CC Packet 2006 05 08AGENDA
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, MAY 8, 2006
CHANHASSEN MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
5:30 P.M. - CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, FOUNTAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
Note: If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the
remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda.
A. Discussion of Plans for Redevelopment of the Lakeview Hills Property (verbal).
6:15 P.M. – BOARD OF REVIEW & EQUALIZATION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
B. Final Action on Appeals Submitted to the Board of Review & Equalization.
7:00 P.M. – REGULAR MEETING, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance)
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will
be considered as one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is
desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City
council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for
each staff report.
1. a. Approval of Minutes:
- City Council Work Session Minutes dated April 24, 2006
- City Council Summary Minutes dated April 24, 2006
- City Council Verbatim Minutes dated April 24, 2006
- Board of Review Summary Minutes dated April 24, 2006
- Board of Review Verbatim Minutes dated April 24, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated April 18, 2006.
- Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated April 18, 2006.
- Park & Recreation Commission Summary Minutes dated March 28, 2006
- Park & Recreation Commission Verbatim Minutes dated March 28, 2006
b. 2006 Street Improvement Project 06-01: Call Assessment Hearing.
c. Hidden Creek Meadows: Approve Development Contract Assignment.
d. 2005 MUSA Project 06-05: Approve Change Order to Engineering Contract.
e. Chanhassen Lions Club: Approval of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for a
Softball Tournament at Lake Ann Park, June 24 & 25, 2006.
f. Item Deleted (Approval of Lease, Old Village Hall).
g. Call for Sale, 2006 G.O. Improvement Bonds.
h. Approval of Extension to Variance 05-10, 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard, Laura
Cooper.
i. Approval of Moving the Polling Location for Precinct 3 from Discovery United
Methodist Church to St. Hubert Church.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
2. State of the Agency Report, SouthWest Metro Transit, Len Simich.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Public Hearing on Lotus Lake Automatic Slow-No Wake Ordinance.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
4. Item Deleted (Liberty at Creekside, 1500 Pioneer Trail, Applicant: Town & Country
Homes: Request for Rezoning of Property from A-2 to PUD-R; Subdivision with
Variances of Approximately 36.01 Acres into 29 Lots, 5 Outlots, and Public Right-of-
Way; Site Plan Approval for 146 Townhouses; and a Conditional Use Permit for
Alterations within the Flood Plain and Development within the Bluff Creek Overlay
District.)
NEW BUSINESS
5. Green Gardens, 850 Flying Cloud Drive, Applicant: Keith Werner:
Request for an Amendment to Interim Use Permit 96-2 for Expansion of the
Wholesale/Retail Nursery Use.
6. The Preserve, 1630 Lyman Boulevard, Applicant: The Pemtom Land Company:
Request for Rezoning from A2 to PUD-R; Subdivision of Approximately 80 Acres into
156 single-Family Cluster Lots; Site Plan Review; Conditional Use Permit for
Development within the bluff Creek Overlay district and Alterations within the Flood
Plain; Wetland Alteratin Permit for Crossing bluff Creek; and Variances.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
CORRESPONDENCE SECTION
ADJOURNMENT
A copy of the staff report and supporting documentation being sent to the city council will be
available after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday. Please contact city hall at 952-227-1100 to verify that
your item has not been deleted from the agenda any time after 2:00 p.m. on Thursday.
GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting. In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City
Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. That opportunity is provided
at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations.
1. Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor.
When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the
City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City
Council.
2. If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson
that can summarize the issue.
3. Limit your comments to five minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If
you have written comments, provide a copy to the Council.
4. During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion.
Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough
understanding of your concern, suggestion or request.
5. Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual
either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed to the City
Manager.
Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Houlihan’s Restaurant & Bar, 530 Pond Promenade in Chanhassen immediately
after the meeting for a purely social event. All members of the public are welcome.
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
APRIL 24, 2006
The City Council held an executive session from 5:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. to receive an update
on the litigation with Kraus Anderson, Library Project.
Mayor Furlong called the work session to order at 6:00 p.m..
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
Peterson and Councilman Lundquist
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Greg Sticha, Paul Oehme
and Todd Hoffman
KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGY: MCCOMBS RETAIL MARKET STUDY.
Jim McCombs from The McComb Group gave a power point presentation outlining the findings
of their retail market study. The study showed where existing shopping areas are located in the
city and a breakdown of the composition of the different types of retail. He reviewed how the
new Highway 312 corridor will affect development. Survey results showed the percentage of
trade area versus inflow numbers and provided demand projections from previous census data.
Statistics are placing Chanhassen as a highly desirable location for convenience, downtown and
lifestyle trade areas. The downtown area does not need additional retail space, with the
exception of waiting to see what happens with the Chanhassen Dinner Theater. He talked about
future development sites in relation to Highway 312 and provide a definition of “lifestyle center”
and what type of stores tend to locate in lifestyle centers. The intersection of Highway 101 and
312 was identified as a convenience trade center area. Mayor Furlong asked about the amount of
square footage needed for a lifestyle center. Kate Aanenson informed the council that Mr.
McCombs would be giving the same presentation to the Chamber of Commerce at their luncheon
tomorrow, Tuesday, April 25th. Todd Gerhardt stated that the results of the study show that
Chanhassen does have a retail market and it is up to the City Council how they want to take
advantage of that market. Mr. McCombs stated that the downtown retail area will not be
affected by additional retail areas in other parts of the city.
Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session meeting at 6:30 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
APRIL 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
Peterson and Councilman Lundquist
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Greg Sticha, Paul Oehme,
Todd Hoffman, Jill Sinclair, and Roger Knutson
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong presented Certificates of Appreciation to
Marcus Zbinden and Kim Grant. Maple Leaf Awards were presented to Barbara “Bobbi”
Headla, Dale Geving and Uli Sacchet. For Arbor Day, May 6, 2006, Mayor Furlong invited the
residents of Chanhassen to the city’s celebration, read a proclamation declaring Saturday, May
6 th as Arbor Day and presented awards to the following Arbor Day Poster Contest winners. The
grand prize winner was Hannah Weiby. Runners-up were Jimmy Spinner, Luke Miller, Jordan
Golberg, Venessa Phommauong, Elly Drych and Jenna Mady.
Resolution #2006-30: Mayor Furlong moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to
approve a Proclamation declaring Saturday, May 6th as Arbor Day in the city of
Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s
recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated April 10, 2006
-City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated April 10, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated April 4, 2006
b. Approve Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, St. Hubert Catholic Community, August 19
20, 2006
c. Approve Amendment to Development Contract for Liberty at Bluff Creek as amended.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
City Council Summary – April 24, 2006
2
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Sergeant Jim Olson presented
the Sheriff’s Office area report, area citation list, and Community Service Officer report for the
month of March. Councilman Lundquist asked Sergeant Olson to comment on the percentage of
time deputies are spending on traffic on neighborhoods roads versus the other major roadways.
Councilwoman Tjornhom asked if the traffic enforcement targeted on Powers Boulevard has
helped. Under miscellaneous items, Sergeant Olson reported on thefts from mailboxes and
vehicles around the city, dogs running loose in parks, restrictions against the use of air soft and
BB guns in the city, and the Highway 212/312 construction zone being posted no trespassing.
Assistant Chief Walsh gave the monthly update from the fire department. Mayor Furlong asked
Assistant Chief Walsh to explain how residents can apply if they’re interested in joining the fire
department.
AWARD OF BIDS: BANKING SERVICES CONTRACT. Greg Sticha presented the staff
report on this item, recommending the City Council approve a 3 year contract with Americana
Community Bank.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
accept a contract with Americana Community Bank for a three year banking services
contract. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
LIBERTY AT CREEKSIDE, 1500 PIONEER TRAIL, APPLICANT TOWN &
COUNTRY HOMES: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO
PUD-R; SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 36.01 ACRES
INTO 29 LOTS, 5 OUTLOTS, AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE PLAN
APPROVAL FOR 146 TOWNHOUSES; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
ALTERATIONS WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE
BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Chris Moehrl Westwood Professional Services
Kevin Clark Town and Country Homes
Shawn Siders Town and Country Homes
Tom Whitlock Damon Farber Associates
Steve Thatcher Thatcher Engineering
Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report noting that this item was table at the April 10th meeting
to look at park design, architecture and road access to the north. Commissioner Lundquist asked
for clarification on the wetland mitigation measures being discussed with MnDot. Shawn Siders
with Town and Country Homes explained the work they did over the last couple weeks
City Council Summary – April 24, 2006
3
reviewing secondary access to the site, including a totlot, and architectural detailing for the
project. Councilman Peterson asked for clarification on the number of Concord and Premiere
units in the other Town and Country development. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked the applicant
to explain what architectural changes have occurred since the last meeting. Mayor Furlong
asked the applicant to show elevations and views from the different units on the site.
Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for clarification on the location of retaining walls and possible
impact on trees. Councilman Peterson asked the applicant to review the views of the buildings
from Highway 212 and other roads. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked staff to talk about the
access to the site and clarify what are the best options. Mayor Furlong invited the public to
speak. Steve Thatcher with Thatcher Engineering and Tom Whitlock with Damon Farber
Associates spoke on behalf of the Fox properties, specifically addressing the secondary access
road. Mr. Thatcher showed on the map where he would propose the secondary access road be
located connecting to Pioneer Trail. Staff and the council discussed at length the impacts of
locating a road to the south versus the north. Council discussed and commented on the access
issues, park and design issues. Kevin Clark, Vice President of Land Development for Town and
Country Homes asked the council to take into consideration the improvements they have made
above and beyond what was required. The City Attorney suggested if the council is going to
table the item, that the applicant sign a extension of time.
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council
table action on Liberty at Creekside, Planning Case No. 05-24. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PIONNER PASS, 1600 PIONEER TRAIL, APPLICANT SEVER PETERSON:
REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM
RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY AND OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL-
LOW DENSITY (APPROXIMATELY 43 ACRES); REZONING FROM
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO RESIDENTIAL LOW AND MEDIUM
DENSITY DISTRICT (RLM); PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PIONEER PLASS
CREATING 82 LOTS, 8 OUTLOTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PUBLIC STREETS
(APPROIXMATELY 73 ACRES); CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT WITH A
VARIANCE FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO THE PRIMARY ZONE; AND WETLAND
ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE GRADING AND FILLING OF WETLANDS AT
FUTURE HIGHWAY 312.
Public Present:
Name Address
Joel Cooper JRH Inc.
John Chadwick J. Edwin Chadwick LLC
Paul Bilotta HMI Development
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item.
Councilman Peterson asked for clarification on side yard setback requirements in the city
City Council Summary – April 24, 2006
4
compared to this development. John Chadwick, 11430 Zion Circle, Bloomington, Minnesota,
speaking on behalf of the applicant, reviewed the features of the application. Commissioner
Lundquist asked staff to comment on landscaping or buffering requirements between residential
and commercial/industrial land to the south. Mayor Furlong expressed concerned with the side
yard setbacks and requested they be increased from 5 and 10 to 10 and 10. After council
comments and discussion the following motions were made.
Resolution #2006-31: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the
City Council approve the comprehensive plan Land Use Amendment from Residential –
Medium Density and Office/Industrial to Residential - Low Density of the land within the Plat
of Pioneer Pass except for Outlots A, B, C, D and G contingent on Metropolitan Council
review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve
the Rezoning of the land within the Plat for Pioneer Pass except for Outlots A, B, C, D and G,
Pioneer Pass, from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Residential Low and Medium Density
District, RLM. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve
Preliminary Plat for “Pioneer Pass” creating 81 lots, 9 outlots and right-of-way for public
streets, plans prepared by James R. Hill, Inc., dated 2/3/06, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The developer shall prepare a noise analysis for noise that will be generated by traffic on
Highway 312 and Pioneer Trail. The analysis shall identify appropriate noise mitigation
measures to meet noise standards for residential homes.
2. The developer shall pay $21,547.00 as their portion of the 2005 AUAR.
3. The applicant shall plant 369 trees within the development, 98 overstory and required buffer
yard plantings trees along Collector Road D and buffer yard plantings for lots along the
south property line.
4. Each lot shall have a minimum of two overstory deciduous trees planted in the front yard.
5. The applicant shall install the total required buffer yard along Collector Road D or show
proof of berm height of 3 feet or higher along the length of the street and adjust the
quantities of understory and shrubs accordingly.
6. The applicant shall development a restoration plan including native plants for the Bluff
Creek Overlay district north of Block 1. The plant species shall be selected from the Bluff
Creek Management Plan Appendix C. The final plan must be reviewed and approved by the
city before installation.
7. Signage for the Bluff Creek Overlay District must be posted on every other property corner
where residential yards meet the primary zone.
City Council Summary – April 24, 2006
5
8. The 950 contour shall be extended over lots 5 and 6, block 3 to provide more coverage from
headlights for those homes.
9. Dedication of Outlots A and G shall be made to the city or a conservation easement shall be
established over said outlots.
10. The developer shall designate a 4.72 acre neighborhood park site, Outlot H. This
property shall be transferred to the city by warranty deed with 3.79 acres of the site being
dedicated/ donated by the applicant/owner and the remaining 0.93 acres being purchased
by the City of Chanhassen. The city shall compensate the owner/applicant $218,550 in
total compensation for said 0.93 acres.
11. The developer shall rough grade and cover seed the park site and construct a 20 stall parking
lot for an additional not to exceed payment of $50,000 from the city. The parking lot shall
include insurmountable curb. Construction plans for all improvements within the borders of
the park shall be submitted to the Park & Recreation Director for approval prior to initiating
construction of these improvements. All material and labor costs are reimbursable. Design,
engineering, and testing services associated with these improvements shall be provided by
the applicant.
12. The applicant shall submit a complete wetland replacement plan and must receive
approval of the replacement plan prior to alteration of wetlands. Wetland replacement
shall occur in a manner consistent with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
13. Wetland mitigation shall not be proposed for the northeast corner of the site in order to
ensure adequate area for a road connection to the property to the east of the site.
14. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around all Ag/Urban wetlands. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved,
surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall
install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction
begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall be set back 40 feet from the
edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback shall be shown on the plans.
15. Any areas on the property that meet the City’s criteria for bluffs (i.e., slope greater than
or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe) shall be preserved. In
addition, all structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading
may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet
from the top of a bluff). The plans shall be revised to show any areas meeting the City’s
bluff criteria.
16. No alterations shall be permitted within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of
the setback from the primary corridor without a variance. All structures must meet the
City Council Summary – April 24, 2006
6
40-foot setback from the primary corridor.
17. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm water management along the southwest
property line of Lots 25-31, Block 2 is adequate to prevent drainage issues for future
homeowners.
18. The outlet for Pond 2 shall be moved westward to increase the flow distance between the
inlet and outlet structures.
19. Drainage and utility easements with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be provided over
all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as public value credit
and storm water infrastructure.
20. Energy dissipation shall be provided at the flared-end section inlet to Pond 2 within 24
hours of installation. Additional blanket shall be provided for storm sewer installation
area for inlet infrastructure to Pond 2. The access area shall be protected with erosion
control blanket upon the establishment of final grade. Erosion control blanket shall be
used on the slopes within Lots 31-24, Block 2. Mulch shall be substituted for the blanket
proposed for the berm area of Block 3 along Street D.
21. Temporary sediment basins shall be provided in existing watersheds 1 and 3 during mass
grading activities. Where 10 acres or more of exposed area come to a discernable point
of discharge to a wetland or waterway, a temporary basin shall be provided. The
proposed storm water basins in proposed drainage areas 2, 6 and 7 shall be temporary
sediment basins until the contributing areas are stabilized. The temporary outlets could
be installed in place of the permanent outlets.
22. Perimeter control (silt fence) shall be installed prior to grading along the south side of the
Street D and CSAH 14 (Pioneer Trail) intersection. All silt fences near flared-end
sections shall be installed up and around flared-end sections so water is not discharged
against the silt fence, causing it to fail.
23. An outlet area shall be defined for the two areas labeled as temporary sedimentation
basins during the rough grading/subcut street phase of development. Any shredded wood
material from tree removal shall be saved for temporary mulch berms/vehicle exit pads as
needed. Typical silt fence shall be installed prior to initial rough grading activities along
the west side of Outlot H to the proposed “street by others.”
24. The total SWMP fee shall be paid to the City at the time of final plat recording. The
estimated total SWMP fee at this time is $165,600.
25. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction Permit), Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (dewatering permit), Army Corps of Engineers) and
comply with their conditions of approval.
City Council Summary – April 24, 2006
7
26. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
27. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
28. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new
roadways allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4.
29. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of
fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
30. Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
31. Fire hydrant spacing is unacceptable. Locate fire hydrants at intersections and in cul-de-sacs
and at 300 foot spacing. Most spacing is in excess of 400 to 500 feet at this time. Submit
revised fire plans to Fire Marshal for review and approval.
32. Before site grading commences, the existing building and driveway access off Pioneer Trail
onto the property must be removed.
33. On the grading plan, add a note to remove any existing house and driveway access.
34. The developer’s engineer must work with Liberty on Bluff Creek’s engineer to ensure that
the proposed grading on each property matches at the property line.
35. Ground slopes shall not exceed 3:1.
36. A minimum 75-foot long rock construction entrance must be shown on the plans.
37. Retaining walls must be designed by a structural engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota and require a building permit if greater than 4 feet in height.
38. The developer shall work with MnDOT to move the access at Pioneer Trail so that it aligns
with the MnDOT’s street on the south side. The access to Pioneer Trail shall be constructed
in conjunction with the first phase of the development.
39. The property is also subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for all of the lots.
The 2006 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,575 per unit for sanitary sewer and $4,078 per
unit for water. The 2006 SAC charge is $1,625 per unit.
City Council Summary – April 24, 2006
8
40. The Arterial Collector Roadway Fee of $2,400/developable acre will need to be paid at the
time of final plat recording.
41. All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and 10:1 benches at the NWL. Revise accordingly.
42. All of the proposed housepads must have a rear yard elevation of at least three feet above
the HWL of the adjacent ponds.
43. Storm sewer calculations and drainage map must be submitted with the final plat
application. The storm sewer must be designed to accommodate a 10-year, 24-hour storm
event.
44. The last public stormwater structure that is road-accessible prior to discharging to a water
body must have a 3-foot sump pump.
45. Future utility service and access to Outlot B needs to be determined prior to final plat.
46. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump
discharge from homes.
47. Add catch basins in the back yards of Lots 1-15, Block 3 connecting to Street C storm
sewer. Also add a catch basin along Street A in front of Lots 25-28 and between Lots 15 &
16 and 4 & 5, Block 1.
48. All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
49. The catch basin between Lots 6 & 7 must be built with two inlet openings.
50. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal.
51. An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading.
52. 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.
53. Utility services for the buildings must be shown on the final utility plan. Sanitary services
must be 6-inch PVC and water service must be 1-inch copper, Type K and will require a
City Building Department inspection.
54. Extend the silt fence along the south to the back yard of Lot 25, Block 1.
55. No retaining wall is allowed within any drainage and utility easement. Revise the retaining
wall between Lots 22, 23 and 24, Block 2, accordingly.
City Council Summary – April 24, 2006
9
56. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security
in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements
and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility
improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance.
57. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required prior to construction,
including but not limited to MPCA, NPDES, MnDOT, Department of Health, Carver
County and Watershed District.
58. Reroute the sanitary sewer from Street A and the north-south corridor intersection to
minimize the sewer depth. Relocate the southern sanitary sewer out of the stormwater pond
easement at Outlot E.
59. Add a pressure relief valve to the watermain along Street D between Outlots E and F. This
will be a City improvement cost but installed by at the time of development.
60. In-home pressure reducing water valves may be required on all lots with a lowest floor
elevation of 930 or less. Final determination for the need of in-home pressure reducing
valves will be made by the City at time of building permit.
61. The applicant shall coordinate with the developer of the adjacent properties in the northeast
corner of the site the dedication of public street right-of-way to provide access from the
parcel to the north to the parcel to the east and revise the plans accordingly.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve
Wetland Alteration Permit for the grading and filling of wetlands on property subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit a complete wetland replacement plan and must receive
approval of the replacement plan prior to alteration of wetlands. Wetland replacement
shall occur in a manner consistent with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
2. Wetland mitigation shall not be proposed for the northeast corner of the site in order to
ensure adequate area for a road connection to the property to the east of the site.
3. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around all Ag/Urban wetlands. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved,
surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall
install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction
begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall be set back 40 feet from the
edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback shall be shown on the plans.”
City Council Summary – April 24, 2006
10
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve
Conditional Use Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District with a
variance for encroachment in to the primary zone to construct a storm water pond subject to
the following conditions:
1. Dedication of Outlots A and G shall be made to the city or a conservation easement shall
be established over said outlots.
2. Any areas on the property that meet the City’s criteria for bluffs (i.e., slope greater than
or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe) shall be preserved. In
addition, all structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading
may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet
from the top of a bluff). The plans shall be revised to show any areas meeting the City’s
bluff criteria.
3. No alterations shall be permitted within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of
the setback from the primary corridor without a variance. All structures must meet the
40-foot setback from the primary corridor.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Councilman Lundquist asked Todd Hoffman and Sergeant
Olson to discuss the incident which occurred at the skate park and what options are available to
the council to ensure that the city provides a safe place for kids to use the skate park.
Councilwoman Tjornhom asked how juvenile incidents at the skate park compared to other parks
in the city, i.e. Lake Ann and Lake Susan and suggested the option of installing a surveillance
camera. Todd Hoffman suggested addressing the issues of underage smoking and loitering.
Councilman Lundquist asked that the issue of the skate park be discussed at an upcoming work
session.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: None.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at
10:50 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
Peterson and Councilman Lundquist
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Greg Sticha, Paul Oehme,
Todd Hoffman, Jill Sinclair, and Roger Knutson
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF
APPRECIATION AND MAPLE LEAF AWARDS TO OUTGOING COMMISSION
MEMBERS.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening and welcome to everybody here with us in the
council chambers, as well as those watching at home. At this time I would ask if there are any
modifications to the agenda that was distributed? If not, we’ll proceed with that agenda without
objection. I’d like to start this evening, we have a number of presentations that we want to make
to some volunteers for the city, as well as an upcoming Arbor Day celebration, so at this point
I’m going to come down to the middle and we’ll get started. I’d like to start this evening by
recognizing some volunteers, some residents that have volunteered their service, hours to our
city commissions. We have a couple people that have served and will receive a Certificate of
Appreciation. Both of them have served on our Environmental Commission. The first is Marcus
Zbinden. Marcus is here. Good evening. Come on up. Marcus was appointed to the
Environmental Commission in 2002 and he served as Chair of that commission for most of the
time. He’s been involved in the review and analysis of our single sort recycling, partnership and
grant application with the Arboretum for wind turbine. He’s also involved with the landscape
class series out at the Arboretum and Recycling Days. So Marcus, we appreciate your service
very much and would like to give you this Certificate of Appreciation. We also have with us this
evening Kim Grant. Hi Kim. Kim was appointed to the Environmental Commission in 2002 and
while serving on the commission she was involved with the City for Arbor Day event, our
Environmental Excellence Award program, new resident environmental information packet and
Chanhassen Day at the Arboretum as well so Kim, thank you very much for your service.
Appreciate it. We also have some Maple Leaf Awards this evening. Maple Leaf Award is an
award the City gives to those residents that have served for over 5 years on various commissions.
We have 3 that we’re going to give out this evening, which is always fun to recognize people for
their service but it’s sad in that they’re not going to be serving in the same capacity as they have
before. The first is Bobbi Headla. Good evening Bobbi. Bobbi’s been a commissioner on the
Senior Commission since 1994 and over the last 12 years has assisted the City in building our
new senior center. She was part of the team that worked on it’s expansion, and implementation
of the information referral, Senior Linkage Line program. Made senior housing a reality in our
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
2
city. Provide senior parking at public buildings. Participated in intergenerational activities,
congregate dining. You did a lot.
Bobbi Headla: I guess I’d like to thank the City Council and the Senior Commission for
allowing me to spend all these years on this commission. I learned a lot about Chanhassen. I
made a lot of good friends and I hope I can continue to go out to lunch with them.
Mayor Furlong: Also this evening we’ll be presenting a Maple Leaf Award to Dale Geving.
Dale, good evening. So good to see you. Dale is a commissioner on our Senior Commission
since 1995 and over the last 11 years he served as Chair of that commission for 2000 to 2004.
Good evening. Very good to see you. He was involved in the expansion of our senior center and
senior parking at public buildings, Meals on Wheels and congregate dining and we appreciate his
leadership on our Senior Commission for those many years, so Dale thank you very much.
Dale Geving: Thank you. And thank you Todd.
Todd Gerhardt: You bet. Thank you for everything you’ve done. Is that your second one?
Dale Geving: My second one.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Also this evening we’d like to welcome Uli Sacchet. Uli, good
evening. Uli has served our city for 15 years. First as a member of the Recycling Committee,
which no longer exists but became part of the Environmental Commission. He served on the
Recycling Committee from ’91 to ’95. The Environmental Commission from ’96 to 2000. Our
Planning Commission from 2000 to 2006. You were Chair of the Planning Commission I think
for the last 3 of those years? Does that sound right?
Uli Sacchet: Something like that. A bunch of years.
Mayor Furlong: A bunch of years. As a member of the Recycling Committee he was
instrumental in implementing the city wide recycling program. Major accomplishments with the
Environmental Commission include a recycling hotline, Arbor Day activities, Highover wetland
restoration, implementation of the Environmental Excellence Awards, and championed various
work regarding the Seminary Fen. As a Planning Commissioner Uli held the position of Chair
for the past 3 years, it says right here. Major accomplishments include implementation of the
AUAR for the 2005 MUSA area, city code update, multi-family design standards as well as a
number of other major developments within the city. Uli, we thank you for your many years of
service.
Uli Sacchet: Thank you. I just want to thank everybody for making this a very pleasant
experience. It was really the way, the reason I got involved was because I saw that the process
really works here. I got involved with a small issue and I was impressed how everybody was
heard and in the end that a solution was found and I worked for that and I’m sure you continue
that way. Thank you so much.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
3
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you Mr. Gerhardt. I’m going to stay right down here
because the next item on our agenda deals with upcoming Arbor Day celebration. Over the years
our citizens surveys have demonstrated the evidence, emphasis that our residents place on open
space, trees, natural beauty in our city. The last 10 years the City of Chanhassen has been
celebrating Arbor Day each spring. Longer than any other city in Carver County has received
the honor of being a Tree City USA city. I’d like to invite all residents, their families and friends
to Chanhassen’s Arbor Day celebration this year, which will be held on Saturday, May 6th at the
Chanhassen Library at our City Center Park. In the morning volunteer groups will be cleaning
local parks and gathering for an appreciation luncheon at noon. If you have a group that’s
interested in helping out we would encourage you to contact Jill Sinclair at the City Hall. There
are a number of parks that are available for scout groups, school groups, church groups, to help
clean up the parks. It’s a great way to be involved. At 10:00 a.m. the Arbor Day events get
underway with a variety of presentations and activities for children, families, gardeners,
arborists. There’s something for everybody. The tree sale will go on again this year will include
some white pines and some crab apples trees as well as others. Outside the Arbor Day tent in our
City Center Park kids and adults will be able to plant seeds and work on various activities. I
would encourage people to come to this free and fun event. If you’re interested in a full list of
the activities and times, please check out the Chanhassen Villager or the city’s web site. As part
of our Arbor Day events we’ve prepared, I’ve prepared a proclamation declaring Saturday, May
6, 2006 as Arbor Day in the city of Chanhassen, which I’ve added to tonight’s consent agenda
for our council’s consideration and approval. Also as part of our Arbor Day celebration our
Environmental Commission works with and coordinates an annual Arbor Day poster contest.
This year we received over 79 entries from fifth grade classes from Bluff Creek Elementary, St.
Hubert’s School and Chanhassen Elementary. The Environmental Commission met and chose
the winners at their regular meeting. I’d like to tonight, we have a number of the winners here
this evening. Have them come up and join me. Jill, if you’d like to come up as well, and then do
we have members of our Environmental Commission here as well? Hi. Come on up. What
we’ll do is we’ll have the children come up and then we’ll take one picture of the whole group
when we’re done. The grand prize winner, who will receive a gift certificate for a tree donated
from Lotus Lawn and Garden, have her poster framed and hung in City Hall with past winners is
Hannah Weiby. Hi Hannah. I’d also like to invite up some runners-up, and I’ll have them come
up as well. They receive coupons for trees. Again available at our Arbor Day event. Jimmy
Spinner. Is Jimmy here? Luke Miller. Jordan Golberg. Vanessa Phommauong. Hi guys.
Congratulations. Elly Krych and Jenna Mady. Let’s give them a round of applause.
Resolution #2006-30: Mayor Furlong moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to
approve a Proclamation declaring Saturday, May 6th as Arbor Day in the city of
Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s
recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated April 10, 2006
-City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated April 10, 2006
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
4
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated April 4, 2006
b. Approve Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, St. Hubert Catholic Community, August 19
20, 2006
c. Approve Amendment to Development Contract for Liberty at Bluff Creek as amended.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you and good night, or good evening. Haven’t started yet, I can’t say
good night yet. For the council I have the sheriff’s office area report for the month of March.
The area citation list for the month of March and the Community Service Officer report, and I
have a couple miscellaneous items I’d like to cover also. Reference the monthly numbers. We
had 114 criminal calls last month, and those consisted of 38 Part I and 36 Part II crimes, and this
compares to 80 total criminal calls last year. Breaking that down a little bit, we had 27 thefts and
9 theft related calls last month, and this compares to 16 and 3 last year respectively. 11 of the
theft calls that we had last month were gas drive off’s. With the price of gas going up, we have
certainly seen an increase in that. Our traffic related alcohol arrests were also up this year from 4
last year to 11 this year. Non-criminal calls, we had 1,136 last month, which compares to 849
from last year. The biggest change in this category was traffic stops, which was 468 for March,
and that compares to 250 for March of last year. We’ve added two deputies, one being a traffic
education car that we did not have last year at this time, which accounts for that. Other
noticeable changes were we had 103 miscellaneous traffic calls last month, which compares to
103 last year and the motorist assists were 67 last month compared to 42 last year. And with the
rough weather in March with a lot of cars in ditches and so on. Our medical calls, we had 56 last
month compared to 33 last year. Any questions at all on the monthly numbers?
Mayor Furlong: Questions for Sergeant Olson?
Sgt. Jim Olson: And now I’ll go to a couple other topics I have.
Councilman Lundquist: Sergeant Olson as you look at the traffic stops, any idea, and as I look
through the citation list there, on the percentage of time that the deputies specifically on traffic
are spending in neighborhoods and some of those you know neighborhood roads versus say you
know Highway 5 and 101 and some of the other major roadways.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Sure. I have certainly stressed neighborhoods and some of the local roads as far
as the traffic enforcement. I also tried to target where we get a lot of complaints. You’ll see a
lot of citations for Powers Boulevard and we’ve had a number of complaints about speed along
there, especially south of Highway 5. We’ve been hitting that pretty hard. You also see quite a
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
5
few on Bluff Creek. We had some on Minnewashta Parkway. There were some on Pleasant
View Road so we try to hit the target areas or the areas where we get the most complaints at.
You know we target some different stop signs also, different neighborhoods you know around
the city that we’ve had some complaints.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Sgt. Jim Olson: For a percentage standpoint, I don’t have that information with me so.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, thank you.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have one question.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes ma’am.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: By stopping traffic violators from speeding on Powers Boulevard, do
you think it’s solving the problem? People are slowing down or are they just taking their tickets
and driving off.
Sgt. Jim Olson: What I am hoping that we can do, or what I plan on us doing is doing a speed
survey along there with tubes coming up here in the next month or so. With the city putting out
some tubes and us being able to track that somewhat. It does seem like it has slowed down.
We’ve done a lot of the traffic enforcement on that road, but I’d like to get some hard numbers
before I say that for sure. A couple other things I’d like to cover tonight. We had some reports
of theft of mailboxes. Or excuse me, theft from mailboxes. Of mail in the past month. The
residents are mailing checks or putting outgoing mail into their mailbox. Sometimes those
involve bills or birthday cards or whatever, and checks are being stolen. It is very easy to go to
a, any type of a software retailer and buy software to make your own checks up. They then have
your, you know when they steal your checks, they then have your routing number and your
account number and can make up their own checks. I would recommend for residents to mail
their mail, or put their mail into the post office drop boxes or drop boxes that are around the city
rather than in your own mailboxes. Putting up that flag. That flag tends to be a bullseye for
people that are looking to steal mail. That is under investigation. We’ve got some good leads,
but we had the same thing last year about the same time. You know I’d recommend that people
mail their mail at the post office or drop boxes. We also had a few thefts from vehicle at some
different areas around the city. Again I would recommend people take items out of their car and
bring them to the house or put them in their trunk if they’re out on a walk or whatever and don’t
leave them in plain site. In your vehicle. Mr. Mayor, you talked a little bit about having a park
clean-up day. I wanted to kind of transition into that a little bit and talk about dogs in parks.
Dogs are not allowed in the city parks. They can be walked on trails through the park as long as
they are leashed, and you also need to have a bag with you and clean up after your dog, and dogs
must also be licensed. We have had a number of complaints about dogs running loose in city
parks over the past couple of weeks. And I wanted to talk just briefly on air soft and BB guns
and just remind residents of that. These types of guns cannot be used anywhere in the city,
including on your own property. We just had a complaint over the weekend where somebody
saw some individuals by some construction equipment on the new 212/312 construction area and
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
6
it looked like one of them had a rifle, and that concerned the citizen. So they called us. We got
there and the kids took off running. We observed what appeared to be a rifle also. They
eventually turned up, or caught up to them. It turned out to be 3 juveniles. One was 16. I think
the other two were 15 with an air soft rifle and then 3 handguns. Or what appeared to be hand
guns. They were air soft handguns also, and our officers couldn’t tell the difference you know
between them and a real gun. You know this certainly could have led to a tragic situation that
we don’t want to see, so take a look at what your kids are out playing with and the Highway
212/312 construction area is all posted no trespassing as well and people should not be driving
around out there or playing out in that area at all. There are some dangerous areas out there and
they need to be careful so. Anything else from me at all this evening?
Mayor Furlong: Anything for Sergeant Olson? Very good, thank you.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Okay, thank you. Have a nice evening.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. We’ll now hear an update from our fire department. Assistant
Chief Walsh is here. Good evening.
Assistant Chief Walsh: Good evening. I’m sorry that your agenda says Greg. Chief Greg. I’m
not Chief Greg.
Mayor Furlong: You’re better looking.
Assistant Chief Walsh: Thank you. Just quickly want to let you know that as of April 16th we
responded to 138 calls for the year. Over the same date as last year 150 so we’re a little under.
We currently have 46 active fire fighters and we’re looking at extending our membership to 3
more, probably late summer. In preparation for some potential retirements. April 6th was our
first weather spotting event of the season. One week prior to our weather watch week. We are
anticipating probably a busy summer like we had last. All fire fighters are trained in weather
spotting and we do position ourselves out amongst the city, looking at the sky and being those
trained eyes for the weather service in Chanhassen so it is something that we are involved in.
And then as far as fire training, we have our probationary fire fighters that have completed fire
fighter I and II as well as their hazmat training. They will be hitting their 1 year mark May 1st
and so we’ll be welcoming them on as full time members. And then our 2 rookies are finishing
up the first set of their fire fighter I classes. They’ll be done in about 4 weeks. Any questions?
Mayor Furlong: With regard to adding, you said you might add another 3 fire fighters later this
summer. I don’t know if they’ve been identified yet but if people are interested in serving, how
would they go about?
Assistant Chief Walsh: They can call City Hall and ask for Mark Littfin or Ed Coppersmith to
submit an application. The other thing I need to remind the citizens of is that the State has issued
a statewide burning ban, so until further notice there should be no burning in the city.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any questions?
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
7
Assistant Chief Walsh: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you.
AWARD OF BIDS: BANKING SERVICES CONTRACT.
Greg Sticha: Good evening Mayor and members of council. In December of 2005 the current
banking contract the city has with M&I Bank expired. As is a recommended best practice in
government standards, every 3 years professional services should be reviewed and bids should be
taken on those services. In February the finance staff and a selection committee was formed to
evaluate bank RFP proposals for banking services. The proposals, the banks were contacted in
February and had a requested deadline date of March 31st to submit proposals. In that time we
also conducted a pre-bid meeting to evaluate or let them know some of the list of criteria that the
committee was considering. After we contacted the 8 local banks in the community we received
proposals from 6 of them. Those proposals came in from M&I, US Bank, KleinBank,
Americana Community Bank, TCF Bank and Community Bank Chanhassen. The criteria for
evaluating initial proposals was to first have an account that had limited or no fees for any type
of transaction. Second preference was also to have an account that, if possible, had as low
minimum balance, and third, competitive interest rate on that balance was requested as much as
possible. We did take into account other factors, such as cut off times and deposits for deposits
and wires. After reviewing the initial proposals, the committee selected or narrowed down the
list to 3 preferred vendors. KleinBank, M&I Bank and Americana Community Bank. As the
city currently has it’s bank account with M&I Bank, the committee decided to make site visits to
the other banks, KleinBank and Americana Community Bank to attempt to gain a perspective on
the customer service that each of those institutions could provide, as well as give them a chance
to demonstrate their internet capabilities for providing services, and just generally make a sales
pitch to the committee. After making the site visits, the committee decided that of the two visits
that were made, it was felt that Americana Community Bank based on the staff that they had in-
house and the presentations that were made, that the transition would be, if the transition were
need to be made, a transition to Americana Community Bank would be a much easier transition
based on the presentations that were made. Then the committee evaluate whether it was
financially reasonable to make a switch from Americana, or from M&I to Americana
Community Bank. Based on the information you’ll see in the spread sheet attached, which kind
of breaks down the financial numbers of the proposals, the committee decided that the amount of
interest savings per year in making a switch, which would be basically 85 basis points, if you
evaluate the financial information on Americana Community Bank’s proposal and M&I
proposal, 85 basis points on a million dollars, on a million dollar balance over a year would be
about $8,500 per year. After consideration the committee decided that although there would be
some costs in making a transition, the amount of costs to make that transition would probably be
minimal. A few thousand dollars at most. Some new checks. Some stamps and possibly staff
hours to get all the new accounts set up with our current payable and receivable customers.
Therefore the committee is recommending to City Council that the city select a new banking
services provider and is recommending Americana Community Bank to become that services
provided for a term of 3 years. And I guess at this point I will take any questions about the
process we went through or any of the proposals that we did receive.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
8
Mayor Furlong: Any questions? Thank you. If there are no questions for Mr. Sticha, is there,
thank you very much for your presentation. I’ll ask the council if they have any comments or
discussion. Either on the process taken by the staff or the recommendation.
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
accept a contract with Americana Community Bank for a three year banking services
contract. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
LIBERTY AT CREEKSIDE, 1500 PIONEER TRAIL, APPLICANT TOWN &
COUNTRY HOMES: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO
PUD-R; SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 36.01 ACRES
INTO 29 LOTS, 5 OUTLOTS, AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE PLAN
APPROVAL FOR 146 TOWNHOUSES; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
ALTERATIONS WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE
BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Chris Moehrl Westwood Professional Services
Kevin Clark Town and Country Homes
Shawn Siders Town and Country Homes
Tom Whitlock Damon Farber Associates
Steve Thatcher Thatcher Engineering
Jeff Fox 5270 Howards Point Road
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. At your April 10th meeting you tabled this item for three specific
issues. The park design, looking at architecture and then road access to the north of this
property. The subject site, off the new 212 access would also be off the proposed frontage road.
Again to summarize, the project itself is 146 townhouse units. I’m not going to go through a lot
of the details. I want to kind of just focus on the issues that were… The park area, on the site,
this park area was enhanced. Includes the totlot and the developer will work to make that a
neighborhood totlot. The architecture itself, there’s a narrative in the staff report from the
applicant itself. Talking about that. I do have all the colorings but I’ll let them maybe go
through that in a little bit more detail. And then the last issue was the road access itself.
Included in your packet was a letter from the property owner to the north, which the staff also
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
9
commented on, and there’s some other additional information that was, appeared at your April
10th meeting which the staff, the City Engineer and I and, had addressed previously. Included in
your packet we showed you how the road stubbing from the north, to the north can tie in. The
complexity of this is that we know this property’s in flux and we don’t know exactly where the
road’s going to land, but we do believe that there’s adequate access on a subsequent road on that
north side that could tie into that. In addition they will be grading, there’s a comment about the 9
foot change in grade. There’s a, I know an anomaly that will more than likely be graded to
accommodate any further development, so this specific questions on, the comments on that, the
City Engineer or myself will be happy to go through those but again a lot of that information was
raised at the Planning Commission which we had addressed, and also at the last meeting. I know
it was additional new information. Going back to the south, we reiterate anything from the
engineer, it’s really not designed to go underneath that road. It was never accommodated and
MnDot…plan, I think there’s some confusion on that but we really believe that the best
alternative for the city for long term maintenance and access would be studying that property to
the north, and you know can we stop short of that and provide an access where appropriate on
the property to the north. So with that I’ll let the applicant maybe go through a little bit on the
architecture, unless you have questions on those other two issues.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I just Kate have one question, if you can clarify. You touched on it
briefly but it went by me but, access and MnDot and permission for them to do that.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, maybe I’ll let Paul.
Paul Oehme: Thank you. On the, working with MnDot on this issue, we, MnDot is still working
on their mitigation plan and I know that they are working with, we’re working with them on
establishing mitigation areas to accommodate their needs, and I know the developer is in that
loop too. He’d have to take on that responsibility of paying for mitigation and the…that goes
along with that, but you know we’re still in the design phase of any mitigation that would take
place. MnDot still has not agreed to any wetland mitigation off their premise. Off their site.
They’re still looking at the site as their main mitigation area for the 212 corridor for their, for the
Type 6 and 7 wetland credits. So we’re still in the process, I mean it’s one of the conditions that
we have with our, with this development is for the applicant to mitigate those wetland credits
to…go ahead with the road access. But at this time no decision has been made.
Kate Aanenson: Let me just add too a little bit. We have identified a site. We have spoken to
MnDot about that site. The developer is working to see if that site works so in working with the
wetland specialist at MnDot, they’re aware of it. They’ve been working through our wetland
specialist Lori Haak to work through that so there is contemplated site. There is a methodology.
It just has to be worked through the process, which is standard when we do projects like this and
we put a condition on that they have to meet all the requirements, and it is a condition of
approval that they have to get all the permitting stuff done, but we are in negotiations. We have
identified a site and understand the process as the developer has met with them too to understand
the process so it’s more than just we left it out there. You know we wouldn’t have put it out
there unless we explored that as an opportunity so we have found a viable solution and so we
believe it’s.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
10
Councilman Lundquist: Are you talking about to the north or to the south?
Kate Aanenson: To the north. The wetland. To the north I’m talking about.
Councilman Lundquist: …this developer’s property, how that’s going to work?
Kate Aanenson: It’s not a wetland yet. There is a question in their report that we’re impacting a
wetland. There isn’t a wetland there. It’s a replacement wetland. There isn’t a wetland there. It
was a replacement wetland that MnDot was going to use. Instead of replacing all that, we’re
going to replace some of that in a different site.
Mayor Furlong: So the property is part of the right-of-way that MnDot acquired.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: And they were going to use that to mitigate some of their other wetland
requirements as a part of the 212 project?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: If this road goes through there, then MnDot will have, the developer will have
to re-mitigate it at another location.
Kate Aanenson: Well they won’t re-mitigate it but they’d find another location for, that doesn’t
get mitigated there. It’d just be relocated. Relocate the site.
Councilman Lundquist: Can you show me where we’re talking about?
Kate Aanenson: Sure.
Mayor Furlong: MnDot needs all the property to meet it’s mitigation requirements, is that
correct?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: So if this isn’t allowed, if MnDot can’t mitigate here, then it’s got to be
replaced elsewhere.
Kate Aanenson: This property is owned by MnDot. What they want to do is replace the
wetland. There isn’t a wetland…replace the wetland. What we’re saying is that that portion of
the replacement is going to go somewhere else.
Councilman Lundquist: All that stuff in the green. Where does MnDot’s property?
Kate Aanenson: This is MnDot’s property.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
11
Councilman Lundquist: In the green there?
Todd Gerhardt: That triangle.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So worst case scenario, say they don’t want to do that.
Kate Aanenson: Well as I say, we’ve had those discussions already. We wouldn’t put it out
there unless it was a viable option. I mean this is what held up the project before because we
couldn’t go underneath the creek. That wasn’t a viable option so we had to find another one so
the prudent or the way to make it happen was to put the wetland, that portion of replacement
wetland.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, I know. I know.
Kate Aanenson: Okay, at somewhere else. So we’ve identified a site. We’ve still.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well on the site or somewhere?
Kate Aanenson: In the city. It’s a Type 6-7 wetland which is unique so we found another site in
the city.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So it has been found?
Kate Aanenson: Yep. And they’re…and we’ve had the negotiation that identified where that is
and we’re working on that so.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess to Councilwoman Tjornhom’s question. If for some reason it falls
through, it’s a condition right now, staff has recommended as a condition so they’d have to come
back if they’re not able to fill that condition.
Kate Aanenson: That’s right. That’s right.
Mayor Furlong: They’d have to come back.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: And then we look at other alternatives.
Kate Aanenson: That’s right.
Mayor Furlong: Does that answer your question? Okay. Other questions for staff at this point.
If not, would the applicant, good evening.
Shawn Siders: Good evening Mayor Furlong, council members. My name is Shawn Siders. I’m
with Town and Country Homes, a K. Hovnanian Company and with me this evening is Kevin
Clark, our Vice President of Land Development and Chris Moehrl, our project engineer with
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
12
Westwood Professional Services. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Fox and Mr.
Dorsey for including us in their efforts to identify potential alternative secondary access points
for the Creekside community. We met with Mr. Fox and Mr. Dorsey to review their proposed
alternatives and we concur with city staff that the original plans that were presented to you this
evening that provide the secondary access through the MnDot property is the appropriate
location due to it’s limited impact on the overall site. Since our discussion with you 2 weeks ago
we have revised the plan for the open space bound by private street D, and have included a totlot
in that area. Ms. Aanenson pointed it out. The totlot will be accessed via a trail connection
through here. We’ll also install park benches and trash receptacle. We’ve also maintained a
little bit of green space for passive and active recreation space to provide additional opportunities
to the residents. Finally I’d like to confirm our commitment to the Premiere and Concord
product lines that are proposed for this site. We have reviewed a number of housing alternatives
for this area, and these two products that are being presented to you for this community provide
the greatest opportunity to create an exclusive community that is tucked into this natural setting
with houses that do include upgraded architectural features. Provides necessary infrastructure.
Allows us to partner with the city to upgrade Lyman Avenue while creating home ownership
opportunities that are available to a larger segment of the Chanhassen community. We’re proud
of our collaborative efforts, our collaborative partnership with the City of Chanhassen to ensure
that Liberty at Creekside is a long term success for the city, as well as Town and Country
Homes. I’d like to thank you this evening to discuss these plans with you and I look forward to
any questions you may have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Siders?
Councilman Peterson: A couple, and Town and Country one has been characterized, are there
any Concord units there?
Shawn Siders: Yes sir.
Councilman Peterson: And if so, how many? And same for the Premiere, if you could share.
Shawn Siders: The 62 Premiere units around the perimeter of the property and there are
approximately 144 of the Concord units integrated throughout the community.
Councilman Peterson: There’s two different numbers that I’ve seen in the packet. Phase II or
Town and Country II has either 142 or 138. Which of the two is it?
Shawn Siders: It’s 146 units actually. It’s 98 Premiere units and 48 Concord units.
Councilman Peterson: Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Do you want to go into some detail about how some of the
architecture has changed from our last meeting?
Shawn Siders: Sure.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
13
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I mean I have it here on my screen but I’d rather just see it.
Shawn Siders: Understood. We have not altered the architecture from the Liberty at Bluff Creek
community. What we have done, if you’ll recall we worked with the city to develop a color
matrix that would include five colors that would be dispersed throughout the Liberty on Bluff
Creek community. What we have done as a result of Planning Commission and our discussions
with the City Council on April 10th is, we’ve actually developed a sixth color scheme for the
Liberty at Creekside community and what we have proposed is that 3 of the color schemes would
be dedicated to the Premiere units, which are located around the perimeter of the property.
These are the Premiere units are located around the perimeter of the property. And 3 of the color
schemes will be dedicated to the Concord units that are here within the middle. There’s only 6
of those buildings so we thought to really add 6 colors to those 6 units would almost make it look
like a checker board if you will. So we have dedicated you know where we proposed, we
dedicated 3 colors to each one which will add some distinction to the overall color selection of
Creekside community. However distinguishing from the Liberty at Bluff Creek community in
addition to the site, which makes a pretty distinct community from Bluff Creek.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Siders, one of the reasons you mentioned that you selected the two housing
designs was because of the topography.
Shawn Siders: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: If I understood you correctly. I guess one of the questions I have, all the
pictures we’ve been looking at from the top and I know in the plan there was one side view, but
help me understand and maybe you could give just the overall site picture up there Nann. For
those properties, the topography basically falls off, or declines from the top to the bottom of the
picture, is that correct?
Shawn Siders: Yes sir.
Mayor Furlong: Water runs downhill. Towards the creek. What is the view of those units in the
top? What are they, are they going to be looking over the tops of the building to the south or are
they going to be looking at the roof lines? What are they going to be seeing?
Shawn Siders: We actually have a rendering prepared. This would be starting on the north.
These would be the Premiere units on the north.
Mayor Furlong: And this is how the site would be graded?
Shawn Siders: Yes. So this would basically be your view from north to south so each unit, this
northern most Premiere unit, these would be on a similar grade with the Premiere units which are
on the opposite side of the street, and then you would start stepping down so this street would be
you know on a nearly even grade, and then we would make the next step down to the Concord
units here in the middle. And then we would make the next step down to the Premiere units
overlooking the creek.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
14
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And what’s the elevation of the highway through that area, do we know?
Paul Oehme: Of?
Mayor Furlong: 212. Do we know? Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Can you show me where the retaining wall is going to be in that
elevation?
Shawn Siders: Where the retaining wall?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Where in the plan or where in that elevation?
Shawn Siders: It might be easier to show you an overall plan. There’s actually a tiered retaining
wall system here on the north. There’s a retaining wall here. A retaining wall here. And then a
retaining wall here on the bottom which holds up the street and then also accommodates the
installation of this trail.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Is that going to have an impact on trees?
Shawn Siders: Nothing that’s identified within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. So there will
certainly be some trees that will be impacted but they will not be trees that are you know marked
within that delineated area.
Councilman Peterson: One of the questions kind of keying in on what you were offering, maybe
you can put back the overall development of number 1 and number 2. Both Bluff Creek and
Creekside. One of the things that was voiced in the last meeting, which I diligently watched on
television because I wasn’t here, was that the back of the buildings and I’m curious as to, as you
look at that design and the perimeter of the site, what role, I mean how much of that will you be
able to see as you’re driving by on whatever road we’re going to have, whether that’s 212 or the
funnel roads to it?
