacchet's remark about avoiding the blanket variances as opposed
to granting an individual variance which could be well warranted in some cases. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission at this time? Kate and/or
Julie, a couple comments. Impervious surface as I calculated, that would be approximately 20 square feet
per non-conforming deck. If this were to go through, do you have any idea of what the impervious
surface coverage is right now? 200?
Kind: 10 times 20.
Blackowiak: I thought it was 2, an additional. From what is allowed times I0. So that would be only 20
per deck. Yeah. Do we know what impervious is at this point?
Hoium: Per unit?
Blackowiak: Isn't it a per project basis on a PUD?
12
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Hoiurm I'm not sure what the inxpervious is. There is a large open space, part of thi~.
Blackowiak: Is that Meadow Green Park? Is that part of this7
Hoiurm Correct. It's on the map if you want to show.
Blackowialc Yeah, I know.
Hoium: Several of these lots are large per unit which also has more i .mpervious, or open land. I do not
- .
know the exact amount of impervious surface.
Blackowiak: Okay. And then what about the question of setting a precedent. Do you feel that there are
any other PUD's in the city that would be potentially affected by an amen~t such as this? Do we
need to worry about that or'?
Aanenson: What we've given you is a schedule of the decks that are in place. Decks that are going to
come in for refurbishing. Some of the requests that we've received in the past. The city has not
interpreted as we have a cantilever, a window, a fix~lace as the im~, rvious underneath. We haven't
calculated it that way before. The DNR did say on the lakeshore that they would be, but we haven't
interpreted it that way in the past.
Claybaugtc Have they made a distinction between a ground level deck and an upper level deck7
Aan~on: That's how we have in the past.
Claybaugh: Right. Does the DNR make that distinction?
Aanenson: On the lakeshore lot. That was their interpretation on a lakeshore lot.
Blackowiak: Kate I'm sorry, I guess my question was is there another PUD or another area? In other
words, if we were to go ahead and approve this amendment tonight, do you feel that there's any other
area that would be impacted potentially by such an amendment? I mean would we be setting a precedent
or opening a door to another PUD or is that not a concern for us this evening?
Aanenson: Well we're doing a blanket variance request on the next subdivision. We have done them.
It's not that uncommon. I guess we're not trying to over penalize one person in that subdivision. We're
trying everybody that's in that subdivision, in that homeowner associations following the same general
type of rules, and that's why we did explain this to the applicant. Maybe we didn't explain it clearly.
What direction we were going. How we were noticing it when it got tabled. We made that decision to
do it so while we don't want to penalize them, we also want to treat everybody, the other 3 applicants in
the same light so that was the staff's position on that. To treat everybody similarly. Instead of sitting
here with 4 requests deciding who gets it and who doesn't, to lxy and look at it in a bigger picture.
Blackowiak: Right, I understand totally what you're trying to do. Okay, do you have a question of staff?.
Sacchet: Yeah, point of clarification. You kind of indicated this as a neighborhood as a PUD has a fair
amount of green space. Is it safe to deduct from that that this whole thing is not very close to the limit of
impervious? I mean it'd be nice to have this really specific and nailed down. Can you at least be very
13
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
clear about what, how you see that? I mean if they're not talking about a huge amount of additional
impervious surface. We're talking about this 20 or what?
Blackowiak: 20 feet.
Sacchet: 20 square feet per location.
Blackowiak: Per non-conforming deck. There are some that are conforming.
Sacchet: Which we already established about 10% so we're talking like a dozen or so of those. I mean is
a couple hundred square feet additional impervious potentially an issue there? I mean it seems like if it
was planned with kind of a generous amount of green space I would have_ a hard time believing that it
would be, but I'd like to hear where you have a sense of that.
Aanenson: I guess that's our opinion. This was done in 1979. Park was extracted as part of the open
space for this development and I guess that's the opinion that we would be having.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Any other? Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: Madam Chair. If I can ask Kate and Julie, compared to the last meeting where we had the
request for a variance approval from the home on the east side of Lotus Lake regarding a 3 season porch,
is the main difference between what's being presented today and then the hardship only? I guess I'm
having somewhat of a difficult time trying to think back to the meeting where we were somewhat pretty
clear as to what we decided and then I'm getting today's inpuf and going huh, you know.
Aanenson: Well I think there was a neighborhood standard in place here where most of the units do have
decks or porches and that's the homeowners association standard.
Slagle: Whether done legally or by accident.
Aanenson: Right. Again the original plat was done in 1979 so it goes back a number of years. So those
standards again treating the association as one PUD. I'll let Julie answer the questions on how this was
treated differently.
Hoium: In the last variance, it was a side yard variance and they were single family homes. It's trying to
keep structures away from each other in single family resident areas.
Slagle: And I'm with you. I'm just going back to where in that situation the next door neighbor was in
favor of allowing that to be built into the side setback.
Aanenson: Right, and were there other design options in the other one? Probably. This one they all have
to go, they go towards the front so whether it's 10 or 12, the only option they have is towards the front of
the street. I guess and that was our position, was there other choices to put the porch when you've got a
narrow, to get around the side of the house and those sort of issues. So this one it's, they're all going to
the front of the units. Or the back.
Hoium: And they're all designed to have a deck.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Slagle: Okay. Just wanted to hear your thoughts.
Blackowiak: Any other questions I guess or does anyone have comments?
Slagle: Did we close the hearing?
Blackowiak: You know what, I should probably do that. I guess I didn't see anybody else. If anybody
else would like to make a presentation, please do so at this time. I don't see anybody else. I will close
the public hearing so commissioners, if anyone has comments? We'll start down at this end. Lu~nn?.
Rich? Bruce, any comments?
Feiic Well you know it'd be nice to solve this once if we could.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any comments? No? Rich? Deb?
Kind: I support granting an 18 foot setback to be consistent with the entire PUD. That was the way it
was noticed in the paper and I think that would solve the applicant's situation this evening. I would also
like to add a condition that before going to the council staff shall' calculate the potential maximum of
impervious surface for the entire PUD so they have that information in reviewing our recommendations.
And I also would like it to include porches as well as decks.
Blackowiak: Okay. And then Kate I don't have a date 'but would it be August 28'~, was I correct in
saying that that would be the City Council date should this go forward? Okay. Thank you.
Aanenson: 27~.
Blackowiak: 27~. Why am at the 28th?
Aanenson: Tuesday.
Blackowiak: Okay. 27~, thank you. Uli, comments.
Sacchet: Absolutely, I have to make a comment. I very much agree with you Deb that we should include
porches: screen patios, whatever they're called, in this. And that we should ask for impe. r~ous
information to go to council. However, I totally disagree with you Deb on making it a blanket 18 foot. I
think that's totally unfair to 80 or 90 percent of the people in that neighborhood that built the 10 foot
deck and tried to conform and now all of a sudden the 10 or what percent that is left that hasn't built it,
and the 10 that built it without asking, they can build a 12 foot. 'That's-not fair to the 80% that built a 10
foot. However, however. I would like to add a condition that states for those units that have a 12 foot
deck next to them and haven't built one, that could allow to build a I2 foot ~so. it matches up with the
neighboring one. Which would cover our people that spoke, it would cover their situation.' They could
forward, doing their deck but I'm very vehemently opposed to make this a blanket free for all extra 2
foot. I think it's very unfair to how many people?
Blackowiak: What would you suggest then? I mean maintain a 20 foot setback except in cases?
15
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Sacchet: I would say the additional condition would say for those with a 12 foot structure next door, 12
foot deck or patio, they would be allowed to encroach a maximum of 2 foot into the 20 foot setback, but I
really think we need to maintain the 20 foot setback requirement in order.
Blackowiak: Okay, and then the same condition number 2. Decks shall not exceed a depth of 12 feet,
would you be comfortable with that?
Sacchet: Yes, leave the other ones the way they are. Basically at that one.
Blackowiak: Okay, Craig you have any comments on this item?
Claybaugh: A question of staff here. I want to come back to the city's definition of hard cover with
respect to cantilevers and that. Do you include that in your calculations for hard cover7
Aanenson: No.
Claybaugh: Okay. So in my mind an upper level deck would fall under the same criteria. Certainly
when you look in the context of additional 2 feet, there's room for green space underneath. For ground
catch. Were the non-conforming decks in this subdivision or this PUD, were those all built solely by the
builder at the time that the buildings were constructed or?
Hoium: I do not believe so. I do not know for sure.
Claybaugh: Okay. Initially that's what was stated or previously that was stated. They were built at that
time and it's just something that slipped through. Is that an accurate statement7
Hoium: Yes.
Claybaugh: Okay, so it isn't a question of what my respected colleague would call a free for all. Okay?
Okay. So I would agree with Deb. I think that porches should be included. I'd like to see the hard cover
calculations and have it identified that it does or does not include those deck calculations, cants and such
in the hard cover calculations. Maintain a 12 foot maximum deck projection and go with the 18 foot
setback as Deb had initiated there.
Kind: Madam Chair, may I have a rebuttal to Uli? I want to make a case for changing it to 18 for all of
them because many of the decks are going to be repaired. They're at that age now where many of them
are being replaced and those folks that have the 10 foot deck I'm sure would love to add the 2 feet and as
long as they're within the setback that's fair for everybody else, I think they should be able to do that.
When they rebuild their deck.
Sacchet: Out of those that have 10 foot, do we know how many could actually expand to 12 without
encroaching? Sorry, that's kind of an unfair question to ask on the spot.
Blackowiak: One point I guess I'd like to make too before we start getting into all these numbers, is that
I am guessing that, I think this was a PUD that was established in 1979, over 22 years ago. We probably
don't have a lot of original owners there. So I guess one thing I would like everyone to consider is, you
know whichever way we go, and I'm not trying to sway anybody, but that we should maybe consider that
these people possibly, probably, I don't know, weren't the ones that initially put in the decks. So what's
16
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
a reasonable standard for the neighborhood if we're going to go from that point? And you two look like
you're going to duke it out so I'll stay out of it.
Slagle: Madam Chair?
Blackowiak: Go right ahead.
Slagle: Could the argument also be made that there is a fair number of 10 x. 12's or 12 x 20's that need to
be replaced too that potentially could be replaced with a 10 x 20 or a 10 x 12 if we adhere to that, that
minimum size, or excuse me maximum sized. I just got to tell you, I understand the sensitivity of the
development. The uniqueness if you will of the etd-de-sac's and what not but my hesitation on voting for
this currently is the fact that in essence we could be rewarding folks who don't, even though they might
not live there anymore, not adhering to the rules. Building x, y, z strucua-es and then the neighbor comes
2 years later and says, guess what? I want to build this, and the only way it's going to match up
aesthetically to my neighbor, who might not have done it right, is to do this. And if you do a blanket,
then the difficulty is taking it situation by situation. Now the down side to that is lots of times and lots of
variance requests here at city hall. But I'm just telling you, that's how I feel.
Blackowiak: Very valid.
Kind: Madam Chair, can I respond to Rich? The problems, the advantage of changing the PUD is'
people don't have to come and get a variance and prove hardship. With the PUD they don't have to
prove hardship tonight and I think it would be difficult for them to prove hardship .so we wouldn't he
granting these variances. The only way to do it is to do a blanket PUD amendment.
Slagle: But aren't we in a way by this being presented as a PUD, we're in essence forgetting what's
happened and.
Kind: I understand.
Slagle: I know what you're saying Deb, absolutely. But I'm just trying to apply this now city wide and
to folks in other neighborhoods are saying gosh, you know. Like the gentleman at Lotus Lake, we can
argue that back and forth but gosh, I got rejected. And I had the neighbors.supporting me and these folks,
not Merry and her friend, but just anybody coming and saying beca~ the guy next to me has his deck 2
feet longer and it encroaches, not within code, I want to build it because aesthetically it looks right. So I
have the answer to that.
Blackowiak: Craig, did you have a conm~nt?
Claybaugh: Yeah I do. Back in 1979 1 think the focus probably wasn't on outdoor decks-and certainly
wasn't on finishing basements but over the past 20 years certainly things have changed. A lot more
emphasis on outdoor spaces and certainly I think most people could agree that a minimum standard deck.
on something like that wouldn't be 10 feet anymore. It'd he closer to that 12 foot. I think that's why
you're seeing some people push the envelope there and try and get that additional 2 feet. And certainly a
screened porch put on top of a 10 foot deck I don't think is in keeping with what today's standards are
either so I'm looking at it in the context of what people expect and what these people need to do to keep
their properties current in the marketplace, I think that needs to he taken into consideration as well.
Kind: I'll make a motion.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blaekowiak: I was going to say. We've got a lot to think about so if somebody would like to make a
motion, please feel free.
Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission recommends approval to amend the development
contract for Chaparral 2~ a~ad 34 Additions to allow porches and decks on the four-plex units if they
meet the following. Number 1. The decks and porches must maintain 18 foot setback. Number 2. The
decks and porches shall not exceed a depth of 12 feet. Number 3. Before going to council staff shall
calculate the potential maximum of impervious surface for the entire PUD.
Blaekowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second?
Claybaugh: I'll second with the following addition.
Blaekowiak: We just need a second first.
Claybaugh: Okay I'll second it.
Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. Any comments I guess.
Claybaugh: I'd like to include the word minimum 20 foot setback.
Kind: Minimum of 18 foot setback?
Claybaugh: I'm sorry, 18 foot. Decks must maintain a minimum of 18 foot setback.
Kind: Accepted.
Blackowiak: 'And porches?
Claybaugh:. And porches, yes.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any other comments?
Kind moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval to amend
the development contract for Chaparral 2"~ and 3"~ Additions to allow porches and decks on the
four-plex units subject to the following conditions:
1. The decks and porches must maintain a minimum 18 foot setback.
2. The decks and porches shall not exceed a depth of 12 feet.
3. Before going to council staff shall calculate the potential maximum of impervious surface for the
entire PUD.
All voted in favor, except Sacchet and Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5
Blackowiak: Okay, motion carries 5-2. Commissioners who voted nay, any further comments?
18
--% uc~.~ $~
67.8 5.o~_ -
t5 UO'--tl.g
..
15 ~-1-{ ~, ,'"51'
'/ ,
...qq~d':3.% 0
...qr-o l o. LSH
._.~ O':l ~'::i .$9
..7~Y.J~
.1."7 $~5~. 51
q.- z, flu. ci
...
-39
q "5'"1o. o'z..
'-qt./ 'qrqq, Sg
0'5. q'55'1, ~1
~1 Sqoo.,~
·
·
~$ q. qSs:oz
...... ~ ~t.,,'n .'--V-/ ~Z.
.9 ~n n~. n5 ;Sb 5z! '5.'~ 1
l'5
IS ~4'4al.'~q
I~ b.~t-~q ,5~
/7 '-Toz.o.
~ q-/ti. ~
e..z. ! qqk~ z.zO
'5
"1 q"lt o .-l'6
5 '_~oT'! .q z..
t't"qql .O q'~sH.,
IZ
l_5..'5'qL~. 0~;
lq
1'7
I
-/ ~r.,/ bT..' ~ --
.'7. 5 l/5.~, ~,,':.:. 5/'//9; ~ I (~")
.~L,
. =
'7 i'5'al-1. '1l
G'~:J-'.6 f
.
·
CITY OF
PC DATE: 8-7-01
CC DATE: 8-27-01
REVIEW DEADLINE: 9-4-01
CASE #: SPR 2001-9
STAFF
REPORT
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Request for site plan review to convert and expand a self serve car wash stall to a
touch free car wash and a variance to the im?ervious surface coventge and lot area,
Brown's Car Wash -.
7901 Great Plains Blvd. O~ .
Ron Brown
8102 Dakota Avenue
Ch .anhassen, MN 55317
Gm'y Brown/Brown
1831 Koehnen Circle
Excelsior, MN 55331
PRESENT ZONING:
Highway and Business Services District, BH, and
Highway Corridor District, HC-1
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial
ACREAGE: 0.429 ac-ms (18,691 sq. fL) DENSITY: 0.19 F.A~R.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The devel~ is requesting site plan approval to convert one stall of a three-stall serf-service car wash
building to a touch free car wash. The site is below the Highway and Business Services district minimum
lot size of 20,000 square feet b_y 1,339 square feet. Additionally, the proposed site plan exceeds permitted
impervious surface coverage by 8.86 percent or 1,655.8 square feet.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all ~ owners within 500 feet. .
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MA KING:
The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project
complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets those standing, the City must then approve the
site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
th
VV-
I I LII
L, nan
Proposed Site
Brown's Car Wash
August 7, 2001
Page 2
The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project
meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion
with a variance because of the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards in
the ordinance.
PROPOSM.,/SWMMARY
The developer is requesting site plan approval to convert one of the seN-serve car wash stalls into a touch
free drive through car wash. This expansion ~0a_s 660 square feet of buildi~ to the site. Of the 660 square
foot building expansion, 341 square feet will be over existing pavement. The balance will be within the
lawn area to the east of the existing self-serve car wash. The existing impervious surface on the site is 70
percent, exceeding the permitted impervious surface by five percent or 996 square feet. The proposed
expansion would bring the impervious surface to 73.8 percent.
The two parcels have been combined previously into one zoning lot so interior lot line setbacks are not
enforced. Previous City Council action pushed the building closer to Great Plains Boulevard resulting in a
10.5 foot setback from the road right-of-way. However, the proposed expansion complies with the required
25 foot setback from West 79th Street.
When the site was originally approved for a car wash under the CBD zoning district, there were no
limitations to the amount of impervious surface permitted on the site. Throu~ the.rezoning of the
property to Highway and Business District, BH, the 65 percent impervious surface limitation was
established. As part of the review of the touch free car wash, the property was assumed to have 20,280
square feet due to confusion regarding the propeWj boundary. With the realignment of TH 101 and Great
Plains Boulevard, an additional 14 feet of right-of-way was taken from the ~, which equals
approximately 1,610 square feet of lot area, resulting in the lot being reduced below the 20,000 square foot
threshold for BH district properties.
The property to the north consists of West 78~h Street, the railroad tracks and the new Burger Building. To
the east are Valvoline Rapid Oil Change and the Gary Brown Building (formerly the Hanus Building).
Brown's Amoco is located south of the site with a small strip retail building west across Great Plains
Boulevard.
With the building of the touch fxee expansion, the exterior and roof of the self-serve will be resided with
steel siding and the roof will be capped with a sloped metal roofing to match the existing touch free
building. The western elevation, which is consmacted of brick, will remain.
Staff has had difficulty bringing the signage on these buildings into compliance with the zoning ordinance.
Specifically, the use of panel signs is prohibited. As a condition of approval, staff is recommending that
the applicant be required to replace the wall signage on both buildings with signs that comply with
ordinance. Such signs shall use individual dimemioned letters. A separate sign permit is required for each
sign.
Staff is recommending approval of the site plan with variances subject to the condition of the staff report.
Brown's Car Wash
August 7,2001
Page 3
BACKGROUND
On February 12, 1996, the City Council approved a variance to permit a second wall mounted sign on
the south elevation of the touch free car wash and denied a request to have painted signs as opposed to
individual dimension letters.
On September 25, 1995, the City Council approved conditional use permit 95-3 to allow two principal
buildings on one lot and site plan 95-13 for a 1,255 square foot drive through car wash.
On February 21, 1993, the City Council approved the Gateway Ist Addition subdivision.
In December 1986, the property was rezoned Highway and Business District (BI-I) from Central
Business District (CBD).
On December 5, 1983, a conditional Use Permit #83-3 was approved by the City Council for a car wash
on the property.
In February 1974, the property was zoned Central Business District, CBD, as part of the adoption of
Zoning Ordinance 47A.
In February 1972, the property was zoned Service Commercial District, C-3, as part of the adoption of
Zoning Ordinance 47.
APPLICABLE REGULATION~S
Chapter 20, Zoning
Division 3, Variances
Division 6, Site Plan Review
Article XVII, "BH" Highway and Business Services District
Article XXIX, Highway Corridor District
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCI-HTECT~
The proposed building remodel is to a one story building currently being used as a three stall self-serve
car wash. The developer is proposing that the most easterly stall be converted to a touch free, drive
through car wash. As part of the remodeling, the lap siding will be replaced with four inch steel siding.
In addition, a sloped metal roof will be installed. The proposed remodeling will make this building
similar in appearance to the existing touch free car wash. The brick on the western elevation of the
building will remain.
ACCESS
Access to the site is from West 79th Street. Cars exiting the car wash may either exit on to Great Plains
Boulevard or retum to West 79t~ Street. The traffic circulation on the property will not be changed. The
developer is proposing the widening of the driveway on West 79th Street. Staff believes the exiting curb
cut/driveway apron is adequate to accommodate the project and should not be altered.
Brown's Car Wash
August 7, 2001
Page 4
LANDSCAPING
The applicant shall preserve, to the maximum extent possible, the existing landscape area on the
property. This included maintaining the existing curb line on the north side of the building, and
preserving the green area south of the expanded dumpster/equipment storage area on the south side of
the building.
The new car wash bay will remove approximately 300 square feet of landscape area from the site that
already is below the minimum required. Since it is not possible to add any new green space to the site, it
is important that the existing landscape area's use be maximi?~.cl for the purposes of reducing stormwater
nm-off and heat island effects as well as increasing the aesthetics of the site. These goals are best
obtained by landscaping in general and through ~ planting specifically. Trees reduce stormwater nm-
off by slowing the rate of rain reaching the ground, trapping precipitation in the canopy and utilizing
ground moisture through the root systems. The benefit of trees in reducing temperatures in heat islands
is well documented, as is the visual benefit of a landscape with trees. In light of this, staff recommends
that eight trees be planted on site. Specific locations are:
a. Two ornamental trees at the north end of the grass area between the buildings.
b. One overstory deciduous tree in the peninsula to the east.
c. One ornamental tree in the northeast comer of the property
d. Three overstory deciduous lxees in the southeast comer of the property.
GRADING/DRAINAGE
The proposed redevelopment of the site will require minimal grading of the property. The developer
should install erosion control measures to contain any sextimen~on from the construction activity.
Staff is recommending that the existing curb line on the east side of the entrance to West 78th Street be
maintained to reduce impervious surface coverage.
LIGHTING/SIGNAGE
The applicant is not proposing additional lighting for the property.
The existing panel signs on the building are prohibited. As a condition of approval, staff is recommending
that the applicant be required to replace the wall signage on both buildings with signs that comply with city
ordinance. Such signs shall use individual dimensioned letters. Prior to the issuance of the building permit
for the expansion, the signs on the touch free buildings shall be replaced. New signs on the serf-serve car
wash building will be installed after the remodeling. A separate sign permit is required for each sign.
SITE PLAN
In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the
following:
Brown's Car Wash
August 7, 2001
Page 5
Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including
the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted;
(2) Consistency with this division;
(3)
Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and
soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of
the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas;
(4)
Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site
features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the
development;
(5)
Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special
attention to the following:
Re
An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a
desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
C,
Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the
design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring
structures and uses; and
d,
Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and
parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets,
width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation
of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking.
(6)
Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for
surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and
those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have
substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
Finding: Subject to the revisions contained in the staff report and approval of the variances, thc
proposed site plan is consistent with all requirements of the site plan ordinance, the Business and
Highway Services District requirements, the Highway 5 Corridor standards and the
comprehensive plan.
VARIANCE
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a
variance unless they find the following facts:
Brown's Car Wash
August 7, 2001
Page 6
That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means
that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or
topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable ~ within 500
feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferati~ of variances, but to recognize
that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-
existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria.
Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship since the lot size
was redtmed due to city action.
be
The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other
property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is due to city action.
The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of
the parcel of land.
Finding: While the remodeling of the building may in~ the income potential of the property,
the purpose of the variation is to overcome previous city action.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The alleged difficulty is due to city action.
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public weffare or injurious to other land
or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public weffare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
The proposed variation will not impair an adequot_e supply of light and air to adjacent property or
substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger
the public safety or substantially diminish or impair propegy values within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adeqn_ate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially inclvak~ the congestion of the public streets or in~ the danger of fire
or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 7, 2001, to review the proposed
development. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend approval of site plan
g2001-9 with an 8.8 percent variance from the lot coverage requirements and a 1,309 square foot
variance from the lot area requirements subject to conditions 1 through 10 of the staff report with the
deletion of condition 11. Condition 11 states "The developer shall revise the plans to maintain the
Brown's Car Wash
August 7,2001
Page 7
existing curb line on the eastern side of the entrance from West 78th Street and maintain the green area
south of the storage door on the building expansion with the exception of the area immediately in front
of the door."
Staff had initially recommended this condition to maintain green space on the site. Upon further review,
it was determined that the proposed driveway would be 52 feet wide. At the August 7, 2001 Planning
Commission meeting, the Commission approved a site plan for the project and deleted one of the
conditions which recommended that the existing driveway access not be widened. Since the August 7
meeting, staff has discovered that the existing driveway width is approximately 36 feet. According to
the current City Code, the maximum allowable driveway width in a commercialfousiness district is 36
feet. Staff has discussed this matter with the applicant and he is aware of the discrepancy. Because of
the 36-foot wide maximum driveway requirement, staff is still recommending that the existing street
driveway width not be increased. Within the property, the applicant would be able to alter the curb line
to facilitate access to the touch free stall.
Staff recommends that condition 11 be modified as follows: '~rhe developer shall revise the plans to
maintain the existing curb cut at the entrance from West 78th Street."
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
'~I'he City Council approves Site Plan ~f2001-9, shown on plans prepared by Peter Curtis Architect, dated
July 6, 2001, with an 8.8 percent variance to the lot coverage and a 1,309 square foot variance to the lot
area based on the findings of fact and subject to the following conditions:
.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. Add a benchmark to the plans, which was used for the site survey.
3. Add a legend to the site plan.
4. Show all proposed and existing contour lines.
The proposed addition cannot be built across the property line therefore Tract B and Parcel A
must be combined into one lot.
6. Detailed retail occupancy requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted.
.
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
,
The developer shall plant eight trees on site in the following locations: two ornamental trees at
the north end of the grass area between the buildings, one overstory deciduous tree in the
peninsula to the east, one ornamental tree in the northeast comer of the property, three overstory
deciduous trees in the southeast comer of the property.
Brown's Car Wash
August 7, 2001
Page 8
9. The developer shall submit a landscape plan to the city prior to the building permit.
10.
Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the expansion, the si~s on the touch free buildings
shall be replaced. All nonconforming signs on the self service car wash building shall be removed.
New signs on the self-serve car wash building will be installed after the remodeling. A separate
sign permit is required for each sign.
11.
The developer shall revise the plans to maintain the existing curb cut at the entrance from West
78th Street."
ATTACHMENTS
,
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Findings of Fact and Recommendation
Development Review Application
Letter from Ron Brown to Chanhassen Planning Commission and Chanhassen City Council
Reduced Copy of Site Plan
Reduced Copy of Floor Plan
Reduced Copy of Building Elevations
Memo from Matt Saam to Bob Generous dated 7/23/01
Memo from Steve Torell to Bob Generous dated 7/20/01
Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
Memo from Matt Saam to Bob Generous dated August 20, 2001
Planning Commission Minutes of 8/7/01 .
Brown's Car Wash
August 7, 2001
Page 9
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, IVl]NNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
Application of Ron Brown and Gary Brown/Brown Properties for Site Plan Review and variances to site
coverage and lot size.
On August 7, 2001, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting
to consider the application of Ron Brown and Gary BrownfBrown Property for a site plan review with
variances to lot coverage and lot area for the property located at 7901 Great Plains Boulevard. The
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed site plan was preceded by published
and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to
speak and now makes the following:
.FINDINGS OF FACT
Ii
The property is currently zoned Highway and Business Service District and Highway
Corridor District, HC-1.
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for commercial uses.
3. The legal description of the property is' Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Gateway East Addition.
4. Section 20-110:
ao
Is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including
the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted;
b. Is consistent with this division;
C,
d.
e,
Preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil
removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the
neighboring developed or developing or developing areas;
Creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features
and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development;
Creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special
attention to the following:
1. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision
of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community;
Brown's Car Wash
August 7, 2001
Page 10
2. The amount and location-of open space and landscaping;
3. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the
design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring
structures and uses; and
4. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets,
width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of
pedestrian' and vehicular lxa~c and arrangement and amount of parking.
Protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface
water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those
aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial
effects on neighboring land uses.
go
Section 20-58, A variance may be granted by city council only if all of the following
criteria are met:
1. The literal enf~t of this chapter would cause an undue hardship since the lot size
was red~ due to city action.
..
2. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is due to city action.
3. While the remodeling of the building may in~ the income potential of the property,
the purpose of the variation is to overcome previous city action.
4. The alleged difficulty is due to city action.
5. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public weffare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
6. The proposed variation will not impair an sd_~luate supply of light and air to adj~t
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair ~ values
within the neighborhood.
h. The planning report SPR g2001-9 dated August 7, .2001, prepared by Robert Generous, et
al, is incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the site plan
review.
ADO~ by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 7"' day of August, 2001.
Brown's Car Wash
August 7, 2001
Page 11
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
BY:
Its Chairman
Secretary
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, Mt; SSa1? -...
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AI~PUCAIION''
;PHONE (Day time)
OWNER~~,/~,
I I I I I I I
, Comprehensive Plan Amendment
'Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
Non-coMorming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Temporary Sales Permit
i ,
Vacation of ROW/Easements
475'"
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
~'-,Notifica.tlon Sign
X Escrow for Rllng Fees/Attorney Cost** '~'/oD,
($50 CUP/SPRNAC/VAR/WAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE $, ~ ~'2--.c'~
A llst of MI property owners within 500 feet'? the bo~l, ndarles of the property must be Included with the
:Ba~ matm~! samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
. .
~'wenty-slx full slze fqld~! copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 89t" X 11" reduced copy of
a-ans~ for each plan sheet.
-- Escra~ will be required for other applications through the development contract
multiple applica/bns am processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PRESENT
YES L,,.-~NO
]=RESENT ZONING
ZONING
:P]:a1=._WENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
3:/EQ~ LAND USE DESIGNATION
]3J'=ASON FOR THIS REQUEST /~--~
This applicat3on must be completed In full and be typewrltten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all Information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Depar~ent to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determ'm~on of completeness of the application shall be made ;,vithln ten business days of application submittal. A written
x~otice of applicatJon deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
ThC'is to cett~j that ! am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this requesL This applicat, ion should be processed In my name and I am the party whom
'the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of. TrUe, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
/his ~ and ~he fee owner has also signed this application.
I w111 'keep myself lnformed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
~Jnderstand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate pdor to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
~y k. ao~ga. .
The clty'nemt:~ ~otifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and review. Therefore, the city Is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension, for re~w.
I Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
ex/ar~ are a~ / )pllcant.
Date
.AppT_.p~~r.,e'ived on '7 - ~ "4)./ Fee Paid
Date
. Receipt No.
'The appTicant sl~ould contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
ifztot contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's addrea&
Chanhassen Planning Commission and
Chanhassen City Council
Browns Car Wash is applying for a variance because, of the issue
with green space. Over the past ten years Great Plains Blvd and
West 79th Street have changed. The roads have been made wider
and lines have shifted. Moving the fight of way closer to our
buildings. We now have 28% green space, with the purposed
building remodel we will be at 26% green space. The addition is
700 sq. f~. decreasing bituminous and concrete by 300 sq. t~. We
believe that the planting and buffer zones are correct. If not, we
will be willing to work with the Planning and City Council to
correct this situation. No trees or shrubs will be lost during this
construction. Please call with any questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Ron Brown
952-934-2155
612-384-4811
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN TO:
690 Ci9, Center Drive FROM:
PO B~r147
Cfianlmsso~, Minnesota 55317 DATE:
P~ SUBJ:
952.93Z1900
952.937.5739
~52.~$7.~152
~52.~.2524
1.
'wu:ci.d~nha~e,.mn. tt~ 2.
Bob Generous, Senior Planner
Saam, Proj~t Engineer ~
July 23, 2001
Review of Site Plan for Brown's Car Wash Expansion
Land Use Review File No. 01-15
Upon review of the plans dated July 6, 2001 prepared by Peter Curtis, I offer the
following recommendations:
RECOMM~ENDED CONDITONS OF APPROVAL
Add a benchmark to the plans, which was used for the site survey.
Add a legend to the site plan.
3. Show all proposed and existing contour lines.
c: Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
6.90 CiF Center Drive
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
P/lolit
952.93Z1900
General Fax
952.93Z5739
Engineering Department Fax
952.93Z9152
Building Department Far
952.934.2524
Web Site
wwu : ti. chanhassen, mn. us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Bob Generous, Senior planner
Steven Torell, Building Official~
July 20, 2001
SUB J:
Site Plan review for expansion of Brown's Car Wash
7901 Great Plains Blvd.
Planning Case: 2001-9 Site Plan
I have reviewed the plans for the above building and have the following comments,
which should be included as conditions of approval.
1. The proposed addition cannot be built across the property line therefore
Tract B and Parcel A must be combined into one lot.
2. Detailed occupancy retailed requirements earmot be reviewed until complete
plans are submitted.
3. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the ln.qpections
Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
G/safety/st/memos/plan/BmwnsCarWashAddition
The CiO, of Chanhassen. A growing communiO, with clean lakes, q,ali~, schools, a charming downtown, thriving busintues, and beautiful parks. A ~reat place to live, work,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 200.1 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review With
Variances for Brown's
Car Wash
APPLICANT: Ron Brown
LOCATION: 7901 Great Plains Blvd.
You are Invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Ron Brown,
requesting a site plan review to convert and expand a self car wash stall to a touch free car wash with vadancas
property located at 7901 Great Plains Blvd., Brown's Car Wash.
Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing Is to Inform you about the applicant's
uast and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead
public hearing through the following steps:
I. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
The applicant will present plans on the project.
Comments are received from the public.
Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project.
and Comments: If you want to sea the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during
hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,
contact Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one
to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
of this public headng has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 26, 2001.
WILBAR PROPERTIES ]NC
C/O AL KLINGELHU/~
8600 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
AMERICAN LEGION-CHAN POST 580
7995 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
HOLIDAY STATION STORES INC
4567 80TH ST W
BLOOMINGTON MN 55437
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
C/O SCOTT BOTCHER _./
690 CITY CE~O BOX 147
C~ MN 55317
AMOCO AMERICAN OIL CO
PROPERTY TAX DEPARTMENT
200 EAST RANDOLPH DR M C 2408
CHICAGO IL 60601
MICHAm. E RAMSEY
6362 OXBOW BND
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
690 CITY CENTER DR .,.I~'B'~'X 147
CaAmI 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
C/O SCOTT BOTCtIER_.~,~
690 CITY CE~,.N~ PO BOX 147
C~N MN 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
C/O SCOTT BOTCHER~
690 CITY CFTC- PO BOX
C~ MN 55317
BLOOMBERG COMPANIF~ INC
PO BOX 730
CHAN}IASSEN MN 55317
CHURCH OF ST HUBERT
8201 MAIN ST
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
BLOOMBERG COMPANIES IN,~
_~rBOX 730
C'"HANHA~ 55317
MICHARI. J SORENSEN
12625 58TH ST
MAYER MN
55360
690 CITY CENTER DR PO B..Q~( 147
CHANHASSEN ~M~---- 55317
CHANHASSEN HRA
690 CITY CENTER DR PO BOX 147
CHURCH OF ST HUBERT _
8'201 MAIN ST~./
C~~9~'EN MN 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
C/O SCOTT BOTCHER
690CITY~R~"~POBOX147
CHANI-IASSL~ MN 55317
..
.
,~°'
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
C/O SCOTT BOTCHER ,..., - "'
690 CITY CENTER~ ...... "PO BOX 147
CHANHASSEN .... MN 55317
.,
..,,
.
CHANHASSEN HRA
690 CITY CENTER DR . _,PO°BO-X__ 147
CHANHASSEN.~MN 55317
B 4DLLC
555 3RD AVE NW
HUTCHINSON
MN 55350
RALPH G MOLNAU &
RONALD F DUBBE
356 3 1/2 ST W
WACONIA MN
55387
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
C/O SCOTT BOTCHER
690 CITY CENTER DR _~--PO~O"'~X 147
CHANHASSEN~.-- .... "I~N 55317
GRACE DEVELOPMENT LLC
18202 MINNETONKA BLVD
WAYZATA MN 55391
CT OF
690 Ci{~ ~uer Drive
t~ Box147
Chanhas~n, Minnesota 55317
Phone
952.93Z1900
C~l Fax
952.93Z5739
~gineering ~n~t Fax
952.93Z9152
Buikling iepa~ent Fax
952.934.2524
Web Site
u~vmci, dJanl~uso~.mn.,s
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Bob Generous, Senior Plann~
Matt Saam, Project Engineer/~0
August 20, 2001
Council Update on Brown's Car Wash
File No. 01-16 LUR
At the August 7, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission approved
a site plan for the above-referenced project and deleted one of the conditions
which recommended that the existing driveway access not be widened. Since the
August 7 meeting, staffhas discovered that the existing driveway width is
approximately 36 feet. Aeco~g to the em'rent City Code, the maximum
allowable driveway width in a commercialfousiness district is 36 feet. Staff~
discussed this matter with the applicant and he is aware of the discrepancy.
Because of the 36-foot wide maximum driveway reqtfirement, staff is still
recommending that the existing street driveway width not be'increased.
c: Teresa J. Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
I0.
Type Ill sift fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as
buffer, or if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge.
11.
Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDot seed mix 25A or a similar seed mix
that is approved for wetland soil conditions.
12.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their
conditions of approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE REQUF~T FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW TO CONVERT AND EXPAND A
SELF CAR WASH STALL TO A TOUCH FREE CAR WASH AND A VARIANCE TO THE
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AND SETBACKS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7901
GREAT PLAINS BLVD.~ RON BROWN~ BROWN'S CAR WASH.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Okay, commissioners to you have any questions of staff? Craig, any questions at all?
Claybaugh: I don't have any questions right now.
Sacchet: Yes, I do have questions. First of all, there is talk about the two parcels have been previously
put into one zoning lot, but then in another place it talks about, there's a condition that they have to be
combined into one lot. Can you elaborate on that?
Generous: The building official put that in because he's concerned about requirements for setbacks from
property lines. This has been done previously. We just need to provide the back-up materials.
Sacchet: It needs to be established clearer?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: But it's in place?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. That answers that. Then next, we're talking about the impact on this property cost by
the widening of, was it.
Generous: Great Plains.
Sacchet: Great Plains Boulevard, and that impacted the lot size aspect. Before that it was not.
65
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Generous: It was in excess of 20,000.
Sacchet: It was in excess of the minimum lot size. Now my question is, was it also okay with the
impervious surface? The i .mpervious surface percentage,, was that okay before that i .mpact happened by
Generous: Under the original site plan which was approved as part of a central business district zoning
yes. But by rezoning it we change the standards so that they're 65% coverage.
Sacchet: Okay. And then, yeah and that kind of leads to my next question in that where these findings
we have this recurring theme, due to city action, due to city action, to overcome previous city action and
due to city action. It's a very convincing item here. It's basically that this has been caused by city
period. Is that...
Generous: ...acquisition of right-of-way, yes.
Sacchet: Okay, that's my questions.
Blackowiak: Thank you, questions?
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. The acquisitions you framed it in the staff report, on page 2 that 14 feet of
right-of-way was taken from the property. I'm assuming that the applicant was compensated for it.
Generous: Sure.
Kind: So, I ~ they got paid for that land that was taken.
Generous: So did we take it's entire value by buying 14 feet? We reduced it below 20,000 square foot
through that acquisition. We need to rectify that if you will.
Kind: Okay. That's my only question.
Blackowiak: Okay, any questions?
Slagle: I've got to understand that again Bob. So we took some land from this applicant, compensated
him somehow, and your last comment I didn't understand.
Generous: Well by taking the land we brought him below the minimum lot size requirement. And so to.
Aanenson: Did we compensate him for that portion of it I guess is what we're saying.
Generous: Yeah, this is enough that he doesn't have, he can't use the property.
Aanenson: Right, making it non-conforming.
Slagle: Okay, I just wanted to understand.
Blackowiak: Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a
presentation? Name and address please.
66
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Ron Brown: Ron Brown, 8102 Dakota Lane. I don't know if you've looked at this whole packet here. I
would assume that you did. But, well this is upside down. What we're really heading onto here is only 3
feet into the grass here. This out here is pretty much all parking lot now so as far as taking green space
away...it's not taking away that much at all. We're going to match this building with all the materials on
this building. Same metal roofing, same siding. Same garage door, same everything. It's kind of
something here. The siding matches the other building right next door so does the metal roof. These
garage doors are used on everything...so I think it will mm out okay.
Blackowiak: Okay. Is there questions of the applicant?
Slagle: Are you okay with the signage concerns?
Ron Brown: Yeah. Yep, yep. That was something that I guess has been going on for quite a while from
what my father told me. We no issues with that at all.
Blackowiak: Questions for the applicant?
Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few questions. You proposed widening the driveway to West 79th and staff,
they're suggesting it stays the same.
Ron Brown: Yeah. I was out there and walked the area and put little buckets out and drove in there and
it will be tight you know but I think they'll be okay.
Sacchet: It's doable, okay.
