CC Packet 2006 06 12AGENDA
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, JUNE 12, 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. Infiltration/Inflow Study, PW254B: Draft Report Discussion.
B. Key Financial Strategy: Downtown Park & Ride Update.
C. Veteran’s Monument Update.
D. Key Financial Strategies: Chanhassen License Service Center.
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 May 22, 2006
- City Council Summary Minutes dated May 22, 2006
- City Council Verbatim Minutes dated May 22, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated May 16, 2006
- Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated May 16, 2006
b. Item Deleted ** (Accept Donation of Statue for City Center Park, Friends of the
Chanhassen Library.)
c. Approval of NPDES Annual Report.
d. Chapel Hill Academy, 306 West 78th Street: Approval of a Conditional Use
Permit to Allow a Monument sign with LED Lighting.
e. T-Mobile: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a 9-ft. Fence At the Water
Tower Site, 6434 Murray Hill Road.
f. Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvement Project: Approval of a Wetland Alteration
Permit for Basin 8.
g. Lake Minnewashta Homeowners Association: Approval of a Fireworks Permit for
July 4, 2006.
h. Approval of 2005 Year End Closings & Transfers.
i. Adoption of Resolution Removing Properties from the Rural Service District.
j. Expansion of Licensed Premises for Serving Beer & Wine; C.J.'s Coffee & Wine
Bar, 600 Market Street, Suite 170.
k. Approve Quote: Tennis Court Resurfacing.
l. Longacres Drive Storm Pond Outlet Improvement and Lyman Blvd. Sewer Repair,
City Project Nos. 06-08, 06-09: Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize
Advertisement for Bids.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 2006 Street Improvement Project 06-01:
a. Award Contract.
b. Hold Assessment Hearing and Adopt Assessment Roll.
AWARD OF BIDS
3. Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvement Project No. 06-05:
a. Award Contract
b. Approve Assessment Agreement Waivers
c. Approval of Resolution Establishing Parking Restrictions Along Bluff Creek
Boulevard from Audubon Road to Powers Boulevard
d. Authorize Construction Phase Services
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
4. Southwest Village, Northeast Corner of Realigned TH 101 & Lyman Boulevard,
Applicant: SouthWest Metro Transit: Request for a Planned Unit Development
Amendment, a Subdivision, and Site Plan with Variances.
5. Near Mountain Lake Association Beachlot, Outlot B, Reichert’s Addition: Request for a
Variance and Conditional Use Permit for the Addition of a Second Dock.
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.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
DATE: June 12, 2006
SUBJ: Veteran’s Monument Update
BACKGROUND
During one of our joint meetings with the Senior Commission, it was discussed
that the city should look into developing a Veteran’s Monument/Memorial.
Based on this discussion, staff has been working with the Senior Commission
and Damon Farber Associates (the architect for City Center Park) to develop
three concepts for the memorial and they are described below:
CONCEPT #1
Five large monuments (8 feet high, 4 feet
wide, and 3 feet deep). Each monument is
proposed to represent a branch of the
military (Army, Marine Corps., Navy, Air
Force, and Coast Guard).
The monuments are proposed to be located
south of the most easterly parking lot.
Pros Cons
· Located within close proximity to the
parking lot.
· Provides a sidewalk in front of the
monuments.
· The scale of the monuments is imposing.
· Appears as an after-thought and separated
from the park.
· Too close to the parking lot and limited
gathering area.
Mayor & City Council
June 12, 2006
Page 2
CONCEPT # 2 (2 Variations on Wall Designs)
Option 2-1:
The first wall option is proposed to be 4 feet high and 25 feet wide. Only one
side of the wall will be viewed. The wall is proposed to be located east of the
Library building.
Pros Cons
· Reasonably proportioned. · Appears as an after-thought and
separated from the park.
· Located within close proximity to
West 78th Street.
· Architecturally uninspiring.
Mayor & City Council
June 12, 2006
Page 3
Option #2-2
The second wall is substantially larger in size. It is 7 feet 6 inches high and is
proposed to be located south of the most easterly parking lot. The wall will be
two-sided with a sidewalk surrounding it.
Pros Cons
· Located within close proximity to
the parking lot.
· Provides a sidewalk in front of the
monuments.
· The scale of the monuments is
imposing.
· Appears as an after-thought and
separated from the park.
· Too close to the parking lot and
limited gathering area.
Mayor & City Council
June 12, 2006
Page 4
CONCEPT #3 (3 Options for Monuments)
These monuments are in a cluster of five. They are 5 feet
high and 1 foot 8 inches deep and wide. They resemble a
podium. Each monument is proposed to carry the symbol
of one of the five branches of the military.