Shawn Siders: The view from 212?
Councilman Peterson: Well from 212 or the other roads that are going to access the site. I’m
just trying to get a sense as to whether or not we should be concerned with the rear sides of the
buildings around the perimeter.
Shawn Siders: I do not know the views from 212. Perhaps Mr. Moehrl may have a better
indication of that. How this project will look from the Peterson parcel, which you’ll have in
front of you later this evening is, this is the Peterson development here and this is the Liberty at
Creekside development here, so we have approximately 600 feet of separation with extensive
landscaping providing that transition between those two developments and then these units, the
Concord units within the middle were located in part to help break up the views of the rears of
those Premiere units as well. And in addition, and this is also true at Liberty at Bluff Creek, as
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
15
we had introduced a very color and some additional depth to the rear of the Premiere units, is to
break up the monotony of the rear of the unit.
Councilman Peterson: Can you put back the map we used to go through the, and the walkouts,
yeah. The map we used earlier that showed a wetland. That showed the whole area. The one
you had Kate.
Kate Aanenson: Oh this one?
Councilman Peterson: Yes. I’m just trying to get a sense as you’re likely to see the backs of
some of those.
Kate Aanenson: There also needs to be noise attenuation too but they’re not sure on exact, and
that’s one of the conditions too is how that…wall. There may be a wall along there too. So what
you’re looking at on the back. Some of these are also going to be the walkouts so you’ll actually
have an additional, that’s showing on grade. The backs of these as you look across. This will be
a restoration area. Open space…and then these will be the walkouts. Then these will be the
side…
Councilman Peterson: So you aren’t apt to see, what’s going to go on the east side of the
project? What units?
Shawn Siders: These?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah.
Shawn Siders: The Premiere.
Councilman Peterson: The ones around the totlot are which ones?
Shawn Siders: Those are Premieres as well sir.
Kate Aanenson: Want to see the picture, yeah.
Councilman Peterson: And you’re likely to see that from 212. I mean logic would say that
you’re likely to see it pretty dramatically.
Kate Aanenson: Again depending on where that noise wall ends up. You know you’re going to
see it going northbound. Going southbound maybe not.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: This is a quick question. You talk about a noise wall. Who’s
responsible for.
Kate Aanenson: The applicant is. They have to demonstrate that they meet the PCA standards.
Just a comment on that too. Depending on what happens on the north side…and again they don’t
know what’s going to happen here, but that’s also going to be…
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
16
Councilman Peterson: Is that Creekside property directly to the north of the, up into the white?
Up to the white?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Mayor Furlong: It’s the Fox family property directly north.
Councilman Peterson: Immediately to the north, yeah.
Kate Aanenson: You have the trees that are on that, on the, immediately to the north.
Shawn Siders: And I’ll also point out there will be a wetland here and there also will be some
perimeter landscaping going on along the edge of the property as well.
Mayor Furlong: What’s the nature of that landscaping?
Shawn Siders: Trees and shrubs.
Mayor Furlong: Overstory trees?
Shawn Siders: Yes sir.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. And then whatever we need for that noise mitigation. Whatever
that ends up being to meet whatever those standards. They’d have to demonstrate, that’s also
one of the conditions. Again all that would come back for us.
Mayor Furlong: Just, while we’re on the noise issue, I think we brought this up at the last
meeting, that condition number 1 under the preliminary plat.
Kate Aanenson: Sure.
Mayor Furlong: Did we add in any language there that they would not only identify for
implement appropriate noise? I don’t see it in the packet, but that might just have been.
Kate Aanenson: It’s on page 17, B(1). Is that the one you’re talking about?
Mayor Furlong: Page 17, B(1).
Kate Aanenson: Correct. The applicant prepare a noise analysis, right. So these are all the
things that we require for it to come back for final plat.
Mayor Furlong: Right, and I guess the issue there was, the analysis would identify, they’re
required to prepare a noise analysis and to implement.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. I’m sorry, that should have been put in there. To PCA standards.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
17
Mayor Furlong: To PCA standards? Okay. Sorry for the tangent. Other questions right now?
Kate Aanenson: Like I’m saying, it may end up being a physical wall that would certainly
reduce your visual.
Mayor Furlong: Another question, and I was looking through the staff report here and perhaps
you can direct me. The net density of this development, we have 146 units, is that correct? Of
the, and as we look at that other smaller picture, there is the, the area to the south. The Bluff
Creek. The smaller picture of the site plan. There. Yeah. Did we do an analysis? Did staff do
an analysis with regard to what was buildable down there without mitigation of wetlands or
what?
Kate Aanenson: Correct, and that was an area that’s in the overlay district that we identified for
preservation. If you look in the staff report, it talks about the impervious surface at 30%.
Mayor Furlong: Where is that in the report? Do you know what page number?
Kate Aanenson: I do have it marked, hang on.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, keep going.
Kate Aanenson: That’s alright. It’s on page 5. It says the entire development, including the
public and private streets may not exceed 30%. The individual lots will be over the 30%, so one
of the tools that we employ in order to preserve the zone, to give some value of the overlay
district and just creating that overlay district to give it some value. The value is they get to use
that. Preserve it but they get to use it towards their impervious. So that’s the trade off. We
compress that but they get to use it towards their impervious.
Councilman Lundquist: Density transfer?
Kate Aanenson: Well, in this case they’re under the density. It’s effectively that but actually the
density on this, this is the one piece we clearly guided straight medium density because of the
topographic behind lot, we gave that one, the only piece that’s high density without a dual. And
they’re actually under for a 4.78 is guided for up to 8 units an acre, so they didn’t maximize,
going back to what your point Councilman Lundquist, they didn’t maximize that density transfer.
But what they are able to capitalize on is the, be able to use that impervious area down below.
There’s the two wetland replacements that are kind of in the light green there, and then what we
wanted to do following the plans of the Bluff Creek Overlay District was to revegetate that using
native species so it creates that open space. So as you drive, that’s one of the things that we’re
trying to capture as you drive through looking at that green space, the view that you get when
you go back to the original, we first had the very first kind of vision of the community, when we
used Bill Morrish at the University of Minnesota. That’s when we came up with these rooms.
We kind of wanted to create these corridors so when you look up here you’re going to actually
have a corridor going through this property, the Peterson going all the way up the creek, so that’s
that corridor that will be replanting. So they got to compress the density. They picked a product
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
18
that they couldn’t maximize, going up to 8 units an acre. But they were able to spread the
impervious over that part.
Mayor Furlong: So when you say it’s part of the impervious, in the area, if we look at it north of
the trail, the impervious surface coverage there may exceed what they’re allowed.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: But when you look at the entire parcel, they’re within the limitations. Okay.
And in the plan, just to be clear. The water, there’s storm ponds I see on this site as well.
Kate Aanenson: There’s one there, and the wetland replacement…there’s two wetland
replacements. And that’s actually, they’re re-establishing the old farmstead that was kind of a
gravel mine so actually re-establishing that whole area. Taking out kind of what’s been
degregated and restoring that, which was also one of the goals of the overlay district. And
making that a nice view looking in.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions at this point for staff or the applicant?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I at some point though still really want to be sold on the access points
for this property so when I do vote I feel like every stone was unturned and we figured out the
right thing to do.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think Paul’s prepared to go through all those if you wanted him to.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sure that’s what Mr. Fox wants to comment on as well so.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So I’m willing to wait but I’m just saying that I hope that.
Mayor Furlong: That’s an issue, absolutely. Okay. Mr. Siders, thank you. Thank you very
much for your comments.
Shawn Siders: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: At this point we will accept public comment so Mr. Fox, you indicated or your
representative.
Steve Thatcher: Hi. I’m Steve Thatcher with Thatcher Engineering and this is Tom Whitlock
with Damon Farber. We represent the Fox properties and we’re here to ask you to, allow us to
work with you and we consider the north access. We’re thinking that, based on your permission,
we have available the southeast access has some advantages. The advantage that I want to talk
about briefly are as follows. Item number 1 is, the southeast access provides access to a lot of
pedestrian and emergency vehicle access to the future pedestrian trail in the Bluff Creek Overlay
District. It also connects to Pioneer Trail, thus providing access between the development and
south which would be more convenient for residents, reduce congestion on the north, east, west
collector street on the north side of the development. Reduce gas issues by residents that want to
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
19
drive to the south and improve emergency vehicle access from the south. The next one I want to
talk about item 4. With you know the MnDot plans, they talk about and show that they’re going
to be excavating the soft soil underneath the southeast access road. Most of it anyway as part of
the 212 corridor. This will reduce cost to build the southeast access road. We’ve also reviewed
the MnDot soil borings to see if there’s a method for constructing the southeast access over that,
and yet although soil may remain…as required for 1 to 2 foot of slick granular material on their
local city roads. Geogrid, the geo composite can help with that filling across. Item number 6 is
that there’s advantages, there’s no impact to forestry there, going to the southeast. And item
number 7, no one would maybe have to pay for removing the driveway access from the Bluff
Creek district. It may be desirable to do that at a future date. The MnDot plan dated 4/7/06
shows a cross section of the driveway reconstruction of about a 4 ½ foot high fill, 50 foot wide
underneath the westbound 212 bridge, and it drops to about 2 ½ foot high with 30 feet wide on
the eastbound 212 bridge in that area. Based on the information we have available to us, on the
north access, there’s a couple items that we’d like to discuss. Disadvantages that we see, the
information we have is that the road will be a barrier between the wetland and forest preserve.
Although there may be a wetland in there now, there will be a wetland in the future to the east.
The forest preserve is to the west of this access road, and this will limit flexibility of providing
use of these two natural resources, and will revive wildlife habitat and increase quantity intensity
of surface runoff to that wetland. Item number 4 is that that north access road appears to be over
approximately .4 acres of the Bluff Creek Overlay District up in that area. Next item I have is
item 5. It talks about the road, it appears it will cross a waterway flowing from the northwest
part of the Bluff Creek district across down into the wetland that would be made. This may need
to be preserved. It’s within the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone, and that must be
carefully analyzed. The road may interrupt the ground water flow associated with this waterway,
the wetland which could negatively impact the wetland. Item 6 I have is if the only access roads
are to the north, there’ll be no access to the south for the residents of the development. This
causes additional traffic congestion on the roads to the north, inconvenience and increased gas
usage for residents to the south. A quick rough estimate is that the road to the north, going
through the Fox property, an estimated traffic generation for some of the Fox property, that road
on the Fox property becoming a collector street, based on the Metropolitan Council’s
transportation policy threshold for a collector of 1,000 vehicles per day. That would increase
cost on the Fox property. With those items, you know our opinion is that we’d like to work with
the staff and the city to analyze these options further. We think that the south access to Pioneer
Trail has minimal environmental impacts, less cost and greater convenience to the residents.
North access would have greater environmental impact and greater cost and less convenience to
the residents, especially those that want to go to the south. And therefore we would recommend
further consideration of that southeast access road. Any questions?
Councilman Peterson: I’m going to be visual tonight so pull out the map laying there again and
point out.
Steve Thatcher: Sure.
Councilman Peterson: So if you would just point out where you’re recommending, both for the
people here and at home.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
20
Steve Thatcher: On this drawing, 212 is the gold line there. Land to the south is there…Lyman
Boulevard is there. Bluff Creek blue in here… This is on the west side map… The access, one
access for sure to the northwest, which is the yellow line goes through the site like this. The
north access would be along…up through and into this road in here. You know the Fox property
is here, and up in here. We visualize this coming underneath the bridge, following whatever is
most logical corridor down here to connect to Pioneer Trail. The yellow line shows it right about
there.
Councilman Lundquist: Where’s the gravel, his gravel driveway now?
Steve Thatcher: It’s right in that location. This black line, it’s right there right now. I don’t
know if there’s an exact location to the south or will come…where would you connect that. We
know there is a plan that seems to show a connection to the south to a cul-de-sac. Connection
from the north to Pioneer Trail which is seen as a cul-de-sac.
Mayor Furlong: Maybe the question Mr. Oehme, maybe some comments if you would in terms
of, I don’t know if your presentation’s done or not but I don’t want to cut you off.
Steve Thatcher: That’s it, no. Just open for questions.
Mayor Furlong: Sure. I guess some comments on what we’re looking at here and what we’ve
heard.
Paul Oehme: Well as you probably have heard from Ms. Aanenson, staff does not agree with
that alignment for several reasons. One of the items that Mr. Thatcher brought up was access for
emergency vehicles to the south there for pedestrian. There’s going to be, we’re envisioning a
10 foot wide trail along that corridor there which would adequately address safety issues for
emergency vehicles to get back there if any event were to occur. The issue in terms of
separating, getting back to the north access, by separating the forest area on top of the hill from
the wetland issue. You know the design that we would envision for that north corridor would
address both the ground water and the, any natural drainage flows. Potentially a culvert between
the two areas. We would not envision any significant ground water issues because of the
pavement section would only be limited by probably 2 to 3 feet worth of structural material.
Depending upon how that design is made, you know would that road potentially sit on top of the
existing grade? Depending upon how that grade is brought up to the, potentially to the Fox
property. So those are some of the issues to that effect. Bringing the road down to the south,
getting back to that point, yeah there is, in the AUAR we had envisioned a cul-de-sac off of
Pioneer Trail to address the future development in the 2010 area, development area. That
currently is zoned I believe industrial or commercial application. What we’re talking about here
is bringing residential units, residential traffic through an industrial park. Staff did not envision
that as a good practice.
Councilman Peterson: Where’s that?
Paul Oehme: The specific triangle of land? What the AUAR had shown was, this road actually
going away but that location here would be a small cul-de-sac to facilitate the development of the
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
21
Laurent property and the Peterson property for potential industrial use, so to bring in residential
traffic to a more of a commercial area, we don’t see as a benefit. The AUAR also addresses this
property as in the traffic analysis and we had always envisioned that traffic to be brought back to
the collector roadway. The east/west collector roadway and the traffic. In this development you
know can definitely, the east/west collector roadway can definitely support that type of
additional traffic so, we don’t see that there is any traffic issues related to bring that, this
development traffic to the east/west collector roadway. It gives us, in bringing two access points
will mitigate some of the traffic you know through the Fox property and basically along the
corridor so stacking along at one access point during peak periods would be somewhat limited as
well, so we think there’s advantages to bringing the roadway to the north.
Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor? Paul, isn’t the key point on trying to bring the road underneath
312, 312 is under construction today and that bridge section that goes through there is not
designed for a road to go underneath there at this point.
Paul Oehme: Right. This is a picture, that’s today of the bridge that’s currently being
constructed. It’s not a typical bridge per se with wing walls. This is a land bridge. There’s
actually another several sections of this bridge, and MnDot in it’s analysis or it’s, when it was
going through the design of this bridge, it always, they envisioned this as a bebo section or
regular bridge girder section, but when they did the soil analysis here I think the peat in this area
is somewhere between 50 and 60 feet deep, so they elected to actually drive piles to support the
bridge and lengthen the bridge to approximately 400 feet. So they are, in this corridor alone that
we know that there is significant soil issues that MnDot is actually spending a lot of money
addressing that in terms of building a bridge instead of actually filling this area in with soil and
so, that’s, MnDot never had envisioned this corridor to be brought in to have a roadway. A local
roadway brought in at this location for residential use.
Todd Gerhardt: So from where the potential road bed would be to the bottom girder of the
bridge probably would not meet MnDot specifications for a roadway to go underneath there.
Paul Oehme: I don’t know that at this time. I don’t know what the height is between the actual
road grade. Potentially they like to be in the bottom of the girders for the 212 bridge but.
Steve Thatcher: I’ve got the, I didn’t mean to interrupt. I do have the cross section there for the
bridge in that area. I know the height that they’re proposing but I don’t know what’s the
minimum standard for that. What they’ve got is, this is the cross section at the westbound lane
and it shows the bridge from there to there, the bottom of the girders there. They show the
driveway up to here. From the ground to the bottom of the girder, that’s 20 feet of vertical space
from the ground. And you show their sub-cutting there. Underneath where that driveway, sub-
cut shows 25 feet in that spot. That’s the dark hatch area there. So there’s 20 feet of space
between the ground and the bottom girder.
Todd Gerhardt: Okay, and then the other part of not meeting the specification is putting a road
that close to a creek bed. And so it was never designed to have a road go underneath that bridge.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
22
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I’d just like to add to that one point as far as the AUAR. You know we
try to, I mentioned this last, 2 weeks ago is that we try to minimize creek crossing and we
provided one creek crossing in there for that specific reason, and if we talk about permitting
required to go to the north, replacing a wetland that’s not there yet, as opposed to getting
permitting and go back and amend the AUAR because it was never approved in the AUAR. Go
back and amend the AUAR to see if we can get permits to cross the creek and the cost which we,
as Paul indicated, the soil corrections are huge there. Then there’s a long term maintenance
when you’re building on poor soils like that. We think it’s much more prudent to take the road
to the north where the risk is much less. And a better way to service.
Paul Oehme: Another item too to bring the road to the south Mayor and council. Right now
MnDot has acquired a driveway access for the Jeurissen property. I believe, I don’t know, I
think it’s between 20 and 30 feet wide, in order for a road, a public road to be built at that
location to typical right-of-way width to 60 feet per our standards. That’s not adequate at this
time. What MnDot has acquired, the applicant would have to purchase additional right-of-way
from third party properties out there, and we don’t know if that would be feasible at this time to
make that, to have that right-of-way acquired.
Mayor Furlong: What’s happening to that, what are MnDot’s plans with regard to that driveway
access? You say that it literally is a driveway right now coming off from Pioneer Trail.
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Access the property…the creek. You said it’s 20 feet wide?
Paul Oehme: I think it’s 25 feet wide. Maybe 30 feet wide as the most. The right-of-way that
they have acquired for that driveway.
Mayor Furlong: But from a width standpoint it’s not, it doesn’t meet our standard.
Paul Oehme: It doesn’t meet our standard anyway.
Mayor Furlong: Public street. What is going to become of that current driveway and who’s
responsible for doing something with it?
Paul Oehme: Well it’s MnDot’s property and they’re responsible for the maintenance of it. I
would envision that MnDot would consider that a remnant right-of-way after the property has
been sold to the developer and that driveway is no longer in use, the collar would be eliminated
there on that crossing there. Bluff Creek. As part of the project, I would imagine so.
Councilman Lundquist: They’ve got to leave it in there now to have access to that property.
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Until something else.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
23
Paul Oehme: Until something else, and that access is no longer necessary, sure.
Mayor Furlong: Alright.
Councilman Peterson: How many homes would it, what’s the trigger point from only needing
one access versus having two?
Paul Oehme: The council just passed a cul-de-sac limiting, limiting our cul-de-sac lengths to
800 feet. So we’re trying to limit our cul-de-sac length, both as a utility issue and a safety issue
in terms of an emergency vehicle accesses. We try to limit properties to potentially about 15-16
units at the max, and that’s typically about how many units you can support off of an 800 foot
cul-de-sac single family. And we’re talking 140 units. 46 units here.
Councilman Lundquist: If I go back to the road, if you put the map of the, yeah. Here’s what
I’m struggling with. I mean I understand Paul and Kate where you’re coming from. You’re
talking about the potential, if we go to the south that we’re going through some commercial
industrial land, and you know we’ve talked off and on at this point about the Fox properties
ending up in some kind of an industrial or commercial you know potential, don’t know what’s
going to end up there but it’s quite likely that if something in that could go in there. Regardless
of whether we go to the north or the south, there’s wetland/ground water type issues, whatever
that might be. You know there is, you know I think there’s some potential struggles there with
the width of the road and some of that thing, but at this point I look at that as really the only
thing that’s really standing there because either way, as I’m looking at it, unless I’m wrong, that I
think we’re going to end up going through commercial retail or industrial of one kind or another,
no matter which way we go, and there’s going to be some wetland and water, ground water
issues regardless of which way we go. Now we don’t have to cross the creek if we go to the
south. There’s some issues with the bridge if we go to the south, but the way I’m looking at it,
unless I missed something, I think those other two issues we’re going to have regardless of
which way.
Kate Aanenson: But the soils is a huge issue too, you know.
Councilman Lundquist: Well because you’ve got to go across the creek there.
Paul Oehme: We’re just looking at current zoning. We know that the zoning to the south along
Pioneer Trail is more commercial industrial. To the north, right now that’s more residential.
Councilman Lundquist: Well there isn’t any zoning to the south, right? Because it’s just guided.
Paul Oehme: Well it’s just guided.
Mayor Furlong: The triangle piece.
Kate Aanenson: So is the other piece is just guided also to the north. It’s guided residential.
Councilman Lundquist: So we can do anything we want with that.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
24
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, right.
Councilman Lundquist: Going forward. Okay. So are there other pieces? As I’m looking, you
know that may be over simplifying it by saying you know I think we’ve got the same issues
going north or south. There may be a degree of difficulty with the soils and the right-of-way and
some of that going to the south, but.
Kate Aanenson: Well the degree of difficulty is also you have to go back and amend the AUAR,
so that could be a year or two. You know I don’t know, they may never get that permit. That’s
a, maybe the City Attorney can address that but you have to go back and amend that, so I’m not
sure. The other one, there isn’t the soil. It’s a long term maintenance. Those kind of issues too.
Paul Oehme: And there’s long term maintenance involved too for the city’s perspective.
Another creek crossing means another bridge or another structure for the city to maintain. The
staff had always envisioned too the watermain looping of this area. If we go to the south, that’s a
different zone. We can’t really loop the water in this area basically we’re stop at a long dead end
unless we get an easement to the north. To loop that watermain back up to the east/west
collector roadway. So in terms of long term maintenance, I think the length of the roadway too
is a little bit longer as we go to the south.
Councilman Lundquist: So do we have a picture of what the AUAR showed roads in this area?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I don’t have it with me this time but it shows the two cul-de-sacs on the
Laurent property. Stopping short of the creek, yeah. Cul-de-sac.
Mayor Furlong: They’re short cul-de-sacs Councilman Lundquist. The one comes from
Pioneer, yeah.
Kate Aanenson: One comes off of Powers and one comes off of…stop short of the creek. That’s
what we envisioned…
Councilman Lundquist: Room for access to the Jeurissen property.
Kate Aanenson: This direction and that direction.
Councilman Lundquist: So on our AUAR it showed.
Kate Aanenson: It didn’t show those specific parcels being tied in, nor did it show the specific
parcels on, just they showed the north side on Lyman Boulevard, it showed one access point
besides the senior Degler piece. We showed that ring road tying, winding to Audubon. We also
showed another connection that needed to be.
Councilman Lundquist: Like that little, yeah.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
25
Councilman Lundquist: So why is an amendment to the AUAR required if we never showed.
Kate Aanenson: Because you’re crossing the creek. That was an environmental, that also got
approved by the PCA, the DNR, the watershed district. All those agencies that have jurisdiction
because all those agencies commented on the original one, so that would be a significant change
that would have to go back and amend the AUAR.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Let’s say, just for grins we decided to go back through that
process and those agencies that comment on that decide they don’t want to allow that access
then, then our choice would be to give it one access or go back to the north then? Is that?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, yep.
Councilman Lundquist: …happens? Okay.
Councilman Peterson: Has there ever been a community in the area that’s had that many homes
with one access?
Tom Whitlock: I believe Bearpath is a loop system with one access point.
Councilman Lundquist: Not including their emergency back roads.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, go ahead. Questions still.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Explain to me again why we can’t take that cul-de-sac and, and not
make it a cul-de-sac but make it a road or another access point.
Kate Aanenson: Which cul-de-sac?
Councilman Peterson: That’s not a cul-de-sac.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: That’s what I’m saying.
Kate Aanenson: You mean that would cross the creek or?
Mayor Furlong: The one that they’ve shown there.
Councilman Lundquist: You run one big loop through and service them both from.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right.
Steve Thatcher: We looked at that. This is the north side of the Creekside development. This is
the proposed connection north through the Fox property. And this is their northern road that
ends in a cul-de-sac today. So we studied to see if you could make that loop back to the north,
and this does show a connection that we follow the city’s grades and connect to the proposed
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
26
dead end driveway here and it will loop back to that north access point. That does require about
a third of an acre of encroachment into that Bluff Creek tree preservation area, which is actually
less than what’s proposed on the north. Right now the north loop shows about .4 acres of
encroachment into that.
Kate Aanenson: That also has a substantial retaining wall of about 800 feet, which we may want
terraced because it’s so tall, so I’m not sure that that’s feasible. And the other problem with that.
Mayor Furlong: I’m sorry, could you repeat that?
Kate Aanenson: Yep. No, the significant retaining wall along this whole side here. It’s pretty
high. Typically when they’re that tall, we like to terrace them so they’re not that tall and so
again… This is also tying into a private street. A public street tying into a private street…
Steve Thatcher: Yeah, that’s true. There’s a double wall showing on the north, on the whole
north side of this development today.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, but I’m talking about the other wall too. There’ll be a new other wall.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, any other questions? Mr. Clark?
Kevin Clark: Commissioner, Councilman Lundquist. Another issue regarding the south access
is that, by bringing a full right-of-way through there, will certainly convert those, what are
proposed as private drives into public right-of-way and so then that will wipe out whatever
number of units as you come up into that totlot area that we’ve just got done focusing on. And
then. I just think it’d be a tremendous hurdle for the city to ask us to build 1,500 foot long, zero
loaded street through an area that’s identified as being basically bottomless. Building a road
that’s built to float, that’s going to be maintained by the city. Those are always dangerous words
for a street. And I think that there’d be a tremendous economic hardship to think about making
that a second access.
Councilman Lundquist: Fair enough.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, any other questions at this point? Gentlemen, thank you. Appreciate
your thoughts and comments. Okay. Better looking council chambers.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor, I have one more. I’m sorry.
Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Gentlemen, please.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: When this project was designed and laid out, was there any other
way it could have been designed and laid out so that we wouldn’t be talking about this tonight?
Or no matter what’s coming in.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
27
Kate Aanenson: Right, even with single family homes, again we have that long street. Even if it
was single family homes, even if it was commercial. I mean it’s topographically separated from
another piece.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So we’d still be talking about…
Kate Aanenson: Correct. As we do with every parcel that comes in, it’s angst on every project
that we do, and that’s our job is to make sure that all the pieces of the puzzle fit together and we
provide adequate access to adjoining parcels. Some pieces are easier because it just a natural fit.
Other pieces it’s more a challenge, even when we tell people a connection’s being made. It still
can be a challenge so you know.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay? Very good, thank you. Any other follow-up questions for staff?
Councilman Peterson: I guess the only other question I had, and we briefly talked about the
possibility of this loop without a secondary access point. I guess I’d like to focus on that a little
bit more so we have a better understanding of the difficulties in that.
Kate Aanenson: Having both streets come up at the same point?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: It’s a huge retaining wall. You’re getting back to the same point, you’re wiping
out some of the, Paul put his comments. Do you want to go back over your comments that we
commented on.
Mayor Furlong: Are you saying, Councilman Peterson, the loop that they showed right at the
very end there?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah.
Councilman Lundquist: That smaller one. No, not that one. That one right there.
Mayor Furlong: The little one on the table?
Councilman Lundquist: That one right there. Now if you zoom in on that. I think what Craig’s
talking about is you take that cul-de-sac is there and you tie it into, no. Just go straight to the
east.
Kate Aanenson: Go straight through the corner of the Fox piece.
Councilman Lundquist: No, no. Oh west. Straight to the west. Straight to the west. There you
go.
Mayor Furlong: Isn’t that just a cul-de-sac?
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
28
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. And you’ve got just one big loop which you’re all getting stuck on that.
Paul Oehme: I think the grades are, is that what you were asking?
Councilman Peterson: This one doesn’t have a loop. I’m saying if you created a loop, how
much of an issue.
Kate Aanenson: Well it’s a huge drop in grade.
Councilman Lundquist: Oh is it?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Todd Gerhardt: It wouldn’t meet city standard.
Councilman Peterson: That’s your retaining wall issue.
Councilman Lundquist: Ah.
Kate Aanenson: The change in grade is too significant. You wouldn’t be able. They were going
to the next level.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Go ahead.
Chris Moehrl: My name is Chris Moehrl with Westwood Professional Services. This is just a
copy of the plan that we had received. I looked at it really quickly and this here is just kind of a
grade limit line. I think what Kate was alluding to is that you’d actually be removing more trees
than what we’re looking at there. Another issue that I’m seeing that has been brought up too is
right here down on the corner. When we extend this road further to the northwest, this unit here
actually will have to rotate. Move a little bit to the southwest. We already have a retaining wall
there now so we’re already fighting some grade issues. A rough scale maybe it was 20-30 feet
and that could add another 10 feet or even longer, so that’s another issue that I see. I think on
this private road here, it looks like about 7%...
Mayor Furlong: Does that answer your question? Okay, very good. Thank you. Okay,
anything else before we.
Councilman Lundquist: Quick question on the park. This is probably something that we’ll talk
about on the next item as well. Putting an access, the park on the east side of the Peterson parcel.
You know in the potential of even putting a small access across that creek to get to that. Do you
know Todd or Paul or Kate, anybody, what’s the, so if we go back to the big map. No the other
one. There you go. So the yellow piece that’s on the west side of the Peterson property, if you
took that and moved it over to the east corner, yeah. Up by the creek up there somewhere, so
that you could potentially come across the, you know put a wooden bridge so to speak over the
creek there for bikes and pedestrians. What’s the elevation change from the, from the Town and
Country piece up into that northeast corner of the Peterson piece?
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
29
Todd Hoffman: What’s the elevation change between here and here?
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah.
Todd Hoffman: You need just probably another difficult section of trail that would cross
wetlands, bridging the creek, either through a culvert or a bridge. And then come back up into
the other development. This is also the preferred location for the park. Services.
Councilman Lundquist: Those other 650 units.
Todd Hoffman: Yeah, and it just works out well. The planning buffer between the two different
types of uses. Fits in nicely to the road plan. You put it down here, on the lower side, it is
separated from the rest of the development and it really starts to isolate it down into the creek
area.
Kate Aanenson: That other, on this end too is the steeper part too. Being a walkout going this
way so… You could make the creek crossing but you’re on the flat. It’s probably the flattest
portion of the area. The Peterson property.
Councilman Lundquist: And so your trail would end up being the switch back and all kinds of.
Kate Aanenson: Not only the trail but the park would be.
Todd Hoffman: The park itself is a fairly flat location here with a playground and an open field.
It’s got good public visibility on the main road which is a good thing for a public park. You
stick it back into the back side of a development, it’s more difficult for the rest of the community
to locate, find, visualize.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Thanks Todd. Mr. Clark, what was the size, approximately size
of that totlot? Mr. Siders, either.
Shawn Siders: Totlot area is actually 45 by 45, so that includes a foul zone that’s required to.
Councilman Lundquist: The whole green space.
Shawn Siders: Oh, the whole area is.
Councilman Lundquist: Closer to a half an acre or an acre?
Todd Hoffman: Half.
Councilman Lundquist: That’s close enough. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, any other questions at this point? Some may come up in our discussion
and comments. If not, let’s try to move along and get people’s thoughts. On what we saw
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
30
different from last time or other comments that we’ve heard this evening in terms of road
alignments, as well as other. Thoughts. Comments.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I think that I’ve got some challenges and I’ll try to articulate
those as best I can. And I’ll speak in macro terms first of all. The 2005 MUSA gave us as a city
an opportunity to really form what is essentially the most significant part of our city. And to
design that with an AUAR and Planning Commissions and staff and councils. And you know I
think what I have tried, kind of set as my standard is, you can use a lot of different adjectives but
probably distinction is one that comes forth the best for me, and distinction isn’t about quality.
It’s about uniqueness and providing something to our city that is unique and provides, whether
it’s architectural style or life cycle living. Single level living. It’s a combination of everything
so I use the word distinction with quite a bit of thought. On Bluff Creek I articulated some of my
architectural standards, designs that I didn’t think brought that much distinction to our
community and again I’m questioning the quality. I’m questioning the distinctiveness of the
product that they’re using, along with scope of the project. You know so on Bluff Creek I was
concerned about the scope and the distinctiveness of some of the products they’re putting in
there. And now I’m presented with another development in Creekside that is essentially more of
the same. And hence there’s a conflict that I have trying to figure out how to deal with that.
And in another macro sense I’m a little bit concerned about the 2005 MUSA because we’re
putting in a lot of density. You are taking out some industrial and…replace that industrial yet
and our density numbers, I guess are becoming more dense than I had originally pictured as I
pictured the area for 2005 MUSA. We’ve got the Fox and Dorsey property that we’ve danced
around whether or not that’s going to be single family. We don’t know that yet but if it’s not,
then all of a sudden you’ve got the 2005 MUSA area with a great number of high density
complexes, and even the single family are going to be pretty small lots from what I’m
understanding. And that is of some concern to me. I don’t think that’s what our residents
wanted was a lot of high density as a balance there, and I’ll certainly look forward to other
councilors opinions so. Again, I’m concerned that we’re in many ways maybe moving too fast
and I’m not saying stop the developments but on this one particularly I’m saying it, seeing it as
being more of the same. And that concerns me as I don’t think it is bringing the distinction that
we need to for the community. And maybe my standards are too high. I don’t think so but that’s
kind of where they’re sitting. So in a general sense I’m probably not for the property, for the
development only because I’d like more variety. That’s putting it simply. And I think we can
get more variety. That being said, the totlot specifically, and I will address the whole package
here, I think is something that I think that area should be left to that individual community. I
don’t think we need to dictate that we need a totlot in there. I know it was discussed last time
and I wasn’t here to voice my opinion on it but I think that’s something that that area can be left
for a totlot, and if that development wants it, they can put that in. If the development does go
through. As it relates to the road. I can’t see any, going south just doesn’t make sense from
what I’m listening to and heard both sides. The cost structure and the maintenance, you know it
doesn’t seem feasible to go anywhere but north. And to work with the Fox’s to find the best
place north to go seems the only viable alternative so. So essentially I’ve voiced my opinion on
the project itself, that I’m not for it but should it go through, those are my opinions on the other
ancillary aspects of it.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
31
Mayor Furlong: Thank you, and I guess in terms of questioning, getting back to your comments
Councilman Peterson on the distinction of design as you mentioned. You know when you see it
perhaps the answer, but what are you looking for from a.
Councilman Peterson: Well again I think it’s not so much what I’m looking for. I don’t want so
much of the same. You know we’re talking about hundreds and hundreds of units that are
essentially very similar, if not the same. You’ve got 146 Premiere in this development, and is it
135 of the Premiere’s in the other? It’s just a lot of the same. And you know when I drive
through communities, ourselves included, you want to see variety. And you’re going to have
separation here but not a great deal. And we are going to see, likely see the backs of these,
which you guys talked about at the last meeting that doesn’t bring architectural interest. They
are, color isn’t going to create a lot of distinction from my perspective. And or at least I haven’t
seen it used successfully. You need architectural lines that change the articulation in the rears of
those buildings. And I don’t know if that answers your question there or not but.
Mayor Furlong: No, I guess that helps. Thank you. Other thoughts, comments. Councilwoman
Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I always have to go after he has a wonderful speech about what he’s.
You know I guess I wish I could just say ditto from what I said last time. I feel like I was
disappointed when I opened my packet and saw it kind of looked the way it was last time. It just
kind of mirrors what they have across the street, or the road and I was thinking that, gosh you
know, you’ve got this beautiful piece of property and there’s so much you could do with it to
make it a distinctive place to live or a distinctive place in Chanhassen instead of just bringing
what you already have over to the other side of the development and so I was disappointed that
not much had changed with that and you know changing color palettes on buildings is a start but
I don’t know if it was enough for, to win me over as far as this project. And as I said before, I’m
not necessarily against the density of it because it was zoned for that density, and so I feel
comfortable where the project will come in. Maybe with just a little more thought or a little
more creativity or something as to what it would be used for. I like the life cycling. I’m not
quite sure if I’m sold on that. The totlot was a start, even though I don’t really encourage totlots
on private developments but it seemed with it’s location and the young families that would be
moving in there, it just seemed practical at the time. The road was a big issue for me. I think I
feel comfortable with following staff’s recommendations only because you know, I don’t want to
have to build a floating road under a bridge that the city has to maintain and has to really take
care of for years and years to come so, I would follow staff’s recommendation for the road if it
would come to that kind of, where it was going to pass and we had to make a decision so, I guess
I just am kind of echoing what I said last time. I don’t have much else to say.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: Well overall thoughts I think are in line with Mr. Peterson and Mrs.
Tjornhom that I mentioned at the last meeting that I’m still getting, I think I’m still getting my
arms around having 600 townhouses, or 600 units out there. Even that’s a lot and you know part
of it is, maybe I’m going through the shock and awe of that change in that stuff. That piece of
land might be, but even in light of that, there’s still, there’s just so much about this development
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
32
that just doesn’t feel right to me. The road thing, I think you know I can’t argue with the
previous comments about challenges on the soils out there. Putting a road under a bridge.
Whether or not, you know I think there’s still a lot of questions there and I fear that we may have
already missed the boat on the southern access with MnDot putting a major highway and a
bridge through there that may be a moot point now but it doesn’t mean there aren’t some other
alternatives there. I mentioned last time about the park issue. Again, challenging from a
perspective of topography and other parts there. I still from a practical standpoint doubt very
much that residents on a, you know when you send your kids, when they come home from
school and you send them out to play at dinner time, that they’re going to go to the park that’s on
the west side of the Peterson parcel. It’s just too hard to get there. It’s too hard for those you
know 6 to 12 year old kids that are going to get there. Now, a half acre totlot is a place to play,
and I would reiterate my concern that I don’t know that, I don’t have a good solution or
suggestion for a solution in that, but it’s a concern of mine that the residents there, you know
they’re not all going to be residents that have children of that age. Obviously there’ll no doubt
be a mix but I’m not sure that we’re servicing the needs of those residents there with that current
layout so. There’s just, there’s a lot of things about this that concern me. The zoning is there.
Or that the guiding for that is there. You know the density I think can be viewed as a win, that
we could have had up to 8 there that we have a reduction so I think that’s a win, but as Mr.
Peterson said, just because it’s a win on the number doesn’t mean it’s a win on what they look
like and appear like. Understand the topography and the use of those units fits in well with the
topography there. But that doesn’t mean that there’s not something else out there architecturally
as well that would capture the same so. I just, at this point I think I’m not comfortable enough
with the overall, you know there’s not probably one issue that’s a deal breaker for me but I’m not
comfortable that as a complete package that we’ve got the best thing that we can possibly have
right now. That we’ve got a little bit more work to do to go back and see what else we can get
on it.
Mayor Furlong: When we talked about this last week we talked some about architectural design,
not to the level that Councilman Peterson brought forth this evening, but we did talk about that
and we talked about the park and the road access. I think those were kind of the three main
issues. As I look at those issues, in no particular order, probably one of the biggest issues in
terms of points of contention is the road alignment. First of all I think the question is do we want
to have more than one access into the neighborhood, and I think the answer there is yes. That’s
from a designing city’s best practice standpoint, that’s a critical component for safety and quality
of life, so the real question is north or south. We talked about density and density transfers and
the desire to preserve the Bluff Creek corridor and some of that, well that was the reason on the
first Town and Country development that caused the actual density within the area where there is
development to exceed the medium density because we were protecting natural resources. So if
we’re going to be doing that, I don’t want to start adding crossings to the creek or whether it’s
trails or roads or those types of things. That would defeat the purpose for what we’ve already
done. So the, you know I think while there were issues raised that with the southern road access,
or access to the south to this neighborhood, you know is crossing the Bluff Creek the same in
terms of an impact as an additional wetland mitigation that isn’t a wetland right now but you
know would have to be mitigated elsewhere to meet MnDot’s standards somewhere else along
the corridor. I know from a hierarchy standpoint those are two different things. Is there
mitigation? Sure. But two different levels. The zoning to the south, it’s an industrial versus
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
33
commercial. What’s been discussed to the north right now which is zoned or guided for low
density residential. It was more of a mixed use commercial which is much more of a lifestyle
issue than, or access through that to this neighborhood versus coming up through the south
through an industrial park. It’s a different feel. Are they different zonings? Yes, but I think in
terms of complimentary, what’s currently guided or what’s being discussed to the north is much
more complimentary to here than what’s being discussed to the south. The costs I think are the
other aspect there. This is part of the give and take that comes in. There’s no perfect second
access to this property so what we have to do is pick the best one and everything I’ve heard
tonight, I don’t know what else we can hear but there’s nothing that’s compelled me to say that
the north is not the best of the alternatives. My thoughts there. With regard to the park. We
talked about that last time. I think, you know my thoughts are very much along with what
Councilman Peterson expressed tonight. I’m glad that we asked the developer to go look for you
know, can you do something there, but I think that leaving it up to the residents, if they, after
they move in, if the association wants to put something in, we know it will fit. If that becomes
an issue to them. I think as people look at these homes, as anyone in any city is looking to buy a
home, there are trade off’s between the amenities of not only the physical structure of the house
but also with the amenities surrounding it and if an association totlot is important to somebody,
and that’s high on their list, there are other developments in the city that have those. The one
right across the creek. Town and Country’s Liberty at Bluff Creek does so, so somebody might
be more inclined to buy over there if that was an important amenity, but the fact is we know that
something will fit if the residents want to, and I think to Councilman Peterson’s point, that’s
where I think we stay there. So as I hear conversations tonight, I mean the, we’re pretty close on
the park. I think you’ve heard my sentiment. I think we know that that’s an option. Let’s just
not make it a condition of the approval. The road alignment, you know to Councilwoman
Tjornhom’s comment, we keep asking but it seems that supporting staff’s position there is the
best of the alternatives. It may not be perfect for everybody but that’s the best. The real issue
gets back to Councilman Peterson’s question of distinction of design, if we use his terms, and I
guess they are. I would ask is that something from the applicant, are there, you know to me what
I’m hearing Councilman Peterson, don’t let me put words in your mouth but it’s not choices of
colors. But it’s the style of the houses, is that?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah. You’re looking at two communities that are within hundreds of
feet of each other, but they are different communities but they’re the same buildings. And with
one of the styles, the Concord I articulated on the initial phase that that was a nice urban feel.
Creative, contemporary and current design, and the Premiere just lacked both on the front side
and the rear enough character that I thought brought distinctiveness to the development.
Mayor Furlong: And again, don’t want to put words in your mouth. You’re not saying, instead
of these two from across the creek, pick two more from across the creek. You’re looking for
distinction per se. Uniqueness.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, just because of it’s sheer size. You know hundreds of units and
then to drive, like you say, across the creek and seeing more of the same thing, that’s a huge
portion of our community from percentage wise of the same kind of style, and I think offering
our residents a more distinctive variety is I think an asset.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
34
Mayor Furlong: I guess Mr. Siders, I’d ask you, is that, based on what you’ve heard this
evening, are there other potential designs that might be available? Given the topography and the
other conditions.
Kevin Clark: Well going back to our original submittal when we had primarily just, it was more
homogenous. Where we had all the townhomes and where that grew out of our understanding
that this is kind of an enclave really. Where this site is, at the time really was a protected area.
We though that that was a better fitting for that, to have, create that kind of area for that product
which fit into the site very well. And I think personally I don’t know if we’re getting enough
credit for the advances that we have put forth. Over the last 3 years, when we first came in, we
had two products for Liberty at Bluff Creek. We since elevated that architecture to 4 different
products. We’ve changed the elevation. Added materials. I guess I’m wondering when does it
stop. You know we’ve added brick. We’ve added four elevations to the Premiere. We’ve put
different architecture on the rears. At some point you know there has to be a balance there. Now
I understand what you’re saying about the units. When we move from the Bluff Creek
neighborhood into Creekside, we have some, the Premiere units, 62 of those, around the
perimeter of that neighborhood and that’s why we felt it’s inappropriate from both a community
standpoint and a density standpoint, we are investing oh probably upwards of $5-$7 million
dollars on a model center out there currently under construction, as a marketing effort to make
this a successful project. I mean everything that we’re doing and working with you on is to
make this a successful project. For yourselves. For the city and so that this community doesn’t
sit there and linger, and by doing that we make the investment to do that. To do that you have to
support it. You can’t just build you know 5 of this and 5 of that and then expect the project to
have any legs. I mean you build a model center. You invest in the model. The architecture, so
that was our impetus to really then moving that into that other neighborhood. Hearing from you
collectively, and the Planning Commission and such, we’d like some more adversity. We said
well that’s fine. That makes sense, so we moved and brought the other product up there in a
smaller contingent but to break that up, as you mentioned, more of an urban flare. Get some
views onto that public street. Change the geometry of the site by turning the buildings. Working
with that within the context of the topography, and we thought we did a fairly decent job of
doing that and meeting those requirements. I guess a long winded answer to the question is, can
something else be done? Can we go out and re-engineer and bring in a new product? That’s a
real hurdle when you talk about new architecture. New design and then coming up there for you
know, what would then be maybe a small nucleus for the effort to do that, and it’s a big
undertaking when you do anything like that. Stepping back a little bit, you know we looked at a
variety of products. A conversation earlier was, what’s the limit on the cul-de-sac because when
we started looking at what would be some other alternatives here to address access. To address
grades. We went back and did numerous iterations looking at single family. Looking at
different products. Looking at how we could get other products into that area. Frankly, single
family is just, that’s a tremendous hurdle. I mean we’d be really selling you a story if we
thought we could convert that right now to single family and really make a go of it in the market.
And even in the market 3 to 6 months from now, or past. It just, it would be certainly maybe be
distinctive. It would probably be the homes that would show up in Distinctive Home magazine,
because they’d all have to be at least a million dollar homes, and that’s not the market that we
think that this area can support. I don’t know if we can come back with more architecture. I
guess as oppose to getting denied, we’d certainly take the opportunity to look at it, but I can’t
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
35
promise you that I’m going to be able to come back here and say hey, we’ve got a new product.
What do you think?
Councilman Peterson: And you were speaking more to me than anybody else, so I guess I’ll
respond. I think that really what I’m talking about is degree. You know I approved the last
project and I supported it. I think we have a better product from what the Planning Commission
and you and council had. I’m essentially talking about numbers and if you were coming in front
of us with 1,200 units tonight, you’d probably get more push back. I mean in my..I think we’ve
got enough of the kinds of products you’ve got with the 600 in the other area.
Kevin Clark: That’s a misnomer. We don’t have 600 in the other.
Councilman Peterson: Well I was.
Kevin Clark: 440. 444.
Councilman Peterson: Well, 450 versus the 146 so. To that end, I’m just struggling with the
numbers.
Kevin Clark: Okay.
Councilman Peterson: So you know, and I support the numbers with the design differences
we’ve had, I’ve had the discussion with you before so. But again I think that’s where my point
is. There is a number from the size of it, the development that’s going to get pushed back from
staff and you weren’t at staff’s push back. You happen to be at mine. Now whether or not it’s
the rest of the council’s, I can’t speak so.
Kevin Clark: Sure. It’s kind of you know, that’s a conundrum that you individually have to
work with but I guess we’ve met that density requirement. I mean I think coming into this, back
when, this area was guided for these densities. I mean if some of these things were out there as
were taken into effect when the AUAR study was done. When you looked at capacity for other
improvements that you were planning on. What you thought your tax revenues would be.
Infrastructure. Viability. Assessment levels. All those things were important to do that and I
think when we look at Liberty at Bluff Creek, where are we at? 4.52 or somewhere in there as
far as net density as opposed to you know 4 to 8, so we’ve been very sensitive along with you
and listen to you on that throughout this discourse. But some of the comments I’ve heard
tonight, we’re kind of, we’re caught up in that more internal wrestling match, and I don’t know.
It is what it is but it’s kind of an unfair collective.
Councilman Lundquist: We did take some of the, we did take some of the, on the original
project, we did take some of the industrial out of that when we approved that. The Liberty at
Bluff Creek so there was, I mean you’re on point where you say that you have the low end of the
density here but as we look at that site as a whole, they have deviated from some of the guiding
on that by taking some of that industrial out, so we are, you know there’s some things that have
changed there as well as we look at the site as a whole but, you’re certainly on point where
you’re at the low end of the density.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
36
Kevin Clark: So that made, I think made Bluff Creek more of a challenge because that was an
undefined situation you left yourselves with. Really, that we all were trying to deal with is that
we left, there were more options there than maybe would have been ideal.
Mayor Furlong: And I think Mr. Clark, in terms of giving you credit. Perhaps we haven’t
expressed it publicly so I’ll do it now, and with Liberty at Bluff Creek there were some very
good strides made there through the process that resulted in the approval at the time.
Kevin Clark: Sure, and we’re grateful and excited about, you know what we’re doing out there
right now.
Mayor Furlong: And color palette was part of that but the other thing were some new design.
New product designs that came in there that were not originally part of it. And as I drive around
the Twin Cities area, or travel to other parts of the country, there are some places where you can
go to where you drive by beige box after beige box after beige box that are all just lined up, and
we don’t have that there so I think from what was accomplished at Bluff Creek, I think we did
make some great strides there in terms of the number of different housing products and
introducing some of the new products that weren’t originally designed, and I guess all I’m
hearing here is, is you know can we do some of that rather than just taking the extension of the
existing products there and transferring them over here. Tell me if I’m wrong. The other issues
that we’ve talked about, the park. The road. Are we generally coming to agreement on that as a
council? Councilwoman Tjornhom, again you were a little hesitant here but again talking about
the product or the, following up on Councilman Peterson’s comments there. In terms of the
road, you said the road to the north made sense to you and you know, the park is like it, but at
least it’s an option.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor I would say, you know as a, none of those are really deal
breakers for me. Do I like the road alignment? You know no, but does it work? Is it an option?
You know of all the options, then yeah. Is the open area/totlot/whatever you know you want to
call it ideal? No, but is it, would it work? Yeah. But there’s nothing compelling me as I look at
this thing as a whole to put those issues aside and say it’s worth accepting those less than ideal
conditions to go ahead and get it. Where there’s some, something compelling me about the
development to say that I really want these style of houses or this product or this market that isn’t
currently served in our residents somehow, some way. Something different about that. I could,
the road and the park thing wouldn’t be the detriment to me. But when I look at it as a whole,
there’s something missing there that isn’t jumping off the page saying, I want this.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Well and I guess to your comment, I guess what I think, to try
to keep it going but also to give some good direction there, what we’re looking for. The
comments have been made tonight. It would seem to me that we should probably take another
look at the housing products, or ask you to do that and have you come back with what options
might be available, and the pros and cons then of those options. Is that a fair?
Councilman Peterson: From my perspective, yeah, certainly.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
37
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I think it’s very fair. I think you’re a very talented developer and I
think that there has to be more than 4 townhouses that can be built out in Chanhassen. I’m sure
you could find 2 more that are just as good, if not better. As far as design standards are
concerned.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other thoughts or comments?
Kevin Clark: No, I think I understand and we’ll take 2 weeks to take a look at it.
Mayor Furlong: See what can happen.