Ron Brown: It's doable.
Sacchet: h's not a major issue?
Ron Brown: No, I don't feel it's a major issue at all.
Sacchet: Adding all these extra trees, do you have an issue with that? It took me a while to figure out
where they all go but then they're quite understandable.
Ron Brown: Yeah, it did me too. I guess they were talking about putting trees in this area down here.
This is open. It wouldn't create any problems at all. Nor would this. As far as in here, what they had
talked about I guess we would just have to be careful that we don't put something in there that's going to
grow to be 15 feet wide before it gets to be 20 feet tall so it doesn't hang over the driveways or the road.
Slagle: Or block views.
Ron Brown: Well, block views is another issue but there are both entrances here so I mean you're not
going to block, a car coming in here has to come in here, the exit way over here so I don't think the views
would be too much of an issue. I guess you've just got to be real careful.
Sacchet: So it's doable.
Ron Brown: It's doable.
67
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Sacchet: Okay. And then I wasn't sure whether I fully understood this. There was some sequencing
with the signs like some signs have to come down at some point and some signs at a later point. You're
all fine with that?
Ron Brown: I know exactly what they're talking about.
Sacchet: You know what they're talking about? Well are you fine, I want to know whether you're fine
with it?
Ron Brown: Yeah, I'm okay with that. It seems that the building we built, the touch free car wash we
have now, the signs do not comply so they want us to get them to comply. And there's also one sign on
the building that we're going to remodel right out on the street here, there's a wall mounted sign that in
1984 when that was built I'm sure was in compliance, but now that we're rebuilding the building they
want us to put a new one up that complies with everything. I'm fine.
Sacchet: And then my final question, the last condition talks about maintaining a green area south of the
storage door on the building expansion with the exception of an area immediately in front of the door.
You're alright with that one?
Ron Brown: Yeah, that's going to be a little tough. You know if we could, I guess what I don't
understand is, if you have a 3 foot apron out there Bob, is that what they're talking about that they want
us to just stay with is the 3 foot apron?
Generous: Yes.
Ron Brown: Rather than have this out here? The only thing we do is we bring a forklift in to bring salt
in. If that's a real big issue I'll get a couple pieces of plywood laid down...I don't want to turn that into
an issue, no. It's something I can live with.
Sacchet: Okay, that's my questions.
Blackowiak: Any other questions of the applicant?
Slagle: I've got just two additional Alison.
Blackowiak: Sure, go ahead.
Slagle: More to Bob as well but as I sit and look at this rendition, this drawing here, and then Bob's idea
of saving some additional green space by making that curve. I actually go there quite frequently. Do you
take the new 5 dollar bills yet?
Ron Brown: That wasn't our fault. That was the government.
Slagle: But I'm raising the question of the curb because in, I usually go to the green side of things but I
know like in our Suburban, you know it's hard to sort of judge where you are when you're coming up to
the bank ATM's or what not, and I'm just wondering is it smarter just to have it as a straight line so
people can pull in and just so, you know what I mean? I mean I'm just throwing this out to the group and
68
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
also the applicant. Because I'm starting to think maybe just a quick, if we don't need that. I don't know.
I mean your view on it.
Ron Brown: On our part, seeing that you do have a Suburban, where the box is, oh where the heck are we
looking here? Where the box is that you would put your new 5 dollar bill in, there's going to be a big
steel pipe in front of it.
Slagle: In a round about way I'm also suggesting Heather drives the Suburban.
Ron Brown: As far as I'm concerned, I would rather cut the curb straight. Of course I think it would
look better, it'd be easier to get in. If that's going to be an issue from stopping the project.
Blackowiak: Okay? Alrighty. Thank you.
Ron Brown: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, this item is open for a public hearing. So if anybody would like to speak on this, no?
Okay. Had to give you your chance. You're here late. Alright, seeing no one else, close the public
hearing. Commissioners, your comments please.
Kind: I think improving the looks of that older building will be a nice addition. I think that' s an
important street in our town being close proximity to the Dinner Theater. A lot of new people see our
town for the first time. And this opportunity to bring signs in compliance I think is kind of an added
bonus. And I think it looks good. I think it's a good project.
Blackowiak: Uli, any comments?
Sacchet: Yeah, I have two questions from staff. First, where in the conditions does it refer to that bubble
in the driveway need to stay? I don't see it. And I don't know if it's because it's 11:15 or what.
Ron Brown: Number 11.
Sacchet: Number 117 Oh okay. Okay, it's that and then also, so and then, it's together with the one
about that green space in front of the door. I would be comfortable getting rid of that number 11 to be
honest. I don't think we gain much by doing that and I think it's a safety issue. I tried to, I would want
the plantings. I would want the tree plantings a required, but I think on that bubble there is more of a
safety hazard than an enhancement of green space personally. And the green in front of the, whatever
door we call it, storage door, it's kind of, I think it' s kind of funny. I mean if you need to go in there with
a forklift, it's in the middle of town. It's a utility place and I think the trees will give it some of the
character of green space that we try to add and I don't think the little extra green space is going to make a
difference in that sense. And also in the context that the impervious surface issue was originally also
alright, according to what you answered my question earlier similar to this lot size, I think it would be
fair to be little bit flexible here. That's my comment.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any comments?
Claybaugh: I agree with Uli's comments with respect to the utility function standpoint. And I think it
will turn out okay.
69
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: Okay. Yeah, and I guess I don't have .anything new to add. Straighter seems better. I mean
anybody that drives a large car can attest to that. I certainly can, but I would be, you know, I guess I
could be persuaded either way. So I guess I don't have a strong feeling. It's getting late so, I need a
motion please.
Sacchet: Alright, I make the motion that the Planning Commission records approval of Site Plan
g2001-9 shown on the plans prepared by Peter Curtis Architect, dated July 6, 2001 with an 8.8 percent -
variance to the lot coverage and a 1,309 square foot variance to the lot area based on the findings of fact
and subject to the following conditions 1 through 10. And please note not i 1.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second?
Kind: I'll second that with one question. Does that cover your getting rid of the plantings in front of the
service door?
Sacchet: Yes, with those pulled.
Kind: That was in 11 too? Got it.
Sacchet: The number of plantings, is the number of plantings in 117
Generous: No.
Sacchet: That's a separate one so we're covered, yes. I think we're covered.
Blackowiak: Okay, moved and seconded. Any more discussion?
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommellds approval Of Site Plan
g2001-9 shown on the plans prepared by Peter Curtis Architect, dated July 6, 2001 with an 8.8
percent variance to the lot coverage and a 1,309 square foot variance to the lot area based on the
findings of fact and subject to the following conditions:
Il
The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement, with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. Add a benchmark to the plans which was used for the site survey.
3. Add a legend to the site plan.
4. Show all proposed and existing contour lines.
,
The proposed addition cannot be built across the property tine therefore Tract B and Parcel A
must be combined into one lot.
6. Detailed retail occupancy requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted.
,
The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
70
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
.
The developer shall plant eight trees on site in the following locations: two ornamental trees at
the north end of the grass area between the buildings, one overstory deciduous tree in the
peninsula to the east, one ornamental tree in the northeast comer of the property, three overstory
deciduous trees in the southeast comer of the property.
9. The developer shall submit a landscape plan to the city prior to the building permit.
10.
Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the expansion, the signs on the touch free
buildings shall be replaced. All non-conforming signs on the self service car wash building shall
be removed. New signs on the self-serve car wash building will be installed after the remodeling.
A separate sign permit is required for each sign.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
Blackowiak: Okay and again, item number 6, review design standards will be at the Planning
Commission work session on, tell me the date again please Kate?
Aanenson: The 21st.
Blackowiak: August 21~t. So if everyone would please keep your packets.
Feik: What's the date again7
Blackowiak: August 21st.
Sacchet: That's when we meet at 5:007
Blackowiak: Are we going to do it at 5:00 o'clock that evening?
Aanenson: Yeah, we're starting the meeting at 5:00.
Slagle: When you say keep your packets meaning?
Blackowiak: Number 6 and the supplemental design standards. If you want to just keep those two.
Because I'm guessing nothing's going to change between now and then. So okay Kate, back to new
business.
NEW BUSINF~S.
Aanenson: I'm just going to tell you what else is on. We'll put the design standards on and then there's
two other code amendments on that night in the work session.
Blackowiak: Do you have an itinerary or what are we doing for the work session? Are we going out to
look at things or?
Aanenson: We're going to say that for our regular one in October. I thought it would be helpful to put
together some things that I think would help to talk about. Level of discretion, the review procedure,
reasonableness. Talk about some of the issues with the Bluff Creek Overlay District. We did the
71
crrYoF
PO Box I47
Minnaot~ 55317
952937.1900
95293Z5739
952.93Z9152
~&ling ~t Fax
952934.2524
Web Site
MT~OP,~T3~
TO:
FROM:
Julie Hoium, Planner I
DATE: August 24, 2001
SUB J:
Support Of Southwest Metro Transit Request For CMAQ Act C. amat Funds
Southwest Metro Transit Commission (SMTC) is requesting the City provide a letter of
support of their application for Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funding during
fiscal years 2005-2006. Southwest Metro Transit would allocate these funds to projects that
will affect Chanhassen. These projects include:
The purchase of seven 57-passenger vehicles by Southwest Metro Transit in 2005,
and the purchase of seven 57-pazsenger vehicles in 2006. These vehicles would be
used to reduce congestion and provide ~d0itional mobility for residents and
The purchase of six medium-sized vehicles in 2005. SWMT intends to use these'
vehicles for the expansion of local service among Omnhassen, Chaska and Eden
Cons~on of a park & fide facility at the in--on of I-~ways 101 & 212 to
alleviate the growing traffic congestion on the major freeways in the Metropolitan
Expansion of Southwest Metro Tran.~it's garage facility in F. Aen Prairie to house its'
growing fleet. There will be a critical need' in the next few years for Southwest
Metro transit to expand its garage facility because it is experiencing high ridership
· Develop an additional level to the existing parldng deck at Southwest Station in Eden
Prairie. The deck will add app~oxirrmt~-ly 150 parking spaces at that station.
Construct a parking deck to expand parking capacity at the Market Boulevard Park &
Ride in Chanhassen. This would accommada~ for a future expansion to the
downtown park and ride facility and assist in the redevelopment of the Chanhassen
Dinner Theatre area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of the attached resolution.
ATrA~S
1. Resolution
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIF3, MINNESOTA
DATE:
RESOLUTION NO:
MOTION BY:,
SECONDED BY:
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT GRANT APPLICATION
FOR CONGESTION MITIGATION AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) ACT GRANT FUNDS
WItEREAS, Southwest Metro Transit Commission is requesting the City provide a leaex of
support of their application for Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funding during fiscal years
WHEREAS, Southwest Metro Transit Commission will allocate these funds to projects that will
affect Chanhassen including:
The purchase of seven 57-passenger vehicles by Southwest Metro Transit in 2005, and the
purchase of seven 57-passenger vehicles in 2006. These vehicles would be used to reduce
congestion and provide additional mobility for residents and commerce.
· The purchase of six medium-sized vehicles in 2005. SWMT intends to use these vehicles for the.
expansion of local service among Chanhassen, Chaska and Eden Prairie.
Construction of a park & ride facility at the intersection of Highways 101 & 212 to alleviate the
growing traffic congestion on the major freeways in the Metropolitan area.
Expansion of Southwest Metro Transit's garage facility in Eden Prairie to house its growing
fleet. There will be a critical need in the next few years for Southwest Metro transit to expand its
garage facility because it is experiencing high ridership growth, and has had to expand its fleet.
· Develop an additional level to the existing parking deck at Southwest Station in Eden Prairie.
The deck will add approximately 150 parking spaces at that station.
· Construct a parking deck to expand parking capacity at the Market Boulevard Park & Ride in
Chanhassen.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RF~OLVED that the Chanhassen City Council hereby supports
Southwest Metro Transit Commi.~sion's application for Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Act
Grant Funds during fiscal years 2005-2006.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this day of ,2001.
Todd C~rhardt, Acting City Manager
YES
Linda C. Jansen, Mayor
NO
ABSENT
Memo
To:
Mayor
City Council
From:
Sgt. Dave Potts
Date:
08-22-01
Re:
Items for August Council Meeting
1. Sheriff's Office Area Report- July: Attached
,
,
,
Sheriff's Office Area Citation Listing - July: The Records DMsion is still
working with the new software to generate a citation report.
Community Service Officer Highlights - July: Attached
Miscellaneous Items: I will have bdef information on recent calls or other
activities of possible interest to the Council.
· 8-7, National Night Out
· 8-14, Safety Camp
CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
AREA REPORT FOR CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CALLS FOR SERVICE FOR MONTH OF JULY
20l~1 2001 2000 2000
MONTHLY Y'I'O MONTHLY YTD
CRIMINAL
A~sault 2 23 9 34
Burglary 3 26 5 . 16
Drug Violation 6 18 3 14
, ·
Hom'clde 0 0 0 0
Traffic/Alcohol 21 94 13 89
Misc. Criminal 33 141 38 138'
Property Damage 28 200 45 226
Robbery 0 4 0 1
,
Sex Cdme 2 9 0 16
·
Theft 44 214 56 238
Theft/Related 0 14 2 12
Vehicle Theft 4 14 2 9
TOTAL CRIMINAL 143 757 173 793
NON-CRIMINAL
Disturb Peace/Privacy 67 27(~ 44 243
Misc/Non criminal 70 447 77 408
Lock out 45 386 48 309
Alarm 85 ~1 106 524
Domestic 13 82 10 72
,,
Misslng,Person/Runaway,s 6 46 8 53
Child Abus,e/Neglect 2 41 2 36
Motorist Assist 24 206 28 148
Animal 36 226 45 248
,
Medical 45 285 39 245
House/Business Check 0 23 5 28
! ,
Assist other Agency 4 48 10 58
Fire Call 23 152 32 158
, ,
Prowler 2 7 3 16
Mental Health 0 25 2 22
Civil Process 0 I 0 1
Transport 2 3 1 23
warrant Service 7 26 3 14
Boat & Water 15 42 10 27
Snowmobile 0 20 0 0
Gun Permit/Acquire 3 69 9 60
Gun Permit/~arry 0 3 0 4
Lock Post Office 0 0 0 0
.
Suspicious Activity 91 488 62 342
, ,
Open, Door 4 19 2 7
Auto Accd- Prop Dam 40 302 41 279
-- ,
Auto Accd - Injury 8 59 6 57
,
Fatal Auto Accd 0 0 0 0
Traffic 227 1593 137 846
,
Special Traffic 7 34 0 0
TOTAL NON-CRiM 826 5464 730 - 4228
· iii i
IT,OTAL REPORTED f'.
CARVER
.OUNTY
Office of County Sheriff
Carver Count,,' Government Ccnter
Justice Cente~
600 East Fourth Street
Chazka, Minnesota 55318-2190
Bud Olson, Sheriff
Emergency: 911
Sheriff Admin: (952) 36 !- 1212
Admin. Fax: (952) 36 i- 1229
Dispatch: (952) 361-1231
(Non.Emergency)
Listed below is a description of each of the different classification of calls for s~'~icc which the Carver County
Sheriff's Office received and processed for your area.
Criminal
Assault
Burglary
Drug Violation
Homicide
Traffic/Alcohol
Misc. Criminal
Property Damage
Robb y
Sex Crime
Tbei~
Theft Related
Vehicle Theft
Non-Criminal
Disturb Peace/Privacy
Misc. Non Criminal
Lock out
Alarm
Domestic
Missing Persons/Runaway
Animal
Medical
House/Business Check
Assist other Agency
Fire Call
Prowler
Mental Health
Civil Process
Transport
Warrant Service
Boat and Water
Snowmobile
Gun Permit/Acquire
Gun Permit/Carry
Lock Post Office
Suspicious Activity
Open door
Auto Accd-Prop Damage
Auto Aced-Injury
Auto Aced -Fatal
'Traffic
Special Traffic
Altercation between parties whom actual physical harm occurred
Breaking into a residence or business
All drug violations, possession of, sale of, manufacture of or under the influence of.
Taking of a per, ns life
Traffic stops or accident~ involving a driver under the influence
Minor offenses which include order of prot~don violations, warrant service, threats
and ~ent, tobacco violations.
All damage to property includi~, g vandalism' and trespassing on property
Taking of property in the presence of another with use of force
Rape, sexual abuse, indecent exposure and pornography
Taking of property
Credit card fraud, issuance of bad checks, counterfeiting, thef~ by swindle
Theft ora motor vehicle
Noise, harassing phone calls,
Citizen assists, lost and found property, general law enforcement questions, civil
matters, delivery of council packets, juvenile disciplinary problems etc.
Unlock doors of automobiles, residences or businesses for owners
Checking on an alarm at a private residence or business.
Verbal argument between parties
Juvenile runaways or missing persons
Animal bites, stray maimals
Assist persons with medical issues, natural cause deaths
Check 6n houses or businesses when owners are away from property
Assist other law enforcement offices; state patrol or govemmer/t departments
Fires and assist fire departments
Person on property who does not belong
Suicides, 72 hr holds for mental health issues.
Service of civil papers, assist with civil stand by situations
Transport persons for various reasons
Service a warrant for Carver County and other count/es
All incidents involving boats or lakes
All incidents involving snowmobile
Issuance cfa permit to purchase a handgun
Issuance cfa permit to carry a handgun
Deputies lock po~ office buildings
Suspicious persons, acts or vehicles
Locating an open door to a business
Auto accident when only property damage occurred
Auto accident when injury and property damage occurred
Auto accident in which a fatality occurred
All traffic stops and calls, stalled vehicles, debris on the roadway
Radar wagoa, special traffic deta/ls
A~rmativt Action/Equal.Opportunity Employer
Printed on 10% Post-Consumer Recx~'b,d p....
Animal Complaints:
Animal Tmpounds:
Vehicle Lock Outs:
Traffic Assistance:
Code Enforcement:
Sheriff's Office Assists
Other:
.luly 200:1. CSO Highlights
77 complaints/ca~Is responded to
25
17
:LO (Crashes, motorist assists, etc)
Parking 2
.lunked Vehicles 35 towed (Lakeview hills)
Solicitors 1
Parks 3
Watering 2 plus city wide patrol
2 Medicals
1 lost child
Detention of murder suspects at City Hall
Transport of Suspects
2 Found property complaints
· City Council Packet delivery
· I skateboard complaint
· Assisted EP with possible drunk driver
· 1 fire at Lake Ann
· 3~ and 4m of.luly extra patrol and traffic
C1TYOF
CHANHA EN
PO &x147
Minnesota 55317
952.93Z1900
952.937.5739
952.937.9152
952.934.2524
wwu~ d.d~anl~usen, m,. us
MEMOI~LIM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Todd Gex~t, City Managor
Teresa J. Burgess, Public Works DirectodCity Engin .e,e_r/~
August 21, 2001
SUBJ:
TH 101 Trail, Project 97-12-3
a) Public Hearing for the Minnesota DNR Otmtoor Recreation
Grant Program
Requested Council Action
Hold the public hearing to discuss application for the Minnesota DNR Outdoor
Recreation Grant Program for the Trunk Highway 101 Trail.
This public hearing is intended to discuss the trail only. The Trunk Highway 101
Tumback is a separate project and is not being considered this evening.
Discussion
Representative Workman has worked to obtain a $500,000 grant from the
Minnesota DNR for a trail along Trunk Highway 101.
The City of Chanhassen is required to complete tho application for the grant
program to recdve the funds. As part of that application, the City is required to
hold a public hearing to discuss if the project is desirable to the citizens of
Chanhassem
c: Representative Tom Workman
G M~IG~UB LIC'~- 12-3Mtaff report-8-27-01a, doc
C1TYOF
Minnesota 55317
95Z937.1900
952.93Z5739
952.93Z9152
952.934.2524.
wu~d.d~nl~.mn, us
TO:
Todd G~hardt, City Manager
FROM:
DATE:
Teresa J. Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engineep~
August 21, 2001
SUBJ:
TH 101 Trail, Project 97-12-3
b) Considor Resolution for Grant Application
Requested Council Action
Approve the attached resolution.
Discussion
This item would normally be done under a consent agenda, however, because of
the public hearing it has been placed on the regular'agenda.
A requirement of the grant application for the $500,000 is a resolution by the'City
Council to:
1. Apply for the Graat.
2. State that the City Engineer has the legal authority to apply for the grant
3. State that the City of Chanhassen has the ability to .construct, opm'ate, and
maint~ thc trail.
4. State that the City lms not incurred costs or entered into written agreements to
purchase property that is proposed to be paid for with the grant.
5. State that the City has not violated Federal, State, or Local laws in obtaining
Recommended Motion
Move to adopt thc attached resolution to apply for a $500,000 Minnesota DNR
Grant for the Trunk Highway 101 Trail.
AtLuchment
c: Representative Tom Workman
O:~NG'~PUBLIC'LqT- 12-3Wmff r~xa't-8-27-01b.d~
ITEM 7- LOCAL GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Chanhassen act as legal sponsor for the project contained in the
Outdoor Recreation Grant Program Application to be submitted on August 21, 2001 and that the
Public Works Director/City Engineer is hereby authorized to apply to the Department of Natural
Resources for funding of this project on behalf of the City of Chanhassen.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Chanhassen has the legal authority to apply for
financial assistance, and the institutional, managerial, and financial capability to ensure adequate
construction, operation, maintenance and replacement of the proposed project for its design life.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Chanhassen has not incurred any costs described on
Item 4 and has not entered into any written agreements to purchase property described in Item 3.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Chanhassen has not violated any Federal, State, or
Local laws pertaining to fraud, bribery, grail, kickbacks, collusion, conflict of interest or other
unlawful of corrupt practice.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon approval of its application by the State, the
City of Chanhassen may enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota for the above-
referenced project, and that the City Of Chanh~sen certifies that it will comply with all applicable
laws and regulations as stated in the grant agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Public Works Director/City Engineer is hereby
authorized to execute such agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of the
applicant.
I CERTIFY THAT the above resolution was adopted by the City Council of City of Chanhassen on
August 21, 2001.
SIGNED:
WITNESSED:
Mayor City Manager
(Title) (Date) (Title) (Date)
g:~:ng~'orms~loeal government resolution.doe
CITYOF
C/fy Cen~ Dr/~e
PO Box147
Minnesota 55317
952.93Z1900
952.93Z5739
952.93Z9152
952.9M2524
u~u,md.d~anlnuso~.mn, us
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Todd Gerhard~ City Manager
Teresa J. Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engineer
August 22, 2001
TH 101 Trail - Project No. 97-12-3
c) Authorize Prep~on of Feasibility Stud~ Approve
Consultant Contract
Requested Council Action
City Council is requested to authorize preparation of the feasibility study for the
Trunk Highway 101 Trail Project and approve a consultant work order for
$10,000 with HTPO for preparation of the feasibility study.
Discussion
This item would normally be done under a consent age~da, however, because of
thc public heating, it has been phced on the regular agenda.
The City is requked by statute to do a feasibility sthdy for all public improvement
projects. Based on the mount of work already completed and the interaction
with both the neighborhood and MnDOT, staff recommends that HTPO be
retained to continue the work_
The, sc dollar amounts are not-to-exceed amounts and will be billed on an hourly
basis for actual work completed.
The purpose of the feasibility study is to do cost estimating for the project as well
as coordination with MnDOT and the DNR and preparation of a timeline for
completion of the pwject.
Recommended Motion
Move to authorize feasibility study preparation and also move to approve
consultant contract for $10,000 with HTPO for preparation of said feasibility
report.
Attachment: 1) Consultant ProPosal
c: Representative Tom Workman
Laurie Johnnon, HTPO
gfitagApublicW/- 12-3~stnff report-8-27-01 c.mv.doc
CITYOF
CflANHA EN
690 ~ Center Drive
P0 ~147
'.hanhauen, Mi#~ota 55317
952.93Z1900
952.93Z5739
952.93Z9152
952.934.2524
TO:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Teresa J. Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engineer
DATE:
August 21, 2001
SUBJ:
TH 101 Trail, Project 97-12-3
d) Letter of Thanks to Representative Workman for his efforts j~
obtaining the DNR Grant
Requested Council Action
The City Council is requested to sign a letter of thanks to Representative
Workman.
Discussion
Attached is a copy of a letter to Representative Workman expressing thanks from
the City of Chanhassen for his. efforts in obtaining a $500,000 grant from the
Minnesota DNR for the Tnmk Highway 101 Trail and requesting his continued
support.
Staff will bring the original letter to the City Council meeting for signatu~ by thc
Councilmembers.
Recommended Motion
No motion by the Council is required.
Attachment
c: Representative Tom Workman
O:kEN~~-12-3Wmff ~x~'t~-~ld~lo~
CFFYOF
CHANHASSEN
PO Box147
~Jauen, ,1,Iinntsota 55317
952.93Z1900
~ l:a~
952.937.5739
952.93Z9152
Building Depm'tmtnt Fax
952.934.2524
~b
www. ci. chanhauen, m,~ us
August 27, 2001
Representative Tom Workman
537 State Office Building
St Paul, MN 55155
Re: Thank you
Dear Representative Worm:
We are writing to express our genuine thanks and gratitude for your efforts on
behalf of the City of Chanhassen in obtaining a $500,000 grant for the Trunk
Highway 101 trail.
In addition, we are requesting your continued support and efforts in our dealings
with MnDOT and the Minnesota DNR to obtain approvals for a minirnum impact
trail in this corridor.
Sincerely,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Linda L. Jansen
Mayor
Steve Labatt
Councilman -
Craig Peterson
Councilman
Bob Ayotte Gary Boyle
Councilman Councilman
P01~147
~, Minnaota 55317
Phone
952.93Z1900
952.93Z5739
952.937.9152
952.9M.2524
FROM:
DATE:
Todd Gerhardt, Acting City Manager
,uli¢ Hoium, Plauner I
August 22, 2001
SUBS:
Nick Gassman Variance- 6801 Bmle Circle
The Planning Commission reviewed and denied this variance request on June 17,
2001. The applicant is appealing the Planning Commission's decision.
CITY OF
PC DATE: 6/17/01
CC DATE: 8/13101
REVIEW DEADLINE: 7~ !/0!
CASE#: 2001-2
By: Hoium, J
Z
STAFF
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
REPORT
yard setback for the construction of a thr~-~on porch.
6800 Bmle Circle
Lot 14, Block 2, Lotus Lake Estates
Nicholas Gassman
6800 Bmle Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING:
2020 LAND USE PLAN:
ACREAGE:
RSF, Residential Single Family
Residential-Low Density
12,998 square feet (.29 acres)
DENSITY: N/A
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a three-season porch on
the south side of an existing home. The proposal does not meet the required 10-foot side yard setback.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or
denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning
Ordinance for variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because of the
burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards in the ordinance.
Lotus Lake
Gassman Variance
July 17, 2001
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On July 17, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item. By a 3-2 vote the
variance was denied. The commission felt the applicant has a reasonable use of the site and a
hardship was not demonstrated. They believed there are alternatives the applicant could pursue
in constructing a porch. The applicant is appealing the decision.
This report has been updated. All new information is in bold.
APPLICABLE REGUATIONS
Section 20-615 (5) (c) requires a 10-foot side yard setback for properties zoned RSF, Single Family
Residential (Attachment 2).
Sec 20-615 (1) requires the minimum size of a lot to be 15,000 square feet.
BACKGRO.~.._~__~
This site is part of the Lotus Lake Estates subdivision, which was approved in 1979. The subject home
was constructed in the same year.. Originally, this subdivision was approved as a P-l, Planned Unit
development. At the time of approval, the minimum lot size for a planned unit development was 1 i,700
square feet. This lot was conforming to these standards. Today, the official zoning map depicts this
subdivision as residential single family. Staff was unable to determine when or how the subdivision was
rezoned from P-1 to RSF.
The subject site is a small irregular-shaped lot and the house is located in the center of the site. The
existing home is proportionate to the lot size. The home currently maintains approximately 20 and
22-foot setbacks from the side property line to the south. A small deck and whirlpool are located in
the center of the rear (west) side of the home. Records for the construction of the deck could not be
found.
The buildable area on this site is limited by topograPhical features. A boulder retaining wall, running
along the western property line, is located approximately 16 feet from the rear of the house. The
boulder wall is approximately 5 feet high. Directly behind this wall is an open wooded area.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 12-foot by 20-foot (240 sq. ft.) screen porch on the southern
elevation of an existing home. The proposed porch will be 6 feet from the property line on the
southwest comer and 8 feet from the property line on the souteast comer. The zoning ordinance
requires a porch to maintain a 10 foot setback from a side property line.
ANALYSI~S
The applicant is requesting a variance to the required 10 foot side yard setback for the construction of
an enclosed porch addition. The southwest comer of the proposed porch extends 4 feet into the side
yard setback, and the southeast comer encroaches 2 feet into the side yard setback.
Gassman Variance
July 17, 2001
Page 3
Site Characteristics
The lot has an area of 12,998 sq. ft. As stated earlier, this lot is an odd shaped lot. The width of the
lot decreases as it moves in the direction of the rear yarc[ It is approximately 101 feet wide at the
front lot line and is less than 75 feet in the rear. The rear lot line is angled so that it is closer to the
home at the southwest corner than at the northwest comer (see site plan). At this point, the rear lot
line is approximately 42 feet from the southeast comer of the existing home. 'The buildable area is
limited by the required setbacks, the size and shape of the lot, and its natural landscape and
topography. The impervious surface coverage on this lot currently is approximately 23%. The
proposed porch will increase the impervious surface coverage to 25%, the maximum percent allowed
by the ordinance.
Permitted Use
This site is zoned RSF, Single Family Residential. A single family home can be legally constructed
on the site. The zoning ordinance (Section 20-1124 (2) f) requires two parking spaces, both of which
shall be completely enclosed for single-family dwellings. Oarmntly, a single family dwelling with a
two-stall garage is on site.
Reasonable Use
A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. A
"use" can be defined as "the purpose or activity for which land or. buildings are designed, arranged or
intended or for which land or buildings are occupied or maintained." In this case, because it is in a
RSF zoning district, a reasonable use is a single-family home with a two-stall garage. The property
owner currently has a reasonable use of the site.
The applicant contends that an undue hardship is present because of the small, irregular shape of the
lot, its "unusual boundary line," the position of the current home on the lot, and the natural
landscaping. The homeowner wishes to increase the enjoyment of the property, especially in a state
that has an abundance of mosquitoes. This lot is smaller than the 15,000 sq. ft, however, the size has
not precluded a single-family home from being constnmted on the property.
Altemative
An alternative location on this site for the porch would be to the rear of the home. A 12 x 20 foot
porch in this location could just meet the rear setback requirement, however, due to the boulder wall
and rise in topography it would leave very little of the rear yard open.
The applicant could construct a porch without a variance that does meet the 10-foot side setback if the
porch was four feet shorter on the south side. To accommodate this the south side of the porch would
have to be 4 feet shorter, or have a dimension of 8 x 20 feet.
Gassman Variance
July 17, 2001
Page 4
FINDINGS
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a
variance unless they find the following facts:
That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criteria.
Finding: The applicant has a reasonable use of the property. A single family home and
attached garage exist on the property. To the best of staff's knowledge all homes maintain the
required 10 foot side yard setback. A standard that complies with current ordinances. While
studying the surveys within 500 feet of the subject site, staff discovered that the.property owner
at 6801 Bmle Circle, located across the street from the subject site, encountered a similar
situation dealing with side setback requirements. The property, owner obtained additional
property from the neighboring site, moving the property line administratively, thus eliminating
the need for a variance. The subsequent addition was built in accordance with city code.
b.
The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: A 10-foot side yard building setback is required on all residentially zoned properties.
Cm
The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential
of the parcel of land.
Finding: The screened porch will increase the value of the property, however, staff does not
believe that is the sole reason for the request. A screened porch will allow the homeowners
enjoy the property.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The hardship is self-created, as a reasonable use already exists on the site.
ee
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of fight and air to adjacent property or
substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or
Gassman Variance
July 17, 2001
Page 5
endanger the public safety or substantially ~sh or impair ~ values within the
neighborhood.
Finding: Although the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public weffare or
injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood, it will permit a setback that is less
than the minimum side yard separation found in this development.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the P!a.m~Jng Ce.n-a--..:.==i~-n City Council adopt the following motion:
......... e ........... n City Council denies Variance g2001-2 for a 4 foot variance from the 10
foot side yard setback on the southwest comer of the proposed porch and a 2 foot variance from the 10
foot side yard setback on the southeast comer of the same proposed porch based upon the following:
1. The applicant has a reasonable use the property.
2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
3. It appears there are alternatives to the piacement of the porch."
Attachments
1. Application and Letter
2. Relevant portions of the zoning ordinance
3. Site Plan, porch plans, and pictures.
4. Public hearing notice and property owners
5. Letters from Neighbors
6. Minutes from the July 17, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting
7. Applicant's letter of appeal
8. Applicant's request to change meeting date
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
.(se
TELEPHONE (Day time) '~ ~'- (7/t/~- ~-"-~,)-0 ~
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
Non-conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Rezoning
Sign Permits
. Sign Plan Review
Site Plan Review*
Subdivision*
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
~ Notification Sign
× Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CU P/SPR/VACNA~AP~etes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
i
TOTAL FEE $
w
A ilst of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the
applimtlon.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
'Twenty-slx full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8W' X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
** Escrow will be required for other appllcations through the development contract
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each appllcation.
Request for Variance
Lotus Lake Estates; Lot 14; 6800 Bmle Circle
Description
This formal request for variance is based on the property owners desire to realize the full enjoyment
positioning of the ~ home on the lot, (S~ Plot Map) th~ so~ corn~ of the smictm~ 'will
enter the 10foot easement by approximately 2 feet and the soulhwest comer by appro~ely 4
feet.
Logic
The logic for the location and placement of the screen porch is as follows:
Visual Harmony and Aesthetics - the elevation of the property, significant distance in
proximity of adjacent neighhors homes and tl~ cxt~ shmbb~ wlTll allow the ~
porch to be int~ into the current home with ~ visual impact. (See Building
Elevation Diagram and Pictures #1, 2, 3, 7)
· Excavation - locating th~ porch to tlm west (law. k!~) would require tl~ r~moval ofnattaal
landscaping, significant grading and dirt work. In ~da~'__~__ n, there are nmnemus large, old
growth trees tlmt would be jeopardized or may need to l~e removed. (See Pictm'es ~4, 5)
· Light and Egress - The South side of the dwelling has no windows or egress on the first
level The French door to be installed will provide light and access to the porch and outside.
(See Building Plan Diagram and Pictm'es #3, 6).
· Property Limitations - The North side (garage) and the East side of the property are not
Rmctional options due to lot line proximity, physical limitations of the ctmv~ dwelling and
Justification
As a resident and taxpayer of Chanbassen at this ~ddress for over fourteen years, the homeowner
wishes to ~ the pleasure of the home and the property by balding a scre~ porch. The
to the granting of variances. In this particular case, the literal and strict enfo~ would cause
the property owner undo and unnecessary hardship. Tho ~po~ ~ ~ not in ~be
de~ to the public welfare or the aesthetics of the mighlx)rhood. The request is for the
specific and sole pm~se ofenjoying the prop°ny, not for the purpose ofinc~asing ttie property's
value. As evidenced by Pictm'e #1, the location of the screen porch will not ~ adequate light or
air to the adjacent property and in no way increase congestion, or ~ property values within
the neighborhood.
Letters by neigh~rs ~ediately adjacent to the lot line (Lot 15 & Lot 16) in support of granting
and approval ofthe variance are respectfully submitted. Please see Exhltfit A.
o.
IJJ
IJJ
ZONING § 20-615
(2) Storage building.
(3) Swimming pool.
(4) Tennis court.
(5) Signs.
(6) Home occupations.
(7) One (1) dock.
(8) Private kennel.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-3), 12-15.86)
Sec. 20-614. Conditional usaa.
The following are conditional uses in- an "RSF" Distri~:
(1) Churches.
(2) Reserved.
(3) Recreational beach lots.
(4) Towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5.4), 12-15-86; Ord. Bio. 120, § 4(4), 2-12-90; Ord. Bio. 259, § 12,
11-12-96)
State law reference--Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595.' :
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSI~. District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in thi= chapter and e_h~pter 18:
(1)
The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. For neck or/lag lots,
the lot area requirements _shAll De met after the area contained within the "neck" has
been excluded from consideration.
(2)
The minimum lot frontage is ninety (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac
"bubble" or along the outside curve of cuiwilinear street sections shall be ninety (90)
feet in width at the building setback line. The location of this lot is conceptually
Supp. No. 9 1211
§ 20-615 CHANI-IASSEN CITY CODE
illustrated below.
Lore Where Frontage la
Measured At 8etbaok Line
L
(3)
The miuimum lot depth is one hundred twenty-five (125) feet. The location of these lots
is conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by
private driveways shall be one hundred (100) feet as measured at the front building
setback line.
Fron Lot Line
100/Lot Width
(4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25)
percent.
(5) The setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, th/~ (30) feet.
b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet.
Supp. No. 9 1212
Lotus Lake Estates; Lot 14; 6800 Brule Circle~----.a <'aa/
i
)istanco fmm SW
comer to prop~
line is appro~ 6
2 X 20 Screen P~r~h
SE comer to
proper~ line h
~lmm m i ·
·
·
Z
Picture Number One
View is looking Northwest from the bac~d of Paul Dragston (Lot 15).
Picture Number Two
View is look/ng North show/ng lower elevation from Paul Dmsston's. yard.
Picture Number Three
View is looking Northwest from the property line showing south side of the dwelling and
building site.
Picture Number Four
View is looking Southeast showing top elevation, hndscap/n~ and shn~bery.
Picture Number Five
View is looking West showing mature trees, extensive landscaping, and building site.
Picture Number Six
Picture Number Seven
View is looking West showing building site and extensive shrubbery.
INEATHI=R E%IARD-
2X4
I X ~ TRIM
IX ~ TRIM
,2 X ,~ RAF:~R
--2 X 12 BEAH
5(_..REEN
~ 4 X 4 C, EI~AR PO~T
(~ X ~ C.,,EI~AR GORNER POST)
~ 2 X 4 R~IL
2 X ~ DEC..Jr,.II,4~
2 X 12 GEl)AR TRIM
FLOOR JOl~t
POST
12." PlA. GONG.
FOOTIN~
I
I~, PlA. GONG.
J FOOTINg,
!Il
SECTION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED VARIANCE
C1TY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HI~I~Y GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planing Commi~,~sion will bom a
public hearing on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 at 7:00 p,m. in the Council Chambe~ in Chanhassen City
Hall, 690 City Centc~ Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a sid~ yard
setback for the construction of a screened porch on property zoned RSF, and locaged at 6800 Brule
Circle, Nick Gassman.
A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall
during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and
express their opinions with respe~ to this proposal.
J'ulie Hoium, Planner I
Phone: 937-1900, ext. 117
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on luly 5, 2001)
May 23, 2001
To whom it may concern,
I am writing in support of the application for a bufldlr~ variance submitted by Nick
Gassman. I live in the adjo'ming property (30 Choctaw Circle, lot #15). The proposed
screened porch will be situat~l directly betwee~ our properties. I have discussed this
project with Mr. Gassman, have no objections to the proposed addition to Ms house,
and support his efforts to obtain approval for the project.
If you have additional questions you wish to address to me, please do not hesitate to
contact me directly at (612) 378-0228 (work) or (952) 949-1260 (home).
Paul Dragsten
30 Choctaw Cfi'de
Chanh~, MN 55317
Thomas & Mary Lauby
50 Choctaw Circle
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
(952) 937-5265
To the City of Chanhassen
To whom it my concern,
This letter is in support of the variance application submitted by
Nick Gassman. We live o~=the adjoining prpperty, next to Mr.~ags=ten,
"whom lives at 30 Choctaw Ct, and to the rear of Mr. Gassman. We have
no objections to the building proposal in regard to the addition
to his home.
You may contact me at the number above if you have any questions
o-f"/&
Mary Lauby
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001
Blackowiak: Bruce, do you have any comments you'd like to add?
Feilc No, I can wait. Thank you.
Blackowiak: No? Rich?
Slagle: I'll wait.
Blackowiak: Lori, I just have one comment. I was not able to make that first tour but I would certainly
like to do a second one if you were so inclined so I guess you know if you're going to notice property
owners, maybe at the same time if there happened to be a day you could pick just to say, you're a
property owner. I'll be here this day. Come if you want to walk. I mean that might be kind of neat just
to get some of the property owners down there to take a look at what' s actually going on down there and
maybe give them a little bit better understanding of what we're trying to do by this. So with that I would
like to have a motion please.
Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission table the staff' s recommendations for the fen and
for the Assumption Creek setbacks so that property owners may be noticed and pertinent environmental
resource people that were at the tour can also be noticed.
Blackowiak: Okay, is there a second?
Feilc I'll second.
Kind moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the ordinance
amendments creating setbacks for fens and creeks so that property owners and pertinent
environmental resource people that were on the tour of the Assumption Creek and fen can also be
noticed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
Blackowiak: It will be tabled and I'm sure we'll just, it will be in the paper and on the web site so we'll
know when it's happening again.