Option 3-1:
The first option proposes locating the monuments along an existing sidewalk
that connects the park to West 78th Street.
Pros Cons
Requires minimum alteration to the
park.
Appears as an after-thought and
separated from the park.
Mayor & City Council
June 12, 2006
Page 5
Option 3-2:
The second option locates the monuments along the parking south of the most
easterly parking lot.
Pros Cons
· Located within close proximity to
the parking lot.
· Provides a sidewalk in front of the
monuments.
· Appears as an after-thought and
separated from the park.
· Too close to the parking lot and
limited gathering area.
Mayor & City Council
June 12, 2006
Page 6
Option 3-3:
The final option positions the five monuments on a half circle with a diameter of
27 feet. The monuments are proposed to be located east of the Library building
and in the center of the plaza area. This is the preferred option of the Senior
Commission and staff.
.
Pros Cons
· Centrally located within the park.
· A well-thought-out design (has its
own space yet is part of the overall
park).
· Has a sense of formality.
· An open area for special
ceremonies is located immediately
east of the monuments.
· Requires relocation of an existing
sidewalk.
Staff has also met with Gary Boyle, Commander of the Chanhassen American
Legion Club for their thoughts on the different concepts and a collaborative
effort in funding the project. Commander Boyle is planning to speak to the
American Legion Board concerning possible funding opportunities within the
next couple of weeks.
Mayor & City Council
June 12, 2006
Page 7
REQUESTED ACTION
It is recommended that the different concepts be discussed and that staff be
directed to prepare cost estimates for the preferred design. Staff will also
present design concepts to both the Park & Recreation Commission and
Planning Commission.
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\License Center Report.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Justin Miller, Assistant City Manager
DATE: June 2, 2006
RE: Key Financial Strategies: Chanhassen License Service Center
BACKGROUND
One of the items in this year’s Key Financial Strategies/Strategic Plan was to
monitor the status of Carver County’s efforts to locate a license service center in
Chanhassen. During the 2005 legislative session, legislation was passed allowing
Carver County to locate a center in Chanhassen to alleviate the congested service
center in Chaska.
Since this time, staff has been working with the Carver County Auditor’s office to
find a suitable location in Chanhassen. Below are a few options that are under
consideration:
East end of Water Treatment Plant property
When construction of the East Water Treatment Plant is complete, there will be a
roughly 1.4 acre parcel left that will be suitable for development. While visibility
at this location is ideal (corner of Highway 5 and Highway 101), access will be
limited to W. 79th Street, and staff is somewhat concerned about the amount of
traffic a license service center would generate and the potential conflicts with the
existing businesses along W. 79th Street.
SW Metro/Lake Ann Property
SW Metro recently acquired 3.5 acres that was previously owned by MnDOT as
excess right-of-way. SW Metro has tentative plans to use this property as a park
and ride lot if the downtown park and ride plans fall through. The auditor’s office
and SW Metro have been in contact with each other, and they have discussed
various options. Two hurdles associated with this property are that it would
require a re-zoning (it is currently guided high density residential), and the fact
that SW Metro acquired the property from MnDOT for the purposes of a park and
ride site. Any use other than that would need to be cleared by MnDOT before it
could take place.
Emerson Rosemount Triangle Parcel
Emerson Rosemount currently owns a triangle shaped piece of property at the
corner of Highway 5 and Lake Drive. The city has a restriction against the parcel
from being sold without the city’s permission. However, for several years the
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\License Center Report.doc
company has been thinking about selling the property and giving the city three
acres next to Lake Susan Park. The city would then release our restriction and
allow Emerson Rosemount to sell the property to a third party. Staff is currently
working with Emerson Rosemount’s real estate consultant regarding a purchase
price for the parcel. This property has great visibility along Highway 5, but it is
somewhat small when wetlands and setbacks are taken into account.
Carver County officials wish to acquire land this year. Staff will continue to work
with the auditor’s office on the above sites as well as continue to look for other
opportunities.
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\License Center Report.doc
SW Metro/Lake Ann Site
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\License Center Report.doc
Water Treatment Site
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\License Center Report.doc
Emerson Rosemount Site
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
MAY 22, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the work session to order at 5:35 p.m..
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom and
Councilman Peterson
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Lundquist and Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Greg Sticha, Todd Hoffman,
Paul Oehme, Kelly Janes, Ed Coppersmith, and Kevin Crooks
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT EXERCISE.