Roger Knutson: In order to make this work we’ll need an extension on the time lines.
Kevin Clark: I think we have through the 8th, correct?
Roger Knutson: Right, but that won’t work for us because if we’re going to go in a different
direction, we have to start that process tonight. In other words, we need more time if you want to
actively consider something.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Lundquist: So you’re saying from a staff perspective we need more time?
Roger Knutson: If you’re going to go with findings different than what the Planning
Commission has put in front of you, in other words if you’re going to want findings for denial,
you’d have to order them prepared tonight so we could have them at your next meeting.
Councilman Lundquist: I didn’t hear us say findings for denial.
Todd Gerhardt: But you’re going to table now.
Mayor Furlong: I know but…the 8th is our next meeting so. Is that something to do whatever
our city attorney would like to do.
Kevin Clark: This is déjà vu.
Roger Knutson: Yes, we’ve done that before haven’t we.
Todd Gerhardt: Like I told Justin earlier, it’s just like home so.
Kevin Clark: What I’ve done is just amended the date.
Roger Knutson: To what?
Kevin Clark: May 22nd.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
38
Mayor Furlong: That would be our second council meeting from now. Just for clarification, if
we took action at that meeting, would that extension still be okay?
Roger Knutson: That will work.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, very good. Is there a motion to table?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Motion to table.
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded.
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council
table action on Liberty at Creekside, Planning Case No. 05-24. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
(The City Council took a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
PIONNER PASS, 1600 PIONEER TRAIL, APPLICANT SEVER PETERSON:
REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM
RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY AND OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL-
LOW DENSITY (APPROXIMATELY 43 ACRES); REZONING FROM
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO RESIDENTIAL LOW AND MEDIUM
DENSITY DISTRICT (RLM); PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PIONEER PLASS
CREATING 82 LOTS, 8 OUTLOTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PUBLIC STREETS
(APPROIXMATELY 73 ACRES); CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT WITH A
VARIANCE FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO THE PRIMARY ZONE; AND WETLAND
ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE GRADING AND FILLING OF WETLANDS AT
FUTURE HIGHWAY 312.
Public Present:
Name Address
Joel Cooper JRH Inc.
John Chadwick J. Edwin Chadwick LLC
Paul Bilotta HMI Development
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. This project before you tonight,
Pioneer Pass is located also in the 2005 MUSA area. It will gain it’s access off the new frontage
road, then also off of Pioneer Trail. This request involves a couple of actions, most specifically
land use amendment from residential medium density or office industrial to low density. Of
approximately 43 acres. It also includes the rezoning to RLM and we’ll spend a little bit of time
going through that zoning district itself. Also preliminary plat and a conditional use for the work
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
39
within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and a variance for the pond in the overlay district. And
then also a wetland alteration permit for grading and filling. Most importantly I’d like to talk a
little bit about the land use on this. If you want to turn to page 4 of the staff report, we put a
table in there showing you where we are to date on the different land uses. Based on the
previous discussion, it may be hard to believe this but our largest land use is low density, large
lots or single family is our largest land use. If you go to the housing goals, we’ve always said it
will predominantly 80% single family detached, so what you’re seeing now is the introduction of
some other product types. The RLM zoning district, which you look at this…was anticipated in
some of the properties within the overlay district. As we looked at the overlay district, as we
talked about in the past, there were two ways to accomplish providing the entire creek corridor,
and I’ll go back to my old map here. The goal was to provide a corridor that runs from the north
side to the south along the Bluff Creek and instead of acquiring it all, which we could have done,
we’ve worked through the zoning technique to provide that corridor because we have had
experiences where people plotting up the lot, so in this specific piece came before you and asked
for concept PUD to discuss whether or not you wanted to look at the medium density or the
industrial. At that time the applicants, also in talking with staff, we wanted to provide different
housing styles on the property so this would be a single family product. So what we did on page
4 is we put the compliance table to date on that percentage of units, and it was discussed actually
even on the bottom of page 2, talking about the 43 acres. Again, try to keep this simplistic but
when we did our compliance on the land use, or our calculations, we assumed that a 50/50 split.
If it went industrial or residential, we assumed based on the land use calculations for housing
densities at 50/50 split. So in looking at the units lost among the medium densities were, that
would have showed up on that 50% also. Again we used those numbers to keep track of that.
We had to make certain assumptions for assessments and we looked at those numbers of, number
of units, also for utilities. Water rate structure. Storm water fees so we look at all those
numbers. So looking at the overall, we’re taking into low density. Adding 42 acres, or taking
out of the medium density 21. So that ties back to that percentage. Again in looking at the
zoning that could have been applied on this, they could have gone with the medium or the
industrial but at the concept this council gave direction conceptually, while it doesn’t have legal
standing, in good faith they moved forward using the low density. I’ll talk about the specific
questions on the green, I’m not going to talk too much about that except that we did talk that it
slopes down towards the creek, and the park is located in that area that actually provides a good
transition between Liberty at Bluff Creek and this project itself. And also as the Park Director
mentioned, we believe it’s in a good site as far as the visibility from a major collector road,
which would be another nice view as you come down the collector road. Turn at the round about
and then…minor collector that they’ll be putting in place. So access on this, another issue under
zoning itself, because there is other industrial zoning on this piece of property, so what the
developer, but then also MnDot has and if they decide to turn back that right-of-way, excess
right-of-way, that would stay under guiding the industrial, which would tie into the triangular
piece that we talked about earlier. Everybody tracking me on that? So we, so this property is in
excess MnDot right-of-way. This property here.
Mayor Furlong: We expect it will be?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it could be turned back at some time when they’re done with the project.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
40
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: But we’re not changing the guiding on that. We’re only changing the guiding,
so this will still remain industrial, and that ties back into…going to go here, and then this is also,
what we talked about earlier, is the industrial piece on the other side of the creek.
Mayor Furlong: If it remains industrial or will it be dual guided?
Kate Aanenson: Probably still be dual guided. But we would recommend probably a transition
area of some professional office, kind of in that area. Buffering. But the issue there then too was
access. Again, as I indicated, it will have access off of the collector road. They are also building
a minor collector on this portion. So they’re…the issue that we have is there’s a gap there
between the MnDot right-of-way and getting to Pioneer. So on this map doesn’t show it but the
subdivision map does show that connection onto Pioneer, so there’s two access points in and out
of that subdivision also. And as the City Engineer indicated earlier, that access point was, this
access point was actually over here earlier. Approximately in this area. It’s not been moved
over to this point as part of the design build.
Councilman Lundquist: So they’re building the road.
Kate Aanenson: To tie in…
Councilman Lundquist: From their development all the way to, is that Bluff Creek Drive coming
up there or what is that?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. This is the new aligned Bluff Creek Drive, right.
Councilman Peterson: They’re not building right up to that though?
Kate Aanenson: Yes they are. Building right across. Yes, we are making that a condition of
approval because there’s a gap and we wanted two access points in the subdivision.
Councilman Peterson: And that part is in MnDot’s right now?
Kate Aanenson: It is. It’s a condition of approval that they secure that to make that access
happen. Yeah, so we’re not putting all the pressure back on this road, so the two access points.
So I mentioned again these are all public streets. This one being the 80 foot. The rest of them
would all be the 60 foot. There’s a compliance table in the staff report talking about the lot sizes.
Again this is the RLM zoning district. We did apply this when we updated the city code to give
another zoning option within the RLM zone. This is the area that’s being preserved. There is
buildable area up in the, let me go to the plat itself. There is some buildable area on this side of
the creek, and on the north side. They are providing an additional access through their property
to the Creekside, Liberty at Creekside development. So again this is an opportunity for them to
take advantage of some of the impervious surface. In working with the grades, and our road
construction through the project itself, the best place to locate that pond without putting a big
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
41
retaining wall outside of the overlay district is where it is, and that’s why the staff supported the
variance on the location of that pond. Part of it is our construction of the road. I talked about.
Mayor Furlong: Is that…second? Secondary.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. It’s actually in the primary, so that’s the first time we’ve done that but in
looking at where, if we pulled it up closer to those lots, we didn’t want that proximity…so the
staff supported that again with some significant grading that you’re not seeing…so that’s already
being impacted by grading of the road, so we felt that was, it’s already been impacted by our
road design, so putting the pond there didn’t add additional impact.
Councilman Lundquist: How much of the primary zone is it?
Kate Aanenson: So this is, it’s hard to see on this. This is the grading, the lines. Can you zoom
in a pinch more, just up in this corner right here. These lines are pretty light but the significant
impact in grading right through here on that, and I know it’s hard to see. For the road. So that’s
where this pond follows, so the back’s up in here is pretty much the primary line right there.
Councilman Lundquist: Go back to the, okay.
Kate Aanenson: Right in here.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So essentially the whole pond is in the primary zone?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. And again, the reason we did support that early on is that we
already were impacting that with our, so since it was, the grades were being changed for our
project, it made sense to put it there. Instead of putting it closer to the backs of the lots where
engineering had some concern. The…change of grades right in the back of the retaining walls.
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, what’s in that green spot in the back there? No, in the opposite
corner.
Kate Aanenson: Here?
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah.
Kate Aanenson: That’s a wetland associated with the creek.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, and so.
Kate Aanenson: And this is all.
Councilman Lundquist: There you go. That one you just touched, right there. So putting a pond
right there, is that still in the primary zone?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
42
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, so it doesn’t matter, alright.
Kate Aanenson: But again that’s part of the green space that they’re capitalizing on, which I’ll
segway to now and then I’ll swing back to parks. In the compliance table we give you all the
lots. Lots average 15,000 square feet. The smallest being 9. It does say that 5 and a 10. The
plat you’re looking had some, it shows 10 all the way around on all sides. It does allow, 10 foot.
In talking with the applicant.
Mayor Furlong: Are you talking about side yard setback?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. But with a 70 foot, but.
Mayor Furlong: So then…
Kate Aanenson: Right, but what I’d like to recommend is that we had 5 in here, that is allowed
as a minimum. That we change that to a 5 and a 10. That would be 15 feet inbetween, to allow
that flexibility because this was designed for specific buildings. We had custom product homes.
Right now they’re trying to introduce a number of different builders in here, and this zoning
district also allows 35% impervious, again anticipating that we want to do a single family that
would be able to capitalize on the overall district, using that green space. This does allow for the
35% hard cover within the subdivision itself. So if you went with a bigger home on these
smaller lots, it would fit based on the impervious calculation, and that’s again in the RLM zone.
So they’re showing the 10 on either side. And that was with the 70 foot wide home in there.
Some of them are coming in a little bit larger so, they certainly can do the 5. 5 and 10, so you’d
rotate that. So we have at least 15 feet between, there’s probably some that certainly would be
the 10 and 10. So you’d have the, which is our standard.
Councilman Lundquist: So you’re asking for 5 and 10 or 10 and 10?
Kate Aanenson: 5 and 10. I’d like to leave that flexibility in because you may have a larger
home, if you get those, there’s some builders that they’re talking to that we’ve worked with that
do a little bit larger home than the 70. We’d like that flexibility to be able to introduce that. But
I would say there’ll probably be a lot of them at the 10 and 10.
Councilman Lundquist: So they’re asking for 10 and 10 or?
Kate Aanenson: They’re asking for 5 and 5.
Councilman Lundquist: Oh okay.
Kate Aanenson: I’m recommending that we go to 5 and 10.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, I’m with you.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
43
Kate Aanenson: That’s what the code allows, 5 and 5 and I asked them if they would be willing
to go to the 5 and 10. On the bottom of page 15, again the average lot size on that is the 15,000.
That’s also in the compliance table on one of the sheets on your site plan too. So it does have
some lots obviously that are over on the cul-de-sac lots, and again this project itself will have
some very interesting views which is certainly of interest to Mr. Peterson who owns the property
to take, to really capitalize on the serentic area here, and then also as a part of the extraction that
was negotiated through the park commission and park director, provide an opportunity obviously
for these residents…for the Bluff Creek and that would be a public park. I think that’s all I had
unless there was some specific questions on anything. I’d be happy to answer any questions that
you have.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions for staff?
Councilman Peterson: Kate what have we got, what do we have for similar setback between
single family homes…? What did we do at Settlers West?
Kate Aanenson: They’re 10 and 10, but they’re all maxed out. That’s a 25% impervious and all
those houses are going either at 24 or right at 25 when they come in, so in looking at this, I think
the uniqueness again, allowing the impervious to go higher because we’ve created that green
space in the back, it allows people to come back and do those porches, decks, those sort of things
without the fact that they’re going over, and that’s really key to what we believe is giving that
flexibility on developments, as opposed to putting those much larger homes on the minimum
15,000 which everybody tries to maximize the number of lots, so we believe that the flexibility’s
built in here and using this different zoning technique. Again we anticipated this application
somewhere in the district. The 2005.
Mayor Furlong: I guess the question is, should we reserve time on future agendas for hard
surface coverage…?
Kate Aanenson: Oh you may. You may.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess…I guess that’s a question in terms of initial design and wherever
you put the setbacks and what’s allowed so. For a builder to build out…what they’re allowed to
do so if that’s where.
Kate Aanenson: Right, and I’ll go back to the discussion we’ve had this with the Planning
Commission too. Our zoning ordinance was built at a time when our standard lot frontage, 90
foot and then you’ve got 10 on each side, left you a 70 foot home. Most of the larger home
builders now are doing a 74 or 75, 76 foot wide home. They can’t meet the setbacks, and not
only that, they’re much deeper. So you know we tried to look at how do we balance that and
that’s why we introduce this zoning district too. Now certainly going a small 80 foot frontage
wouldn’t work on that but it allows you to go the 35%. They can do the bigger lots, but they’d
also have to create that green space, so it’s an opportunity where you’ve got the right area.
Mayor Furlong: And that 35%, that would be valid for what, the 12,000 foot lots…
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
44
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Over the entire site. Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions at this point? Just one question I had, this was in the conditions
with regards to the parks. With regard to the economics of the additional park. Mr. Gerhardt,
any comments on that or?
Todd Gerhardt: I think the language that is written in the report reflect the purchase agreement
with D.R. Horton. I think for everything to be equal, I like the Mayor’s point that we talked
about earlier that as long as it doesn’t go any higher, but if it goes lower, then we’d want to
adjust the dollar amount so.
Mayor Furlong: I asked the question of where the dollar amount came up and I understood that
it was from the previous purchase agreement, and if that’s where…
Todd Gerhardt: That was a good recommendation Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: ...the only question I had, is that still a valid concern on our part.
Todd Gerhardt: I think we’ll address that with the final plat. I would think they’re probably
continuing to market the property and might have a purchase agreement by then and we can even
get a dollar amount in there.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I think obviously getting some preliminary plat approval allows them to
accelerate their marketing, correct.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Any other questions for staff at this point?
Councilman Peterson: Kate from a historical, the only concern I’ve got to some degree is we’re
doing a zoning change without having any sense of a look or feel of what they’re planning to put
down there. And I don’t remember if we’ve ever done that.
Kate Aanenson: Well, except that we do it on a standard subdivision all the time. We don’t ask
if, when Pinehurst came in, we didn’t look at their product. We’ve asked them to whoever
they’re working with. It’s happened sometimes that they’ll reassemble lot lines that you can do
administratively. If they have to drop one lot to make some builder happy, they split part of a lot
and join it to the other two. If you follow me, so that may happen, but certainly that’s what they
need that information to go forward with marketing. And we do have this size lots, actually
Springfield was the last PUD that we did which is off of Lyman, and that’s an average of 15,000.
Some as small as 11. The problem is the 30% and still that’s sometimes in a PUD the single
family, you really need to get closer to the 35 for the smaller lot. And that’s how we looked at.
Councilman Peterson: The subdivision…rezoning.
Kate Aanenson: Well PUD would. Yeah, a PUD would.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
45
Councilman Peterson: But then we gain control with PUD…
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Well you still, our ordinance says we don’t do design
standards or design review on a single family home, so. We only do it on multi family, or
attached.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions at this point? You have some more questions… At this
point in time…the applicant, good evening. If they would like to address the council, you’re
more than welcome.
John Chadwick: Good evening. My name is John Chadwick. I live at 11430 Zion Circle,
Bloomington, Minnesota. Representing the Peterson family. Thank you Mr. Mayor, council,
staff. Chance to be here. It seems like I’ve had a chance to visit with most of your staff
throughout this last year and a half, and it’s been a good experience. Not that there hasn’t been a
little back and forth, but I think that’s really good. And what we tried to do, I think it’s about a
63 acre site when you look at it corner to corner to corner to meander and wherever she all goes,
but it does, it is part of the Bluff Creek and I think there’s 18-19 acres of that that’s being
preserved. And then there’s a 4 acre park, 4.79 acre, 4.73 acre park, the yellow area right there
that should be of great benefit to the people here. It’s available as Kate said, you’ve got a nice
drive what you’re looking at when you’re coming from the north and south. You come in from
the southern collector road, that comes in off of Pioneer, you can get there. You can see it,
everybody can get to it and can use it. That should be a great amenity. We did a road
connection and everything as a public street. We tried our best to follow the AUAR as far as we
need to build a southern collector, so we did that. We want to tie into the east/west, north/south
collector. We did that. We got that nice round about that gives us a beautiful sight lines to the
development, and you know I didn’t design all this stuff. We got design consultants and
engineer is here making that whole thing work out. And we’ve got about 80 foot drop from the
top of the farm all the way down to the water level of Bluff Creek, and so it’s a pretty nice deal
for making single family. It would be really difficult to do big, flat buildings on that thing
without grading the heck of her. So we, the street’s curved, turned out to the roads and the way
they lay out there. I’m sure there’s going to be a lot of grading but there’s been a lot of farming
done there too, so we don’t have to run into too many trees on this particular site. And as far as
down on the Bluff Creek area, some of that hasn’t been farmed. Of course that will be restored
as part of this development and put it back into a more of a natural state. Sorry about that Sever.
The deal’s probably done. And so with that we’ve got 81 lots and we’re anxious to get going on
that and we are actively marketing that and we’ve got a lot of great inquiries on that and
unsolicited inquiries now that the word is out. It’s out there and people like to be in Chanhassen.
And we like to make that possible and with your help and support we’re going to make that
possible. And make it as part of this area, this whole AUAR area that we worked so hard on.
We’re here to answer any questions. We don’t need to belabor the point. The hour is late. And
then…other areas that we’d like to get on to so with that I will stop and I thank you all for your
hard work.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Thank you Mr. Chadwick. Any questions? Very good. Any
follow up questions?
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
46
Councilman Lundquist: Just had one quick one Mr. Mayor. Kate, the south side of the property,
as that will be some sort of, oh yeah. Of commercial, industrial, office. Whatever that might be
there. On the topography, landscaping, whatever that might be, do we have what we feel would
be adequate buffering between the backs of those houses? As Mr. Undestad can attest to, we just
went through a fun one like that as we transition from a single family neighborhood to what was
an open space is now an industrial office.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it’s a good question. I didn’t touch too much on this but they’re actually
buffering through landscaping the collector because you’ve got street on both sides like on these
lots. And then also on this minor collector, there is no direct access. You have to get that via
this street, so that would be a nice experience as you come along the park there. Also providing
additional landscaping here. To this area too, we’ve also talked about letting through their
covenants, letting those homeowners know that this is excess right-of-way and may be developed
as something else in the future. But there is a pretty good change in grade but we’ve talked
about some things that we can come back with on final plans too. How we take care of
addressing that and then the transition of buffer.
Councilman Lundquist: Is the grade change down or up?
Kate Aanenson: Right now it’s berm. But it could go away and that’s kind of what, they’ve
addressed that so that’s why we need to put in the covenants that may go away and it may be
something else, and that’s kind of what we’re talking about. Leaving that in place but figuring
out, because if a different use came in and we’d want to provide some other type, whether it’s
fencing or. It may be an office with a greater setback that may work too and get access via this
road and how we orientate that and stuff so, that’s something that we’d work on too between
now and final plat.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Just you know a concern. We bring in office industrial or
commercial, they’re not generally amenable to giving you a bigger setback. They’re trying to
put as big a box on there as they possible can so. Maybe it’s something we want to look at
between now and final as well to make sure that we’ve got some protection so that 8-10 years
down the road when that end of that gets…
Mayor Furlong: So will that remain zoned A2 guided…
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Yep, it will remain zoned A2 and guided for office or, excuse
me, office industrial/medium density.
Mayor Furlong: Or medium density.
Kate Aanenson: And that’s one we could look at too as we update the comp plan, if you wanted
to get something more specific, that could be one that we’ll target too. To look.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions at this point? Thoughts and comments.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
47
Councilman Lundquist: Want me to go first this time Craig?
Councilman Peterson: Sure. I can’t play the protagonist all night.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, my thoughts. I’m glad to see a different style in here. On
this property. It seems a lot of the issues that we just went through on the last one we won’t face
here. Kate, thanks for the comparison on the Springfield. That helps me get a little bit better
handle because when I look at the numbers and I think about 12 or 13,000 acre, or square foot lot
you know with a 35% hard cover on there, that seems like you know, you could share dinner
with your neighbors through the kitchen window if you tried hard, so that’s good there. The, you
know obviously the proximity to the park and all of that is good. I’m a little bit leery I guess not
having a builder necessarily identified that you know, I want to make sure we get a good quality
piece and I feel like as we, we’re at the point now where if we approve this, you know yes
there’s a final plat to go yet and hopefully we’ll have that not so minor detail taken care of at that
point, but you know I want to make sure that we lay out all the guidelines and we don’t get
somebody comes in and builds some lower quality pieces on there and there’s not a heck of a lot
we can do about it at that point so. Either that’s a concern that’s out there, but this being in the
preliminary phase, if we get to the final I’d be a lot more concerned about it at that point but
overall pretty straight forward. I like the way it’s laid out. It again still, it’s a lot of units in there
when you look at it on paper. It’ll be sandwiched probably inbetween two townhouse
developments which, and a future office industrial and a major highway and some collector
streets and all kinds of good stuff so it will be interesting to see how the marketing process goes.
Wish you luck there. Hopefully we can get a good builder in there, but as it stands overall I’m
comfortable with what we’ve got at the stage that we’re at now. You know look for some of that
buffering on the south side, and the final and hopefully we can get to a point where we’ve got a
builder identified so we can get a little bit more comfortable with the products that we’d be
looking for so, those are my comments.
Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Other thoughts.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well I feel comfortable with the project. I think that you know, I
don’t really have a fear that we’re going to have some disaster strike and we’ll have horrible
round houses or something in these developments. I think that we’ll come up with property
owners and some builders that have good design standards and are going to you know, the
neighborhood will only sell if they have good houses in them so I’m trusting that that, I’ll follow
my wisdom on that. I think that it’s a good neighborhood because it will have a different variety
of price points perhaps than some of the other neighborhoods we’ve had. We won’t have maybe
million dollar homes. We’ll have more something in reach for other people in the community.
I’m guessing. Maybe not. Maybe higher… I think that neighborhood flows nicely. I think the
park is a good asset. And I leaned over to Councilman Lundquist while you were up presenting
your plans and I said it looks like a good door knocking neighborhood. I like that. Homes close
together and easy access. Other than that I guess I don’t have any problems with it and I look
forward to seeing how it develops.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Peterson.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
48
Councilman Peterson: I would echo my two peers and previous comments so nothing to add.
Councilman Lundquist: One quick mulligan though. It is the one concern I do have that I’ll just
reiterate again is the loss of the industrial piece. You know we talked about it at concept. We
talked about it as we go along that you know, I guess we can’t let it slide by. Probably still
beating a dead horse but I’ll continue to do that as we.
Mayor Furlong: I’ll pick up on that and give you some of my thoughts. Perhaps something that
we or staff want to look at with the excess right-of-way piece to maybe take away the dual on
that. I’m not advocating that but consider it. Looking at if it works. Maybe then giving it a
single guiding, which, because that was a point Councilman Lundquist raised at the time that we
approved concept plan. We’ve learned more from that…and where things might be going but
that might be something to look at. Not advocating it but maybe that’s the opportunity. You
know overall I’m pleased with what I’ve heard this evening. It helped me gain some comfort. I
think my concern is when we’re dealing with smaller lot sizes, and here some of these are pretty
good sized lots. It’s probably more of a function of the topography and the lots going down to
the creek, you know. Because there are some small ones here too. I’m just a little concerned
with some of the setbacks in here. I think a normal single family residential we’re at 30 and 30
on the front and back. 30 in the front.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we’ve actually approved a lot of, yeah. If you go to like Longacres, a lot
of those were given the 20 on the front. On this PUD’s. Same with Springfield. Where we try
to preserve trees. Actually I think we did that on a few on Pinehurst too where if you recall as
you go to that ravine, so we try to stay at a minimum of 25. That gives you better stacking on the
front driveway. You’ll see that on another project that’s coming forward that we stick with at
least a 25.
Mayor Furlong: Because this is, you know setbacks are something I’ve mentioned before…
especially with 5 on a side yard, or even what’s being proposed here as the 5 and 10. 15 feet is
not a lot between two homes and you know my, on the impervious surface, you know 35% on a
22,000 acre lot, that’s quite a bit that can be used. Would it all be used? Perhaps not but it could
be used. My preference is to try to keep that down just from a storm water management,
especially near the creek. And maybe I can give…and try to force that to 30. Keep that at 35
and those side yard setbacks…but I would be interested in some thoughts there. A lot of the
flexibility is important but at the same time it’s that look and feel that’s going to add 5 more feet
to the lawn distance perhaps between homes but again… Yeah, 15 feet is not much.
Kate Aanenson: Can I throw this out Mayor since they’re working on, at this point if we look at
the 5 and 10 when they come back for final plat, when they’ve got a builder, then you’ll have a
better idea. Kind of what their needs are because if we eliminate it now, then we’ve prevented
them from doing anything bigger than that 70, so maybe it’s a percentage, if they kind of know
who their builders are.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess the assumption there is it might be a single builder. Maybe there…
but is there something that prevents us from relaxing those setbacks? I’ve got to believe that we
can’t be more restrictive… Is there some reason that we couldn’t relax those.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
49
Kate Aanenson: That’s what I’m saying. Keep it open so you can make it more restrictive, well
I guess that wouldn’t work that way.
Mayor Furlong: Well if we wanted, and I don’t even know if anybody else agrees with me.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I’m tracking with you. I understand.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, well just qualify it. Say at final plat we review based on the builders that
it may be changed.
Mayor Furlong: What I heard tonight and your comment with Settlers West was another most
recent example is that, whatever those setbacks are, they go to a maximum. …but so, from our
standpoint I guess…
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I guess in this instance too the ordinance does say 5 and 5, so we’ve
asked them in good faith if they would consider accepting the 5 and the 10, which they said
they’d like to do. So, or are willing to do, but I think you know looking at who the builder is,
we have a better understanding, or the builders if there’s a couple of them, kind of what their
needs are. So maybe it’s even greater like a 7 and 10, I’m not sure. Just give me that 2 extra
feet. Because sometimes it affects when people do side, side loaded, side decks. Those sort of
things.
Mayor Furlong: Right, I understand and I’d be interested in other members of council comments
but to relax something based on specific requirements… Whatever it is, it’s going to be that or
more requested so… I’ve gained a lot of comfort this evening with the presentations than I was
coming in tonight so. When we talked about the concept plan, we talked about some single
families…single family. The lot sizes and those setbacks are something that concerned me a lot
and…trying to visualize that. If we’re going to give in the impervious surface, I guess I’d prefer
to keep sides at 10 and 10, but open to any thoughts or comments.
Councilman Peterson: I understand exactly what you’re saying. As I said earlier in the evening,
part of what I’m sensing is, again to reiterate, south of, in 2005 MUSA we’re getting things
tighter than what we all perceived it to be, so I think to your point Mayor, if we can start bringing
things apart, even in a little way I think it’s a good thing because if you read a lot of the residents
have moved out here and obviously we’re talking about new residents coming in, but the ones
who have moved out here, it was because they wanted more green space and they wanted homes
that weren’t right next to each other so. Again I’m not trying to market homes but I’m trying to
address what our community’s wanting.
Mayor Furlong: Let me ask a question. Maybe Mr. Knutson this is a question for you. If this is
being rezoned…ordinances, do we have the ability to, and maybe it would be a different type of
zoning that would have… To me it sounds like a simple request but maybe it isn’t.
Roger Knutson: Well Mayor we were just discussing how we got here. The 5.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
50
Kate Aanenson: Is the minimum.
Roger Knutson: In that’s the minimum allowed.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Roger Knutson: In the zoning ordinance.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Roger Knutson: They’re not asking for a variance.
Kate Aanenson: No, I’m saying they’re willing to do a 5 and a 10. In good faith they’re willing
to accept a 10 foot. A 5 and a 10 foot. As a minimum, but it’s not in the zoning ordinance. We
make it.
Roger Knutson: You certainly can say they’ve agreed to do that. Can you condition it, condition
a rezoning on that? No. Because that’s what your zoning ordinance allows. But as part of plat
approval, you’re agreeing to that condition as a part of the plat approval I guess.
Mayor Furlong: Is there…zoning that wouldn’t throw it into variances on the lot sizes that, the
lots on those setbacks?
Kate Aanenson: Well if you did a PUD-R, the smallest lot would be 11, and they’ve got some
lots that are smaller than 11,000. And they’d also have the higher impervious, which would be
the 30% versus the 35.
Councilman Peterson: A couple lots are at 7,000.
Kate Aanenson: Correct, yeah. So it wouldn’t meet that requirement, plus it would set the
higher percentage for the impervious.
Mayor Furlong: I thought you said right now the impervious is 35.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. If you went to a PUD-R, which would be the other low density which
would allow you to average the lot size to get to 15, that PUD-R zoning district requires a
minimum 11,000. There’s lots underneath that so that would be, it wouldn’t meet that test. And
then also the impervious under a PUD-R is also 30%. This is 35.
Todd Gerhardt: We’re still going to have to get down to see what type of model, whoever’s
going to ultimately own this is, what kind of model can they fit on there. It’s nice that we give
them, these are the parameters, you know I think is what we’re establishing here. They’re going
to have to make their model fit to those parameters.
Kate Aanenson: Correct, but if it’s 5 foot, it’s 5 foot. If it’s a custom builder and the buyer
wants a certain home plan, that’s, it’s a custom builder.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
51
Mayor Furlong: What I’m hearing is that the 5 and 10 is something that we’re requesting.
Kate Aanenson: No. I’m saying I asked them if they could do a 5 and a 10 and they said they
could. In good faith, but it’s not, the minimum is still 5 and 5, and that’s what the City Attorney
is saying you can’t enforce that.
Councilman Lundquist: But Kate I don’t see, as I’m looking through that compliance table, I
don’t see any lots that are less than 11,000.
Councilman Peterson: I saw one at 7.
Councilman Lundquist: 13, 14. 15. There’s 11,050.
Kate Aanenson: Also the 30% then too as opposed to the 35. They are averaging right now
19%.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess you know, 30% is more important than the smaller lots than on the
larger lots in terms of if it’s a 12,000 foot lot…
Kate Aanenson: Again that 19% was based on one builder you know using a couple different
products so I don’t know if you have 3 or 4 different builders, that number may jump up.
Mayor Furlong: Which number is that?
Kate Aanenson: If you look in the staff report on page 15. Yeah, underneath the chart we put in
kind of right now it’s averaging about 19%, but that was based on the previous home builder’s
design.
Councilman Peterson: In the narrative it states the lots range from 11,050 to 22,066.
Mayor Furlong: But at 98% that the average proposed coverage based upon the previous builder
so then there’s…they’d have up to 30?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, I think that code 9,000 throws you off there.
Mayor Furlong: That’s the issue that…look at. We don’t deal with product design on a single
family house so what we can work with is, is how they fit on the lots. Overall, like I said, you
know this evening I was a little concerned about the lots and the sizes and setbacks. I’m getting
comfortable with the lot sizes because of the examples given. Still not there on setbacks, and if
there’s something that we can do there that would give some more comfort, especially as we talk
about them driving down the roads, collector roads. The roads that the neighborhood…between
the homes provide greater views for people off to Bluff Creek as well. That’s my issue. I think
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
52
if, to your point similar…I’d be very happy to move forward. Proceeding with the rest and if we
need to reduce some things or take a look at some things.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, was this addressed at the Planning Commission at all?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Councilman Peterson: Well we create it, we do it or not. I mean.
Mayor Furlong: Can we do it this evening? Is that something we can look at quickly?
Kate Aanenson: Well I guess it’s up to the applicant. Yeah, Mr. Chadwick.
John Chadwick: Thanks for the chance to come back up here. With all due respect I wish we’d
started at 5 by 5 and you’d have asked for 10 and I said sure, 10. It really gets a little tough
when they ask for that, you double one side. That’s okay. You double the other side, that gets a
little tighter. I think there’s a big streak going through here. That’s an 80 footer so there’s some
open space there and there’s a park and there’s this and so I understand that people don’t want to
live right on their neighbors and I don’t either, but I think we’ll probably be okay and I hope you
can have some comfort in that and you’ve got another couple passes at us I think before we
actually start building anything. I hope that answers things.
Mayor Furlong: And I appreciate that, and I guess the question is, do we have…or not? If we
approve this tonight on preliminary…
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. That’s correct.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, if you approve it tonight this way, you can’t be more restrictive later.
Councilman Lundquist: But we can’t approve it at 10 and 5. We can only approve it at 5 and 5
because that’s the setbacks equal with the zoning.
Roger Knutson: That’s what your zoning ordinance provides.
Councilman Peterson: Why don’t we change it to a PUD.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess I would then ask council if there’s desire to try to do something
like that…
Councilman Peterson: Kate, the minimum lot size in PUD-R is what, 11?
Kate Aanenson: 11,000.
Councilman Peterson: So that’s not an issue. Impervious surface will.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
53
Kate Aanenson: Could be at 30%. It tends to be a problem in other PUD’s. That’s why we’ve
moved away from doing it. The last one we ever, that we’ve done is Springfield because it tends
to be a problem. They don’t have the green space that goes beyond the entire site though too so
it may work.
Todd Gerhardt: You can’t force a developer into a PUD situation. So they have to apply for that
and have to start all over.
Councilman Peterson: We couldn’t do it tonight.
Roger Knutson: They’d have to request. They’d have to withdraw their application and go back
through Planning Commission.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, we noticed it as this.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Well that would be an over burden…I can’t see forcing that. So I guess
we’ll have to work on some faith that we’ll have some distance between the homes. Any other
discussion of council? Is there a motion?
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve subject to facts of finding supported by staff. Written
in there by staff.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Clarification. Would that be all five of the motions?
Kate Aanenson: Thank you.
Councilman Peterson: Yep.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded for all five motions. Is there any discussion?
Resolution #2006-31: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the
City Council approve the comprehensive plan Land Use Amendment from Residential –
Medium Density and Office/Industrial to Residential - Low Density of the land within the Plat
of Pioneer Pass except for Outlots A, B, C, D and G contingent on Metropolitan Council
review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve
the Rezoning of the land within the Plat for Pioneer Pass except for Outlots A, B, C, D and G,
Pioneer Pass, from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Residential Low and Medium Density
District, RLM. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
54
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve
Preliminary Plat for “Pioneer Pass” creating 81 lots, 9 outlots and right-of-way for public
streets, plans prepared by James R. Hill, Inc., dated 2/3/06, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The developer shall prepare a noise analysis for noise that will be generated by traffic on
Highway 312 and Pioneer Trail. The analysis shall identify appropriate noise mitigation
measures to meet noise standards for residential homes.
2. The developer shall pay $21,547.00 as their portion of the 2005 AUAR.
3. The applicant shall plant 369 trees within the development, 98 overstory and required buffer
yard plantings trees along Collector Road D and buffer yard plantings for lots along the
south property line.
4. Each lot shall have a minimum of two overstory deciduous trees planted in the front yard.
5. The applicant shall install the total required buffer yard along Collector Road D or show
proof of berm height of 3 feet or higher along the length of the street and adjust the
quantities of understory and shrubs accordingly.
6. The applicant shall development a restoration plan including native plants for the Bluff
Creek Overlay district north of Block 1. The plant species shall be selected from the Bluff
Creek Management Plan Appendix C. The final plan must be reviewed and approved by the
city before installation.
7. Signage for the Bluff Creek Overlay District must be posted on every other property corner
where residential yards meet the primary zone.
8. The 950 contour shall be extended over lots 5 and 6, block 3 to provide more coverage from
headlights for those homes.
9. Dedication of Outlots A and G shall be made to the city or a conservation easement shall be
established over said outlots.
10. The developer shall designate a 4.72 acre neighborhood park site, Outlot H. This
property shall be transferred to the city by warranty deed with 3.79 acres of the site being
dedicated/ donated by the applicant/owner and the remaining 0.93 acres being purchased
by the City of Chanhassen. The city shall compensate the owner/applicant $218,550 in
total compensation for said 0.93 acres.
11. The developer shall rough grade and cover seed the park site and construct a 20 stall parking
lot for an additional not to exceed payment of $50,000 from the city. The parking lot shall
include insurmountable curb. Construction plans for all improvements within the borders of
the park shall be submitted to the Park & Recreation Director for approval prior to initiating
construction of these improvements. All material and labor costs are reimbursable. Design,
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
55
engineering, and testing services associated with these improvements shall be provided by
the applicant.
12. The applicant shall submit a complete wetland replacement plan and must receive
approval of the replacement plan prior to alteration of wetlands. Wetland replacement
shall occur in a manner consistent with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
13. Wetland mitigation shall not be proposed for the northeast corner of the site in order to
ensure adequate area for a road connection to the property to the east of the site.
14. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around all Ag/Urban wetlands. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved,
surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall
install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction
begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall be set back 40 feet from the
edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback shall be shown on the plans.
15. Any areas on the property that meet the City’s criteria for bluffs (i.e., slope greater than
or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe) shall be preserved. In
addition, all structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading
may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet
from the top of a bluff). The plans shall be revised to show any areas meeting the City’s
bluff criteria.
16. No alterations shall be permitted within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of
the setback from the primary corridor without a variance. All structures must meet the
40-foot setback from the primary corridor.
17. The applicant shall demonstrate that storm water management along the southwest
property line of Lots 25-31, Block 2 is adequate to prevent drainage issues for future
homeowners.
18. The outlet for Pond 2 shall be moved westward to increase the flow distance between the
inlet and outlet structures.
19. Drainage and utility easements with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be provided over
all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as public value credit
and storm water infrastructure.
20. Energy dissipation shall be provided at the flared-end section inlet to Pond 2 within 24
hours of installation. Additional blanket shall be provided for storm sewer installation
area for inlet infrastructure to Pond 2. The access area shall be protected with erosion
control blanket upon the establishment of final grade. Erosion control blanket shall be
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
56
used on the slopes within Lots 31-24, Block 2. Mulch shall be substituted for the blanket
proposed for the berm area of Block 3 along Street D.
21. Temporary sediment basins shall be provided in existing watersheds 1 and 3 during mass
grading activities. Where 10 acres or more of exposed area come to a discernable point
of discharge to a wetland or waterway, a temporary basin shall be provided. The
proposed storm water basins in proposed drainage areas 2, 6 and 7 shall be temporary
sediment basins until the contributing areas are stabilized. The temporary outlets could
be installed in place of the permanent outlets.
22. Perimeter control (silt fence) shall be installed prior to grading along the south side of the
Street D and CSAH 14 (Pioneer Trail) intersection. All silt fences near flared-end
sections shall be installed up and around flared-end sections so water is not discharged
against the silt fence, causing it to fail.
23. An outlet area shall be defined for the two areas labeled as temporary sedimentation
basins during the rough grading/subcut street phase of development. Any shredded wood
material from tree removal shall be saved for temporary mulch berms/vehicle exit pads as
needed. Typical silt fence shall be installed prior to initial rough grading activities along
the west side of Outlot H to the proposed “street by others.”
24. The total SWMP fee shall be paid to the City at the time of final plat recording. The
estimated total SWMP fee at this time is $165,600.
25. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction Permit), Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (dewatering permit), Army Corps of Engineers) and
comply with their conditions of approval.
26. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
27. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
28. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new
roadways allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4.
29. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of
fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
57
30. Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
31. Fire hydrant spacing is unacceptable. Locate fire hydrants at intersections and in cul-de-sacs
and at 300 foot spacing. Most spacing is in excess of 400 to 500 feet at this time. Submit
revised fire plans to Fire Marshal for review and approval.
32. Before site grading commences, the existing building and driveway access off Pioneer Trail
onto the property must be removed.
33. On the grading plan, add a note to remove any existing house and driveway access.
34. The developer’s engineer must work with Liberty on Bluff Creek’s engineer to ensure that
the proposed grading on each property matches at the property line.
35. Ground slopes shall not exceed 3:1.
36. A minimum 75-foot long rock construction entrance must be shown on the plans.
37. Retaining walls must be designed by a structural engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota and require a building permit if greater than 4 feet in height.
38. The developer shall work with MnDOT to move the access at Pioneer Trail so that it aligns
with the MnDOT’s street on the south side. The access to Pioneer Trail shall be constructed
in conjunction with the first phase of the development.
39. The property is also subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for all of the lots.
The 2006 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,575 per unit for sanitary sewer and $4,078 per
unit for water. The 2006 SAC charge is $1,625 per unit.
40. The Arterial Collector Roadway Fee of $2,400/developable acre will need to be paid at the
time of final plat recording.
41. All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and 10:1 benches at the NWL. Revise accordingly.
42. All of the proposed housepads must have a rear yard elevation of at least three feet above
the HWL of the adjacent ponds.
43. Storm sewer calculations and drainage map must be submitted with the final plat
application. The storm sewer must be designed to accommodate a 10-year, 24-hour storm
event.
44. The last public stormwater structure that is road-accessible prior to discharging to a water
body must have a 3-foot sump pump.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
58
45. Future utility service and access to Outlot B needs to be determined prior to final plat.
46. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump
discharge from homes.
47. Add catch basins in the back yards of Lots 1-15, Block 3 connecting to Street C storm
sewer. Also add a catch basin along Street A in front of Lots 25-28 and between Lots 15 &
16 and 4 & 5, Block 1.
48. All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
49. The catch basin between Lots 6 & 7 must be built with two inlet openings.
50. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal.
51. An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading.
52. 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.
53. Utility services for the buildings must be shown on the final utility plan. Sanitary services
must be 6-inch PVC and water service must be 1-inch copper, Type K and will require a
City Building Department inspection.
54. Extend the silt fence along the south to the back yard of Lot 25, Block 1.
55. No retaining wall is allowed within any drainage and utility easement. Revise the retaining
wall between Lots 22, 23 and 24, Block 2, accordingly.
56. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security
in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements
and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility
improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance.
57. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required prior to construction,
including but not limited to MPCA, NPDES, MnDOT, Department of Health, Carver
County and Watershed District.
58. Reroute the sanitary sewer from Street A and the north-south corridor intersection to
minimize the sewer depth. Relocate the southern sanitary sewer out of the stormwater pond
easement at Outlot E.
59. Add a pressure relief valve to the watermain along Street D between Outlots E and F. This
will be a City improvement cost but installed by at the time of development.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
59
60. In-home pressure reducing water valves may be required on all lots with a lowest floor
elevation of 930 or less. Final determination for the need of in-home pressure reducing
valves will be made by the City at time of building permit.
61. The applicant shall coordinate with the developer of the adjacent properties in the northeast
corner of the site the dedication of public street right-of-way to provide access from the
parcel to the north to the parcel to the east and revise the plans accordingly.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve
Wetland Alteration Permit for the grading and filling of wetlands on property subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit a complete wetland replacement plan and must receive
approval of the replacement plan prior to alteration of wetlands. Wetland replacement
shall occur in a manner consistent with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
2. Wetland mitigation shall not be proposed for the northeast corner of the site in order to
ensure adequate area for a road connection to the property to the east of the site.
3. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around all Ag/Urban wetlands. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved,
surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall
install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction
begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall be set back 40 feet from the
edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback shall be shown on the plans.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve
Conditional Use Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District with a
variance for encroachment in to the primary zone to construct a storm water pond subject to
the following conditions:
1. Dedication of Outlots A and G shall be made to the city or a conservation easement shall
be established over said outlots.
2. Any areas on the property that meet the City’s criteria for bluffs (i.e., slope greater than
or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe) shall be preserved. In
addition, all structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading
may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet
from the top of a bluff). The plans shall be revised to show any areas meeting the City’s
bluff criteria.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
60
3. No alterations shall be permitted within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of
the setback from the primary corridor without a variance. All structures must meet the
40-foot setback from the primary corridor.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Lundquist: Yes Mr. Mayor, I would like to have a discussion regarding our skate
park, and I can defer if there are other members of the council that wanted to discuss other items
first or we can go ahead with that.
Mayor Furlong: Are there other items at this point? Other council presentations before
Councilman Lundquist?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: No.
Councilman Lundquist: Well first let me say thanks to Sergeant Olson and Mr. Hoffman that
hung around until 20 after 10:00 to talk about that because they’re two of the key parties and I
really do want your input and your thoughts, so thank you for that. Been an ongoing issue or
challenge probably since it was built. Continue to have some things going on out there that are
just items in my personal view that, or occurrences that I would rather not see. Last week we
had another incident on or around the skate park that concerns me from a safety of the people
using it standpoint. So what I want to discuss tonight, amongst the council members with some
input from staff and especially from Todd and Sergeant Olson is, I feel like that we haven’t
solved the problems at the skate park. We still have instances of things going on out there with
litter and the foul language. We’ve had some acts of violence out there now. We’ve got tobacco
use and all that other stuff going on. We’ve tried various measures of closing it down, and you
know I know that Mr. Gerhardt and Mr. Hoffman and the deputies have put their time, especially
Todd and Todd to go out and try to rectify those situations through, how shall we say you know
gentle persuasion. And you know, with limited success I think so, I look at that. It’s, you know
you get a collector of people together, especially when you’re talking about pre-teens. Teens and
there’s some older people that use that as well, but anytime we get a collection of people together
unsupervised…that are undesirable, I look at it as an overwhelming majority of people that are
using that space out there are doing it for the, are using it as intended. We’ve got a lot of kids
out there riding their skate boards. We’d absolutely rather have them riding them there than on
the front steps of the library or you know in front of the businesses downtown and all of that so, I
want to have that amenity. But I want to ensure that we’re, that we as a city are providing a safe
amenity as well. And an amenity where parents can feel confident that they’re sending their kids
out there and they’re not going to be subject to you know violence. They’re not going to be
subject to you know some of the other things that are going on out there. Things like that are
going to happen. Kids face all kinds of challenges, realize that but I can’t, I have a problem
sitting and knowing that those things are going on and we continue I think to do the same things
over and over, and I feel like as a council we need to have a discussion to talk about if we’re
providing the right resources to staff or the right direction to staff or what else is there out there
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
61
that we can do to provide a safe place for kids to use the skate park. So I’d be very interested in
some feedback from Sergeant Olson and Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Gerhardt and you know, most
notably from my fellow council members.
Mayor Furlong: Sergeant, Mr. Hoffman. Do you have specific questions or?
Councilman Lundquist: Well you know, you guys probably deal with it more than anyone. I
mean your thoughts about have we made progress over the last year? You know last year it was
in May where we had our resolution and developed our plan and gone through that. Do you feel
like we’ve made progress or is there you know, I guess maybe I feel like there was a short term
blip there where we made some progress and now it’s kind of the same old, back to the same old
human nature taking over thing. What would you like to, are there additional resources, actions,
direction from us that you’d like to see or have or suggestions for what we could do differently
out there to provide it or am I just all wet and blowing it out of proportion and it’s just average?
Kids being kids and nothing to worry about.
Todd Hoffman: I’ll go ahead and start. The skate park was opened in 1995, so it’s been around
for a while. I think we’ve gone through 3 sessions of having citizen input meetings at our Park
and Recreation Commission where we’ve had these similar type of issues. Language. Litter.
Graffiti. Kids pushing other kids around. They were actually real small at the time. So we
brought the community together. Talked about that and the people that filled this chamber are
skaters and their parents and they tend to support the skate park. They want to do whatever they
can to keep it open. I’m not going to stand here tonight before the council and tell you that I’ve
come up with a solution to solve society’s ills regarding illicit behavior and behavior that is on
the fringe because it’s out there in our community. It’s amongst our population and it does show
up in all ages and it shows up in teenagers who come to our parks, and so there are isolated
incidents of kids that either deal marijuana, drugs. The incident of a kid pulling a knife on
another kid, which is a ninth grade individual. Lives in our community and is that an act of
violence? Is that an act of poor judgment? What is it exactly but these things are unfortunate,
and I’ve spent a lot of time at the skate park the last year. I’ve talked with the kids a great deal.
Kids that hang out and tend to smoke and just come there for a location to hang out as kids, a lot
of those folks don’t skate and if you’re going to hang out at the skate park for 4 or 5 hours and
you’re on the fringe anyway in your decision, section in life, you’re going to tend to get into
more trouble than other kids who are trying to be there to do the good things and just be good
kids. I’m quite convinced over time that closing the skate park, closes the skate park and the
good kids go away and they come back good kids. And the kids that tend to do poor behavior
and make poor judgments, they don’t come back and say oh, I’ve now changed. I’m a good kid
because you changed the, you closed the skate park. The behavior will show up again and again
these are isolated incidents that occur across the population. Jim, I think you’ve picked up the
patrol over there a little bit. That’s something I encouraged from last year. I look out the
window. I can watch these things happen on a daily basis and when I see problems now I just
call over the non-emergency phone number and the deputies are over there in a couple of
minutes so I’ll let Jim comment more on what he’s seen as far as his officers at the skate park.
Sgt. Jim Olson: One of the biggest, best attributes of these skate park is also one of it’s down
falls so to speak and that’s it’s visibility. It is right in the middle of a busy area in the city so a
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
62
lot of the things that are happening in there are seen by a lot of people, including the…and so on.
What happened the other night I think was an isolated incident. I can think of one other fight at
least that was reported to us that we handled that happened here last year that was up at the skate
park. A lot of the things that are, that happen up there, they’re conduct issues. As you pointed
out Councilman Lundquist. The swearing and littering and you know we had the graffiti last
year as well. You know from a supervision standpoint, as a parent you know I would not take
my kids and leave them up there you know if I had a 10 year old son and leave him up there
unsupervised. However I also would not do that at Lake Ann or at any of the other parks either.
Where I would leave them unsupervised and just leave them up there by themselves. So as a
parent it certainly is important to be there to help and supervise and oversee what’s happening at
those places. You know by closing it down, you know those kids aren’t going to go away and
those things aren’t going to go away. It might shift some walls. Maybe to a place where it’s less
visible. Where you’re not seeing it and people are not monitoring it and that certainly can, you
know have mixed results from something like that so. Anything else, questions for Todd or I?
Todd Gerhardt: The only thing I can add to this, and Todd and I have talked about this on many
occasions but I mean this is our most successful teen program the city sponsors and short of the
capital investment that we’ve made into the skateboards and cleaning it up, you will have an
average of 8 to 20 kids using that. Probably more on the weekends. And most the kids that are
skating and riding their bikes in that area are following the rules. The word of mouth gets out
that they had a good time there so they tell their friends and you know so you get a new group of
people there that don’t know the history. It’s a melting pot of individuals that come to this place.