Mayor Jansen: Madam Chair, if I could at this time. I would just like to thank Commissioner Kind and
Commissioner Sacchet for taking the initiative to bring this forward and direct staff to look into the sorts
of significant protections for our community resources. I commend you for having that sort of initiative
and moving forward something like this so thank you and I'm sure the rest of the council would thank
you also.
(The Planning Commission took a short break at this point.)
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SCREENED
PORCH ON PROPERTY ZONED P.~F~ AND LOCATED AT 6800 BRULE CIRCLE~ NICK
GASSMAN.
Public Present:
Name Address
39
Planning Commission Meeting -July 17, 2001
Steven D. Bloom
Sandy & Nick Gassman
6781 Brule Circle
6800 Bruce Circle
Julie Hoium presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Commissioners, are there any questions of staff? U1L go right ahead.
Sacchet: Yeah, I have a question. This space around that building. On the back side, which would be
the west side, there are some retaining bou~der wans and on the south side, I think the neighbor has some
wooden retaining walls and I just am interested tO get a sense of where they are. What's the distance?
How far is the wooden retaining wall, the neighbor's land. How far back is the rock retaining wall to the
west from the house?
Hoiurm The applicant might be able to anawer thia better. From my understanding the boulder retaining
wall is approximately 16 feet back from the house. And the retaining wall on the side of the property
line, if we could focus on the site plan itserf. It is approximately 5 feet inside of the neighbor's property.
Sacchet:
5 feet beyond the property line roughly?
Hoium: Correct.
Sacchet: Thank you. That answers that question. Let' s see if I have another'one. I think that answers it,
thank you.
-
Hoiurm Okay, thank you.
Blackowiak: Bruce, do you have any questions?
Feik: What's the approximately elevation difference between the two lots?
Hoium: I do not know.
Nick Gassman: About 12 feet.
Feik: What does the staff think about the ability to screen? Is there the ability to screen this from the
neighbor's view?
Aanenson: That I think was our principle reason for denying the variance. It's pretty imposing.
Feik: Thank you.
Kind: Yes Madam Chair, I have a question about the intent behind side yard setbacks. I'm assuming that
there were historically fire reasons for having side yard setbacks. How about movement around the
structures? Is there any reason regarding that?
Hoium: As far as fire hazard or?
Kind: Just to access to the back yard. Is that part of the reason why we have 10 foot.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001
Hoium: To keep a separation between the buildings. So there is access.
Kind: In this case on the south side though, the separation between the buildings is huge because it's a
side yard and a back yard.
Hoium: Correct.
Kind: And then there's that retaining wall, but the retaining wall does limit the movement around the
structure so I'm wondering if that's a part of why we have side yard setbacks in case you need to access
the back yard and that sort of thing.
Hoiurm Correct.
Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Any questions?
Slagle: I will ask it of the applicant as well. Was there discussion of this addition being put on the back
yard, assuming that there was 16 feet of?.
Hoium: The applicant could answer this question. I had mentioned it and from my understanding it
wasn't feasible from the outline of the house itself. Inside of the house itself.
Slagle: Okay.
Blackowiak: Okay. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please
come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record.
Nick Crassman: My name's Nick Gassrnan at 6800 Brule Circle, Chanhassen. Thanks for giving me the
opportunity. I do need to clarify some of the things. The west side, where you come out of the west side
of the house, it's about 14, a total of 14 feet because there's an angle where the boulders were. Those
boulders are there to protect full grown trees, for root systems and all that. There used to be a wood wall
there. Not unlike the dividing wall between my neighbor Paul Dragsten. Okay. This wall right here is, if'
you were to see the smaller bushes on the top row, there's about 5 feet there that is actually would be my,
what would be considered my neighbor's lot and that's where we've staked and the lot line runs. The
wall really limits effectively that's where Paul's lot ends is at that wall. I mean that's as far as using,
maintenance. I take care of everything on the top. You know I have for 14 years and so technically the
way the lots were drawn, that used to be one big hill that ran to Choctaw and then they had two lots left,
this is before I got there, and they came in. Dozed the dirt and just chopped that hill. That used to be a
natural incline. Boom, put the wall there. So the wall is, it's not the greatest looking thing in the world
but we live with it. Now as far as putting the screen porch on that south side, it really isn't imposing. I
think I heard imposing. I' ye talked to Paul about it. I talked to my other neighbor that actually looks at
it. Okay, and Paul Dragsten wrote me a letter of recommendation and said this is cool. We' ye talked
about it. I know it's going to be a screened in. It would have been a different issue if I had put a shed
roof. If we're talking about a shed roof. Where you're looking at roofs. What we've got here is a
minimal structure. It' s a roof that runs at the same angle as my roof line now and it's all screened. It' s
clear screen. There's no side walls. There's no siding. And it will be integrated as constructed by my
builder to be as natural as it was put up the day the house was built in '79. So it won't be imposing. I
have lots of old shrubbery there. Lilac bushes and some other things that will be there. And if I need to
put up arborvitaes or something like that as more of a natural, all time winter thing, I'll be happy to do
that. I've talked to Paul about that already. But the, do you have any questions so far?
41
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001
Sacchet: Ah yes.
Nick Crassman: Okay. Somehow I knew that. Looking at you, you're looking at questions.
Sacchet: Yeah, just one. We actually have a copy of that letter from Paul Dragsten in our paclmt so
we're well aware of that. The issue we have to deal with is the thing with the hardship because we have
to treat everybody the same. So we have to live by our rules. And it seems like there are alternatives,
and one alternative would be to make the porch shorter. Much less wide. Another alternative would be,
and the staff report points it out to try to acquire more land. Maybe the strip that goes up to the boulder
wall. Another option is to put it in the baclc I mean how do you feel, that's my question, how do you
feel about other. I understand that's the best place. You want a screened porch on the south side. That's
where the sun comes. That's where it makes...
Nick Crassman: Well and if you see that wall, there's no windows. There's no light. That's the largest
part of my house and that goes, it funnels right into the dining room. Or the living room. The dining
room is broken there. And it's closed.
Sacchet: I understand. You don't want to look...alternatives.
Nick Gassman: Well we talked the alternatives. I talked to the builder about the alternatives and we
talked about originally building out that west side. It just doesn't integrate to the side of the house and
you've got to move, because where the kitchen sits and where the dining room is located, there's-just no
clear flow pattern into the house and so we thought okaiy. Maybe we can wrap around the Corner. Again,
that becomes a real problem visually because you get more roof and it's, so we went back to that south
side. And then a functional screen porch, especially when it's going to be, my house is '79. You guys
appreciate, I've got a lot of small rooms already. An 8 foot screen porch is so skinny and I have a broad
side of my house here. You know it hms 28 feet I believe from end to end and then the porch would run,
it'd be 4 feet on either end, if you center it, so it'd be 20 foot. And that gives you depth. I mean pace off
2 paces and you're banging your nose against the screen so you understand it's functional and appearance
wise, size wise, it just wouldn't be attractive on that side of the house for that type of skinny. When you
talk about, you want to maintain your visual aesthetics for the neighbors as well so that nobody really can
see it because of the height differential when you walk or drive down Brule. When you look up you
really can't see anything up there. I don't know how many of you folks have actually walked the
property. I think Deb came out today and.
Sacchet: I didn't walk it. I was on the street.
-
Nick Gassman: So you couldn't really see, yeah so it's a perfect spot for it and given the fact that we do
have a little, to use discretion and that there's exceptions to every rule and there's no opportunity to
maybe look kindly upon this variance request, that's what I'm here for right now so that we can go ahead
with this project.
Slagle: You had mentioned there was comments by another neighbor who I assume would be to the west
of Paul, who sees it more.
Nick Gassman: No, he doesn't see it at all actually. Tom Lauby, his grade is at the same level that Paul
Dragsten's is but he's farther west and he's got additional hill, additional shrubbery, trees.. He has no
visual sight line to that.
42
Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001
Slagle: So it' s your belief that Paul really is the only one who will see it.
Nick Gassrnan: Absolutely. If you're sitting on Paul's back deck, his house folks is about 40 to 50 feet
from where that porch will be to where the back of his house is. If you look at his lot. His lot's fight
here, okay. And his house is almost to the front of that lot. And my house, well you can see where it is,
so there's that very large distance so it's not like I'm looking into his kitchen or anything like that but
then he's got a small deck out there. But he was the first person I approached. Are you okay with this
and he's the one who's actually, was more aggressive. Go ahead and go to the variance and build it the
fight way and where you want it so. Been there 14 years. I have no intentions of moving. My kids are
leaving. I don't need a big house.
Slagle: So if I hear you're suggesting to the inside of the wall that we see on that picture, that would be
your living room area on the other side of this or dining?
Nick Gassman: Right. If you're on the, if you go to the west side is the dining room area. If you go the
right side, it's the living room area and fight, if you were to follow that window down, that's
approximately the middle and that's where I would punch in a door. And so it's double, it's a skinny 48
inch French door that would swing out for light and air.
Slagle: Okay. Just one last question. In the back, if you were to come off, which I think you just
described as your dining room I think, or living room The back of that. Yeah, where the new French
door, which I'm assuming is what would go into the house.
Nick Gassman: Yes sir.
Slagle: You're just saying that it's not going to work in the back yard for.
Nick Gassman: No, because the way my dining room is and the way the kitchen comes in, it doesn't
work. Just the way the interior of the house is set up. It's kind of queer because I have a, if I didn't, if I
refirrange the whole lower level and got fid of the mud room that connected to the family room and move
the kitchen and turn that around. You know we went through that whole exercise and it's, I'm taking a
$15,000 screen porch and turning it into a $100,000 remodel. Not a good idea.
Feik: I had a quick question. Did you consider making some sort of a screened access way that might
have been 6 or 8 feet wide that would adjoin to a screened in porch that would be off the back7 So that
you would sort of merge one, the views out of the one side but yet accommodate the larger deck where it
would not.
Nick Gassman: No I did not but it gets back, it's to the larger screen and the way it's situated or would
sit on the lot and the house itself and the way you'd have to position the roof, the shed.roof, the visual
impact. It wouldn't look like it was a well designed part of the house. We want this to be as minimal
impact and just like it's been there for the 22 years the house has been standing. It's why no three
season, no four season. No windows. No heater. You know, just a screened porch. Very basic.
Feik: One other quick question. What is the elevation of this deck over the existing ground? How tall is
it?
43
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001
Nick Gassman: It's on the ground. It's not really a deck What it is is two series of like they're not
foundation. They're like platforms. They're like little platforms. It's like a 4 by 6 framed in box that's
laying on the ground by my, so in the winter when I wall
Feik: No, I mean the new screened in porch. The floor, the elevation of that floor, how high is that
above the ground? I'm trying to figure out how much high~ that is than the existing turf.
Nick Gassman: Okay, I understand.
Feik: It doesn't really show and I'm just trying to get some ide~
Kind: It's about 2 feet.
Nick Gassman: And that would be high. I mean it's maxed. Just the way it's got to tie it into the main.
Feik: Okay. So the drawing is relatively to scale, that bottom portiom Okay, thank yom That's all I
had.
Nick Gassman: It will be very, very close to the ground. Would require ~ skirting.
Blackowiak: Okay. Commissioners, any other questions of the applicant? Okay, th'~k you. This item
is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to make comments on this item, please come up.
State your name and address for the record.
Steve Bloonc My name is Steve Bloom. I'm at 6781 Bmle Circle. I'm across the street from Nick. My
interest in this is that I'm Nick's cigar smoking buddy and I don't particularly like the site because it's
surrounded by trees so much so that it's not i .reposing on anyone, I can speak for the neighbors. You
really can't see it, but it is really the only place that he could put from the inside the house in terms of
how it works. Our neighborhood is 44 homes. We're an association. We have beach front property that
we share. Anybody's business in our neighborhood in everyone's business. I think that the entire
neighborhood was notified. I'm going to assume that nobody's had a problem with the proposal and just
by self imposing and neighborhood gossip, because we share the beach and do parties and such, it really
is not intrusive on anyone. Again, this picture right here, if I could, it was taken from a place where you
can see the side of the house but really from the mad and just about anyplace I could think of, other than
the Dragsten's back yard, you really can't see it so I'm thinking that if Nick doesn't get the variance and
he has to build the porch 6 feet or 8 feet wide instead of 12 feet, it's going to look the same from
anybody's perspective. I think the issue as to whether there should be access to the back yard's a pretty
solid question, but I don't know. I can't really address that. The standards that we've set in the
neighborhood are around value of the homes look. Neighborhood character if you will and of course
safety for the children. Everybody has 2 and 3 children in their neighborhood. So to that, you can't see
it. And two homes were next to each other with the same space, I could see that it might be somewhat
intrusive but since there's so much space into the next yard, I don't feel that that's. You know we talk
about reasonable use. I moved out here from the East Coast and.I didn't know that the state bird was the
mosquito and I kind of feel like, as I moved into the neighborhood in the middle of the winter, had I had
another opportunity I might have looked for a home that had a screened in porch. My wife and I
constantly talk about whether we could do it in our own home and I don't think we have figured out how
to do it. I think it's a great opportunity and it does bring value to the neighborhood. To the house re-sale
value and I think it's an important thing to have. And those are basically my comments. Just from a
homeowners perspective. It would be unfortunate if there wasn't a variance given, if that's the right
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001
terminology in that we support each other in the neighborhood. We had a variance I think that was
approved not too distant past in the Weatherby's home where they added some decking and it was
something that, it is visible from the common property that walks, there's a walkway behind and
everybody supported it because we support each other in the neighborhood. But it was a lot more
intrusive. And you know I hear the comments about 25,000 square foot construction buildings and
putting a new home and I don't even know what I heard around fen but it was very complicated. This is
real simple and it's not, it won't bother anybody so if you could see the way through it, that would be
great for me personally. Thanks for your time.
Kind: Madam Chair, I forgot I did have a question of the applicant. How do you propose to get around
your home if the screened porch is approved and one of your boulder' s falls off? How do you get a
heavy equipment back there to repair your retaining wall?
Nick Gassman: Well the builder, the boulder builder, he assured it never would happen. We do have
another access around on the other side of the house. I have a small shed that is portable. I mean you'd
have to drag it but it's moveable so there's access around that, coming from the north side around, and
from the family room and back through. You could get a Bobcat down there. Small front end, there's
plenty of room to get in if something, don't say it, tragic like that would happen, but that boulder wall's
not going anywhere. We'll all be dead before that wall moves.
Kind: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Is there anybody else that would like to comment on this 'item? Seeing no one I will, did I
even open the public hearing?
Kind: I'mnot sure.
Blackowiak: I don't know. Well I'll open the public hearing if anybody else would like to comment.
And if nobody did, I will close the public hearing. I can't remember if I even said that. I'm getting tired.
Okay. Commissioners, comments. Rich.
Slagle: I can start. Question to staff as a preview to my comments. Was this mailed, and I don't see a
list of the mailings on this one?
Hoium: Yes it was mailed.
Slagle: Maybe I'm missing it.
- .
Blackowiak: I too am missing it.
Slagle: Okay, but Julie it was, right?
Hoiurm Yes it was.
Slagle: Okay. Okay, good. You know in today's world they can be very selective in who they mail to.
Aanenson: There's probably about 40 names.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - Suly 17, 2001
Slagle: Fair enough. Boy, this is a tough one. I mean I think we all are, rn speak for myseff, emphasize
with you. The issue is is we have the codes and we can grant variances but boy that hardship issue, it's
tough and with staff and theft recommendation to deny it, I just haven't seen yet the reason to change
that. I'm just being honest. That's my comments.
Blackowiak: Uli, why don't you.
Sacchet: ...I definitely sympathize with, I mean is this the perfect place to put it On the other hand I'm
not convinced that all the alternatives have sufficiently been explored. Staff I think mentioned 3
alternatives. The one with the wrapping. One with making it shallower and there's also reference to a'
similar situation where one of the neighbors had a similar project, ended up getting a couple feet of
property from the neighbor so that the setback wasn't encroached on. Now basically what my position is
is very simple. I think from our position from a planning commi.~sion, we don't have the latitude to make
exceptions in that sense when things are this clear. We have to go by the code and based on the' code I
think I cannot say that there is a real hardship demonstrated because I have a hard time considering it a
hardship that you can't have your 12 to 14 foot porch when you can put a 8 foot porch in and also wrap it
around the house, or if you buy a couple feet of property from the neighbor to do it the way you want. I
think the latitude of making an exception like that is made, it's on the City Council level. Not on the
Planning Commission level and I feel therefore compelled to go with staff recommendations and passing
it onto the council to review it because you can appeal it and then the council looks at it and the council
does have latitude to look at that. I would however very much recommend that you explore th~
alternatives a little more to have that whole picture in front of council when you do that. That's my
comment.
Blackowiak: Okay, Deb.
Kind: Madam Chair. I too am worried about setting a precedent with something like this. The applicant
does have a reasonable use of the lot and not having a screened porch is not considered a hardship,
although I would consider it a hardship ifI didn't have one so it's, I can empathize with it. I do think
there is a hardship in that the size of the lot is substandard and the home was built before the current
setbacks were put in place. I think there is hardship there. If this was a reasonable use as far as what's
required to make the lot useable so I don't see not having a screen porch as being a hardship.
Blackowiak: Okay, Bruce.
Feilc I'm loath to deny a request such as this based strictly on the hardship issue. I know we would be
setting precedence but it seems to me...our blessings and permission to vary fi'om the guidelines. I think
there's things that the homeowner could do such as making.' it maybe more irregular shaped so that he
encroaches on the one comer 2 feet less. But I would, if I were the homeowner, I understand his position
and I would hate to have it denied strictly based upon setting.precedence regarding the hardship issue.
Kind: That is why we must deny it.
Feilc I know. And I agree with it.
Blackowiak: Yeah, and it's unfortunate that, and I've said this before. We often see things that we'd
love to say yes, let's go ahead but we as a commigsion axe bound to follow ordinance and if there's not a
hardship demonstrated, we cannot deviate. That's just bottom line. However, the City Council does
have that leeway if they so choose and I would certainly encotwage you to appeal this variance decision
46
Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001
within 4 days, which is the legal time line here, because I'm sensing that's the way this direction is, this
vote is going because unfortunately we again, in my opinion I guess, unfortunately we have to follow the
letter of the law and if it doesn't meet the hardship requirements, we cannot approve it so, based on that I
would like a motion please.
Sacchet: Okay Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission denies Variance g2001-2 for a 4
foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback on the southwest comer of the proposed porch and the 2
foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback on the southeast comer of the same proposed porch
based on the following, 1 and 2 as stated and add a third one. It appears there are alternatives to put a
porch in place that need to be further researched.
Blackowiak: Okay. There's been a motion made. Is there a second?
Kind: I'll second it.
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance g2001-2 for a 4 foot
variance from the 10 foot side yard setback on the southwest corner of the proposed porch and the
2 foot variance from the 10 foot side yard setback on the southeast corner of the same proposed
porch based on the following:
1. The applicant has a reasonable use of the property.
2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
3. It appears there are alternatives that need to be further researched.
All voted in favor, except Feik and Slagle, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2.
Blackowialc Okay, the motion carries 3 to 2. The variance is denied.
Kind: Is 3 to 2 enough?
Aanenson: Yes.
Blackowiak: Yes. You have to have 80% to approve so commissioners who voted no, would you like to
make any further comments for the record or have you stated what you needed to?
Slagle: I tell you why I voted nay was to the, was it a third item? And maybe we should have asked if
there were comments on the additional, that's why I voted no. I didn't think we needed the third item.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Feilc I have no comments.
Blackowiak: No further comments Bruce, okay. So, for this item it's, I have to read this. Any person
aggrieved of the decision may appeal a variance decision within 4 days of said decision. Kate, could you
maybe either speak to the applicant or have somebody speak to them on what the process is for them to
appeal this decision since I'm assuming they will do so, and I encourage them to do so. Okay.
47
July 18, 2001
Honorable Mayor Llnda Jansen
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 5.5317
Re: Denial of Variance Request ~2001-2 - Appeal
Dear Linda:
I am writing to formally appeal the decision last night denying my request for a variance of
the 10 foot side yard setback. It was made clear to me during the public hearing that the
members of the Planning Commission felt granting the variance was appropriate but
based on the strict and literal enforcement they were unable to do so. The Chair said it
was necessary to defer to the discretion of the City Council. The vote was 3-2.
Based on the advice of the Planning Commlaslon to appeal and th®Ir open
recommendation, I ask for your and the City Council's sincere consideration for
granting the variance.
The Planning Commission based their decision to recommend denial of the variance on
Staff's report sighting two conditions they felt were not adequately met pursuant to Section
20-58:
1. q'he applicant has a reasonable use of the property."
2. q'he applicant has not demonstrated a hardship."
In this regard, I would like you and the Council to consider the following fact when
reflecting on this request:
> The lot was plotted and the house was built in 1979. At that time, the
required lot size was less than 15,000 square feet and the side yard
setbacks were 6 feet in Chanhassen. Subsequently, Code changes were
implemented increasing the minimum lot size to 15,000 square feet and
side yard setbacks to 10 feet. This Code change clearly limits reasonable
use and creates hardship. With no pdor notification or knowledge of this
significant change in the rules 'hardship and lack of reasonable use' can
· certainly be validated by the Council for my dght to fully utilize and enjoy my
property. These issues could not have been considered pdor for future
improvements when the existing lot lines were plotted or the house
positioned in relation to the lot size. "
Furthermore, the information contained in the formal request submitted and presented
during the hearing demonstrated unique characteristics for an exception and a reasonable
situation for the approval of the variance. For instance:
· Letters of Recommendation from the immediate neighbors adjoining the lot line
· All neighbors within 500 feet were notified resulting in no concerns or negative
responses
· Neighbors that attended the meeting in support
· Physical characteristics of the site such as distance from the neighboring
home, significant elevation change, existing plantings, and site lines
· Location involves the setback only. Does not infringe into the easement.
Linda, this is a simple request for a simple variance that does not impact anyone or
anything. The immediate neighbors and the neighborhood accept and support the request.
It does not establish any sort of precedence. We are examining a small piece of land from
2 to 4 feet along a 20 foot line to build a screen porch so a homeowner can fully enjoy a
property he has lived in for 14 years. I would ask and encourage you and all of the Council
members to come over and walk the property ~or yourselves. I believe the experience will
make you and each of them comfortable with an exception to grant the variance. I would
be happy to meet with you at your convenience.
Thank you very much for your consideration. I look forward to seeing you at the next
Council meeting or hearing from you at anytime.
Sincerely,
Nick
Nick D. Gassman
6800 Brule Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
952-934-84O8
763-416-5206
R,INC.. TEL:l-612-416-5200 3ul $0'01 14:02 No.O01P.02
July 30, 2001
Honorable Mayor Llnda Janesn
City of Chanhaseen
690 City Center Ddve
P.O. Box 147
Chanhas~en, MN 55317
Re: Dental of Variance Request ~2001-2 - Appeal; Request to Change Council Meeting
Dear Unda:
I am writing to formally request my Varlanco Appeal heating be moved from the Council m.~ng
scheduled for August 13, 2001 until the next Council meeting scheduled for August 27, 2001. it is
my understanding this letter is necessary to invoke this action.
Thank you very much for your cooperation..I look forward to eeelng you at the August 27th
Council meeting or hearing from you at anytime.
6800/Brule Circle
Chahhassen, MN 55317
952-934-8408
763-416-5206
Cc: Julle Hoium
CITY OF
PC DATE: Aug. 7, 2001
CC DATE: Aug. 27, 2001
REVIEW DEADLINE: 9/4/01
CASE #: LUA 2001-3, RE2; 2001-
2, SPR 2001-10, WAP 2001-2
STAFF
REPORT
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Request for a land use amendment and rczoning to permit a religious facility, a
wetland alteration permit to alter and fill wetlands, site plan review for thc first
phase of a religious campus, and a variance from thc district regulations. '-
3101 Tanadoona Drive
Westwood Community Church
7801 Park Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRE, SENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District (A2)
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential- Low Density
ACREAGE: 57.07 acres
DENSITY: F.A~. 0.03
SUMMARY OF REQUF_~T: Thc applicant is requesting a land use map amendment from Residential
- Low Density to Public/Semi-Public, a rezoning from Rtmd Residential District (RR) to Office and
Institutional (0I), site plan review for a 69,756 square foot church for thc first phase of a religious
campus, a variance from the building height requirements in thc OI 'district to permit a three story
building and the Highway Corridor District to permit building height more than 40 feet, and a wetland
alteration permit to fill and alter wetlands within the site.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all ~ owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings, PUD's, and amendments to
PUD's because the City is acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and
amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Westwood Community Church
August 7, 2001
Page 2
The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed
project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets those standa~, the City must then
approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed
project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for variance. The City has a relatively high level of
discretion with a variance because of the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the
standards in the ordinance.
PROPOSAL/S~RY
The applicant is requesting a land use amendment from Residential - Low Density to Public/Semi-
Public and a rezoning from Rural Residential District, RR, to Office and Institutional, 0I, in order to
develop the pmpe~3t as a religious compus. While the RR district permits churches as a conditional use,
Westwood Community Church would not be able to realize the full potential of their vision for the site,
which includes a recreational complex and a social outreach facility.
The Westwood Community provides more than worship. Their mission includes children, 7outh and
adult programming promoting learning, growth and friendship. The facilities will provide Christian
education and pre-school services as well as adult and youth education and fellowship. The building
design houses Christian education and pre-school during the week on the lower level. The main floor
level contains worship space seating for 1,000. This space can also be reconfigured for banquets and
other community events. The main floor also contains gathering space, an information desk and
hospitality facilities. The upper level is for Westwood's staff and administrative offices.
The properties to the north, Camp Tanadoona (59 acres), and to the south, the Minnesota l_anclseape
Arboretum (80 acres), are currently guided for public/semi-public uses. The proposed designation of
Westwood Community Church
August 7, 2001
Page 3
this property (57 acres) would be consistent and compatible with these land uses. The balance of the
area (57 acres of which 11 acres is owned by the City for permanent open space) is guided for
residential - low density uses which permits development at a net density of 1.2 to 4.0 units per acre
(net density excludes wetlands, lakes, and public right-of-way). A public/semi-public land use is
generally compatible with residential - low density land uses due to their low intensity of use.
Rezoning of the property to Office & Institutional permits the development of the property for
schools, churches, public buildings, cultural facilities, health services, community centers, schools,
and professional and administrative office buildings. These uses fit within the range of uses
contemplated by Westwood Community Church and are, generally, community service related. Such
uses will usually be compatible with residential uses since they do not create excessive noise, have
long hours, or introduce constant volumes of traffic. Additionally, churches tend to have different
peak hour traffic than surrounding land uses. The proposed development represents the first phase of
a multi-phase development. Possible future phases will add up to 132,000 square feet of building
including a 2,400 seat permanent worship facility, additional education, a gymnasium, gathering
space, chapels, and a social outreach facility.
The developer is requesting site plan approval for a 69,756 square foot church for the first phase of a
religious campus. The building is two stories with a third walkout level. Story means that portion of a
building included between.the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above it. Or if
there is no floor above it, then the space between the floor and the ceiling next above it and including-
a basement used for the principal use. If the height (I-I) of the basement is more than 12 feet at .any
point, or if the height (h) is more than 6 feet for more than 50 pement of the perimeter of the building
than it is considered a story. This definition refers to nonresidential properties only. Since the height
(h) is more than six feet for over 50 percent of the perimeter of the building and the height (I-I) of the
lower level is more than 12 feet, the lower walkout level is considered a story and the building is
three stories.
The development of the site does not require a subdivision. Therefore, the city may not require the
dedication of road fight-of-way nor parkland. Additionally, the city does not collect park and trail
fees, storm water fees, or require the extension of public sewer and water. Any conditions placed on
the development must be directly related to the impacts of the project. Such conditions must be
reasonable and proportionate to the project's impacts.
The OI district permits only two story structures but has no height limit. The HC-2 district permits
three story structures, but has a 40-foot height limit. Building height is defined as the vertical
distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten (10) feet above the lowest
ground level, whichever is lower, and the highest point of a flat roof or average height of the highest
Westwood Community Church
August 7, 2001
Page 4
gable of a pitched or hip roof. The height of the building from the lowest level to the top of the roof
is 75 feet. Based on the exclusions provided in the building height, staff calculates the building
height of 42.5 feet. The height of the three stories, exclusive of the roof, is 40 feet. Section 20-907,
height regulations exclude church spires, belfries, copulas and domes from the height limitation
requirements. While this structure does not have these elements, the function of the building design
is very s imil ar to th em arc hitecturally
· ~,~,.,*,~,l,~- ,-,g *1~,~ 57 .... 1; .............' · ,4: ........ ,4; ....... 1 Since the future worship
building will be the focal point of the religious campus and in all probability will require a
height variance, staff is amending the recommendation by recommending denial of the height
variance, but granting the variance to the one story to permit the adminl~f~ltJye offices to be
located within the phase one building,
Current plans propose raising the water level north of the southern property line to provide standing
water for aesthetic purposes. This would drown out the existing trees and create a less diverse
habitat. Staff does not support this proposal. The proposed culverts under the southern road
embankment must be installed at grade. This change will maintain the existing water level at its
current level and permit the existing lxees to remain.
Water and sewer service is being cxtenaea to thc site as part of the BC-8 sewer project. These
utilities will be available for connection to the building in 2002.- There is adequate capacity for this
development. That portion of Tanadoona Drive past thc entrance to the church will be upgraded to an
urban road section as part of thc utility extension proje~t. Additionally, the connection of this road at
Highway 41 will be realigned to create a right angle con ecfion, improving turning movements and
sight views. Access to the property for the first phase shall be via Tanadoona Drive. Based on the
project traffic study, furore phases of the development will require that a second access be provided.
This access may be in the form of a driveway or a public street. This future access will need to be
located at the intersection of Highway 41 and West 78t~ Street. This access will then become the
primary access for the development, since West 78"' Street will probably be signalized in the future.
The development plan and wetland alteration permit are designed to accommodate this future access
point·
The site is a rolling farm riel& A finger of wetland and trees stretches across the eastern third of the
property. The only significant stand of uees within the current phase of development is located
within the wetland in the south central portion of the site. The high point on the property is along the
western property line at an elevation of 1037. Additional treed areas are located in the extreme
western end of the property in the land adjacent to Dogwood Road. The church will be visible from
Highway 5 as one looks across the Minnesota Lan~ Arboretum Land. However, the stand of
trees, which the city preserved as part of the Arboretum Village project, will screen views of the
development from Highway 41.
Staff believes that the proposed development is a reasonable use of the property. It will be
compatible with and complement both the Minnesota I. andscape Arboretum and Camp Tanadoona.
Westwood Community Church
August 7,2001
Page 5
Additionally, the development should be compatible with the existing development in the area as well
as any future development.
BACKGROUND
The site had been farmed until the recent past. As part of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan update, this
area was included as part of the 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) expansion area. The
property owner petitioned the city for the BC-8 utility expansion, which the city is cun~ntly
undertaking.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Zoning Ordinance:
Division 2, Amendments
Division 3, Variances
Division 6, Site Plan Review
Article VI, Wetland Protection
Article XXI, "OF' Office and Institutional District
Article XXIX, Highway Corridor District, HC-2
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE
The proposed development consists of a three story church building that will serve as the focal point
for the development. This building is the first phase of a multi-phase project. Future phases will
require individual site plan review and approval as well as conditional use permit approval for more
than one principle building on each lot.
The church building is three stories. The primary building material is field stone and decorative
concrete masonry covering the lower elevation and the southern building face. The balance of the
building materials consists of wood siding, timbers and trim, aluminum window framing, copper
flashing, and either a wood shake or asphalt roof. The building presents two stories on its north
elevation and three stories on the southern elevation. The building is highly articulated and
incorporates high quality material. The main level incorporates significant windows. A terrace
surrounds the main level. The most dominant building feami'e on the side elevations is the roof,
which stretches 245 feet long and is 97 feet wide. A 65 foot long by 28 foot wide exposed beam
opening is provided in the northeast and northwest comers of the roof. A 27.5 foot by 21 foot
skylight opens in the middle of the roof. There are cut offs at both the south and north end of the
building that provide a horizontal element on the roof.
The parking areas are arranged to the north and east of the building. The developer is incorporating
"orchard groves" within the parking area. As the project continues in the future additional buildings
and parking areas will expand from this beginning.
LANDSCAPIN~G
Westwood Community Church
August 7, 2001
Page 6
Minimum requirements for landscaping include 11,520 sq. ft. of landscaped area around the parking
lot, 46 ~ for the parking lot, and buffer yard plantings along the north and west prope~ lines. The
applicant's proposed as compared to the requirements for landscape area and parking lot trees is
shown in the following table.
Vehicular use landscape area
Trees/parking lot
North prop. Line- buffer yard
B
West prop. Line- buffer yard
C
Required
11,520 sq. ft.
46 overstory
24 islands/peninsulas
6 overstory
12 tmderstory
12 shrubs
27 overstory
53 understory
53 shrubs
Proposed
>11,520 sq. ft.
77 overstory
8 islands/peninsulas
11 overstory
21 understory
12 shrubs
41 overstory
80 understory
61 shrubs
Proposed landscaping meets minimum ordinance requirements. The applicant has exceeAed the
number of minimum requirements in all categories by proposing to install smaller planting materials
than required by ordinance. The smaller sizes are acceptable to staff because the applicant is meeting
the minimum requirements for caliper inches rather than quantifies of materials. For example, there
are 46 overstory trees required for the parking lot. At the required size of 2W' diameter, a total of 115
inches is required. The applicant is proposing 77 trees measuring 1W' diameter for a total of 115.5
diameter inches. Staff supports this approach for two reasons. First, it has been documented that
planting smaller sized materials often results in healthier, less stressed plants due to the reduction in
root loss and transplant stress. Second, the site ultimately gets nearly twice the number of plants as it
would have had the applicant proposed the standard required size of materials.
GRADING
The applicant does not intend to grade the entire site at once. Only the area needed for this first phase
will be graded initially. This area includes the entrance drive, parking lot, building pad, storm water
ponds, and wetland mitigation areas. Staff does not see any major issues with the proposed grading.
Very few trees will be impacted and, outside of the pond areas, there is not a lot of major cutting of
the land occurring on the site. There will be some filling of an existing wetland along the south
property line. The wetland fill is for a furore, secondary ms drive to the site. As a result of the
wetland filling, two mitigation areas are proposed along the east and west sides of the wetland.
Should earthwork quantifies not balance on site and materials need to be imported or exported from
the site, the developer will need to supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval
by staff. In addition, if material is proposed to be exportext to another location in Chanhassen, it
should be noted that the properties would be required to obtain an earthwork permit from the City.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction related activity must be sodded and/or seeded and disc
mulched within two weeks of disturbance.
Westwood Community Church
August 7, 2001
Page 7
DRAINAGE
Under existing conditions, the site predominantly drains to a wetland in the south-central portion of
the site. The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing drainage pattern after development of the
site is complete. Runoff from the impervious parking lot and the front of the proposed building will
be conveyed via storm sewer to a pond in the east-central portion of the site. The applicant is also
proposing a second, higher quality pond just south of the building. This second pond is intended to
receive mostly overland runoff and the applicant hopes it will be more visually pleasing to the church
congregation. Each of the ponds will treat the storm water prior to discharging to the existing
wetland in the south-central portion of the site.
Both storm water ponds must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) water quality
standards and provide rate control that meets the pre-developed conditions for a 10-year and 100-
year, 24-hour storm event. Staff has received drainage calculations for rate control of the ponds but
water quality calculations are still required. Prior to building permit approval, storm sewer design
calculations will need to be submitted. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-
hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will be required over the wetland and the adjacent
mitigation areas. An easement for access purposes will also be required for future maintenance of the
wetlands.
EROSION CONTROL
Silt fence has been shown in various locations on the demolition plan. Staff is recommending that all
erosion control be shown on the grading plan. In addition, silt fence should be added along the south
property line at the edge of the grading limits. All silt fence adjacent to ponds, creeks, wetlands, etc.
must be Type tn heaw-duty fence. Staff is recommending that a wood fiber blanket be added over
the steep slopes on each side of the proposed building. A rock construction entrance must also be
added at the access drive to the site.
UTILITIES
Currently, the site does not have access to municipal sanitary sewer and water. Sewer and water stubs
will be provided to serve the site as part of the City's upcoming BC-7/BC-8 Trunk Utility project.
The services stubs should be in place by late fall of 2001. The applicant will then be responsible for
extending the service lines into the site. All of the utility lines within the development will be
considered private and will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department.
STREETS/TRAFFIC
There are no public streets proposed with this project. The only access for this site will come from
the south side of Tanadoona Drive. During the planning process, staff raised questions about the
adequacy of a single access point for future phases of the church's development. At the City's request,
the applicant had a traffic study completed for the site. The traffic study looked at the effects of this
phase and future phases on the traffic at the intersection of Trunk Highway 41 and Tanadoona Drive.
The traffic study concluded that for this initial phase, the single access point onto Tanadoona is
sufficient. However, the study went on to say that prior to any additional development after Phase I, a
Westwood Community Church
August 7, 2001
Page 8
second access point is recommended. The study suggested that the second access point be located at
the intersection of Trunk Highway 41 and West 78"' Street. As such, staff is recommending that prior
to any development after Phase I, a second access point to the site be required at the intersection of
Trunk Highway 41 and West 78t~ Street. The developer will be responsible for a portion of the cost
of the future traffic signal at the intersection of Trunk Highway 41 and West 78t~ Street.
The interior parking lot and access drive appear to meet city code requirements for drive aisle and
parking space width. Staff will review the interior turning radii with the City Fire Marshal to ensure
that emergency vehicle movement is not hindered.
Westwood Community Church Traffic Analysis
Staff has reviewed and compared the traffic studies for Westwood Community Church, Arboretum
Village, and Arboretum Business Park (Gateway). This comparison tends to confirm the information
contained in the Westwood Community Church traffic study. The same firm, Benshoof and
Associates, Inc, prepared two of the traffic studies. The third study was prepared by SRF Consulting
Group, Inc. Staff was particularly interested in traffic on Highway 41 noCth of West 78t~ Street. The
following is a summary of our comparison.
Peak hour of traffic generation:
Westwood: 10:00- 11:00 am Sunday and 6:00 - 7:00 pm Wednesday.
Arboretum Village: 5:00- 6:00 pm weekdays.
Arboretum Business Park: 7:00 - 9:00 am and 4:00 - 6:00 pm weekdays.
Traffic:
For the Westwood Community Church study, traffic volume data for the existing trips was collected
from Wednesday, June 20, 2001 to Monday, June 25, 2001.
The Westwood Community Church traffic study projected 780 pm peak hour northbound trips on
Highway 41 in 2003.
The Arboretum Village traffic study projected 729 pm peak hour northbound trips on Highway 41 in
2005.
The Arboretum Business Park study projected 780 pm peak hour existing/programmed northbound
trips on Highway 41 in 2003.
Intersection Analysis:
West 78th Street: Arboretum Village projected 32 northbound trips, 10 westbound and 27 southbound
trips from West 78"' Street to Highway 41 for the pm peak hour. The level of service at this
intersection would be level D, an acceptable level of service in 2005. West 78th Street was assumed
to have a stop sign control only.
Westwood Community Church
August 7, 2001
Page 9
Tanadoona Drive:
The Westwood Community Church traffic study projected 23 northbound and 27 southbound trips
from Tanadoona Drive to Highway 41 for the pm peak hour. Additionally, 7 southbound fight tums
and 8 northbound left tums from Highway 41 to Tanadoona Drive were projected for the pm peak
hour. These projections were the first phase only. The intersection would operate at a level of
service D at the Sunday peak hour for left turn traffic from Tanadoona to Highway 41 and level of
service C between 4:00 - 5:00 pm and 7:00 - 8:00 pm Wednesday.
At full development, Tanadoona Drive is projected to having a failing level of service (E and F) for
left mm traffic from Tanadoona Drive to Highway 41 on Sundays and Wednesday from 6:00 - 7:00
pm. All other turning movements are at an acceptable level of service.
Recommendation:
The recommendation of the traffic study was that the first phase of the development be permitted with
the access on Tanadoona Drive and Highway 41. Adequate capacity exists. However, a second
access point in to the development will be required prior to any additional development on the site.
LIGHTING/SIGNAGE .
The applicant is proposing parking lot lighting throughout the project (sheet El00). While no details
are provided, the applicant must comply with the city lighting ordinance. All light fixtures on poles
shall be shielded, high pressure sodium, with a maximum pole height of 30 feet. Area lighting shall
have a 90 degree cut-off angle. Lighting shall be shielded from direct off-site view. All site lighting
shall comply with Section 20-913 of the zoning ordinance.
Signage for the development shall comply with the sign ordinance for the OI district. One ground low
profile monument sign with a sign area not exceeding 24 square feet is permitted. The monument
height shall not exceed five (5) feet. Wall mounted signage is permitted subject to compliance with the
sign ordinance. A separate sign permit is required for each sign.
WETLAND~S
Existing Wetlands
There are two ag/urban wetlands present on-site. Svoboda Ecological Resources (SER) delineated
the wetlands in May 1997 and reexamined the site on May 9,2001.