Todd Gerhardt introduced Ed Coppersmith who had set up the conference room to simulate an
actual emergency situation relating to tornadoes. After giving a brief history of tornadoes in
Carver County, he explained the city’s role in this type of an emergency and outlined the roles of
the certain city employees and City Council members during and after the emergency. He
reviewed the Declaration of Emergency and State Statue 12 (mutual aid). Mayor Furlong asked
about a secondary site for the EOC (Emergency Operation Center). Mr. Coppersmith suggested
the City Council draft and approve a Declaration of Emergency, which the city currently does
not have, which outlines the succession of power in case of an emergency. He outlined issues of
concern such as no back up power in City Hall and suggested City Hall have a generator. Todd
Gerhardt asked about the possibility of running hardwire from the fire station to city hall. Mayor
Furlong asked about using the upstairs conference area at the fire station to locate the EOC since
the basement has communication problems. Mr. Coppersmith outlined the specific duties of
different individuals in the EOC. Todd Gerhardt asked if a mock drill was scheduled with
Carver County this summer. Mayor Furlong asked how the EOC worked during President
Bush’s visit last fall, and what was learned from that experience. Mr. Coppersmith noted that
there is a need to get a non-emergency phone number out to the public so the public can contact
the City without tying up 911. Mayor Furlong asked what the city could do in terms of
communication. Mr. Coppersmith suggested the use of local radio stations, local television
stations and the City’s cable access station which can be aired live.
UPDATE ON WATER TREATMENT PLANT/SEH CHANGE ORDER TO
ENGINEERING CONTRACT.
Paul Oehme introduced Kevin Crooks, the new Water Treatment Plant Manager, who provided
his background in the water treatment plant field. Mr. Oehme gave a power point presentation
updating the council on the construction progress, noting that construction to date is on schedule.
Todd Gerhardt complimented SEH for the lack of change orders due to good preparation of plans
and their coordination with contractors. Paul Oehme itemized the progress and the percent
completed for each phase of the construction. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification of capacity
issues and if the estimated cost for the security system was included in the CIP. Jim Norton with
City Council Work Session – May 22, 2006
2
SEH addressed the capacity issues. Paul Oehme asked that improvements to Wells 2, 5 and 6 be
included in a change order to the contract with SEH. Kelly Janes explained there is a small time
frame in the fall in which those improvements can be made. Paul Oehme stated the schedule is
to start up the water treatment plant in January of 2007, and it will take 2 to 3 months to get the
process completed. Todd Gerhardt explained that currently the contingency fund is projected to
use about 3 ½% to 5% in relation to the 10% projected. Councilman Peterson asked what would
need to happen to reach the entire 10%. Jim Norton stated he did not see any major change
orders in the Minnetonka plant, and this project is tracking along the same lines so he did not see
any problems, noting most changes were caught during the design phase because they were able
to watch Minnetonka’s construction process. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for examples of
what kind of complaints the city and council members might expect to receive from residents.
Mayor Furlong asked about the city’s current infrastructure being able to handle the increased
water pressure.
The work session was recessed at 7:00 p.m.. It was reconvened at 9:05 p.m..
LEASES FOR OLD ST. HUBERT’S CHURCH AND OLD VILLAGE HALL.
Justin Miller provided updates on the vacancies at the old St. Hubert’s Church and old Village
Hall buildings. The old Village Hall is suitable for a 1 or 2 person office and staff is still in the
process of looking for tenants. There has been interest in using the site for historical or local art
displays. The Salvation Army has expressed an interest in renting out the old St. Hubert’s
Church as office space for counseling services. Concerns raised were shared parking with The
Goddard School, residential and business concerns with possible clientele, and the Salvation
Army being a non-profit organization and what they would be required to pay. Councilman
Lundquist stated the city should try to get somebody in the spaces, even if they have lower rent
expectations just to get the buildings occupied. He noted there could be potential concern with
the Salvation Army having The Goddard School on one side and Chapel Hill Academy across
the street but the city needs more information on what type of counseling services they are
planning to provide. Mayor Furlong noted that regardless of the tenant, the city needs to know
what type of operation will be run in these two facilities, stating that buildings fare much better
when they’re occupied than vacant. He suggested charging enough rent to cover city expenses
for non-profit organizations and a reasonable rent for potential for profit businesses. Justin
Miller pointed out the possibility of combining the two facilities together. Mayor Furlong
directed staff to continue to pursue options.