On the day that we were there, we had 4 or 5 kids from Hopkins. 2 or 3 from Eden Prairie. 1
from Waconia. 2 from Chaska and 4 or 5 from Chanhassen. So you know for everybody to
know what’s occurred there over the last 11 years is difficult and to educate without supervision
there, and we talked about maybe having supervision. But depending on what level you need,
that the kids would respect and then you also, you know if you do have the supervision, are you
still going to have the numbers too? So those are some of the things that we’ve talked about. I
think the Park and Rec Commission looked at this as what level of supervision should be out
there, and that’s kind of where we’re at right now. Is to put parental supervision out there is kind
of the next step that the Park and Rec Commission recommended I think it was last year. Todd,
correct me on that but you know, try to coordinate a group of parents that might supervise up
there. You know just the short period of time that Todd and I walked around the park, half of
them wandered away and waited for us to leave and then they came right back. And they come
in different groups. We came into City Hall and discussed the issue and I think there were 15
new people there that started skating in just the short time that we left, so there’s a variety of
different people that use that skate park. Early mornings we see moms out with their young kids
with scooters or rollerblades. In the afternoon you’ll see some older kids, you know age 18 to 25
that use it. And then in the evening it’s a whole melting pot of ages using it so, you know I keep
telling Todd you’ve got to solve this problem and he looks at me like how? And I don’t know if
there’s one right answer. It’s something that we have to continue to monitor. I think Jim and his
officers play a big role in watching over the park. Those kids know when those officers show up
that something’s going on. I think staff should sit down and meet with the council to discuss
what your concerns or potential solutions might be. Get it out onto the table. And I would
suggest either at a work session or a special night and maybe joint meeting with the Park and Rec
Commission. Get their feedback on some it too and just have a brainstorming session, and see
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
63
what are some options that we can do. But right now where we’re going is trying to make it a
safe environment for everybody over there. Jim has, I’ve directed Jim to have his officers stop
there periodically. Justin has talked to the CSO’s to have them stop by when they’re on duty.
Just to have a presence you know to let them know that there is supervision from a law
enforcement standpoint.
Councilman Peterson: And that’s new within the last couple weeks then?
Todd Gerhardt: Well I think we’ve talked about this over the past year. The isolated incident
that occurred last week, you know we don’t all have smart kids and this kid did not make a good
decision at all. He probably thought he had some power by threatening with this knife and he
got what he wanted for a short period of time. But I can tell you an hour later he wasn’t real
smart about, or didn’t think he was real smart at what he did, and so it’s, life is about choices and
opportunities and his choice was not a good one, and he’s dealing with the consequences of that.
So I think Jim’s guys are busy. I’d like to put more effort there, but I don’t think that’s prudent
either. Because we need them out in the streets and patrolling also.
Councilman Peterson: I mean ultimately it’s about thresholds. We’re all, all five of us and staff
are going to have different thresholds, as well as the Sergeant. When do we say enough is
enough and I think that’s part of what I think we have to define. We’re going to be, how often
are these one off situations going to happen. If it happens every week where we need, we
shouldn’t have to have a squad car going there 2 or 3 times a day. Nor can you afford that.
Because the opportunity cost is too high. I mean that’s a challenge and I empathize with you
Brian, exactly where that is. When is enough enough? And I haven’t decided that yet but it’s
starting to add up in my mind that the scale was going the other way. I think that’s something
we’ve got to address.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Compared to other parks in our city, is this the one park that seems to
have the most trouble with juveniles? You know if you go to Lake Ann or you go to Lake
Susan.
Todd Hoffman: It’s the same…
Sgt. Jim Olson: This is certainly the busiest park from a juvenile standpoint that we have in the
city so from that standpoint you know with more people, there’s going to be more issues. But I
don’t think it’s, I mean it has more to do with the fact that there’s more juveniles there.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Sure. Numbers.
Mayor Furlong: …it’s outside your window Mr. Hoffman and you can look out and see it. But,
and maybe this is…Councilwoman Tjornhom’s question but how frequently is a squad car over
there relative to, I mean because I go back we just received the report tonight. We’re going to be
on track in the sheriff’s department, you know 12,000 calls for services. I guess my question is,
we’re trying to put it into perspective. This incident that we heard about…call for service for
that?
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
64
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And to the extent that the deputies were there and called and they’re
pursuing or whatever is appropriate through the justice system, that’s the way it should be
handled wherever it occurs. But I guess the question is, help us to understand. How much more
prevalent is it here at this park versus other parks and to Mr. Gerhardt’s…other police issues
going on in the city, and that’s, maybe it’s the level of service. What level of service are we
looking at? So it’s prevalent in terms of juveniles at the skate park. Every time you go over that
it’s an issue but is it more or less than calls we’re getting, other calls for service we get
throughout the rest of our park system? Do you have a sense for that?
Todd Hoffman: I probably make the most calls, I think I’ve made 2 this year at the skate park.
Jim, I don’t know if you can answer. If you respond or you talk to your deputies.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Yeah. I don’t think it’s any worst or any better than any other parks, taken into
relationship how many kids are, how many kids are there. A couple years ago we had a robbery
at Lake Ann Park involving some kids over a drug deal gone bad. You know whether or not the
parks here in the city are safe, and I think the skate park is also one. A safe place. You know it
was an isolated incident that happened the other day.
Mayor Furlong: And I think Councilman Lundquist, there are conduct issues when we hear…
but we’ve got problems with conduct in our other parks and juveniles damaging property and so
I think when it becomes out of line, the question is…safety issue, maybe that’s the time that we
look at when we need more to be doing, because I think some of the issues, conduct, foul
language, littering, it’s happening everywhere. Maybe it’s just more visible because the litter
stays inside the fence.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well and it’s a more compact area too.
Mayor Furlong: More compact, more visible.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But it is ironic that we had this stuff going on and we have the
sheriff’s department just steps away from where it is. You know I don’t know if the solution is a
camera maybe and if there’s a sign that says you are under surveillance or something by the
sheriff’s department. So maybe not. Maybe they could care less and just go on with what
they’re doing but, that’s perhaps one option to think about at least.
Todd Hoffman: We considered that and you just have to have somebody watching it so.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But isn’t there a deputy watching a camera or a screen anyway? It
seems. There isn’t?
Sgt. Jim Olson: There’s some monitors that are up in the deputy’s office that are up there, but
they’re not monitored all the time. We don’t always have somebody in that office. They’re
generally out patrolling.
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
65
Todd Gerhardt: And that’s just to see who might be at the door you know. You’ll get a knock on
the door when the deputies are in the back and can’t see it or hear it ring so they can…
Councilman Peterson: To my point, and to your point Todd. We need to work on defining those
thresholds.
Todd Gerhardt: Right.
Councilman Peterson: And informing the users that the scale is, the balance is changing. If they
keep on continuing with the same trends that they’re doing, it will probably be closed. I mean I
don’t think anybody argued that. If it continues and they get one call to service every week
there, then we as a council have to look at making some tough decisions.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But is that happening? One call a week.
Councilman Peterson: I’m not saying it is. I’m saying.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But I’m asking that.
Councilman Peterson: No it’s not. Because he just had 2 in the last you know…
Mayor Furlong: If it becomes something more than what we’re seeing elsewhere.
Todd Gerhardt: Well you know Lake Ann, Lake Susan, the activities there don’t pick up until
school lets out so you’ve got June, July and August. And those are going to be your 3 key
months for youth activity there, during the day. Swimming or hanging out at the volleyball nets
or picnicking. Trying to think of the incidents there. They usually gather as a group and that
seems to be when we have our problems. Density.
Todd Hoffman: One of the issues that I’d like to work on the council with is the issue of
loitering and underage smoking at the skate park. If we eliminate smoking at the skate park, then
it’s easier to differentiate when people are, if nobody can smoke, then you don’t have smoking at
the skate park. Because right now you have kids that are old enough to smoke and they sit up
there and they smoke at will. And then you have the kids that are underage and they’re smoking
as well, and to stop and have a deputy differentiate and give out those tickets to overage smoking
so there’s dozens of kids that are underage smoking out there on a weekly basis and so what does
that build? That builds the ability to deny the law and these kids say hey, we can get away with
this. What else can we get away with at the skate park? Plus they hang out an awful lot just to
go smoke at the skate park. If we eliminate that, then we eliminate that ability to go there and
loiter and do that activity.
Todd Gerhardt: And most of these kids have been yelled at most of their lives so Jim has his
hands full trying to enforce something, I mean you know. They’re not the best listeners in the
world. You know the ones that are misbehaving.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Lundquist, anything else?
City Council Meeting – April 24, 2006
66
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, I mean it’s a good discussion. I appreciate everybody’s input. I
think other than the suggestion Mr. Hoffman made and Councilwoman Tjornhom, I think, I still
think that we’re being soft and I think that we’re, I think we realized that, or I get the feeling that
we realize there’s a problem there. If we know, we can talk about it’s not any worst than any
other parks and we can hear all of the stuff. The fact is, that I have never, ever gotten you know
a complaint about a bunch of kids hanging out and trying to sell drugs to somebody else’s kids
when they’re at Lake Ann Park. Or a mother who’s greatly shaken because her teenage son got a
knife pulled on him at any other park, and the fact is I think, we know it’s going on and we talk
about well, you know closing it down’s not going to work, and this isn’t going to work and that’s
not going to work and these kids are going to do this and these kids are going to do that. I won’t
send my kids to the skate park because I’m afraid of what’s going to happen up there so, that’s
my issue is that I have a real problem sitting back and saying, we have a park in the city of
Chanhassen that I’m not comfortable sending my kids to because I don’t know if they’re going to
be safe or not, and I don’t know if they’re going to be propositioned to buy drugs or take drugs
or whatever goes on up there, and that we haven’t done a great job of addressing that, however
that might need to be done. And that we need to do something about that to provide a safe place
for kids to go in the city. And whether it’s a series of actions that I’d like to see us, I thin in a
work session is a good setting to talk about that and come up with another plan other than saying
well let’s just see what happens and you know kids will be kids and it’s just going to go on and
it’s no worst than any other park in the city. I think that, I just don’t, I’m not buying that that’s it
so you know, it’s certainly my opinion and one that I’ll continue to push along because I think
we’ve got some work to do in that area and we owe it to the kids that are out there doing what
they should be doing at the skate park to give them a safe environment to be at and we owe that
to their parents that they can have faith that they can send their kids up there and have a
reasonably safe environment. It’s never going to be 100%, I get that. Understand that. But I
think we’ve got a gap that we can close there and that we should make some efforts and attempts
to do that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other comments or thoughts? Any other council presentations?
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: None.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None.
Mayor Furlong: Given the hour, if there’s no objection, let’s defer the remaining items on our
work session to a future date. If that’s okay with everyone? Okay. Any other business to come
before the council this evening. If not, is there a motion to adjourn?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at
10:50 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN BOARD OF
REVIEW AND EQUALIZATION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
APRIL 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m..
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
Peterson and Councilman Lundquist
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Greg Sticha, Paul Oehme
and Todd Hoffman
COUNTY ASSESSORS PRESENT: Angie Johnson, Carver County Assessor; Steve Clay,
Chuck Arbuckle, and Tom Schumacher from the Carver County Assessor’s Office; and Earl
Sentz, Hennepin County Assessor’s Office.
RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC CONCERNING PROPERTY
VALUATIONS.
Angie Johnson, Carver County Assessor introduced her team from the Carver County Assessor’s
office and Earl Sentz from Hennepin County Assessor’s Office. She provided a report of the
past year’s sales and market value increases. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked if 10% increase
was typical for Carver County. Angie Johnson stated that that’s been typical over the past 10
years. Mayor Furlong asked the assessor to explain the process that was used to establish land
value and increases in land values of already developed neighborhoods. The hearing was opened
for public comment.
Hallie Horstman, 7343 Frontier Trail stated her property was appraised on October 26, 2005 for
refinancing and that appraisal amount was $254,000 lower than their estimated market value.
She invited Steve Clay from the assessor’s office to come out and personally review their
property and he raised the market value even higher so the estimated market value now is 42%
higher than their appraised value. She reviewed the reasons why her house should be lower than
the comparables used in determining the estimated market value. Steve Clay outlined the
reasoning behind his recommendation. Dan Hecktorn, 111 Choctaw stated that the residents
should be given the right to speak and have action taken on this issue tonight and not delay a
decision. Todd Gerhardt reviewed how the appeal process works through the City and County.
Justin Miller reviewed the appeal process for Hennepin County.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to close the Board of
Review and Equalization for Hennepin County. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Board of Review and Equalization Summary – April 24, 2006
2
Steve Clay asked to add 7 properties owned by Mr. Beddor and 7 properties owned by Mr.
Klingelhutz to the list of appeals.
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to continue the Board of
Review and Equalization to May 8, 2006. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
The Board of Review and Equalization meeting was recessed at 7:15 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN BOARD OF
REVIEW AND EQUALIZATION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 24, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m..
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
Peterson and Councilman Lundquist
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Greg Sticha, Paul Oehme
and Todd Hoffman
COUNTY ASSESSORS PRESENT: Angie Johnson, Carver County Assessor; Steve Clay,
Chuck Arbuckle, and Tom Schumacher from Carver County Assessor’s Office; and Earl Sentz,
Hennepin County Assessor’s Office.
RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC CONCERNING PROPERTY
VALUATIONS.
Mayor Furlong: This is the meeting of the City of Chanhassen Board of Equalization, correct?
Angie Johnson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: And I’d like to welcome Angie and Steve here from Carver County Assessor’s
office. Maybe we can go with a quick discussion, Mr. Gerhardt or Angie in terms of what’s
transpiring this evening and then open it up for public comments.
Todd Gerhardt: Well just so everybody understands. The City of Chanhassen contracts with
Carver County Assessor’s office for our assessment services so that’s why Angie and Steve are
here today to listen to your testimony on any increase or decrease in your market value. With
that, Angie if you could maybe give a little background on this practice this year.
Angie Johnson: Good evening. With me here also from Carver County we have Chuck
Arbuckle who is working also in Chanhassen with Steve Clay and Tom Schumacher and Tom is
just fairly new in our office and here to just kind of observe. He is working in Chaska. And also
from Hennepin County we have Earl Sentz is here representing the properties of Hennepin
County.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Angie Johnson: And basically what’s happened this year is we run a 12 month sales study every
year that starts in October and ends in September that determines our market value as of January
2 nd, which will be January 2nd of 2006 for taxes payable 2007. This year in Chanhassen we had
Board of Review and Equalization – April 24, 2006
2
480 residential properties. Residential properties went up, market increase was about 10%. C&I
properties in Carver County they went up 16.76 and Earl has explained to me his has gone up
13% and, well commercial went up 23% and then industrial went up 14%. So that’s…market
increases most… Apartments did not increase in Chanhassen this year. So basically overall
percentage increase was a little over 10% overall market value. So these are the basis for our
values that were set as of January 2, 2006. And that’s what would be appealed are the values of
the classifications…
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Angie Johnson: And we do have some appeals that Steve…
Mayor Furlong: Okay, let’s start with some questions if we could.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Is this 10% a typical number that happens every year or does it
fluctuate?
Angie Johnson: 10% is about what’s been happening in Carver County for about the last 10
years.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And so last year was it 10% or was it more or less?
Steve Clay: It was 9. something.
Angie Johnson: Yeah, pretty close to that.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s on the residential properties?
Angie Johnson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So with seeing…so that overall market has increased between.
Angie Johnson: It’s about a 10% increase overall on everything.
Mayor Furlong: On everything?
Angie Johnson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: So was the residential then the 10% too? What increased lower than the 10%
rate?
Angie Johnson: Pardon?
Mayor Furlong: What types of properties increased lower than the 10% rate?
Board of Review and Equalization – April 24, 2006
3
Angie Johnson: Apartments. Apartments really didn’t do anything this year. I didn’t make any
increases in apartments this year. At least not in Chanhassen.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay. Any other questions at this point? I have I guess one, and
maybe it will come out with some of the residents questions and comments but land values,
particularly in residential neighborhoods. One lot to the next. On the property tax statement it
shows a market value both in terms of land value and then the improvements on the property.
What’s the process that you used for establishing land value and increases in land values of
already developed neighborhoods?
Angie Johnson: Steve placed all residential values on the properties and works with all that.
Maybe I just should just Steve address that issue.
Steve Clay: The best way is to look for vacant lot sales that are happening. You’re going to find
most of those in the new subdivisions, and those lot values can range, typically, I’m talking
about single family detached housing kinds of lots. New lots are running from about $180,000 to
$280,000 range. You’ll see some higher and then a very few lower but most of the new lots that
are being developed now are being sold for at least that or more. If it’s an existing older area
like Carver Beach area for instance, you’ll see sales of homes, to purchase the home, tear down
the house and then maybe split it into two lots and sell those lots. We get information about lot
values in existing neighborhoods that way. And the other thing is, if you don’t have any sales in
an area of vacant lots, you then look at what the properties, improved properties with homes on
them sell for and you can basically try to estimate then the value of the home that’s on it, and
then extrapolate from that what part of the value was prescribed to the building and home part
and the rest would be going to land.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And those seem reasonable approaches. I think I might have some other
questions but whether we have time tonight, I’d rather give the residents an opportunity to speak
tonight and if we continue, maybe we can address that a little bit further. So any other questions
at this point? If not then, what I would do is invite residents to come forward. From a process
standpoint, are there forms out in the hallway for residents to fill out? So if you have a question,
if you’d like to come forward or if there’s an appeal. Property values. You do not need, just to
be clear. You do not need to come up to the podium. You’re very much welcome to, but if you
submit in writing, there are forms out in the hallway as well that you can submit in writing this
evening as well so, if you’d like to come forward, please do. If you could state your name and
address for the record when you come.
Hallie Horstman: My name is Hallie Horstman and I live at 7343 Frontier Trail in Chanhassen.
We had our home appraised back in October. October 26th actually, 2005 by a professional
property appraiser as a part of a refinancing and we had some improvements made to the
property as well, so that was the cause for the refinancing. Our property was originally built in
1964. It’ s a rambler style home on Lotus Lake. It’s an older neighborhood in Chanhassen
surrounded by comparatively modest homes of similar age, and the appraiser came in, you know
he measured every single room. Did a pretty thorough assessment. And he came up with a value
of $800,000 for the house, so when we yellow form came we had an assessed, I’m sorry, I’ll use
the right terminology here. Estimated market value of $1,054,100. That’s a difference of
Board of Review and Equalization – April 24, 2006
4
$254,000 between what the County is saying and what our appraisal said, so you know obviously
cause for a phone call and a little concern there. So I invited Steve out to the house and he came
out last Monday and did an assessment and actually rather than coming down, he actually came
up with a value even higher based on I guess more recent information in his opinion. His new
value was $1,137,000 or 42% higher than the appraisal that we obtained last October so again
I’m just concerned. Too, each appraisal looked at comparable properties that had sold on the
lake, two of which were a common to both appraisals. The two in common properties that were
looked at for comparative purposes, one was at 6655 Horseshoe Curve, which sold in November
of last year for $1,040,000 and the other second in common property that was used was a sale at
7644 South Shore Drive, which sold in June of last year for $837,500. I didn’t have any more
recent data for those two houses other than a sale price, and so when Steve looked through his
numbers and did the comps again, he came out with numbers for those two sales I guess based
on what he thinks they should sale for today compared to what they sold for last year. The
Horseshoe Curve house, 22% over the sale price and the South Shore Drive house, 18% over the
sale price. So I guess what I wanted to point out about our appraisal too, and why I think it’s
thorough and relevant is because the appraisal stated about the Horseshoe Curve property
compared to our’s, that the Horseshoe Curve property and I quote, “has been extensively
remodeled with high cost materials and finishing creating a much superior overall quality”. End
quote. Additionally it’s a much newer house. It was originally built in 1985. I did drive past the
house this afternoon. It has a gently sloping grassy slope down to the lake, and that’s important.
I’ll come back to that point in a second. The South Shore Drive property is, it’s not a rambler.
It’s a 1 ½ story and again from the appraisal that we had done, more extensive interior upgrades
and features creating superior quality compared to our home, and that house is also newer than
our’s. It was built originally in 1990. Getting back to that lake access issue, I’d like to point out
a couple of things that neither of the appraisals took into account. First of all we live on a very
steep hill. There are 80 steps down from our house to the lake. So it’s quite a truck to get down
there. Second, we had a city easement for surface water runoff on our property. Our property
takes all the water runoff from much of Chanhassen Hills and Sunrise Hills development, and
that water spills out onto our beach, onto our shoreline creating muddy conditions, rocks and
debris from time to time, especially last year. In the conduit that houses the pipe that takes all
that water down there is really a detractor from the beach. And neither of the appraisals took that
into consideration. So I guess I could make the argument that our appraisal should have been
even lower than the $800,000 that it came up with last October. One error Steve on the summary
that I didn’t catch when I spoke to you is that you stated that we had a 3 car attached garage. We
don’t. We have a 2 car attached garage. So I’m, I guess I’m feeling, because I feel like we have
a valid appraisal that states our property substantially lower than what the estimated market value
came out to be. The difference. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Steve, comments.
Steve Clay: Thank you. The second item in that packet that was passed around. Yeah, I did
review that appraisal. Found it be lacking a bit in several areas. It was a, I assume the appraisal
done by a fee appraiser for the purpose of getting to a value so that they’re loan financing would
work for the remodeling. Having been a fee appraiser for a number of years before getting into
this part of it, I know that a lot of the times the bank tells you this is the value we need. I need
the appraisal in 3 days so you work hard enough to satisfy the bank and to keep it within the
Board of Review and Equalization – April 24, 2006
5
parameters that the underwriters think you fit into in order to approve the appraisal, and then if
you get to the value that will make the loan work, you really don’t work a lot harder than that.
And so sometimes it’s a perfectly valid appraisal for it’s purpose of getting the financing done
but as far as a true indicator of what the property’s worth, it’s sometimes a bit questionable. This
particular appraisal, if you go back to the back couple of pages, I made copies of the basic meat
and potatoes part of that appraisal. This appraiser had a land value of $475,000. It’s second
comparable they used was about a mile north of the subject and it says it on a lake. I looked at it
on the map. It’s about 15 acres, more of a pond than a lake and he’s only using the $50,000
adjustment for that site being inferior. If you go to the last page, you’ll see that I have the
subject site is on the lake. We can look at the size of that lot compared to most of the other ones.
You’ll see that it’s quite a bit larger than your typical lake lot in that area. There was a sale of
vacant land sale on the lakeshore, excuse me, noted above off of Bighorn. That first sold in July
of 2002 for $425,000. 29 months later it sold for $575,000. Sill a vacant lot. For those 29
months, that equates to a 14% per year increase. If we applied that to the last sale price, it would
tell us today that lot out there would be probably worth $655,000 and it’s a smaller lot than the
subject’s. So we have a probable value of $655,000. This appraiser only is subscribing
$475,000 for land in his appraisal. What I did was go back to the second page of this and as the
property owner told you, I used 3 comparable sales. Two of them were used on this fee
appraisers work and a third one so that I have 3 appraisals, or comparable sales on the same lake
with a reasonable amount of time from January 2nd, making adjustments for differences in age of
the property. Size of the property. Garage space. I noted it as, the subject’s as a 3 car garage.
It’s shaped like a 2 car garage but it’s over 700 square feet which square footage wise would be
the equivalent of a 3 car garage. So looking at those 3 comparables on Lotus Lake, my estimated
value comes in over $1,100,000. It’s quite a bit of difference from this fee appraiser’s estimate, I
will grant you. That’s pretty much the quick overview.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Hallie Horstman: Can I speak again?
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Yep, please. If you want to come back.
Hallie Horstman: The…about the garage, it is a big garage. It’s completely unfinished and you
can’t get a third car into it. There’s no way to. It’s got a 2 car entry. I hear what he’s saying.
The lot is large. It’s got problems. It’s got deep access to the lake. It’s got this easement over it
and not the best piece of property on the lake. And I just, I’m not, I don’t know that it’s fair to
compare it to properties that have a flat, grassy, gently sloping access to the lake. And the other
thing is that I just don’t, I’m not quite sure where, I mean both appraisals based the comparisons
to our’s on the recent sale prices, yet when Steve’s looking at those same sale prices, he’s
coming up with the Horseshoe Curve house, 22% currently, according to him, valued 22% over
the sale price of last November, and I know property values are increasing and nobody could be
here and not understand that, but 22% over a sale that took place in last November, I just don’t
understand. And 18% over the sale price last June, and let’s face it. The market is slowing down
but I really, with all due respect to everyone involved, I feel very strongly that our property value
was assessed at higher than we could put it on the market for today.
Board of Review and Equalization – April 24, 2006
6
Steve Clay: I should clarify here. If you’re looking at page 2 here at that comparable sales grid.
Those numbers at the bottom aren’t a reflection of how much more that particular sale is worth.
That number on the bottom is a reflection of if comparable one sold for that much money and
make these adjustments for differences between this and the subject, that bottom number
indicates what would the subject property be worth.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Mr. Miller.
Justin Miller: Mayor, in the interest of time, I know the assessor’s already said they have
received numerous objections. Usually at this year you receive those and refer them to the
assessor to try to work out for the next time. You’re certainly free to continue to receiving
public input but it might be a better use if we make sure that all those objections do get turned in
and then continue the hearing to May 8th where a final determination can be made.
Mayor Furlong: I think that is wise. And I guess again I would repeat, sir wait a minute. We
want to make sure that this evening those individuals, those property owners wishing to object to
their proposed assessed value, to make sure that they turn in the sheet of paper that’s out in the
hallway. The fact that you didn’t get to speak tonight, does not in any way limit your right to
object to your proposed value so, we have a council meeting starting in just a couple minutes is
all so, sir if you’d like to come up to the podium. Do you have a question?
Dan Hecktorn: My name is Dan Hecktorn. I live at 111 Choctaw. Basically it said to be here at
6:30, and I think everybody that came here to make a voice for tonight should be heard. And not
delay it. We do have a right to speak. It said be here at 6:30 so if the council meeting should be
delayed, why should we have to wait another month?
Mayor Furlong: Well the issue is a matter of a few weeks, for one. And I think.
Dan Hecktorn: Well so what happens if you can’t be here on May 8th?
Angie Johnson: What happens is we make, do an inspection of your property…
Steve Clay: This is what we already have.
Angie Johnson: Oh this one right here?
Dan Hecktorn: Yeah, I talked to Steve on the phone.
Angie Johnson: So basically it’s you need to voice your concerns tonight. There’s issues here
that we have just gotten to so we need to review…
Dan Hecktorn: Wouldn’t it be more convenient for the City Council? I mean I just want to have
my voice.
Mayor Furlong: Absolutely, and we’re not going to curtail your right to speak. I guess the
question is, as it was mentioned, some people just came this evening. It’s the first time that
Board of Review and Equalization – April 24, 2006
7
they’ve had a chance to know that somebody’s contesting their property value. If that’s not your
situation, that is a different situation than other people coming this evening. Out of fairness to
the assessors, if there are issues that they need to look at, by continuing this meeting for a few
weeks gives them time to look at it and.
Dan Hecktorn: That is fine as long as I have you know, you know I mean I had a very nice
conversation with Steven and, but I still, I still think that the, these prices that you’re assessing
these houses at, and I don’t know if you guys read the paper. You’re talking about expensive
homes not selling. They’re really selling for less because of the price of the interest rates. You
know, so you take a look at now all of a sudden you see on TV where more homes are being,
falling into you know failing on their mortgages because people can’t pay their mortgages. And
it just goes on and on and on, and now everybody says, well your property’s gone up in value.
But the more expensive the property you have, unless you’re you know in a unique situation, the
chances of you selling that property for, you know my property taxes have gone up here like
13% in one year. I think that’s excessive. I think there’s, you know I think it’s excessive in the
fact that the city and the county can’t manage their funds, and granted I understand that the
state’s not giving you guys as much money as before. But at one point in time we have to say
this is how much money we have and we can’t tax this individual any more. He’s paying
enough. And you know I’m willing to wait but I just wanted to throw my two cents in. I just, I
think you’re getting to the point now where it’s arbitrary that we’re going to keep on charging
everybody and what’s going to happen here is that people are going to say you know what, I’ve
had enough. We’re moving to South Dakota. We’re moving to Nevada. Then all of a sudden
you know, people are going to say you know your homes are going down $200,000 because
there’s nobody here to buy them. You should be selling yourself in a situation where you’re
keeping these people around to pay taxes. Not drive them out. So that’s my two cents.
Mayor Furlong: Nope, I appreciate that sir and this evening what we’re looking at is reviewing
for those people that want to object to their proposed assessed values for the coming year.
Obviously their assessed values in the coming year will affect the property taxes they pay based
upon the levies of the city and school districts and county. Those levies will be determined later
this year so, assessed values do have a direct effect on taxes. I don’t think in the last few years
it’s been clear that just the property value going up by a certain percentage, then therefore
dictates that the taxes will go up at the same rate. In fact it’s been quite the opposite in
Chanhassen for the last few years so, but I appreciate your comments. They’re well made.
Ma’am, did you have a quick question?
Audience: Yeah I just have a question. If you fill out a form then somebody will get back to
you?
Mayor Furlong: That is correct, yes.
Angie Johnson: …make an appointment tonight with our appraisers or they can call you and set
up an appointment…
Mayor Furlong: But will someone from the office be contacting everybody that was here
tonight? So you’ll receive a call. If you put your phone number on that form, you will be
Board of Review and Equalization – April 24, 2006
8
receiving a call from the assessor’s office to set up an appointment to come and meet with you.
Talk to you about your concerns. See your home and re-evaluate their initial assessment. Okay,
and that would be done in a timely manner so that we could reconvene as the Board of
Adjustments on May 8th, is what we’re proposing this evening. Does that make sense?
Hallie Horstman: So I wanted to…and that’s why I thought I was here tonight because I’ve not
been able to resolve that and so…
Mayor Furlong: No, this is right. We kind of got interrupted here in the process where we were
hearing questions on your’s so, yes we want to make sure that everybody, make sure that they fill
out a form this evening so that they have a chance to be heard. That’s the important part. I guess
the question I would ask for the board here, with the Horstman residence, is there any questions
that they have. Do we want to take action on that this evening or do we want to wait and deal
with those and the other ones together when we reconvene on the 8th? And I’ll.
Councilman Peterson: My preference would be to look at it a bit more and, just having gotten
this tonight, and hearing Steve’s comments, I understand both parties. I just want to further look
at it.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, I think each of these we receive a packet that includes the information
that the assessor’s office put together as well as some of the information that you put together.
What I would ask to Councilman Peterson’s point is, if possible to have these in advance for our
next meeting. For each of the properties that have, that an appeal has been filed so that we do
have time to prepare rather than taking a look at a lot of different numbers. Competing numbers.
Steve Clay: …maybe would show up tonight, we had those ready in case you wanted to just deal
with them tonight.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s fine. I’m not…to what we had, but to Councilman Peterson’s point,
since we did just get it. There seems to be a difference of opinion, having a little more time to
look at it certainly would make some sense. And nothing critical, I’m just asking if we have
time, we now know who the people are that are appealing and they didn’t have to come before
this evening so there’s no expectation that they did.
Angie Johnson: And we’ll try to get some of the people that we have, to their homes as soon as
possible and maybe get something back to council…and definitely if you had any questions,
contact our office. I’ll probably just contact…so we could have some more discussions, if you
could have any questions…
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. The other thing that I would ask is if the residents have additional
information that they’d like us to see in advance, could they coordinate that through your office
so that the packet could be complete and we would add not only your information but also the
resident’s information as well. So for example, if you wanted to include your real estate
appraiser’s report in it’s entirety or if there’s other information, so that we have a complete
packet for each of the properties. Does that make sense to the board as well?
Board of Review and Equalization – April 24, 2006
9
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor if I may add. In the past when we’ve held this hearing, typically the first
night is to receive the appeals and Angie, we had received her’s and the one that you handed out
before our packet went out on Wednesday is my guess, and you know usually our next meeting
is when the council takes action on each of the appeals. So those individuals that are interested
in what the City Council’s final action will be is that you should attend the May 8th meeting and
that’s when the City Council will take action on each of the items and we’ll put a full packet
together. But tonight was the night for each individual to give their testimony and then from that
we usually prepare a packet back to council with a recommendation for your action. That’s just
the first step. Those people appealing that may not be satisfied with the action of this City
Council, you can always go to the Carver County Board, which will meet in June.
Angie Johnson: I believe it is June 14th, but they, everybody that has an appeal will receive a
letter, whether they’re satisfied or not satisfied from our office…so they’ll be going out towards
the end of May and they’ll get a letter stating when the date is, the time and everything and
where they need to call for an appointment…
Todd Gerhardt: So I know we have a City Council meeting that’s going to start up here in a few
minutes. For those individuals that did not, were not able to give testimony tonight, Angie and
Steve can meet with you in the hallway. Help you fill out any forms that you need to file your
appeal and that’s the first step. We’re continuing this hearing. I’m sure the mayor will allow
you at the May 8th meeting to give your testimony if that’s something you’d like to do, but Angie
and Steve will put together a recommendation for the council’s consideration at the, our May 8th
meeting. That’s all I have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other comments from the Board or staff? Mr. Miller?
Justin Miller: Just one thing. There has been a request from Hennepin County…that any
comment not received tonight, we would need to receive comment tonight before, for any action
to be. They need to fill it out their appeal tonight. If they don’t fill out an appeal, then they
would not be able to do afterwards.
Councilman Lundquist: So they can’t come on May 8th and fill out an appeal for the first time?
It’s not valid…
Mayor Furlong: For Hennepin County he’s asking for. And I guess did we receive any from
Hennepin County this evening?
Justin Miller: No. Unless there’s somebody in the audience.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there anybody here that owns property in Hennepin County that is
seeking appeal? Okay. I guess I’ll leave it up to the Board if they want to do that. I don’t know,
certainly if somebody comes on the 8th, since we are continuing the public hearing, I would
certainly be open to somebody, if they haven’t filed it this evening. I wouldn’t want to exclude
someone, but.
Councilman Peterson: …does not have to come back.
Board of Review and Equalization – April 24, 2006
10
Mayor Furlong: Exactly. So if the Board wants to do that, the benefit would be that that would
be closed. They would still be able to continue.
Justin Miller: They could then go through Hennepin County.
Mayor Furlong: Could they continue if they don’t file an appeal at this local board?
Earl Sentz: If there’s nobody here, what we’ve done in other local boards in Hennepin County is
that we’ve asked the council if they wish to not receive any additional requests after the opening
of the original meeting, and many are following that. I guess it is up to you if you wish to leave
it open but I would suggest that you consider not doing so, even within the residents, but again
that is up to you. So if somebody would come though, between now and when you reconvene,
hopefully they would contact our office then for us to discuss that. And you would still have to
act on whatever the results are then, and if that person or taxpayer is not satisfied with the result,
then they could go onto Hennepin County Board of Review.
Mayor Furlong: Have you received any indications of notice from properties?
Earl Sentz: I’ve dealt with one of your Chanhassen commercial residents and they are now
satisfied.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I guess the question then for the Board is do we want to continue both
Hennepin and Carver County properties or just Carver County and close, which would be fine
with me for the Hennepin County.
Councilman Peterson: I’d move that we close Hennepin County.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is there a second on that?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, second.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, any discussion on that?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to close the Board of
Review and Equalization for Hennepin County. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: With regard to Carver County, is there a motion to continue the public hearing
until May 8th.
Steve Clay: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Sir.
Board of Review and Equalization – April 24, 2006
11
Steve Clay: Before continuing, there’s two last pages of the packet I handed out. One is a list of
7 properties that I just got an e-mail from at 5:00 tonight. Mr. Beddor would like to enter these
into tonight’s record. And also there’s a list of 6 to 7. 7 properties on this last sheet, Klingelhutz
property that I would also like that entered into the record for tonight to carry over. The
Klingelhutz properties we’re waiting, they’re all basically having, being influenced by the 212
right-of-way and he’s, we’re waiting for a court decision on what those, what the State’s going to
be paying for some of that right-of-way after taking so we’re kind of holding off on these values.
If you could enter here tonight we’ll close them off at the next meeting 2 weeks from now and…
Angie Johnson: …more information, otherwise they can take it to the County.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so you’re just asking that these.
Angie Johnson: Just be entered so that.
Mayor Furlong: Properties be entered as time entails. Without objection. Okay, anything else
then? At that point is there a motion to continue the Board of Review until May 8th?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I make a motion that we continue the hearing until May 8th.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Any questions by
anyone in the audience what we’re doing? Very good.
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to continue the Board of
Review and Equalization to May 8, 2006. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
The Board of Review and Equalization meeting was recessed at 7:15 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
APRIL 18, 2006
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Dan Keefe, Kevin Dillon, and Mark
Undestad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Debbie Larson and Deborah Zorn
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Josh Metzer, Planner
I; Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City
Engineer
OATH OF OFFICE. Chairman McDonald administered the oath of office to Kurt Papke and
Kevin Dillon.
ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded to adopt the Planning Commission Bylaws as presented. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR.
Undestad moved, Papke seconded to appoint Jerry McDonald as Chair of the Planning
Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Keefe moved, Undestad seconded to appoint Kurt Papke as Vice Chair of the Planning
Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
THE PRESERVE: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM A2 TO PUD-R; SUBDIVISION
OF APPROXIMATELY 80 ACRES INTO 256 SINGLE FAMILY CLUSTER LOTS;
SITE PLAN REVIEW; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN
THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR CROSSING BLUFF CREEK; AND
VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1630 LYMAN BOULEVARD,
APPLICANT THE PEMTOM LAND COMPANY, PLANNING CASE NO. 06-14.
Public Present:
Name Address
Dan Cook Eden Prairie
Cory Meyer 7699 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie
Planning Commission Summary – April 18, 2006
2
Brian Sullivan 7599 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie
Dan Herbst 7640 Crimson Bay
Justin Larson 7699 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
Jim Benshoof Wenck Associates, Maple Plain
C & G St. Martin 9231 Audubon Road
Mrs. Dean Degler 9111 Audubon Road
Gayle & Lois Degler 1630 Lyman Boulevard
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked staff to
clarify their recommendation to move Lots 1 through 5, Block 1 along Street M, condition 30
regarding sidewalks along private streets, which sidewalks are being recommended to be
eliminated, and condition number 36 regarding the location of the creek crossing. Commissioner
Keefe clarified the setback requirements between buildings, the quality of runoff into Bluff
Creek, bluff calculations, sidewalk circulation and street access. Commissioner Dillon asked
about park dedication requirements and the price point of the houses being built. Chairman
McDonald asked for clarification of the hard surface coverage calculations. The applicant Dan
Herbst, Pemtom Land Company provided background information of his involvement with the
city of Chanhassen and introduced his team. Cory Meyer with Westwood Professional Services
presented the plan in detail and explained the concept of cluster housing. Commissioner Keefe
asked Mr. Meyer to cover in more detail the tree preservation plan. Commissioner Dillon asked
the applicant to address the issue of fences versus open space. Commissioner Papke asked the
applicant to elaborate on their noise mitigation plan, especially towards Lyman Boulevard and
Highway 212. Brian Sullivan with Ryland Homes addressed the home style issues.
Commissioner Papke asked for further clarification on the garage design. Chairman McDonald
opened the public hearing.
Jim Benshoof, traffic engineer with Wenck Associates speaking on behalf of the Fox and Dorsey
families addressed the question of how this development plan relates to their properties, which
are just to the east of this subject development. Rick Dorsey clarified what can be done to his
property that is in ag preserve and questioned the proposed road alignment and discrepancy of
the plan that was done in August with today’s plans. He asked that the Planning Commission
look specifically at the ordinance, Section 20-57 regarding buffer yards and mitigation of traffic.
Chairman McDonald closed the public hearing. Dan Herbst discussed the economic effect of
losing lots and asked to change or delete three conditions in the staff report. After commission
discussion the following motion was made.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Rezoning the land within the Plat for The Preserve from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to
Planned Unit Development-Residential, PUD-R; approval of a Conditional Use Permit to
permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and alterations within the flood
plain; and approval of the Preliminary Plat for “The Preserve” creating 155 lots, 15 outlots
and right-of-way for public streets, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.,
dated 3-17-06 subject to the following conditions:
Planning Commission Summary – April 18, 2006
3
1. The drainage and utility easement over the northern portion of Lift Station #24 must be
vacated and filed upon final approval of the final plat.
2. The “Existing Conditions” plan must be revised to show the drainage and utility easement
that was granted to the City and contain trunk sanitary sewer and watermain.
3. Prior to City Council consideration of the final plat, the applicant must provide
documentation indicating that the proposed right-of-way for Lyman Boulevard meets Carver
County’s requirement.
4. The grading plan must identify the existing and proposed 100-year floodplain.
5. Due to the anticipated timing of the final plat with respect to the timing of formal approvals
from FEMA, the proposed lots that are within the current floodplain may be preliminary
platted subject to FEMA approval of the LOMR.
6. Any grading within the floodplain will require a Conditional Use Permit.
7. Catch basins on each side of all public streets must be no more than 300 feet apart.
8. The proposed outlet for Wetland A must lie along the edge of the wetland.
9. The storm sewer from Pond 1 must outlet to the wetland north of Pond 2 in order to maintain
hydrology to the wetland.
10. Storm sewer within Street J must be rerouted through the sideyards within Block 3 and outlet
to Pond 2.
11. Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat submittals.
12. The legend on the final grading plan must identify the lowest floor elevation.
13. The final grading plan must show the top and bottom of wall elevations.
14. Any retaining wall four feet high or taller requires a building permit and must be designed by
an Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
15. The developer must work with staff to find the preferred sanitary sewer alignment west of
Block 3 prior to City Council consideration of the final plat.
16. The plan must be revised to show an 18-inch diameter watermain on the south side of Lyman
Boulevard to the east property line.
17. The developer’s engineer must submit a separate cost estimate for the watermain oversizing
along Lyman Boulevard with the final plat submittals.
Planning Commission Summary – April 18, 2006
4
18. To the maximum extent practicable, the trail along the east side of Bluff Creek must be
within close proximity of the manholes for the existing trunk sanitary sewer.
19. The lowest floor elevation of each unit must be shown on the utility plan.
20. The existing well and septic system must be properly removed and abandoned during site
grading and utility installation.
21. The developer must pay $14,365.00 in cash with the final plat for the pro-rated cost for the
preparation of the 2005 MUSA AUAR.
22. The outstanding assessments – $310,999.03 for 2005 MUSA roads and water, and
$162,976.08 for Highway 101/Lyman Boulevard/Highway 312/Highway 212 must be paid
with the final plat or reassessed to the lots and outlots for future development.
23. Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. These fees are
collected with the building permit and are based on the rates in effect at the time of building
permit application. The party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of
these fees.
24. The City will construct Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements to serve the development in
conjunction with public improvement project No. 06-05. The property within the plat will be
specially assessed for this project.
25. The development is subject to the arterial collector fee, which must be paid in cash with the
final plat.
26. Streets F and K must extend past Lot 6, Block 13 and Lot 1, Block 17, respectively to
provide adequate space for a vehicle to back out of the driveway and turn into the street.
27. Curbs on public streets will be high-back; curbs on private streets will be surmountable.
28. The sidewalk along the north side of Street H between Street A and Street I, and along the
north side of Street E must be eliminated.
29. Sidewalks adjacent to private streets and within privately owned outlots can be used by the
public.
30. The applicant will work with staff to discuss eliminating Lots 1 and 2, Block 11, and Lots
1 through 5, Block 1.
31. The applicant shall revise the plan design to ensure adequate hydrology for Wetland 4 in the
post-development condition.
32. If the applicant wishes to pursue an exemption for impact to Wetland A, the applicant shall
furnish information to substantiate the exemption request. The applicant is advised that, even
Planning Commission Summary – April 18, 2006
5
if impacts would be exempt from WCA, they may not be exempt from the requirements of
the Army Corps of Engineers.
33. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 16.5 feet shall be maintained around all wetlands
and wetland mitigation areas. 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 setback of at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge.
34. All structures shall maintain a 50-foot setback from the ordinary high water level of Bluff
Creek. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the primary corridor.
No alterations shall occur within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback
from the primary corridor. The 50-foot setback, primary corridor boundary, 40-foot structure
setback and 20-foot grading setback shall be shown on the plans.
35. The applicant shall provide details for the proposed trail crossing of Bluff Creek. Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) permits shall be obtained for all creek crossings. In
addition, the trail alignment shall be revised to cross Bluff Creek in the same location as the
sanitary sewer crossing. Immediately south of the creek crossing, the trail intersection shall
be redesigned to avoid impact to the trees.
36. The plans shall be revised to provide a lower EOF for Wetland A and a path to the west for
excess water that will not threaten proposed structures.
37. The EOF path for Pond 1 shall be revised to provide a more direct EOF route from Pond 1 to
Wetland 4.
38. The proposed sanitary sewer and storm sewer outlet in the vicinity of Pond 2 shall be revised
to ensure: 1. The runoff from the outlet will not compromise the integrity of the sanitary
sewer; and 2. The sanitary sewer is not located below the normal water level (NWL) of Pond
2.
39. The outfall from Pond 3 shall not outlet upslope of the proposed trail.
40. The applicant shall clarify the avoidance of the drainageway to be preserved during the
construction of Pond 4 and, if possible, redesign the pond to provide additional storage and
treatment in lieu of avoiding the drainageway.
41. Pond 5 shall be constructed prior to the construction of all the areas that drain to it.
42. Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) shall be provided over all
existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
43. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Planning Commission Summary – April 18, 2006
6
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
44. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
45. The applicant shall be proactive in addressing potential run-on problems in the vicinity of the
extreme southeast corner of the property. This would potentially involve vertically tracking
equipment up and down the graded faces of the slope to increase roughness and prevent rilling.
Similar practices shall be used behind the homes along the central part of Outlot A.
46. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $242,760.
47. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES
Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for
dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota
Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval.
48. The applicant shall demonstrate that the outlet pipe installation and elevation will not impact
the wetland.
49. If recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission, park fees shall be paid as per City
ordinance at the rate of final platting.
50. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for
preservation and/or at the edge of proposed grading limits.
51. A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to
construction.
52. No burning permits shall be issued for tree removal. All trees removed on site shall be
chipped and used on site or hauled off.
53. A turf plan shall be submitted to the City indicating the location of sod and seeding areas.
Planning Commission Summary – April 18, 2006
7
54. Buffer plantings shall be installed along the east property line in the rear yards of Lots 7
through 16, Block 3 and Lots 1 through 5, Block 10.
55. Applicant shall remove Emerald Queen Norway maple from the planting schedule. The
applicant shall substitute another species with approval from the City.
56. A conservation easement shall be recorded over Outlot A.
57. The developer shall work with staff to develop and install appropriate markers at lot lines to
demarcate the primary zone.
58. The applicant shall submit a plan for the revegetation of any areas of grading within Outlot
A. The plan shall incorporate native plants and be consistent with the City’s Bluff Creek
Natural Resources Management Plan Appendix C. Special attention should be paid to areas
with steep slopes (greater than 3:1). Staff recommends that the Hill Prairie planting list be
used for the restoration.”
59. The developer shall work with staff to develop architectural variety or texture for the garage
doors, whether windows or other type of architectural variety.
60. Developer will reconsider their tree preservation plan in an attempt to save significant trees
currently slated for removal.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
GREEN GARDENS: REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO INTERIM USE PERMIT
#96-2 FOR EXPANSION OF THE WHOLESALE/RETAIL NURSERY USE. THE SITE
IS LOCATED IN THE AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A-2) DISTRICT AT 850 FLYING
CLOUD DRIVE, PLANNING CASE 06-15.
Public Present:
Name Address
Keith Werner 850 Flying Cloud Drive
Corey Truebenbach 404 Synchove Street, Jordan
Skip Cook 850 Flying Cloud Drive
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. The applicant, Skip Cook addressed the 1996
Interim Use Permit, what the new tenant Keith Werner has done to try to comply to that permit
and outlined possible improvements to the site. Chairman McDonald opened the public hearing.
No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. After commission discussion the following
motion was made.
Planning Commission Summary – April 18, 2006
8
Keefe moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the Interim Use Permit #96-2 allowing the expansion of the wholesale/retail nursery use on
property located in the Agricultural Estate (A-2) District at 850 Flying Cloud Drive, as shown
on the plans prepared by Jeff Zeitler of Green Gardens dated March 31, 2006, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit vehicular use area measurements.
2. The applicant shall install landscape islands or peninsulas based on the overall area of the
vehicular use area.
3. The applicant shall install overstory trees in the parking area in quantities as required by City
Code.
4. Bufferyard plantings will be required along Highway 212 to screen the parking lot.
5. Bufferyard plantings may be required in front of the stone sales area and mulch bins
depending on the visibility of these areas from Highway 212.
6. Landscaping, storage and disposal activities shall be prohibited within 50 feet of the drainage
way which runs along the northwest corner of the property.
7. The accumulation of nursery waste shall not be permitted on site.
8. Drainage in the Highway 212 right-of-way and Highway 101 right-of-way shall not be
modified or changed as part of the IUP amendment activities.
9. If active grading, earthwork or landscaping activity exceeds 1 acre of the site leaving
exposed soils, the applicant will need to obtain an NPDES permit as determined by the
Pollution Control Agency.
10. If a NPDES permit is not needed, the applicant shall be responsible for controlling erosion
and sediment from their property. Upon inspection, if erosion becomes a problem on site, the
City may require the applicant to make corrections and stabilize soil.
11. All drive lanes shall be surfaced with a Class V gravel base or similar material to minimize
erosion potential.
12. Applicant must fill out the aboveground storage tank installation permit application.
13. An aboveground storage tank installation permit must be issued by the Chanhassen Fire
Marshal before any type of work on tanks and dispensing equipment is started.
14. Acceptance test on the aboveground storage tank must be conducted by the installer and
witnessed by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal.
Planning Commission Summary – April 18, 2006
9
15. Building permits must be obtained for proposed structures and all must comply with the
Minnesota State Building Code.
16. Construction of the third storage shed shall be of compatible design, materials and color to those
of the existing storage sheds.
17. The applicant will be allowed to utilize the trailer through November 30, 2006. The trailer must
be permanently removed from the property no later than December 1, 2006.
18. Use of the temporary office trailer shall cease within 30 days following the issuance of
certificate of occupancy for the third storage shed.
19. Area 4 shall not be used for the storage of equipment, materials or vehicles associated with
the nursery. Storage or display of nursery stock is permitted in Area 4.
20. A 50-foot setback shall be maintained from all property lines for the storage of materials,
growing ranges and parking, except that the existing display area adjacent to Highway 212 and
Highway 101 (southeast corner of the property) may continue to be used for these purposes. No
materials or displays shall be placed within the right-of-way or obstruct the view of the traveling
public. The storage of materials over three (3) feet in height shall be prohibited in the site
triangle of Highway 101 and 212.
21. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. The sale of seasonal merchandise consisting of pumpkin
and Christmas tree sales shall be permitted from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
22. Exterior light sources shall be shielded.
23. No outside speaker system shall be allowed.
24. The use shall terminate one year following the availability of public sewer and water service.
An annual review shall be made to determine compliance with the attached conditions.
25. The applicant shall work with staff to develop signage that will comply with city ordinances.
26. Stop signs shall be erected at the intersections of the driveways at Highways 101 and 212.
27. No equipment or vehicles shall be stored on the site with the exception of employee vehicles
and equipment necessary for the operation of the nursery.
28. No outside storage of equipment and materials unrelated to the nursery business shall be
permitted.
29. Storage structures shall not be used for retail purposes. A portion of the proposed storage
structure may be allocated as office space to service wholesale customers. Storage of equipment
and materials is permitted in these buildings.
Planning Commission Summary – April 18, 2006
10
30. No grading of the property shall be permitted unless a grading permit is obtained from the City.
31. The applicant shall work with MnDOT in examining the possibility of relocating the access
point on TH 212 further to the west and providing a deceleration lane along westbound TH 212
in conjunction with the Highway 212 improvements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 4, 2006 as presented.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 18, 2006
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Dan Keefe, Kevin Dillon, and Mark
Undestad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Debbie Larson and Deborah Zorn
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Josh Metzer, Planner
I; Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City
Engineer
OATH OF OFFICE. Chairman McDonald administered the oath of office to Kurt Papke and
Kevin Dillon.
ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS.
McDonald: Okay, the next item of business on our agenda is the adoption of the Planning
Commission bylaws. Do we have any discussion with the commissioners or do I have to have a
motion?
Papke: Mr. Chair, I’ll make a motion that we adopt the bylaws as distributed to the Planning
Commission.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Keefe: Second.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded to adopt the Planning Commission Bylaws as presented. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR.
McDonald: The next item on the agenda will be the election of a Chair and Vice Chair. At this
point what I will accept are nominations for the position of Chair.
Undestad: I nominate Jerry.
Papke: I’ll second that.
McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to be nominated for Chair? Okay. Hearing no
others, let’s go ahead and move to a vote on Chair.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
2
Undestad moved, Papke seconded to appoint Jerry McDonald as Chair of the Planning
Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
McDonald: I will accept the office of Chair for the next year. The next order is the election of a
Vice Chair. Do I hear nominations for a Vice Chair?
Keefe: I will nominate Kurt Papke.
Undestad: Second.
McDonald: Any other nominations or discussion? Okay, hearing none.
Keefe moved, Undestad seconded to appoint Kurt Papke as Vice Chair of the Planning
Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
McDonald: Kurt, welcome to the position. Okay.
PUBLIC HEARING:
THE PRESERVE: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM A2 TO PUD-R; SUBDIVISION
OF APPROXIMATELY 80 ACRES INTO 256 SINGLE FAMILY CLUSTER LOTS;
SITE PLAN REVIEW; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN
THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR CROSSING BLUFF CREEK; AND
VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1630 LYMAN BOULEVARD,
APPLICANT THE PEMTOM LAND COMPANY, PLANNING CASE NO. 06-14.
Public Present:
Name Address
Dan Cook Eden Prairie
Cory Meyer 7699 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie
Brian Sullivan 7599 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie
Dan Herbst 7640 Crimson Bay
Justin Larson 7699 Anagram Drive, Eden Prairie
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
Jim Benshoof Wenck Associates, Maple Plain
C & G St. Martin 9231 Audubon Road
Mrs. Dean Degler 9111 Audubon Road
Gayle & Lois Degler 1630 Lyman Boulevard
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: And with that, any questions for staff?
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
3
Papke: I guess I’ll start. First of all, on page, I just have a question. A clarification question.
On page 6 of the staff report, the second paragraph under subdivision review you state that Lots
1 and 2, Block 2 will be eliminated. Should that be, is that Block 11?
Aanenson: Yes, that should be Block 11, thank you.
Papke: Okay. It was inconsistent throughout. I just want to make sure I got that right. The
other set you’re talking about are Block 1, Lots 1 through 5, which is down along Street M. Now
if, now this street currently goes, would go to nowhere in essence if this moves forward?
Aanenson: Well our concern with that is, obviously there is some value attached to that but it
ties into industrial park, so for planning purposes you have a neighborhood, it has interesting
views. Looking towards the creek, but we’ve also guided that property for industrial so you have
all that industrial traffic. We talked about that loop road that would tie from here into Audubon.
I’m just not sure that’s the best place for a neighborhood, so we’d like to be able to work with
the applicant and find some way to remove those lots.
Papke: So if we do indeed, we move those lots, I would take it we would remove the, what was
we called it, the eyebrow that goes in there?
Aanenson: Yeah. Yes, because ultimately this street needs to provide access to the industrial
park.
Papke: Right.
Aanenson: That was part of the AUAR and that would be privately built. That’s approximately
the touch down point which was one of the issues that was in the letter about spacing and all that
but from a planning perspective that eyebrow, those lots kind of sitting there, while they have
good views, they’re not really a part of the neighborhood. The association and we think it’d be
better to put the pond, the trail head and some of those other features there and again it comes
down to economics.
Papke: Okay. A question on condition 30. You state that sidewalks adjacent to private streets
and within privately owned outlots can be used by the public. I’m not quite sure what that
means.
Aanenson: Actually Alyson caught that and we were wondering if it’s a homeowners association
with private streets, if someone was on the trail and wanted to cut through this project to get to
another project, could they say these are private sidewalks because of the private street.
Papke: Okay.
Aanenson: So that’s where that condition came up.
Fauske: Correct.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
4
Papke: You also are recommending elimination of some of the streets that are on the, could you
go over which of the, I’m sorry. Some of the sidewalks, recommended sidewalks. Could you
delineate the ones that you’re talking about taking out because I’m not quite sure I followed from
the staff report.
Fauske: What we were looking at Commissioner Papke was, to take a good look at pedestrian
connections through the neighborhood and if there was a need to provide sidewalks on both
sides. In just looking at some of these streets where for instance, I apologize I didn’t have that
marked…necessary to have a sidewalk on both sides. It was just simply a recommendation that
we came through for purposes of the city, when we look at 30 years down the road or so, if
there’s sidewalk damage, do we want twice as much sidewalk to have to come in and repair
blocks so that was simply a recommendation.
Papke: So it was mostly on the north/south connectors where you wouldn’t expect a lot of
through pedestrian traffic, was that the basic idea?
Fauske: Correct. We still wanted to provide pedestrian access but take a good look at, do we
expect the volume of pedestrian traffic that would warrant sidewalk on both sides.
Papke: Okay, thanks. I had a question on condition number 36. Where we’re looking there for
the details of the proposed crossing and I couldn’t quite tell from the wording of the condition
exactly where you were proposing that that would go. I can see from the preliminary plat where
it’s currently laid out so where are you proposing to move it to?
Aanenson: Well I think that’s something that the Park and Rec Director and the Water Resource
Coordinator would like to look at where the best location is for that, to minimize the impact. Do
we tie that in, because right now, if you can shoot back to that. Right now I’m not sure we need
this segment right through here. I think we would just take the trail across the creek and then if
this road remains in place, tie it back into that road. What we’re trying to figure out, if you get to
the school, there’ll probably be a trail on the north side of Lyman to get over. If you look at that
whole trail along the Bluff Creek Boulevard, that would be the only at grade crossing. Otherwise
everything else is going to be under the…structure.
Papke: Right.
Aanenson: All the way down the project so that’s pretty exciting.
Papke: Yeah it is.
Aanenson: The problem is, is trying to make this work so I think we want to spend some time
with them. That’s Phase II, to get that, the best location. Least environmental impact and then if
we can get it, I’m not sure the grades will work but we want to explore that. I know the Park
Director, because that would be the only at grade crossing.
Papke: Okay, thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
5
McDonald: Dan.
Keefe: Sure. Got a couple questions. In regards to the PUD, you’ve got a 15 foot setback total.
There’s 15 feet between buildings, is that what is it total?
Aanenson: Correct. Correct. That’s correct.
Keefe: And then it would be 15 feet in the back?
Aanenson: Right. So it’d be.
Keefe: So it’d be a total of 30 in the back on double loaded?
Aanenson: Correct.
Keefe: And just, you know just for my curiosity. I mean is 15 feet, I mean between buildings
enough for fire and?
Aanenson: Well that’s the minimum. If you look again at this, we’re showing the building
envelope. I mean right now, this is another, I believe that scales off about 30 feet, so it’s
substantially. What that allows you is room to put structures within that. The house wouldn’t be
back that far but that would allow you that building pad area to put a swing set in. Accessory
structure.
Keefe: On the side though, if you have a total of 15.
Aanenson: 15, yeah we had that in other subdivisions in the city. Yes. Other PUD’s.
Keefe: Alright. And then the back yard is enough then to accommodate decks in size so that
people can put a deck on.
Aanenson: There’s two projects that are similar to this that have that setback. One would be
North Bay, which is off of Lyman Boulevard towards the city limits of Eden Prairie. In the
Chanhassen city limits and the other would be Walnut Grove. And that also has the smaller lot
with the smaller side yard setbacks.
Keefe: Okay. So this isn’t really a new precedent thing?
Aanenson: No, it was a little bit different. It wasn’t the PUD-R but we’ve done those before.
Keefe: Okay. Can you speak a little bit to the water I guess on page, I was a little confused,
when you look on page 9. Particularly where it says the EOF pad is not acceptable, and then.
Aanenson: Is that this one Alyson?
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
6
Keefe: And it also talks about what pond 4. It’s just sort of an overall, just sort of an overall
concern I had is, an overall concern I had was whether the, you know trying to protect Bluff
Creek and improve the water quality and we’re putting in a fair amount of hardscape right next
to it. Is the water that we’re going to be now forcing to Bluff Creek, if that’s what we’re doing,
you know part of it’s running away maybe but then part of it’s running into Bluff Creek. Is it
being, is it going to be improved or is it going to be worst or what are we doing to Bluff Creek?
Aanenson: Sure. Let me just take the first part of it and they can talk about the ponding. The
emergency overflow and what we’ve learned historically in the last few rain events is, and this is
one of those two houses eliminated. This is the emergency overflow of this wetland so we’ve
got a shot for that to go through without hitting those high rises through somebody’s, where it
hits the curb and goes over into somebody’s house so that’s a shot. As far as the ponding and
Bluff Creek.
Fauske: What we look to do with new developments is certainly still provide the hydrology to
sensitive areas like the Bluff Creek. But what they’re showing here and the footprint has
changed a little, somewhat but basically what we’re looking at is getting some ponding areas in
through here to provide some treatment before it discharges. The developer has submitted
planning calculations so we’ll be going through that to make sure that they meet the criteria that
we have for water quality as it exits the plan and also as far as water quantity and, quantity and
the volume. And the discharge rate, the velocity.
Keefe: And then if you create that pond there, does it impact the houses directly to the east of
that? You know in terms of, you know because I think I saw something in here where it said
…relative to the height of the building.
Fauske: Our ordinance requires that there’s 3 feet separation from the 100 year high water level
of the ponds in this area. This is the lowest, lower basement elevation that he is, and I’m not
sure if that answers your question.
Keefe: So it’d be, so what you’re saying is the design of that pond would need to be 3 feet below
the foundation of those houses?
Fauske: Right. And I believe they meet that criteria. I think what you might be thinking of is
that the current flood plains built through these lots and our comment was just kind of a
housekeeping item as far as we can’t ask for approval of lots that are in a current flood plain.
The applicant is sending a letter of map amendment out to take and change those flood plain
lines, and therefore they can final plat those lots.
Keefe: Okay so, and when we give preliminary plat, do we include them then? It’s sort of
pending.
Aanenson: That’s correct. With conditions of approval and then it’s not their intent to plat that
portion right now anyways. The first thing would be…so that would give them time to work
through that so what we’re saying, even if they did final plat it, we’d have them put it in outlot
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
7
status. I think that was Alyson’s recommendation. So they can’t have a buildable status until
they get that map amendment.
Keefe: Okay. Alright. Towards the south end of the property, you know how do we calculate
bluffs because I was looking at the bluff calculations that were given to us and I think there was
like a 25%, 25 dot something and then I was looking, it didn’t really measure from the top of,
and you know I don’t know.
Aanenson: It has to meet that 30% rise from the fall and it has to meet those criteria, even if it’s
29% then it wouldn’t meet that so.
Keefe: So the city’s comfortable that there isn’t a bluff there?
Aanenson: Correct. It’s steep…
Keefe: Do we go out and measure that?
Aanenson: They provide the calculations to show us and we scale it, yeah.
Keefe: Okay, and we’re comfortable.
Aanenson: And actually we’ve got pretty good contours that we just got in recently, of all these
shot.
Keefe: And then just in regards to retaining walls on the west side. There aren’t any on the west
side or there are because it looks like they’re fairly steep.
Aanenson: There will be some, yeah and there was a comment in there they have to be
engineered. We haven’t seen exactly how they’re going to place those on there, and the size.
They may be able to comment on that but there will be some.
Keefe: Alright. Oh, just in regards to the lots on the south end, on the south side of the
collector. I mean are we going to extend paths down there? Is there any way to connect them?
Is there going to be an interchange?
Aanenson: Yeah, there will be the sidewalk along this and then this street actually is the one that
ties down to the Creekside development.
Keefe: Okay.
Aanenson: So they’ll all tie back and then there’s sidewalk and trail along the Bluff Creek
Boulevard also to allow access to that. And actually when you get down here, Paul may be able
to explain that better but Kimley-Horn is, I know the Park Director wanted to make sure, if you
wanted to get on the trail at that point, so there’s a sidewalk going down, steps going down to
access the trail at that point, so these people here, you would have to go back to try to catch it.
You can catch it here at this point so there are steps going down. And then that’s a bebo
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
8
structure that would go underneath Bluff Creek Boulevard. And then there’s one further down as
you get towards the 212 crossing, another bebo structure to go underneath it.
Keefe: Okay. So it doesn’t appear on, at least the one document I’m looking at now and in the
future there’s a plan.
Aanenson: Correct. I believe that the Bluff Creek Boulevard plan shows that. It’s got a ring
wall showing the bebo structure and the stairs.
Keefe: And let me maybe rephrase it. I think the City’s requesting that the developer create the
path that’s on here and they would be reimbursed. Is that what I read?
Aanenson: This trail?
Keefe: Yes.
Aanenson: Correct.
Keefe: Right, but the one south of the collector.
Aanenson: That’s still on their property, yes. Yes, that would still be to the terminus of their
property, correct.
Keefe: Okay. Alright. And then just one last question. The private street on the north and, it
looks like, I don’t know what you call that ending. We don’t have any access to Lyman there?
Aanenson: No. No.
Keefe: Okay.
Aanenson: No, and that was one of the areas, the comment is I think Alyson alluded to, this plan
because we had some additional changes we want to make so this plan is a little bit different than
what we wrote our report on. Actually the project…to the north, there was some additional
ponding and it’s some of those ponds we’ve done, the general layout’s the same. It just slid a
little bit to the north so that’s where some of those ponds went from what you saw.
Keefe: Okay, thank you.
McDonald: Kevin.
Dillon: Yeah, the land that’s been set aside for the playground in the park area, you know what
is that in relation to the council’s guidelines for setting aside you know recreational area for the
size of the development?
Aanenson: Sure. Again the Park and Rec Director hasn’t had this item go to the Park and Rec
Commission yet, but he has recommended approval of, based on the fact that, his
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
9
recommendation was this be the park and this be the trail head so two components so I can’t
speak to that. I haven’t seen that report but I know he is recommending approval of the private
park and not a public park with this project, and the trail. So as far as the relationship between
the acreage, I haven’t seen that part of the report.
Dillon: Okay.
Aanenson: But that will be forwarded to the City Council, that recommendation.
Dillon: Alright. And when is the, there’s a little descriptions of the homes that are contemplated
for this area but what is the price range of the house?
Aanenson: I’ll let them go through that with their presentation. That’s a good question.
Dillon: Alright. That’s all I have for now.
McDonald: Okay. Mark.
Undestad: No.
McDonald: I guess I have just one question. I’m a little confused about a couple things about
the hard surface coverage. Okay, this is 30% and it’s averaged over the entire site and we admit
that some lots are going to exceed that. What are we going to do down the road if they come
back in and we’re looking at decks. We’re looking at, they want to add onto the back of the
house. Are we setting ourselves up for a condition of, you know now we’re looking at
variances?
Aanenson: Yep, that’s a good question and that’s a concern that we had too and one of the
conditions that we have in here is that they work through their homeowners association and put
what things they can and can’t do in there. What we did just on a gross calculation is figured
there was probably about 600 to 800 square foot of additional useable area in their back yard, but
what we’ll ask the applicant to do is to give that a definitive number and then put that in a
development contract so homeowners know how much expansion area they would have on a lot.
McDonald: Okay because I would think one of the things that’s going to happen, a lot of people
are going to want to put three season porches.
Aanenson: Absolutely, and they’ve already accommodated that. I don’t see that as a problem.
It’s when you go beyond that, if they wanted to do a Sport Court or you know some of those sort
of things. So yeah again, we did put that condition in here.
McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions. Thank you very much. At this time, if the
applicant is present and would care to get up and make a presentation.
Dan Herbst: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the commission. My name is Dan Herbst at
7640 Crimson Bay in Chanhassen. I’m with the Pemtom Land Company. Want to congratulate
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
10
our two new members to the Planning Commission tonight. When I moved to Chanhassen in ’69
and I sat in your seat. We were down here with kerosene lights and there were only 48 stars on
the Flag. I think you’re going to learn a lot from this process. I was also, when I moved to
Chanhassen, entered into the land development business and it was really good for me to sit in
your chair and learn their side of it and also listen to the public side. It was a very helpful
experience for me for the rest of my career. And I’m sure you are quite proud of this city, as I
am. When we moved out here, we had a couple of body shops. A couple saloons. A couple
churches. We had to do all of our grocery shopping at a Red Owl store at 7 and 101 and all our
clothes shopping in Southdale, and Chanhassen is really the envy of a lot of the communities in
the Twin Cities now. I did a lot of development in Bloomington. They never could define their
downtown. Richfield had the same issue. Eden Prairie still has the same issue with no
downtown, and to be able to have a downtown city with all of the accommodations we have here
now is a dream come true for all of us and commissioners that have come after me and the staff
that works so hard, I think you’ve done a wonderful job. Really have a quality city here. Let me
explain and introduce some of the folks who are with here this evening. They have done most of
the heavy lifting on this. On your immediate left here is Dan Cook, my partner at Pemtom. To
his left is Cory Meyer. He’s a professional landscape planner and architect with Westwood
Professional Services. On his left is Brian Sullivan with the Ryland Group. A group that I’m
very honored to be associated with for a number of years. Very high quality, publicly held
company that has a great, does great things all over this country. And behind Cory in the
matching yellow tie that I have here is Justin Larson who’s an engineer with Westwood
Professional Services, and it’s great at this point in my career to be surrounded by such talented
people. They worked very hard on this site and other sites that they’ve worked on. And have
done most of the heavy lifting on this. And speaking of heavy lifting, I think your staff needs to
be given a great deal of credit. I don’t know if some of you have been involved but this whole
process of this area of town was so open. So deliberate. So professional. Going through the
comp plan amendment. Going through the AUAR. Studying all the implications.
Environmental. Traffic. Everything. And at that time, and I think it was most or all of the land
owners out there were very excited about this process because they’re sitting there for years and
years and years without public services and sitting on land that they were not able to exit at the
time, and now what the city’s work has done, and it’s been wonderful work. It’s pretty rare in
our community to come in, on this large a tract of land, and see all the work that’s been done
ahead of time. So anyway, I would basically just give you a little background of our thoughts on
this property and then I’d like to have Cory Meyer, who’s gone through this planning process
with your staff, to come up and speak to you for a few minutes and then Brian Sullivan of
Ryland to talk to you about what Ryland’s thoughts are and how they did the things. And then if
you have any specific engineering questions, Justin Larson can answer them for you. But the
piece of land is, has created a great deal of excitement for us. You know it has all of the
elements that we’d like to be involved with. Beautiful rolling land. Some trees on it. Beautiful
creek valley. And as I kept my eye on this property and worked with the Degler family for the
last possibly over 15 years. Every time I came over that hill and looked down on this property, I
said something special has to be done here. And then as your planning process evolved with
townhomes being on the Town and Country site and upper bracket single family being on the
Sever Peterson site, and a lot of upper bracket single family homes north of Highway 5, it
seemed like what this community was missing was a unique product, and that is a clustered
single family home that doesn’t exist in the community that caters to a specific market. It’s not
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
11
going to be like my Lake Harrison project. Building 800 to a million and a half dollar houses,
but much more affordable. Much more maintainable type of home, and when we put that
product together and spent all the time with your staff and our planners, a lot has gone into this in
the last few months and I picked the product as the more you study this, you’ll see the product
and the land plan and the thought process as we got into it. Working with your collector roads
and your utility systems, has really turned out to be a great concept and a great housing project
for this area. So with that in mind I’ll have Cory Meyer come up and he’s the one who prepared
the book that you’ve probably gone through and have him go through this thought process on our
plans and then have Brian Sullivan come up and talk about the housing product. Any questions at
this point?
McDonald: Anybody have any questions? I have one question. Would you explain what is a
clustered home development. I haven’t heard that before with anyone else.
Dan Herbst: You know basically you look at a standard single family plat. They’re standard
lots. Pretty well laid out in grid pattern, and very conventional looking versus taking a smaller
lot. Trying to put a house on it. Working around the topography and putting the housing on the
most developable portion of the land and leaving the rest of the land as open space, as is
occurring here. And I’d like to go through some of the open space numbers with you afterwards,
as well as some issues we have with the resolutions that are in your deal so hopefully I can have
an opportunity to come back up and address the resolution after your public hearing process,
before you make your motion. If you allow me that opportunity.
McDonald: We have no problem with hearing any of that and I thank you for your answers. So
whoever’s next.
Cory Meyer: Good evening. My name’s Cory Meyer. I’m with Westwood Professional
Services. I’m a landscape architect and planner and have the privileges of working with Dan and
the Ryland Group on this project. You stole my thunder a little bit when you asked the question
about the cluster because I was going to get into that a little bit. I still will. I just wanted to
briefly touch on a couple of the key, a couple aspects of the design and kind of the thought
process of how we went about. Two of the key elements that I kind of want to talk about would
be, first how this type of development pattern is tailored for this site. And the second would be,
how this development pattern is going to create a unique neighborhood for the city. First how
this development pattern is tailored for this site. As it relates to the cluster type of question, what
we’re trying to do on this is overall minimize or decrease the overall development footprint, if
you will. We’re taking the normal size homes that would be constructed elsewhere in the city
and put it on a little bit smaller of a lot that allows us to take that lot area, the excess lot area if
you will and put it into common open space for civic enjoyment. For public use. This is kind of
a modified cluster approach. That allows us also, it has some benefits to doing that. It allows us
to provide for greater preservation of sensitive environmental areas. In this case the Bluff Creek
Overlay District. The Bluff Creek Overlay District is noted in the city’s zoning ordinance and
there is a number of design issues that the city would like to see associated with how
development treats the Bluff Creek Overlay District. And there’s actually a pay in your booklet
that kind of addresses some of those, and I won’t really get into that a lot but essentially what it
talks about, you know I’ll just throw out a couple of them really quickly, to promote innovative
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
12
development techniques such as cluster development and open space subdivisions, and to
encourage a development pattern that allows people and nature to mix, as well as encourage cost
effective site development, reduce infrastructure, engineering and construction costs, etc.. So
that’s kind of the gist of why we did this. The site is very special and begs for a different type of
development pattern to happen on it, hence the idea of clustering. Tied in with the cluster type of
approach is how we treat the circulation systems. As Kate talked about, there’s a combination of
private and public roadways on this site, and that allows us a little bit more flexibility on how we
can handle topography and basically preserve as much of the site as possible with grading efforts
and the utility and infrastructure development. Part of the other reason, how this project is
tailored for the site. Again in association with the Bluff Creek Overlay District there’s a regional
trail that’s obviously going to be planned and we have the great opportunity to be able to
construct connections to that system that allow these people to interact with the whole Bluff
Creek Overlay District as a whole. One other key aspect of the cluster type approach is that it
allows not only the preservation of Bluff Creek Overlay District but also the other environmental
areas, and let me get to the next page here. There are some wetland areas that are found on the
site that we are avoiding and preserving. There are some wooded areas along side of the creek
area that as well will be preserved and incorporated into the open space system. So the second
kind of component of what I want to talk about tonight is how this development pattern is going
to create a unique neighborhood for the city. As Dan alluded to, single family homes are
essentially more or better suited to this site than what a townhome type development would be.
Clustering these single family homes on a smaller lots, creating more open space, allows the city
to achieve it’s density goals and that doesn’t necessarily have to mean townhomes, so as we’re
proposing here. We’ve put forth a strong effort to maximize or utilize the site character by
maximizing the amount of homes that basically abut and take advantage of those open space
views. And internally where there is not the opportunity to utilize the Bluff Creek Overlay
District, we’ve provided these pedestrian connections throughout that would link again to that
overall trail system, as well link to these internal private areas that we’re developing that Kate
talked about with the totlot, the park shelter, some open play area to throw a Frisbee or play
football with your kids. Over 50% of the site is going to be dedicated as public open space in
one form or another and that’s another component of what the cluster type of approach allows us
to do. That’s a phenomenal number, 50%. And it’s a pleasure to be involved in a project that
takes such great pains to preserve that site character. In addition there we have extensive
landscape plantings that are going to offer beauty. They offer buffering or screening, and
eventually they’re going to add value to the whole neighborhood as a whole, so I guess to
summarize, again development is tailored to the site. Environmental, it’s given that we’re
preserving the environment as much as possible. We are providing a smaller development
footprint. We’ve carefully designed the layout of the streets and the homes with attention to
topography and what the land tells us that it wants to do. And this development also, secondly
will be a unique, wonderful addition to the city of Chanhassen, given that the city will meet it’s
density goals. The city will gain single family households. The city will preserve the Bluff
Creek Overlay District. And that the future residents of The Preserve will appreciate the sense of
place that we’re creating here. And with that I’ll turn this to Brian Sullivan with Ryland to talk
about the home style that those future residents will be building.
Keefe: Can I ask a question before you sit down?
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
13
Cory Meyer: Sure.
Keefe: In the absence of our former Chair Uli I’m going to take up one thing that we was so
fond of which is preserving trees, and one of the things I was looking at in regards to your tree
preservation plan, you know on the north end of this property there are a lot of bur oaks that you
identified as specimen trees, and there a couple that don’t even, don’t appear like they’re within,
there will be houses on. Not granted it may be some grading issues. Is that why they’re going to
be removed?
Cory Meyer: Correct, correct.
Keefe: Is there any way to save a couple of these? For instance there’s one that’s a 59 inch
diameter that isn’t in a lot. It’s actually off, you know.
Cory Meyer: Right. No, and that’s a good point because we’ve, you know we’ve taken our best
approach or best stab at saving as many of the trees as possible. And you know working with
staff we’ve massaged the site plan and some things have changed since that grading plan has
been done, and I guess what I’ll tell you is that we’re going to take another stab at trying to save
as many of those trees as possible. You know those big bur oaks, they are specimen trees and
they’re lifetime trees I guess, so it’s not in our business to create white oak lumber, but we want
to do what’s the best for those trees.
Keefe: Yeah, I think we’d like to see, instead of having a 4 inch diameter tree out in front of a
building, we’d love to have at least a couple of those. I mean those trees are so big that, I mean
they’ll impact the entire area. You know just a few of them would so it’d be nice to see at least a
couple of them preserved on that north end so.
Cory Meyer: Well we will make every effort to try to accommodate that.
Keefe: Okay, thank you.
McDonald: Commissioner Dillon also has a question and we’ll get to Commissioner Papke.
Dillon: With the cluster home concept you’ve got all the, is the idea like to have side lots so that
people won’t put up fences in the back yard? Kind of keep it that open because if you get all
fences in there, there goes your open space idea.
Cory Meyer: Actually Brian with Ryland Homes will probably be able to answer that a little bit
better but that’s a very good point and I guess I would defer to Brian to address how they handle
that with their HOA documents.
McDonald: Commissioner Papke.
Papke: Lyman is going to become a very major thoroughfare with the 212 intersection up on
101 up there. Can you describe a little bit some of the noise mitigation efforts you’re going to
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
14
put into place for the north side there along Lyman Boulevard to try to keep that from being
uninhabitable.
Cory Meyer: Right, good points. You know on some of the previous plans that we’ve had, as
Kate alluded to, we had some additional ponding area that was going to be located along Lyman.
Subsequently that changed a little bit and those homes have actually pushed a little bit closer to
Lyman. Now I’m not saying they’re right up against Lyman there. There’s a significant buffer
and I think the number is 60 to 80 feet of buffer I want to say. The exact number escapes me
right now but we will be supplementing, you know we’re doing heavy buffer plantings along
there. The topography is such that a significant berm of enough magnitude to accomplish any
noise mitigation is probably not going to be, unfortunately be possible to do, just given the
vertical relationship to Lyman. So we’re going to have to kind of rely as much as we can on the
landscaping to do that and we’ve shown a significant effort to plant heavy in the evergreens as
well we’ve, we have a significant buffer from that roadway as well.
Aanenson: Commissioner Papke I just wanted to add, the city ordinance does require that there
be some sort of streetscape requirement. For example on the landscaping plan for buffer, it’s
clearly defined. I think that’s a challenge that we have to work to the developer with the upgrade
of Lyman Boulevard, that we provide something, so we’ll work, certainly work on that.
McDonald: Any other questions?
Cory Meyer: Thank you.
Brian Sullivan: Good evening. I’m Brian Sullivan with Ryland Homes. I’m the Land
Resources Department there, and what I do is I work on finding the projects. Helping to get
them approved through the city staff and through the councils. As you may or may not know,
Ryland Homes, we are a national home builder. We came to the Twin Cities about 10 years ago
and in the first year I think we built 5 homes and now through working diligently with cities and
getting to know the marketplace better, we’re up to about 650 homes is what we sold last year,
and so it makes us in the top 5. One of the top 5 home builders as far as volume goes in the
Twin Cities here. And that I think says a lot to our President of our company who’s been here
since the very beginning, and his commitment to trying to provide to the home buyer out here a
product that they want and the challenge has always been, working with the home buyers that
there’s desires and needs and what they want is always continuously changing. And what we’ve
been doing is on this project here and some of the other projects is we’re seeing a desire and a
need from the home buying market, that they still wanted single family homes but there’s not as
big of a desire for a larger lot, and that plays in real nicely with this clustered development that
we’re trying to provide here. But then as we’re looking over the clustered concept here, it
became apparent that we can’t just smack our typical home on with a 3 car garage and extended
you know, you can’t put on a real wide home on there, so what we started to do, and we started
looking at our marketing analysis a little bit more. We realized that one of the things that we do
when we’re developing our home styles here is, there’s a demand for a 3 car garage but you
don’t necessarily need to have access to all 3 stalls at the same time here, so what we’ve done is
taken the 3 car garage and we’ve shrunk it down with a 1 car garage stall behind the other one,
and what that’s done is taken, where you normally see 3 garage doors out on the front side of a
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
15
house and we’ve put in 2 garage doors. What that does is it creates a more attractive streetscape
so you don’t have a streetscape that has a lot of garage doors marching down the street here. We
think that’s a real attractive thing. The other thing that we’ve done is, as far as trying to develop
this cluster development here is we’ve taken the corner lots and what we can do with corner lots
to try and help, also help out with that streetscape. So what we’ve done is we’ve developed a
home style that has a side loaded garage, and if you look at the streetscape section that we did. If
you look at the streetscape section that we’ve done here, you’ll see that whenever there’s a
corner lot here, what we’ll be providing is the option for a garage that doesn’t face the front
street. The garage is actually, the driveway is actually around the corner of the building there,
and that again just helps to eliminate this monotony of having garages going down the street
here. So what I guess I’m trying to say is I know we’ve come up with this cluster development
but you can’t just take cluster development and draw in smaller lots. You have to think about
what the house is going to be too. You have to design the house to fit the lot so. So we worked a
lot with Cory and Westwood and we worked a lot with our architecture department back and
forth on exactly what type of house and how the house is going to fit on this lot and how that all
will tie into what the market wants us to provide. So we’ve worked on, we’ve worked very
diligently to make sure that the home style that we’re providing out here are going to be
something that’s going to be very marketable and providing a nice nitch for us between the kind
of high end stuff and the multi family stuff here. So what you see is, as you move forward, each
of these home styles are showing, I think we have 8 different home styles and they’ll have, each
home style will have 3 or 4 different elevations to it. So some will have brick on them. Some
will have gables. Some have hip roofs. There’s a lot of different variety within each floor plan
and we allow people to pick out, you know a list of what they want as far as elevation and the
floor plan that goes with that. And we think that will create a very unique and a very desirable
neighborhood as you’re driving through it and something that will have lasting value for many
years to come. One of the questions was what the price of the homes are. We think these will
probably start out around the $350,000 range. $350,000 to $400,000 and they’ll go up to
$500,000, $600,000, $700,000. Depending on what people put inside the homes. They have
options for you know, you can have unfinished basement. They have options for bonus rooms.
They have three season porches off the back. Master bedrooms. You can get granite counter
tops. Stainless steel. Vinyl. There’s a range of materials that go inside so people can go for a
base home if they want, or they can go with some of the deluxe options and so we’re trying to
provide to a real wide market range in there, and we think we’ll see a lot of families move in
here. We’ll see some people that move in here, they may be at a point where their kids are
starting to get to the point where they’re moving out of the household. They want a little bit
smaller yard. But they still, they’re still not afraid of having steps. Go up and down steps.
You’ll see some of that in here. It’s probably not geared towards empty nesters or seniors but
we’ll see a nice, mainly families that move into this development here. The size of the homes
will be from 2,200 square feet for one of our smaller ones, up to 3,300 square feet and then
there’s options of finishing basements and adding bonus rooms. You can go over 4,000 square
feet as far as the inside of the home here that people could purchase. And we’re very excited
about coming to Chanhassen. To our knowledge we haven’t done anything in Chanhassen and
we think this is an exciting community to be in. A very well laid out community. Something
that’s got a lot of offer and with that I’ve leave it open to any questions you might have.
McDonald: Anyone have any questions?
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
16
Papke: I’ve got a couple. First of all I appreciate the attention that you’re putting on the garages
because that’s obviously with the narrow lots, that’s really going to be key. The design of the
garages there because we’re going to see so much of them. One of our questions I have is on
your streetscape here you do show some mirror images, whereas on your elevations, all the
garages are on the right hand side of the drawings. So, and this is important from a variety
aspect. If every single house has the garage on the right hand side, you know it looks very
uniform. Is the streetscape accurate in that you plan to offer kind of mirror images of some of
these or.
Brian Sullivan: The image is, all the units can be flipped. They can be flipped over. It’s more
of a function of grading of how the street grades and so if you have a high point in the street, the
garage is normally on the higher, and the street’s going down this way. The garage is on the
higher side of the lot, and so the garages will be on that side of the lot. And then when the street
starts to go up again, they’ll flip over the other way so it’s really a function of grading. The
image here that shows kind of a, you know the artist rendering…
Papke: Okay. I was trying was trying to make sure that that, you know that that was an option
and that we would have that ability to have a little bit more variety by doing the mirror imaging
of some of these.
Brian Sullivan: That will be an option.
Papke: Okay.
Aanenson: Let me just add just to make sure. Engineering did add a condition that the finish
floor elevation be put on those so we would look at that as a part of it too so we’d have some
idea where all those are going.
Papke: You’ll have some idea of the distribution…
Aanenson: Right. Right, that they’re not all the same. We want…
Papke: Okay. Have you built a lot of these before where you have the double deep garage? I’m
sorry I sold my boat. You know I would have gone out and bought one of these houses so I
could back in my boat without unhitching the trailer.
Brian Sullivan: We are just starting to build these right now. If you go to our site in Eden
Prairie, Hennepin Village, it’s near the airport there. There’s a model there that has this style
home there so you can see what the garage looks like.
Papke: And you’re getting good acceptance on that design?
Brian Sullivan: We’re doing very well there so, we’re excited about doing this and we think we
have hopefully a little nitch for us, and if it’s successful it won’t be a little nitch because I think
other home builders will be kind of…
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
17
Papke: So other than the, I take it the last one we have on the elevation sheet here, is it the
Union? That’s the only one that has the side loaded garage? All the other ones appear to have
the garage thrust forward. Is that, and then that again is going make more uniform look.
Everything’s got, you know you’re going to see more garage with all of the garages projecting
forward from the homes. Is that, you know is that your final answer? Is that how it’s going to
be?
Brian Sullivan: What we’re proposing right now is the Union and what we have, we’re working
on another floorplan for the Union so it may not be available at first phase that we’re going
through but it will become available as we move through the site more so.
Papke: So beside the Union that’s going to be the only one that does not have a thrust forward
garage? Is that correct?
Brian Sullivan: Yeah, some of these, yeah that is correct, yes.
Papke: Okay. I’m sorry to keep harping on the garages but I think that’s really going to be
tremendously important here. A lot of your elevation drawings show windows in the garage
doors, which is very nice. Because the quality of the garage door on a development like this
where you see so much of the garages is really going to be key. If you go through some of the
less elegantly designed neighborhoods in Chanhassen you’ll see a lot of very crummy looking
garage doors that sometimes don’t last very well. Do you feel this is indicative of the kind of
thing, you know is this for show here or do you really expect many of the garage doors to have
windows on them because the windows really break up the visual flatness of a garage door. I
think they’re going to be tremendously important.
Brian Sullivan: The windows are offered as a.
Papke: Extra cost option?
Brian Sullivan: Yeah.
Papke: So we probably won’t see a lot of them.
Brian Sullivan: As you get into the higher price point you’ll see more and more of those show
up, so on the base model I wouldn’t say, I would say you probably won’t see a lot of them but as
you more forward you would.
Papke: Okay.
Aanenson: But let me just add. It is a PUD and I think you raised a good point and whether or
not they have windows or not, that they’re still a textured garage as opposed to, that does make
an architectural statement so I think that’s something that we probably would want to, whether it
has windows or not but just that it’s not a smooth face…
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
18
Brian Sullivan: We can, I can make a commitment to some sort of textured garage look, if that’s
what.
Papke: Raised panels or something.
Keefe: I just have a quick question. Since I think your whole development is 155 units or
something. What do you project is kind of the build out on this site from a timing perspective?
Brian Sullivan: Generally we figure a home a week. Is what we’ll be projecting so that’s 3
years.
Keefe: 3 years? Thank you.
McDonald: Questions?
Dillon: Well just to kind of get back to the open space and you know bylaws and fences and is it
going to be open or is it going, are fences going to make good neighbors or you know what is the
plan?
Brian Sullivan: You know I hadn’t really thought much about it until it was just brought up here
before. What we’ve done in our other communities in Eden Prairie that we haven’t restricted
fencing in the development there, but it is, as I’m kind of thinking through in my head here, there
may be, there will be a need for some people to have a fence, for whatever reason. To corral the
kids or you know whatever. But there may be a way of just having, instead of all 6 foot board on
board fence that wraps around, what we can do is through HOA documents we can make sure
that it adds character to it and that they’re approved by the homeowners association. And maybe
there’s a height limit. I don’t want to say 4 feet, but I think 6 feet is maybe too high but maybe
there’s somewhere inbetween there there’s a median that would work so we don’t have this kind
of barricaded blocked in back yard so. That’s kind of what I’m thinking right now. So I think
you’ve brought up a very good plan and we need to work our way through that.
Undestad: Just had one question on here. The closest to this is that your Eden Prairie project, is
that right?
Brian Sullivan: Yes it is.
Undestad: You’ve not done anything in Chaska or out in this side?
Brian Sullivan: No. Not with this particular home.
Undestad: So the same Eden Prairie project is the same housing design and style as this?
Brian Sullivan: Yeah, very similar.
Undestad: Is the price point in there too?
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
19
Brian Sullivan: The price point in Eden Prairie is a higher price point.
Undestad: And when did you start that one?
Brian Sullivan: We just broke ground, we started selling in January I think. February.
Undestad: How many have you sold over there?
Brian Sullivan: Six.
Undestad: That’s all I have.
McDonald: I guess I’ve got a question about the garage too. You kind of answered one part of
it. I wasn’t understanding this 3 car garage but it’s a 2 car garage stacked. How exactly is that
going to work? I mean I’m just asking, I’m curious about this because I haven’t seen this any
place else and I think Kurt brought up a good point. Yeah, if you’ve got a boat, this is probably
going to be great for you know those types of things. But is that one of the, I’m wondering the
second half, does that take out part of the living space in the back of the house or?
Brian Sullivan: It juts back behind the garage stall there and what we’ve done is we’ve had to
redesign all of our floorplans to make sure we have an adequate amount of living space. The
smallest homes that we’re providing there is a 2,200 square foot home and it will go up to a
3,300 square feet for the first and second floor, as far as, you know you finish off the basement if
they want and add porches on the back and what not so, what we’ve done is kind of squished the
front side of the house there and pushed that third stall back behind the second stall there. We’ve
found that, we think that’s going to be a real nice addition there. For me having a 2 stall garage
and the second stall, it just holds bicycles in the summer and the winter time I hang everything
up and I try to get my other car in there and you have to fight the snowblower and all that stuff to
get it out, and what we think is, and what our research is starting to show is that that third stall,
everybody wants a third stall. But the reality of it is, it’s really used a lot for storage. Or they
might have a summer car. I little MG that they keep in there and they’ll switch them around.
Keep the snowmobiles in there or the boat or whatever. That’s really what it’s directly behind
the one stall.
McDonald: Okay. Well, and then that kinds of leads to my next question about you know
you’re talking about the square footage that’s available. You’re going from 2,200 to 3,600
square feet. These are going on very small lots you know in comparison to what a typical home
with that kind of square footage would have, and my earlier question about the hard surface
coverage, how are we going to maintain that in the future individuals don’t come back because
they want to add a three season porch or they want to add a Sport Court or they want to add who
knows what into the back yard and suddenly there isn’t any allowance for that, and I would think
again because this is an average over the site, there’s going to be some of these lots that are
going to far exceed the 30%. How are we going to control that? What are you all going to do to
help us control that?
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
20
Brian Sullivan: I think Kate kind of a solution, and I haven’t gone through all the calculations
but I think what I heard her say is that there’s about 600 to 800 feet of overage, of excess room
on each lot that can be used for additional, a deck or patio, or the Sport Court. What we’ll do in
the HOA documents, we’ll have that, we’ll have a condition in there, or it will be part of the
document that you can only expand another, whatever that number is.
McDonald: So basically the footprint of the house is the same no matter what the square footage
is?
Brian Sullivan: No. Some of the houses are deeper.
McDonald: Okay, they’re a little bit deeper. And at that point that’s going to, they either have to
go on a larger lot or that’s going to cut into the allowable expansion that is built in. Would that
be a fair statement?
Aanenson: Again, what we were trying to do on this is to look at again, you’re balancing the
whole site. Is to make some generalized assumptions. Again some of those lots are 15. The
average is so some of those bigger houses will go on those lots. So to say everybody’s stuck at a
certain number, so what we’d like to do, just looking at it again in a gross figure, we came up
maybe 600 to 800 square foot that somebody could have. So we want to just build it in there.
And it’s really just to put the homeowners on notice that there’s an expectation of, here’s how
much at a minimum or maximum that you can expect to add on, and that would accommodate a
deck. Pretty much the normal things. If someone wanted to put a swimming pool in, those are
things that may not fit on the smaller lot so again it’s just kind of up front, just like we talk about
fences and some of those other things that we may not want to have in there and that’s what we
said as a condition of approval that we would work through those issues.
McDonald: Okay, well I guess that’s where I’m getting at because we really haven’t done that
on any of the other neighborhoods that I’m aware of and that has been a big problem.
Aanenson: Right, well actually in some of the other developments that we have right now,
they’re maximized for the permits. On the wider houses. Actually there’s much more flexibility
on this lot as it’s coming in today as some of the ones that we recently approved, the large lot
subdivisions up on the Galpin area. Even on Trails End. Those are all coming in at 24% and
they’re maxed at 25. That’s where you saw the last one that came in. They had to drop 2 lots so
actually this one’s coming in because of the size of the home. It’s actually coming in with built
in flexibility of going, having extra footprint to add on so.
McDonald: But as part of the process, the homeowner is going to be put on notice, either
through covenants within the, I guess the neighborhood covenants for homeowners association
or as part of the building process. I’m just looking, how are people going to know so that they
don’t come back here and act surprised whenever we start turning down things. And if you can’t
do it, that’s fine. I mean I’m asking something of you that we haven’t really asked of anyone
else but I’m just exploring a couple of things.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
21
Brian Sullivan: Well and I’ll stumble through this a little bit here too, as we discussed. I think
we can do something in the HOA documents that they’ll have to read and sign and, but that’s not
going to stop somebody from coming in, you know.
McDonald: That’s true.
Brian Sullivan: I’ve been in this long enough and…there’s still going to be a few that will
complain about but we can do that and I’ll have to talk to our legal department but sometimes we
can do a disclosure that says this house or on this lot, there’s this much developable area. And
you can’t, you know you can’t extend beyond that as far as.
McDonald: Okay, that’s fair. All I’m looking for is something to put people on notice. You
know these are certain restrictions that go with all of this and that’s fine. The fact that you’re
willing to discuss it is all I’m asking for.
Aanenson: Chairman McDonald, can I just add one other point on that? And that is that, you
can ask Josh because he reviews all the subdivisions. All the home plats that come in. Actually
the challenge is, it’s not just on this development and every development trying to maximize
them so, I think for us, just on the face of what we kind of feel like people know they’re buying
into smaller lots so as a part of, there’s an expectation that you’re not going to be able to
maximize. Where people buy the traditional single family lot, their expectation is they can do a
pool and a Sport Court and they don’t realize that their house is already at the maximum so that
conversation tends to be a little bit different. So we’re hoping again with the disclosure, that
some of that, that the buyer knows that they’re buying a different type of lot.
McDonald: I guess what I would say to that is, where the former chairman was concerned about
trees and preservation of that, I’m concerned about this whole thing about the percentage of
hardscape because that’s the biggest problem that we end up facing so I think any developer that
comes up here, I’m going to be asking that question. And that’s just the thing that I think we
need to focus on because I don’t like telling people they have to tear down garages or tear up
Sport Courts but, the rules are what the rules are so okay. Enough said of that.
Papke: I had one more question if you don’t mind. The brochures that you gave us show us all
the front elevations of your homes but nothing from the rear and the side. But from what I can
tell you have very few windows on the side of these buildings. Is that a correct assumption that
there’ll be very few windows inbetween buildings?
Brian Sullivan: What we’re going to try to do, and you’ll see more windows on one side than on
the other and because the homes are 15 feet apart, we don’t want this perception of people
looking into each other’s bedrooms so what you’ll see if there’ll be more windows on one side
than on the other and that’s just a part of our designing these because we realize there’s that type
of issue there.
Papke: Okay. Do we have any idea how, what percentage of these are going to be walkouts,
lookouts and that kind of stuff yet?
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
22
Brian Sullivan: I can point to on the map what I know are going to be walkouts right now.
Basically everything along the perimeter here. These are all going to be walkouts.
Papke: Because of the down grade towards the creek?
Brian Sullivan: Yah, because of the down grade towards the creek. I believe there’s some of the
homes that are in this area here are walkouts. And then some of the interior sites, they’re a
combination walkout, lookouts and ramblers. I think we had a group that came up here. I think
these are half rambler and half lookouts right through here, so mainly around the perimeter are
the walkout lots. And the rest are lookouts and ramblers as we go through there. And we’re still,
we just met with the engineers I believe last week and we’re just tweaking that whole percentage
here so we’re still working our way through that to see where it all goes.
McDonald: Anyone else have any further questions? Whoever’s next from the applicant. Are
you all finished? Well at this point this is a public meeting so what I would do is open up the
podium to anyone wishing to make a comment. Please step up to the podium. State your name
and address and address your comments to the commissioners.
Jim Benshoof: Good evening Mr. Chairman. Members of the commission. My name is Jim
Benshoof. Traffic engineer with the firm of Wenck Associates. I’m here this evening on behalf
of the Fox and Dorsey families to address the question of how does this development plan before
you tonight relate to their properties, which are just to the east of this subject development. And
there is just one item that I consider to be relevant to be important for your consideration in terms
of the relationship between this development plan and the properties to the east. Mainly dealing
with the city’s planned north/south connector roadway. Your roadway that would connect south
from Lyman to the planned east/west collector roadway. And I have addressed that subject in a,
I think in a 4 ½ page memo that I believe all of you received so I will not sort of comb over
every detail but I would like to summarize key findings referring to one particular exhibit, if that
can be. Very good, thank you. Okay. We have here you know the site, The Preserve site
outlined in yellow. The blue to the top side to side is Lyman. And the blue extending north is
Audubon Road and then Sunset Trail, with Powers Boulevard and the future interchange with
212 over here to the right, and then of course this dark set of lines is the city’s planned east/west
collector roadway. The north/south connector you know has been envisioned through the city’s
AUAR planning, you know again to extend between the east/west collector and Lyman.
Somewhere through this area. And I’ll acknowledge right up front that from our knowledge I
mean the city has not approved any specific alignment. That that’s still a matter of flexibility
and subject to further determination. What I’d like to draw your attention to the blue dashed line
which appears on one of the more recent drawings as an option for alignment prepared by your
engineering consultant to Kimley-Horn you know firm for the AUAR study. This is from one of
their drawings. And I want to point out to you I mean why I think it has been shown this way.
Why there is substantial logic to this sort of alignment. As you know it would intersect Lyman
just about halfway between Audubon and Sunset Trail and that has significance in terms of I
guess complying as best possible with the County’s standards for spacing of intersections. The
County standard is one quarter mile and this falls a little bit short both from Audubon and from
Sunset Trail, but you can see if it were shifted substantially east or west it would fall short
shorter if you will of the guideline relative to one of those two streets. Another I think reason of
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
23
logic as to why the Kimley-Horn drawing has been drawn in this manner is that this location
provides satisfactory sight distance, both to the east and west on Lyman Boulevard. We
performed detailed measurements of available sight distance along Lyman and found that any
location between the east Preserve property line and the creek, you know provides satisfactory
sight distance conforming with typical County guidelines, both to the east and west on Lyman.
As one moves east from the east Preserve property line, the sight distance falls short of the
guidelines and I’m sure you’re familiar as you move east the sight distance becomes restricted to
and from the east due to the hill on Lyman that crests near Sunset Trail. So that’s a second
reason I think why I guess this drawing has been prepared as it has showing the north/south
connector at that location. Another point I’d like to draw your attention to, that is because it’s
one we would just raise for your consideration. Not something that to my knowledge the
Kimley-Horn firm has raised, but about, up on Lyman somewhere in this vicinity, in terms of
providing a direct sort of connection with the access road serving the proposed Liberty at
Creekside you know development such that motorists say leaving that development who want to
go to Lyman would be able to directly cross the east/west collector and then proceed north to
Lyman. There is I think a benefit for considering that sort of intersection orientation.