Wetland 1 is a type 2 wetland located in the south central portion of the property, just south of the
proposed Phase I building. The northern part of the wetland is dominated by reed canary grass, while
the southern part of the wetland supports forest vegetation, such as box elder. A 500-foot long, man-
made ditch drains from the northeast property comer into the northeast comer of Wetland 1 and
through the northern part of Wetland 1. The applicant is proposing to fill the 500-foot long portion of
the ditch. The applicant is also proposing wetland fill for a road in order to provide circular vehicular
movement around the campus. This road is proposed to cross Wetland 1 just north of the southern
Westwood Community Church
August 7, 2001
Page 10
property line. The width and height of the road have been minimi?exl in order to reduce the amount
of wetland impact required. The total proposed impact to Wetland 1 is 32,315 square feet (0.74
Wetland 2 is a type 1 wetland located at the far west end of the parcel. It is dominated by American
elm and green ash with an understory of greater straw sedge. No wetland impact is proposed for this
basin.
On July 2, 2001, City staff conducted an on-site review of a portion of the wetland delineation. The
on-site review raised questions about the accuracy of the delineation of Wetland 1. The City and
Carver Soil and Water District staff met on-site on July 12, 2001. The conclusion of that site visit
was that the wetland boundary established by SER was inaccurate. Staff reco~~ the applicant
revise the wetland boundary. The applicant has indicated that the wetland boundary in question will
be addressed per staff recommendation. (The inaccuracy of the wetland boundary should not affect
the amount of proposed wetland impact; however, it will likely impact the placements of the Phase I
building and Pond B.) All applicable plan sheets should be modified to incorporate the revised
wetland boundary.
An area identified on National Wetland Inventory maps as a drained wetland basin was also reviewed
by SER as a part of the delineation. According to SER, this basin was "found to have no evidence of
hydrophytic vegetation and no evidence of wetland hydrology," so it was not included in the wetland
delineation report. The basin was also not identified as wetland in the City's Surface Water
Management Plan (SWMP). Staff has not investigated this basin at this time because no grading is
proposed in this area. A determination as to whether or not this area is wetland will be made upon
submittal of subsequent phases.
Wetland Replacement
The applicant is proposing the construction of 32,315 square feet of new wetland credit (NWC)
adjacent to Wetland 1. The applicant will also employ wetland buffers (20,010 square feet) and storm
water ponds (75% of 39,964 square feet, or 29,973 square feet) as public value credit (PVC) to
achieve the required 2:1 replacement ratio.
Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation
Act (MR 8420). The applicant should submit a complete wetland replacement plan that includes a
wetland monitoring plan. The City must approve a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland
impact occtmSng. The applicant should provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions
and Covenants for Replacement Wetland.
A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) must be maintained
around all existing and proposed wetlands. Cl'h~ buffers proposed to be counted as PVC must
maintain a minimum width of 16.5 feet.) Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed and
staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant will install wetland buffer edge
signs, under the direction of City staff, before cons~on begins and will pay the City $20 per sign.
All structures must maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
Westwood Community Church
August 7,2001
Page 11
Storm Water Management
Current plans propose raising the water level north of the southern property line to provide standing
water for aesthetic purposes. This would drown out the existing trees and create a less diverse
habitat; therefore, staff does not support this proposal. The proposed culverts under the southern road
embankment must be installed at grade.
According to July 18,2001 correspondence from Peter Olin (Attachment 1), the Arboretum has
reviewed the plans for the Westwood Church Development. The Arboretum is concerned that the
development of the Westwood site will affect the volume and rate of runoff from the site and that
this, in mm, will affect the research plots on the Arboretum property. The proposed development is
required to maintain existing runoff rates. Staff will review the storm water calculations to ensure
runoff rates will not increase as a result of the proposed development.
The applicant is proposing vegetated, depressed areas within the parking lots to collect and convey
storm water. These areas are part of the private storm water management system, are not the City's
responsibility and should be maintained on a regular basis to remove sand and sediment. Staff
anticipates that regular maintenance will keep the areas aesthetically pleasing and functioning
properly.
Easements
Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation
areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit and storm water ponds.
Erosion Control
Type I11 silt fence should be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer
or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. Type Iff silt fence should also be
provided along the southern edge of the proposed embankment to prevent sediment from leaving the
site. Any disturbed wetland areas should be reseeded with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed
mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction
activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket
or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook.
Surface Water Management Fees
Since the proposed project does not require the subdivision of property, it is not subject to water
quality and water quantity connection charges.
Other Agencies
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval.
Westwood Community Church
August 7, 2001
Page 12
FINDINGS
AMENDMENTS
The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and
provisions of and has been found to be consisteut with the official City Comprehensive
Plan.
b)
The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the
c)
The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning
Ordinance.
e)
f)
SITE PLAN
The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is
proposed.
The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not
overburden the city's service capacity.
Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the
property.
In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with
the following:
(1)
Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides,
including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be
adopted;
(2) Consistency with this division;
(3)
Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree
and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general
appem~ce of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas;
(4)
Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site
features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the
development;
(5)
Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site fe, amms, with
special attention to the following:
Westwood Community Church
August 7,2001
Page 13
An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of
a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
Cl
Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the
design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and
d,
Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and
parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets,
width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation,
separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of
parking.
(6)
Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for
surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air
and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may
have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
Finding: Subject to the revisions contained in the staff report and approval of the district
variances, the proposed site plan is consistent with all requirements of the site plan ordinance,
the Office and Institutional district requirements, the Highway 5 Corridor standards and the
comprehensive plan.
VARIANCE FINDINGS
The Board of Adjustments ~d Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a
variance unless they find the following facts:
That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of' its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criteria.
Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter would cause some hardship and is resonable.
b.
The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The proposed development is reasonable, though not unique to our city
Westwood Community Church
August 7, 2001
Page 14
The purpose of the variation is not based upon a ~ to increase the value or income potential
of the parcel of land.
Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land, but ra~er to fulfill the spiritual intent and architectural
significance of the congregation.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self~ hardship.
Finding: The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a completely serf-created hardship, but due to
the confluence of ordinance requirements and the requirements of the congregation.
el
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public weffare or injurious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public weffare or injurious
to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is locate&
The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or
substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair ~ values within the
neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply Of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or in~ the danger of
fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair ~ values within the
neighborhood.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 7, 2001, to review the proposed
development. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the land use
amendment from Residential - Low Density to Public/Semi-Public. The Planning Commission voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the rezoning of the property from Rural Residential (RR) to
Office and Institutional (OI). The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval
of site plan g2001-10 with a 2.5 foot variance from the Highway Corridor District height regulations
and a one story variance from the OI district regulations with modification to conditions 4 adding "An
easement for access purposes is also required for future maintenance of the wetlands" and 24 adding
"All silt fence shall be removed upon completion of construction", deleting conditions 5 "Type 111 silt
fence shall be provided along the southern edge of the proposed embankment to prevent sediment from
leaving the site," and 23 "Provide drainage and utility easements over the wetland and the adjacent
mitigation areas. An easement for access purposes is also required for future maintenance of the
wetlands," which duplicate other conditions, and the addition of conditions 36 through 38.
36. The City may require the applicant to provide alternate traffic demand management strategies
e.g. cat'pooling, scheduling, traffic police, shuttle, etc. (This shall include coordinating
Westwood Community Church
August 7, 2001
Page 15
activities with the adjacent uses including Camp Tanadoona and the Minnesota Landscape
Arboretum.)
37. The applicant shall consider improving pedestrian movement by adding sidewalks on the
southeast islands of the western parking lot. And adding sidewalks north of the turf area
further to the east to connect with the mowed trail.
38. Staff shall facilitate meetings with interested parties to negotiate an agreement regarding
future West 78t~ Street extension and a traffic signal that would be mutually beneficial to all
parties within one year of City Council approval.
Staff believes that condition 38 is direction for staff, rather than a condition to be placed on the
development. All during the course of city review, we have encouraged the affected property owners
to discuss possible solutions for the extension of West 78t~ Street to Dogwood. On Friday, August
17, 2001, the property owners to the west and Westwood Communi.ty Church submitted a petition to
the city for the extension of West 78t~ Street west from Highway 41. The first step the city will
perform is to obtain proposals for the feasibility study. We anticipate that the feasibility study will be
completed by November 1,2001.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval to the Wetland Alteration
Permit to alter and fill 32,315 square feet (0.74 acres) of wetland subject to the conditions of the staff-
report.
The Planning Commission's and the neighbors' primary concerns regarding the proposed
development are the potential traffic impacts of the project. Staff requested that the developer
provide additional information regarding the current traffic operations at the Chaska High school site,
which is being used on an interim basis. Following is the information provided.
Total current attendance: the total current attendance is estimated to average 2,136 per
weekend. This was measured in February and March. Summer attendance has been lower than
this, as is historically the case with churches.
Spacing of services: current services are 8:30 am, 9:50 am, and 11:10 am on Sunday morning.
Spacing between the end of one service and the beginning of another is approximately 20 minutes
currently. At the new site, the service format will switch to 2 services with approximately 30'
minutes between services.
Number of access points: currently, there are 3 access points to and fi~om the Chaska high
school parking lots. The 2 driveways onto Pioneer Trail are each used more often than the "oack'
access onto Hundertmark Road.
Projected growth rates: Westwood is currently growing at less than 10% per year.
Direction from which people travel: no better attendance than the information derived from a
scatter map provided to Benshoof and Associates that 45% of people will come from north of
Highway 5 and 55% from south of Highway 5.
Westwood Community Church
August 7, 2001
Page 16
The city received addendum 1 to the traffic study after writing and copying the report for the public
hearing. The Planning Commission was forwarded a copy of the report and staff commented on the
addendum as part of the public hearing. As part of the addendum, staff requested that the developer
verify that the pre-school activity was accounted for in the study and also that the developer look at
traffic impacts were the property to develop as currently guided with single family homes.
Additionally, the traffic consultant looked at the potential impact of a 32-unit subdivision at the end
of Dogwood Road. A summary of results is:
· The pre-school activity will be at non-peak hours and, therefore, do not impact peak hour
analysis.
· The intersection of Tanadoona Drive and Highway 41 operates at the same level of service with
or without the additional 32 dwelling units on Dogwood Road.
Development of the site with 100 single-family dwellings would provide 100 a.m. peak hour trips
and 101 p.m. peak hour trips. The church is expected to generate 45 a.m_ peak hour trips in 2003,
60 a.m. peak hour trips in 2010, 45 p.m. peak hour trips in 2003, and 60 p.m_ peak hour trips in
2010.
This information reaffirms staff's analysis of the traffic impacts of the development.
The applicant has also provided the city with a concept plan for future buildings within the
development. In their vision, the future Worship building will be the focus of the development and is.
projected to tower above the phase one building by 20 feet, which would require a height variance in
the future. Staff had assumed that the phase I building would be the center of the project and the
largest building within the project. Based on our understanding that a potentially larger building will
be proposed in the furore, staff believes that the 2.5 foot height variance should be denied and the-
building height be lowered to meet the 40 foot height requirement. However, since the phase one
building will be the administrative and social center of the campus, the one story variance to
accommodate their office operations is reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions:
'°rhe City Council approves a land use amendment from Residential - Low Density to Public/Semi-
Public based on the findings in the staff report and contingent upon Metropolitan Council review and
approval."
'Whe City Council approves the rezoning of the property from Rural Residential, R_R, to Office and
Institutional, OI based on the findings in the staff report."
Westwood Community Church
August 7, 2001
Page 17
"The City Council approves Site Plan W2001-10, plans prepared by Hammel, Green and
Abrahamson, Inc., dated July 6, 2001, with a one story variance from the Office and Institutional
district regulations based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. The proposed culverts under the southern road embankment shall be installed at grade.
All proposed vegetated, depressed areas within the parking lots shall be maintained on a regular
basis to remove sand and sediment. Staff anticipates that regular maintenance will keep the areas
aesthetically pleasing and functioning properly.
.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation
areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit and storm water ponds. An easement for access
purposes is also required for future maintenance of the wetlands
All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval.
7. No burning allowed, trees removed need to'be chipped or hauled off.
8. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to site grading.
9. All signs shall require a separate sign permit.
10. Include the south and north parts of the site in a minimum 50 scale drawing.
11. Add the benchmark to the plans that was used for the site survey.
12. Show the NWL and HWL of the proposed ponds on the plans.
13. Add all existing and proposed easements to the grading plan. Also, show the storm sewer on the
grading plan.
14. Define all of the different line types and symbols in the legend on the plans.
15. For all proposed and existing utilities, show the pipe type, slope, manhole rim and invert
elevations. Also, call out all watermain tees, bends, etc.
Westwood Community Church
August 7, 2001
Page 18
16. Add a detail sheet to the plan set, using all applicable City of Chanhassen detail plates.
17. Show a proposed concrete driveway apron at the entrance off of Tanadoona.
18.
Should earthwork quantities not balance on site and materials need to be imported or exported
from the site, the developer will need to supply the City with a detailed haul mute for review and
approval by staff. In addition, if material is proposed to be exported to another location in
Chanhassen, it should be noted that the properties would be required to obtain an earthwork
permit from the City.
19. All areas disturbed as a result of construction related activity must be sodded and/or seeded and
disc mulched within two weeks of disturbance.
Both storm water ponds must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) water
quality standards and provide rate control that meets the pre-developed conditions for a 10-year
and 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Staff has received drainage calculations for rate control of the
ponds but water quality calculations are still required.
21. Prior to building permit approval, storm sewer design calculations will need to be submitted. The
storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event.
22. Show all erosion control on the grading plan. In addition, silt fence should be added along the
south property line at the edge of the grading limits. All silt fence adjacent to ponds, creeks,
wetlands, etc. must be Type IH heavy-duty fence. Add a wood fiber blanket over the steep slopes
on each side of the proposed building. A rock construction entrance must also be added at the
access drive to the site. All silt fence shall be removed upon completion of consmmtion
23. All of the utility lines within the development will be considered private and will require permits
and inspections through the City's Building Department.
24. Prior to any development after Phase I, a second access point to the site is required at thc
intersection of Trunk Highway 41 and West 78~ Street.
25. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
26. The building must be of Type I, II-F.R., II one-hour, IH one-hour or Type 1V construction.
27. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
28. Detailed construction and occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete
plans are submitted.
29. The owner and or their representative shall meet with thc Inspections Division as soon as possible
to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
Westwood Community Church
August 7, 2001
Page 19
30. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that the fire
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fimfighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance//9-1.
31. Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact
curbs to be painted and exact location of fire lane signs. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire
Departrnent/Fim Prevention Division Policy//6-1991 and Section 904-1 1997 Minnesota Uniform
Fire Code.
32.
Required access. Per 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.1 fire apparatus access roads shall
be provided in accordance with Section 901 and 902.2 for every facility, building or portion of a
building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction when any portion of the
facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located moire than 150
feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the
building or facility. See also Section 902.3 for personnel access to the building. Exception #1.
When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system the
provisions of Section 902.2.1 and 902.2.2 may be modified by the chief. Exception//2. When
access roads cannot be installed due to location on property, topography, waterways, non-
negotiable grades or other similar conditions, the chief is authorized to require additional fire
protection as specified in Section 1001.9. Summary: because of the topography and non-
negotiable grades and wetland alterations, in lieu of fire apparatus access roads, the fire
department will allow the site plan as submitted with the addition of the fire department
standpipes to be located in areas so designated by the fire department. These fire department
standpipes will be equipped with 2 ~ inch outlets. The fire sprinkler contractors bidding the
project should be made aware of the fact that standpipes Will be required even though the fire
code does not require standpipes. The architect must contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for the
number of and locations for the standpipes.
33.
When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection
is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable to and during
the time of construction. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support
the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with the surface so as to provide all
weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Section 902.2.2.2 1997 Uniform Fire Code. This access
road shall be made serviceable and maintained prior to construction. Submit plans for road
design to the City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval prior to permit
being signed by the Fire Marshal.
34. The fire hydrant shown on page C-501 will need to be me-located a short distance. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact me-location of hydrant.
35. The developer will be responsible for a portion of the cost of the future traffic signal at the
intersection of Trunk Highway 41 and West 78th Street.
Westwood Community Church
August 7, 2001
Page 20
36. The City may require the applicant to provide alternate traffic demand management strategies e.g.
carpooling, scheduling, traffic police, shuttle, etc. (This shall include coordinating activities with
the adjacent uses including Camp Tanadoona and the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum.)
37. The applicant shall consider improving pedestrian movement by adding sidewalks on the
southeast islands of the western parking lot. And adding sidewalks north of the turf area further
to the east to connect with the mowed trail."
'q'he Planning Commission recommends approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit to alter and fill
32,315 square feet (0.74 acres) of wetlands subject to the following conditions:
1. All applicable plan sheets shall be modified to incorporate the revised wetland boundary.
2. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall submit a complete wetland replacement plan
that includes a wetland monitoring plan.
3. The City shall approve a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occuning.
4. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for
Replacement Wetland.
5. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained
around all existing and proposed wetlands. (Those buffers proposed to be counted as PVC shall
maintain a minimum width of 16.5 feet.)
6. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in ~ce with the City's wetland
ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff,
before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign.
7. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
8. The proposed culverts under the southern mad embankment shall be installed at grade.
9. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation
areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit and storm water ponds.
10. Type 111 silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as
buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge.
11. Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseedeA with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix
that is approved for wetland soil conditions.
12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Westwood Community Church
August 7, 2001
Page 21
Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions
of approval."
ATTACHMENTS
le
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Findings of Fact and Recommendation
Development Review Application
Letter from Steve Lattu to Kate Aanenson
Reduced Copy Site Layout Plan ..
Reduced Copy Wetland Mitigation Plan
Reduced Copy Illustrative Site Plan
Reduced Copy Site Sections
Reduced Copy Exterior Elevations, North and East
Reduced Copy Exterior Elevations, South and West
Results of Traffic Study for Proposed Westwood Community Church in Chanhassen, MN
Addendum Number 1 for Westwood Community Church Traffic Study
Memo from Peter Olin to Kate Aanenson dated July 18,2001
Memo from Mark I_,ittfin to Robert Generous dated July 19, 2001
Page 19 of the Arboretum Village Traffic Study
Figure 4 of the Westwo.od Community Church Traffic Study
Figure 21.2 of the Arboretum Village Traffic Study
Figure 4 of the Gateway Development Traffic Study
18. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List
19..Letter from Sharon Anderson (Mn/DOT) to City of Chanhassen dated 8/10/01
20. Planning Commission Minutes of 8/7/01
Westwood Community Church
August 7, 2001
Page 22
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HI~qNEP~ COUNTIES, M]NNF~OTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
Application of Westwood Community Church for a land use amendment and rezoning to permit a
religious facility, a wetland alteration permit to alter and fill wetlands, site plan review for.the first.phase
of a religious campus, and a variance from the district regulations.
On August 7, 2001, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule
meeting to consider the application of Westwood Commtmity Church for a land use amendment and
rezoning to permit a religious facility, a wetland alteration permit to alter and fill wetlands, site plan
review for the first phase of a religious campus, and a variance from the district regulations for the
property located at 3101 Tanadoona Drive. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
the proposed development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission
heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Ii
The'property is currently zoned Rural Residential District (RR).
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential - L~w Density..
3. The legal description of the property is: (see attached Schedule A)
4. Section 20-110:
(a)
Is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides,
including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be
adopted;
(b) Is consistent with this division;
(c)
Preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and
soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance
of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas;
(d)
(e)
Creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features
and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development;
Creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with
special attention to the following:
Westwood Community Church
August 7, 2001
Page 23
1)
An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of
a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community;
2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
3)
Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the
design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and
4)
Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and
parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets,
width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation,
separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of
parking.
(0
Protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface
water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those
aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have
substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
1
The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse
affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are:
(a)
The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and
provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive
Plan.
Co)
The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the
area.
(c)
The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning
Ordinance.
(d)
The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is
proposed.
(e)
The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not
overburden the city's service capacity.
(f)
Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the
property.
6. Section 20-58, A variance may be granted by city council only if all of the following criteria are
met:
a. The literal enforcement of this chapter would cause some hardship and is reasonable.
Westwood Community Church
August 7, 2001
Page 24
b. The proposed development is reasonable, though not unique to our city.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire tn increase the value or income potential
of the parcel of land, but rather to fulfill the spiritual intent of the congregation.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not completely seff-creat~ hardship, but due to the
confluence of ordinance requirements and the requirements of the congregation.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detzimental to the public weffare or injurious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
f. The proposed variation will not im.r~tir an adequa~ supply of light and air to adjacent protm~ or
substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the
public safety or substantially diminish or impair prope~y values within the neighborhood.
7. The planning report fi2001-10 dated August 7, 2001, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is
incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the land use
amendment and rezoning to permit a religious facility, a wetland alteration permit to alter and fill
wetlands, site plan review for the first phase of a religious campus, and a variance from the district
regulations.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 7t~ day of August, 2001.
CHAN-HASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
BY:
Its Chairman
S~retary
CHICAGO TFFLE INS~CE COMPANY
Schedul~ A ~ Dc~:rlptlon Continued
Pil~ No.: CA 16562
CARVER COUNTY, MINNI~OTA
That part of the Northmt Ouarter of the Southwest Quarter ami tim Southw~t (]uarter of tim Northwest Quarter of
Section 9 and that part of Government Lots 8 and 9 of Section 8, all in Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th
Principal Meridian, described a~ fellow:
Beginning at the southe~t corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; flmnce North 69 degrees 42
minutes 15 seconds West, assuming tho west line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter has · bearing of
North 0 de, re. es 32 mlnut~ 39 seconds West, · distance of 978_~0 feet; thence South 36 degre~ 06 minutes 16 seconds
West · distance of 18.77 feet; theace South 38 degrees 21 minutes 19 seconds ]East · distanc~ of 40.00 feet; thence North
69 degrees 13 minutes 44 secomh West · distmu~ of 638_~8 feet; thence North 87 de4Fees 00 minutes 49 seconds West a
distance of 822.99 feet;, thence South 1 degree 58 minutes 09 seconds Ea~t · distance of 206.39 feet; thence South 28
degrees 11 minutes 51 seconds West · distance of 368.Y/feet; thence South 41 degrees 10 minutes 18 seconds West ·
distance of 410.76 feet; thence South 7 degrees 50 minutes 18 seconds West · distance of 350.24 feet; thence South 13
degrees 35 minutes 53 seconds East a distance of 397.22 foot; thence South 8 degrees 05 minutes 03 soconds East a
distance of 38.84 feet; thence North 89 degrees 43 minutes 07 seconds West ·bout 385 feet, to .the shoreline of Lake
Minnewashta; thence Southerly, along said shoreline, to the south line of said Government Lot 8; thence North 89
degrees 40 minutes 46 seconds East, along said south line of Government Lot 8 about'IT56 feet to the southe~t corner
of said Government Lot 8; thence South 89 degrees 32 minutes 26 seeomi~ ~East, along the south line of said Northwest
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, · distance of 1054.74 feet, to · point 248.27 feet westerly from the southmmt corner of
said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 0 degre~ 34 minutes 36 seconds West · distance of
281.21 feet; thence South 89 degrees 40 minutes 26 seconds'East a distance of 225.90 feet; thence North 0 degrees 23
minutes 47 seconds West · distance of 17.74 feet; thence North 89 degrees 05 minutes 22 seconds East · distance of 20..56
feet, to the east line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 0 degre~ 54 minutes 38 seconds
West; along last said east line, · distan~ of 1046.12 feet to said point of beginning.
That part of the Northwest Ouarter of the Southwest Quarter and th~ Southwest Quarter of tim Northwest Ouarter of
Section 9, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of tho 5th Principal Meridian, d~acrlbed as follows:
Commencing at th~ soutlumst corner of said Southwest (]uarter of tho Northwest (~uarter; thenc~ North 69 deirees 42
minutes 15 seconds West, assuming tim west Ibm of said Northwest Quarter of tim Southwest Ouarter has · b~rtng of
North 0 degrees 32 minut~ 39 seeonds West, · distance off 978_~0 feet; thence South 36 de~p'ees 06 minutes 16 seconds
West · distance of 18.77 feet; thence South 38 degr~ 21 minutes 19 aeeonds'~t, · distance of 40.00 ~ theace North
69 degrees 13 minutes 44 seconds West, & distance of 283_38 fe~t; thence South 10 degrees 46 minut~ 16 seconds West, ~
distance of 492.43 feet; thence South 71 degre~ 39 minut~ 26 seconds ]East, · distan~ of 131.14 feet to the point of
b~ming of th~ land to be desto'Ged; ~ coutinui~ South ?! d~pr~ 39 minut~ 26 sc~xm~ East, · distance of
486.30 feet; the, ncc North 10 dctp'cca 46 minutes 16 seconds East, a distance of 451.81 feet; then~ North 71 de4rees 39
minutes 26 seconds West, · dlstmu~ of 48630 feet; tlmnce South 10 de~r~ 46 mlnutes 16 seeonds West, · distance of
451.81 fe~t to the point of b~gag.
CONTINi. I~) ON ~ PAGE
Pilo No.: CA !6_~2
Scction 9 ~ ~ ~ of Oovea~nm_~nt Lota 8 and 9 of Sedton 8, all tn Town~ 11~; North. Rnn~ 23 Wear of tim 5th
Ail of 7.n~aI~J,&~I FARM ~ST ADDmON, -____,~-S to tho retarded plat tbetea~ induding Lo~ 1 ..a 2, Block
ALSO
sec~n ~rm~ (~), Towns~ On~ Hundred SUt~n 0~) ~nrth, Rnn~ Twe~y-t~e (2~) West o~t~
seconda Wear, a distance of 131~2 feet; tlmaee South 10 ~ 46 minn~ 16 aecmula We~t, & diatana~ ~~ ~
CONTllq-tJ~ ON ~ PAGE
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCB COMPANY
Sched~ A Legal Deser~plion Conthtued
l~tle No.: CA 16562
ALSO EXCEFI~.
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, Section Nme (9), Township One Hundred 'sixteen (1.16)
North, Range Twenty Three (23) West of the 5th Principal Moddian, deacrlbed as follows:
Commencing at the southeast corner of aald Southwest Ouarter of the Northwest Ouarter; thence North 69 ~ 42
minutes 15 seconds West Co,seal on a beari~ of North 00 de~eea 35 mluutes 15 seconds Weat for a straight line between
the northw~t corn~ and the southwest corn~ of sahi Section 9) · d~tauce of 7~.15 feet to tho point of beginuh~ of tho
land to be desen'bed; thence continue North 69 degrees 42 minutes 15 seconds West · distance of 228_~ feet;, thence
South 36 degrees 06 minutes 16 seconda West · dEtan~ of lS.'/7 feet to the northerly corner of the eaaterly end of Field
Lan~ dedicated in SUNSBT HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA, aecor~ to tho found monumentation of tho recorded
plat thereo~ thence South :38 degrees 21 minutes 19 seconds Ba~t. along sahi easterly end of ~ Lane, a distance of
40.00 feet to the southerly corner of sahi easterly end of land a~ monumented; thence North 69 delp'ees 13 mluutes 44
seconds West. nlong the southerly line of said l~Jeld Lane aa monumented; · d~atance of 283~ feet; then~ South 10
degrees 46 nttnutes 16 seconds West · distance of 40~2 feet; thence South 71 degrees 39 minutes 26 seconds East ·
distance of 486.30 feet; thence North 10 de~'eea 46 nttnutea 16 seconds Eaat · distance of 60.84 feet to snhi point of
bell~Utin~
.,
(TOmb.S)
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 5~317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
14esCvood Community Church
780l Park Drive
Chanhassenj t~ 553~7
(Daytime) 952-897-7726 *
OWNER: t~est~x~d Coamtm~t7 Church
ADDRESS: 7801 Park Drive
ii #
TELEPHONE: 952-z,70-2~
*Contact Pat Connolly with questions or information requests.
$500.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
55317
Interim Use Permit
i
_ Non-conform!ng Use Permit
Planned Unit Development*
!
Rezoning
$500.
x . Sign Permits
x SlteP/an Review*
$50.
$950.
Subcr~*
Temporary Sales Permit
·
Vacation of ROW/Easements
x Variance
x, Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
!
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
x Notir~.~tion Sign
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Al~rney Cost**
($50 CUP/SPRAfAC/VA~~~
and Bounds, $400 Mlrmr SUB)
TOTAL FEE $ 2,s5o.
$75.
$275 ·
9:1_50.
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundarlee of the property must be Included with the
~:~p~n.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
"Twenty-slx full size folded copies of the plans must be submittecl, Including an 8'A" X 11" reduced copy of
a-~,.sparency for each plan sheet.
Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
~IDTE - When mu~iple applications are proce~, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
· · I,
]~]:1~~ Westwood Community Church
Pt. of NWSW and S~N-W, Sec. 9; Pt. of GL 8, 9, Sec.8; T]_16N R23W
~L~-~_.~i/.]~F_SCFI]]~T]ON (See legal ~escription on attached survey).
"~)~'AL~.~.A(~E 57.08; 56.8 excluding Tanadoona Drive r.o.w.
~%'ETLANDS PRESENT x YES ~ NO
]3~j~]~T~O~~ R - R Rural - Residential
HE~:~TEDZONING oI Office and Institutional District
PF~:SRNT LAND USE DESIGNATION Low Density Residential
REO~ LAND USE DESIGNA]qON Public/ Semi-Public
HEAS~FOR~ISREQUEST To permit both current and future range of worship, fellowship, Christian
education, administrative, and other church functions,
'r~is application must be completed In full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all Information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
De--em/= dmsrmlne the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A deten'n~n~on of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
,no~e of appl/ca~n deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
'l'h'l~ is to cerl~fy that I am making application for the described action by the City and that ! am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regan:l to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
'the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this appllcation. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of-Titie, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
.1his appl~ and the fee owner has also signed this application.
1 va31 ~ myself Informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are tree and correct to the best of
'i'he dty 'hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed wtthin 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless edditlonal review
exlm',.sbns are approved by the applicant.
Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
If.trot c~ntacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
Ms. Kate Aanenson
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive
P. O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Westwood Community Church Chantmssen, MN
Ms. Aanenson,
Westwood Community Church is pleased to present this application for Site Plan
Approval of our Phase 1 facility. To achieve Site Plan Approval, we are also
petitioning for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Rezoning, and
applying for a Wetland Alteration Permit.
Westwood Community Church currently offices at 7801 Park Drive in
Chanhassen and holds Sunday services in Chaska High School. In early 1999,
Westwood finalized the purchase of a 5Z08-acre parcel in the northwest
quadrant of the intersection Of Minnesota State Highways 5 and 41 on
Chanhassen's western edge, north of the University of Minnesota's Arboretum
property.
The property is currently guided Low Density Residential, and zoned R-R, Rural
Residential. Westwood intends to be a valuable addition to the neighborhood
and to the community, and is requesting a change in both the land use
designation and the zoning to allow us to bring our mission of service to life. We
are applying for a land use/guiding change to Public/Semi'Public, and a zoning
change to O/I Office Institutional District. Under these land use designations,
we can develop our initial phase, while simultaneously disclosing appropriately
our intentions for the future to our neighbors and to dty leaders.
Adjacent uses indude low density residential to the west, the Campfire Girls
property to the north, current and future low to medium density residential to
the east, and the University of Minnesota's Landscape Arboretum to the soutl~
The proposed development minimizes impact to residential uses to the west and
east, and provides a connection between existing Public/Semi-Public uses to the
north and south.
We expect construction of phase 1 to begin in Spring 2002, and we intend to
occupy our new home for Easter 2003. Timing of construction of future phases
will depend on Westwood's future needs and finances, but we have presented an
outline of our full vision to the extent we can predict today what it will look like
down the road.
Westwood's database of families currently numbers over 1,400. More than 20%
of these families live in Chanhassen and represent almost 600 adults. Many
members have children who attend Chanhassen schools (or did so themselves),
and are active in the business, civic, and social communities.
Westwood Community Church wants to participate in the Chanhassen
community. A key Westwood strategy is to develop its site in a manner that
would offer access to community activities consistent with our mission. We will
welcome community use of planned walking trails, ice skating facilities, future
banquet space, gathering rooms, and planned recreational facilities. We wish to
design our spaces with more than just Westwood members in mind. We cannot
yet predict exactly the form these spaces will take, but the doors will always be
open to the surrounding community.
Westwood met with the neighborhood several times, most recently on June 20.
We have heard neighbors' concerns and we know we are a manifestation of
change in their corner of the world. Our sensitivity to the land, our choices of
design styles and materials, and our concern for traffic are distinctive and a
direct outgrowth of our desire to be respectful and considerate. This is our
neighborhood, too. The proposed project will reflect Westwood's mission, and
will accommodate both current and future worship, fellowship, Christian
education, administration, recreation, and other uses.
Westwood's Purpose and Vision
Westwood Community Church seeks to honor God by enjoying Him through
reaching people with the love of Jesus Christ. Our vision is to demonstrate God's
love in creative and compelling ways that lead people to know God, worship
Him authentically, grow spiritually and serve joyfully. We are a community
with open hands, receiving from God all He wants to give, believing He wants to
give us a lot. And with open hands, we give it away, believing we cannot out-
give God. We have included a copy of a document that tells a bit more about
who we are: "Master Plan, At A Glance."
Westwood's History
Westwood Community Church was born on Easter Sunday, April 16, 1995 as the
third church started by Wooddale Church of Eden Prairie, MN. The plan was to
establish a church in Chanhassen, but to be regional in our reach. The dream of
the founding leadership was to provide a place that welcomes all people, no
matter who they are or what they have done or where they are in their spiritual
journey.
Westwood's first services were held in the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre's Fireside
Room, but within six months the growth of Westwood prom~ the move to the
main Dinner Theatre where seating capacity was doubled. It was fun to meet,
learn and grow together in this unconventional setting. Westwood again
experienced significant growth that resulted in a move to the newly completed
Chaska High School in December of 1997 where services are currently held each
week. Westwood has grown from a staff of 2 to 20, from two to three services,
and from a weekly attendance of 90 to more than 2000.
Westwood Today
The Westwood Community does more than worship. Three Sunday services are
held at Chaska High School: 8:30 a.m., 9:50 a.m., and 11:10 a.m. A typical week's
programming and outreach also includes children's, student, and adult
programming. Westwood Children's Ministry seeks to complement the family.
We are committed to offering a variety of quality programs that meet the needs
of each child. Our programming is designed to promote learning~ growth, and
friendships with other kids and adults. Westwood also loves and understands
its student population. We have developed a number of programs that help take
them through the challenges of life. We have a multitude of adult programs that
provide opportunities for connection, growth, and enrichment.
Architectural Description
The Site Plan submitted for approval represents Phase 1 of our eventual campus
of uses. The design for the Phase 1 building serves the programmatic and
functional needs of the church, and creates a form that responds to the context
and environment of its site.
Phase 1 consists of a 3-story building containing 69,756 square feet of space. The
design takes advantage of the sloping site to create a lower level with on-grade
access from much of the level. This lower level houses Christian education
functions and serves as a Christian pre-school during the week. The main floor
level contains an interim worship space seating 1,000 people. This worship area
may also be configured for banquets and other community events. The main
level also contains gathering space, an information desk, and other hospitality
functions. The upper level houses Westwood's staff offices and administrative
functions as we consolidate our activities on one site.
The Phase 1 building's form recalls the historic legacy of park architecture in its'
use of natural materials, sense of permanence and simplicity, and its integration
with the natural features of the site.
The building is positioned along the site's contours to present a lower scaled,
two-story facade to the parking lots to the northwest. The sloping land creates a
three-story facade to the southeast, allowing for view and pedestrian connection
to the site's ponds and wetlands.
The lower level is clad in stone; creating a sense of solidity, permanence, and
connection to the land. The smaller main level is largely clad in glass, providing
the church with a strong visual tie to the landscape, and establishing a spirit of
openness and accessibility to the community. A terrace surrounding the main
level allows space for outdoor gathering and movement down to the ground. A
human-scaled, wood and metal trellis defines the main entry and welcomes
visitors from the parking lot. Wood board siding and a simple, sheltering gable
roof enclose the upper level and mark the church's place on the broader
landscape.
Possible future phases may add up to 132,000 square feet, including a future
permanent worship space with seating for 2,400. Future phases would also-
include space for students, a gymnasium, a dedicated gathering node, a chapel,
and a yet-to-be-designed building that will be an extension of our desire to
participate with the community. Again, actual future phased expansion depends.
on future membership growth and financial capacity.
The Westwood campus is intended to meet the functional needs of Westwood
Community Church within a context of what we're calling a "native orchard"
landscape. The tone of the developed landscape will be established by the
bold use of trees: an evergreen windbreak along the north and west edges of
the building site and orchard groves within the "car parks". These elements
play upon the existing character of evergreen and orchard groves on
neighboring properties. Native grasses and flowers will inhabit most of the
ground plane, limiting turf to only those areas warranting its use. Ponds
will be established in the lowlands to cleanse stormwater as it makes its
way to the expanded natural wetland at the lowest portion of the site. The
strand of ponds also gives cue to a greenway corridor that will be
established to preserve a north/south ecological link across the property.
The preservation of much of the natural topography will lend itself to
dramatic vistas of the wetland/prairie/orchard / windbreak pattern across the
Westwood landscape.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you and Chanhassen Planning staff
on this proposal. We will appreciate any feedback from you or staff leading to
refinement of this proposal. We respectfully request to be included on the
Agenda for the August 7, 2001 City of Chanhassen Plan Commission meeting for
consideration of fftis applicatiorc Please contact us with any questions or
feedback.
Sincerely,
Building Team Chair
i"' I!
!1
II~, il |!
Ii
ii
,II
liJii
li
· -..~:~:'.-!~.~-,~i"-'..~.'.. :~
i : 2.::!
i -.7-':7 - ......~"-
! _.
! . .' ..--. .. . .
~ .i '.
~ ' ... :..i
i Ji: '.-' '
I ,...'.'
·
! '.'-
·
i ' '
..
'.,.:.:~.
· .
.
.-. :: j~".
' ' '.:' 'i' -'-'.9,:~
~. ~'!~: %'- :.~'.-:-..,-...-.-..- ...
...;..,..._-:.~?.....;:-:.~ ;.~ .-.~',:.- · ....-:. ,~.
-.
......~,.:,:.:-~...-:.- ... :: '. .. :.-:..'_':.:.:,.:: :.- . ~.::,_.
.., -.-.- . .
i.-'":..::
"'
.. ~"
.. , -.. ~ - .'...:.
:. · : :-..L--'.~
·. .-...-:q..~
· .
· . .. ~'.'.... '-'~....'! .-
,
: - . ~-.' . .
· . ..-
-." . ..'.. :.- .
· .- .' .' ~ 'hr'-.
·... -.--7.:-~-..-...
..
·
· .
· -...' :' -...~
· ..
-' . "~.-..
~ · '.':.'0' '.! ":,"-.d:Ii':'
·
·
·
...
·
·
"
''~ '1
;'..'..''- ".;;:.1 ":.
'.'.- ',~ r'-,:.~:~:~:' ':":'~
~..'.' .1 .. ::' i'b I.1' ~
il I'll J
~" ~m~l~ l
i e ~ e o ~ o l J ii!!i I{~ . i
,
.
.. -,:.. -:-., ,. '.
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, SUITE 'rwo /HOPKINS, MN 55343 i (952) 238-18671 FAX (952) 238-1671
July 6, 2001
Refer to File: 01-39
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
John Justus, HGA, Inc.
Edward F. Terhaar, P.E.
Results of Traffic Study for Proposed Westwood Community Church in
Chanhassen, MN
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to present the results of our traffic study for the
proposed Westwood Community Church located in Chanh~sext Of particular concern
are the potential impacts of Church traffic on the surrounding roadway system. The
development would be located on T.H. 41 north of T.H. 5, as shown in Figure 1. To date,
we have reviewed the future tra~c oper~ons for 2003 and 2010, which correspond to
different phases of Church development.
BACKGRO~ INFORMATION
D~velopment Chara~eristics
The Church is planned to include a. large worship area, space for education and
fellowship, and a chapel. The overall Church will be developed in multiple phases over
many years. The exact time frame for the future phases is dependant on future funding.
Phase 1 is expected to include approximately 500 parking stalls. All access to and from
Phase I of development site will be made directly onto Tanadoona Drive, which
intersects with T.H. 41. Future access may be constructed directly to T.H. 41 at W. 75~h
Street. The anticipated occupancy date for Phase 1 is 2003.
Assessment of the transportation implications focused on the weekday a.m. peak hour
(approximately 7:00 to 8:00 a.m.), the weekday p.m. peak hour (approximately 4:00 to
5:00 p.m.), the Sunday hours of 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., and the Wednesday evening hours of 6
to 10 p.m. The Sunday time periods correspond with the expected Church service times
and the Wednesday evening time periods correspond to expected youth education classes.