Mayor Furlong adjourned the work session meeting at 9:20 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
MAY 22, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
Lundquist and Councilman Peterson
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Don Asleson, Todd
Hoffman and Greg Sticha
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Ken Wencl Chanhassen
Kaycee Kramer Chaska
Desirae Coleman Prior Lake
Jerry & Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Marc Drummond Minnetonka
Resident 590 Saxony Circle, Chaska
Kirsten Sjogren Chanhassen
Caitlin O’Connor Chanhassen
Charlie Keller Chanhassen
Matthew Petty Chanhassen
Mark Nettesheim Chanhassen
Elena Bloudek Chanhassen
J.J. Campbell Chanhassen
David Jansen Chanhassen Villager
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded
to approve the consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated May 8, 2006
-City Council Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated May 8, 2006
-Board of Review and Equalization Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated May 8, 2006
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated May 2, 2006
City Council Summary – May 22, 2006
2
-Park and Recreation Commission Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated April 25, 2006
b. Resolution #2006-36: Approve Quote for Upgrade to Lift Station No. 15.
c. Approval of NPDES Phase II Revised SWPPP.
f. Accept Donation from the Family of Donald & Harriet Elmblad for Construction of an
Entry Monument at the Chanhassen Pioneer Cemetery.
g. Approval of a Two-Day Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, Chanhassen Fourth of July
Celebration, Chanhassen Rotary Club.
h. Approval of Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes for the Lotus Lake Slow-No
Wake Ordinance.
i. Resolution #2006-37: Resolution in Support of Improvements to U.S. Highway 212
from County Road 147 to Norwood-Young America.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Sergeant Jim Olson introduced
Sergeant Dwight Meyer and then reviewed the sheriff’s office area report, area citation list,
Community Service Officer report and miscellaneous items for the month of April. Councilman
Lundquist asked Sergeant Olson to elaborate on how much time is spent patrolling neighborhood
roadways versus major roadways such as Powers Boulevard, Galpin Boulevard and Lake Lucy
Road. Chief Gregg Geske reviewed the calls and numbers for the month of April, provided an
update on the Women’s Fire Service Expo, an update on their OSHA inspection, and asked
people to be careful with recreational fire and on the area lakes over the holiday weekend.
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN ON-SALE BEER & WINE LICENSE,
FRANKIE’S PIZZA, PASTA & RIBS, 7850 MARKET BOULEVARD.
Justin Miller presented the staff report on this item. Mayor Furlong opened the public hearing.
No one spoke and the public hearing was closed.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council
approve the request for the on-sale beer and wine license for Bruce Foster Restaurants Las
Vegas, Inc., dba Frankie’s Pizza, Pasta and Ribs contingent upon receipt of the license fee,
liquor liability insurance, and a positive response from the Henderson, Nevada Police
Department. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AUTOMATIC SLOW-NO WAKE ORDINANCE FOR
LAKE SUSAN AND CONSIDER SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION
PURPOSES.
City Council Summary – May 22, 2006
3
Don Asleson presented the staff report and recommendation to the City Council. Mayor
Furlong asked for clarification of staff’s recommendation to revise the ordinary high water level
up 3 inches from 882.5 to 882.75. The public hearing was opened. Ken Wencl, Lake Susan
thanked Don Asleson for doing a great job of leading the task force group. The public hearing
was closed. After council discussion the following motion was made.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council
approve the ordinance amendment including the statement, watercraft utilized by resource
management, emergency and enforcement personnel acting in the performance of their
assigned duties shall be exempt from the provision of this ordinance, and amend City Code
to read as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 6-49 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended
to include the changes listed in bold to read as follows:
“Sec. 6-49. Slow--No wake areas.
(1) No person shall operate a watercraft in any marked slow--no wake areas in excess of slow--
no wake speed. Slow--no wake areas shall be marked in accordance with the applicable
regulations of the state department of natural resources. The location and boundaries of each
slow--no wake area established are shown on that certain map entitled Water Surface Use Zoning
Map of Chanhassen dated July 11, 1983, on file in the city hall. The map and all notations,
references and data thereon are hereby incorporated by reference into this article and shall have
the same force and effect as if fully set forth and described herein.
(2) Emergency slow-no wake areas may be established by resolution of the city council and shall
be marked in accordance with the appropriate regulations of the state department of natural
resources and posted at all public accesses.
(3) Special Slow-No Wake Restrictions
(a) Lotus Lake:
All persons shall operate watercraft at a slow-no wake speed on Lotus Lake whenever the
water elevation exceeds the 100-year predicted level for Lotus Lake of 896.8 MSL as set
forth in the 1994 Surface Water Management Plan. The slow-no wake surface zoning shall
remain in place until the water drops below the 100-year predicted level of 896.8 MSL for 3
consecutive days. Upon the placement of a slow-no wake restriction, notice will be given:
1. On a sign posted at the public access.
2. On the City of Chanhassen Web Page.
3. On the City of Chanhassen Clean Water Hotline.
4. On the Community Cable Access Channel.
5. In an e-mail format to known representatives on Lotus Lake.
6. To the Carver County Sheriffs Department.
7. To the public by other appropriate means determined by Council. ”
City Council Summary – May 22, 2006
4
(b) Lake Susan:
All persons shall operate watercraft at a slow-no wake speed on Lake Susan whenever the
water elevation exceeds 882.5. The slow-no wake surface zoning will remain in place
until the water level drops below 882.5 for 72 hours. Upon placement of a slow-no wake
restriction, notice will be given:
1. On a sign posted at the public access.
2. On the City of Chanhassen Web Page.
3. On the City of Chanhassen Water Hotline.
4. On the Community Cable Access Channel.
5. In an e-mail format to known representatives on Lake Susan.
6. To the Carver County Sheriff’s Department.
7. To the public by other appropriate means determined by Council.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
AWARD OF BIDS: 2006 G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS.
Greg Sticha presented the background information for the $6.6 million general obligation
improvement bonds regarding the development of the 2005 MUSA area and introduced Mark
Ruff and Bruce DeJong with Ehlers and Associates who reviewed the bid results.
Resolution #2006-38: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that
the City Council award the bids to Griffin, Kubik, Stephens and Thompson and adopt the
resolution providing for the issuance and sale of $6,640,000 General Obligation
Improvement Bond, Series 2006A.
LIBERTY AT CREEKSIDE, 1500 PIONEER TRAIL, 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 ALTERATION WITHIN
THE FLOOD PLAIN AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY
DISTRICT.
Kate Aanenson updated the council on the work that has taken place since this item was tabled at
the April 24th City Council meeting. Shawn Siders with Town and Country Homes explained the
revisions made to the plan. After council discussion and comments, the following motions were
made.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves the Rezoning of the property located within the Liberty at Creekside
development with the exception of Outlot A and the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary
Zone (Outlot D), from Agricultural Estate District (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -
Residential (PUD - R) incorporating the development design standards contained within this
staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
City Council Summary – May 22, 2006
5
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves the Preliminary Plat for Liberty at Creekside, plans prepared by Westwood
Professional Services, Inc., dated June 17, 2005, revised February 3, 2006, revised April 6,
2006, which may also be revised to incorporate lots around each dwelling unit, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall prepare a noise analysis for noise that will be generated by traffic on
Highway 312. The analysis shall identify appropriate noise mitigation measures to meet
noise standards for residential homes as specified by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, which shall be implemented by the developer.
2. The developer shall provide a design plan that shows the color and architectural detail for
each unit on the site for final plat approval.
3. The developer shall pay $6,285.00 as their portion of the 2005 AUAR.
4. The developer shall revise the plat to incorporate the twin home units as shown on the
plan dated May 8, 2006.
5. The developer shall establish a separate outlot(s) for the land within the Bluff Creek
Overlay District primary zone.
6. Dedication of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone shall be made to the city or a
conservation easement shall be established over said outlot(s).
7. The wetland mitigation for Liberty on Bluff Creek shall be complete within one year of
the authorized fill on Liberty on Bluff Creek.
8. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420) and the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit for
Liberty on Bluff Creek.
9. Wetland buffers 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around Wetlands A and B and the constructed 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 must pay the City $20 per sign. All
structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
10. Due to a secondary access through the MnDOT right-of-way (ROW) to the north in the
northeast portion of the property, the applicant will be responsible for creating or
securing sufficient wetland mitigation for MnDOT that will meet all conditions imposed
on MnDOT and will be responsible for any and all fees associated with the redesign of
the wetland mitigation areas in MnDOT ROW. Final plat approval shall not be granted
until the wetland mitigation plan has been received and approved by the City and
MnDOT.
City Council Summary – May 22, 2006
6
11. The plans shall be revised to show bluff areas (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and
a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe). All bluff areas shall be preserved. In
addition, all structures shall maintain a minimum 30-foot setback from the bluff and no
grading shall occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20
feet from the top of a bluff).
12. 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.
13. The applicant shall submit a plan for the revegetation of the farmed area south of Bluff
Creek that incorporates native plants and is consistent with the City’s Bluff Creek Natural
Resources Management Plan Appendix C. Special attention shall be paid to areas with
steep slopes (greater than 3:1).
14. Alterations appear to be proposed within a mapped FEMA unnumbered A Zone (100-
year floodplain). In lieu of a LOMA, the applicant shall obtain a conditional use permit
for alterations within the floodplain.
15. A storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) shall be developed for the
development and shall be completed prior to applying for the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit.
16. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) shall be provided for the proposed pond. The EOF
could consist of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf re-enforcement mat (a permanent
erosion control blanket). A typical detail shall be included the plan.