McDonald: Excuse me, could I interrupt you for just a second. I guess I’m confused as to how
does this impact the plan that’s currently before us, if you could get to that.
Jim Benshoof: That’s next Mr. Chairman, good question and the point being, the plan before
you makes no provision for the north/south collector within the property boundary. No provision
whatsoever. And further, well in any event the outcome of that, should that be approved, would
be to eliminate any possibility of the north/south connector being in this sort of alignment. It
leaves available only some form of alignment to the east across the Dorsey property to the east
undefined. Where that might be. Locations that would pose some issues with the County’s
spacing standards for intersections. That would pose some issues relative to sight distance. On
the subject of sight distance I’ll acknowledge that the City and County with reconstruction of
Lyman are intending to re-grade the roadway to lower the hill and I’ll acknowledge that and
agree that that would yield some sight distance improvements, but yet it’s unclear. You know
the extent to which those improvements would be gained and the extent of which there would be
locations available to the east where there would be adequate sight distance. So that’s the point
Mr. Chairman. Is to the effect relative to the properties to the east, and thus my suggestion that
to take action on the plan tonight would preclude a number of the options for north/south
connector without having a clear vision of how would that connector be accomplished in a
manner to satisfy needs of the city and serve the purposes of the adjacent property owners, but
it’s just, it’s premature for you to take that action now without having a clear vision as to how
well that connector be accomplished in the future. So the suggestion simply then is that to hold
off on action on eliminating the alternative such as has been drawn by your engineering
consultant and undertake further study to seek to establish you know a clear and effective vision
of how that north/south connector can best be accomplished.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wish to make a comment?
Oehme: Thank you commissioners. The drawing that Mr. Benshoof has shown you was one
concept that staff had looked at back in 2005. I think this drawing is dated approximately
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
24
August of last year, and the east/west collector roadway and the connection points have always
been a moving target. We changed the alignment of the east/west collector literally, I don’t
know probably half a dozen times if not more. Working with property owners. We moved
connection points several times to address connections to their developments and address the
traffic flows. The drawing that is shown here is not workable. The grades in this area
approximately where the touch down point is to Lyman Boulevard in relation to the existing
grades is anywhere between 8 and 10 feet of difference. In order to facilitate and construct this
roadway as shown, you know you’d have to grade into Mr. Dorsey’s property to the east. His
property is currently in ag preserve, thus we cannot do that at this time. So basically this
connection point is not doable at this time, plus the separations between Audubon and that north
collector road too. I think it is a little bit closer than a quarter mile as well. Let’s see. On the
sight distance again, Mr. Benshoof addressed that a little bit. The City and the County are
working on improvements to the Lyman Boulevard. You know we had it in our current capital
improvement plan for 2008, or 2009 I believe to upgrade this section of roadway. At that time
we’ll definitely look at sight distance improvements and future, potentially future connections.
Mr. Dorsey’s piece is currently in the ag preserve. His property will not be developed until 2011
so that gives us ample time to look at where those connection points will be in working with the
property owner to make that connection work the best. This is a drawing that was included in
the AUAR that was approved by all the environmental and governing agencies, city, county.
Watershed and such, and at that time you know we had looked at a connection point for the north
collector roadway here. Just east of the current development that you’re considering for tonight.
So there are different, there are other areas and other connection points along Lyman Boulevard
that we will be looking at in the future to make that north collector roadway facilitate a good
location I guess I should say. Another item that Mr. Benshoof had mentioned back in his
drawing was the connection to Liberty at Creekside. Making that a through movement. You
know that was one of the items that we had looked at in this process through the MUSA. Under
the current plan for Liberty at Bluff Creek there are two connections. One currently, the main
connection going to the west and then potentially, and then another connection point on the east
side to make a flow of traffic to the east. So did try to disperse that by traffic and help the traffic
flow in that area. The properties to the east, the Dorsey’s and the Fox’s, Kate help me out. It’s
more of an intense development. Higher density potentially and potentially rezoning to more
commercial and higher density units as well. North collector roadways or collector roadways,
you want to put those in areas that will generate the most traffic and it’s staff’s opinion that that
north collector roadway does not fit for the lower density, thus 5 units per acre development that
we’re considering here tonight. So, and I believe that the City does have a clear vision in what
we want in this area and how those connection points will be made and how the traffic flow
should be handled. So if the commission has any other questions regarding that issue, I’d be
willing to address.
McDonald: Thank you very much.
Rick Dorsey: Chairman, commissioners. My name is Rick Dorsey. I own the property to the
east of this property. A couple different points I’d like to make, just to make the information
correct. In that the properties in the ag preserve doesn’t preclude grading on the property. We
cannot build a road on it nor can we be assessed for that, but grading would be considered a
conservation issue for soil erosion, water control, that kind of thing. I mean it does not preclude
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
25
it. Point number one. Number two, I would really like to ask the question of why this alignment
has been changed. Paul talked about way back in the beginning another alignment, that extra
alignment, if you read the AUAR eliminated these roads completely other than a point
somewhere between Audubon and Sunset Trail. So that’s somewhat of a moot point. Back in
August staff supported and presented to the City Council a plan for the east/west collector road
which incorporated points of connectivity so that plans could be drawn up. I believe $360,000 is
approved by City Council to work on those plans, and suddenly it’s changed. I’d like to ask the
question why it can’t stay where it was originally set and have that answered. Not why it can go
onto my property but why can it not stay where years were spent, 2 years were spent trying to put
together plans and decided on by approved basically by all the property owners, or somewhat
mutually agreed upon so that plan would have been gone forward. From the standpoint of
location of it, our position would be is that we would want it on the property line to provide an
extra buffer because there will in fact be different uses of the properties. The suggestion that
our’s might be higher density, we don’t know that yet. Perhaps it will. Right at this point in
time, if you’re familiar with the property, we have a big home sitting on the property. At one
point in time we thought the whole neighborhood would be that way. Worlds changed to that
option that probably unlikely to happen. So we are pursuing different ideas and we’re trying to
keep the options flexible and open. We would prefer to see the need for traffic to be managed in
the area there from the standpoint of the whole community. When our property comes out of the
ag preserve in 2011, there’s no guarantee that our property will develop immediately. Could be
immediately. Could be 10 years from then. We don’t know that. So the question would be,
from a standpoint of this development, as well as a cul-de-sac going in that goes within a couple
hundred feet of Lyman Boulevard but doesn’t touch. It’s longer than ordinances allow. I know
it’s being looked at as a temporary cul-de-sac. Something that you have to talk about what is
temporary. Is that a year from now? 5 years from now? 10 years from now? I looked at ideas
and I’ve talked with Pemtom people about other options to put it on the property line. There
certainly are other options. I’ve even drawn up myself where it can be lot neutral and be done.
In that respect should there be a concern about putting it in today. It could go in today on the
Degler property. Or the Pemtom property. There’s options that can be talked about still.
McDonald: Mr. Dorsey, I understand your problem. I’ve been to a number of these meetings.
Okay, this is the Planning Commission. We are here for a particular plan. You’re not here to
look at where this road should go. That is beyond our capability.
Rick Dorsey: No, it is. I don’t believe that’s the case. The Planning Commission’s job in part is
to mitigate traffic. It’s to take and make sure intersections are created in places that create, are
safe for pedestrians, for people. It’s to protect my property as well next to that property. So I’m
trying to bring out the facts so that you can be able to make a good decision in that you don’t
know the property as well as I do. I know you’ve been to several meetings, and I appreciate that,
and I want to ask the question. If this plan is approved and this alignment is no longer an option,
where is that north collector going to go? I don’t know. I haven’t been told by staff. That’s
what planning is about and we would like to know the answer to that. We cannot just put it on
Lyman Boulevard at any point. So that is what we would like to have is time to sit down and go
over that information and make those determinations so that those are known and that there’s
facts to support them and they’re safe.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
26
McDonald: Okay, well in order to give you an answer I will look to staff and my impression is
that City Council directed you to look at this road. To come back with recommendations. Is that
true?
Aanenson: Well let me answer this first. To know what that road’s going to do, it depends on
what his development plan is. Just as everybody else that brought in development plans. As Mr.
Peterson, Sever Peterson brought in a development plan. We figured out the alignment on that
road. We said that road needs to be 80 foot wide cross section and he worked it into his
development plan, so we’re offering Mr. Dorsey the same flexibility. He comes in with a plan
and we’ll figure out where the road goes. What Mr. Oehme had said, we’re working with Carver
County to work on the elevation of the road and some range of tie in’s to give him to put in the
plan. We’re affording him the opportunity to put it where it works best for his development.
Rick Dorsey: What we agreed to was what was done in August and that’s my question. Why
has it changed. I don’t like coming to all these meetings. I’ve got better things to do. When
something is put in place, that’s where you expect. I would like to suggest, no different than on
Sever Peterson’s property where it went along the property line. That’s the norm of development
so that there aren’t.
Aanenson: What we’re talking about is this road right here?
Rick Dorsey: I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the.
Aanenson: He had to build that 80 foot right-of-way.
Rick Dorsey: I’m not talking about who had to build it Kate. I’m talking about when you go
down a property line and you’re splitting a property so that development can occur on either side
and the road can become a buffer between two different uses.
Aanenson: I know you’re not talking about the other road but the other road affected this
development too.
McDonald: Okay. This is not a debate about this road and we’re not going to get into a debate
about this road. We are looking at a piece of property where we have been given a plan. We
have been given the specifications and it’s up to us to improve this plan. We do not look at the
macro planning that you’re asking us to look at. I do not have input on these roads. We depend
upon city staff. They will bring these plans to us and we will try to fit them in with what the
development and what the rules and regulations are. A debate at this time on where this collector
road goes does not serve us with the agenda we have for this piece of property. If it can go on
the border, that’s fine. There is room to put it there. If it needs to go up on the other side, it will
be accommodated, but staff has been given the task of finding out where this road goes because
it does impact your development. We recognize that, but at the same time you cannot hold
hostage developers who come into us and then we have to table their plans until we can come up
with something everybody can agree upon. It’s not going to happen. This is being developed
piecemeal. That’s the way most development occurs.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
27
Rick Dorsey: Mr. Chairman I would like then to refer specifically to what the Planning
Commission should be looking at. One is buffer yards, which is letter M in Section 20 dash I
believe 57. And that says that the comprehensive plan establishes requirements for a buffer yard
when you have different land types and uses. I right now have rural residential estate guidance
and zoning until it is changed, so they’d want to look at buffering it. One buffer would be a road
between the properties. That’s what we would look at as another possibility to do that. The
other is mitigation of traffic. Where is that traffic going to go in the future? That is an issue.
It’s going to come right from their plan, they have one exit onto one end and they certainly could
connect up to Lyman Boulevard now. That’s an option. We should be looking at what’s there
today, not what may be there in the future. I’ll leave it at that.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else wish to make comment on this development?
Okay, seeing no one else step forward I will close the public meeting and I will bring it back up
to the commissioners for discussion. We’ll start with Mark.
Undestad: I think the applicant’s done a nice job. I like the design of the layout. The issue with
the road access on there again, I mean it’s just as Jerry stated here, as each development comes
through and as it works. I guess I really can’t see bringing traffic off of Lyman Boulevard
through a residential neighborhood. I access off of Lyman Boulevard every day and every day it
gets harder and harder to get in and out of there. To bring traffic through a development like
this, it doesn’t make sense on Lyman Boulevard myself. Overall I think the project’s nice. I like
the design. The variety. The layout. I would have a question going back to that little northwest
parcel down there. The 4 or 5 lots back there, if the applicant has looked at anything else on
there yet but besides from that, I like it.
McDonald: Comments.
Dillon; Yeah, I’m kind of relatively new to this whole thing so I’m still kind of processing all
this but I would agree that I like the concept. I think the target market is probably pretty well
served by this type, price point of housing and all that and so I think all that makes sense. In
terms of the road discussion, it’s kind of unique but I don’t see how anybody is getting painted
into any corners with the way it’s laid out here. There would seem to be flexibility and options
for the future so I would, I think this looks fine.
McDonald: Okay. Dan.
Keefe: Yeah, I think the combination of Pemtom and Westwood is a great combination. We’ve
had them here before and I think they do a really nice job. Some of the best developments, best
thought out developments come before us from that team and we appreciate you putting all your
effort into the development and the work that you do. I’m in support of this. One thing I would
like to add is something in regards to addressing the trees on the north end and have you guys
taken a hard look at that?
Aanenson: I’m sorry, the?
Keefe: The trees on the northeast.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
28
McDonald: Kurt.
Papke: I think there are some, you know we should carefully think about, or at least try to have a
vision for how this does blend in with the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Dorsey brings up
some valid thought points that we do have rural residential to the east. We also have some rural
residential right across Lyman Boulevard on the other side. There’s some large lots on the other
side, so I think we do have to be mindful of how this fits in, which is one of the reasons why I
was so insistent on some of the architectural variety because you know having lots of this
magnitude right next door or across the street from you know 2 ½ acre or larger lots is something
you have to think about. But I think the developers have done a great job of trying to maximize
the utility of this wonderful piece of property here so I think overall it’s very carefully
considered. I still have a little bit of lingering concerns about some of the architectural variety.
You know we went on at length about the garaging and so forth but I think if we can make sure
that we don’t see rows of garages when we drive up Lyman Boulevard here, I think we’ll be in
pretty good shape.
McDonald: Well I guess I would second your comments about that. I mean that’s been one of
the things that I was on Liberty at Creekside about was that I don’t want to create these
neighborhoods where they’re basically row houses or you know after about 15-20 years
everybody just, to heck with it and everything gets run down because you can’t take any pride in
your home. I do like the plan. I’m really kind of, I would have never thought about a double
stacked garage so I mean that’s an interesting product that I’m sure will help on this piece of land
and it is a unique property. I like that idea. I’m also as I said, I would be concerned about the
architecture and I would have enough faith in the developer at this point that you’ve heard what
our concerns are there and the thing that we try to get at as far as making neighborhoods
distinctive and making them look like something individuals can take pride in and the fact that it
is their individual home and it looks as much. So you’ve heard our comments about that and our
concerns and I will say that as you go up to City Council I think you will hear that again. So just
be mindful of that. Other than that, one thing that I guess we didn’t do, there’s the lots in that
northern corner, I’m not sure if the applicant wanted to speak to that again or not, but never
really got a chance so I’m not sure what your position is there. I understand what staff has said
and it makes sense to me and if you have, I guess an objection to that, I would like to know about
it because otherwise I’m in favor of what staff has said and you know what they’re saying is,
take out that section. So I would offer you the opportunity to address that particular issue.
Dan Herbst: Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Thank you giving us a very thoughtful and
long process here and I appreciate it. The issues that you have all addressed, we want to tackle.
The lot coverage is extremely important to us, and I know it’s important to the Chairman and all
of you and we’re going to work on that. The tree issue, as Cory mentioned, we’re going to go
and look at grading. There’s some marvelous oaks out there and we want to see what we can do
to save some of those. Fencing, our company wrote some of the first covenants back in the 60’s
against fencing and I gave my anti-fence speech over at the City of Stillwater…by the Planning
Commission and it was doing our Legends Project on Long Lake with Ryland Homes, doing
traditional homes, and they insisted that we put picket fence in on our traditional homes over
there so, but I agree with you. Fencing can give you that Richfield, St. Louis Park look that we
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
29
want to limit so we’re going to take a look at that. Now in a typical custom project that our
company does, we basically disallow fences. But there are limitations, sometimes with children
and sometimes with special situations with ponding behind houses and that type of stuff where
we have committed but sometimes it’s part of the architecture and I know Ryland will take a
look at that and we’ll get back to the staff with some specific provisions on fencing in the
covenants. And the last thought was the garage doors is extremely important to me too so we’re
going to have to take a hard look at how we can soften that. On the issue that I wanted to talk to
you about is basically one of economics. This is a very unique site and the clustering we’ve
talked about, just to give you some background. The land mass is 79.8 acres in total. 33.8 acres
of that is going to be a public permanent open space. 11.2 acres of that we’re dedicating to the
city for rights-of-way for the collector road and for the public streets. So that’s 45 acres out of
79, or 56% of the site that’s going to be given to the public domain, and in market value that is
over $7 million dollars worth of land. So what does that mean? That means the rest of these lots
have to absorb that $7 million dollars. If we take out 5 lots out of the project down here and 2
lots up there, we’re taking a million dollars worth of lots out of this neighborhood. It doesn’t
come out of the land owner’s pocket. It doesn’t come out of us low life developer’s pocket. The
city fees all stay the same and the builders try to make his normal market. So who pays for that?
Every lot in this neighborhood would go up $7,000. Every house proportionally, a house usually
has a 4 to 1 ratio of lot to house price, is going to go up $28,000. And when I saw in your chair
it was really important to me, because the economics and the consumer, the consumer ends up
paying everything in this process. And every city that I’m working with now, they’re going back
to me and they’re saying Dan, if you’ve been to Hennepin Village, I had that all laid out for
upper bracket houses. Now Mayor Veres, who’s now deceased, came to me and she said Dan.
We have 11,000 more jobs in Eden Prairie than we have households. Would you put some work
force housing on here? If you do that, we’ll raise your density, which they did from 500 homes
on that site to almost 800. We brought the price of all those homes down in Eden Prairie on a
very nice site overlooking the river. So if we take out the 5 lots here, which is part of our plan. I
believe it was guided residential, we lose $750,000 that’s got to be absorbed someplace else.
There is a potential chance in the future with a market study going on, and I don’t know if it’s a
long shot or a short shot. Kate can talk about that, that maybe some of the Degler West property
could have some residential uses and this would tie in with that. We do not want to and we
cannot afford to lose those 5 lots. The other 2 lots up in the open space area, we do want to allow
that private park area to open up some more so we need to figure out, with your help, how we
can keep 155 lots on this site. Otherwise the consumer is going to have the ramifications that I
just mentioned to you. And everything is very costly in this business. We are going to pay at the
time of plat, almost $900,000 to you in cash park fees. So to say I’d like a trail head and parking
here, and at the same time you’re extracting $900,000 from the site, there’s something unfair
about that you know. If the park is a half a mile down the way and you’re asking us to pay park
fees, and you’re asking us to give to the public domain $7 million dollars of our land of 45 acres,
I’m asking you to help us. We’ve got to come to a fair resolution. We need those 7 lots to make
this neighborhood work. And if you want to be sensitive about what the consumer’s going to
have to pay here. So it’s very important to us to maintain those lots. A couple other items in
your resolution I just want to mention to you, just to tweak a little bit is item 5. When you’re
looking at that. We would just like that language changed. Sometime this FEMA process can be
quite long. If we’re allowed to plat the property, but if there’s still FEMA approval pending, if
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
30
we could not issue building permits. If you could amend that item 5 in the resolution. Kate can
see if that can work.
Aanenson: That’s not acceptable to us because we can’t approve a lot that may not be buildable,
so we’d have to wait. So I don’t see how we can do that.
Dan Herbst: But sometimes this FEMA process can take months and months and months.
Aanenson: That’s correct. Our recommendation would be that if you get preliminary plat status,
that has time for you. It gives you a year’s standing and you can come back and ask for
additional time but I wouldn’t in good conscience approve a lot that may not get altered and
would have to be removed.
Dan Herbst: But that’s not a risk the city runs. It’s a risk we run having a lot that.
Aanenson: There’s also a risk the city runs. I’ll put your recommendation in, if you want to, and
we’d certainly have the city attorney review it before it goes to council.
McDonald: That’s fine.
Aanenson: Yep.
Dan Herbst: Okay, the other item is 13. We’d like, since we’re doing the project in phases, we
would not want to grade and demolish all the buildings in the first phase. We’ll be starting the
phase off your collector road and won’t be getting to where the buildings are probably until our
second or third phase so if we could have you amend that provision so.
Aanenson: That’s fine.
Dan Herbst: Okay. And then the critical one to us is, I think it’s item 31. If you take those 7
lots out, you have all the ramifications I just brought to you and it makes it a very difficult
project for us to do economically and…
McDonald: Is this something that should be negotiated with staff?
Aanenson: This is something that I made that clear at the beginning and I certainly appreciate
Mr. Herbst. We know that there’s an economic value but from the beginning when we worked
on this project, I just want to make clear, we’re talking about open space. You can’t build in the
creek. It always get thrown into the density but you can’t build in the creek, so there’s some
value when we talk, it’s a little inflated so we have to keep that in mind. Obviously we
recognize, and I said at the beginning, there is value in those 3 lots, or 5 lots on that north side.
We recognize that. Whether or not this property gets zoned to the other, on the other side, I
don’t know. You know we agree there’s some economic value and that’s why we say we’d like
to work that out. You can give your recommendation or hold it in abeyance but I think that’s
something we still want to work out with them. There’s not only the economic value, but we
also, there’s a lift station there that we think long term might be a negative impact to those
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
31
homes too, and that’s a concern for us. That becomes a city issue so we thought by… we have to
obviously come to a reasonable solution there for economics so putting the ponding there.
Putting the trail head provides an opportunity to not put houses in there, in a sub situation. Sub
par situation and make them, I don’t know if we can make them totally whole, but try to make
them whole on the value of those lots and we’d like to still continue that discussion.
Dan Herbst: Appreciate that discussion. Again I would still like to consider you to keeping
those lots there on a, leaving on a conditional basis in the event the land is changed. Lift stations
are behind multi million dollar houses on Lake Minnetonka. They’re all around Lake
Minnewashta. They’re not a negative. They can be landscaped and screened, and that’s, those 5
lots are very, very important to us so.
McDonald: Okay, then let me ask you this. You’re okay with eliminating Lots 1 and 2, Block
11.
Dan Herbst: As long as we can pick those up someplace else in the project. What I’m trying to
save is 155 homes.
McDonald: Okay. And what you want us to maybe soften up in our language is Lots 1 through
5 and what I’m hearing from staff is that they’re willing to continue a dialogue there to try to
reach some kind of agreement.
Dan Herbst: Sounds good.
McDonald: Okay, so what we can do is we can take out Lots 1 and 5 and put those as being still
under discussion. Okay. Is that it then?
Dan Herbst: Thank you very much.
McDonald: Okay. And I will finish up my comments. I think one of the things I would ask of
staff is that, as this goes to the City Council, if you would prepare something to address the road
issue for City Council so that this total package is looked at with that also. And with that I will
bring it back to the commission for any further comments or look for a motion.
Papke: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the rezoning of the land within the plat for The Preserve from Agricultural Estate A2,
to Planned Unit Development-Residential, PUD-R; approval of a Conditional Use Permit to permit
development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and alterations within the flood plain; and
approval of the Preliminary Plat for The Preserve creating 155 lots, 15 outlots and right-of-way for
public streets, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated 3-17-06 subject to
conditions 1 through 59 striking condition number 13 and adding condition 60. That the developer
shall work with staff to develop architectural variety or texture for the garage doors, whether
windows or other type of architectural variety.
Keefe: Friendly amendment. 61. Developer will reconsider their tree preservation plan in an
attempt to save significant trees currently slated for removal.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
32
Papke: Accepted.
McDonald: Okay, is that acceptable? Okay. Any other comments. Okay, well the Chair has one,
because we just went through this with amendments number 31 for Lots 1 through 5. Make the
change that we discussed there. That those lots are still under discussion.
Keefe: Do you want to amend that to just, developer will work with staff regarding.
McDonald: Yeah, I would accept an amendment saying that, so okay. So yeah, we will do that.
The other ones you talked about 5. We’re not going to change. 13 we did address so I think we’ve
got everything covered. Any other comments or any other amendments anyone wants to add?
Okay, seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye.
Keefe: We need a second.
McDonald: Oh, I thought we had a second.
Keefe: Second.
McDonald: Sorry. Getting a little bit ahead.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Rezoning the land within the Plat for The Preserve from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to
Planned Unit Development-Residential, PUD-R; approval of a Conditional Use Permit to
permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and alterations within the flood
plain; and approval of the Preliminary Plat for “The Preserve” creating 155 lots, 15 outlots
and right-of-way for public streets, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.,
dated 3-17-06 subject to the following conditions:
1. The drainage and utility easement over the northern portion of Lift Station #24 must be
vacated and filed upon final approval of the final plat.
2. The “Existing Conditions” plan must be revised to show the drainage and utility easement
that was granted to the City and contain trunk sanitary sewer and watermain.
3. Prior to City Council consideration of the final plat, the applicant must provide
documentation indicating that the proposed right-of-way for Lyman Boulevard meets Carver
County’s requirement.
4. The grading plan must identify the existing and proposed 100-year floodplain.
5. Due to the anticipated timing of the final plat with respect to the timing of formal approvals
from FEMA, the proposed lots that are within the current floodplain may be preliminary
platted subject to FEMA approval of the LOMR.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
33
6. Any grading within the floodplain will require a Conditional Use Permit.
7. Catch basins on each side of all public streets must be no more than 300 feet apart.
8. The proposed outlet for Wetland A must lie along the edge of the wetland.
9. The storm sewer from Pond 1 must outlet to the wetland north of Pond 2 in order to maintain
hydrology to the wetland.
10. Storm sewer within Street J must be rerouted through the sideyards within Block 3 and outlet
to Pond 2.
11. Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat submittals.
12. The legend on the final grading plan must identify the lowest floor elevation.
13. The final grading plan must show the top and bottom of wall elevations.
14. Any retaining wall four feet high or taller requires a building permit and must be designed by
an Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
15. The developer must work with staff to find the preferred sanitary sewer alignment west of
Block 3 prior to City Council consideration of the final plat.
16. The plan must be revised to show an 18-inch diameter watermain on the south side of Lyman
Boulevard to the east property line.
17. The developer’s engineer must submit a separate cost estimate for the watermain oversizing
along Lyman Boulevard with the final plat submittals.
18. To the maximum extent practicable, the trail along the east side of Bluff Creek must be
within close proximity of the manholes for the existing trunk sanitary sewer.
19. The lowest floor elevation of each unit must be shown on the utility plan.
20. The existing well and septic system must be properly removed and abandoned during site
grading and utility installation.
21. The developer must pay $14,365.00 in cash with the final plat for the pro-rated cost for the
preparation of the 2005 MUSA AUAR.
22. The outstanding assessments – $310,999.03 for 2005 MUSA roads and water, and
$162,976.08 for Highway 101/Lyman Boulevard/Highway 312/Highway 212 must be paid
with the final plat or reassessed to the lots and outlots for future development.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
34
23. Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. These fees are
collected with the building permit and are based on the rates in effect at the time of building
permit application. The party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of
these fees.
24. The City will construct Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements to serve the development in
conjunction with public improvement project No. 06-05. The property within the plat will be
specially assessed for this project.
25. The development is subject to the arterial collector fee, which must be paid in cash with the
final plat.
26. Streets F and K must extend past Lot 6, Block 13 and Lot 1, Block 17, respectively to
provide adequate space for a vehicle to back out of the driveway and turn into the street.
27. Curbs on public streets will be high-back; curbs on private streets will be surmountable.
28. The sidewalk along the north side of Street H between Street A and Street I, and along the
north side of Street E must be eliminated.
29. Sidewalks adjacent to private streets and within privately owned outlots can be used by the
public.
30. The applicant will work with staff to discuss eliminating Lots 1 and 2, Block 11, and Lots
1 through 5, Block 1.
31. The applicant shall revise the plan design to ensure adequate hydrology for Wetland 4 in the
post-development condition.
32. If the applicant wishes to pursue an exemption for impact to Wetland A, the applicant shall
furnish information to substantiate the exemption request. The applicant is advised that, even
if impacts would be exempt from WCA, they may not be exempt from the requirements of
the Army Corps of Engineers.
33. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 16.5 feet shall be maintained around all wetlands
and wetland mitigation areas. 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 setback of at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge.
34. All structures shall maintain a 50-foot setback from the ordinary high water level of Bluff
Creek. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the primary corridor.
No alterations shall occur within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback
from the primary corridor. The 50-foot setback, primary corridor boundary, 40-foot structure
setback and 20-foot grading setback shall be shown on the plans.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
35
35. The applicant shall provide details for the proposed trail crossing of Bluff Creek. Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) permits shall be obtained for all creek crossings. In
addition, the trail alignment shall be revised to cross Bluff Creek in the same location as the
sanitary sewer crossing. Immediately south of the creek crossing, the trail intersection shall
be redesigned to avoid impact to the trees.
36. The plans shall be revised to provide a lower EOF for Wetland A and a path to the west for
excess water that will not threaten proposed structures.
37. The EOF path for Pond 1 shall be revised to provide a more direct EOF route from Pond 1 to
Wetland 4.
38. The proposed sanitary sewer and storm sewer outlet in the vicinity of Pond 2 shall be revised
to ensure: 1. The runoff from the outlet will not compromise the integrity of the sanitary
sewer; and 2. The sanitary sewer is not located below the normal water level (NWL) of Pond
2.
39. The outfall from Pond 3 shall not outlet upslope of the proposed trail.
40. The applicant shall clarify the avoidance of the drainageway to be preserved during the
construction of Pond 4 and, if possible, redesign the pond to provide additional storage and
treatment in lieu of avoiding the drainageway.
41. Pond 5 shall be constructed prior to the construction of all the areas that drain to it.
42. Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) shall be provided over all
existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
43. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
44. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
36
45. The applicant shall be proactive in addressing potential run-on problems in the vicinity of the
extreme southeast corner of the property. This would potentially involve vertically tracking
equipment up and down the graded faces of the slope to increase roughness and prevent rilling.
Similar practices shall be used behind the homes along the central part of Outlot A.
46. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $242,760.
47. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES
Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for
dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota
Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval.
48. The applicant shall demonstrate that the outlet pipe installation and elevation will not impact
the wetland.
49. If recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission, park fees shall be paid as per City
ordinance at the rate of final platting.
50. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for
preservation and/or at the edge of proposed grading limits.
51. A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to
construction.
52. No burning permits shall be issued for tree removal. All trees removed on site shall be
chipped and used on site or hauled off.
53. A turf plan shall be submitted to the City indicating the location of sod and seeding areas.
54. Buffer plantings shall be installed along the east property line in the rear yards of Lots 7
through 16, Block 3 and Lots 1 through 5, Block 10.
55. Applicant shall remove Emerald Queen Norway maple from the planting schedule. The
applicant shall substitute another species with approval from the City.
56. A conservation easement shall be recorded over Outlot A.
57. The developer shall work with staff to develop and install appropriate markers at lot lines to
demarcate the primary zone.
58. The applicant shall submit a plan for the revegetation of any areas of grading within Outlot
A. The plan shall incorporate native plants and be consistent with the City’s Bluff Creek
Natural Resources Management Plan Appendix C. Special attention should be paid to areas
with steep slopes (greater than 3:1). Staff recommends that the Hill Prairie planting list be
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
37
used for the restoration.”
59. The developer shall work with staff to develop architectural variety or texture for the garage
doors, whether windows or other type of architectural variety.
60. Developer will reconsider their tree preservation plan in an attempt to save significant trees
currently slated for removal.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
GREEN GARDENS: REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO INTERIM USE PERMIT
#96-2 FOR EXPANSION OF THE WHOLESALE/RETAIL NURSERY USE. THE SITE
IS LOCATED IN THE AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A-2) DISTRICT AT 850 FLYING
CLOUD DRIVE, PLANNING CASE 06-15.
Public Present:
Name Address
Keith Werner 850 Flying Cloud Drive
Corey Truebenbach 404 Synchove Street, Jordan
Skip Cook 850 Flying Cloud Drive
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Who would like to start?
Keefe: I’ll go first. Just a quick question Josh in regards to, you know it says in the fall of ’04
and ’05, staff conducted an inspection and found this non-compliance. How do we get from
there to here? Did anything happen between the time that those?
Metzer: It was basically trying to figure out which route they wanted to go. Whether or not they
wanted to go through the process of amending the IUP or whether or not they had the ability to
make these changes that they were proposing, or whether or not they had the ability to change it
back to comply with the original IUP. What happened was, between the time that the original
IUP was adopted in 1996, it had changed operators, tenants and in that the idea and the
conditions of approval, what was considered complying and not complying kind of got lost.
Aanenson: Different proprietors probably of what was permitted.
Metzer: Right, and so over time it was just kind of a back track if you will to what is complying
and what’s not.
Keefe: Is it your sense then that the applicant will be able to make the improvements that are.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
38
Metzer: Yes, and actually I visited the site this afternoon before the meeting and, even since the
last time I’ve been down there about 2 weeks ago it’s a considerable improvement so.
Keefe: Great.
McDonald: Comments? Dillon?
Dillon: Not at this time.
McDonald: No comments? The only comment I have, you answered one of the questions I had
on this but what is the remedy for the City if they fail to comply with any of this? I mean right
now because it’s in an interim use you can hold part of that over them, but you know what’s our
hammer in the future.
Metzer: Basically if, it’s either amended tonight or if the amendment is denied, they have to
comply. If they don’t do so, we’ll begin the process of revoking the interim use permit.
McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions. Do we have an applicant to come forward and
present to us?
Skip Cook: My name is Skip Cook. I’m the owner of the property. The applicant on the
application would be Keith Werner. He’s the new tenant the past 2 years. I think Kate and Josh
would agree that there’s been a great amount of work, which Josh spoke of earlier. A great
amount of work done to improve the property and try to, he’s been trying to work with the city to
get things back in order as such to the ’96 interim use permit. We’d just like to keep moving
forward working with the city and he’s tried to have a good relationship with Josh and actually is
excited about it to move forward. I think you’ll see listed in there somewhere, or buried in there
maybe, we’d like to work on some signage. He’s been in there for about 2 years now. He’d like
to see a possibility of expanding. Maybe expanding isn’t the right word, but redoing the existing
garden center building. Making it more appealing from the curb. Maybe adding a little storage.
I think Josh left an opening in there for that at some point. Maybe a new building. Just to clean
it up from the curb. Make it appealing. We talked to Josh at great length about signage. Maybe
doing a monument sign out front. Something that would be appealing to the city and passers by.
McDonald: Any questions for the applicant? Okay, I want to make one comment. I was also
down by the site because I was concerned about some of those pictures and things in your letter
and you’ve made vast improvements so, thank you very much. Okay. This is a public meeting
so I will open the podium to anyone that wishes to come up and address the commission on this
particular applicant. Okay, seeing no one get up or making any notion that they want to, we’ll
close the public meeting and bring it back up to the commissioners for comment and review.
No? No? Okay.
Papke: I’ve had the pleasure of driving by this facility for 25 years and it’s definitely had it’s
up’s and down’s. Particularly what’s now marked as the overflow storage area #4 has been king
of problematic in the last couple years. So I think this is a step forward. I mean what’s past is
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
39
past, but hopefully this will get us going in the right direction and allow us to all color inside the
lines from here on out so I support this one.
McDonald: Okay. Yeah, I’m impressed by the fact that you did take heed of what city staff,
what Josh had written and you have addressed those issues. I understand as a business there are
certain things you want to do, and I wish you luck with that. And as you come back and wish to
do any of the expansions or anything, we will gladly listen to it and hopefully we can
accommodate each other so I too would support all of this. At which point I’m open for a
motion.
Keefe: I’ll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to
Interim Use Permit #96-2, allowing the expansion of the wholesale retail nursery use on property
located in the Agricultural Estate A-2 District at 850 Flying Cloud Drive as shown on the plans
prepared by Jeff Zeitler of Green Gardens dated March 31, 2006, subject to conditions 1 through
31 with number 21 being amended to 8:00 a.m. for Saturday and Sunday.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Undestad: Second.
Keefe moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the Interim Use Permit #96-2 allowing the expansion of the wholesale/retail nursery use on
property located in the Agricultural Estate (A-2) District at 850 Flying Cloud Drive, as shown
on the plans prepared by Jeff Zeitler of Green Gardens dated March 31, 2006, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit vehicular use area measurements.
2. The applicant shall install landscape islands or peninsulas based on the overall area of the
vehicular use area.
3. The applicant shall install overstory trees in the parking area in quantities as required by City
Code.
4. Bufferyard plantings will be required along Highway 212 to screen the parking lot.
5. Bufferyard plantings may be required in front of the stone sales area and mulch bins
depending on the visibility of these areas from Highway 212.
6. Landscaping, storage and disposal activities shall be prohibited within 50 feet of the drainage
way which runs along the northwest corner of the property.
7. The accumulation of nursery waste shall not be permitted on site.
8. Drainage in the Highway 212 right-of-way and Highway 101 right-of-way shall not be
modified or changed as part of the IUP amendment activities.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
40
9. If active grading, earthwork or landscaping activity exceeds 1 acre of the site leaving
exposed soils, the applicant will need to obtain an NPDES permit as determined by the
Pollution Control Agency.
10. If a NPDES permit is not needed, the applicant shall be responsible for controlling erosion
and sediment from their property. Upon inspection, if erosion becomes a problem on site, the
City may require the applicant to make corrections and stabilize soil.
11. All drive lanes shall be surfaced with a Class V gravel base or similar material to minimize
erosion potential.
12. Applicant must fill out the aboveground storage tank installation permit application.
13. An aboveground storage tank installation permit must be issued by the Chanhassen Fire
Marshal before any type of work on tanks and dispensing equipment is started.
14. Acceptance test on the aboveground storage tank must be conducted by the installer and
witnessed by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal.
15. Building permits must be obtained for proposed structures and all must comply with the
Minnesota State Building Code.
16. Construction of the third storage shed shall be of compatible design, materials and color to those
of the existing storage sheds.
17. The applicant will be allowed to utilize the trailer through November 30, 2006. The trailer must
be permanently removed from the property no later than December 1, 2006.
18. Use of the temporary office trailer shall cease within 30 days following the issuance of
certificate of occupancy for the third storage shed.
19. Area 4 shall not be used for the storage of equipment, materials or vehicles associated with
the nursery. Storage or display of nursery stock is permitted in Area 4.
20. A 50-foot setback shall be maintained from all property lines for the storage of materials,
growing ranges and parking, except that the existing display area adjacent to Highway 212 and
Highway 101 (southeast corner of the property) may continue to be used for these purposes. No
materials or displays shall be placed within the right-of-way or obstruct the view of the traveling
public. The storage of materials over three (3) feet in height shall be prohibited in the site
triangle of Highway 101 and 212.
21. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. The sale of seasonal merchandise consisting of pumpkin
and Christmas tree sales shall be permitted from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
41
22. Exterior light sources shall be shielded.
23. No outside speaker system shall be allowed.
24. The use shall terminate one year following the availability of public sewer and water service.
An annual review shall be made to determine compliance with the attached conditions.
25. The applicant shall work with staff to develop signage that will comply with city ordinances.
26. Stop signs shall be erected at the intersections of the driveways at Highways 101 and 212.
27. No equipment or vehicles shall be stored on the site with the exception of employee vehicles
and equipment necessary for the operation of the nursery.
28. No outside storage of equipment and materials unrelated to the nursery business shall be
permitted.
29. Storage structures shall not be used for retail purposes. A portion of the proposed storage
structure may be allocated as office space to service wholesale customers. Storage of equipment
and materials is permitted in these buildings.
30. No grading of the property shall be permitted unless a grading permit is obtained from the City.
31. The applicant shall work with MnDOT in examining the possibility of relocating the access
point on TH 212 further to the west and providing a deceleration lane along westbound TH 212
in conjunction with the Highway 212 improvements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Aanenson: Before they leave I just wanted to thank Mr. Cook publicly on the record because
this property right here which you recently acquired has been, yeah this property right here
which has really been cleaned up and I really, there’s not a lot of people that take it on their own
and it was an eye sore and I appreciate you acquiring it and cleaning it up. That’s been an eye
sore in the city for a number of years so want to thank you for doing that.
McDonald: And I will also say, thank you again.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 4, 2006 as presented.
McDonald: Okay at that point, do we have any presentations?
Aanenson: We do before going into a work session I just wanted to add one thing on your
upcoming items. I just lost mine, for next Planning Commission meeting. Thank you. On the
next meeting I did add for the work session Lakeview Hills is, they just want to meet with you
and explain to you their plans. Very conceptual. But they want to meet.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
42
Papke: Where are they?
Aanenson: Lakeview Hills is on the other side of Lyman Boulevard. The older apartment
buildings in town. Right up against Bearpath, so they’re ready to come in for development so
they want to come and just meet with you on a work session. They will also be going forward to
the City Council in a work session and there’s some issues regarding demolition. Relocation of
people and I just wanted you to kind of hear what their timeframe is and they will be in this
summer. We’ll actually have a neighborhood meeting before the public hearing but just kind of
give you an update so that will be added to next week’s agenda. But those other two items will
stay on. The park and ride also did come in so that’s the 16th and we’ve got a couple of things on
the 16th too so.
Papke: Who’s going into the business park?
Aanenson: I don’t think they have a tenant yet. It’s my understanding.
Metzer: I think May 2nd’s meeting is…
Aanenson: It’s the 16th. Yeah, the 16th has a couple more items came in. We have the beachlot
on there. There’s wetland that we alluded to on this project is our wetland that we’re putting
onto their property, the Preserve property. Our wetland for the creek crossing so you’ll see that
permit. Near Mountain park and ride. That park and ride’s a big project. It’s not only the park
and ride. It’s townhouses and the commercial allotment so that’s a huge, yeah. Huge report.
The other ones are smaller. …correct. Now we’ve established we had neighborhood meetings.
We established the PUD framework. We’re going to have to have another neighborhood
meeting before the Planning Commission meeting, so what we said we’ve got the framework.
All we’re doing is measuring that to see if it met the standards. But it’s, we’re not deciding we
like the PUD because you’ve already done that park so that component, it’s going to be just
mostly site plan review. It’s still a lot of issues to look at. The park. The landscaping. The
multi family and the commercial. So that will be a big item in May on the 16th. We’re going to
try to give you that.
Keefe: The apartments just south of the park and ride, is that right?
Aanenson: That was the Sand Companies across the street, yeah. The other one’s waiting until
we get the commercial study, so that will be on, the McComb’s study will be on the council
Monday night and that’s also going to the Chamber on the 25th, and we’ll also report back to
you, this group, kind of some of those findings and recommendations. Obviously it’s critical as
go through the comp plan update. What we’re going to do there so just wanted to give you that
update. And then now if you just want to go into a work session, we can.
McDonald: …of how we’re going to count parking spaces.
Aanenson: Do you want to adjourn or do you want to just do it on live TV? It doesn’t matter.
Planning Commission Meeting – April 18, 2006
43
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
MARCH 28, 2006
Chairman Stolar called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Glenn Stolar, Paula Atkins, Anne Murphy, Jack Spizale, Kevin Dillon
and Steve Scharfenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Kelly
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Superintendent; Don Asleson, Natural Resources Technician; Dale Gregory, Park
Superintendent; Tom Knowles, Recreation Center Manager; and Susan Bill, Senior Center
Coordinator
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Murphy moved, Spizale seconded to approve the agenda
amended to add two items under Administrative Presentations. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC ANNEOUNCEMENTS: None.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: Amy Bush discussed the need for indoor swimming pools to
be used for competitive swimming and the possibility of the city partnering with the school
district. Todd Hoffman stated he felt it was premature to discuss what specific facilities go into
the school at this point until the school district holds a referendum on the item in November.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Murphy moved, Spizale seconded to approve the verbatim
and summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated February 28,
2006 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6
to 0.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE, DON ASLESON, NATURAL
RESOURCES TECHNICIAN.
Don Asleson presented a report on the progress of the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP)
update and noted that a draft of the update will be available on the city’s web page. Chairman
Stolar asked Don Asleson to walk through the process remaining with the draft plan.
RECREATION PROGRAM REPORTS:
2006 4TH OF JULY FIREWORKS CONTRACT RECOMMENDATION. Jerry Ruegemer
presented the staff report on this item and recommend approving the contract with Melrose
Pyrotechnics. Commissioner Scharfenberg asked about the music portion of the fireworks show.
Park and Rec Commission Summary – March 28, 2006
2
Scharfenberg moved, Murphy seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the City Council approve the Fourth of July Fireworks Contract with
Melrose Pyrotechnics in the amount of $23,000.00. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
2005/2006 ICE SKATING RINK EVALUATION. Jerry Ruegemer presented the report on
this item and reviewed the participation numbers from the neighborhood test rinks.
Commissioner Spizale asked for maintenance cost comparisons from the last couple years.
Commissioner Murphy asked about rink plowing and maintenance on weekends. Todd Hoffman
noted he received verbally the most feedback from the Chanhassen Hills neighborhood and that
they appreciated the rink and would like to see it back.
SELF SUPPORTING PROGRAMS: 3 ON 3 BASKETBALL LEAGUE. Jerry Ruegemer
presented the report on this item.
RECREATION CENTER REPORT. Tom Knowles presented the report on the Chanhassen
Rec Center.
SENIOR CENTER REPORT. Susan Bill presented an update on Senior Center activities.
PARK AND TRAIL MAINTENANCE REPORT. Dale Gregory presented the report on park
and trail maintenance in the city.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT. Todd Hoffman updated the commission on work being done
on the Chaska Youth Center initiative, opening of the skate park, status of 2005 projects and
projects planned for 2006, hiring of a new District 112 Community Education Director, future
school sites in the community, progress of subdivisions in the 2005 MUSA area, Chanhassen
short golf course, off leash dog area, senior center activities, and trails. Jerry Ruegemer asked
for volunteers for the Easter Egg Candy Hunt. In talking about the new school to be located in
Chanhassen, Chairman Stolar asked staff to provide background on how the city partnered with
the school district with Bluff Creek and Chanhassen Elementary. The commission discussed
holding a work session to discuss partnering with the school district at the future school site.
Scharfenberg moved, Spizale seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PARK AND
RECREATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 28, 2006
Chairman Stolar called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Glenn Stolar, Paula Atkins, Anne Murphy, Jack Spizale, Kevin Dillon
and Steve Scharfenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT: Tom Kelly
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation
Superintendent; Don Asleson, Natural Resources Technician; Dale Gregory, Park
Superintendent; Tom Knowles, Recreation Center Manager; and Susan Bill, Senior Center
Coordinator
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Murphy moved, Spizale seconded to approve the agenda
amended to add two items under Administrative Presentations. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Stolar: We have the Easter Egg Hunt, which I wonder if that will come up during the rec center
report or not. That’s coming up in a couple weeks. Before our next meeting.
Ruegemer: Yeah, I can discuss that a little bit later on if you’d like to.
Stolar: Yep. Seeing none, we now move into visitor presentations, and I see we do have some
visitors here.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Hoffman: Are you the 4(a)?
Amy Bush: I am.
Hoffman: Come on up.
Amy Bush: Well I was, I mean if other people wanted to come, I was just going to come tonight
to see how it all works. I talked to Jerry this morning yeah, so…I just didn’t know how formal.
Stolar: It’s not formal, if you just want to introduce yourself and state a little bit of your interest,
that’d be great. If you’d just state your name and address.
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
2
Amy Bush: Okay, Amy Bush and I live 1704 West 77th Street right off of…Parkway. Yeah, so I
don’t know. I’m hoping we can have… They’re very few and far between, especially in the
metro area. There’s a lot of kids that work really hard and…and not do have decent facilities at
all, with Chaska being one. They don’t have starting blocks. The depth of the pool is not deep
enough to start from the deck, and I don’t know, I’m not sure…some corporate guys. Eric
Peterson. I’m not sure what the step is because I know Minnetonka Middle School West, where
myself and my son belong to that swim club, they only have a 3 ½ foot depth and I believe the
high school regulations have changed to 4 foot, it has to be a 4 foot depth, even from the deck.
So I don’t know what they’re going to do but…
Hoffman: Depth wise?
Amy Bush: Yeah.
Hoffman: Yeah, it doesn’t meet the standards.
Stolar: I mean most recently Eden Prairie tried to pass a referendum to redo their pool to
increase the depths because if, right now at the current depths that Eden Prairie’s community
center is, they can’t allow swimmers to start off the blocks now. Because of the new regulations
say you have to have a certain depth, so swimmers are going to be starting on, I think in Eden
Prairie they can still start on the deck but I think they may actually lose that too, which means
they actually have to start in the pool, so when they go to competitive swimming elsewhere, if
they can start, if those people have been able to start off the pad, the diving pad, blocks, they
have an advantage.
Amy Bush: Huge advantage.
Stolar: So.
Amy Bush: It’s sad to see them when they work so hard to you know, and now they can’t
achieve times. Starting in the water, there’s just no way. But I was just, you know I don’t know,
I talked to the guy at length at the Rochester pool yesterday and their community center
pool…kind of gave me all the details on their pool, which was interesting but you know he was
saying, they are always positively looking for ways for the city to partner with private or other
public agencies to build facilities…and both of their high schools and two of their middle
schools have pools. Where we are, we have a ton of lanes for competitive swimming but we’re
starting to venture into the recreational… I just find it interesting…and Rochester and
Hutchinson and smaller communities have some of these great pools and you go around the
metro area and they’re just bad. So I was hoping Chanhassen might pass something that the
other communities don’t and I think the people, they look at high school swimming and they
look at the numbers and you’re not going to see the numbers. It’s not a popular sport. It’s a
number of kids that…compared to hockey or basketball or whatever, but…sport, it’s huge. I
mean there are so many kids that are…there’s just hundreds and hundreds. I think people would
just be shocked that…swimming. You know at the Rochester meet we were down there for 3
days, 700 swimmers… 700 swimmers participated that weekend. It was a 3 day meet. You
know you’re there 2 days in a hotel with food and $35.00 entry fees for my kid and then we were
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
3
back down there 3 weeks later for State. 12 and Under State where they had 660 kids for that
and 13 and Under State had 680 kids in that, and that’s at the state level so that was…but they
were 3 day meets and 4 day meets. You’ve got people coming into town. Staying overnight.
Hoffman: I think Paula you were at a public meeting that I was at where the new superintendent
for the district said, it’s his opinion that the district needs to build a new pool or refurbish the
pools. He didn’t make any commitments on where that would be, but he certainly said at a
public meeting that it was his belief that that needed to happen.
Atkins: I understood that it was probably part of the package actually.
Amy Bush: Yeah, that’s kind of the way I understand. It sounds like it’s going to be, there’s
going to be a pool. 8 lane, 25 yard pool. It’s just you know I don’t know what, it would be great
to see, you know like the one in Rochester has a capacity seating of 1,000 people. There’s only
one other pool in the state that…that can hold that many people, so they’re the only ones that can
hold state meets and take in all that money. I mean and Rochester got…where nobody else can.
Atkins: Is that pool at their community center or their high school?
Amy Bush: That’s their own…community center. And they’ve got two sheets of ice and. So,
and it’s a 15 meter pool with a diving…
Atkins: How many lanes?