Mr. Iohn Iustus -2- ~uly 6, 2001
~isti~ Roadwa_v Characteristics
T.II. 41 is a two lane, rural section roadway with turn lanes at major interse~ions. The
~on with T.H. 5 is controlled with a mdfic signal North ofT.H. 5, T.H. 41
intersects with Tanadoona Drive. At Tanadoona Drive, T.H. 41 consists ora northbotmd
let~u~ lane, a northbound bypass lane,' a southbmuat right turn lane, and a
southbound through lane. T~s~_~ms Driv~ is a tw~ lane, rural section roadway that
extends west otT.l~ 41 and is controlled with a at~op ~ a~ T..~. 41.
F.~xisting_ Tra~c Volumes
In order to better understand existing traffic conditions, we collected traf~c vohune data
on T.H. 41 at Tanadoona Drive. Data was collected from Wednesday, ~'une 20, 2001 to
Monday, lune 25, 2001. The collected data is presented later in ~ report.
Ced~ Poin~
PROJECT
LOCATION
0 2000'
HGA, INC.
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIA~, INC.
TR/tNBPO RTATIOH ENOI#EERSAND PLAN#ER8
TRAFFIC STUDY FOR
WESTWOOD
COMMUNITY CHURCH
TIIIN R~31
;~JESTIC W;
ST,
~.VD,
T,,S. /I
i~.t4kU
FIGURE 1
PROJECT LOCATION
Mr. lohn lustus '-4- ~uly 6, 2001
Trio Generation
-
A considerable amount of information were obtained from Chnrch staff in determining
the estimated trip generation characteristics for the ChnriL This information included
such items as the number of people, expeaed.in the ~ at the time of each service,
the expected vehicle occupancy, the munber Of staff people on site during a typical -
weB,y, and expected activities o .ccun~ during the wee~ '. This information was
broken down for .the first phase of the church and for furore phase~
The Sunday morning trip generation was'based on the expected munber of people
arriving for worship services. For purpose of the Phase 1 analys~ the following
· Two Sunday services, with one at 9:30 a.m. and one at 11:00 a.m.
· Appro~m*~_ety 75 percent of the entering trips for the first service arrive in
the 9 to 10 a.m. hour
· Approxim,~ly 50 percent of the exiting trips from the last service leave in the
12:00 to 1:00 p.m. hour
· Approximately 50 percent of the exiting trips from the last service leave in the
1:00 to 2:00 p.m_ hour
· In 20011, there will be 1,000 alIeadees for the 9:1t0 a.m. service and 1,500
· An average vehicle occupancy of 2.4 people per vehicle, which includes both
adults and children
For future phases, the following assumptions were used: · Two Sunday services, with one at 9:1t0 a.m and one at 11:00 a.m.
· Approxirn~ely 75 percent ofthe cntiwing trips for the first seni~ arrive in
the 9 to 10 a.m. hour
· Approximately 50 percent of the exiting trips from the last service leave in the
12:00 to 1:00 p.m. hour
· Approxim,,t~ly 50 perce~ of the exiting trips from the last service leave in the
1:00 to 2:00 p.m. hour
· In 2010, there will be 1,700 atte~ees for the 9:30 a.m. swvice and 2,200
atte~lee~ for the 11:00 a.m. service, including children and teens.
· An average vehicle occupancy of 2.4 people per vehicle, which includes both
The Wednesday evening trip generation was based on the number of people expected to
attend educafionsl classes held at the Churck Fo~; purpose of the Phase 1 analysis, the
following assumptions were used:
· Classes will be held from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.
· Approximately 75 percent of the entering trips arrive in the 6 to 7 p.m. hour
Mr. John Justus -5- July/5, 200!
· Approximately 75 percent of the exiting trips leave in the 9:00 to 10: p.m.
hour
· In 2003, there will be 650 attendees for the Wednesday educational classes
· An average vehicle occupancy of 2.4 people per vehicle, which includes both
adults and children
For future phases, the following assumptions were used: · Classes will be held from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.
· Approximately 75 percent of the entering trips arrive in the 6 to 7 p.nt hour
· Approximately 75 percent of the exiting trips leave in the 9:00 to 10: p.nt
hour
· In 2010, there will be 1,000 attendees for the Wedn~ay educational classes
· An average vehicle occupancy of 2.4 people per vehicle, which includes both
adults and children
The weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour generation are based on the number of employees
on-site during a typical weekday.
Tables 1, 2, and 3 shows the resultant Sunday, Wednesday, and weekday a.m. and p.m.
peak hour trip generation for the proposed development in 2003 and 2010.
Table 1
Expected Sunday Trip._,Gener/tion
Use Sunday 9 to 10 .Sunday i0 to 11 Sun'day 11 a.m. ,Sunday 12 to 1
a.m. .a.m. to 12 p.m. p.m.
'I~ Out - In Out In Out In Out
Church 2003 391 44 403 147 76 - 215 40 365
,
Church 2010 669 74 708, 253 131 363 70 636
·
Table :2
Expected W. ednesday Tril Generation
Use ' Wednesday 6 to Wednesday7 t~!wednesday8 to Wednesday g to
7 p.m. . 8 p.m.. 9 p.m. 10 p.m.
In Out In Out In Out In Out
Church 2003 203 100 68 35 35 68 100 203
Church 2010 313 150 104 50 50 104 150 313
,
Table 3
E_Eoected Weekday Peak Hour
Use Weekday 7 to 8
a.m.
In Out
Church 2003 40 5
Church 2010 50 10
~ Generation
Weekday 4 to 5
Mr. ~ohn ~usms -6= ~uly 6, 2001
The busiest time for the'Church is expected to be the 10 to 11 a.m. hour on Sunday.
During this hour, people are leaving from the 9:30 a.m service and arrivin~ for the 11:00
Trip Dign'bution
The distribution of trips to and from the C2umh was determl.~ based on the location of
the existing congre/ation and the location of expected furore ~ The existing
congregation location was determined ~ the use ofin~rmation obtained from
· 55 percent to/from the south on T.H. 41
· 45 percent to/from the north on T.H. 41
The weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour, Sunday peak hours, and wedne~y evening trips
to and from the development site were assigned to the roadway network ~ these trip
distribution
Tr~io Volumes
Traffic volumes were developed for the T.H. 41/T~onnn Drive intersection for the
~ollowing scenarios: 1) 2001 existing (2001); 2) 2003 wiIhout the proposed Church
(2003 Base), 3)2003 with Phase 1 ofthe Church (2003 Phase 1), and 4) 2010 with the
Clmrch (2010 Full Development). AH of the forecasted vplumes are based on the
existing counts recarded at each intersection. A growth factor of 5 percent per year was
applied to the existin8 volumes to arrive at 2003 and -2010 baseline volumes. The
expected development uaffic was then added to the baseline, resulting 2003 and 2010
post-development Iraffic volumes. The resultant volumes are shown in Figures 2, 3,
NOT TO $CAI.~
2003 VOLUMES
25/71/102/169 '~
TANADOONA DR.
2010 VOLUMES
SUNDAY 8.10 AM
SUNDAY 10-11 AM
I SUNDAY 11 AM-12 PM
I r" SUNDAY 12-1 PM
HGA, INC.
,~ BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANBPORTATION EI{GINEER$ AI~ID PLANRERB
TRAFFIC STUDY FOR
WESTWOOD
COMMUNITY CHURCH
FIGURE 2
SUNDAY VOLUMES
NOTTO SCN. E
TANADOONA DFL,~
, TANADOONA DFL~
2OO3 VOLUMES
2010 VOLUMES
WED~DAY 6-7 PM
W'~'~DAY 7-~ PM
W~:~I~DAY 8-g PM
I F~Y~10 ~
I I I
HGA, INC.
i ii
TRAFFIC STUDY FOR
WEST'WOOD
COMMUNITY CHURCH
FIGURE 3
WEDNESDAY VOLUMES
NOT TO SCALE
2003 VOLUMES
7~ -J'
2010 VOLUMES
--~- WEEKDAY 7-8 AM
WEEKDAY 4-5 PM
XX/XX
HGA, INC.
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION EN(]INEERSAND PLANNERI
TRAFFIC STUDY FOR
WESTWOOD
COMMUNITY CHURCH
FIGURE 4
WEEKDAY AM AND PM
PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
Mr. John lustus -10- luly 6, 2001
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Level of Servi~
The T.H. 41/Tanadoona Drive intersec~on was analyzed to determine the impacts of
uaffio generaied by construction of the proposed develop~ Capacity analyses were
performed usin~ the methodologies prese~ in the tTlghway Capacity Mamml for all
three backsround traffic levels. Capacity amll~ remks are pre~mted in terms of level
of servi~ which rus~ from A to F.- Level of service A repre~ the'best imer~on
operation, with Very little delay f~r each vehicle usin~ the intersection. Level of service
F represenis the wor~ intersection operation, with excessive delay.
The existing lane 8comics and con/roi at the TI:r_ 41/Tsnadoom Drive h2terseotion
were used for the initial analy~. The lane 8eometrics used for the analysis are as
follows:
· northbound approach on T.H. 41 -one lefl/th~uih lane and one risht hun
hne
· southbound approach on T.H. 41 - one through lane and One right turn lane
· eastbound approach on Tanadoona Drive - one left turn lane and one right
Table 4 presents the level of service analysis for the Sunday, Wednesday, and weekday
a.m. and p.m. peak hours. ~
Table 4
Intersection Level of Service Results at T.H. 417T~adoo~ Drive
Eastlxmd Northb~ Souti~oumi
LT' RT LT TH TH RT
Sunday 9-10 am
2001 B A A A A A
2003 No Build B A .i, 'A A A'
, ·
2oo3 ]. c x A X' i
20 l0 opm,=t , S ,S x' x X'
i
Sunday 10-11 am ,I
2001 B '. A A A A A
2003 No Build B B A A A A
'2003 Pha~ 1 D B A A A A
,
Sunday 11 am-Il pm
, !
2001 B B A A A A
2003 No Build " B B A A A A
,
:1003 Pha~ 1 C B A A A A
2010 Full Dewiotancnt B C A A A A
Mr. John Justus
-11-
luly 6, 2001
2001
2003No Build
2003Phasel
2010 Full
2001
2003 No Build
2003 Phase I
2010 Fun
2001
2003No Build
2003P l ms el
2010 Fun
2001
2003No Build
2003 Phase 1
2010
2001
2003 No Build
2003 Phase 1
2010 Fun Develo'
Weekday %8 am
2001
2003No Build
2003 Phase 1
2010 Fun
2001
2003No Build
2003Phase 1
2010 Fun
Under 2003 No-Build and 2003 Build conditions, the intersection operates at acceptable
levels of service during all time periods. By 2010, the increase of volume on T.H. 41
combined with the increase in Church traffic results in poor levels of service for the
eastbound left mm onto T.H. 41. Therefore, the single access point at Tanadoona Drive
will be able to adequately accommodate the uaffic from Phase 1 of the Church project
without any improvements. A second access point at W. 78t~ Street should be
constructed prior to any subsequent phases in order to accommodate the additional traffic
generation.
Mr. ~Iohn ~Iustus -12- July 6, 2001
q4
·
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the analyses presented in this report, we have develop~ the' followin~
conclusions:
· The proposed Churh is esti_'m _,,te~_ to Scheme various trip anmum~ dependin~
on the day ofweek and the time of day. The busiest time fnr the ~ is
expected to be the 10 to 11 am hour on Sunday. During this hour, people are
leaving from the.9:30 am. service and arriving f~r the.Il:00 an~ service.
· The T.H. 41/T~,ioona Drive intersection will be able to adequately
accommodate the traffic gene/at~ by Phase 1 of the pm~sed ~
· We recommend that a second access point at W. 78~' Street be coasiructed
prior to any Church development beyond Phase 1.
~G-02-2001 17:29 BENS~ ~ ~oSOC. 9~2 2BB 1671 P.02/BB
BENSHOOF.& ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANS~A~ON ENalNEERa AND PLANNER8
10417 EX0EL.81OR BOULEVARD, ~.ln'E TWO I ~NS, MN 558481 ~ E~-1~7' I FAX (1152) ~-1~'/1
Au~l~ 2, 2001
]btbr to File: 01.39
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM;
Edward F. Terhaar, P.E.
Addendum Number 1 for Westwood Community C.lv._~.rch Traffio Study
This memorandum is to address additional items gtat have been raised rogardi~ our
traffic report dated luly 6, 2001. This items ara addressed as tbllowr
Assum_otion~ on .P!'._eschool Aottvlflea
Information obtained fi'om Church staff indicated that if a preschool flmotion was to
occur in tho churoh t~,ll~, it would operate between the hours of 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m on
weekdays. Church staff estimated that 100 to 150 cl~lldren may participate in a preschool
function. Since the hours of operation would ocour after the weekday a.m, peak hour
(7:00 to 8:00 a,m.) and before the p.m. peak Ix)ur (4:00 to 2:00 p.m.), the potential
preschool funotion would not impact tho peak hour analysis.
Im_osct.of 32 Singl~ e Family _Dwelling Units.on Do_~mo~l Ave.mm
The T.H. 41/Tanadoona Drive Intersection was reanalyzed to ac, co~ for the possible
oonstmcgon of 32 single fiu'nily dwelling units on Dolpvood Avenue. The weekday a.m.
and p.m. peak hour volumos were updaled to include tho 24 trips generated in the a,m.
peak hour and the 32 trips generated in the p.m. p6ak hour by this number of houses. The
interseclion analysis was then updated using tho new volumes. The imalysis results in the
e0mct ~une levels of servico as shown in Table 4 of our July 6, 2001 r~porC Tho
intersection will operate at the samo level of'service during both the weekday a.m. and
p.m. p~mk hour without or with the 32 dwglin~ units.
~2, 2001
As descried in om' ]'uly 6, 2001 repro% wu asmma] a ~ ~ per year ~rowth ~
~ormd~cvolume~ onT.H. 41. This~mtewu ummed in order to ~fl~'the
~rowth in traffic voh2me, duo to other de~opmont in tim sret This ~ l's~ Is basal
o~tl~ ldgo~ dally volumes cm T_H. 41 n ~byMn/DOT. 81n~t]~ m'm. ha~
adequately ~ ~ ~ d~ In the urm.
TYs~0 V ._o/ume D~a Co1~
day. Mn/IX)T does not publt~ ~ or Sunday dstL
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
July 18, 2001
Minnesota Landscape Arborwtum
3675 Arboretum Drive
P.O. Box 39
Chanhassen, MN 55317-0039
952-443-1400
Fax: 952-443-2521
TO'
FROM:
C:
Kate Aanenson, Chanhassen City planner \ _,
Peter Olin, Arboretum Director ~
Westwood Community Church La~d Development Proposal
Susan Carlson Weinberg, Real Estate Coordinators, University of
Minnesota
Steven P. Lattu
I have reviewed the plans for the Westwood Church Development with my staff and Mr.
Bill Naegele, a member of the Westwood Church Building Committee.
Large amounts of surface water already run off the Westwood property and cause
flooding and damage to our research plots to the south. It is imperative that the amount
and rate of surface runoff water during the construction phase and following the
completion of all phases of church development is not increased. Ideally, berms or dikes
and properly designed temporary water storage areas should be built on the Westwood
Church property to reduce the amount and slow the speed of water entering University of
Minnesota property. ' ~
In regards to the proposed new road connecting to West 78th Street for the 2na phase of
the church development it is very unlikely that the University of Minnesota would sell or
provide easements for a city roadway. The U of M property in that comer is being used
for a long term (15-20 year) apple research project and the large evergreen trees along
our north boundary are valuable to us as well.
I am also concerned about possible higher density development in the area south of
Zimmerman Road and east of Dogwood Road. New roads that may be proposed to
service that development would negatively impact the Arboretum. In addition, our
property will remain 100% agricultural and a high density development is not compatible
with deer fences, tractors operating in early morning and evening hours and perceived
pesticide risks.
PJO:rnh
Minnesota Landscape
ARBORETUM
RECEIVED
JUL P~ 0 2001
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
x85x
Arb~
Futur
Stre
CVPYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 C/ty Center Dh'ye
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
P]lolle
952.93ZI900
General Fax
952,937.5739
Engineering iepa~nent F~'
952.93Z9152
Building Depamnent F~
952.934.2524
Web Site
www. ci. cha.hassen, m..us
TO:
Robert Generous, Senior Planner
FROM:
Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE:
July 19, 2001
SUBJECT:
Request for a land use amendment and rezoning to permit a
religious facility a wetland alteration permit to alter and fill
wetlands, site plan review for the first phase of the religious
campus and a variance from the district regulations for
property located at 3101 Tanadoona Drive, Westwood Community
Church.
Planning Case: 2001-2 rezoning, 2001-3 land use amendment and
2001 - 10 site plan.
I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen
Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division I have the following fire code or city
ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at
this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted the appropriate code or policy items will
be addressed.
A 1 O-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to
ensure that the fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. '
Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance/t9-1.
.
Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal
for exact curbs to be painted and exact location of fire lane signs. Pursuant to
Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #6-1991 and Section
904-1 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code.
,
Required access. Per 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.1 fire apparatus access
roads shall be provided in accordance with Section 901 and 902.2 for every facility,
building or portion cfa building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the
jurisdiction when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall &the
first story &the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as
measured by an approved route around the exterior &the building or facility. See also
Section 902.3 for personnel access to the building. Exception #1. When buildings are
completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system the provisions
of Section 902.2.1 and 902.2.2 may be modified by the chief. Exception #2. When
access roads cannot be installed due to location on property, topography, waterways,
The Ci~. of Chanhassen, A ffowi.g comm,nity with clean lakes, q.alio' schools, a channing dow, town, thriving b,sinesses, and beautifid parks, A great flace to live, work, and
Mr. Bob Generous
July 19, 2001
Page 2
.
ML/be
non-negotiable grades or other similar .conditions, the chief is autho~ to require
additional fire protection as specified in Section 1001.9. Summary: because of the
topography and non-negotiable grades and wetland alterations, in lieu of fire apparatus
access roads, the fire depar'anent will allow the sit~ plan as submitted with the addition
of the fire department standpipes to be located in areas so designated by the fire
department. These fire department standpipes will be equipped with 2 ½ inch outlets.
The fire sprinkler contractors bidding the project should be made aware of the fact tha!
standpipes will be required even though the fire code does not require standpipes. The
architect must contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for the number of and locations for
the standpipes.
When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire
protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made
serviceable to and during the time of construction. Fire apparatus access roads shall be
designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be
provided with the surface so as to provide all weaflter driving capabilities. Pursuant to
Section 902.2.2.2 1997 Uniform Fire Code. This access road .shall be made
serviceable and maintained prior to construction. Submit plans for road design to the
City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval prior to permit.
being signed by the Fire Marshal.
The fire hydrant shown on page C-501 will need to be re-loc, at~ a short distance.
Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact re-lcw, afion ofhydranL
T.H. 41/78t~ Slxeet
This intersection also does not exist today. For analysis purposes, the following
intersection geometries Were assumed: northbound and southbound T.H. 41 have one
left turn, one through, and one right turn lane, eastbound 78a street has one lane for all
movements, and westbound 78a street has one left turn lane and one through/right turn
lane. 'Based on the volumes and the geometric& stop sign control on 78~ Street was
assumed at this intersection.
Using the future roadway geometrics, stop sign control, and the 2005 base traffic
volumes, the entire intersection continues to operate at level of service C.
Using the future roadway geometrics, stop sign control, and the 2005post-development
traffic volumes, the entire intersection operates at level of service D.
The level of service results are summarized below in Table 4.
Table 4
Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service Results at Critical Intersections
Intersection ' InterseCtion Level of Service
2000 " ~2005'No Build 2005 Build
T.H. 5/T.H. 41 D 'D ' ' D
T.H. 5/Century Blvd. N/A . C . . C
T.H. 41/78'a Street N/A' ~ ' ' D
, ,
I
As shown in the table, ail intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service
under all scenarios.
CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the analyses presented in this report, we have developed the following
conclusions:
· The proposed development is estimated to generate 3 78 trip ends in 2005 during the
weekday p. m. peak hour (5:00 to 6:00 p.~). .
Capacity analyses at both the T.H. 5/T.H. 41, T.H. 41/78a Street, and T.H.
5~Century Blv~ intersections inch'cate that ail intersections will operate at
acceptable levels of service with the proposed development in place~
The proposed roadway system will be able to adequately accommodate the expected
traffic volumes added by the proposed development.
19
2003 VOLUMES
TANADOONA DFL~
WEEIQ)AY 7-8 AM
2010 VOLUMES
NOTTO SCALE
TANADOONA DFL ·
t
HGA, INC.
TIi~I~O RTATIOII BII~IEEI~ AJI D PLMIIIEI~
TRAFFIC STUDY FOR
WESTWOOD
COMMUNITY CHURCH
FIGURE 4
WEEKDAY AM AND PM
PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
I :~ ~ ~r_~:.°
BUILD
I 1 ~d~l O~ 0~1~ ~ l~ ~ I
l
WEST 78TH ST
·
.
~~~I I . L[[[i ] · I I ~i~!1 l
267/~7~~ +'-788J917,'922 ~
21~4 ~ ~ 1~0 ~~ ~~
.
·
PULTE HOMES
CORPORATION
I I I I I
TRAIIIJOllTATION ElilIIIEEAIAND PI.ANN I1~1
ARBORETUM VILLAGE
EAW
FIGURE 2112
P.M. PEAK HOUR
TURN MOVEMENT
VOLUME8
GAI. PIN BLVD.
3~00205(305)(500) J~L
(360) TH 41
so(~o) f ~,~ (~o).
II II
~.~_~ 3o (~
67O
10 (10)
·
·
0
NOTICE Of PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 2001 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL:
Land Use Amendment,
Rezoning, Wetland Alteration
and Site Plan Review
APPLICANT: Westwood Community Church
LOCATION: 3101 Tanadoona Drive
NOTICE: You are Invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Westwood
Community Church, Is requesting a land use amendment and rezonlng to permit a religious facility, a wetland
alteration permit to alter and fill wetlands, site plan review for the first phase of a religious campus, and a
variance from the district regulations for property located at 3101 Tanadoona Drive.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's
request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments.are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall dudng
office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,
please contact Bob at 937-1900 ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one
copy to the department In advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 26, 2001.
IINNESOTA ST HORTICULTURAL
M 1 HORTICULIIJRE
I' PAUL MN 55108
GETSCH CORP
C/O JOHN GE'rScH
5404 Ox.~=~IGARRY PKY
EDINA MN 55436
CARLSON CUSTOM HOMES INC
1440 BAVARIAN SHORES DR
CHASKA MN 55318
IPLS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS
$10 UNIVERSITY AVE W
rPAUL MN 554O4
GL:rrSCH CORP
C/O MA1UORI~
7530 DOGWOOD RD
EXCH.~IOR MN 55331
PETER T & DF. ANNA O BRANDT
7570 DOGWOOD RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
/F. STWOOD COMMIJNITY CHURCH
PARK DR
HANHASSF.~ MN 55317
CHARLES & JENNIFER ~-1-
7550 DOGWOOD RD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
[ERALD A & Et.AINE A KROGSTAD
~0 HAT~u.TINE BLVD
X~-SIOR MN 55331
ROGER W OAS
7301 DOGWOOD
EXCEt -_SIOR
MN 55331
~.EOB O CROOKS &
MICHARI. A &
150 HA~:~.TINE BLVD
XCELSIOR MN 55331
SCOTT A VERGIN
7311 DOGWOOD RD
EXCELSIOR
MN 55331
HAI~I-~-S W & SUSAN MARKERT
BOX 311
~61 HAT'J:U.TINE BLVD
XCFJ -~IOR MN 55331
L MARTIN & DONNA R JONES
7321 DOGWOOD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
~S OF UNIV OF MINNESOTA
DON HOWE BLDG C/O REAL ESTATE
15TH AVE SE
RNNF_.APO~ MN 55455
JANET M QUIST ETAL
7331 DOGWOOD
EXCELSIOR MN
55331
OBERT D & LINDA J BERGAN
M1 TANADOONA DR
X_C~511OR MN 55331
RICHARD C LUNDEt J-
7341 DOGWOOD
EXCELSIOR MN
55331
B WARTMAN
1120 BOULDER BRIDGE DR
MN 55331
JOHN & JOYCE FOLEY
C/O RICHARD J
4804 DUNBERRY LN
MINNEAPO~ MN 55435
OF MINNF. SOTA CORP
55 MENDOTA HEIGHTS RD
t-IF_,IGI~ MN 55120
BARBARA O FR~ &
CRAIG W FREEMAN
7431 DOGWOOD
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
August 10, 2001
City of Chanhassen
Attn: Robert Generous
690 City Center Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RECEIVED
AUG i & ?..001
Ol~ OF CHANHA$SEN
Dear Mr. Generous:
SUBJECT:
Westwood Community Church
Minnesota Department of Transportation Review #S01-049
W of TH41 / S of Tanadoona Dr
Chanhassen, Carver County
C.S. 1008
The Minnesota Department of Transportation has reviewed the Westwood Community Church
site plan. Please address the following issues prior to further development:
As you know, Mn/DOT has been working with the City in order to realign the proposed
connection to TH 41. This access will also require a fight mm lane. Because the mm lane is
necessitated by the development, the financial responsibility will be with the City, developer,
or both. If you have any additional questions regarding these traffic concerns please contact
Wayne Lemaniak in our Traffic section at (651) 634-2147.
This access will also require a permit. The permit application must include plan and cross
sectional drawings of the proposed access showing the required turn lane configuration.
Please contact Keith VanWagner in our Permits section at (651) 582-1443 to obtain the
appropriate forms and guidelines.
Also please note that the existing Mn/DOT fight of way line appears inaccurate on the west
side of TH41. Mn/DOT right of way needs to be shown with a three-dash symbology, not
with the two-dash symbology as shown on the plan. If you have any questions regarding this
documentation please contact John lsackson in our Right of Way section at (651) 582-1273.
An equal opportunity employer
City of Chanhasseo
August 8, 2001
Page 2
Please address all future correspondence for development activity such as plats, site plans,
environmental reviews, and comprehensive plan amendments to:
Paul Czech
Mn/DOT- Metro Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Mn/DOT document submittal guidelines require three (3) complete copies of plats and two (2)
copies of other review documents including site plans. Failure to provide three (3) copies of a
plat and/or two (2) copies of other review documents will make a submittal incomplete and delay
Mn/DOT's review and response to development proposals. We appreciate your anticipated
cooperation in providing the necessary number of copies, as thi~ will prevent us fxom having to
delay and/or return incomplete submittals.
If you have any additional questions regarding this review please call mo at (651) 582-1468.
Sincerely,
T~rtation Planner
Roger Gustafson / Carver County Engineer
Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc.
Capstone Vision Management
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: Comment?
Sidney: Yes, thank you Uli. I think the point is well taken that the language in the findings needs to be
strengthen and I'd like to see that.
Blackowiak: Okay. Alrighty, with those comments. Would someone like to make a motion?
Sacchet: Sure, I make the motion that the Planning Commission approves variance/e2001-5 for a 10 foot
yard setback variance from the, for single family homes in the Creekwood subdivision to be located 20
feet from the front property line, located a minimum of 20 feet. Is that?
Kind: Yeah.
Sacchet: A minimum of 20 feet. Add the word minimum. Minimum 20 feet from the property line with
the following conditions 1 through 3 with change to condition 2. The second sentence. If the applicant
elects to utilize the front yard setback variance, the rear yard shall be increased proportionately. I believe
solely within the context of our discussion that will be clear enough. That's my motion.
Kind: I'll second that motion.
Blackowiak: There is a motion and a second. Any comments?
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance g2001-5 for a 10
foot front yard setback variance for single family homes in the Creekwood subdivision to be
located at a minimum of 20 feet from the front property line, with the following conditions:
All lots within the Creekwood subdivision shall be permitted a 20 foot front setback with the
exception of Lot 7.
Lots 1 through 5 shall dedicate a 30 foot tree preservation easement along the southerly 30 feet.
If the applicant elects to utilize the front yard setback variance, the rear yard setback shall be
increased proportionately.
.
The home on Lot 6 must be setback 20 feet from the front property line to maximize the setback
from the top of the slope. A preservation easement shall be dedicated over that portion of Lot 6
located between the top of the slope and the most southerly property line.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT AND REZONING TO PERMIT
A RELIGIOUS FACILITY~ A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER AND FILL
WETLANDS~ SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE FIRST PHASE OF A RELIGIOUS CAMPUS~
AND A VARIANCE FROM THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3101 TANADOONA DRIVE WESTWOOD COMMIRqITY CHURCH.
Public Present:
Name Address
28
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Bob Bergan
Loft Johnson
Sandra Steelman
Jan Quist
Martin & Donna Jones
Dan & Gretchen Starks
Bill Coffman
Bill Naegele
Pat J. Connolly
Brady Halverson
John Sustus
Steve Lattu
James Haugen
Dan Russ
Jim Tiggelaar
John Getsch
Peter Brandt
Scott Vergin
Maren Christopher
Alan Dirks
Karen Dirks
3241 Tanadoona Drive
Camp Tanadoona, 3300 Tanadoona Drive
Camp Tanadoona, 3300 Tanadoona Drive
7331 Dogwood Road
7321 Dogwood Road
3301 Tanadoona Drive
600 West 78~ Street, g250
3301 Shore Drive
2008 Grand Avenue, St. Paul
701 Washington Avenue, 1Minneapolis
840 Fox Court
600 West 79a' Street
6791 Bmle Circle
701 Washington Avenue, Minneapolis
7530 Dogwood Road
7570 Dogwood Road
7311 Dogwood Road
7311 Dogwood Road
9203 Lake Riley Blvd.
7431 Dogwood Road
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Okay, commissioners do we have any questions of staff?
Sacchet: Yeah I do have questions. Some are pretty specific details. The mechanical, electrical and
trash piece that's on the northeast side of the structure, that's underground?
Generous: It is partially underground.
Sacchet: It's underground from the parking lot side and then you have the wall. Yeah, okay. I just want
to be clear because that wasn't totally clear. Now, one thing I'm a little confused about, when we talk
about the height guidelines, we talk about office industrial district and we also talk about the highway
commercial district. Do they both apply?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: They both apply?
Generous: Office institutional and highway corridor districts are both impacting this property.
Sacchet: They're both applicable, okay. Just want to be real clear about that. Now, you say you
calculate the building height to be 42 ½ foot. How do you calculate?
Generous: The ordinance specifies for building height, you take the highest ground level next to the
building or if it's a lot, I0 feet above the lowest ground level and the average of the gable height.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Sacchet: Okay, so you take the average of the gable and you take like from the parking lot.
Generous: No, then you take the lower level and go up 10 feet.
Sacchet: And that's how you come up with the 42 ½. I just want to understand how you do that. Now,
when we talk about Highway 41 and West 48t~ Street eventually connecting there. 78~. Yeah, get my
numbers straight here. We're saying that this will become the primary access?
Aanenson: Correct. It's our opinion and that's why we did the wetland 'permitting at this time is that
ultimately if there's a signal, that's where that would be their, as they expand and they develop that side
of it, would be the entrance.
'Sacchet: That's something I want to hear from the applicant because the way I see their layout, it's not
necessarily laid out that that would necessarily be the primary. You say the only significant stand of
trees would be lost if the water level is allowed to be higher, so by keeping the water level the way it is
we would basically see safe that stand of trees there, is that correct?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: Now when we all, and I think you stated that. I want to be real clear about that. We will also
ensure the runoff would stay the same for the Arboretum property to the south.
Generous: Yes, the rate of runoff must be. maintained at pre-development rates.
Sacchet: While we allow them to raise the water level it wouldn't?
Generous: No. They would still maintain it. It's just we would kill all the mature trees.
Sacchet: So the runoff would be mitigated either way?
Generous: Right.
Sacchet: Okay. Now I didn't see a tree inventory and I don't know, is that because the trees are in a
wetland7
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: Are there trees that are not in a wetland that am impacted?
Aanenson: Yes. Not impacted, no. There's additional trees on the site in the back.
Sacchet: But they're not impacted7
Aanenson: No.
Sacchet: Okay, that's a good answer. In the comparison of required and proposed landscaping, there is
one, only one item...where we say we require 24 island/peninsulas and they're proposing 8 islands and
peninsulas. However they make the whole thing orchard style so I assume that's why you didn't focus in
on that? I mean can you explain that please?
3O
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Generous: That's correct. We're giving, they're trying to do a unique project in there fort. he parking lot
landscaping.
Aauenson: Do you reme~ the Arboretum wetland permit that we looked at where they were trying to
do the water gardens? That's similar to what, we're doing some experim6~tal with that on a smaller
scale on this project.
Sacchet: Similar idea tl~re?
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. Then we allow them to do smaller plantings to have more plants rather than the size?
Aanenson: That was Jill's recommendation.
Sacchet: Is that something we generally allow because it sounded like we're really changing ordinance
by allowing them to do that.
Aanenson: Well I think Jill made that interpretation based on the scale of this projeg, t. It's so large, to
get for the size of that proportional, to u'y to get more trees on the site. To allow them to put smaller
trees.
Sacchet: I don't have a problem with the concept. My potential issue is that you're effectively changing
the ordinance. We say well if you.
Aanenson: No, it's just caliper. It's you have to replace caliper.
Sacchet: Yeah. So we're, our requirement is caliper, not number of trees in general? That's my
question.
Aanenson: Yes. That was Jill's interpretation, yeah.
Sacchet: Alright. The wetland fill, and that's probably more a question for the applicant but fi'om staff
point of view, why does that need to happen now? I mean if that street is not going to go in til second
phase. I mean if we refer to the applicant but I wonder...
Aanenson: No, I'd be happy to answer it. I guess we always wanted to make clear that they can
accommodate the wetland working on site. Again we believe that there is pending development. You're
going to hear from them tonight, that would like to see this road built to provide access. We want to
ensure that a driveway at a minimum can be placed on the site and that they can acco~ the
wetland mitigation on site at this time. It is not boxed out at a future date so we believe that permitting
now ensures in the future, as for the same reason we asked for full disclosure on what the ultimate build-
out's going to be and so they're doing it in a piecemeal fashion. We want you to see ultimately what the
campus is going to look like. What the church and what additional fa~:ilifies they have so we felt that it
was important that we can show you how that would work so we don't have to come back and try.
We've eliminated that as an option. That driveway.
Sacchet: So from your point of view it's beneficial to do the wetland alteration up front?
31
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Aanenson: Correct.
Generous: Specifically the mitigation. Now we leave it up to the developer to determine when they want
to do the impact.
Sacchet: And that's generally our approach. That mitigation has to happen before construction so we're
trying to be consistent with that.
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay, that's a good answer.
Aanenson: So we're not trying to come back later and fudge it somewhere, right.
Sacchet: The traffic. You're confident that this is good traffic level? I guess Matt, that's more a
question for you.
Saam: With this phase, yes. I would defer to the traffic study that Bob spoke of. An independent firm
completed one and while they, I believe they said at Tanadoona and 41, it would be a level of service D.
That is acceptable. It's not the best. However, prior to any additional development we would for sure
want another access.
Sacchet: Thank you Matt. You shouldn't ask me to ask the questions first.
Blackowiak: I'm so sorry. It won't happen again.
Sacchet: The wetland boundaries established were inaccurate. It states in your report, so is the revision,
the revised plat is accurate. Is that what it is?
Generous: Yes. That was the intent of them having...
Sacchet: Okay. Because I'm not very clear. I mean the new one doesn't show buffer while the previous
one did, and it says the square footage for the mitigation to the east. It actually looks smaller in the new
plat so I'm a little disoriented to be honest about that.
Aanenson: If you stay with the conditions of the approval, those would still remain the same.
Sacchet: It doesn't change what we're approving, yeah okay. Then it refers to a drained wetland basin
that does not get impacted. Is that the piece to the northeast that overlaps into what the Pulte people are
supposed to mitigate?
Aanenson: No.
Sacchet: No.
Generous: The city, there's a wetland located on the city's property which is to the east, and then on the
prospectus this may be a wetland and we'll determine that.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - August ?, 2001
Sacchet: Okay. That's the one we're referring to?
Generous: Yes, that shows up in the national wetland inventory.
Sacchet: The one that is being restored by the Pulte development, does that at all touch onto thi.~
property?
Generous: Not that I'm aware oL The city's doing a project up here.
Sacchet: That's separate. Totally separate. There's nothing, okay. That's what I wanted to know about
that one. Vegetative depressed areas within parking lot. Is that those ovals in the islands?
Aanenson: Yes.
Sacchet: So I would like to think they were hills but they're actually depressions?
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: How is the water going to get in there? Are there gutters? If there's no gutters so the water can
flow in?
Aanenson: We'll let their landscape person describe that. They'd be happy to talk to you about that.
But that's similar to what we looked at with the Arboretum project.
Sacchet: Okay. Well that sounds intriguing. The variance findings. The variance is basically for the
height, fight?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: That's the one thing we're doing a variance about. If called by another name, belfry or tower,' it
would not require a variance. Well I can understand how a huge roof like that would not be called a
tower. That would be a little bit of a stretch. How, you're stating that there is a hardship here. Can you
elaborate on the hardship?
Generous: Well it's based on what their vision is for that building as your social, community center.
And to do that they need a significant architectural feature and this is it. They've gone with the big roof.
They could have gone with a tower.
Sacchex: Well I don't have a problem with, actually I think it's a wonderful building but I do have a
problem with how they're wording it because I don't see the hardship. But we'll get back to that. This
project development is unique project. Well, does St. Hubert's qualify as a religious campus? Does
Eckankar qualify as a religious campus?
Generous: Eckankar is a religious campus.
Sacchet: So it's not unique. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not self-created. What does that mean?
Due to the confluence of ordinance requirements and requirements of the congregation. That sounds like
an awfully big...of words.
33
Planning Commission Meeting -August 7, 2001
Generous: The highway corridor district says they can have 3 stories. The OI district says they can only
have 2 stories, but they don't have a height limitation, and then we revised the ordinance recently to say
what that third story was.
Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, the hardship is that there's an ordinance. That's a little tricky to define. Then I
think we, you collected that in your handout that conditions 13 through 23 of the wetland alteration
permit really go with the site plari, correct?
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. That's my questions. Thanks for bearing with me.
Blackowiak: Okay. Deb, do I dare7
Kind: Believe it or not I have more. But I crossed off a bunch of them because of Uli. The road, the
future road that will basically extend to West 78th Street, would also benefit future development of the
Zimmerman property, which is further to the west. And I believe that was, I was at a City Council
meeting where that was being discussed about sewer and water and that sort of thing. Wouldn't it make
sense to have that road extend into the Zimmerman property and benefit, be another outlet for that area
that's back on Dogwood Road?
Generous: Yes.
Aanenson: Sure.
Kind: The answer's yes, okay. That was a quick answer. Moving along, page 4. Wetland restoration
normally is something that the city in the past has embraced and specifically Village on the Ponds area
where there's now standing water where there was none before and some trees are in the standing water
that are sort of surviving, or maybe are dying. I'm not sure what state they're in. And in the past our
Water Resources Coordinator, Phillip Elkin has advised, or been an advocate for doing wetland
restorations, for instance on the O'Shaughnessy property. He was interested in raising the height of that
by 2 feet so there'd be standing water and the wetland that's between the Pulte project and Longacres,
same deal. And certainly there were trees in those situations as well. How is this different than those
situations?
Generous: Well based on what Lori's told us, they're looking at, as part of the wetland conservation at
providing habitat diversity and enhancement. The legislation is to promote that you create open water so
that geese and ducks would have habitat. Well now they're saying we need other diversified habitat as
part of that so they're not as gung ho on having open water.
Aanenson: Can I just add another comment on the Villages on the Pond. If you recall we spent a lot of
time talking about, they wanted a more formalized landscaping and we said we wanted something more
natural. There was a lot of discussion on that and we ended up eventually going to the more natural, and
I guess we did meet with the applicants today and that really is what I think we came to concurrence on.
Is that we' re willing to work with them on some of the areas to make them look better. If they want to
put some different vegetation. Take some of the buckthorn, reed canary out but it's our intent that
they're going for a natural setting, looking at the building. We think because that's the trees sitting there,
that we want to enhance that natural feature and I think we're in concurrence on, understanding what
34
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
they want and they understand where we're going. We want it to look nice but looking nice doesn't have
to be highly maintained, manicured type so I think we're in concurrence on thaL
Kind: Okay, thank you. Page 6. I'm not even sure where I wrote this here. I think I relate to the
landscaping. I have some concerns about pedestrian movement. Some minor concerns, and being the
visual person that I am, I drew on this drawing. I'm going to just pop it down here so everybody can see
it.
This is the planting plan, and I extended sidewalks. This was the only plan I could find that showed the
sidewalks were being proposed. My concern is that if you park here, how do you get to the building7
There's no way to get across these islands because what's being proposed are tall, native grasses which
basically don't encourage people to cross them. So I was wondering if it made sense to sdd_ a similar
kind of island was going on here, in this area to encourage people who are walking along here to cross
down on this sidewalk and these people to cross that way and provide sidewalks to get them across to the
main sanctuary. Same here. The sidewalk that extends on the north side of the church area, I would like
to see extended so that people parking here can get off the street, out of the parking area sooner and walk
along the edge of the church to the main sanctuary. Probably use this path down there. And possibly
extend then to the...creating another access point from the parking lot to this lovely pad area, which I just
think is wonderful having this pedestrian trail system in here. Similar to what Eckankar has. There are
two access points here and here for this parking lot, but this parking lot is really, I didn't see an obvious
way to get onto the path..Those are my thoughts there. I do have more questions. Oh, the trees, we have
double the amount of trees. I just want to make sure that our lxee person has taken a look at the distance
between trees to make sure that they will mature nicely.