17. The plans shall show paths of access to both wetland mitigation areas as well as all
erosion controls and restoration practices.
18. 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.
19. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as-needed.
City Council Summary – May 22, 2006
7
20. The applicant shall provide details for curbside inlet control. Wimco-type inlet controls
shall be used and installed within 24 hours of installation.
21. Typical building lot controls shall be shown on the plan. These controls may include
perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street sweeping, inlet control and
temporary mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the certificates of occupancy.
22. The proposed storm water pond shall be used as a temporary sediment basin during mass
grading. The pond shall be excavated prior to disturbing up gradient areas. Diversion
berms or ditches may be needed to divert water to the pond and a temporary pond outlet
is needed. The outlet could be a temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. A detail
for the temporary pond outlet shall be included in the plans. Additional temporary
sediment basins may be needed or an alternate location may be needed depending upon
site conditions during rough grading.
23. The ultimate outlet from the site to Bluff Creek shall be turned to the southeast to align
with the creek.
24. Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) should be provided over all
existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water
ponds. An easement adequate to provide access to the pond for maintenance purposes is
needed and should be shown on the plan.
25. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording, is $266,850.
26. 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 Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of
Transportation) and comply with their conditions of approval.
27. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated
for preservation and/or at the edge of proposed grading limits.
28. Silt fence or tree protection fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading around both
wetland mitigation areas.
29. A fenced access road will lead from the east mitigation area to the west mitigation area.
This will be the only access allowed to the western site. Fencing shall be placed on either
side of the access lane. After construction, the access lane shall be restored according to
the ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’.
30. A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to
construction.
City Council Summary – May 22, 2006
8
31. No burning permits shall be issued for tree removal. All trees removed on site shall be
chipped and used on site or hauled off.
32. The applicant shall implement the ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ dated
9/29/05 for restoration within the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
33. The applicant shall submit a full sized ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ with
final plat submittal.
34. A turf plan shall be submitted to the city indicating the location of sod and seeding areas.
35. The developer shall pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final plat
approval in lieu of parkland dedication.
36. The applicant shall provide all design, engineering, construction and testing services
required of the “Bluff Creek Trail.” All construction documents shall be delivered to the
Park and Recreation Director for approval prior to the initiation of each phase of
construction. The trail shall be ten feet in width, surfaced with bituminous material and
constructed to meet all City specifications. The applicant shall be reimbursed for the
actual cost of construction materials for the Bluff Creek Trail. This reimbursement
payment shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and receipt of an
invoice documenting the actual costs for the construction materials utilized in its
construction.
37. The developer shall provide a sidewalk connection to the Bluff Creek trail through
private street B.
38. The developer must coordinate the location and elevation of the western street connection
with the Pioneer Pass (Peterson Property) and Degler property developments to the west
and northwest.
39. The height and length of retaining walls must be reduced to the maximum extent
possible.
40. The top and bottom of wall elevations must be shown on the final grading plan.
41. A building permit is required for any retaining walls four feet high or taller. These walls
must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
42. The style of home and lowest floor elevation must be noted on the grading plan.
43. Typical sections for each housing style must be shown on the final grading plan.
44. The final grading plan must be 50 scale so that staff can complete a full review of the
proposed grading.
City Council Summary – May 22, 2006
9
45. The developer must verify the invert elevation of the sanitary sewer connection that will
be constructed with the 2005 MUSA Improvement Project.
46. The development may not proceed until the Phase II 2005 MUSA utility extension
project has been awarded.
47. Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges and the SAC
charge at the time of building permit. The 2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575.00/unit
for sanitary sewer and $4,078.00/unit for watermain. The SAC charge is $1,625.00/unit.
Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel
at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of
SAC units assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit
issuance.
48. The northern access (currently shown to the Fox property) must be shifted to the east to
the MNDOT right-of-way parcel. Prior to final plat approval, the developer must contact
the Fox family to coordinate the elevation of the northern street connection at their
property line.
49. The Arterial Collector Fee shall be paid with the final plat. The 2006 fee is
$2,400/developable acre.
50. The final plans must show the new orientation for Lots 13 and 14, Block 2.
51. The site plan and final grading plan must identify the proposed 10-foot wide bituminous
trail.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves Site Plan for 146 townhouses, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services,
Inc., dated June 17, 2005, revised February 3, 2006, revised April 6, 2006, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. The developer shall provide a design plan that shows the color and architectural detail for
each unit on the site for final plat approval.
3. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire-
resistive construction.
4. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
City Council Summary – May 22, 2006
10
5. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either
be removed from site or chipped.
6. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire code Section
501.4.
7. A fire apparatus access road 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.
8. Fire apparatus access road and water supplies for fire protection is required to be
installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the
time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
9. 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.
10. Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
review and approval.
11. “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required on the private streets. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of sign. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire
Prevention Policy #06-1991.
12. Staff will work with the developer on materials, colors and diversity.
13. The developer shall incorporate the twin home units as proposed in the sketch plan dated
May 8, 2006.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves Conditional Use Permit for alterations within the flood plain and development
within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall implement the ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ dated
9/29/05 for restoration within the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
2. The applicant shall submit a full-sized ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ with
final plat submittal.
3. The wetland mitigation for Liberty on Bluff Creek shall be constructed prior to or
concurrent with wetland impacts on the Liberty on Bluff Creek project.
City Council Summary – May 22, 2006
11
4. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420) and the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit for
Liberty on Bluff Creek.
5. Wetland buffers 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around Wetlands A and B and the constructed 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 must pay the City $20 per sign. All
structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
GALPIN CROSSING TWINHOMES, LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET
AND WEST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD, EPIC DEVELOPMENT XVI, LLC,
PLANNING CASE 06-13: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-
R), PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL CREATING 13 LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT
WITH A VARIANCE FOR A PRIVATE STREET AND MORE THAN 4 HOMES
ACCESSING A PRIVATE STREET; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and update from the Planning Commission with their
recommendation for denial of the request. Mayor Furlong asked if staff looked at all the
different zoning options consistent with the guiding for this property. Perry Ryan, representing
the applicant, reviewed the planning process and presented their proposal. Mayor Furlong asked
for clarification on how this plan compared to what was approved with the concept plan and
clarification of zoning options. After council discussion the following motion was made.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
deny the request for rezoning from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Planned Unit
Development-Residential (PUD-R), Preliminary Plat creating 13 lots and one outlot with a
variance for a private street and more than 4 homes accessing a private street, and
Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, subject to
the findings of fact listed in the staff report and clarified by the Community Development
Director. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Perry Ryan asked the council and staff for direction on how to proceed.
ARBORETUM BUSINESS CENTER; 2970 WATER TOWER PLACE (LOT 1, BLOCK
1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS CENTER 5TH ADDITION); STEINER DEVELOPMENT,
PLANNING CASE 06-16: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 25,300 SQ. FT.
OFFICE-SHOWROOM-WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON 2.69 ACRES OF LAND ZONED
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
City Council Summary – May 22, 2006
12
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item.
Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for clarification on the type of use that will be in this building.
Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on the truck traffic circulation and loading dock location.
Joe Smith from Steiner Development addressed the loading docks and traffic circulation.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approve Site Plan #06-16 for a 25,300 square foot one story office-showroom-warehouse
building, plans prepared by Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group, dated March 30, 2006,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. A separate sign permit will be necessary for each sign.
3. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
4. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
5. Air-test required on that portion of storm sewer within ten feet of building or water service.
Permits and inspections required through Chanhassen Building Inspections Division.
6. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete plans are
submitted.
7. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
8. The applicant shall obtain permission from the property owner to the north prior to silt
fence installation. If permission is not obtained, the plans shall be revised to accommodate
all sediment control measures on-site.
9. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as needed.
10. The owner/operator of the proposed development shall apply for and receive an NPDES
Phase II Construction permit prior to beginning construction activities.
11. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a permit from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District and comply with their conditions of approval.
12. The Black Hills spruce near the building shall be moved east to serve as screening for the
truck area. A narrower species of evergreen shall be considered for planting in this area.
13. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before building permit approval.
City Council Summary – May 22, 2006
13
14. All lighting fixtures must be shielded with a total cutoff angle equal to or less than 90
degrees.
15. A professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans.
16. The applicant will be required to submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10 year, 24
hour storm event with a full size drainage area map prior to building permit issuance.
17. The applicant must verify with the City Building Department if the site connecting to the
existing 8-inch watermain on the east side is adequately sized to handle the two lots
consumption.
18. As the eastern access will service the two lots, cross-access easements will need to be
obtained and recorded against the lots.
19. Any future loading docks will be angled.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: UPDATE ON FIELD ALLOCATION
POLICY.