Amy Bush: 8 lanes. Because of the size of it…550,000 gallons of water in that pool to filter and
clean, but… They don’t have a lot of open time. I know our swim club, Minnetonka Swim
Club…it’d be nice if we could partner with the district and get a pool. Maybe it’s not a 15 meter
pool but maybe feet, you know that’s the thing where these people go to these middle schools, or
you go to Chaska you know and the pool, I mean when you have 500 to 600 kids, 500, 300 kids
at a meet, you know obviously usually you’re sitting in the halls. You’re filtering back and forth,
in and out and you’ve got swimmers all around the pool. They’ve got nowhere to sit. It’s just,
you know it’d be nice to have at least a bigger area and you can hold some meets.
Stolar: Are there any questions, and just for those of you who didn’t look, last Thursday I
believe it was in the Villager, was a letter that you had written.
Amy Bush: Yeah, Thursday.
Stolar: On the same topic and then Todd and I’ve also received communications on this topic,
but the gist of it being, you know can we, the request that I’ve seen and the e-mails and such are,
should we be working with the school district when they, which they seem to be committed to
building a pool. Work with them to define it so that it can be a competitive swim pool, and
become a joint thing that the park district and the school board can use to host a lot of meets. So
any questions for Amy? Jack?
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
4
Amy Bush: Have you gotten, have there been response, just out of curiosity from, or has it been
locally?
Hoffman: There’s nothing to respond to yet. There’s been some discussion in the community
and I think as the referendum discussions move forward, there’s going to be a lot more talk about
it. Or there’s going to be a lot of talk about, first where the school goes and what it is, and then
what it becomes after that so. Right now I think it’s premature to start talking about specifics
because the district’s not going to want to go there until they start to define some of these other
issues.
Amy Bush: Did they, in the Villager article not too long ago they were saying, they mentioned
the below standard pool in the article but then it also said that they’d be starting on plans in
April. By not knowing yet.
Hoffman: Starting on plans for a school.
Amy Bush: Okay. So it’s that, so is it too soon to start?
Hoffman: Yeah, I don’t know what their plans are going, they’re probably going to, they start
planning with these blocks and so they’ll probably start planning for some curriculum space. I’m
not sure if they’ll start talking about athletic fields and pools and gymnasiums and those type of
things just yet so. I don’t think it’s too early to start the conversation, but and I think that’s all it
is. There’s been nothing presented to the community from the City of Chanhassen of yet so
there’s nothing to respond to as of yet.
Amy Bush: Do you have residents that would like…
Hoffman: Oh absolutely. And not just a competitive pool, but a recreational pool as well. You
know Lifetime’s got a great pool program but not all residents of Chanhassen are members of
Lifetime, and we don’t have another public pool in town except the middle school east, or middle
school west and then this school down at in Chaska.
Amy Bush: …and Lifetime’s times are kind of bringing kids in and out. I don’t know, I was a
member there for a while but I struggled with that. So their pool isn’t always available and, but
the Community Center in Chaska seems…all the time so it’s just kind of curious if there’s a lot
of interest for a pool. Competitive pool.
Atkins: I actually keep swimming at Minnetonka. There’s a lot of interest in getting an
improved, a better pool. The facility isn’t great. Between the high school kids and…in the
evening, there’s not a lot of…
Hoffman: Yeah, Minnetonka’s got the same situation.
Amy Bush: They’re exactly in the situation that Chaska is, yeah.
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
5
Atkins: But it is a sport that is recommended for children that have hyperactivity disorders. Plus
the ones…to be participating in that you know.
Amy Bush: Well that’s kind of what I said in my article that it’s just helped…I saw the only
female American soldier that’s lost a limb in a war in Iraq is on our team now. She’s 25 years
old and she is a track athlete and came back from that…and she swims now and I’ve seen kids
amputees and I’ve seen Y kids and I’ve seen obese children, and even though some kids that
aren’t that great of swimmers, but it’s all based on your times. You’re competing against kids of
your own time and everybody participates so that’s probably my biggest…
Stolar: Let me see, Kevin do you have any questions or comments?
Dillon: I don’t have any questions at this time though thanks and appreciate your passion for it.
Stolar: Paula.
Atkins: My only comment, I think it’s, when we had the survey about interest in community
center, what that was way at the top of the list. Every time we’ve asked the community what we
need, it’s a pool. Yeah, so there’ll be a lot of interest in that. I support it.
Amy Bush: Do you have to have it acceptable, like does it have to...in the school hours.
…because I know in the Minnetonka pool, our swim club can’t use it during school hours.
There’s some sort of law about that.
Hoffman: There could be a joint powers agreement. The way I understand it, if there was a joint
effort, there’s both city and school district money being invested in it, there would be a joint
powers arrangement.
Amy Bush: So there is a way to work it where you could use a pool during school hours but.
Hoffman: Probably not. Probably not. It’d probably be after hours.
Stolar: I know Eden Prairie has a deal with Oak Point, right? That it’s joint. The park district
and I believe, if I remember correctly, they weren’t able to use it either during school hours.
Amy Bush: Is that just because the pool’s at the school or you can’t, the public can’t have access
to the pool during the school hours kind of, is that for safety reasons?
Hoffman: A variety of reasons. Safety, disruption.
Amy Bush: Because I’m just wondering…
Stolar: I think that’s something that we can work out later if, you know as we go forward but I
think generally speaking it’s been that they’ve been separated. Even like I think the Eden Prairie
Community Center, they have, the park district has the pool. The high school uses it, and high
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
6
school had first dibs during school hours. In fact that was a big issue we had with swim
availability when I was on that park board.
Amy Bush: Yeah, because you’d like to see it to be able to be open to residents during the day
when the pool isn’t being used.
Stolar: Yeah it’s something that I mean, and when is the timing Todd of the school district’s
planning process? It wouldn’t be until 2009, right?
Hoffman: Well they’ll have the referendum this fall.
Stolar: So this fall.
Hoffman: The question will be posed and whatever’s included in the question will be voted on
in November.
Stolar: Okay, so it is this quick for the referendum, okay. Steve, do you have anything?
Scharfenberg: I don’t have anything.
Amy Bush: Thanks for your time.
Stolar: Thank you very much.
Hoffman: Appreciate it Amy. Thanks for coming in.
Stolar: And again for those of you who hadn’t seen, Amy wrote an article in the Villager on the
same topic. It seems to me Todd, if we do want to try to, you and I talked a little, or I sent you e-
mails, and we have this later on our agenda, that we should talk about how we best coordinate
with them as we go forward to see that, get input I guess at the very least into the referendum
discussion, or other ways in which we can approach this. So thanks Amy. Any other visitor
presentations? Okay. And Commissioner Scharfenberg has joined us a while ago. Didn’t get a
chance to introduce him.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Murphy moved, Spizale seconded to approve the verbatim
and summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated February 28,
2006 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6
to 0.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE, DON ASLESON, NATURAL
RESOURCES TECHNICIAN.
Asleson: Thank you Mr. Chair and commissioners. I’m going to hand out this kind of a map
and we’ll kind of go through it later in the presentation. Well I’m glad to be here today to talk
about our surface water management plan update. When we’re talking about Chanhassen’s
surface water management plan, and the surface water resources, what we’re really talking about
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
7
is the 6 creeks, 11 lakes, 350 storm water ponds, over 400 wetlands and over 6,000 storm water
structures that are part of the surface water system. If you add up the creeks, the lakes, the storm
water ponds and the wetlands, as well as the Minnesota River, that total would represent about
27% of the total land in Chanhassen, so it’s a pretty significant amount of land in Chanhassen
that’s dedicated to surface water. Why update the plan now? Well the last time it was
completed in 1994. Chanhassen has really developed since 1994. There’s been a lot of change.
In addition we’ve had some increased regulations with our National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System program from the PCA which does a number of things for us because it
requires us to inventory our system. Inspect the system. Kind of address our ordinances. Make
sure they’re adequate and that we’re not over looking things. Then in addition to have best
management practices or bmp’s to minimize storm water pollution. In 1994, the 1994 plan,
another reason why we’re updating it is because it’s no longer consistent with our watershed
district plans, and to avoid a situation where our residents would have to go to the watershed
district…or the city would have different like areas in the city to meet development criteria, we’d
like to update this plan making it consistent with all the watershed district so it’s more one stop
shopping type of thing, so they can come to us. We can tell them what they have to meet to
proceed with their development. What has changed in time? There’s a lot of things in the’94
plans that remain the same. I think our task force members which Glenn was a part of, there was
a lot of things that did work and we left them in there. Things that weren’t very effective like we
had a goal that was 100% phosphorous removal as part of our ’94 plan which is really an
unrealistic goal. It’s not attainable really. So that was removed, but we did, the categories that
were flushed out of the update were water quality, water quantity, wetlands, erosion and
sediment control, financing, regulatory responsibility and this one might be new to you Glenn
but education was added in there as a goal that we wanted to add into that.
Stolar: We had talked about that several times. Glad it finally.
Asleson: Yep, it finally got added in there. In addition the resource and structure inventory
which is kind of, I gave you that print out which is really what another and very important part of
this update that we had. It was a GPS and survey inventory of all structures so over 6,000
inlets/outlets. Some catch basins. Wetlands. Just about everything was inventoried. We had a
MnRam assessment done for every one of our wetlands so we can classify them. And then the
storm water pond inventory inspection so we actually have storm water ponds identified and
have you know as part of the update, they notified us if any maintenance was needed on those
ponds. What will all the paper do for us? Well it will help us maintain compliance with all the
agencies like the PCA and the watershed district. It will help us identify problems in our system
and possible solutions. Now we’ve got all this data and we can work with it. We can maybe
find solutions to some of these issues that we have. I was telling Todd here that I know you have
a trail on Stone Creek, you’re looking at Stone Creek there again, and kind of in the middle of
the map there is a yellow storm water pond, and the trail just to the south of that, when we get a
large rain event, we get water over the trail a couple times, so one way we can maybe use this
update is to see if we can improve that trail so it’s not flooding out every time we get huge rain
events. Again proactively provide storm water treatment for new developments. You know we
do that but I think it will help us analyze kind of the flows and see where we’re at with some of
that stuff. Maintain and improve water quality. Again the existing resources. Illustrate where
ordinances are lacking and non-existent. I think I touched on that one but one of the main things
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
8
is it’s going to help us develop a CIP budget for the next 20 years which will lead us up to 2025.
The draft plan is going to be on the web site. It’s not on tonight but it should be up tomorrow
morning. It’s a rough eyes draft. I’d advise all you to take a look at it. If you have comments
and I know Lori or myself wouldn’t mind receiving comments. Lori prefers receiving written
comments in the mail, so… So if anybody has questions, I can try to answer them and if not, I
can find the answer for you.
Stolar: Can you just walk through real quick what the process is remaining with the draft plan?
Asleson: Oh okay. Well I know we have the draft. Don’t really, I think we have 60 days for
agencies to review the draft. Once we get that back, we’ll be taking all the comments that we
receive…don’t have the date of the final draft but I think once we get back the agency review
and ask for public comments, we’ll have a better idea then. Timing when it goes to council, I
don’t have that in front of me but that’s something I can get when I get you.
Stolar: Yeah, has the Planning Commission held their open hearings yet?
Asleson: I believe they’re going to, if they haven’t already opened up the public hearing, it’s
already been opened up and it’s going to be opened up until May 2nd maybe. If it hasn’t been
opened, it’s going to be opened at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Stolar: So the Planning Commission kind of holds the plan from a public input standpoint…
along with these agency reviews to the City Council for approval.
Asleson: Right. Actually I think it’s the next Planning Commission that they’re going to open
the public hearing since we just go the draft today. It will give people some time to review it
before the public hearing is opened.
Stolar: Questions, Steve.
Scharfenberg: No questions.
Stolar: Paula?
Atkins: Nothing.
Dillon: I’ve got one. Are wetlands increasing? Decreasing? Staying the same? What’s
happening with our wetlands?
Asleson: Well, the wetland are kind of protected with the Wetland Conservation Act so wetlands
we cannot touch to the law. I would say that overall, they’re probably increasing because if we
do mitigate wetland impact, they have to replace that 2 to 1 ratio as part of the law, so if they
impact 1 acre, they have to replace 1 acre and then provide public value credit which sometimes
is additional wetland. So I don’t think we’re losing any wetlands.
Dillon: Okay.
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
9
Hoffman: 212’s taking quite a bit out.
Asleson: Yeah, but they’re also mitigating, that would be a project where they may even
mitigate outside of Chanhassen, so we could be, which takes some wetland or something like
that.
Dillon: Okay, thanks.
Stolar: If you guys do have a chance, I would read the executive summary and the vision
statements that will be out as part of that, and as we discussed in previous meetings, one of the
big philosophies we had in doing this was that the city should demonstrate best practices
wherever possible. I know we do that and we try to do that all the time in our park areas and so I
think as we can continue setting those examples, that’d be great. Don, thanks for coming.
Asleson: Yeah, no problem.
RECREATION PROGRAM REPORTS:
2006 4TH OF JULY FIREWORKS CONTRACT RECOMMENDATION.
Ruegemer: Thank you Chair Stolar and good evening to the rest of the commission as well.
Looking at the, looking ahead to our 4th of July celebrations, it’s time to review the 2006
fireworks contract. Our department did go out to two different companies to solicit quotes for
2006 fireworks display on July 4th. We did inquire with Arrowhead Fireworks and Melrose
Pyrotechnics. Both companies did prepare and submit the necessary information in compliance
with our RFP that we had put together for their review. They did meet all the specifications and
requirements and at this time it’s staff’s opinion that Melrose, Melrose’s show has more bang for
the buck…grand finale and also they, which is kind of a unique show to their company. They
also feature a mid show barrage and a pre-finale teaser. So when people are starting to pick up
their blankets and they think that’s the end of the show, we’ve got more to come so that’s kind of
a fun thing that they had offered. Not only this year but also in the past with our shows out at
Lake Ann Park. The City of Chanhassen has been contracting with Melrose for over 20 years
now. We’ve had a really good working relationship with Melrose through the years. Not only
with the event planners but also with the people that are there the day of the show. We really,
we’ve worked with the same kind of lead person for about the last 8 to 10 years. It’s basically
you know show up in the morning at 7:00-8:00 in the morning and they know exactly what to do.
Our expectations are met and there has not been any compromise on quality, quantity and first of
all safety of the show so, staff feels extremely comfortable with Melrose. It’s staff’s
recommendation that the Park and Rec Commission recommend that the City Council approve
the 4th of July fireworks contract with Melrose Pyrotechnics in the amount of $23,000. This
amount is included in Fund 1600. It was our Recreation Program budget. That includes all the
special events in the 2006 budget. The fireworks display will take place on Tuesday, July 4th at
10:00 p.m. at Lake Ann Park.
Stolar: Thank you. Any questions?
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
10
Murphy: Now is the same show then as last year?
Ruegemer: Well they do change you know things around a little bit. I’m sure some of the
components will be the same as far as the same types of shells but certainly try to kind of give a
new flavor every year.
Stolar: Jack.
Spizale: I just think we’ve always had excellent fireworks. They’ve done a great job in the past.
I’ve been very happy with it. That’s all I’ve got.
Stolar: Steve.
Scharfenberg: Jerry, did they provide the music portion of the show last year or was that done
by?
Ruegemer: That was actually a separate company, St. Croix Events works a lot with Melrose at
Lumberjack Days and some other types of shows. We have not heard anything at this point from
St. Croix, but that certainly could be because the show hasn’t been approved yet, but you know,
kind of a mixed, a mixed bag of emotions as regard to the music, to the show last year. I think
some people liked it. I think other people felt it was a distraction so we’re kind of letting that lie
right now.
Scharfenberg: Okay.
Stolar: Paula.
Atkins: Oh I think that this company has always been on the cutting edge of new fireworks
because every time there’s something new, we see it. It’s great.
Ruegemer: And we are one of the larger shows certainly within the Twin Cities area. That’s
why we were picked last year for the music event so, a good reputation of a solid performance.
Stolar: Can I have a motion on the recommendation from staff?
Scharfenberg: Move to accept staff’s recommendation for the 2006 4th of July fireworks
contract.
Murphy: Second.
Stolar: Moved by Commissioner Scharfenberg, seconded by Commissioner Murphy. Any final
questions?
Scharfenberg moved, Murphy seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the City Council approve the Fourth of July Fireworks Contract with
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
11
Melrose Pyrotechnics in the amount of $23,000.00. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
2005/2006 ICE SKATING RINK EVALUATION.
Ruegemer: Thanks again Chair Stolar. This year’s ice skating season certainly was interesting.
Not only from the staff but also the commission level, kind of going out and looking at the
different locations that we’ve had. We were open a large number of days this year. Opened and
closed, and opened and closed and it was an interesting season to say the least. We did open up
really one of our earliest years on record. We started off great in early December. It was cold.
We were getting ice down and we opened up really probably a week to 2 weeks earlier than we
normally had in the past historically. We opened up the 16th of December, and we were open to
the 27th of February, which was roughly, we recorded roughly about 6,000 visits at our warming
houses that we acquire rink attendants at North Lotus, the Rec Center, Roundhouse and City
Center Park so, a total of 54 days we were open. Total of 18 days were due to, as Nate put it,
low temperatures, high temperatures and poor surfaces so, on the coldest day of the year, we still
were melting ice from the corners so I was a bit educated that day so, it was hard to really have a
good base and keep that base going during the month of January and February. We kind of
picked up again with some colder weather but the sun angle and that was getting kind of high
and it was getting intense so we couldn’t keep ice on our blacktop areas so. So we can have a
number of attachments attached to the report. We had kind of went through this year as the
commission had gone through kind of the test neighborhoods. We have that documentation and
numbers as related to the 3 test locations that we had out there in the neighborhoods. As you can
see we didn’t have super high numbers but I don’t think that’s a true mark as to the total
participation of kids that are skating at a certain time. We certainly try to do random times to try
to catch people on the weekends and during their holiday break when the kids were not in school
so, it’s a sampling that the commission can dissect or use for future decisions as to where we’d
like to go in the future. We also have our park maintenance staff there on the rinks, hockey and
family rinks every day so they kind of charted medium, light or heavy use. And that’s also
attached and all the days that they were out there. They certainly are a good judge as to how
many people are using the rinks on a daily basis. So that was also can be used for future
decisions as we look forward to our 2006-2007 skating rink season. We certainly is economical
way to provide warming houses at City Center Park and Roundhouse Park with renting trailers
from Satellite Industries. Worked out again this year. We certainly have slight damage to
trailers on a yearly basis and that was minimal this year. I think out of 400 hours for that, we just
replaced some metal and that sort of thing so. We also did purchase some steps going, kind of
leading up into the trailers that we can have now for our use. They were getting rid of them. We
got a good buy on them and we can keep the wood stuff on them now that we can use for future
years so that worked out good and we got a really good deal on those so. Nate kind of put down
and listed the expenses of the temporary and seasonal wages. Kind of the program supplies and
that might be first aid supplies and those sort of things to kind of have the warming houses
functional. Also included with that was the damage to the trailers and totaled about a little under
$700. And in the equipment rental trailers and steps, it’s included in that, the third number. And
then he also did include kind of rink maintenance portion of that as well and that is Dale’s crew,
along with staff and their efforts to kind of go along with that for the total cost. So he gives us
kind of an overview of the rink season and you know, is this year going to be a true test of years
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
12
to come? It’s hard to say but we certainly had a unique season, unlike others that we’ve had in
the past but we certainly can have some data that we can look at and base our future decisions on
the program, kind of leading into the next year’s season so. Just if the commission has any
questions, comments about the attachments or the skating rink season as a whole, we certainly
can entertain those.
Stolar: Paula, you want to start off?
Atkins: I don’t have any comments right off the bat here.
Stolar: Steve.
Scharfenberg: In terms of the usage, I found interesting that one of the neighborhoods that
lobbied us greatly was Rice Marsh and they were kind of one of the lower usage for rinks so I
found that a little interesting. Also just kudo’s to Dale and his staff for the ice when I was
always out there looking at it, when my kids were skating, it was always in good shape except
for those 4 days when they did an excellent job this year.
Stolar: Jack.
Spizale: Jerry, what were our costs last year? The year before, do you remember? Compared to
this year?
Ruegemer: Overall?
Spizale: Yep.
Ruegemer: I imagine they were lower because we were open, Dale probably has that.
Gregory: I don’t have the total cost but I have what our maintenance cost was last year. And it
was $22,818 and we were open 46 days last year, compared to $32,500 and we were open 54
days this year.
Ruegemer: Discussion purposes, the numbers for wages and equipment rental’s going to be
roughly about the same so. About a $10,000 difference roughly.
Dillon: So we were open a few more days this year but we’ve not kept records in terms of
utilization in the past, have we?
Ruegemer: Dale’s crew always have and.
Hoffman: We have as well with the rink attendants.
Ruegemer: Yeah. Rink attendants also then the, I know in the past we have collected data
through kind of the volunteer program through the Park and Rec Commissioners.
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
13
Stolar: So how does this $5,900 compare to the tallies in previous years?
Ruegemer: Obviously with being open a little bit more, you know we’re probably within $500
to $1,000 of other years, but we were open, certainly open. You know kind of taking account
too, there was a lot of we’ll call it indecision days where we were open but we had low
attendance because you know, are we open? Are we closed and we certainly tried to keep on top
of that daily.
Murphy: I have a question. I didn’t know the answer to this, one of my neighbors asked me. If
it snows on a weekend, does maintenance clear the snow off the rinks or is that kind of?
Gregory: Usually on weekends and that we have a crew come in on Saturday mornings and
Sunday mornings, and Saturday morning it’s usually clean them off and they will flood the rinks.
And it will be done before the rinks open and then if it snows on Sunday morning they’ll come in
and clean them off but they won’t flood them.
Stolar: Anything else? I just have to echo Dale your crew being able to add these rinks and then
vary like the weather varied, being able to go out there after it was warm and get out there early
when it was cold so appreciate that. I think you know you look at these numbers and like I said,
I don’t know if it’s that much better but it just seems like it was good. You know the standard
rinks, people took advantage of the extra efforts you put in, especially I think re-opening it after
that huge spell in January were we could have just as easily closed, I thought that was great so
thanks.
Gregory: The family rinks held up real good around and that but the hockey rinks we had a lot
of trouble because we just, we did not have cold weather to take and really build the ice back up
to the board again. We always had that space by the boards. We could never really get good ice
and I know we flooded some nights and that and we’d lose it because even on, like Jerry said,
even on a cold day. I mean if it’s 10 degrees outside but the sun is out, it starts melting so.
Stolar: That was tough but it seemed like we had good attendance. Thanks, and I guess I
assume we’ll look at a later meeting we’ll have a discussion about whether or not the
neighborhood rinks, where we go with that.
Ruegemer: Do you want to talk about that again in August or so sometime or?
Stolar: Whatever’s appropriate for you guys to give you enough lead time.
Scharfenberg: Jerry needs to get it into, I mean this year we were late because of the, in the
bulletin, in the Chanhassen.
Ruegemer: We’ll schedule it for August.
Stolar: Okay, and that will get you in the.
Ruegemer: Yeah, that will give us plenty of time.
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
14
Stolar: Okay, great.
Hoffman: I received verbally the most feedback from the Chanhassen Hills neighborhood, that
they appreciated the rink and would like to see it back.
Stolar: And they had the best utilization, both numbers and I think in the evaluation of that,
Dale’s group did. They came up with the highest numbers. They also had the lights there which
helped. Okay. I think Jerry, you’re up again.
SELF SUPPORTING PROGRAMS: 3 ON 3 BASKETBALL LEAGUE.
Ruegemer: We’ll get through mine right away. Just the spring season started this past, actually
last night. The 27th. We had to push that back a week due to the snow storm that we had on the,
what day that was? 6th I guess or 13th. On that to finish up our winter playoff’s so we’re going
to start a week later on that. We have 6 teams and of course after the season starts there’s always
teams that still wanted to play so, unfortunately people need to get their stuff in so, but the
people are enthused again. I think 5 out of the 6 teams that are in the league this year played
winter with us so I think people enjoy kind of that continuous kind of team sport. The recreation
aspect of the basketball. Very social. It’s pretty good exercise, running up and down the court
so, had a pretty good mainstay of teams coming back for fall, winter and spring leagues so it’s
good. We’ll go through May 8th and we’ll have a post season tournament and we’ll finish up the
15th and 22nd, right before Memorial Weekend and then everybody can kind of get down with the
spring and move on with the summer activities so. Tom and his crew, Steve…are doing an
awesome job out at the rec center. No worries that they’re there on Monday nights and
administrating the time clock and recording records and all that sort of stuff. We couldn’t do it
without him so we appreciate it Tom and Steve. Doing a great job.
Stolar: Great, thanks. Any questions for Jerry on 3 on 3? Okay, thanks.
RECREATION CENTER REPORT.
Knowles: Well in my report this month I’ve got, I’ve listed our hours of operation at the rec
center. I’ve also included our summer hours which we run between Memorial Day and Labor
Day. I should have indicated that they’re closing, our Annual closing for maintenance and floor
resurfacing is tentatively scheduled for August 19th through September 4th. Waiting to year final
word from the school district on when they can actually do the work on that but I’m fairly certain
that that’s where it’s going to wind up. Our staffing at the rec center. We were able to another
aerobics instructor last month and we’re up to 10 classes a week. I think that this is a good
number. It gives us a good variety of classes and good times. However I am a little disappointed
in our attendance so far so we’re going to have to keep an eye on that and see if we can justify
that many classes. We are fully staffed with our facilities supervisors. Same crew we’ve had for
quite a long time. At least one of our guys may be leaving us. His schooling will be done pretty
quick and we’ll have a hole to fill when he leaves but it’s held on real good. Our programming,
big thing there is our dance recital. As you may know our dance program at the recreation center
is just a huge program. I believe it’s about the largest in our system. Nicole Koucher, our
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
15
coordinator out there does a wonderful job. Her big event, the spring recital is coming up on
May 13th and it will be held at the Eden Prairie High School Auditorium and we’ll have two
performances. One at 1:30 and one at 6:30 so we’re beginning the process of selling tickets to
the parents and families, but we’ll have a public sale available some time in mid-April. Facility
notes, I’m actually pleasantly surprised that, how well our building is being utilized. In the gym
we have a lot of things going on. Youth sports. I’ve indicated we have a CAA basketball in
there and then the softball association and even a lacrosse group has been using our gym this
winter. Also the gym has got our preschool programs and floor hockey, indoor soccer and
basketball. The 3 on 3 adult league. Our Tae Kwon Do program. They all utilize the gym so I
think the gym is being well utilized. The meeting rooms are, and again I’m pleasantly surprised
how well we’ve filled the rooms up this winter. Looking ahead on our schedule, it’s pretty
difficult to book a room actually at the rec center on a Monday or Tuesday night through the
month of April so, we’re holding our own on that area so. Overall I think things are good. I’m
satisfied that we’re holding our own, given the new competition with Lifetime and the Chaska
expansion and so forth and I’m happy how we’re holding our own so.
Stolar: Okay, thank you. Questions. Okay, thanks Tom. Appreciate it.
SENIOR CENTER REPORT.
Bill: Thank you and good evening. Couple of things I want to highlight. I know I talk about
this probably every time I come but it continues to amaze me is the weekly column in the
Chanhassen Villager. With the picture. I get calls from new people constantly. Example last
week a lady who moved into Summerwood had read it. Came in. Wanted to meet some people.
Came in and is now participating in a number of our activities. The 55 Alive Driving program.
Get a lot of people that come to that that don’t participate in any other program, and I have 1 to 2
of those a month and they all, when I ask them how they heard about it, they read about it in the
paper so, that’s really, really a good economical, because we don’t pay for it, means of getting
the word out about events at the senior center. Another thing that’s been interesting the past
couple months is the competition and the physicians and health care presentations we’re having.
In the 2 years I’ve been here I’ve never had Ridgeview approach me about having a member of
their physicians present different topics. Their head of education department out Waconia came.
Park Nicollet has been knocking at my door quite a bit so, it’s really been nice to have the
competition in town because it’s enabled us to offer a variety of informative, updated health and
wellness seminars to seniors with great attendance so. I never say no when they want to come
and offer something. One other thing that continues is with Medicare Part D. The final deadline
for registration is May 15th. I think I mentioned when I was here before, we’ve got two state
licensed health insurance counselors that come the second Tuesday of every month and we’re
able to help register people online. Probably get 4 to 5 people a month that do that. Now that
will end because after May 15th, if you’re not registered for Medicare Part D, you’ll be paying a
1% penalty. But it’s really, really been a nice feature to have that with the one on one private
counseling. One other thing that is new is we have in my old office we have book club kits.
Worked with Diane Gerhardt from Carver County and Kathy from the library. Diane wrote a
grant and Kathy and I gave suggestions and we got grant money from Minnesota Valley Electric
Coop, the Chanhassen Lions and Friends of the Library, and basically this is a book club kit and
we have 12 of these with 15 books in them. We have women. Men could join if they want to
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
16
but we don’t have any. We have the first Monday of every month we have a book club with 15
members so with the grant money we’ve got 12 bags. A kit for every month with 12, 15 books
in it. Kathy has prepared a study guide with information about the author, questions on the
books and if there is one, a book on tape. So that’s really, really nice. And the neat thing about
these kits, after our women read them, then the kits go back to the library. Other book club
groups can check them out and then after a year, all these books go back on the shelf, so it’s kind
of fun working with them and getting this and then the people don’t have to buy books, and next
week in the paper you’ll see a picture of a representative from the Lions Club holding one of her
book kits, so that will be in the paper. So that’s really been nice. One thing I forgot to put in the
report, last week I had an Ebay class. Rick Rice taught it. I had 15 people attend the class and
what I’m going to try to do every quarter is offer an informational class of some sort that older
adults hear their grandchildren or their children talking about Ebay. Next in July I’m going to
have one on digital cameras. I think the next time I might have one on MP3, Ipods because they
all hear about this but they don’t have any idea. And with the Ebay class last week, half of the
people there wanted to actually learn how to use it and I had people from 60 up to 92. And then
the other half just wanted to learn about what Ebay was all about and Rick had a power point
presentation. Took them through tutorial and it was really informative. However I did miss the
boat on one thing. We concentrated more on showing the site and how to use it and how to buy
things. Probably 5 minutes into the presentation this one gentleman raises his hand and he says,
you know we’re seniors. We’re clearing stuff out. We want to sell. We don’t want to buy so we
had to kind of switch gears…aspect of it but there was really, really positive feedback on that.
And then lastly, the one on one tutoring class continues to be just wonderful. With the
volunteers getting as much out of the tutoring as the participant. And that’s at the computer
terminal at the senior center and it can be anything on learning how to turn the computer on.
How to set up an e-mail account. How to do searching on the internet. How to set up address
books, whatever, so it’s really, really been helpful and the reason I started that, people were
saying if they take a class, often there are too many people and it’s, they’re somewhat
embarrassed to say you know, I don’t know how to click a reply or a forward or whatever, so this
is really, really nice. Where it’s one on one and wonderful things have developed. So that’s
always something going on at the senior center and everything’s been going great.
Stolar: Okay, thank you. Any questions for Susan?
Dillon: Susan, what are the topics that physicians are presenting? What specific, …vascular
disease or do we know?
Bill: We’ve got a variety. I’ve got one April 10th on neuro research on strokes, cardio, heart risk
prevention. I had an ophthalmologist from Park Nicollet talking about the latest procedures in
glaucoma, cataracts. Dr. Dvorak is giving a presentation on living long, living well strategies for
healthy aging with nutritional and other aspects, so just a variety. Whatever they come to me
with. We have different topics so it’s been good.
Stolar: Other questions from anybody? Thank you very much. Dale.
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
17
PARK AND TRAIL MAINTENANCE REPORT.
Gregory: First off I’d like to make one correction to my report and that. Through the skating
rink season that I had on there as 60 days. We really were open only 54 days. Some of those
days came where we had the rinks ready and everything else during the daytime. Evening it got
too warm because the afternoons it got…and we didn’t quite copy all the right days down and
that so we did miss a few so in the report it should really be 54 days. We were 10 days longer
than last year. Also and that this spring we’ve been working on our diseased elm trees. The past
year and that between Jill and some of the inspectors and that we’ve been categories and, not
categories but logging in all of the diseased trees for the past year and that. We went out this
spring and had to cut all of those down. We actually ended up cutting 94 trees down that were
within the city trails, in the parks. We did not go into the heavily wooded areas, that type of
thing. Those were left but anything that would be along a trail or something that might do
damage or hurt somebody or something like that so. They were taken care of. We’ve also been
working on the trails. We’ve got one more day left and we will have all of our trails completely
brushed out, gone through and in really good shape. They’ve been over a week and a half and
that cutting, all the trimming and everything back and that and it’s amazing that they’ve trimmed
now and that and they think they’ve got it trimmed back for a 5 year plan, and 2 years later
you’re back there and it’s grown right back. It’s just amazing how it grows that fast. We’re also
working on a re-planting out at the rec center. The oak trees that run along the sidewalk by the
rec center and back by the ballfields. We’ve got a lot of those that have died and a lot of them
that are in really poor shape, and so we’ve gone through and looked at all those and I’ve been
working with Jill. She’s bidding out, we’re looking at 40 oak trees that will be replaced in that
line, and all of the oak trees were originally were one species and now we’re going to be putting
a variety in there so if we do have one species die, we’re not going to have them all die. So we
should be, and we’re looking at ones that are a little bit better suited for that soil out there. So
we’re working on that. Also this year we were lucky with…this year. And we did go out and
check all of the wood duck houses and this year we had a decline. Last year we went up by
10/%. This year we went down by 11%. I really don’t have a reason for it. It’s just, I’ve been
keeping a record since ’94 and the most we’ve ever had was 80% and 42% now is our lowest so I
don’t know what’s happening. We did have 6 nesting boxes that were either destroyed by
somebody or we had some that were stolen by some people too, so we did replace those 6 again
this year but, so I mean those 6 come in as a negative so that’s going to bring our numbers down
too. But all and all I think we’re really doing, really going pretty good for the wood duck nesting
and that. Even at 42%, at least we’re helping so. Also Dean, my foreman, he’s been working on
playground inspections. We’ve been going out and he’s getting every one inspected to make
sure everything is in good shape. That we have no problems with anything before the summer
starts. We try to do, even through the winter we try to go out and do like, at least a monthly
inspection on them and look at them just to make sure everything is okay but now in spring and
that, they go through and they check everything to make sure everything is really in good shape
for that. We’ve started some clean-up and that downtown. We’ve got the STS, the Sentenced to
Serve people from the county. We’ve got those scheduled for next week. People up there
through the 5th so we’ll be, if you come through town you’ll see us. They’re going to be out
there with the backpack blowers. They’re going to be blowing all the sand off all the sidewalks,
all the grass, center islands and everything like that so getting everything cleaned up for
downtown. We’ve also been working in Curry Farms this past spring. We’ve had a, we haul a
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
18
lot of fill from the State hauled it in for us. We’ve got a bad hole down there that’s been sinking
on us. We’ve filled it up 3 times. We’re doing it again. We’re raising that whole westerly part
of the park up this year, and so we’ve had a lot of that dirt hauled in. We also are working on the
trail that comes down from, it’d be from Knob Hill and that whole area up there where we put
two new culverts in that area and enlarged them so we don’t have anything washing out. We dug
out the pond and we’re also trying to take the steepness out of that hill. We think we’ve found
some fill today from a guy that’s going to be getting us some fill and we’ll actually take that
steepness out and it will make it a lot safer coming down that hill. So it’s going to be a lot of
black dirt down there this summer and that but we’re going to, we’re going to keep working on it
and so. And then the other thing I started Monday I started sweeping trails and we’re working
on that. The street guys are out with their sweeping and that, so we only get one sweeper to use
and that so we’ll keep that thing going and it probably will take us a good week to, week to 7
days of actual sweeping and then we’ll have all of the trails completely swept in the city so.
That’s everything I’ve got.
Stolar: Any questions for Dale?
Scharfenberg: Dale, what’s your anticipated finish, and I know this depends on the weather but
when would you anticipate that Lake Susan would be ready to go with the new equipment?
Hoffman: May 23rd.
Gregory: That’s the date they’re shooting for.
Hoffman: The contract will be awarded to the contractor on April 11th and they have up to 6
weeks to complete it.
Gregory: And we’ll be working with the, there’s going to be some new trail connections going
through that area so we’ll be working on that. Actually Jim Theis, my heavy equipment
operator, he’s moving in the Cat probably the beginning of next week. We’re going to be
looking at that and we’re also, we’re going to start extending that parking lot, that’s going to get
enlarged. That’s our next move right now, we’re getting the pipe ordered and we’ll probably be
working on that here in a week so.
Stolar: May 23rd is what day?
Hoffman: The week before Memorial weekend.
Stolar: Because we had talked about maybe trying to have a pre-park meeting out there. I don’t
know if that May would be too soon. Be optimistic but maybe we could do something like that.
Think about that for those, we were talking about maybe having all park staff and us and families
just go out to kind of enjoy the new playground and have a little potluck or something out there.
Hoffman: Great.
Stolar: Paula, any questions?
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
19
Atkins: Any other, are any playgrounds scheduled for renovation this summer?
Stolar: No.
Atkins: All done?
Stolar: All done. There are some new ones right, or is that not this year?
Hoffman: Some projects to finish up but all of our playgrounds, that’s 10 for the last 2 years.
Stolar: But do we have a new park one that we have to put in or is that next year? For some of
the new parks where we reviewed some of the approaches. With the development.
Hoffman: Nothing yet.
Stolar: Nothing yet, okay. Because we also had one at Lake Harrison was it? So those are a
couple years away still. Okay. Anne? Kevin?
Dillon: So Curry Farms has been, we’ve had problems for years. I mean what’s the prognosis?
Is there any amount of dirt ever going to fix it?
Gregory: We really don’t have a good answer. We actually went out there 2 years ago with a
backhoe and we dug down as far as we could and we’re coming up with wood. I mean it’s been
buried in there. We’re coming up with a lot of decayed grasses and everything else. That used
to be a swamp. That whole area down there and it was filled when the housing development
went in, but that one whole area just, I don’t know why but it keeps going.
Hoffman: It’s a good lesson on why not to take wetland soils for active parkland. Park
dedication requirements so, it’s our problem child but we keep it as a reminder that don’t fill
wetland. It was a very wet area when it was developed and it was prior to some wetland laws
and the city accepted it as park dedication. The developer said no, no. With all sorts of
guarantees. This will be fine. It will be a great park. I remember the testimony sitting in Jerry’s
chair at the time so, and so we’re here today still paying 20 years later. It’s a mess.
Stolar: And it hasn’t helped that we’ve had two 100 year rains last summer.
Dillon: The rain that we had last, on Labor Day we were back there and it was like 4 feet deep.
Gregory: We had so much water down there last year, the wood chips that we put in basically all
washed out. They were gone.
Stolar: Jack, do you have any questions?
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
20
Spizale: Just one thing, I noticed the guy’s been out there with the tractors sweeping the trails,
which I think is a great heads up with this weather. I’ve just noticed so many people all of a
sudden everybody’s out running, especially last weekend so I’m glad they’re out there sweeping.
Gregory: Well one thing my guys have mentioned, even in the winter snowplowing the trails,
they said that’s one thing that really gets used in this city and that is, I mean we go out after a
fresh snow and there’s usually always tracks there or we run in, we’re meeting people out there
and they’re really happy that we’re taking care of the trails and that because they love to walk in
the winter.
Spizale: Dale I had one other question, now that you’re back onto the trails. Are they in good
shape?
Gregory: The trails?
Spizale: Yep.
Gregory: They’re pretty good, yep. I mean we’ve got some areas and that that need some work,
but all and all they’re not too bad. We’ve got a little bit of sod down that we’ve got to do and
that, take care of this year. The last couple snows didn’t help us at all. There was no frost in the
ground so it’s real tough to keep a truck or snowblower on a trail. When it’s frozen it’s not a big
deal and that because then you can run off to the side and you’re still not digging it up but these
last two snows really hurt us.
Hoffman: And Jack, the trails are included now in our pavement management program for the
entire city so we signed a contract a couple of days ago for $1,600 for this year’s review. They
take a portion of the city’s trail system and they go out there and they evaluate it and the data is
entered into our pavement management program. And then an annual basis we’ll be doing trail
maintenance and mostly overlays on an annual basis so we make sure that they don’t all fall
apart at once.
Spizale: Neat idea.
Gregory: We’ve also looked at a couple years ago and that where we increased the size from an
8 foot trail to a 10 foot trail and I mean that really has helped us out a lot.
Stolar: Any other questions? Okay, thanks again Dale. Thanks to all three of you for staying
and doing the reports. Todd, administrative section.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT.
Hoffman: Thank you Chair Stolar, members of the commission. I wanted to bring you up to
date on a few things that are less severe but also a few that are not. Assistant City Manager
Justin Miller and I will be meeting with the folks from the Chaska Youth Center initiative
tomorrow for lunch. They presented here at a City Council meeting during a visitor presentation,
if you watched at all about that. I believe it’s going to be in tomorrow’s, their efforts are going
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
21
to be in tomorrow’s West Metro section so read about it there. Their goal is to take over the, it’s
an old water building right? Water treatment building in Chaska and so they’ve approached the
Chanhassen City Council seeking support for that initiative so we are seeking input from the
community and just meeting tomorrow to listen to what they have to say about their initiative
and then the City Council will be taking, making any future decisions at a later time.
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
22
Stolar: So do they want to make it into a center for them?
Hoffman: A youth center.
Stolar: Where I grew up we actually took the old fire house, moved, physically moved it about 2
blocks and made it into the youth center. It was great.
Hoffman: It’s a model that’s used throughout the nation and across many communities in the
metropolitan area as well. Skate park will open on Friday, and the new thing this year, we’re
going to be trying to permit bikes and scooters so they’d be allowed. At least on a trial basis.
We sat down and studied, well aware of the areas that initiated conflict amongst authority figures
and from law enforcement and the children, the kids over there, the users of the park, and if
you’re constantly over there kicking up bikes, there’s really no good reason to be kicking off
bikes. We’re going to try and let them use it and many parks throughout the country do allow
bicycles so we’ll see how it goes. We’re wrapping up the majority of our 2005 projects by the
third week in May. That includes Lake Susan. We’re putting our final touches on our 2006
work calendar. It’s pretty inclusive. We have a lot of projects so you’ll be seeing a lot of
activity out in the parks. Like Jack said…users out in force. We have 44 miles of trail. The trail
map, third addition will be out printed. This is a mock up of what the cover will look like, and
you can look at these afterwards as well. This is Carver Beach Park on Lotus Lake. And there’s
the new trail map as a part of that on the back side. Bookoo sponsored that again this year.
Contributing $5,000 towards the initiative. Again nice commercial on the map side of the
feature. Significant construction activity. Has anybody seen it at Power Hill Park? Take a drive
down and it’s really tore up with the new development that’s going in there to the west of Power
Hill Park. We’re in the opportunity to make some improvements, namely the construction or the
completion of the trail there that runs through that park so that’s going to be our goal as a part of
that project. Jerry’s participating in the hiring of a new District 112 Community Education
Director. Any updates there?
Ruegemer: None that I can talk about.
Hoffman: Okay.
Ruegemer: …introduce on March 17th and Superintendent Jennings interviewed all the
candidates I believe last Thursday, the 23rd and now really the decision is kind of in
Superintendent Jenning’s hands at this point so.
Hoffman: So you did talk?
Ruegemer: A little.
Hoffman: Alright. As we started our meeting, the discussion over future schools in the
community is heating up. I have one of the proposals for the 2005 MUSA area. This is a draft
that will be back before you officially in April so take a chance, an opportunity to look at this
after the meeting. It’s working with Pemtom Company and the Ryland Corporation on the
Degler farm. 155 units of single family dwelling on lots that average 60 by 100 feet. 60 by 110.
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
23
60 by 120, or something there about and single family units starting at $400,000 and going up so,
different product than we have in the community right now, so take a look and then we’ll have
an official report back here in April. New Chanhassen short course is going to be scheduled to
open this spring. If you watched any of those proceedings in the paper you know where it’s at.
Right down on Pioneer Trail and when you think about it, it will probably be around longer than
the Bluff Creek Golf Course if everyone’s predictions come true and Bluff Creek will be
developed at some point into executive home sites so it’s nice to have another golf course in
town.
Murphy: Is it going to have a driving area? Range.
Hoffman: And I think they stated about 15 bucks a round for the short course and then the
driving area will be pay as you go. Bucket of balls type of thing. No new news on the off leash
dog area. They continue to generate or raise funds up in Shorewood and once they get those
designated funds into the pipeline to Carver County then Carver County’s going to move forward
and then they’ll be back here talking to us about, it’s going to be again a pay as you go type of
program. They’re going to complete work and then come to us and submit their proposals. Well
they’ll talk about the work. Complete it. Get our authority to go ahead and complete it and then
come back with the bills and we’ll pay after the fact. So they’re just not going to take the
$30,000 and then deliver us a dog park in 6 months or a year. They want to do it as pay as you
go type of program.
Stolar: Does Marty, he was going to estimate his availability and the work load? Any chance he
can give us an update in May on where they think their timing will be?
Hoffman: You can ask him. He continues to say that until there’s something to report, there’s
no need for him to come back.
Stolar: Well and you and I talked about that. I don’t actually agree with that since we’re giving
him $30,000.
Hoffman: Correct.
Stolar: So can we see about getting him on a future, like the May agenda?
Hoffman: Again we can’t force him to come in.
Stolar: Understood. But we can decide to change our mind. Okay.
Hoffman: Senior wood carvers celebrated their 14th year anniversary with a cake and coffee
social. Louis Zakariasen, who was their founder was there and was honored so it was a very nice
celebration and Susan invited me down. I appreciated that. They carve wood here in the back
room in a variety of fashions and so if you’re ever available on a Wednesday morning, or now
they meet on Friday mornings, stop on down. Very interesting. Obviously their most famous
piece is in the library, the wood quilt but they also have work I believe over at the new clinic and
they have another piece in the library that was recently installed over there. We continue
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
24
working on the Knob Hill to Curry Farms Park trail addition. That will require a budget
amendment somewhere in the $20,000 range I would think so staff will be working with council
on that. We’re taking an opportunity again after last year’s rain storms to make some positive
things happen down there, and then to take an opportunity, as long as we’re down in Curry
Farms working, to make that final connection to Knob Hill and the new development that’s up
there. It’s always best to take advantage of when you’re doing work, to finish out some projects.
And then the park trail map we talked about and that’s all I have this evening on administrative
items.
Stolar: Did you want to add the other items you were going to talk about? The appointments.
Hoffman: Oh please, thank you. Again, Assistant City Manager Miller asked that we have a
short discussion. The council is prepared to make appointments but we wanted to make sure if
there was any official recommendations concerning the candidates, you did not interview them
but Commissioner Murphy is seeking reappointment. Commissioner Dillon is seeking
reappointment, and then we also have a third candidate, Jeff Daniels, thank you. That has
reapplied. I think the commission may have been with you before so, there are 3 candidates for 2
positions. If you have a strong recommendation, those members not up for reappointment can
certainly make one. If you’re ready to leave it up to the council, you can let the council make
those appointments as well.
Stolar: And you want us to just send you an e-mail with any thoughts we have?
Hoffman: Sure can. Or if the members here, there’s what 4 of you or 3 of you that aren’t, if you
want to make a recommendation here this evening you can do that as well. Either way.
Stolar: Why don’t we, we’ll send. Okay. It’s in the past we’ve done this where we’ve had a
sub-group meet with you so, and we didn’t have that formal process because you need 4
candidates right, was it, to do that formal process. What I might suggest is if we can, since we
don’t have to follow the formal process, if the current non up for reappointment members could
provide Todd some feedback. I think that would be helpful via e-mail. Or a phone call.
Scharfenberg: I just had one question for Todd. Haven’t seen anything or heard anything about
the farmers market this year. Are we going to?
Hoffman: It’s coming back.
Scharfenberg: It is? Okay.
Hoffman: They hope to enter some, gather some more interest and get some additional vendors
there but it’s coming back.
Scharfenberg: Good. Do they have addition, are they just working on vendors or?
Hoffman: Yeah, it’s not something you can just go out and, it’s kind of got to build it’s own
momentum.
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
25
Scharfenberg: Right.
Hoffman: So, they’re trying.
Stolar: Do we have an update on the Lake Ann funding? Did that go through as a part of the
pavement, to redo the road?
Hoffman: Yes. The project, I have some plans here you can take a look at. It will start after
Labor Day and total project budget is $395,000. It includes, a majority of it is complete and mill
and overlay or complete mill and reconstruction and then some mill and overlay and then also
just some straight overlays going in certain sections.
Stolar: I have a question. Trying to remember, Lake Ann. Are there, there are parts there where
there really isn’t a good trail along that road, if you wanted to ride your bike in. Is that part of
this or this is just straight fixing.
Hoffman: We also have a plan to extend that trail, nothing formal yet but down the center of the
ballfields.
Stolar: Okay.
Hoffman: Yeah, you’re correct. The road acts as a trail access for the most part on Lake Ann so
those people running or walking through the park have to take the road.
Stolar: Any other questions for Todd regarding this report? And then we do have the high
school discussion, your kind of mid bullet point there that we’re going to add. Okay. Do you
want to.
Ruegemer: Before we get to that Chair Stolar, could I just ask for, if there’s anybody interested
in volunteering for the Easter Egg Candy Hunt on the 15th of April? Just looking for a volunteer
for the registration table. I won’t put any commissioners in the bunny suits but, unless you want
to, but I think we’ll have some kids do that but I think the Key Club will be involved in that
again. Some other city staff and family members will be involved with that too but we certainly
would invite all the commissioners to be involved in some way so you can either kind of let me
know tonight or you can e-mail myself or Nate if you’d like to volunteer.
Stolar: And then Nate sent out an e-mail from the, so do you want to pass that around.
Ruegemer: It’s just a, it was kind of the e-mail I think that went out to all you. I just had a
couple notes on it but roughly 8:00 a.m. to about 9:30 would be, we’re going to try something
new this year. We’re going to be collecting a fee for that to try to recoup some of the cost for
that, similar to what we’ve done for the Halloween party so that will be new this year so we’re
going to have people pre-register as much as we can and then we’ll register and collect at the
door. So if you can just let us know.
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
26
Stolar: Will do.
Ruegemer: Thank you.
Stolar: Do you want to talk a little bit about the high school now or the joint, I’m assuming the
high school put that assumption in. That hasn’t been finalized yet has it, as far as what type of
school or any of that?
Hoffman: No. Nothing’s been finalized. In fact all they know is that they’ll probably put a
referendum to vote and they’re not quite sure what it will be yet. It will be this November as far
as I know.
Stolar: So in relation to, if you can just briefly give us, and some people here may already know
it. When we’ve done Bluff Creek and Chanhassen Elementary here, what, how is it approached
as far as funding for how it became part park with the school district.
Hoffman: Good history lesson. Chan Elementary goes way back, and Chanhassen Elementary is
one way of doing a joint cooperative. Very few, in fact there is no formal agreement. There is
no formal written agreement on that joint cooperative. The school built the school and then the
school and city got together and they said you know we need a playground for the school and we
need a community park for the community so let’s get together and make some improvements.