Generous: She's reviewed the plans, yes.
Kind: Thank you. And about on page 7, and it talks about it in other p .laq~ as well. This access point
that's on W~t 78th Street essentially requires the street to go through an existing home that's there, and
I'm assuming Westwood does not own this home. And it's son of, I don't know, a concern to me that we
require a street to go through somebody's home that's not even being discussed here..
Aanenson: Right now it's proposed as a driveway. It's not a public street.
Kind: Okay, we're looking at a proposal that requires a driveway to go through somebody else's house
that they don't own.
Aanenson: We're not requesting it at this time. If they do any future development, they're going to have
to accommodate that. Correct.
Kind: Just a little concerning to me. Oh, the traffic report, I did not see on there, and maybe it's there.
It's kind of hard to read them sometimes but was there a study done for what the traffic would be if this
was developed as residential, which is what it's guided for?
Aanenson: That was the addendum that we e-mailed everybody.
Kind: I didn't get that.
Aanenson: Sorry. We can go through that real quick.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Generous: We requested that the applicant, or their developer, engineer look at one, the preschool that is
part of the project, and also whether or not, if this property had developed as single family residential.
We told them 100 units. They could probably get more in there. The outcome of that is it changes the
peak hour traffic. The a.m. peak hour traffic goes up to 100 trips per day. 75 that are generated by the
project and then 25 that are incoming trips, so it would have, it would increase the number of a.m. peak
hour trips. These would be the first phase in the development during the weekday.
Kind: So net net, if this was not rezoned, it actually would generate more traffic during the normal peak
times?
Generous: The peak hour generates, yes.
Kind: The Sunday time is obviously the time of biggest concern for the traffic. Has there been any
discuss about other traffic management options like a police officer or just kind of a small time zone that
they could help with the traffic flow?
Generous: Well there was a little bit of discussion today when we went over the wetland mitigation plan,
and they were looking people will do some, change their behavior if it becomes inconvenient. Nothing
formal within our recommendation though.
Kind: Because I know that's quite common. My church does that. They have a police officer helping
with traffic flow but it's not a state highway, so I'm just curious whether that's even a possibility or not.
Generous: Yeah I'm not sure about, at least a police officer. Definitely traffic demand management
strategies could be incorporated. The carpooling. Use of shuttle buses. Things like that, or changing
hours of operation.
Kind: Okay. I'm almost done, almost done. Oh Bob, on the conditions..I called you earlier today about
cleaning up some of these conditions. Are those incorporated in this handout tonight?
Generous: No. That Was just a revision to straighten out what should be in the.
Kind: Rats. I think that's it. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay. Bruce, you have any questions?
Feik: Yeah I've got a couple. I'd like to go back to the traffic study. If this was developed as residential.
That traffic study compared the first phase of this only~ if I recall with if it were 100 units of residential
which would be mo.re than what encompasses this first phase. 100 units would take this entire pan:el.
Generous: Right.
Feik: Right. So there was no traffic study done to my knowledge then which takes in consideration the
total use of this property with their vision, their long term vision of how the rest of the parcel would be
used.
Generous: Well they did that as far as, that's where the level of service F scenario came in. That's their
buildout scenario. But at least on our condition they would have to revise that and say, what would the
traffic look like with West 78th, or at least that access point in there. And we think that would drop
36
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Tanadoona way down because we think people would go to that light, especially if they're making that
left hand turn out onto 41.
Feik: Okay. The other question I had, and I didn't have until you were giving your talk about this, you
had mentioned that based upon the initial development, the size and scope of this did not require an
environmental impact.
Generous: Assessment, correct.
Feik: Assessment. If they had come in with the entire project, would it have required?
Generous: No, we looked at the cumulative impact of the project.
Aanenson: Right, and again that was our original directive to the applicant. We wanted full disclosure
of what the entire, they could have come in and just asked for a conditional use for a church but we
asked, and they agreed, that's the way to go was to show ultimately what their plans are for the property.
Feilc And then even if they were to come in for approval for the entire parcel today with all of their
vision, it would still not require an environmental assessment.
Aanenson: Correct.
Feik: Okay. I just want to be clear on that.
Aanenson: But based on the traffic study, they would need some additional..
Feik: Right. Okay, thank you.
Blackowiak: LuAnn questions.
Sidney: Of the applicant.
Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions?
Slagle: lust a couple of quick questions. Again regarding the traffic study. Was there a traffic count or
study done of the current situation at the high school? Do you know?
Aanenson: Of Westwood at the Chaska location?
Slagle: Correct, at the Chaska location.
Aanenson: No.
Slagle: Okay. I think that's it for right now.
Blackowiak: Actually I just have a couple quick questions of staff. Since we're on the traffic theme
here. If there's somebody that's coming up on 41 going noRh, they have come off.Highway 5, they turn
north going on 41. I'm assuming there will be a left turn lane to get onto this proposed West 78~. Am I
correct Matt? I'm kind of looking at you but would that be a correct assumption?
37
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Saam: Yes, I believe it's a straight left through.
Blackowiak: So what does that mean?
Saam: So in other words there's not the 3 lanes there. I don't believe right now there's going to be 3
lanes on 41 as MnDot's doing it. There will be a straight and then a left lane and then a right lane for
people to go around.
Blackowiak: Okay. So we're not worded at all about stacking or coming off of, that was kind of my
concern.
Saam: Yeah, that's what the traffic study looks at. Level of.
Blackowiak: At the stacking?
Saam: Well the level of service rating takes into account stacking, the time you're waiting, queuing at
lights, that sort of thing. So that' s what brings that level of service grade down.
Blackowiak: Alrighty. Bob or Kate, Bluff Creek Overlay District. Does it have anything to do with this
property at all? I'm sorry.
Generous: No. It's located to the east...
Blackowiak: Okay, so basically we don't have to be concerned about that at all?
Generous: No.
Blackowiak: You just gave me a look. On the southeast comer of the project, I didn't get out my ruler
and compute this but do we have any bluffs over here on the southeast comer?
Generous: No bluffs. I had that same concern but then I looked at the plans. They're 1 foot contours
instead of 2 feet so it looks steeper than it is.
Blackowiak: Yeah, that's what I was wondering. They looked a little close together so I just wanted to
make sure we didn't have to deal with that. Okay. Well that's it for my questions of staff. Would the
applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? And if so, please come to the podium and state
your name and address for the record.
John Justus: Hi. My name is John Justus. I'm an architect with Hammel, Green, Abraharnson. We
have offices in Minneapolis. 701 Washington Avenue. We just moved Monday so I've got to remember
our address. We have a number of people here from the church and we also have other consultants that
could assist us tonight. And I'd like to introduce just a couple of people, if that'd be alright with you.
And it would be nice if the senior pastor, Joel Johnson... I'd just like to introduce, this is Pastor Joel and
I draw for a living and he speaks so I'll let him give him a chance up here. And we have James Haugen,
Steve Lattu with the church. They're both with the church. And Brady Halverson is our landscape
architect. Pat Connolly is involved with project management for the entire process. Jim Tiggelaar in the
plaid shirt is our civil engineer. So I think as we, they might have information that's specific to their
expertise so they can help answer at some point tonight so first Joel, thank you.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Joel Johnson: Joel Johnson. I live at 1806 Valley Ridge Trail North here in Chaahassen and it's good to
be here. We were actually here several years ago. We didn't think it would be another several years
before we would come again but this is an exciting time for us obviously. But just a brief history.
Westwood Community Church is the daughter to the Wooddale Church in F_Aen Prairie and we started
services here in Chanhassen on Easter Sunday, 199S. We met at that time in the Chanhassen Dinner
Theater in the Fireside Room for about 6 months. We outgrew that room and we went into the main
dinner theater because there was no facility in this area that could acco~ us at the time so it was a '
bit unconventional to be in the main dinner theater when you come to church and have to choose a 2 top,
4 top or 6 top for our seating capacity but it worked very well and we stayed there until December of
1997 when we moved to the Chaska High School, and they have been exceptional to work with. We're
really grateful for the wonderful facilities that are there that have met our needs in a great way and we
think we've been able to help facilitate good parmership with the high school and district 112, as well as
the Chanhassen Recreation Center, St. Hubert's Church. When you don't have your own church home,
you use whatever you can get and there's been a gracious attitude in the community. We've been
grateful for that. And we have been very patient in moving forward with a building plan, partly because
we wanted to understand what we were going to be about. Partly because we wanted to focus on
building people within community before we built a building, and we fred now being 6 ½ years old, have
identify. We've established a healthy chu/ch. We have a commitment to community. It's our middle
name. Westwood Community Church. And we seek to parmer together with other agencies in the
community and look forward to a great future so just a little bit of historical perspective of where I sm.
Kind: Thank you.
John Justus: I think staff did a great job in presenting the project so far. I'd like to maybe just highlight
a few other things if I could, and of course be available for any of your dialogue or comments or
questions, ff we can go back to the site plan. I think you have a really good understanding of the site
context and we've tried very hard to work within the context. We like to think Of a.broader context of
being these large parcels of land that start with Minnewashta Park, the Campfire Girls, Camp Tanadoona.
This large parcel and then the Arboretum so we want to make sure that we preserve the character or build
upon the character of those 4 parcels. And we feel that suburbia is kind of encroaching upon Highway 41
and there's kind of a different character beyond 41 to the west, and we would like to preserve the rural
nature of the land, which really begins I think at that location and so it's been our intent to be very
respectful of this parcel. It's a wonderful piece of land. It's agricultural. It's rolling. It has kind of it's
own wonderful beauty and it's a privilege to be an architect to work on such a parcel. We also want to
make sure that the building dignifies the land and that the land also compliments the building so I think
it's important that we provide balance in the design between our buildings and the land. That's what
we've tried to do very strongly to link these properties and also to respect tiffs rural character. When we
were beginning the master plan, we tried to find the geometric center of the site, and we wanted to make
sure that the buildings centered or found the heart of the site as much as we could so that we preserve the
open space as it abutted the different residential properties, the Arboretum, the Camp Tanadoona. We
also tried to set the buildings not at the high point, and a lot of times in religious architecture you Set
church structures at the high point of the site. And I think the high point of the site is 1037 or something
like that. It's more towards the west up the hill. We tried to bring the center of the site and the buildings
down the slope somewhat to kind of find the middle ground in elevation so that they didn't stand out but
they begin to harmonize more with the ground, and we constantly were thinking about how can we
integrate this structure into this rolling land. And so that was an impo, ~t ingredient. The master plan is
organized informally. It's not a formal outlay of buildings but we tried to configure them so it was more
informal and to preserve again the natural qualifies. We developed 4 main structures in the master plan.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
There's the initial phase has been described as an interim worship space. It's about 70,000 square feet on
3 levels. We tried to make it as compact as we could. We tried to locate the third level, kind of nested
into the roof structure so that it didn't appear to be a 3 level building. It appears to be 2 level but there's
actually rooms and facilities in that third level. So the initial structure is about 70,000 square feet. The
footprint is about less than 1% of the total acreage of this site. And the other 3 buildings, and I'll say in
the future. One will be a large social gathering space where you call it a lobby to the main worship
space. And I know some of you have been to facilities. There's a large gathering space. It's a social
place where community is built. The other third facility would be the, what I'll call the permanent
worship space, and that will be about 2,400 seats. 2,400. So it's a good size room. So you have the
permanent worship space, which is located at this location on the site. This is the gathering space, this
round circle. This is the Phase I. Then this is more of a facility for students. Gymnasium, youth room,
that sort of thing for junior and senior high. The first phase of parking is configured into 2 lots and we
wanted to learn from the orchards that are along Highway 5. They're kind of beautiful geometric forms.
They have kind of a man made imposition on the land and we thought that'd be kind of an interesting cue
for us to organize our parking lots like orchards so they have a linear quality. As you look at them from a
distance, they have this orchard kind of feeling to them. And they're a cue that we saw from the area is
that there's linear stands of coniferous trees and we just thought it'd be very nice to reintroduce that on
the site. We did it on the northwest portion of the site right here to suggest the entry and to provide a
wind row because whether we like it or not, there is strong winds that come across that lake from the
northwest. So the first phase parking, or it's broken up into 2 lots, and then the future parking on your
drawing is identified as number 11. So these would be future parking lots, 1, 2, 3 and 4 so eventually it
will be 6 parking lots. We try to break up the parking lots in a geometric forms but they're kind of
scattered around the site. More closely related to the setbacks of parallel property lines than relate to the
buildings. They're kind of at just a position to the building to create their own individual form. Number
l0 on your site plan is a play area for students or for youth and right behind that is a 9, which would be a
small chapel nested into the woods. I think it was stated earlier, the only wooded area of the site really .
falls beyond element number I0. This entire area is heavily wooded. We've tried to keep from
interrupting that, except for maybe a small chapel which would be really a nice contemplative
environment back in that area. In the foreground there's a parking lot in the future and a building which
is kind of is undesignated right now. It would be a building that would be a shared use with the
community in some way, but we just haven't identified what it is but there's an attitude that what can we
give back to Chanhassen? How can they, the neighbors.utilize this site? We've talked about the main
access points and Phase I, Tanadoona will be the main drive to the site, and thus the development kind of
tends toward the north. And this drawing doesn't show it but we've already talked about that Tanadoona
will be realigned to meet 41 in a perpendicular fashion. The two dashed lines here and here represent the
right-of-way alignments. The 100 foot distance of where 780' Street will meet Highway 41, and so the
driveway that would be for future phases would be along that, the center line would be about this point
and it would not have to go directly through the house, but the right-of-way from 78~ does go through the
house. That is an issue for the future. So I think the issue was discussed about primary access. You
know where is it going to be? And I think because this would eventually be signalized, this probably will
become the primary access I will call it, and then once when it was on the site, you could, there was a
driveway located in the future that would parallel the sight line heading west. Site property, or one could
come around this wetland feature and head north back towards the Phase I access. So I think you're
probably right that that will become a primary access point. I think that you've already discussed the
nature of the program, education the lower level. Interim worship space, which eventually become a
fellowship hall on the main level, and then offices on the third. I think you have a good understanding of
that I believe. I want to talk a little bit about the architecture and why we came up with what we have.
Maybe we can, we'd like to call this, it's not a very good word but call it park architecture and I think
what we did is we studied architecture from the 20's and 30's that was developed around the country and
4O
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
you see it in national parks and different pavilions. And so we tried to learn f:com that and you see how
that was properly integrated into the landscape and into sites all over the country, and how could that
application to this particular site because of this' desire to preserve this park like feeling from one parcel
to the next. We wanted to anchor the building and so the ground is i ,m!xn'tant and the church has a
philosophy about their own foundation which is theological. I won:t get into but we did want to anchor
the building and have it grow out of the site, and so thus we developed a sense of solidity to the base.
We developed a rock exterior that has a strength to it. A sense of permanence so thst the building's
properly anchored to this site. And then we wanted to create a light.., above that so we developed a
fairly open exterior which gets one really great views to this piece of property and it allows light to come
into the future fellowship hall interim worship space so it could be a really wonderful space to dine or to
socialize and look out onto this beautiful site. So we developed pretty much a continuous band of
windows above this stone base which separate the stone base from this, I'll call it this tent like roof. And
we wanted to emphasize the horizontal in the roof so it kind of created a contrast in the rolling nature of
the land and this tent, which is kind of resting upon it. So the roof has a cemfin scale to it. We don't
have belfries. We don't have towers, which could be really a great much greater height. We tried to
devise the roof structure such that the roof wasn't too flat, nor was it too steep and we looked quite a bit
at the proportions of the roof to make sure that it had a dignified scale, but yet it didn't become too lofty.
So we settled upon, those of you that are carpenters or builders, it's a 7:12 pitch_ We looked at lower
than that. We thought it was a little too squat. We looked at higher than that, we thought it was probably
too lofty. And we needed.a certain amount of volume within the space. We'd like to have a column free,
pretty much a column free interior space for worship so we don't interfere with sight lines, and because
it's over 100 feet of span, we. do need quite a bit of depth of structure. Thus .the height rises for a
structure like this. Is there a hardship? It only becomes in the sense that you need structmal depth to
accomplish these spans. And it's nice to have a certain amount of volume within a room of this size so
that you don't feel like the ceiling or roof is coming down on one, but you need a little bit of volume for
music and for speech, that sort of thing. For acoustical reasons so thus the 42 ½ feet that's calculated.
And so from'the south, from the east you can see this view of the strong base, which is stone, and I think
we brought some samples. I don't know if you wanted to see those. Just so you get a feel for the type of
materials we're thinking about, they're all natural and Westwood's a good name. Wood, but this is the
color of stone we had proposed and it would surround the base. Provide this solidity. We have a glass
and metallic windows in the middle of the building, and then the roof as Bob stated, would be either
wood shingles or a color which you see very often in the residential communities that is as close as we
can get to what wood shingles would look like, and they call it weathered wood or something of that
type. We'd go with a fairly heavy shingle so it would be an approximation of what wood shingles would
be like, so we just haven't made that final decision at this time. These wood samples would reflect the
type of wood that would trim the building and at the gable ends ~'s some greater portion of that. The
other view, I'll be done just a minute. Sorry I'm taking so long. The other view I think is very nice, it's
as when comes in the drive from Tanadoona and as one enters the site, the building really is more one to
two stories from that northwestern side and you can see the base projecting out as a walkout would. The
glass band, which kind of gives this building it's airiness, and emphasizes the view so, I could go on but I
should probably stop. And we are more than, we'd love to answer any questions you might have or enter
into some sort of dialogue if you'd like.
Blackowiak: Commissioners, are there any questions of this presenter? Rich?
Slagle: I've got a couple. As you're looking northwest, these 4 doors, what are those?
John Justus: I'll pull it up so you can see. The air handling equipment for this portion Of the building,'
the western side of the building. Or the southern side of the building is located in that area and those
41
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
would be air intake and exhaust louvers. They aren't doors but they'd be louvered. Air intake into that
portion of the building.
Slagle: Okay. And one last question. On your site overview, before we put the samples up, if the
access, the primary access coming from West 78"', where do you see that road again? I just want to make
sure I understand our driveway or whatever we want to call it.
John Justus: You can see the alignment of West 78th is right here. The two dashed lines. That's the 100
foot right-of-way and I think the drive would have to align with some sort of, with that West 78'~ Street.
Slagle: Okay, so if I could ask as you go west, now west of that private property, where do you see the
road, right there? And then going...
John Justus: Yes, it would probably be at almost the center line on the right-of-way I would guess. I'm
not a traffic engineer but I would guess it would.
Slagle: So you would see then the traffic flow going into the parking lot, as you indicate 11 on the
southeast side of the property, and then winding up past number 8 into the next parking lot. Is that?
John Justus: Yeah, I think your drawing, the drawing behind you also, you have two options when you
enter on the southeast comer. You could head toward the north and go around the wetlands. Or you
could cross over and go towards the west.
Slagle: Okay.
John Justus: So essentially it'd almost be like a ring road you know.
Slagle: Gotch ya. Okay. Okay, that's all.
Sidney: Madam Chair. Question about materials. You were saying that you haven't quite decided
between shakes or asphalt shingles. I guess my feeling' would be that shakes would really help the
building dignify the land, like he said. I say we put that in with the vote for going more natural in terms
of building materials. The other question, well question. Well the question I have I guess is about field
stone and you said there are decorative concrete masonry items. Where do those fall? Are we talking
field stone? Where we have the drawings and it's depicted as stoneware with these concrete decorative
things?
John Justus: There are products. You can lay up a stone wall, just stone from the site or st'one brought
in, or there are products available which replicate stone, which we would like to research because of cost.
There's a good difference between an all natural stone wall, real stone and what I'd call a decorative
stone wall or something that typifies that. And we'd just like the opportunity to look at those two
products. It's a cost difference really.
Sidney: Yeah, well still, but you're putting a lot into this whole site and the whole congregation is. I'd
really vote for as best you can do here. I guess I was thinking if we're talking decorative concrete
masonry like you're taking concrete and then making... No, nothing like that please.
Claybaugh: You're talking about a cultured stone product.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
John Justus: We call it cultured stone. Yeah, kind of a big word.
Sidney: So anyway, I guess that would be good I think for City Council to understand wbem those
elements would be. Where you might have different products on the building.
John Justus: Yes, we would have one or the other.
Sidney: Yeah, one or the other.
John Jusms: Yeah. It wouldn't be, they wouldn't be combined. It'd just be a ma_tt_~ of, the same as the
wood shingles. Either we have all wood shingles or all asphalt. And there's quite a difference in cost
the two.
Sidney: Oh certainly, yes but like I said, it may be worth it. And though I think the building is lovely.
John Justus: Thank you very much.
Blackowialc Okay, any questions? No? Any questions of this applicant?
Kind: Yes. I can't remember what it was. Oh, what did you think about my sidewalk ideas?
John Justus: I wonder if you can come in and apply tomorrow to our firm. I think that those are good
suggestions. When you go to the Arboretum parking area there are no sidewalk~ at all in the parking
area. You walk in the road and I think a lot of ~ are used to that when we go to different shopping areas
and I think it's always better to separate cars and people. You're absolutely right. And perhaPs we could
look at that and see if that would make some sense, because that's a long run there, and add some
additional sidewalks. I think we could definitely look at that.
Kind: I think you'd end up with trampled perennials if you don't give people a way across.
John Justus: I didn't talk enough about the parking lots. They really have been designed. They're not
just a sea of pavement, but we really made an effort to change their elevations. Introduce some new ideas
inbetween. It's 20 feet between parking bays. Single bays are 20 feet. We're going to landscape that.
Change elevations. I think it's, and also deal with some of the runoff n~_tt_~.rs so I like the creativity that's
gone in the parking lots.
Kind: And then my other question has to do with that drive going, extending West 78~ Street. What are
your thoughts on negotiating with that homeowner to extend the right-of-way through that prop~?
Could you elaborate?
John Justus: You know I can't elaborate, but someone from the church would have more knowledge of
what the process would be involved in acquiring that piece of p~. Whatever may happen. Would
someone like to address that? Is anyone brave enough to?
Blackowiak: And if you could just please state your name and address for the record.
Steve Lattu: Steve Lattu, 840 Fox Court, Chanhassen. And we have been in contact with the
homeowner. Just to give them an idea of our ultimate build-out and what it would entail and obviously
because the plan showed a dotted line right through his house it's kind of, we were kind of nervous about
43
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
that so we have had dialogue with the homeowner and expressed our desires to work together for that
ultimate access.
Kind: Thank you. I understand this is way off in the future but that was my concern that the homeowner
would see a dotted line through their house and be a little concerned. The other point I wanted to clarify
I think for Uli and Rich is that number 6 on that illustrative site plan is going to be the future main
sanctuary so that's the primary destination on Sunday mornings.
Saechet: 6.
Kind: Yep. Does that help you see that in the future that West 78th Street would be the main entrance?
Slagle: Somewhat.
Sacchet: That helps.
Slagle: It helps and I know that's what it is. I have just concerns about the traffic. Can I ask a question,
more to staff but it might involve an answer from the ap.~licant? We talk about Pulte having a
responsibility or a commitment to share the costs ora West 78~intersection. We have this applicant who
would receive benefit from that as well. We have other applicants which I'm not sure, quite sure who
they are yet, that might also receive benefit from this extension' of West 78th. My question is this. Has
anybody determined what the actual cost of that intersection is, and in essence brought the parties
together, including Puke's commitment and sort of said okay it's x. We do have to buy a property. I
certainly don't want to even speak to whether they'd be open to that or not. But I guess what I'm trying
to say is, we keep talking like this is way out in the future and I'm not quite, how do I say it, convinced.
But I'm not comfortable yet with the traffic pattern and the study with respect to just Tanadoona handling
the church, just to be honest. And so my question I guess, has that dialogue started or can you give us an
update?
Aanenson: Sure, I'd be happy to answer that. There are two potential development properties to the, I
guess it would be to the west of this and right now, because this is not a subdivision, a public street
cannot be extracted. The only way to make this a public street would be someone to petition the city to
ask for a public street. At that point the city would conduct a feasibility study. If they were determined a
feasibility study and they would decide who's the benefiting parties. This project needs a driveway only,
not a public street. So that's going to be an issue that the feasibility study and the council's going to have
to address to say, if it' s a public street, who' s going to pay for that cost? And also, if the house was to be
relocated or bought, that would be a part of that too. But fight now the only thing the church would need
would be a driveway access. The right-of-way coming across from Pulte is 100 foot. If this is a drive, it
certainly doesn't need to be 100 foot. We look at leaving a local street 60, or a driveway significantly
less than that. So if somebody else wants a public street to service their property, the procedure which
we' ye explained to those parties would be to petition the city for a public street and they would conduct a
feasibility study. So that's the process, and that has been explained.
Slagle: So if I hear you right, with this applicant a driveway is the only thing required and the 100 foot
or, in essence they could get around cutting across this house?
Aanenson: I don't believe so. I think it's their position in good faith that that's probably not the best
way to try to fudge something. The Arboretum doesn't want it to cross their property. We've met with
them. They've met with them. I think, I don't want to speak for them but they want to do the right thing
44
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
and ultimately put the driveway in. If somebody else wants a public street or needs a public street, then
the process would be to come to the city and petition for a public street. Or the two parties could work
together and figure out a mutual, and that has been suggested.' Fm not sure the dialogue's gone...
Slagle: So I guess just my question is, and Fm trying to raise that awareness level that I think that that
dialogue hopefully happens. And the sooner it can happen I think the better so that's all.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Deb, did you have further questions?
Kind: No, I didn't.
Blackowiak: Of the applicant, no? Any other questions for the applicant?
Sacchet: Yeah, as a matter of fact I do. Thank you Mad.~m Chair. Maintaining the existing water level.
We seem to have a little bit of a discrepancy of opinion. The staff report says it would decrease
diversity, and actually I think in some of the documentation of the applicant there's a statement made that
raising the water level would increase diversity. Do you want to speak to that at all?
John Justus: I would like to have someone assist me in that. Speak to that, if that'd be alright. Perhaps
Jim or.
Aanenson: Just let me comment on that. I asked, Loft has been gone for the last couple weeks. I asked
her not to appear and if we're going to go into that dialogue, I would recommend that we wait on that and
have, because we're not prepared to address that at that level. So if you want to go in that direction, I'm
uncomfortable if you want to talk about that because we don't have the expertise here to address that.
Sacchet: So you would say that could be a topic that gets postponed to the council decision, assuming
this passes tonight?
Aanenson: Yes.
John Justus: Yeah I think we have all the, we can work with the city staff and their expertise to resolve
any issues...We have a good relationship. We can work out to what would be pleasing to them. And to
us so I think that's possible.
Sacchet: Yeah, I'm comfortable with that.
Aanenson: Yes, we had a meeting about that today and I think we're, everybody's on the same page ~o.
Sacchet: Yeah, and if that's an issue that you want to bring up to represent to the council that will be
fine. With this driveway. For one thing I wondered, currently the way you do the wetland mitigation you
I think somewhere state in the documentation in the staff report it's stated that it's kept to as narrow as
possible to minimize the wetland impact. But then we heard some thought tonight that maybe this could
be a street that could go through to the west side. It seems like there's possibly a conffict there in terms
of, and I don't know even by from the church side, from you guys and that is something you would at all
consider to have that drive become a street that goes through to the neighborhood to the west. Is that
something you'd say anything about?
45
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
John Justus: I really don't have a comment about that. I agree with, I think we've talked enough about
the fact that we need to enter into a dialogue about that but all we need is a driveway, which would have
as minimal an impact as possible in crossing this water flow and wetlands so that's our intent. But
someone else may want to do something else.
Aanenson: I can answer that. The design does accommodate a public street if that were to happen.
Sacchet: Again please.
Aanenson: The design does accommodate a public street.
Sacchet: It would accommodate it the way it's designed?
Aanenson: Yes. If it became a public street.
Sacchet: Okay. It could accommodate it without impacting further.
Generous: This is the maximum area.
Sacchet: Okay, good. That's a very good answer. In terms of traffic. There are a couple of aspects. I
actually got calls from concerned residents that were concerned about the traffic impact. Now-personally
the church that I participate in only has one access. It's a little less people. It's probably in the 400 to
500 people amount, and I thought well how does this compare? And so I have a question to you, which is
probably more to the pastors than to the architect. When people arrive, do they pretty much arrive at the
same time? And then even more importantly, when they leave, do they all leave at once because like in
my case, people, they somewhat arrive relatively close. Again not really that close. Kind of scattered up
but especially when they leave, it's very much spread out. I mean some people leave right away. Others
hang out. Others go to kind of fellowship gathering. Have a cup of tea or what have you. And I wonder
what's your practice because I think that does impact the traffic. I mean if you say amen and it's finished
and everybody flies the coop, I think then you have a traffic problem with 1,000 or so people hitting that
road at once but if your practice is to have some fellowship afterwards, some socializing, a cookie, what
have you and people leave over the spread of an hour, I think it's not going to be quite as severe so is that
something you would be able to give me a reference point please.
Joel Johnson: Yeah I think one of the things you're seeing in churches today, and even in the
architectural design is they're combining space for gathering. 20 years ago you would see a fairly small
vestibule or exit place because generally people left but now they gather. They stay and so the exiting
does vary and people do stay longer. In fact you saw it in the design here, the dedicated space for
gathering because people do want to stay and fellowship together and spend time together.
Sacchet: Thank you. And just one comment, it's definitely very dignified proposal. I just want to
commend you. I think you did a tremendous job.
John Justus: Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Blackowiak: Any questions of the applicant?
Claybaugh: Yeah, I would just like to comment that the full build-out initially, I don't have any
substantial concerns about the traffic but towards the latter end of the build-out, on it's full campus
46
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
setting, I have substantial concerns so. You commented that you had a dialogue with the adjacent
neighbor there. Could you comment as to the status of that or how it was received or?
Steve Lattu: The dialogue with Kevin and...
Claybaugh: Just an initial meeting. Okay. Like you said, you're just required to have a driveway in. I
guess that's took the form a comment. I come back to what Bob had expanded about the diversity of the
wetlands, the different classifications and because a wetland habitat contains water doemn't mean that it
necessarily supports more wildlife so that's, I think he made a very good commellt on that and clarified
that so that speaks to the water level there. Big concern is, like my fellow commissioners, the
My understanding not required at this point but I'd like the concern noted.
Slagle: Madam Chair, can I just ask one question?
Blackowiak: Yes.
Slagle: Is the applicant open to if somehow we deem it necessary or some series of events, would you be
open to allow it on Highway 41 to have a law enforcement officer, some traffic assistance there at
Tanadoona?
John Justus: I wouldn't know how to answer that. I know it's a state highway. I don't know what kind
of jurisdiction would be involved with that.
Slagle: Well the answer, I guess if it's.
John Justus: If it's deemed necessary, cenai.'nly. I would think that they would, as pan of a management
program. I wouldn't know why they wouldn't be concerned about their own people gaining access to the
site in a safe manner. I don't have a good answer but I'm sure it can be resolved.
Slagle: Okay.
Blackowiak: Okay. Do you have any other presentation? Any other members from your group wanting
to get up and share anything with us this evening? I don't want to cut anybody off.
John lustus: Well I think the landscape design is an excellent one and if there's more comments or
questions about it, Brady can answer those but I just appreciate your willingness to listen to us and your
comments are really well taken. And I guess we want to provide a facility for the church and for
Clumhassen that you're all proud of. That you'll take your relatives and show them that this is a great
building for Chanhassen so that's what we're hoping. Thank you very much.
Blackowialc Okay, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. However, before I do that I have
had a couple requests to take a brief recess. So we will recess for just a few minutes and we will be back
shortly after 10:00 to continue with the public hearing.
The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point.
Blackowiak: I'd like to call this meeting back to order. This item is open for a public hearing so at this.
point in time if there's anyone who would like to get up and make any comments, please step to the
podium and state your name and address for the record.
47
Planning Commission Meeting- August 7, 2001
Peter Brandt: I'm Peter Brandt. For Kate's benefit, wife of Deanna. I know you guys talk quite a bit.
I'm going to actually talk from the perspective of kind of two interests in this whole thing. One of the
interests is if you look at the map. Our property' is just to the west of the development, the church.
There's actually 2 properties there and both of us are planning on entering into some .kind of
development in the future. Hopefully the near future, so that's one perspective I want to make sure you
sort of understand in terms of perspectives. The other perspective is, as a member of the neighborhood
that is on Dogwood Road which is connected to Tanadoona. That's our access point out to Highway 41.
So a couple things I'd like to say from a neighborhood perspective first. I think you've already said it
and you've seen it and we're very excited by the development that the church is proposing. If you look at
it any way you want to, their intent to keep the theme of the land, the architectural, the architecture of the
buildings, just the great use of how they're trying to use the land, it's a great thing. So all those things
are really, really positive and I think from a neighborhood perspective, you know if you look at
alternatives to this, this is a great alternative for us. Now having said that we also have some interest and
some issues. Interests are again from my perspective and my neighbor's perspective next door, and
actually some other neighbors, the feasibility for doing future development there again within the near
term hopefully. And that creates an economic interest in the neighborhood. The other thing that I think
has been mentioned is there's a sewer and water feasibility study that's in process for the entire
neighborhood and if the development doesn't proceed forward, then that makes the feasibility of doing a
sewer and water project much less feasible for us as a neighborhood. So there's an economic interest
there. There's also a shared economic interest with the church in terms of access to the properties.
There's also an issue, or an interest around timing. Again, no proposals have been brought forward yet to
the Planning Commission or the Council on the development, but we intend to do that in the near future.
And also within the context of the neighborhood, we're all looking for sort of continued by and from the
neighborhood in general and making sure that we're all working together. And so far I think we feel like
a lot of these interests are being fairly represented as we sort of stand here together today. Again the key
issue for us, and I think you've ail sort of started to detect that is around traffic flow. We have recently
started meeting with the church. We had our first meeting in June to actually look at the plans for what
the church was trying to do. Again, you know my comments earlier about in favor of the architecture and
land use and all that stuff, again I'll reiterate that. We are very much in favor of that. The one issue that
we raised at our meeting in June was around the traffic. And we realize traffic study has been done and
all that stuff. We have since met with the church, as recently as Saturday and have agreed to start to
work together to try to mitigate that issue as we go forward. And feel like we are making progress.
We're not there yet but we're making progress. So again just to kind of reiterate, fully in favor of this
whole thing. If we can work through the issue around the traffic and part of the issue really comes back
to that West 78th Street extension if you will, and when that gets done and what that starts to look like.
So I think we have the idea that we'll all start working together as we go forward. That's the
commitment that we feel we've gotten from the church as we go forward. Assuming that happens,
assuming that we all work together and try to resolve the issues around the traffic and so forth and I think
we're there so, if you have any questions for me, I'm perfectly willing to answer or try to answer
questions.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you commissioners. Any questions for...
Sacchet: Since you offer. Can you be specific about, do you have an interest in West 78th Street coming
through to your property?
Peter Brandt: Yes. Yes I do. Again if I, I'm the abutting property right to the west. As we've looked at
alternatives for development of those properties, and there' s 2 of them put together, it becomes very clear
48
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
quickly that the feasibility of going through on a West 78~' Street kind of access is much more feasible,
both economically and from keeping the look and feel of the entire neighborhood than trying to go
through on the Dogwood Road side. I don't know if any of you have driven back there but it has a very
unique looking feel and there's a very clear intent on the neighborhood side to try to keep that look and
feel if we can.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Lori Johnson: Hi, I'm Lori Johnson. I represent Csm?fire Boys and Girls, which is the owner and
operator of Camp Tanadoona since 1924. Our address is 3300 Tanadoona Drive. I too am eager to
welcome the church as a new neighbor. They have put a lot of time and effort and have come up with
some wonderful plans. Our only concern at this point is the Raffic issue. I only got to glance through the
traffic study and so I'm not aware of exactly when it was done, you know as calendar wise but I think
things were not probably taken into consideration that Tanadoona has some very sporadic large use that
goes up and down Tanadoona Drive. Large events which are primarily on weekends, 300, 400, 500
people. Our large Halloween event. The fact that in the summer for 12 weeks 50 staff people live there
and come and go. So for about 3-4 months of the year we have very high use. We have 150 day ~
that are dropped off by their parents each morning and picked up each afternoon between 7:00 and 9:00
a.m. and 4:00 and 6:00 p.m.. Then we have resident campers that come, all 100 of them that come with
their families on Sunday between 2:00 and 4:00 as church would be, hopefully we'd just miss maybe but,
so we have a lot of large use and yes, in our wintertime things are much slower at Camp but spring and
fall are quite busy and it seems to hit the weekend time when church might be kind of conflicting so we
are concerned about that Tanadoona Drive traffic. So I thank you for your time.
Blackowiak: Thank you. I should ask commissioners if they have any questions of her.
Dan Starks: My name is Dan Starks. My family and 1 live at 3301 Tanadoona. This is my wife's and
my first opportunity to come to this commission's meeting and we're certainly very impx~sed with the
fair mindedness of the group. We're new-residents to the neighborhood. I'd like to express just two
concerns. The first on the traffic side. Purely from a lay perspective, I certainly don't know what the
expert process is to evaluate traffic but if we work to just come out on, pardon me but as we just work to
come out on regular mornings, we have a check of a time making a left hand turn on 41. When that
traffic light goes on 5, we get a bows of traffic and when the traffic light tums on 7, we get a bows of
traffic back and I just can't imagine how we would be able to really get out with a significant increase in
traffic at that intersection given the trouble that we have with really fairly light use today. That's the ill'St
thing. And so I just want to, from a practical perspective just kind of add that little bit of common sense
that the, to kind of question the expert process to make that assessment. The second thing would be,
when we researched our purchase of the property, we were especially concerned about what's the church
going to do. We didn't want to live in a rural setting with something that would be obnoxious or that
would disrupt the wildlife, and we've got quite a little bit of prairie investment and really would like to
be a good neighbor in that respect maintaining as much of a natural look as we can and we bought as
much buffer property as we could to help do our part to maintain as natural a setting as we could and
accommodate the wildlife. And we kind of through our realtor got the assurances from the church that
this was going to blend into the environment just as much as possible and so we thought this'could be a
pretty good neighbor situation and we'd very much like it to be a good neighbor situation and do our part
and hope that the church would be very diligent in doing it's part as well. What struck me that was very
much a surprise was fitting in with the environment. I really didn't expect to hear about a request for a
49
Planning Commission M~ting - August 7, 2001
height variance and ~hat to me, I appreciated every bit of the words on the attitude to me saying, and then
besides we're going to build something that's above what the ordinance permits. That jarred my
expectations and I really didn't appreciate the idea that we ought to be able to do this because if you
don't like that, we really could have built a tower. I mean you know that again, it just was not quite the
attitude that I'd like to see as a neighbor, or even just looking at what's objective. I just, I do have a third
minor point in here. I don't have a conclusion from it and would just ask the expertise of this group. I'm
always concerned with a zoning variance, or zoning change thinking, I appreciate ail of the high hopes of
this particular owner. I appreciate that as time goes by ownership situations fail and financial
circumstances change and this is quite ambitious investment overall over a period of time and the
question that comes in my mind is, with a zoning change, if this owner then changes and disposes of the
property, have we then put ourselves into an environment that is within the completion of the Planning
Commission and of the neighborhood and I'd just leave that as an open question. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Excuse me, could I get your last name again? I kind of missed that.
Dan Starks: Starks, S-t-a-r-k-s.
Blackowiak: Thank you very much. Did you have a question?
Sacchet: Yes. I'm kind of interested to hear from you, with you looking at this proposal do you feel that
this proposal is sensitive to the environment? You really didn't address. You said well you have an
interest in that, but you didn't express whether you thought that this approach from the applicant actually
satisfies that or are you dissatisfied with it?
Dan Starks: I don't know this group. I don't know future plans. The one thing that I could, there are
parts of this that I very much appreciate that to me display exactly the kind of sensitivity we would hope
to see from the neighbor. What didn't display that was the height and I see the, where this property there
where that 21 acres, I see the parking lot abutting right up against this. It's not clear to me what level of
tree protection we've got. I'd like to add my own to add as much buffer as possible, and then I'm also
thinking as we get a, as there's a request for a height variance for the first property, this isn't the main
chapel. What's the main chapel going to look like when that plan comes and what kind of environment
are we establishing with already a height variance on the first building for future buildings. And I
appreciate the level of assurances that have been offered, but on the other hand this is out of spec for
height and that is a little unsettling.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Kate the last two people have talked about traffic and a little bit about the
zoning and variances. Do you want to just take a brief moment to make any comments?
Aanenson: I'I1 let them team talk about the traffic study but the background should include, they did
include traffic counters. Should have picked up the background traffic. We do recognize and the traffic
study says the most difficult turn movement coming out is going north on 41 from Tanadoona. That will
be the most difficult turn movement. Again looking at this with the peak hours, recognizing the morning
peak hours are the most difficult, or will be coming from the Pulte development, morning peak hours.
Excuse me, that would be evening peak hours. And the industrial park is morning peak hours. Again
looking at this when we compared it to a residential, there will be congestion but it should be offsetting,
most of it. Now the Campfire Girls, again we'll have to take that into consideration in working with
50
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
therm Looking at the events and we're going to have to coordinam some of that with the church.
Looking at that.
Blackowiak: I'm wondering if those, would the Cam~ Tanadnona numbers have been incorlX~ated into
the traffic count.
Aanenson: They should have been. There were traffic counters out there. Yep, traffic counters picking
up the bac~und data so there's modeling and traffic counters out there so there should...
Blackowiak: Currently, so that we're getting the high peak of the can~ at this point?
Aanenson: Yes. I'll have to let them speak to it.
Blackowiak: Alrighty.
Alan Dirks: Do you have time for one more?
Blackowiak: Certainly, come on up.
Alan Dirks: My name's Alan Dirks. My wife and I and family are new residents on Dogwood and first
of all I want to say that I fully support Westwood in the fact that they're going to be a neighbor. I think
it's an ideal neighborhood. Or neighbor for the neighborhood. I like what they're doing. I hadn't really
thought about things Dan had thought about, and I thought he brought up some good points about what
the future buildings would be, but I was thinking that the 2 ½ foot variance wasn't very much considering
they weren't building on the highest point of the land. If they were building on the highest point of the
land and also going for a variance, that might be a thought but then Dan when I was listening to you talk I
thought well he's right. We really don't know what the next buildings are but that would be something to
keep a watchful eye but it did seem like they were trying to work within the intent of the ordinance,
which was keep the profiles down so I appreciated they weren't on the high spot. The traffic on
Tanadoona without a means of guidance seems to me to be a little bit crazy and so both in the term~ of
turning left when you're going north, coming off of 41 and turning onto Tanadoona or Tanadoona trying
to get onto 41 going north, either way. But there's been a little bit of talk about this building right here,
and I think that it was kind of almost pointed at the church that this alignment, there's a reference made
about this alignment going through that neighbor's property and it's unfortunate but I also think it
shouldn't be hung on the church because they didn't line up 78e~ from 41 in the first place. A little bit of,
and I'm not here to point blame at all. I'm just saying that that comment was made that well, are you
planning? What are you doing with that resident? Well, bottom line is they didn't line it up from the
east to begin with and so they're kind of stuck with where they're at. So my personal view is that this is-
going to be the main entrance. It would be great, we have plenty of time before the church opens. It
seems like the parties that are going to benefit from the traffic would be, I was writing a little list of them
here. There's the West property of course that was already spoken about. There's the church and there's
the Arboretum. Whether or not like Dan said exactly, we don't know when the Arboretum gefa
developed or who knows if it will get developed. They could sell that tomorrow as soon as the apples
study is done. And then there's Tanadoona and Dogwood. Or anybody who's off of those two roads is
going to benefit. There's the Pulte neighborhood that's going to be imp. acted by additional traffic on 41.
There's the other neighborhoods that are on the east side of 41. Certainly all those people would benefit
from the intersection on 78tu. That's a good chunk of people, residents in the city. It seems to me that as
part of this process moving forward, since there is plenty of time, the city could go aheaui and use some
of your influence to put all those parties together and say listen. There's a lot of benefit right now. I
51
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
don't think it's fair to the church to go ahead and say okay church, you may only need a driveway but we
know you'd like to have 78t~. I think if, and I don't want to, I'm not putting words in anybody's mouth.
I'm just saying if they had a choice and money was not an issue, and it is an issue certainly for a church
that's supported by private parties, is that they would rather have a controlled intersection that was
planned for that kind of traffic. Certainly I think if the city would just go ahead and get behind and help
them and help the neighbors, help the properties to the west and put a little initiative behind this rascal
and figure out how we can handle that traffic and move it up to 78th. One other thing. Is that I have a
little extra incentive for this, is that'I'm from a greedy standpoint. I mean we're on Dogwood. It is a
beautiful neighborhood and there's going to be pressure to develop this property here off Dogwood,
which would really be crazy. It's already a long cul-de-sac and we want to keep the narrowness of the
road to preserve the trees. We've already seen in a previous one where the emphasis has been to preserve
trees. So certainly we would object to that very strongly to go ahead and say well, they already have
access to that other development so the city doesn't need to look at further development of West 78~. So
in summation, take that part of the city. Get those parties together and make, don't saddle or don't put
the monkey on the church's back or just one property owner's back because there's a lot of parties that
are going to benefit from 78th, that access to this property. Thanks.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Bob Bergan: Hi, I'm Bob Bergan. I live, my wife and I live in, well in the church's parking lot. Well on
the other side of the church's parking lot. And well my wife is a church worker and we really appreciate
the fact that there's a church coming in and not 385 Pulte houses. The only thing we have a concern with
too is the road. I always feel like I'm going to get hit from behind coming on 41 getting onto Tanadoona
Drive and the sooner that we can get the 78th Street through the better. Now the city has tried to put
Dogwood through, all the way through to Highway 5 and the main concern, and I haven't even heard this
tonight, the main concern is safety. I've had fire engines that have sat in my front yard because they
can't get down the roads with the big ladder tru~ks and stuff. If there's a fire at one of the places down
on Dogwood, or now the new developments back in here, there's just no way they can get back down in
there. And they've been, we've had studies go through there before where they've tried to get the roads
widened and they've tried to do different things but when it comes right down to it, they just can't get
through there. It's a dead end. When you go down Tanadoona, it's...Anyway, that's all I have to say.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
Karen Dirks: Hi. I'm Karen Dirks. The other half and I just really, I just wanted to say one thing. I
know that that traffic study was supposedly done, but I can't believe it. I think that they forgot a lot of
things, number one construction is now going on on Highway 7 and on Highway 5 and on Highway 41 so
there's a lot of people I think that are probably avoiding the area so how can you do a logical traffic
count right now. That just doesn't make any sense. I for one would avoid that area if I could. I think
that they forgot preschool when they first did it. They forgot all the major events that was already
mentioned at Camp Tanadoona. I don't know that they considered fully all the development or the traffic
coming that will come in with the Pulte development or the new business parks across 41 and there's
always Southwest Christian High School that's just south on 41 which is growing, growing, growing.
And all the residential developments that are on the other side of 41 that were briefly mentioned so I
highly question the traffic studies.
Blackowiak: Thank you.
52
Planning Commission Meeting- August 7, 2001
John Getsch: My name is John G-etsch and I have prope~ at 7500 Dogwood Road. We've owned
property out there for 30 some years now. It's changed a lot. It's going to be changing a lot more. We
are extremely happy to see the church's proposal. With the same caveats that most people have
expressed about the traffic. I do want to make one comment that I haven't heard people say. The
realignment of Tanadoona Road makes a lot of sense. The church does need two accesses. Bven one just
on West 78~ it would still make sense to have a good access at Tanadoona Road. This proposal does
provide that. It does take a step in the right direction but the West 78~ seems to make a lot of sense for
the whole area. The infrastructure of the whole quadrant or whatever you want to call it. If you just look
singularly at the church property, it doesn't really need it. Highly desirable but ff you look at the whole
area, it comes screaming out so I just want to make that comment.
Blackowiak: Thanks. Is there anyone else who would like to comment this evening? If not, I am going
to close the public hearing and before asking for commissioners comments, I'll just let you know we are
going to finish item 5 tonight. So if you're here for item 5, Brown's Car Wash, we will be dealing with
that this evening. Item number 6, review design standards we are going to move that to our next Planning
Commission meeting as old business. There's no time line that we need to do on that so that's going to
be at the next Planning Commission meeting so ff you want to hear about design standards, you'll have to
come back and see us again. But Brown's Car Wash will be on tonight. With that, Commissioners.
Time for your comments and I'll look down Rich's way. Would you like to start?
Slagle: Sure. Let me start by saying this. I approach this from 3 different viewpoints. One is, obviously
as an appointed member of the Planning Commission. Second is a neighbor in that my family and I live
in the Longacres development. And thirdly, I approach this as an attendee of this church and having
expressed that in and revealed that to the group a long time ago, feel very comfortable in seeing this as
objective as I can. It's wonderful. I mean plain, simple, this is a wonderful proposal. Excited, tickled as
you could be. All of that said, as that appointed member of this commi.ssion, the overall community
benefit in my mind is there with this proposal. The only thing I have concerns about and express that is
the traffic. And I want to ask one question of staff. Am I to assume correctly that there will be an
intersection at West 78~'. It just won't extend westward. Is that correct?
Aanenson: That's what we're trying to get a meeting.of the minds. I think that's what we're saying. At
a minimum.
Slagle: But today as we stand, where will West 78m, it will end at Highway 41.
Aanenson: Correct.
Slagle: So there is an intersection there, h just isn't going westward on West 78~. Currently as we sit
here.
Aanenson: Con'ecL
Slagle: But there will be an intersection?
Aanenson: Right.
Slagle: And so that said, it's just a difficult situation with the traffic and one of the things I just, as I.
started just noting things down here and looking at the proposal, I noticed on the traffic study, and this is
headed up on page 5, it says Mr. John Justus. It talks about the use, expected Sunday trip generation and
53
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
I'm not quite sure I understand church 2003, and I'm sorry I didn't bring this up before. But if I look at
the number of I think cars going in and coming out, I'm still left with a fairly decent number after 1:00
that are still in the church, I think if I figured that out right, and I don't have to have an answer now but
staff if you can look into that. It just seemed to me that there were a fairly good size number of cars
theoretically still in the church after 1:00. And so I'm just wondering again about the numbers. And that
again is on page 5. Stated in Tables 1, 2 and 3. Show the result at Sunday, Wednesday and weekday, so
forth and so forth. So to make a long story short, I concur with the gentleman over here that hopefully
the groups can get together and talk about that West 78~ because otherwise West 78a~ is not put in, I have
a serious concerns, more so from being an attendee at Chaska High School, and then also as a neighbor
trying to get out on 41. I mean I can tell you that similar to the description of I think Dan, wherever he
went, when you're trying to take a left and the flow, you can tell when the lights are there. When they're
on and someone's proceeding and when there's a red light. I mean you can definitely tell. What I just
don't know enough about is what a Sunday morning would be like so that's all I have.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn.
Sidney: I think that's an outstanding proposal. The building architectural elements are lovely. I guess I
had comments about the building materials, which I won't repeat but overall it's just a tremendous
proposal and it will be a tremendous addition-to the community. I do share concerns with just about
everybody in the room. I think about the traffic and I think we do have data that could be gathered at
Chaska High School on Sundays to understand what the current traffic situation is like, and I guess I
would put that forward as a possibility that to supplement your traffic study, to actually do some studies
at the high school and we could understand what the traffic situation was like there. That might.give us
more information to make some recommendations. That's it.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Bruce.
Feik: I too like the project very much. I did have a quick question for Kate, if I could digress briefly. As
I understand, everybody has a traffic concern here, and rightfully so. Do two non-regulated or two
accesses to 41, neither of which have a stop light, does that benefit this project in any way? And if it
does, is there a potential for the applicant to petition the city for a temporary egress midway through that
parcel to the east and north of that private homeowner, for an additional access until such time as the
West 78th Street intersection could be completed.
Aanenson: Part of that would be a question for MnDot because they have jurisdiction on access points in
that road. That's something we can look into.
Feik: If it doesn't require a metered stop light at this point and everybody thinks that this is going to be
very beneficial to the community as a whole, and we are in control of that, we being the City of
Chanhassen is in control of that.
Aanenson: I'm not sure it's going to, if you've got an offset intersection that close to the West 78~
coming out, I'm not sure what that would do because you're actually offsetting it slightly so. You're still
going to, the left turn.
Feik: It'd only be a couple hundred yards apart. They're not going to be more than another 100 yards to
get to the other...
54
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Aanenson: Right, and generally the spacing requirements on a collector street a quarter of a mile so, Fm
just saying with the offset so, we can look at that.
Blackowialc And Kate, is that the primary zone right there? I'm sorry, Fm going back to the primary
zone but yeah we can't, could we even go across the primary zone?
Aanenson: We own the property. We may have to cut down trees. You know.
Blackowiak: Would we want to I guess is the question maybe.
Aaneuson: Right.
Blackowiak: Because it's Bluff Creek primary zone.
Feik: Thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Deb, comments?
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I think'Westwood Church is and will continue to be a great community asset
and I'm excited to see this project. Hearing about it for a long time. I think the architecture's beautiful. I
love the architecture concept. I think you're going to get a lot of new members who just want to go to the
space so that will be neat. I support the variance. I support the zoning changes. I think they are
necessary to bring this forward. I would like to see a couple conditions added. One for the pedestrian
movement. One to encourage the applicant to, and I think with the help of staff, get together and discuss
that future road and the traffic signal. And I would also like to see a condition that requires the applicant
to come up with traffic demands, strategies if the city deems it necessary. This first phase I'm not as
worried about. It's the future that we need to take a look at. I also have a few other tweaks to the
conditions that I talked to Bob about earlier today. Mostly just to neaten them up a little bit. The height
variance of 2 ½ feet I think is very reasonable, considering this is not next to any other buildings. The
scope of the project. It's 57 acres and it's not on the highest point on the land. I think 2 ½ feet is very
reasonable so I support that. And I guess that's all.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli, comments.
Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few comments. I'm not the type of person who gets excited having a church on
every street comer, even though I certainly consider myself a religious person in my own way, but that
said I do think this is a fantastic proposal. I'm very impressed with the quality of the proposal and the
amount of effort that went into it. The thowughness with which it was thought through and everything.
Very, very impressive and I don't have a problem with it. I think it's a great asset to our community to
have that come in. I do have a concern about traffic and I have a real big problem with the findings, the
way they're worded for the variance. I don't have a problem with the variance of making this 2 ½ foot
higher than the literal ordinance require. As you stated, it's not on the high point and it makes sense. It's
a, I think to me it's a good thing. However, the way the findings are worded in the staff report, the first
finding, the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. I have a very hard time
seeing a hardship in not being able to have the roof quite as high as you want. So I would want to say
well there is some hardship, but there's certainly not undue hardship. But that we had in a previous issue
this evening, fortunately from a legal viewpoint, it's my understanding that we have to balance not just
hardship but we have to balance it with the aspect of reasonable. And I would say that it's definitely
reasonable to have that height under this circumstances, particularly but there is some hardship. There is
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
not undue hardship and I'm very clear about that. Then the second finding, the proposed development is
a unique project. We have at least one other religious campus in town. Again I think it's reasonable
aspect but it's not unique and I would want to say the proposed development is reasonable, though not
unique to this city because it isn't. We're misrepresenting when we say it is unique. And then I have a
particular issue with the continuation of that finding. This building is intended to be the focal point for
the Westwood Community Church. I don't have an issue with that but the issue that comes after that.
And as such, it's architectural design should raise one's spirit. Now first of all that's not how it's worded
in the staff report. That's how it's worded in the legal document that's to be signed so I have an issue
that we have a discrepancy. But I have even a bigger issue with the fact, I'm part of the clergy in my
church so I certainly myself so I certainly consider myself spiritual, but in this place, this statement is
way out of place. This does not belong into this document so I would like that stricken from that. And
then the third aspect that I have an issue with, the alleged difficulty or hardship is not self created
hardship but due to the confluence of ordinance requirements and the requirements of the congregation.
Well, to be blunt we might as well say it's not self-created. It's created because the ordinance is not
allowing it. None of the hardships have ever been self-created because they're all created because the
ordinance oppose it. And that doesn't work, so I would say we should say something like the alleged
difficulty or hardship is not completely self-created hardship but partially to all these big words,
confluence and so forth. And I think that should be sufficient to have a legal basis to pass this variance
because I would like to pass this variance, but with accurate statements please and not referring to raising
the spirit because we're not raising the spirit here. We're building a building. That's two separate
things. I think it's very fundamentally separation of religion and whatever the other thing is. Now about
the traffic. I asked this question when everybody leaves in one lump and that was somewhat reassuring
that they're spread out but having lived before in the neighborhood just next to where the new St.
Hubert's Church was built, I wasn't there very long because I moved to, actually near to 41 so I have
both experiences in my back, but when new St. Hubert's Church, and that I would think is a smaller
congregation that we're going to have at Westwood. When they came in it was literally impossible to get
out of my neighborhood when they let out fi'om a service. It was real issue. I mean it was very
unpleasant. And now living at 41, I just live east of 41, if I want to take a turn, a left turn onto 41 or off
of 41, it doesn't bother me when cars zip by me like less than a foot away at 65 miles an hour, but I know
a lot of people it does and so I would think we have to be very sensitive to that. I wonder what we can do
because, and I agree with the comment that was made that it's not fair to put this whole burden onto the
church here with this one project, and I want to be very clear about this because I feel that if the city
approves this proposal, the city approves, I assume some responsibility for the traffic situation there. I
think that we have to be very clear about that. And I don't know how best to mitigate that but ideally I
would like to see a time table for a studying and pinning down the possibility of having West 78th Street
extending into the church property, and eventually cross it to the Dogwood neighborhood on the other
side. And I'm a little bit hard pressed to think that that doesn't need to be done until second phase. I
think that is something that should be looked at before. Actually somewhat in parallel with implementing
the first phase because I would expect that could be a real issue with Tanadoona Drive. I think we're
asking for a difficult situation. I can see that we can hire a policeman to go wave his arms when it's
tough, but that's a band-aid. That's not a really permanent solid solution and I think we should, from the
city side, from the applicant's side, from the neighborhood side, make an effort. Define what that effort
is. Put a time line to it as to something like a year to study this situation and then determine what the
time frame is to implement something within another year or so. Something to that effect. That's my
comments thank you.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Craig, any comments?
56
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Claybaugh: Fve got a question for staff. One of the petitioners or speakers that identified that there was
a feasibility study being done on extending the utilities on 78~ over to the Dogwood.
Aanenson: That was coming the other way. It's Tanadoona coming down.
Claybaugh: It's Tanadoona coming down?
Aanenson: Correct.
Claybaugh: Right down along?
Aanenson: Right, the city's project, BC-7, BC-8.
Claybaugh: Parallel with 417
Aanenson: Correct. It goes down Tanadoona. If the development wants to request additional service to
get down there, there's a petition and that'd be a separate petition for that. And that's to get municipal
services down Dogwood. Or an alternative site is also looked at, going along the lake for the sewer. And
that petition is in, isn't it Matt?
Saam: 'Yep. They're currently looking at putting.
Aanenson: And that's for utilities only.
Saam: Putting sanitary along the lake and water and Dogwood.
Slagle: Craig if I might add, I was there today. Talked to a survey crew. The gentleman there mentioned
that the plan was to go along the lake but there was a recent effort to maybe take it up along Dogwood.
Aanenson: Other way around. Flip flopped. Other way. It was going to go along Dogwood.
Slagle: Okay, and now they're down at the lake?
Aanenson: Right. Just less degradation, correct. So we'll look at the difference.
Claybaugh: I agree with all the fellow commissioners. I think it's a fantastic project. I think that a lot
of thought, a lot of soul searching's gone into the design of it. Again that being said. with respect to the
height, I agree. I'm big on...pipes but it needs to be pointed out that, you said a 100 foot span. About
100 foot span between a 6 and a 7:12 pitch is 4.2. You're asking for another 2 ½ feet. The difference is
negligible, but I'm certainly swayed by the argument that it wasn't built on the hi~ point of the land
but I think that needs to be said. I am curious about the following buildings. Identified that this building,
the initial building, Phase I was going to be the focal point in the overall vision for future buildings to see
the worship hall competing with that or exceeding that. I'd kind of like you to expand on what your
thoughts are at this time on that. ff you could please.
Blackowiak: Craig, actually our public hearing is closed. Kate, what do, procedure.
Aanens6n: It's up to you.
57
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Blackowiak: Yeah, at the time, that was the kind of questions. Stand up quickly if you want to give a
couple minutes.
Claybaugh: I apologize for not asking it earlier but it's just a question...
Blackowiak: Yeah, this is just our comment time so we need to kind of'.
John Justus: We'd be glad to provide studies that would show heights of future buildings and what our
thinking is and work with staff. See staff on that. And bring them as you would like so, We're prepared
to do that.
Claybaugh: Okay. But you do see this building as the mainstay in terms of.
John Justus: Yeah, I didn't ever use the terminology it was the focal point. That was staff terminology.
Claybaugh: Okay.
John Justus: So I didn't introduce that.
Claybaugh: Alright, thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay, any other comments at all?
Claybaugh: Yeah, like everybody else, substantial concerns with respect to the traffic and how to
address it. Don't have any new ideas. Just substantial concern.
Blackowiak: And I pretty much agree with my fellow commissioners. I think the project is very nice.
Well thought out. I'm glad we saw the whole thing at once because it's often difficult to see the big
picture if you get a little piece at a time so it's nice to have the entire campus laid out in front of us so we
can get a feel for what's being planned and what we can expect to see in the future. And I think if the
future buildings resemble or are compatible with what you're showing us this evening, we'll be very
happy with what's going to be out there because I think it's a very nice building that we're seeing this
evening. The theme is traffic. I mean I think we can all agree that that's just a huge issue. However, I
guess my point or my thoughts on West 78th are that, if what is required is a driveway and that's all that's
required, correct me if I'm wrong Kate, we cannot ask, can we ask anything further or?
Aanenson: We've asked for the two parties to meet. What we've also suggested is the party that wants
to develop petition the city for a feasibility study for a public street.
Blackowiak: Okay. So then that's just basically, that's the other party. It really has nothing to do with
Westwood this evening is what you're saying? In terms of meeting with the neighbors.
Aanenson: ...site design, we've asked them to accommodate if that was to happen and there may be
some benefit to them. The city would maintain a street for their driveway purposes, that sort of thing so
yeah. There are mechanisms to, and we'll continue to try to have a dialogue between the parties.
Blackowiak: Alright. Looking through the findings and recommendations I certainly, well I guess for
the most part I agree with what Uli suggested for changes. I guess I'm.
58
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Aanenson: I apologize. They were reco~n~ changes. They didn't get transf~ to their findings.
They were changed in the original ones but they did not get changed in the second. Were proof read and
changed so if you take the findings that were in the original text of that, that's what should have been in
the findings in the second.
Blackowiak: Okay. I just wanted to maim that clear. But overall I just think it's a very nice looking
project and will be a wonderful addition to the city and the area. So with that I would like a motion or a
series of motions please.
Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the land use amendment
from Residential-Low Density to Public/Semi-Public based on the findings in the staff report.
Sacchet: Second.
Blackowiak: Okay, there's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion?
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commlraflon recommends approval of the land
use amendment from Residential-Low Density to Public/Semi-Public based on the findings in the
staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
Blackowiak: Could I have another motion please.
Sacchet: Yes Madam Chair, I make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the rezoning of the property from Rural Residential, RR to Office and Institutional, OI based on the
findings in the staff report.
Biackowiak: ' Okay, is there a second?
Sidney: Second.
Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commin-,don recommends approval of the
rezoning of the property from Rural Residential, RR to Office and lnntitlltiollal, OI based on the
findings in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
Blackowiak: Next motion please.
Kind: Madam Chair, I make the motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
#2001-10, plans prepared by Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc. dated July 6, 2001 with a 2.5 foot
variance from the Highway Corridor District building height regulations and a one story variance from
the Office and Institutional District regulations based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the
following conditions 1 through 37. And do I need to specify that this is a new, new report?
Aanenson: You can say revised.
Kind: The revised report that we received before our meeting tonight, .with the following changes, and.
bear with me group here. I have a few. I'll start at the very beginning. I would like to strengthen
condition number 3, the last sentence to .read, regular maintenance shall be required to keep the area
59
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
aesthetically pleasing and functioning properly. Number 4. I would like to add this sentence. An
easement for access is also required for future maintenance of wetlands. Number 5, I would like to delete
because it's redundant with number 24. Number 23, I would like to delete because it's redundant with
number 4, which I just revised. Number 24, I would like to add Uli's favorite condition which adds a
sentence saying the silt fences shall be removed upon completion of Phase I. Number 27. Wait, I don't
know what number we're add. I would like to add a new condition.
Sacchet: 38.
Kind: 38, thank you. The City may require the applicant to provide alternate traffic demand strategies.
For instance, carpooling, scheduling, traffic, police, shuttle, etc. Another condition, are we up to 39.
The applicant shall consider improving pedestrian movement by adding sidewalks on the southeast
islands of the western parking lot. And adding sidewalks north of the tuff area further to the east to
connect with the mowed trail. I hope that makes sense. You'll have to look at the visual example. I'll
submit that. Am I at number 40 now? Condition that staff facilitate meetings with interested parties to
negotiate an agreement regarding future West 780' Street extension and a traffic signal that would be
mutually beneficial to all parties within, help me out here.
Sacchet: One year.
Kind: One year of approval by the City Council. That's it. That's my motion.
Blackowiak: Okay there's a-motion. Is there a second?
Sacchet: I'll second that.
Blackowiak: Any discussion?
Sacchet: Yeah. Is this the place to also mention the rewording of the findings?
Aanenson: It should be.
Sacchet: Okay. If I may add that the finding A be reworded to read, the literal enforcement of this
chapter would cause some hardship and is reasonable. And then cross out the whole rest because we're
not doing towers here. Then B. The proposed development is reasonable, though not unique to our city,
and cross out the whole rest because as the applicant has indicated, the idea of this being the focal point
is not from them and the other part we discussed. And then finding D. The alleged difficulty or hardship
is not completely self created hardship but partially due to the confluence of all the wonderful stuff.
Kind: I'll accept those.
Blackowiak: Okay, so there's a motion and a second.
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan
g2001-10, plans prepared by Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc., dated July 6, 2001, with a 2.5
foot variance from the highway corridor district building height regulations and a one story
variance from the Office and Institutional district regulations, based on the findings in the staff
report, as amended, and subject to the following conditions:
6O
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Ii
1
4~
1
o
gl
.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
The proposed culverts under the southern road embanlcment shall be installed at gra_de.
All proposed vegetated, depressed areas within the parking lots shall be maintained on a regular
basis to remove sand and sediment. Regular maintenance shall keep the area aesthetically
pleasing and functioning pwperly.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation
areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit and storm water ponds. An easement for access is
also req .uired for future maintenance of wetlands.
All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesol:a
Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their
conditions of approval.
No burning allowed, trees removed need to be chipped or hauled off.
Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to site grading.
All signs shall require a separate sign permit.
Include the south and north parts of the site in a minimum 50 scale drawing.
Add the benchmark to the plans that was used for the site survey.
Show the NWL and HWL of the proposed ponds on the plans.
Add all existing and proposed easements to the grading plan. Also, show the storm sewer on the
grading plan.
Define all of the different line types and symbols in the legend on the plans.
For all proposed and existing utilities, show the pipe type, slope, 'manhole rim and invert
elevations. Also, call out all watermain tees, bends, etc.
Add a detail sheet to the plan set, using all applicable city of Chanhassen detail plates.
Show a proposed concrete driveway apron at the entrance off of Tanadoona.
Should earthwork quantities not balance on site and materials need to be impo, ~ or exported
from the site, the developer will need to supply the city with a detailed haul route for review and
approval by staff. In addition, if material is proposed to be exported to another location in
61
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Chanhassen, if should be noted that the properties would be required to obtain an earthwork
permit from the City.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction related activity must be sodded and/or seeded and
disc mulched within two weeks of disturbance.
Both storm water ponds must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) water
quality standards and provide rate control that meets the pre-developed conditions for a 10 year
and 100 year, 24 hour storm event. Staff has received drainage calculations for rate control of
the ponds but water quality calculations are still required.
Prior to building permit approval, storm sewer design calculations will need to be submitted.
The storm sewer will have to be designed for a l0 year, 24 hour storm event.
Show all erosion control on the grading plan. In addition, silt fence should be added along the
south property line at the edge of the grading limits. All sift fence adjacent to ponds, creeks,
wetlands, etc must be Type 1II heavy-duty fence. Add a wood fiber blanket over the steep slopes
on each side of the proposed building. A rock construction entrance must also be added at the
access drive to the site. All silt fence shall be removed upon completion of construction.
All of the utility lines within the development will be considered private and will require permits
and inspections through the City's Building Department.
Prior to any development after Phase I, a second access point to the site is required at the
intersection of Trunk Highway 41 and West 78th Street.
The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
The building must be of Type I, II-F.R., 1I one-hour, 1II one-hour or Type IV construction.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
Detailed construction and occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete
plans are submitted.
The owner and/or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs,
bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that the fire
hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City
Ordinance g9-1.
Fire lane signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact
curbs to be painted and exact location of fire lane signs. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy g6-1991 and Section 904- l 1997 Minnesota
Uniform Fire Code.
62
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
32.
Required access. Per 1997 Uniform Fire C. xxie'Section 902.2.1 fire apparatus access roads shall
be provided in accordance with section 901 and 902.2 for every facility, building or portion of a
building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction when any portion of the
facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than
150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the
building or facility. See also Section 902.3 for personnel access to the building. Exception #1.
When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system the
provisions of Section 902.2.1 and 902.2.2 may be modified by the chief. Exception g2. When
access roads cannot be installed due to location on ~, topography, waterways, non-
negotiable grades or other similar conditions, the chief is authorized to require additional fire
protection as specified in Section 1001.9. Summary: because of the topography and non-
negotiable grades and wetland alterations, in lieu of fire apparatus access roads, the fire
department will allow the site plan as submitted with the addition of the fire deparm~nt
standpipes to be located in areas so designated by the fire department. These fire dep~nt
standpipes will be equipped with 2 ½ inch outlets. The fire sprinkler contractors bidding the
project should be made aware of the fact that standpipes will be required even though the fire
code does not require standpipes. The architect must contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
the number of and locations for the standpipes.
33.
When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection
is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable to and during
the time of construction. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support
the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with the surface so as to provide all
weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Section 902.2.2.2 1997 Uniform Fire Code. This
access road shall be made serviceable and maintained prior to construction. Submit plans for
road design to the City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval prior to
permit being signed by the Fire Marshal.
34.
The fire hydrant shown on page C-501 will need to be re4ocated a short distance. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact re-location of hydrant
35.
The developer will be responsible for a portion of the cost of the future traffic signal at the
intersection of Trunk Highway 41 and West 78th Street.
36.
The City may require the applicant to provide alternate traffic demand strategies e.g.
carpooling, scheduliog, traffic, police, shuttle, etc.
37.
The applicant shall consider improving pedestrian movement by adding sidewalks on the
southeast islands of the western parking lot. And adding sidewalks north of the turf area
further to the east to connect with the mowed trail
38.
Staff shall facilitate meetings with interested parties to negotiate an agreement regarding
future West 78'~ Street extension and a traffic signal that would be mutually beneficial to
all parties within one year of City Council approval
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
Blackowiak: Okay; and one more motion please. Wetlands. Are you ready Uli?
63
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
Saechet: I put it away already.
Kind: I can do it. I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Wetland Alteration
Permit to alter and fill 32,315 square feet, which is .74 acres of wetland subject to the following
conditions, 1 through 12. And I have no changes to those.
Blackowiak: There's been a motion made, is there a second?
Feik: Second.
Blackowiak: Any discussion?
Sacchet: I just want to point out that this is based on the revised wording we got today and not on the
wording that was in the staff report because the wording in the staff report had 23 conditions, through 23
which were not part of this motion, just to be clear about that.
Aanenson: Correct, thank you.
Kind moved Felk seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Wetland
Alteration Permit to alter and fill 32,315 square feet (0.74 acres) of wetlands subject to the
following conditions:
1. All applicable plan sheets shall be modified to incorporate the revised wetland boundary.
e
a
e
6.
7.
.
Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall submit a complete wetland replacement plan
that includes a wetland monitoring plan.
The City shall approve a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring.
The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for
Replacement Wetland.
A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained
around all existing and proposed wetlands. (Those buffers proposed to be counted as PVC shall
maintain a minimum width of 16.5 feet).
Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's
wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of
city staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign.
All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
The proposed culverts under the southern road embankment shall be installed at grade.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation
areas, buffer areas used for mitigation credit ad storm water ponds.
64
Planning Commission Meeting - August 7, 2001
10.
Type 1TI sift fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as
buffer, or if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge.
11.
Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDot seed mix 25A or a similar seed mix
that is approved for wetland soil conditions.
12.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their
conditions of approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIF~W TO CONVERT AND liyKp~ A
SELF CAR WASH STALL TO A TOUCH FREE CAR WASH AND A VARIANCE TO ~
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AND SETBACK~ ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7901
GREAT PLAINS BLVD.~ RON BROWN~ BROWN'S CAR WASH.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Okay, commissioners to you have any questions of staff?. Craig, any questions at all?
Ciaybaugh: I don't have any questions right now.
Sacchet: Yes, I do have questions. First of all, there is talk about the two parcels have been previously
put into one zoning lot, but then in another place it talks about, there's a condition that they have to be
combined into one lot. Can you elaborate on that?
Generous: The building official put that in because he's concerned about requirements for setbacks from
property lines. This has been done previously. We just need to provide the back-up materials.
Sacchet: It needs to be established clearer?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: But it's in place?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. That answers that. Then next, we're talking about the impact on this property cost by
the widening of, was it.
Generous: Great Plains.
Sacchet: Great Plains Boulevard, and that impacted the lot size aspect. Before that it was not.
65
Thank you note and flyer from the kids at Stone Creek Park.
Chanhassen Fire Department Fire/Rescue Call Sheet dated Aug. 6 - Aug. 12, 2001.
Chanhassen Fire Department Fire/Rescue Call Sheet dated Aug. 13 - Aug. 19, 2001.
Letter from the Metropolitan Council dated August 1, 2001.
Letter from MS&R dated August 17, 2001.
Agenda/payables from Southwest Metro.Transit Commission dated Aug. 23, 2001.
Carver County Sheriff City RePOrt received August 22, 2001.
Girl Scout Council of
.
R~r Bluff .. ~
I.F'e dedi'cate ourselves to the purpose of inspirhtg girls with
the highest ideals of character, ¢oltduct~ patriotism a/rd service
that they may become happy attd resourceful citite.tts.
'"'..:: ;,~.~ ii~!ii~;,
.. "' :.::. ii~ :;i .:i-~
.
..
.
. - ..-j · !.......::..'......:.' ....-.
-......... · .... .. . :'~. ~..-':.-~ -.-,-.,~.'..-'--.' :. -' ;:
-. , :'- . .' .. .
,..--. :~-- -
. . -.. : - ...:
-. . .
· ' ~".~..'
-: .. ~ :-.. :,..
.' -..'.: - -.:. : -
· . ., . --. ---'.. :%-
· . ~ ~- . ~-;,:.~...-
: , .'~ .' .:- .'
. ' .-.--.- _
:.....
~.-'
JustNote t0
· .:-. '..
......................................................... ' .-'=:..i_'
· .,-., :.
Men
Mon
Mon
Tues
Tues
Tues
Weds
Weds
Weds
Weds
Weds
Thurs
Thurs
Thurs
Fri
Fri
Fri
Sat
Sun
Sun
Aug6 3:18 AM
Aug6 l:03PM
Aug6 3:36PM
Aug 7 12:38 AM
Aug 7 10:40 AM
Aug7 9:09 PM
Aug8 l:56PM
Aug8 l:56PM
Aug8 3:10 PM
Aug8 9:lSPM
Aug8 10:16PM
Aug9 '3:10 AM .
Aug9 6:51 AM
Aug9 5:34 PM
Aug9 7:41 PM
Aug 10 10:22 AM
Aug 10 8:48 PM
Aug 10 10:41 PM
Aug 11 6:22 PM
Aug 12 8:30 PM
Aug 12 9:24 PM
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARq'3/iL:ZNT
FIRE/RESCUE
WEEK OF AUGUST 6 - AUGUST 12, 2001
Santa Veto Ddve
Ringneek Drive
Lakeview Road East
Highway 5 & Highway 41
Century Boulevard
Chaska Fire Department
West 78t~ Street
West 78th Street
Tanadoona Drive
Market Boulevard
Castle Ridge Road
Devonshire DHve
Buckingwood Court
Highway 212 & Highway 101
Mulberry Circle
Laredo Drive
Tonka Bay
Baneberry Way East
Lake Susan Hills Drive
Bretton Way
Redwing Ln & Penmuint Ln
Medical - person fell
Fire alarm - false alarm, no fire
Car leaking gasoline
Car accident with no injuries
Fire alarm - false alarm, no fire
Mutual aid - stand by
Medical - unknown problem, cancelled
Medic, al - he, ad injury
Medical - trouble breathing
Fire alarm - false alarm, no fire
Carbon Monoxide alarm
Medical - diabetic reaction
Smoke alarm -cancelled, no fire
Car accident-cancelled, no injuries
Medical - person fell
Fire alarm - false alarm, no fire
Mutual Aid - fuel-spill
Medical - asthma attack
Fire alarm - false alarm, no fire
Fire alarm - false alarm, no fire
Fire in sewer
Mon
Tues
Weds
Weds
Weds
W~ds
Thurs
Thurs
Thurs
Thurs
Thurs
Fri
Fri
Sat
Sat
Sat
Sun
Sun
Aug 13 7:45 PM
Aug 14 6:24 AM
Aug 14 1:11 PM
Aug 14 2:09 PM
Aug 15 I0:51 AM
Aug 15 12:10 PM
Aug 15 1:14 PM
Aug 15 8:35 PM
Aug 16 l:21 AM
Aug 16 4:08 AM
Aug 16 8:20 AM
Aug 16 7:52 PM
Aug 16 11:12 PM
Aug 17 9:35 PM
Aug 17 11:21 PM
Aug 18 6:24 AM
Aug 18 10:49 AM
Aug 18 4:49 PM
Aug 19 4:26 PM
Aug 19 10:32 PM
CHANHAssEN FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE/RBSCUE
WEEK OF AUGUST 13 - AUGUST 19, 2001
Amumn Ridge
Majestic Way
Pauly Drive
Main Street
.Hwy 101 & Lyman Blvd
Harrison H/Il Trail
Hwy 5 & Powers Blvd
St. Bonifacius
Harvest Lane
Mc~iynn Road
Wh/te Oak Lane
Creekview Court
Pauly Drive
Hwy 5
Santa Vera Drive
Eden Prairie
Lyman Boulevard
West 77'~ Street
Fawn Hill Road
Medic, al- abdominal pain
Medical .~ porson unconscious
Medical- severe headache
.
Medical- person jn seizures
Car accident with injuries
Mutual aid- stnlemre fire
Carbon Monoxide Alarm
Fire alarm - false alarm, no fire
Smell of smoke
Mutual aid- stand by
Medical- trouble ~g
· Suspici°us odor
Car accident with injuries
Fire alarm- false alamb no fire
Mutual aid - house explosion'
Medical'- heart problem
Bicycle accident
Medical - person choking
Metropolitan Council
~-3-~ ~ ~t~-;-'~ F. ~ ~
'August 1, 2001
Dear Local Official: . ~~0¢ ~'~
Enclosed is a preliminar~ housing performance score for your community which, in large
part, is based upon information provided by your community in our recent housing
surveys Part A and Part B.
RECEIVED
AUG - ~ 2001
CITY OF
In May we mailed surveys asking communities to complete and return them by June 22.
On June 25, we sent a follow up asking that the surveys be completed by July 6. On July
16 we began our process of determining scores from the information in the surveys.
The enclosed score sheet indicates the preliminary points by criteria for yom community.
?oints for criteria 1, 2, 3 and 5 are based on Council data compiled from information
provided by state or county agencies, local government, HUD, MHFA and local HRAs.
Scores for the remaining criteria are based on the information provided to the Council via
the surveys. If we did not receive a completed survey or information was not provided
for any survey question, the score for those applicable criteria will reflect this.
If after reviewing these scores you want to provide additional information in order to
improve your score in any criterion, or you believe you should have received more points
in any criterion given your answers, please send me the information or call me as soon as
possible.
Because applications for the current TEA-21 solicitation are due August 31, and the
homing performance scores will be a factor in those evaluations, I am setting a deadline
of the same date, August 31, for receiving any additional information from which to
revise the performance scere. In September, revised scores will be mailed to all
communities.
Please call me at 651-602-1418 if you have any questions or want to discuss your
community's preliminary score.
·
Si~dfiy D. Pelf. error
Planning Analyst
Enclosures
x~mnv.metrocouncll.org
Metro Info Line 602-1888
230 East Flfth Street · St. Paul, Mlnnesota55101-1626 · (651) 602-1000 · Fax602-1550 * TTY291-0904
Preliminary Housing Performance Score- 2001
Name of City / Township
Criteria - 1 O0 points
6.
7.
8.
0
11. 0
Total Score ~
Preliminary Housin Performance Scores - 2001
Community ' ' points
Minneapolis 94
Fridley 91
New Hope 9_0.