You pay half. We’ll pay half and back in the early 70’s probably, that’s how it started. The City
acquired land on the southern part of the school for city hall and the ice rink and those type of
things, and then later on we acquired land in the north side of the school property to expand City
Center Park with the two ballfields on Hansen Field, but again no formal agreement. As of late,
the City has invested property in remodeling the park through the ’96 referendum where we
improved the ballfields and did an extensive amount of work out there for the irrigation system
and the improvements for drainage, but it continues to operate very efficiently and friendly
manner. Then you have the Bluff Creek where it was an official joint powers agreement. 16
attorneys on the phone on either side on the final conversation and they own 20. We own 20.
The City originally bought the initial 40 for some school site, and they said they needed an
elementary school so we partnered in that joint partnership. The City came forward at that time
and said well, we need some kind of a, it’s not going to be a community center but we need
meeting space and we need some additional recreation space in this community so we own 24%
of the building. They own 76. We pay 24% of the heating bills and 24% of the construction
costs. They were the general contractor and we simply were a tag along and paid our bill on the
end and they’ve been operating the recreation center ever since. Early on they were going to
mow their part of their field and we were going to mow our’s, and they were going to clean their
building and we were going to clean out building and we soon found out that we’re not very
good cleaners and they’re not very good lawn people, so we made an agreement that said, you
clean the inside of our rec center. We’ll take care of the exterior. Dale and his crew can do that
just fine and they have great custodians so that’s been going on ever since. No money changes
hands and it was just the joint powers agreement was amended. We meet one time annually to
get together as a school district and a city and talk about that joint powers agreement. We pay
our bills. They’re happy and so it’s worked very well. So those are the two examples that we
have to date in town.
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
27
Stolar: In the case of the rec center, did we also do a bonding process to get the funds?
Hoffman: We did not. We paid cash.
Stolar: Oh okay. That’s nice.
Hoffman: Through a TIF. TIF district.
Stolar: So in going forward, and planning those things, were committees or commissions set up
or joint task force set up to plan it up? And was that done prior to their bonding for the school
or, I guess where I’m going with this is, if they bond for something for the high school, are we
going to have to come forward with a bonding also if we want to do fields or a pool or anything
on top of what they’re planning?
Hoffman: All depends on what that is and how much it costs. And what the, I think the
conversation needs to take place on the city level prior to going, talking to the school district.
That’s probably the most important thing.
Stolar: What we would envision to be, and was that worthy of us having a working session?
Hoffman: Oh sure.
Stolar: And then potentially open discussion for citizens to participate?
Hoffman: This is an opportunity, and that’s what the, our administration and council have
always asked us to do. Here you have an opportunity. They’re going to take a raw piece of land
in town and turn it into a public facility. It’s an opportunity for us to partner with them and we
know that they’re probably going to build an athletic fields, which we need more of. They’re
going to build a pool somewhere so it would be good to have that in the city. Remodel the pool
in Chaska. It would be better to have it, at least in my estimation, to have it here in town so. I
think the conversation needs to start at a local level and engage the City Council and public in
that. And then approach the school district and so we as a unified force know what we’re talking
about.
Stolar: Would it be, commission would you agree with having an initial discussion of this
commission as a working session to kind of frame out what we think this opportunity is and then
open it up for public input. Not that we’re limiting the input to what we view but at least get
some of our thoughts on the table. Would it be? I would strongly suggest we do it at the next
meeting. Of course I don’t think I’m going to be at the next meeting but we could do that.
Hoffman: Well if you want to do it in a working session, you could do it on an off Tuesday as
well. I can do some polling.
Stolar: Yeah, if we can do polling.
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
28
Hoffman: April 10th maybe.
Stolar: Little bit earlier than the 7:30 start time though.
Dillon: Todd, who’s…referendum, just here in Chaska school district?
Hoffman: Yes.
Dillon: If you live in the Minnetonka school district it’s a non-issue?
Hoffman: Well you’re not going to vote on it, no. Not going to vote if you pay for it.
Stolar: Right, and unless there’s some things we want to do in addition to what, them, that’d be
something that any Chan resident would talk about. Or participate in.
Dillon: Has any real estate been set up for this?
Hoffman: Property down on Lyman Boulevard that has been purchased by the school district.
Across from Holasek’s Nursery or the old Pie’s Inc building. So if you know, leave the rec
center and travel south on Galpin and then you hit Lyman Boulevard. Continue down south and
it’s right there. 90 acres on the left hand side. So they own property in Chanhassen. It was
purchased through the last referendum that the district held.
Stolar: Paula, do you have a question?
Atkins: Well anything, if we would do, have a work session and outline some recommendations
for a partnership, would that have anything…
Hoffman: Might or might not be. Yeah.
Atkins: Would that be a factor in it’s, that would be presented to the public when they vote.
Well, this is something that Chanhassen residents are interested in and is partnering with the
district in working towards a pool and the fields.
Hoffman: Yeah, there’s too many variables right now to know. We may say we think a pool
would be a good idea. They might say, yeah we’re going to build one. We think it’s a good idea
too. It will be part of our referendum. Or they might say well you know, we think a pool is a
good idea but we’re only going to build this. Do you want to make it any larger and pay for that
so, it’s a complex discussion that needs to take place.
Stolar: And I think that’s one of the key questions we wanted to get to is if they, you know it
may be an overlap of agreement but then we may take some of it say well, do we want to seek
within the Chanhassen community some extensions to what they’re doing or some additions to
what they’re doing that we would fund, then we’d have to figure that out right? It has to be, you
know obviously we’d love for them to just say we’ll fund it all, but I doubt that’s going to
happen.
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
29
Hoffman: Sometimes you have to take what you get and sometimes you have an opportunity to
improve on it but Commissioner Dillon brought up a good point. If you want to spend a lot of
money on this, you have to get the Minnetonka voters to go along with it.
Stolar: Which from a recreational use they’d be eligible to use, similar to the rec center.
Hoffman: Depending on the joint powers agreement.
Stolar: Exactly, right. I mean that would be part of the discussion if we would want to,
obviously if we start batting, if we start funding things on our part, we would do it as a park
district and as a city, whereas if the school board puts things in, whatever they put in, they’re
putting it as a school district, which may or may not be available to Minnetonka school district
residents. Chanhassen residents. So that’s why I want us to get at least started understanding
some of the thoughts we have. Is there a master plan for this at all that we’ve done from a while
ago, because I know we’ve been talking about for a long time if there was another school? Did
we do any park visioning on what it might look like that you guys have done?
Hoffman: No.
Stolar: Okay, so this would be the first part. We may end up, if everything gets approved, then
we would do a master plan related to what that would look like, if you end up with a park there.
Hoffman: Yeah, the.
Stolar: Or does the school district do that?
Hoffman: School district most likely would be, as the owner of the property.
Stolar: Okay.
Atkins: Are there any, excuse me, are there any models where there are school districts which
have partnered with cities in, is that Plymouth and Wayzata?
Hoffman: Oh yeah, dozens of them.
Stolar: Eden Prairie.
Atkins: Yeah?
Hoffman: Waconia. They’re all over.
Stolar: Any other questions on, so we’ll look towards, you’ll survey us for a working session
then.
Hoffman: The off Tuesday in April.
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
30
Dillon; How much…is the need for a new high school? Our kids don’t go to Chaska so I don’t
really…is it bursting at the seams?
Hoffman: Yes. The need for additional high school space is acute. The debate is whether it
should be all at one site or two locations. Yeah, the demographic numbers are there. It’s going
to continue to grow.
Scharfenberg: Plus they need a new middle school too Kevin so the question is, do you build
one big high school or a new high school and convert a middle school, because they need both.
Murphy: …working session we’ll be discussing the pool specifics or…
Stolar: I think we’re going to, at least my thought was, we would talk about what are the
opportunities that we might pursue with this new school. So it could be a lacrosse field. It could
be a pool that’s a competitive pool. It could be an indoor ice rink.
Hoffman: The laundry list is long.
Stolar: The laundry list is long but we also want to start focusing on, you know Todd threw out a
little bit about you know, would the district envision…on the school board, would it envision at
all an indoor ice rink and he made it very clear to me, probably not. Only in more strong words
than that. But that’s something that we as a commission, from a recreational standpoint want to
understand how we could potentially see this joint agreement working, and again if you look at
things like Eden Prairie. Their community center was built to service the school and then Oak,
because they had the ice rinks for the hockey teams and they have the pool for the swim team,
but the high school and Oak Point Middle School was built and they get to use the pool there for
recreation, so they had all sorts of different trade-off’s. Now you don’t want to pattern that
agreement because it was not a good one. Joint powers agreement, but they envisioned different
ways in which they could work together. That’s what I’d like to see here, is what would we see
here with this land, and do we want to see lighted ballfields? And then how that gets about,
that’s a long road still but I think we ought to at least envision what we could, I don’t know, is
that kind of what you were thinking Todd?
Hoffman: Yeah, and the discussion needs to start, is there a need for a joint powers agreement?
Is there a need for a joint agreement at all? And that’s the initial discussion, and then you go
from there and there’s all sorts of steps. We’re going to have another campus, we potentially
might have another campus, school campus in the city. Currently we maintain both school
campuses and in return we schedule those facilities, so is that something that’s going to happen
here? If it’s a middle school or high school, it’s going to be on a different plane of sophistication
so is that going to happen? Will it happen on some facilities? Will it happen on all facilities at
that location? When you’re talking about athletic fields and stadiums and those type of things.
Then beyond that, are you going to you know throw money into the mix for facilities? Again,
these are all recommendations that you can come up with and present to the City Council but it
will ultimately be their decision whether or not they’re going to pursue those.
Atkins: Is it a good idea to ask a school board member to attend a work session like that?
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
31
Hoffman: Probably not in the first, early stages, no. I think as a community you want to get
your ideas out there and then have something to talk about. Have something concrete to talk to
them about.
Stolar: Do we have a working session scheduled with the City Council in the near future? We
haven’t had one of those in a while.
Hoffman: Not that I’m aware of. But yeah you’re right, the schedule should be coming up.
Good topic of conversation.
Stolar: Yeah, so I’m thinking if we can be prepared and then bring it up as a discussion with the
City Council when we do our working session, I’d just like us to be prepared about some of the
ideas and get some of their feelings also.
Murphy: In terms of preparing I guess, doing some research…what other communities are
doing, have done in the past.
Stolar: Is there background that could be provided to us to help us understand a little bit more on
this?
Hoffman: You know, there probably is but I think this is really one of those initiatives where
you just want to talk to your friends and neighbors, gather your thoughts and think about these
issues. It’s complex. It’s very complex and so to try to put something out there in written paper
that will say this is the direction you should go or this is what happened, these joint powers
agreements are very individualistic in each situation, and so you’re going to want to just kind of
think it through yourself I think and bring those thoughts to that meeting. It’s appropriate that
you do that and then talk to the council before you bring in school board members and so we,
you know we’re all reaching some consensus. I can’t stress again how these things are all
different for each little situation. Is there going to be a theater? Is there going to be a football
stadium? Is the football team going to play down in Chaska? Are they going to play here? Is
the baseball team going to play at Lake Susan or are they going to play on the campus? There’s
hundreds of questions.
Stolar: But if you ask some of those when we get ready to have this work session, that’d be
helpful. Should we put a dog park there?
Hoffman: I know one thing for sure, if you do go to school there, the railroad track underpass is
going to attract attention.
Stolar: Well thanks, and I assume the timing’s appropriate. We have, to Paula’s question. We
aren’t too early but we aren’t too late either. Any other business? Can I have a motion for
adjournment?
Scharfenberg moved, Spizale seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Park and Rec Commission – March 28, 2006
32
Submitted by Todd Hoffman
Park and Rec Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Dir. of Public Works
FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: May 8, 2006
SUBJ: Call Assessment Hearing for the 2006 Street Improvements
Project 06-01
REQUESTED ACTION (Simple Majority Vote Required)
Council is requested to call the assessment hearing for the 2006 Street
Improvements Project No. 06-01 for June 12, 2006 and approve the attached
resolution.
DISCUSSION
The project includes the resurfacing or rehabilitation of the Chanhassen Hills area
streets. Also included in the project are improvement to the Lake Ann Park
Parking lots and drives.
Bids were received and opened on Friday, April 21, 2006 and are currently being
tabulated. Funding for the project will be discussed at the assessment hearing.
Per state statute, the City Council must call the assessment hearing and publish
the hearing date at least two weeks prior to the assessment hearing. Staff intends
to publish the notice in the May 11, 2006 edition of the Chanhassen Villager.
This schedule provides just over four weeks time between the assessment hearing
and the publication date.
Attachment: Resolution
c: Marcus Thomas, Bolton & Menk
g:\eng\public\06-01 2006 street improvements\call assessment hearing.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
DATE: May 8, 2006 RESOLUTION NO: 2006-
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
A RESOLUTION SETTING ASSESSMENT HEARING DATE FOR
2006 CHANHASSEN HILLS AREA STREET
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 06-01
WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute 429 regarding special assessments for public
improvement projects requires City Council to officially set the assessment hearing date for capital
improvement projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA:
1. A hearing shall be held on the 12th day of June, 2006 in the Council Chambers at
City Hall at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all
persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard
with reference to such assessment.
2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed
assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing,
and shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. The clerk shall also cause mailed
notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two
weeks prior to the hearings.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of
the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with
interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City of Chanhassen, except that no interest shall be
charged if the entire assessment is paid within 60 days from the adoption of the assessment. The
property owner may at any time thereafter, pay to the City of Chanhassen the entire amount of the
assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such
payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged
through December 31 of the succeeding year.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 8th day of May, 2006.
ATTEST:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
YES NO ABSENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director
FROM: Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: April 28, 2006
SUBJECT: Approve Assignment of Development Contract for Hidden Creek
Meadows- Project No. 05-12 (Simple Majority Vote Required)
On June 13, 2005, City Council approved the development contract for Hidden
Creek Meadows. In conjunction with the sale of the property, the developer,
Dean Carlson has requested that the development contract be assigned to Boyer
Building Corporation.
The developer has met the terms of Paragraph 8, Part A, having paid the
$121,415.80 cash fee on November 1, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council approve the assignment of the development,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Boyer Building Corporation is required to submit a letter of credit in the
amount of $859,962.41 before the Agreement is executed by the City.
2. Before the Agreement is executed by the City, the Mortgage Holder
Consent to Assignment of Development Contract, if applicable.
3. A $56 cash fee for recording purposes must be submitted before the City
executes the Agreement.
4. The conditions of approval stipulated in the June 13, 2005 development
contract remain as stated, with the exception of Paragraph 8, Part A
regarding payment of cash fees.
Attachments: April 18, 2006 email from Dean Carlson
Assignment of Development Contract
c: Dean Carlson
John Boyer
G:\ENG\PROJECTS\Hidden Creek Meadows\Assign DC Boyer.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: May 8, 2006
SUBJ: MUSA/Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements: Authorize
Additional Final Design Services - Project No. 06-05
REQUESTED ACTION
The City Council is requested to approve a Consultant Work Order with Kimley-
Horn and Associates in the amount of $94,000 for additional final design
engineering services for the 2005 MUSA/Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements.
BACKGROUND
On August 22, 2005, the Chanhassen City Council approved a Consultant Work
Order with Kimley-Horn and Associates in the amount of $366,000 for final
design engineering services for the 2005 MUSA Improvements. The project was
broken into two phases with a combined project cost of $8,204,100. The first
phase of the project was constructed over the winter months which included the
installation of a bebo bridge structure and trunk sanitary sewer and watermain.
The second phase of the project is scheduled to be constructed this summer and
includes various public roadway, trunk watermain, trunk sanitary sewer, and trunk
storm drainage improvements. Over the past eight months, City staff has been
working the property owners in conjunction with Kimley-Horn to implement the
various public infrastructure improvements.
At the request of property owners and developers, Kimley-Horn performed a
number of additional final design services since the Consultant Work Order was
approved on August 22, 2005. A majority of these additional services have been
required as a result of changes in the project design and/or the need to coordinate
the proposed improvements with the adjacent property owners/developers. Also,
a number of roadway alignments and access points were evaluated and designed.
The following is a general summary of these additional services:
· Preparation of an additional feasibility report to address the changes in the
project design, and provide updated costs and assessments for the project.
This feasibility report was received by the City Council on February 27, 2006.
· Various roadway, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and watermain design
modifications resulting from the coordination of the infrastructure
improvements with the adjacent property owners. Several roadway
alignments traffic calming, and access points were requested by the east
Todd Gerhardt
May 8, 2006
Page 2
property owners during final design. In the end, these property owners
requested that the east portion of the collector roadway be removed from the
project which the City accepted.
· Preparation of legal descriptions and exhibits for the acquisition of permanent
and temporary easements from the adjacent property owners.
· Preparation of justification reports and additional final design services for the
inclusion of roundabouts in the project design.
· Design of street lighting improvements along Bluff Creek Boulevard. Street
lighting was requested included in the contract by the developers. Originally
the developers were planning to include street lighting on the collector
roadway through there development contract.
· Design of landscaping/street trees along Bluff Creek Boulevard and at the
roundabout location. This landscaping was not originally included as a part of
the scope of the project but a more intensive landscaping design was requested
by the developers.
· Additional wetland delineation services and the preparation of wetland
mitigation plans to address the wetland impacts caused by the project. These
services include the preparation and submittal of permit applications for the
wetland impacts and mitigation area. The additional wetland delineation
services and the need for wetland mitigation area design services were not
known when the original final design Consultant Work Order was approved.
· Design of a cast-in-place concrete stair at the Bluff Creek Bebo crossing to
provide a connection between the trail along Bluff Creek and the trail along
Bluff Creek Boulevard.
DISCUSSION
Kimley-Horn has been providing the additional final design phase services
detailed above as required to keep the project moving. Their original Consultant
Work Order needs to be amended to include these additional final design phase
services and to increase their not-to-exceed budget to include these services. The
following is a summary of the estimated not-to-exceed costs for these additional
services.
Work Tasks Estimated Fee
Feasibility Report Preparation $ 16,000
Property Owner Coordination/Design Modifications $ 25,000
Easement Document Preparation $ 5,000
Roundabout Justification and Design $ 7,000
Street Lighting Design $ 9,000
Landscape Design $ 7,000
Stair Design $ 4,000
Wetland Delineation/Mitigation/Agency Coordination $ 15,000
Todd Gerhardt
May 8, 2006
Page 3
Subtotal $ 88,000
Reimbursable Expenses $ 5,000
Permitting Fees $ 1,000
Total Estimated Cost $ 94,000
Funding for these additional final design services will be provided primarily by
assessments to the benefiting property owners as identified in the 2005 MUSA
Feasibility Study and the Bluff Creek Boulevard Feasibility Study. The final
design service is 7.7% of the construction cost of the project which is still within
industry standards and the budgets established in the feasibility reports for
engineering and administrative costs.
Kimley-Horn will be required to submit invoices verifying the hours worked on
the project. Staff will review these invoices for accuracy.
c: Jon Horn, Kimley-Horn & Associates
g:\eng\public\06-05 2005 musa phase ii\50806 bkgd 2005 musa additional eng services.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Karen Engelhardt, Office Manager
DATE: May 8, 2006
SUBJ: Approval of Temporary On-Sale License, Chanhassen Lions Club,
Softball Tournament at Lake Ann Park, June 24 & 25, 2006
Staff has received an application for a temporary on-sale liquor license from the
Chanhassen Lions Club. The Lions would like to sell strong beer at a Softball
Tournament at Lake Ann Park on June 24 & 25, 2006 in conjunction with an event
they are calling Safari Days. The Lion’s Club has submitted liquor liability
insurance covering this event.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request from the Chanhassen Lions Club to sell
strong beer at Lake Ann Park on June 24 & 25, 2006.
g:\user\karen\liquor\lions.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Greg Sticha, Finance Director
DATE: May 2, 2006
SUBJ: Call for Sale of General Obligation Improvement Bonds.
BACKGROUND
Based on discussions with our financial advisors Ehlers & Associates, we are
calling for the sale of General Obligation Improvement Bonds related to the
development of the 2005 MUSA area.
Attached is a presale report from Ehlers. The presale report describes the intent
and background of the sale.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council approve the resolution providing for the sale
of the bond issue. The actual sale of the bonds will take place at the next
council meeting on May 22, 2006. Approval of this item requires a simple
majority vote of those City Council members present.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Pre-Sale Report dated May 8, 2006
2. Resolution Providing for the Sale of General Obligation Special Assessment
Bonds.
City of Chanhassen, Minnesota
Pre-Sale Report
May 8, 2006
Proposed Issue: $6,640,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2006A
Purpose: The 2006A bonds will finance the construction of sewer and water utilities that
was started in 2005 and the new collector street in the 2005 MUSA area. This
will allow for the orderly development of land in this section of the city and
provide for future connections in areas lying to the south of Hwy 212. These
bonds will be issued under the authority granted by MN Statutes - Chapter 429.
Term/Call Feature: The 2006A Bonds will mature in 7 years, matching the term of the assessments,
with annual principal payments each February 1st from 2008 through 2014. The
Bonds will be callable in three years, meaning that 2006A Bonds maturing on
2/1/2010 and after may be called on 2/1/2009. This is a short call period, but
given the unpredictable speed of full development is warranted.
Funding Sources: This cost will be repaid through special assessments against the benefiting
properties and scheduled tax levies beginning in 2010. These tax levies are
scheduled in order to meet the state requirement that total sources of revenue are
equal to 105% of the principal and interest due annually. The tax levies may be
cancelled if sufficient funds are available because of prepayment of the
assessments and any interest earnings on cash balances. The water and sewer
assessments were levied in an amount of $1,613,295 at a 6% interest rate in
2005. The parcels assessed are currently in “green acres” meaning they continue
to be used in agricultural production. This allows assessments to be delayed until
the land is no longer actively farmed or at a point of convenience for the owner.
Because of uncertain timing to collect these assessments, the bond issue includes
capitalized interest through 2/1/07. The preliminary assessment role for 2006
shows benefit in the amount of $4,757,500 and carries a 6.5% interest rate.
Discussion Issues: The 2006A Bonds will be sold by competitive bids. Because the City plans to
issue less than $10 million of tax-exempt debt during 2006, the 2006A Bonds
will be “bank qualified” and achieve the most competitive interest rates.
As part of our services, Ehlers & Associates monitors the City’s outstanding debt
to determine if there is an opportunity to refund or refinance any outstanding debt
to save on interest costs. As of now, there are no bond issues that we recommend
for refinancing.
Schedule:
Pre-Sale Review: May 8, 2006
Distribute Official Statement: Week of May 8, 2006
Rating Agency Interview: Week of May 15, 2006
Bond Sale: May 22, 2006
Estimated Closing Date: June 13, 2006
Attachment: Resolution authorizing Ehlers to proceed with bond sale
Ehlers Contacts:
Financial Advisors: Mark Ruff (651) 697-8505
Bruce DeJong (651) 697-8548
Jessica Cook (651) 697-8546
Bond Analysts: Diana Lockard (651) 697-8534
Debbie Holmes (651) 697-8536
Bond Sale Coordinator: Connie Kuck (651) 697-8527
The Official Statement for this financing will be mailed to the Council Members at their home address for review
prior to the sale date.
Chanhassen, MN
$6,640,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2006A
Sources & Uses
Dated 06/13/2006 | Delivered 06/13/2006
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds $6,640,000.00
Total Sources $6,640,000.00
Uses Of Funds
Total Underwriter's Discount (0.800%)53,120.00
Costs of Issuance 39,500.00
Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund 175,311.42
Deposit to Project Construction Fund 6,370,795.00
Rounding Amount 1,273.58
Total Uses $6,640,000.00
06A $6,640 GO Impr Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 4/26/2006 | 5:29 PM
Ehlers & Associates
Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 Page 1
Chanhassen, MN
$6,640,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2006A
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
06/13/2006 -----
02/01/2007 --175,311.42 175,311.42 175,311.42
08/01/2007 --138,403.75 138,403.75 -
02/01/2008 470,000.00 3.950%138,403.75 608,403.75 746,807.50
08/01/2008 --129,121.25 129,121.25 -
02/01/2009 840,000.00 4.000%129,121.25 969,121.25 1,098,242.50
08/01/2009 --112,321.25 112,321.25 -
02/01/2010 875,000.00 4.050%112,321.25 987,321.25 1,099,642.50
08/01/2010 --94,602.50 94,602.50 -
02/01/2011 1,105,000.00 4.100%94,602.50 1,199,602.50 1,294,205.00
08/01/2011 --71,950.00 71,950.00 -
02/01/2012 1,150,000.00 4.200%71,950.00 1,221,950.00 1,293,900.00
08/01/2012 --47,800.00 47,800.00 -
02/01/2013 1,200,000.00 4.300%47,800.00 1,247,800.00 1,295,600.00
08/01/2013 --22,000.00 22,000.00 -
02/01/2014 1,000,000.00 4.400%22,000.00 1,022,000.00 1,044,000.00
Total $6,640,000.00 -$1,407,708.92 $8,047,708.92 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $33,350.33
Average Life 5.023 Years
Average Coupon 4.2209741%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)4.3802528%
True Interest Cost (TIC)4.3962596%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 4.2148816%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)4.5323740%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 4.2209741%
Weighted Average Maturity 5.023 Years
06A $6,640 GO Impr Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 4/26/2006 | 5:29 PM
Ehlers & Associates
Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 Page 2
Chanhassen, MN
$6,640,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2006A
Net Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S Fiscal Total
06/13/2006 -------
02/01/2007 --175,311.42175,311.42 (175,311.42)--
08/01/2007--138,403.75138,403.75-138,403.75-
02/01/2008470,000.003.950%138,403.75608,403.75-608,403.75746,807.50
08/01/2008--129,121.25129,121.25-129,121.25-
02/01/2009840,000.004.000%129,121.25969,121.25-969,121.251,098,242.50
08/01/2009--112,321.25112,321.25-112,321.25-
02/01/2010875,000.004.050%112,321.25987,321.25-987,321.251,099,642.50
08/01/2010--94,602.5094,602.50-94,602.50-
02/01/20111,105,000.004.100%94,602.501,199,602.50-1,199,602.501,294,205.00
08/01/2011--71,950.0071,950.00-71,950.00-
02/01/20121,150,000.004.200%71,950.001,221,950.00-1,221,950.001,293,900.00
08/01/2012--47,800.0047,800.00-47,800.00-
02/01/20131,200,000.004.300%47,800.001,247,800.00-1,247,800.001,295,600.00
08/01/2013--22,000.0022,000.00-22,000.00-
02/01/20141,000,000.004.400%22,000.001,022,000.00-1,022,000.001,044,000.00
Total $6,640,000.00 -$1,407,708.92 $8,047,708.92 (175,311.42)$7,872,397.50 -
06A $6,640 GO Impr Bonds | SINGLE PURPOSE | 4/26/2006 | 5:29 PM
Ehlers & Associates
Leaders in Public Finance since 1955 Page 3
Ci
t
y
o
f
C
h
a
n
h
a
s
s
e
n
,
M
N
20
0
6
E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
Pa
r
A
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
B
o
n
d
s
6,
6
4
0
,
0
0
0
Wa
t
e
r
F
u
n
d
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
15
8
,
9
0
0
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
A
m
t
1,
6
1
3
,
2
9
5
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
A
m
t
4,757,500 6,370,795
Se
w
e
r
F
u
n
d
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
11
9
,
3
0
0
Ra
t
e
6.
0
0
%
Ra
t
e
6.50%
MS
A
F
u
n
d
s
1,
1
4
9
,
2
0
0
St
a
r
t
Y
e
a
r
(
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
20
0
6
St
a
r
t
Y
e
a
r
(
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
)
2007
To
t
a
l
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
8,
0
6
7
,
4
0
0
Te
r
m
7
Te
r
m
7
To
t
a
l
U
n
d
e
r
w
r
i
t
e
r
'
s
D
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
(
0
.
8
0
%
)
53
,
1
2
0
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
t
h
o
d
E
q
u
a
l
P
&
I
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
t
h
o
d
E
q
u
a
l
P
&
I
Co
s
t
s
o
f
I
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
39
,
5
0
0
De
p
o
s
i
t
t
o
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
(
C
I
F
)
F
u
n
d
17
5
,
3
1
1
De
p
o
s
i
t
t
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
F
u
n
d
7,
7
9
8
,
1
9
5
Ro
u
n
d
i
n
g
A
m
o
u
n
t
1,
2
7
4
To
t
a
l
U
s
e
s
8,
0
6
7
,
4
0
0
Le
v
y
P
a
y
m
e
n
t
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
i
z
e
d
N
e
t
P
&
I
To
t
a
l
Total
Ye
a
r
D
a
t
e
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
R
a
t
e
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
P
&
I
+
5
.
0
0
%
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
t
Pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
t
L
e
v
y
6/
1
/
2
0
0
6
-
20
0
6
2
/
1
/
2
0
0
7
-
0
.
0
0
%
1
7
5
,
3
1
1
(1
7
5
,
3
1
1
)
-
-
1
(
1
9
2
,
2
0
0
)
(9
6
,
7
9
8
)
(2
8
8
,
9
9
8
)
(288,998)
20
0
7
2
/
1
/
2
0
0
8
4
7
0
,
0
0
0
3
.
9
5
%
2
7
6
,
8
0
8
74
6
,
8
0
8
78
4
,
1
4
8
2
(
2
0
3
,
7
3
2
)
(8
5
,
2
6
6
)
(2
8
8
,
9
9
8
)
1
(
5
5
8
,
2
0
4
)
(309,238) (867,441) (372,291)
20
0
8
2
/
1
/
2
0
0
9
8
4
0
,
0
0
0
4
.
0
0
%
2
5
8
,
2
4
3
1,
0
9
8
,
2
4
3
1,
1
5
3
,
1
5
5
3
(
2
1
5
,
9
5
6
)
(7
3
,
0
4
2
)
(2
8
8
,
9
9
8
)
2
(
5
9
4
,
4
8
7
)
(272,954) (867,441) (3,285)
20
0
9
2
/
1
/
2
0
1
0
8
7
5
,
0
0
0
4
.
0
5
%
2
2
4
,
6
4
3
1,
0
9
9
,
6
4
3
1,
1
5
4
,
6
2
5
4
(
2
2
8
,
9
1
3
)
(6
0
,
0
8
4
)
(2
8
8
,
9
9
8
)
3
(
6
3
3
,
1
2
9
)
(234,313) (867,441) (1,815)
20
1
0
2
/
1
/
2
0
1
1
1
,
1
0
5
,
0
0
0
4.
1
0
%
1
8
9
,
2
0
5
1,
2
9
4
,
2
0
5
1,
3
5
8
,
9
1
5
5
(
2
4
2
,
6
4
8
)
(4
6
,
3
5
0
)
(2
8
8
,
9
9
8
)
4
(
6
7
4
,
2
8
2
)
(193,159) (867,441) 202,476
20
1
1
2
/
1
/
2
0
1
2
1
,
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
4.
2
0
%
1
4
3
,
9
0
0
1,
2
9
3
,
9
0
0
1,
3
5
8
,
5
9
5
6
(
2
5
7
,
2
0
7
)
(3
1
,
7
9
1
)
(2
8
8
,
9
9
8
)
5
(
7
1
8
,
1
1
1
)
(149,331) (867,441) 202,156
20
1
2
2
/
1
/
2
0
1
3
1
,
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
4.
3
0
%
9
5
,
6
0
0
1,
2
9
5
,
6
0
0
1,
3
6
0
,
3
8
0
7
(
2
7
2
,
6
3
9
)
(1
6
,
3
5
8
)
(2
8
8
,
9
9
8
)
6
(
7
6
4
,
7
8
8
)
(102,654) (867,441) 203,941
20
1
3
2
/
1
/
2
0
1
4
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
4.
4
0
%
4
4
,
0
0
0
1,
0
4
4
,
0
0
0
1,
0
9
6
,
2
0
0
7
(
8
1
4
,
4
9
9
)
(52,942) (867,441) 228,759
6,
6
4
0
,
0
0
0
1,
4
0
7
,
7
0
9
7,
8
7
2
,
3
9
8
8,
2
6
6
,
0
1
7
(1
,
6
1
3
,
2
9
5
)
(4
0
9
,
6
8
8
)
(2
,
0
2
2
,
9
8
4
)
(4
,
7
5
7
,
5
0
0
)
(1,314,590) (6,072,090) 170,943
20
0
5
W
a
t
e
r
&
S
e
w
e
r
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
G.
O
.
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
B
o
n
d
s
,
S
e
r
i
e
s
2
0
0
6
A
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
Assessment Revenue
20
0
6
E
a
s
t
-
W
e
s
t
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
S
t
r
e
e
t
Pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
E
h
l
e
r
s
&
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
4/27/2006
Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
.
Resolution No.
Council Member _________________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
Resolution Providing for the Sale of
$6,640,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2006A
A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, has heretofore determined that it
is necessary and expedient to issue the City's $6,640,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds,
Series 2006A (the "Bonds"), to finance water, sewer and roadway improvements; and;
B. WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers & Associates, Inc., in Roseville, Minnesota ("Ehlers"), as its
independent financial advisor for the Bonds and is therefore authorized to solicit proposals in
accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Chanhassen, Minnesota, as follows:
1. Authorization; Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to solicit proposals for the sale
of the Bonds.
2. Meeting; Proposal Opening. The City Council shall meet at City Hall on May 22, 2006, for the
purpose of considering sealed proposals for and awarding the sale of the Bonds.
3. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are hereby
authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the
Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member
_______________________ and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the
following Council Members voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Dated this day of , ____.
City Clerk
Planning Case #05-10
Sharratt Variance
May 17, 2005
Page 3
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (RSF)
(5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located just south of Lyman Boulevard on Lake Riley Boulevard in the
Shoreland Management District on the northwestern shore of Lake Riley. The site is zoned Single
Family Residential (RSF). Lake Riley is a Recreational Development Lake. The minimum lot area for
a sewered riparian lot on a recreational development lake is 20,000 square feet. The subject property is
a nonconforming lot of record with a lot area of 12,936 square feet. However, the lot does meet the
minimum depth and width requirements with an average depth of 127.51, 96.35 feet of street frontage,
and 101.18 feet of lake frontage.
The topography of the site is
relatively flat and slopes very
gradually from a high elevation of
873.7 at the southwestern front
property corner to a low elevation
of 865.3 at the OHW level.
*Note: Person in picture is standing at the
lakeshore.
*Note: Picture illustrates the distance from the
existing deck to the lakeshore.
Planning Case #05-10
Sharratt Variance
May 17, 2005
Page 4
Staff reviewed city records to determine if front yard setback, shoreland setback and hard surface
coverage variances had been granted within 500 feet of the subject property and also properties along
Lake Riley Boulevard which lie outside of the 500 foot radius. This review turned up the following
cases:
Address
Variance
File
Number
Variance Shoreland
Setback
9235 Lake
Riley Blvd 1986-1 25 foot shoreline setback variance 50 ft
9247 Lake
Riley Blvd
1989-1,
1998-12
89-1 Setbacks: 14 foot front yard, 7 foot rear yard, 4.5
foot west side yard, 10 foot east side yard
98-12 January 12 1999: Single family home: 12,515 sq ft lot
area variance, 12.5 foot lot width variance, 51 foot lot width
variance (lake access), 10 foot front yard setback variance,
3 foot side yard setback variance, 4 foot shoreland setback
variance
June 28, 1999: Single family home: 13 foot front yard
setback variance,7 foot shoreland setback variance
57 ft
9231 Lake
Riley Blvd 1989-13 6 foot side yard setback variance 27.7 ft
9051 Lake
Riley Blvd 1990-7 10.35 foot shoreland setback variance for the construction
of a new home 64.65 feet
9203 Lake
Riley Blvd 1991-16 2.5 foot side yard setback variance 80 ft
9221 Lake
Riley Blvd
1992-2 Garage setbacks: 14 foot front yard setback variance, 6.5
foot side yard setback, 7% hard surface coverage 28 ft
9021 Lake
Riley Blvd 1992-9 36 foot shoreland setback variance for the construction of
a deck 39 feet
9243 Lake
Riley Blvd 1993-8 Addition setbacks: 9 foot shoreland variance, 7.9 foot front
yard variance 66 ft
9225 Lake
Riley Blvd 1996-9,
Setbacks: 3 foot east side yard variance, 5 foot west side
yard variance, 33 foot shoreland variance, 25% hard
surface coverage variance;
42 ft
9223 Lake
Riley Blvd 1997-11 97-11-setbacks: 7 foot rear yard variance 68 ft
361 Deerfoot
Trail 1997-3 Deck setbacks: 1.6 foot front yard variance N/A
9217 Lake
Riley Blvd 1998-6 Addition setbacks: 7 foot front yard variance 115 ft
9249 Lake
Riley Blvd 1999-14 18 foot shoreland setback variance 57 ft
Planning Case #05-10
Sharratt Variance
May 17, 2005
Page 5
Address
Variance
File
Number
Variance Shoreland
Setback
9221 Lake
Riley Blvd 2003-07
6.6 foot side yard setback variance, 5 foot side yard
setback variance, 18 foot shoreland setback variance for
construction of a new home
57 ft
9203 Lake
Riley Blvd 2003-12 7 foot side yard setback variance for a home addition N/A
*Items in bold italics are within 500 feet of the subject property.
Planning Case #05-10
Sharratt Variance
May 17, 2005
Page 6
ANALYSIS
Original Proposal
New Proposal
The site is zoned Residential Single Family (RSF). Given a 30-foot front yard setback, 10-foot side yard
setbacks, and a 75-foot shoreland setback, there is a buildable area of approximately 2,045 square feet
Planning Case #05-10
Sharratt Variance
May 17, 2005
Page 7
on the subject lot. A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property
within 500 feet. A reasonable use of this property, a single-family home with a two-car garage, already
exists.
However, staff would support a variance to allow the applicant to demolish the existing home for the
construction of a new home which would reduce the existing non-conforming hard surface coverage and
shoreland setback.
Shoreland
The shoreland setback is measured from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level of Lake Riley which is
865.3. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing legal non-conforming single family home on a
riparian lot. The existing home, which was built in 1978, has a non-conforming shoreland setback of 36
feet from the OHW. The applicant is planning to reduce the existing non-conformity by increasing the
shoreland setback from 36 feet to 43 feet from the OHW. The proposed structure will reduce the hard
surface square footage encroaching on the shoreland setback from 1,350 square feet of the existing structure
to 1,315 for the proposed structure.
Hard Surface Coverage
The subject property has an existing legal non-conforming hard surface coverage of 26.4%. The
applicant is proposing to remove all existing hard surface and rebuild with a hard surface coverage of
26.0%, thus reducing the hard surface cover as it exists today. This is a major improvement from the
original proposal which had a hard surface percentage of 32.7%. The applicant achieved this reduction
by altering the design from a one-story walkout with a two-level four stall garage to a two-story walkout
with a one-level three stall garage. The new garage design and placement greatly reduced the proposed
driveway area.
Chanhassen City Code does not consider wooden decks hard surface as long as there is no hard surface
beneath the decks. Because of this the applicant has agreed to either sod or place landscaping mulch or
Planning Case #05-10
Sharratt Variance
May 17, 2005
Page 10
COMPLIANCE TABLE
Lot Area Hard Surface
Coverage
Shoreland
Setback
Front Yard
Setback
Side Yard
Setbacks
Ordinance 20,000 25% 75 feet 30 feet 10 feet
Existing 12,936 26.4% 36 feet 36.5 feet 23.5 & 16 feet
Proposed 12,936 26.0% 43 feet 25 feet 16 & 16 feet
Neighborhood Characteristic
The existing home was built in 1978 making it 10-15 years outdated from neighboring homes. The new
design proposal is comparable to that of neighboring structures. The characteristics of the subject
property are unique from that of neighboring properties in that it has a much smaller lot size.
9015 Lake Riley Boulevard
12,936 square feet
(subject property)
9005 Lake Riley Boulevard
16,552 square feet
9021 Lake Riley Boulevard
20,473 square feet
9051 Lake Riley Boulevard
19,166 square feet
This has made it difficult for the applicant to find a design that is consistent with the neighborhood while
at the same time appeasing the City.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Karen J. Engelhardt, Office Manager
DATE: May 2, 2006
SUBJ: Approval of Changing the Polling Location for Precinct #3 from
Discovery United Methodist Church to St. Hubert Church
The polling location for Precinct 3 (southern Chanhassen), has been at
Discovery United Methodist Church, 275 Lake Drive East for many years. The
space is quite small, but has worked adequately over the years. With the
anticipated growth in this precinct, staff believes that voting will outgrow this
location very soon. In discussing this with the County Auditor, we both agreed
that it would be better to move the precinct before the new developments get
underway.
State law requires that polling places be located within the precinct boundary or
within 3,000 feet of the boundary line if no space can be found within the
precinct. In reviewing options for moving the precinct, staff contacted St.
Hubert’s Church requesting permission to use their space. They will allow us to
use their Fellowship Hall, which will provide ample space for years to come. It
is not located within the precinct boundary (neither was Discovery United
Methodist Church), but is within 3,000 feet of the boundary line.
State law also requires that if a precinct is moved, it must be done before
June 1st of an election year and that all affected households receive written
notice of the change. The Carver County Auditor’s office would send out this
notification.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the polling location for Precinct 3 be moved from
Discovery United Methodist Church, 275 Lake Drive East to St. Hubert Church,
8201 Main Street. Staff will also work with the County Auditor so that proper
notification is mailed to affected voters prior to June 1st. Approval of this item
requires a simple majority vote of those City Council members present.
ATTACHMENT
1. Precinct Map
Lotus
Lake
Lake
Riley
Lake
Minnewashta
Lake Lucy
Rice
Lake
Lake Susan
Lake
Ann
Lake Virginia
Lake
Harrison
Rice
Marsh Lake
Clasen
Lake
Lake
St Joe
Christm asLake
Lyma
n
B
l
v
d
(
C
.
R
.
1
8
)
Lyman Blvd (C.R. 18)
P i o n e er Tr a i l (Hwy 14)
U S 2 1 2 F l y i n g C l o u d D r i v e
Power
s
B
l
v
d
(
C
.
R
.
1
7
)
Au
d
u
b
o
n
Road (C
.R. 17)
U
S
1
6
9
&
S
tat
e
H
ig
h
w
a
y 1
0
1
Sta
t
e
H
w
y
5
State
H
w
y
5
Arboretum Bouleva
r
d
Au
d
u
b
o
n
R
o
a
d
Powers Blvd (C.R. 17)
US 212 F l y i n g C l o u d D r i v e
Hwy 10
1
G
r
e
a
t
Plains Blvd
Lake Lucy Road
Lake L u c y Road
K
e
r
b
e
r
B
l
v
d
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
4
1
Galpin Blvd. (C.R. 117)
State
H
w
y
5
State H
w
y
7
Ha
z
e
l
t
i
n
e
B
l
v
d
(
H
w
y
4
1
)
Ch
a
n
h
a
s
s
e
n
R
d
.
H
w
y
.
1
0
1
Galpin Blvd
Audubon Road
Great Plains Blv d H w y 1 0 1
Mi
nnewashta Parkw
ay
N
e
z Perce Dr
Carver Beach Rd
6 5
1
4
2
3
®April, 2006
G:\GIS\Projects9\cj36\PollingMap.mxd
Chanhassen'sVoting Precincts
Main Fire Station 7610 Laredo Drive
Living C hrist Luth eran Church 820 Lake Drive
St Hubert Church 8201 Ma in Street
City Hall Coun cil Cha mbers 7700 Market B lvd.
Family of Christ Lutheran Church 2020 Coulter B oulevard
Chanha ssen Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard
Chanha ssen Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard
1
2
3
4
7
5
6
Hennepin County 1 C ity Ha ll, 7700 Market Blvd. 2 Fa mily of Christ Lutheran Chu rch 2020 Coulter Blvd.
So
u
t
h
W
e
s
t
M
e
t
r
o
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
Up
d
a
t
e
f
o
r
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
s
Spring 2006
“S
o
u
t
h
W
e
s
t
M
e
t
r
o
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
w
i
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
t
h
e
h
i
g
h
e
s
t
in
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
,
s
a
f
e
t
y
,
c
o
s
t
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
,
a
n
d
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
.
”
Ce
l
e
b
r
a
t
i
n
g
2
0
Y
e
a
r
s
!
SM
T
C
T
i
m
e
l
i
n
e
:
19
8
6
–
C
h
a
n
h
a
s
s
e
n
,
C
h
a
s
k
a
a
n
d
E
d
e
n
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
j
o
i
n
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
S
M
T
C
19
8
8
–
F
i
r
s
t
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
h
i
r
e
d
,
M
o
r
e
l
y
B
u
s
C
o
.
19
9
5
–
B
e
g
a
n
a
c
q
u
i
r
i
n
g
o
u
r
o
w
n
f
l
e
e
t
19
9
8
–
F
i
r
s
t
y
e
a
r
o
f
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
t
o
t
h
e
M
N
S
t
a
t
e
F
a
i
r
19
9
9
–
S
M
T
C
’
s
f
i
r
s
t
b
l
a
c
k
b
u
s
e
s
a
rr
i
v
e
&
S
o
u
t
h
W
e
s
t
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
p
e
n
s
20
0
0
–
L
a
s
t
y
e
a
r
o
f
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
M
e
t
r
o
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
20
0
2
–
L
o
c
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
D
i
a
l
-
A
-
R
i
d
e
20
0
4
–
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
y
s
t
e
m
o
f
t
h
e
Y
e
a
r
We
l
o
o
k
f
o
r
w
a
r
d
t
o
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
i
n
g
t
o
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
d
e
m
a
n
d
f
o
r
p
r
e
m
i
e
r
e
tr
a
n
s
i
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
s
u
b
u
r
b
s
!
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
m
b
e
r
s
Cr
a
i
g
P
e
t
e
r
s
o
n
,
*
Ch
a
i
r
Ch
a
n
h
a
s
s
e
n
Bo
b
M
o
e
l
l
e
r
,
Vi
c
e
-
C
h
a
i
r
Ch
a
s
k
a
Ro
n
C
a
s
e
,
*
Tr
e
a
s
u
r
e
r
Ed
e
n
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
Na
n
c
y
T
y
r
a
-
L
u
k
e
n
s
,
*
Se
c
r
e
t
a
r
y
Ed
e
n
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
Je
a
n
C
h
i
l
d
e
r
s
,
Ri
d
e
r
R
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
Ed
e
n
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
Vi
c
k
i
E
r
n
s
t
Ch
a
n
h
a
s
s
e
n
Ch
a
d
D
o
c
k
t
e
r
*
Ch
a
s
k
a
*
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
M
e
m
b
e
r
20
0
5
H
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
s
•
R
i
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
c
l
i
m
b
s
;
1
0
%
i
n
2
0
0
5
,
2
0
%
i
n
2
0
0
4
.
•
M
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
8
0
0
,
0
0
0
t
r
i
p
s
i
n
2
0
0
5
.
•
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
d
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
b
y
F
H
W
A
f
o
r
E
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
c
e
i
n
Ai
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
•
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
t
o
2
0
0
4
-
2
0
0
7
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
P
l
a
n
.
•
R
e
c
o
r
d
r
i
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
t
o
M
N
S
t
a
t
e
F
a
i
r
;
4
2
,
0
0
0
t
r
i
p
s
.
•
E
x
c
e
e
d
e
d
t
a
r
g
e
t
s
f
o
r
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
;
99
%
o
n
-
t
i
m
e
a
n
d
1
r
o
a
d
c
a
l
l
p
e
r
1
6
,
0
0
0
m
i
l
e
s
.
20
0
5
H
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
s
•
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
t
h
e
r
e
h
a
b
of
t
h
e
1
9
4
7
S
i
l
v
e
r
S
i
d
e
Bu
s
.
•
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
a
n
e
w
P&
R
a
t
C
l
o
v
e
r
F
i
e
l
d
i
n
Ch
a
s
k
a
.
20
0
5
H
i
g
h
l
i
g
h
t
s
•
S
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
3
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
C
M
A
Q
fu
n
d
i
n
g
.
F
u
l
l
y
f
u
n
d
e
d
1
0
n
e
w
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
Ma
r
k
e
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
d
e
c
k
,
g
r
a
n
t
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
to
t
a
l
e
d
$
1
5
.
5
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
.
•
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
$
4
.
3
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
i
n
s
t
a
t
e
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
(
B
A
P
T
A
)
f
o
r
pa
r
k
-
a
n
d
-
r
i
d
e
s
a
l
o
n
g
T
H
2
1
2
.
•
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
T
H
5
i
n
Ch
a
n
h
a
s
s
e
n
.
•
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
9
n
e
w
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
,
8
M
C
I
s
a
n
d
1
N
e
w
F
l
y
e
r
Lo
w
F
l
o
o
r
.
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
•
B
e
g
i
n
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
t
h
e
S
W
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
R
F
P
-
d
e
s
i
g
n
,
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
b
i
d
,
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
f
i
r
s
t
la
n
d
s
a
l
e
s
)
.
•
B
e
g
i
n
T
H
2
1
2
/
4
1
a
n
d
M
a
r
k
e
t
St
r
e
e
t
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
•
T
a
k
e
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
o
f
1
3
n
e
w
4
0
’
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
.
•
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
n
e
s
s
Pl
a
n
.
Lo
g
o
f
o
r
S
W
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
P
&
R
.
SM
T
C
’
s
n
e
w
B
R
T
-
s
t
y
l
e
b
u
s
.
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
•
S
M
T
C
i
s
w
o
r
k
i
n
g
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
w
i
t
h
C
a
r
v
e
r
C
o
u
n
t
y
a
n
d
th
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
E
d
e
n
P
r
a
i
r
i
e
o
n
2
0
0
8
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
p
l
a
n
up
d
a
t
e
s
.
•
P
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
i
n
S
W
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
L
R
T
s
t
u
d
y
.
•
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
C
i
t
y
o
f
M
i
n
n
e
a
p
o
l
i
s
o
n
t
h
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
Mi
n
n
e
a
p
o
l
i
s
P
l
a
n
.
•
S
M
T
C
w
i
l
l
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
i
n
20
0
6
f
o
r
o
u
r
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
a
r
e
a
.
•
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
t
o
g
e
t
h
e
r
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
n
s
f
o
r
B
e
t
t
e
r
Ro
a
d
s
a
n
d
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
.
Wh
a
t
y
o
u
r
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
t
s
s
a
y
…
“O
v
e
r
t
h
e
y
e
a
r
s
I
’
v
e
r
i
d
d
e
n
ev
e
r
y
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
y
o
u
r
s
,
&
I
’
v
e
g
o
t
to
a
d
m
i
t
t
h
a
t
S
M
T
C
i
s
#
1
!
”
“Thanks to the 681 bus, I am able to be independent.”“Love the Bus!”
SM
T
C
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d
a
9
7
%
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
i
n
2
0
0
5
.