St. Paul 88
Coon Rapids 83
Roseville 81
Robbinsda'l~ ' 81
So. St. Paul ' 77
·
Bloomington 76
Bumsville 75
Richfield 74
Ch~k~ 73
,
H°p.kins 73
St. Louis Park 73
New Bri~ton , 72
Maple 0rove 72
Oakdale 70'
Hastings 68
,
Anolm 63,
Golden-Va',lle¥ 63
Columbia Heights 60
Oak Park Heights 60
White Bear Lake 60
_Brooklyn Center 60
Plymouth 6b
Mounds View 59
Brooklxn Park 59
Cr~t~l
Eden Prairie 59
Minnetonka 59
Cottage Ch'eve 57
!
F. dina 57
Woodbury .... 56
North St. Paul :56
·
Blaine 55
Shoreview :55
Invcr Grove Heig~hts 55
'West St. Paul 50
!
Rosemount 49
Chanhassen 48
·
,Maplewoo,d 48
Watertown 45
·
Chmnplin _ . 45
Hugo 44
'St. Anthony , ,44
~Mendot~ Heir. ts 44
Fnnnlngton 43
Lakeviile 43
Lauderdale 42
!Prior Lake 41
· , , ,
Forest Lake Twp. 39
Falcon H~ights ~9'
Mahtomedi 38
St. Paul Park 38
, ,
Shakopee 38
Oimle Pines 37
·
Forest Lake 36
. .
Hilltgp 35
Mayer 35
·
Whi~ Bear Twp. 35
Mound 34
Apple Valley 32
Hamburg 31
Oak Grove 29
Norw_ood Young America 29
Willemie 29
Arden Hills 29
Excelsior 29
Wa]/zata 29
Bayport 28
Hampton 28
Randolph 28
SL Franch 27
!
Newport 27
Belle Plaine 27
Osseo 27
Empire Twp.' 27
Cologne 26
East Bethel 25
Lexington 25
Spring La~ Pa' ' ' 2~'~
Orono 24
'New German},, 23
[Waconla 23
Mnple Plain , 23
Rockford 23
Wmaord T~. 23
,~o~, q ~-:
·
Sfillwater 21
Vermillion 21
Little Canada 20
!
Dayton 20
Long Lake 20
Lake SL Croix Beach 19
Lomtto 19
San Francisco Twp. 1 ~
Savage 18
St. Lawrence T~p." 18
Marshan Twp. 18
centerville 17
Alton 17
Belie Plaine Twp 17
Independence 17~
Medina 17
--.
Lino Lakes' ! 6
Vadnais Heights i 6
Greenfield 16
,
Greenvale Twp. i 6
Hag. cock Twp. 15
Landfall 15
New Market 15
!
St. Bordfadus I 5
Linwood Twp 14
New Scandia Twp. 14
Rogers 14
Bethel 13
Carver 13
SPring Park 13
Coates 13
Randolph Twp. , 13
8ciota Twp. 13
Brichwood 12
,Victoria 11
Jackson Twp. l l
Mendota 11
New Trier 11
Andovet I0
Columbus Twp 10
Grant - 10
Elkn 10
Lflydale . 10
Meisville 10
D~m~ Twp 9
Lake Elmo 9
Louisville Twp. , 9
Gem~ 9
s
Hollywood TWP 8
Laketown Twp. 8
Baytown Twp. 7
Core. oran 7
Ravenna Twp. 7
Orey Cloud Twp.
Helena Twp. 6
Sand Creek Twp. 6
- _ .
Spring Lake Twp. ~
Tonka Bay 6
Benton Twp~ :5
~~ ~. 4
W~ ~ 4
S~ ~s Po~ 4
~t ~ ~. 4
M~c~e ~ 4
Sho~ 4
~e ~ ~ ~ ~ 3
~~ 3
,
No~ ~ 2
~ 2
W~ 2,
S~ ~ 2
~ s~ ~
M~~ B~ I
Preliminary Housing Performance Scores- 2001
Anoka CoUnty Points
Andover i0
Anoka 63
Bethel 13
Blaine 55
C, enterville 17
Circle Pines 37
Columbia Heights 60'
Columbus Twp 10
:Coon Rap.ids 83
East Bethel 25
FHdley 91
Ham Lake 1:3
Hilltop 35
Lexington 25
Lino Lakes 16
Linwood Twp 14
=Oak Grove 29
Ramsey 29
Spring,Lake Park 25
St. Francis 27
Carver County Points
.B. enton Twp,
Camden Twp. 6~
Carver 13
Chanhassen 48
Ch~k~ 73
C~ka Twp. 6
Cologne 26
Dahl~ren T~. 4
H~mS~ 3 l
Hollywood Twp 8
Laketown Twp. 8
Mayer 35
.New Germany 23
Norwood Young .America 29
San Francisco Twp. 18
Victoria 11
,Waconia 23
..
Waconia Twp 4.
Watertown · 45
Young America Twp. 6
!
Dakota Count~ Points
Apple Valley 32
Bumsville 75
Castle Rock Twp. 19
Coates 13
·
Douglas Twp. 9
Eagan 22
Empire T~. 27
v.ma. n
Gree~le Twp.. 16
Hampton 28
Hampton Twp. 9
Hastings 68
lnvei' Grove Heights 55
Lakeville 43
Lilyclale 10
.Meisville 10
Mendotn 11
Mendota Heights 44
New Trier 11
Nininger Twp. 5
!Randolph 28
Randolph Twp. 13
Ravenna Twp. 7
Rosemount 49
Sciota Twp. 13
$o. SL Paul 77
Sunfish Lake 2
Vermillion 21
·
Waterford Twp. 23
West St. Paul 50
Hennepin Count~, Points
Bloomin~on 76
Brooklyn Center 60
Brooklyn Park 59
Champlin 45
Cow, oran 7
i
Crystal 59
Dayton 20
Deeplav~ ' 2
Eden Prairie 59
Edina 57
Excelsior 29
Golden Valley 63
Greenfield 16
'Greenwood 5
Hassan Twp 3
Hopkins 73
Independence 17
Long Lake 20
Loretto 19
Maple Grove 72
Maple Plain 23
Medicine Lake 4
'Medina 17
Minneapolis 94
.
Minnetonkn 59
Minnetonka Beach 1
Minnetrista 2
Mound 34
New Hope 90
Orono 24
Osseo 27
Plymouth 60
RiGhfield 74
Robbinsdale 81
Rockford 23
Rogers 14
Shorewood 4
Spring Park 13
St. Anthony 44
St, Bonifncius 15
St. Louis Park 73
· ,
Tonka Bay 6
I Wayzatn 29
Woodland 2
Ramsey County Points
Arden Hills 29
Falcon HeiSts 39
Gem Lake 9
Lauderdale 42
Little Canada 20,
Maplewood 48
Mounds View 59
New Brighton 72
North Oaks 2
North St. Paul 56
RoseviHe 81
Shoreview 55
St. Paul 88
Vadnais Heights 16
White Bear Lake 60
White Bear Twp. 35
Scott Count~ Points
Belle Plaine 27
Belle Plaine Twp 17
nutty 'rwp. 7
Cedar Lake 3
Elko 10
Jordancl 22
New Mark~ IS
Prior Lake 4.1
Sava~ 18
Shakop~ 38
Washington Count~ Points
Aflon 17
Bayport 28
Baytown Twp. 7
Brichwood 12
Cottage Grove 57
Dellwood 1
Denmark rwp 9
Forest Lake 36
Forest Lake Twp. 39
Grant 10
~ Cloud Tw~. 6
IHugo 44
Lake Elmo 9
Lake St. Croix Beach 19
Lakeland 18
Lakeland Shores 2
Landfall 15
Mahtomedi 38
Marine on the St. Croi3
May Twp. 2
New Scandia Twp. 14
Newport 27
Oak Park Heights 60
Oakdale 70
Pine Sprin~s 1
St. Mar~s Point 4
St. Paul Park 38
Stillwater 21
StiHwat~ Twp. 2
West Lakeland Twp. 2
W'dlernie 29
Woodbu~ 56
GUIDELINES FOR PRIORITY FUNDING
FOR HOUSING PERFORMANCE
The Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint includes policy that supports the
broadened opportunity for affordable and life-cycle housing throughout the region.
As one of the actions it will take to support such housing opportunities, the
Blueprint says the Council will "give priority for regional infrastructure
investments or expenditures of public dollars to communities that have
implemented plans to provide their share of the region's low- and moderate-income
and life-cycle housing opportunities."
The following criteria and their relative weight will be used to annually determine
a score- 0 to 100 points- and rank for cities and counties in the region to be used
in the evaluation and prioritization of applications for funding by the Council.
County scores will be used in the evaluation of county applications for funding;
city Scores will be used for city applications. Joint applications for discretionary
funding will be weighted pursuant to the applicable combination of counties, cities,
or both counties and cities. Examples of current funding decisions that will be
affected include but not be limited to those for community development- the LCA
Fund and Smart Growth initiatives, transportation- TEA-21, the environment-
MetroEnvironment Partnership grants, and other investments and programs such as
those for parks and open space.
The amount of emphasis or weight given to the housing performance score or rank
in the evaluation of applications for various funding programs will be at the
discretion of the Metropolitan Council at the time it solicits applications for any of
these discretionary funding activities. Any changes to the performance criteria
themselves will be made only after the Council follows its adopted policy and
practices for changing policy documents.
~,' 'I-II1RARY~ COM ML'.~D~,'J~ETER.";ON~-'~O I'.HsgPm'Criterir 0.~0~ I Final DOC
Metropolitan Council
Cities
Affordability and Diversification
0 to 8 points 1.
0 to 8 points 2.
0 to 6 points 3.
0 to 10 points 4.
0 to 4 points
Municipalities are ranked according to the percent of their owner-occupied
housing (homesteads) with an assessed valuation equal to or lower than an
amount affordable to households at 80 percent of area median income, and
their total number of mobile homes.
Municipalities are ranked according to the percent of their total housing
stock that is comprised of rental units affordable to households of low- and
moderate-income (50 percent of area median income or less). This
includes all federally subsidized rental units - public housing, Section 8
housing, units subsidized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, units
developed with the use of low-income housing tax credits, units developed
with the assistance of MHFA, the LCA Fund or the assistance of a local
fiscal tool or housing finance initiative. This also includes all rental units
that are qualified as 4d for purposes of their property tax classification.
Municipalities are ranked according to the percent of their housing stock
that is comprised of units that are not conventional single family detached
units. These units include twinhomes, quads, apartments, townhomes,
condominiums, detached townhomes and mobile homes.
Municipalities are ranked according to the percent of net units added to
their housing stock that are affordable- both ownership and rental since
the Council began monitoring in 1996. These "new" units may include
units that have been "preserved" as affordable for a definitive period of
time because of public or private re-investment to retain their affordability.
("Net units" means that affordable habitable units removed as the result of
a city initiative will be subtracted from the total new affordable flnits.)
5. Housing for special needs
Municipalities are awarded 1 point for each of the following types of special
housing within their jurisdictions:
Housing for which federal, state, county or local funds or those of a non-
profit organization have been used to purchase and operate residential units
or provide licensed housing that is not for the purposes of incarceration,
but as a transitional placement of adult offenders or adjudicated
delinquents
A publicly subsidized or non-profit group home licensed by the
Department of Health or Department of Human Services which provides
temporary or permanent housing for the physically handicapped, mentally
ill, developmentally disabled or chemically dependent
V I.IIIRARV C'CIMM[ 'ND\'.PETERSON'2t~OI'J IsgPerlCrtte[ia,flSt%~Oi Final DOC
~2~ Metropolitan Council
A shelter which is publicly subsidized and/or operated by a non-profit
group to provide temporary housing for homeless persons and families,
battered women or those not otherwise able to secure private housing
Housing for individuals and families who are homeless, but with a
transitional stay of six to 24 months, and the assistance of advocates, can
work towards housing stability and self-sufficiency to obtain permanent
housing.
Each type of housing (not instance of such housing) is worth 1 point.
Local Initiatives to Facilitate Affordable Workforce Housing Development
or Preservntion
0 to 15 points 6. Fiscal Tools and Initiative
The municipality has in place adopted local policy in its comprehensive plan or
local housing plan that allows and encourages the use of a local fiscal tool or
initiative and'has used such a local riscal tool to assist affordable workforce or
life-cycle housing development or preservation. Examples of such fiscal tools
include but are not limited to the following:
· Tax increment financing
· Housing revenue bonds
· General obligation bonds
· A local property tax levy
· Local tax abatement
· Local. fee waivers or reductions
· Credit enhancements
· Taxable revenue bonds
· Land write-down or sale
· Collaboration and participation with a community land tm.st to preserve
long-term affordability
The use of federal or state dollars is only applicable if such dollars may be
used for activities other than the development or preservation of affordable and
life-cycle housing but the municipality has chosen by policy to use them for
affordable housing development or preservation.
Each local fiscal tool or initiative is worth 3 points.
0 to 15 points 7. Initiatives regarding local regulation and development requirements
The municipality has in the two previous calendar years allowed the reduction,
adjustment or elimination of a local official control, or development or local
code requirement as a cost avoidance measure in order to facilitate the
development or preservation of affordable workforce or life-cycle housing, or
has in place in its policies and official controls a commitment to make such
V I.IBRAR~COMML.'ND~'PETERSO.N~20OIqlsgPerlTdte~}5OqOIFinal DOC
:~ Metropolitan Council
L,.,.... rel~o.~~~~
0 to 12 points
reductions, adjustments or eliminations of requirements whenever they'are
requested in order to facilitate the development or preservation of affordable or
life-cycle housing.
Examples of these initiatives in the use of official controls include but are not
limited to the following:
· The use of a density bonus system, inclusionary housing requirements or
some other innovative zoning approach
· The use of variances, rezoning, special use or conditional permits or similar
variations from the standards set forth in the community's zoning
ordinance for the purpose of facilitating a specific affordable housing
development
· A local initiative undertaken to revise local design requirements for public
improvement that may reduce the cost of public services to residential
properties.
· Modifications in public services standards or requirements that might
include streets, curbs, gutter, sewer and water hookups, street lighting and
other required public improvements in order to reduce development costs
to increase affordability in a new residential development.
· A reduction of such standards as the required street right-of-way, or
surfacing width or depth design for residential street, or the size of sewer or
water service lines to new housing
Each local initiative is worth 3 points. No more than 6 points may be
applicable to any one affordable or life-cycle housing development or
preservation activity aided by these local regulative measures.
8. Initiatives regarding housing preservation and rehabilitation
The municipality has in place locally-initiated or administered (city or county)
housing preservation, home improvement and/or rehabilitation programs, or
other tools that are of assistance in keeping its housing stock in sound
condition.
Examples of these initiatives include but are not limited to the following:
· A housing maintenance code and enforcement program for rental housing
· A housing maintenance code and enforcement program for owner-occupied
housing
· A housing rehabilitation loan or grant program for rental housing
· A housing rehabilitation loan or grant program for owner-occupied housing
· A home improvement loan or grant program
· A home improvement resource center
· A local tool-sharing center or program
Each local initiative is worth 2 points.
V LIBIt. ARY-COMML .~D~,' PETERSON.;OO I',J I~t~PerfCrmt~la .0.q~) I Final DOC
Metropolitan Council
I to 5 points
I to 5 points
0 or 6 points
0 or 6 points
9. Density of residential development
The average net density of new (or re-use) sewered homing for which a
building permit was issued in the municipality in the two previous calendar
years.
The average net density for attached hou.sing units, i.e., units per acre
The average net density for detached housing units' (including detached
townhomes and manufactured homes), i.e., units per acre
(Unsewered communities will be scored separately from sewered
communities with a higher rank for lower net density.)
10.
The municipality's current zoning ordinance allows densities for residential
development consistent with densities set forth in the local comprehensive
plan revised pursuant to the 1995 I. atnd Planning Act amendments.
Therefore, at a minimum, the residential densities identified in the
comprehensive plan for the various residential land use categories are
achievable for anyone proposing residential development pursuant to the
zoning ordinance without a variance or exception.
11.
In the previous two calendar years, the municipality has approved (permits
may be drawn at any time) the development or local financial participation
in a proposed development of new affordable housing, or the involvement
of the municipality in the preservation and reinvestment in existing -
affordable housing - ownership or rental - which has not as yet been'
undertaken for reasons beyond the municipality's control.
Points will be awarded according to the number of units involved in the
proposal as follows:
2 points- less than 20 units
4 points- 20 to 39 units
6 points- 40 or more units
V J. IIIR J~RYt'OMMt'ND~'PEI'EK.e~O.N~0OI'JI~hneri~'ti~ena Of, O~OlIrinal DOC
Metropolitan Council
Memorandum
Date: August 17, 2001
To:
Frorm
Project:
Re:
Todd Gerhardt -City Manager - City of Chanhassen
Pat Mackey
Chanhassen Library
Schedule
MS&R
M~, $chemr& Rock. tie, Ltd.
Archly, Intarior Deaign
and Urban D~gn
119 North 2nd Strut
Minneapolis MN 55401.1~20
612 375.0336 phone
612 342,2216 fax
Todd:
The schedule for the phases of the Chanhassen Library is as follows:
Schematic Design:
Design Development:
Construction Documents:
Bidding and Negotiation:
Construction Administration:
01/23/01 - 05/29/01
05/30/01 - 08/31/01
09/01/01 - 01/14/02
01/15/02 - 02/12/02
02/13102 - 04116/03 (61 weeks estimated)
c:Xtemp~sched.doc
Equal Opportunity Employtr
SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION
Thursday, August 23, 2001 6:00 P.M.
Chaska/Brown Conference Room - Southwest Station
13500 Technology Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55344
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Nancy Tyra-Lukens, Chair;, Chad. Doekter, Vice-~ Randy
Herman, Treasurer; Bob Moeller, Secretary; Ron Case; Linda
Jansea; Dan Grote
ADVISORY BOARD:
Julie Hoium, Dave Lindahl
COMMISSION STAFF:
I. CALL TO ORDER
Len Sirnieh, Executive Director
Chuck Snyder, Operations and IS Coordinator
Bonnie Carlson, Finance Director
John Kragness, Planning and Administration Manager
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
III. PUBLIC COMMENT
IV. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS & OPERATING STATEMENT
V. NEW BUSINESS
VI.
,s~ Vanpool Lease (Kragnesa/Zutter) - To be presented at meeting
B. CMAQ Resolutions (Kxagness) - To be presented at meeting
C. 2002 Preliminary Budget (Simlch/Carlson)
D. Lighting Contract (Snyder/Reed) - To be presented at meeting
OLD BUSINESS
A. Fare Increase- Formal Adoption (Kr'agness) - To be presented at meeting
UPDATES
VIII.
IV.
COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF COMMENTS
Ch~k#
8464
8465
8466
8467
8468
8469
8470
8471
8472
8473
8474
8475
8476
8477
8478
8479
8481
8482
8487
8489
8491
8492
8493
8495
8496
8497
8498
8499
8500
6501
8502
8503
8505
8508
8507
8508
85O9
8510
8511
8512
8513
8514
8515
8516
8517
8518
6519
8521
6522
8523
8524
8525
8526
SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION
Clalm~ Paid 7ft/01-8/14/01
Vendor
Name D~eripflon
CITY OF CHASKA-UTILITY BILLING
VOID
VOID
SCOTT REED
LEN SIMICH
ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
VOID-Aatleford Equipment Company
ASTLEFORD EQUIPMENT COMPANY
AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES
BLOOMINGTON SECURITY SOLUTIONS
BOYER TRUCK PARTS
BFI
CALIFORNIA BUS SALES
BONNIE CARLSON
CATCO
CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL, INC.
CURTIS INDUSTRIES, INC
DEALER AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES
DIRECTV
EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ERNST ASSOCIATES
ESCHELON TELECOM, INC
EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS
FEDEX
FINAL GRADE, INC.
FLEET FUELING
GILLIG CORPORATION
GREAT RIVER ENERGY
HALLMAI}I OIL
HANCE COMPANIES
HARTLAND FUEL PRODUCTS
HOGLUND BUS COMPANY, INC
HUBER COMMERICAL SERVICES
INTERSTATE COMPANIES, INC.
KERN, DEWENTER, VIERE, LTD
KRAEMER'S TRUE.VALUE
JOHN KR. AGNESS
LABRECHE MURRAY, LLC
LAIDLAW TRANSIT SERVICES, INC.
VOID-NAPA
VOID-NAPA
NAPA
OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE CONSULTANTS
OFFICE DEPOT CARD PLAN
PJ ENTERPRISES OF THE LAKE
PLUNKE'ITS PEST CONTROL
PRO STAFF
QWEST
R&R CLEANING CONTRACTORS, INC.
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY-NTI
SMTC-PETTY CASH
SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING
STANDARD TRUCK & AUTO
SUBSTANCE ABUSE MANAGEMENT
TENANT SALES
TRANSCOM USA
VERIZON WIRELESS, BELLEVUE
W.W. GRAINGER, INC.
WASTE MANAGEMENT
WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT
XCEL ENGERGY
ZEP MANUFACTURING, CO.
May Utility Payment ~P&R
Expense Reimbursement-Mileage
Expense Relmbumement-ULI Meeting & Mileage
Paper Towels ~ Garage
Uniform Services
Vehicle Part.~
Dispatch Radio
Safe Flra Proof ~WS & Garage
Vehlcie Parts
Trash Removal ~}P& R, Garage
Vehicle Part~
Expense Relmbursement-APTA Risk Manegemont
Vehicle Parts & Supplies
Vehlcie Perta
Vehicle Supplies
Vehlcie Parts & Supplies
Cable Payment ~arage
Pmfesslonel Fee
SWS-Land~caplng Deeign
Phone Repair {~ Garage
Meseenger Services-Valley Fair
Fedex Services
10% Remaining from Canter Island Earthwork
Vanpool, SWS Car, Garage Van Fuel
Vehicle Parts
Summer Fun Brochure
Vehicle Supplies
Vehicle Parts
Diesel Fuel
Vehlcte Parts
Cleaning Services ~SWS
Vehicle Parts
Audit FY 2000
Vehlcie Supplies
Expense Relmbursernent
Annual Report 2000
June Operations
Vehicle Part~ & Supplies
Drug & Alcohol Tearing
Phone Supplies
Supplies ~arage
Peat Control ~SWS
Tamp Labor-Diepatch & Customer Service
Phone Payment
Rug Service
Transit Trainers workshop 2001-SL Louis-Tom J.
Petty Cash Relmbumemont
New~peper Subscription
Vehicle Parts
Drug & Alcohol
Outside Repair
Vehicle Parts
Cellular & After Hour Phone Payment
Supplies ~Garage
Trash Removal ~}SWS
Outside Repair
Utility Payment ~SWS, P&R
Vehicle Supplies
Check
Date
7/12/01
7/12/01
7/12/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7116/01
7/18/01
7/1 6/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7116/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/18/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/18/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7116/01
7/1 6/O 1
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
Check
Amount
61.21
71.07
187.76
175.52
936.10
2,493.16
517.54
1,644.17
474.82
310.74
1,299.58
1,162.44
165.25
121.42
721.55
283.24
45.78
225.00
3,115.81
159.56
8.42
115.12
820.00
2,432.37
3,528.70
1,760.18
506.62
3,814.23
6,168.38
221.34
1,398.83
26,922.72
2,250.00
48.05
74.17
1,463.05
181,992.08
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/18/O 1
7/16/01
7/16/O 1
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/16/01
7/18/01
7/18/01
7/1 6/01
989.76
30.00
127.78
48.35
108.63
2,925.64
2,091.42
17.04
95.00
32.08
40.00
33.25
70.50
1,156.31
320.33
102.08
95.43
510.26
116.06
8527
8528
8529
853O
8531
8532
8533
8534
8537
8538
8539
854O
8541
8542
8543
8544
8545
8546
8547
8548
8549
855O
8551
8552
8553
8556
8557
8561
8567
8569
8571
8573
8574
8575
8578
8581
8587
8589
8591
8595
SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION
Claims Paid 7/1/01-8/14~1
Vendor
Name
VOID
VOID
ALL SAFE FIRE & SECURITY
ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY
AQUA ENGINEERING, INC,
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
AT&T LONG-DISTANCE
BITSTREAM UNDERGROUND, INC,
BOYER TRUCK PARTS
BROW~NG FERRIS INDUSTRIE OF MN
BWBR ARCHITECTS
CALIFORNIA BUS SALES
CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE
COMPAR, INC.
CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL, INC.
DECORATIVE DESIGNS, INC
DIRECTV
STEVEN DZURAK
ERNST ASSOCIATES
ESCHELON TELECOM, INC
EVEREST INFORMATION SERVICES
FERRELLGAS
FUNDBALANCE, INC.
GILUG CORPORATION
HALLMAN OIL
HARMON INC.
HARTLAND FUEL PRODUCTS
HOME DEPOT GECF
HOS'I'Y EQUIPMENT OF MN
HUB KING, INC.
INTERSTATE COMPANIES, INC.
J & R RADIATOR, AC & EXHAUST
JOHNSON CONTROL, INC
JOHNSON RADIO COMMUNICATIONS
RUTHANN JOHNSON
KIRK PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, INC.
AMY KLEMM
LANG PAULY GREGERSON & ROSOW
LOWEN CORPORATION
MAINTENANCE FACIMTY CONSULTAN
MENTOR ENGINEERING
METRO TRANSIT
NICK NIELSON
PJ ENTERPRISES OF THE LAKES
JACK Po'Frs
PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN
PRINTING SYSTEM, INC.
PRO STAFF
QUILL CORPORATION
RELIANT ENERGY MINNEGASCO
RELIANT ENERGY RETAIL, INC.
STEVE RIDENAR
SNAP-ON TOOLS
SOURIYONG SOURIYA
SUNDE LAND SURVEYING, LLC
THERMO KING
TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY
TRANSCOM USA
TYSON TRINNEREIM
VOSS LIGHTING
VPSI INC.
W.W. GRAINGER, INC.
WALKER PARKING CONSULTING
ROBERT WORTHINGTON
XCEL ENERGY
DICK ZAI.LAR
ZlONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK
SUZANNE ZUT'I'ER
D.cHpflon
Paper tow~
Sprinkler ~rvlce~
Uniform Sen4c~
June payment ~748326
Int~'net Servlc~
Vehk:le
Tmah Contalrmr
Prof. fee Ihru June 30, 01
Yehk:ie
Vehide
HP 3200 Printer
Vehlcla Part~
July plant rn~lnter~nce
July payment ~7760409.
Expan~ P,~nb-vanrx~ w~h
4/20-7115 W & E Parldng
Vehlde Supplie~
Annual Soltwam rnalntenance
Vehide Part~
Vehicle Supfll~
Diesel Fuel '
Supplies
Vehlde parts
Vehlcla I~rt~
SWS Utlity Rework, EP1#00-177
Uniform Relmb-eho~
June ~1 Fee
2 $20 Supemaver Card Reimb
June Prof. fee-EPI
Annual Xgate malntenence fee
Stmed Value Card,
Uniform Reirn~-Shoes
Unlforrn Relmbumement-dmes
Temp labor-DAR
Uniform ~ment-pants
Vehlde too~
6/11-7/6 Profe~tonel fee '
Vehicle Par~
Vel~de Suppll~
Vehlde I~rl~
Uniform Rel~buraeme~
August Van I.eaae
Veh~e Suppa~
June Parking coneu~n~
June utl~ty ~.%"WS
Principal & Intere~ Sewer & Water Le~e
Expar~ R~nb-~la & parUn;
Check
Date
C~eck
Amoeat
120.00
60.92
393.77
593.92
72.O6
86.O0
678.14
40.00
11,137.98
133.04
45.84
112,138.78
2,498.77
19.38
9.00
2,117.23
4,500.00
32.01
1,799.00
2,212.45
1,681.00
6,318A7
224.15
1,265.28
903.18
1,132.44
139,079.00
4,015.00
17,804.16
208.82
4,364.12
4,511.00
2,413.61
117.93
130.64
3,166.24
132.48
71.49
49.98'
142.16
3,90254
36.10
497.72
11.94
1,528.63
11,786.52
53,629.00
1,000.00
4,092.05
35.07
90,843.93
130.02
Check
8597
8598
~99
~00
8603
86O5
~06
8607
~08
~09
~10
~11
~13
~14
~15
~16
8617
8618
~19
~21
8623
~24
8625
~26
~27
~28
~29
~31
8634
~35
~37
~38
~39
8640
8641
8642
8843
8645
8646
8647
8648
8649
8651
~52
~53
8654
~55
SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION
Claims Paid 7/1/01-8/14/01
Vendor
Name Description
RILEY PURGATORY CREEK WATERSHE
ANCHOR PAPER COMPANY
· ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
ASSOC CONSTR PUBL & CMD
Void
ASTLEFORD EQUIPMENT COMPANY
AT&T WIRELESS SERVICE
AUTO GLASS TODAY, INC.
BAUER BUILT, INC.
BIFFS, INC.
BOYER FORD BUS & COACH DIVISIO
BOYER TRUCK PARTS
CATCO
CHEMSEARCH
CITY OF CHASKA
CITY OF CHASKA UTILITY BILLING
Void
COACHCRAFTER, INC.
DIRECTV
EDEN PRAIRIE CHAMBER OF COMMER
ENTERPRISE FLEET SERVICE
ERNST ASSOCIATES
EVEREST INFORMATION SERVICES
EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS
FEDEX
FLEET FUELING
FRUEHAUF TRAILER SERVICES, INC
GILLIG CORPORATION
GRAY,PLANT, MOOTY & BENNE'I-I', P
HANCE COMPANIES
HARTLAND FUEL PRODUCTS
HUBER COMMERICAL SERVICES
J & R RADIATOR, AC & EXHAUST
Void
KERN, DEWENTER, VlERE, LTD
KRAEMER'S TRUE VALUE
LAIDLAW TRANSIT SERVICES, INC.
LEFFLER PRINTING COMPANY, INC.
LOWEN CORPORATION
MENTOR ENGINEERING
MN TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE
NORA MORRISON
Void
Void
NAPA
QUILL CORPORATION
R&R CLEANING CONTRACTORS, INC.
SNAP-ON TOOLS
SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISHING
SUNDE LAND SURVEYING, LLC
US LEASING & SALES
VAN PAPER COMPANY
VERIZON WIRELESS, BELLEVUE
W.W. GRAINGER, INC.
WASTE MANAGEMENT
WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LEASING
WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT
XCEL ENERGY
XPECT FIRST AID
Temp parking permit
Office supplies-CMAQ
Uniform Services
Ads for BId-Parldng lot (~S.W
Vehicle pert~
DIR:~atch Radio
Side Giases Installation
Vehicle Parts
Restroom supplles-Stata Felr
2 Champion challenger E-450
Vehicle parts
Vehicle parts
Vehicle parts
Annual Move InJout listing
June utility (~ P & R
Handrail Installed-two coaches
Aug cable, acct,027-008073294
7119 Luncheon rneetlng-CMAQ
Aug van lease
4/20-7/29 addlt consultant fee
Database consulting fee
Express Messenger Services
FedEx Services-Gerry Weiss
July fuel
Vehicle parts
Vehicle parts
4/12 thru 6/13 Legal Services
Vehicle parts
Diesel fuel
Monthly Cleaning ~SWS
Radiator repair order//0007337
FY 2000 Audit-Finel
Vehicle supplies
July Operation & G&A
Printing express schedule
Vinyl Graphics
MDC w/CDPD, MDC mounts
Annual member dues
2 ~$20 supers, a. ye passes relmb
Vehicle parts
Office supplies
July rug services
Shop tools storage unit
Adsi~-.,hanhessen viliager
7111-7/31 Professional fee
Body work on bus~1947 GMC
Restroom Supplies (~SWS
July cell phone use
Building supplies ~Garage
August trash removal (~SWS
Copier lease Acct#42276880
Vehicle parts
Utility ~SWS Street Lights
First ,Nd Kits
Check
Date
Check
Amount
6/1/01
6/14/01
6/14/01
6/14/01
8/14/01
6/14/01
6/14/01
6/14/01
8/14/01
6/14/01
6/14/01
6/14/01
6/14/01
6/14/01
8/14/01
6/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
6/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8~14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
6/14/01
8/1 4/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
6/14/01
600.00
767.89
251.91
247.76
2,489.82
239
1,060.95
150
120.91
119,160.00
1,713.40
953.55
268.18
60
82.03
1,880.32
45.78
42
3,644.50
490.88
2,200.00
67.34
14.96
2,006.89
6,026.71
1,119.85
8,977.60
1,151.05
12,154.51
1,570.88
1,352.24
1,250.00
51.82
162,243.23
1,579.00
2,451.12
4,325.00
265
TOTALS
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
8/14/01
981.62
73.36
17.04
2,236.50
1,129.50
1,450.20
6,584.64
128.3
317.94
34.66
787.04
49.55
493.84
79.98
, 11114r403.80
DO.
RECEIVED
AUG 2 ~ ZOO1
CITY OF
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CITY REPORTS
Office of County Sheriff
Carver County Government Ccnter
~ Justice Cente~
CARVER 600 East Fourth Street
COUNTY Chaska, Minnesota 55318-2 tgo
Bud Olson, Sheriff
Emergency: 911
SheriffAdmin: (952') 361-1212
Admin. Fax: (952) 361-1229
Dispatch: (952) 361-1231
(Non-Emergency)
Listed below is a description of each of the different classification of calls for service which the Carver County
Sheriff's Office received and processed for your area.
Criminal
Assault
Burglary
Drug Violation
Homicide
Traffic/Alcohol
Misc. Criminal
Property Damage
Robbery
Sex Crime
Theft
Theft Related
Vehicle Theft
Non-Criminal
Disturb Peace/Privacy
Misc. Non Criminal
Lock out
Alm'm
Domestic
Missing Persons/Runaway
Animal
Medical
House/Business Check
Assist other Agency
Fire Call
Prowler
Mental Health
Civil Process
Transport
Warrant Service
Boat and Water
Snowmobile
Gun Permit/Acquire
Gun Permit/Carry
Lock Post Office
Suspicious Activity
Open door
Auto Aced-Prop Damage
Auto Aced-Injury
Auto Aced -Fatal
Traffic
Special Traffic
Altercation between parties where actual physical harm occurred
Breaking into a residence or business
All drug violations, possession of, sale of, manufacture of or under the influence of.
Taking of a persons life
Traffic stops or accidents involving a driver under the influence
Minor offenses which include order of protection violations, warrant service, threats
and harassment, tobacco violations.
All damage to property includh!, g vandalism and trespassing on property
Taking of property in the presence of another with use of force
Rape, sexual abuse, indecent exposure and pornography
Taking of property
Credit card fraud, issuance of bad checks, counterfeiting, theft by swindle
Theft of a motor vehicle
Noise, harassing phone calls,
Citizen assists, lost and found property, general law enforcement questions, civil
matters, delivery of council packets, juvenile disciplinary problems etc.
Unlock doors of automobiles, residences or businesses for owners
Checking on an alarm at a private residence or business.
Verbal argument between parties
guvenile runaways or missing persons
Animal bites, stray animals
Assist persons with medical issues, natural cause deaths
Check 6n houses or businesses when owners are away from property
Assist other law enforcement offices; state patrol or governmerit departments
Fires and assist fire departments
Person on property who does not belong
Suicides, 72 hr holds for mental health issues.
Service of civil papers, assist with civil stand by situations
Transport persons for various reasons
Service a warrant for Carver County and other counties
All incidents involving boats or lakes
Ail incidents involving snowmobile
Issuance of a permit to purchase a handgun
Issuance of a permit to carry a handgun
Deputies lock post office buildings
Suspicious persons, acts or vehicles
Locating an open door to a business
Auto accident when only property damage occurred
Auto accident when injury and property damage occurred
Auto accident in which a fatality occurred
All traffic stops and calls, stalled vehicles, debris on the roadway
Radar wagon, special traffic details
Affirmative Action/Equal.Opportunity Employer
Prin'ted on 10% Post-Co~urner R,,cvt'l.rl Po.,..
CARVER COUN'rY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
AREA REPORT FOR CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CALLS FOR SERVICE FOR MONTH OF JULY
2001 2001 2000 2000
MONTHLY YTD MONTHLY YTD
CRIMINAL
Assault 2 23 9 34
Burglary 3 26 5 16
Drug Violation 6 18 3 14
Horn'cide 0 0 0 0
Traffic/Alcohol 21 94 13 89
Misc. Criminal 33 141 38 138
Property Damage 28 200 45 226
Robbery 0 4 0 1
Sex Crime 2 9 0 16
Theft 44 214 56 238
Theft/Related 0 14 2 12
iVehicle Theft 4 14 2 9
TOTAL CRIMINAL 143 757 173 793
NON-CRIMINAL
Disturb Peace/Privacy 67 270 44 243
Misc/Non criminal 70 447 77 408
Lock out 45 386 48 309
Alarm 85 561 106 524
Domestic 13 82 10 72
Missing Person/Runaways 6 46 8 53
Child Abuse/Neglect 2 41 2 36
Motorist Assist 24 206 28 148
Animal 36 226 45 248
Medical 45 285 39 245
, House/Business Check 0 23 5 28
Assist other Agency 4 48 10 58
Fire Call 23 152 32 158
Prowler 2 7 3 16
Mental Health 0 25 2 22
Civil Process 0 1 0 1
Transport 2 3 I 23
Warrant Service 7 26 3 14
Boat & Water 15 42 10 27
Snowmobile 0 20 0 0
Gun Permit/Acquire 3 69 9 60
Gun Permit/Carry 0 3 0 4
Lock Post Office 0 0 0 0
Suspicious Activity 91 488 62 342
,Open Door 4 19 2 7
Auto Accd- Prop Dam 40 302 41 279
Auto ._Aced__ - Injury 8 59 6 57
Fatal Auto Accd 0 0 0 0
Traffic 227 1593 137 846
Special Traffic 7 34 0 0
TOTAL NON-CRIM 826 5464 730 4228
ITOTAL REPORTED
0
CD
0
AGENDA FOR
AUGUST 21, 2001 MEETING
1. New roofs on all buildings.
2. New hot wate~ heamra ~ ami th~ old
3. New water s~ ~ysumm in all buildiaga.
5. Hook~ to city wamr and new mec~ for
6. New lintels to support exigdng balconi~.
7. 20 new exterior ~tairway~.
8. Re~mov~ existing blue fascia and install n~w decorative
fascia.
9. Re-til~ and r~a~t e~isting hallways and laundry moms
and r~~ int~-ior hallways.
10. C~ out and sh~t rock over e~isting loclmr room
11. Insp~t, r~air, or repla~ ~ smok~ ~ in units.
12. P,~p~ all expos~l conduit.
! 4.R~lac~ appmxima~y 170 refri~ and stove2 aM
appmxima~l¥ 20% of ~ conditioning units with
appliance.
1 $. R~znov~ 30 in~w and/or tmli~ ve~i¢l~s.
16; Replac~ 28 crack~ windows.
17. l~-scn~n 4~ ~ doors.
Work in Pro_m~n
Work in Pmm-e~s
Work in Prom'ess
Work in Prom'e, ss ~
Work in Pro_nl~S
Work in Prom-ess
August 21, 2001
Page 2
18. Replace I 1 .complete screen d~ors.
19. Replace 8 close, rs off ex'hting screen doors.
Work in Pro~ress
Work in Pro~ress
II. Additional Possible Improvements/Programs to be Discussed with City:
1. Take out all existing bushes and put in sod and place rock under the stairs and
prune existing trees (received bid; waiting to discuss with city).
2. Installation of 3 or 4 speed bumps leading up to the stop sign.
3. All the parking signs and parking poles taken down.
4. Painting the undersides of the balconies to prevent water damage/peeling.
S. Outsid~ lighting plans for the buildings including area where n~w steps are
being installed and formerly had.lighting on the stairs.
5. Possibility of perimeter fencing and shrubs around perimeter of property.
7. Possible building of 30 to 40 garages.
8. A program where criminal background checks and/or applications ~re copied
to the city.
9. Possibility of private security patrols on weekends.
10. Regular pm~2m for removal of unlic~scd and/or inoperable vehicles.
~ 11. Removal of heavy concrete decorative balcony railings and inst2]lation of
' more modern, ligh .t~r and a, !~t~'v~ aluminum or metal railings to match
fascia.
12. In addition to a program of providing criminal background checks and/or
cations to the city, a progrmu whereby any sheriff's visits are reported to
view Hills management and a program is coordinated so that
determination is ma& early on as to the proper disposition, including notice to
vacate and/or eviction.
As I advised in my 1uly 31, 2001 con~spondence, ~ ownership of Lakeview Nill~
AparUnents, and the management of The Rem,,~,, Company, is w/lli.g to and intends to do
whatever is requ/red to be in com?iiance w/th codes and ~rd/nances, given reasonable
requests and ~.asonable t/ming to do so by the City's staff. Nurther, as I nmnfioned
previously, we are willing to cousidm' daing more than what the .code and ~m//nances
sugooest if it is explained/n a manner so that we are able to ~ what the benefit would be
versus the expense.
Lastly, as set forth in my earlier letter, we would like to work out whatever ~enario makes
seine in order to work with the City to ensure that the type of tenant that we allow into the
nleX is the best possible tenant. Nurthenn~re, we would like to wo~ with the C/ty in
want to figure out a program with the City, as su~ above, to halp figure out when
mnants should not be living in ou~ complex aud how to preve~ mm~s who are not
residents from resid/ng at the complex. ~
SBL/dsc