Todd Hoffman presented an update on the City’s field allocation policy. Todd Gerhardt reported
on the 276 leaders meeting that he attended discussing a 13 acre land swap between the City of
Victoria and Three Rivers Park System, Eden Prairie mentioned that they’re looking at breaking
ground in the next month or so for their fourth satellite fire station just south of new Highway
312 and Dell Road, and Minnetonka School District has entered into a purchase agreement with
the Bennett Family Park.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. Councilman Lundquist thanked Justin Miller for all his
hard work and wished him the best of luck.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council
meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 22, 2006
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
Lundquist and Councilman Peterson
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Labatt
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Kate Aanenson, Don Asleson, Todd
Hoffman and Greg Sticha
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Ken Wencl Chanhassen
Kaycee Kramer Chaska
Desirae Coleman Prior Lake
Jerry & Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Marc Drummond Minnetonka
Resident 590 Saxony Circle, Chaska
Kirsten Sjogren Chanhassen
Caitlin O’Connor Chanhassen
Charlie Keller Chanhassen
Matthew Petty Chanhassen
Mark Nettesheim Chanhassen
Elena Bloudek Chanhassen
J.J. Campbell Chanhassen
David Jansen Chanhassen Villager
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and good evening to everybody joining us here in the council
chambers, as well as those watching at home. We appreciate the fact that you’ve joined us this
evening.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded
to approve the consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated May 8, 2006
-City Council Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated May 8, 2006
-Board of Review and Equalization Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated May 8, 2006
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
2
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated May 2, 2006
-Park and Recreation Commission Summary and Verbatim Minutes dated April 25, 2006
b. Resolution #2006-36: Approve Quote for Upgrade to Lift Station No. 15.
c. Approval of NPDES Phase II Revised SWPPP.
f. Accept Donation from the Family of Donald & Harriet Elmblad for Construction of an
Entry Monument at the Chanhassen Pioneer Cemetery.
g. Approval of a Two-Day Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, Chanhassen Fourth of July
Celebration, Chanhassen Rotary Club.
h. Approval of Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes for the Lotus Lake Slow-No
Wake Ordinance.
i. Resolution #2006-37: Resolution in Support of Improvements to U.S. Highway 212
from County Road 147 to Norwood-Young America.
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 evening. I brought along the, one of our other sergeants
this evening that happened to be in the area. Sergeant Dwight Meyer. He’s my twin brother
and…
Sgt Dwight Meyer: You guys are aware that Jim’s going to be promoted. I was just tagging
along with him. Maybe I will hope to see my personal logistics work but maybe I can try to fill
his large shoes. Thank you for your evening.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Thank you.
Sgt. Jim Olson: In fact Dwight has been here with us for about 2 years and he came to us from
North Dakota where he was a Sergeant in Fargo?
Sgt. Dwight Meyer: Bismark.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Bismark. I was close.
Todd Gerhardt: You had two choices.
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
3
Sgt. Jim Olson: …so this evening for the council I have the sheriff’s office area report for the
month of April. The area citation list for the month of April. Community Service Officer report
and a couple of other miscellaneous items as well. Last year, or excuse me, last month in
Chanhassen we had 97 total criminal calls and that consists of 31 Part I calls and 66 Part II
crimes. And this compares to 81 total criminal calls last year for the month of April. Breaking
that down a little bit, we had 29 thefts and 13 theft related calls last month, and this compares to
19 and 2 last year respectively. The theft related calls again relates to identity thefts and credit
card theft and calls like that, and we certainly have seen an increase in that over the past year. 17
of the calls, or excuse me, some of the theft calls were gas drive off’s that we’ve had, and I know
I’ve talked about that with gas prices… We had 1,018 non-criminal calls last month, and that
compares to 788 last year for the month of April. The biggest change in this category again was
traffic stops, which was 335, and that compared to 192 from last year. Other notable changes
were disturbing the peace calls, and that includes noise complaints, harassing phone calls and
those types of calls. 51 last month compared to 20 last year. And miscellaneous traffic
complaints, we had 76 last month and that compares to 45 last year. Those include assorted
traffic issues including stalled vehicles, debris in roadway, vehicles in ditches, and those types of
calls. Medicals were up a bit last month. We had 64 compared to 31, and then our total citations
were 248 and that compares to 133 from last year same time. Any questions at all referenced the
numbers?
Councilman Lundquist: Sergeant Olson, as I look through the citation list, it appears like the
majority of the citations are on collector or other major traveled roadways versus neighborhoods.
How much of, and if you can just give me an estimate of the percentage of time of the traffic
officers time is spent in a neighborhood setting versus Powers, Galpin, Lake Lucy time frame.
Sgt. Jim Olson: You know they do spend time, certainly do spend time in the neighborhoods.
I’d have to do some checking percentage wise on that. Off the top of my head I really don’t have
a good answer for that, but we’re also, collector roads you know…collector roads and
neighborhoods as far as for traffic direction with the Chanhassen squads. A lot of their
complaints come from Powers and you know Galpin, Lake Lucy, Bluff Creek Road, which is
not a collector. Well actually it is a collector road I guess but, so they spend a lot of time on
those roads because that’s where a majority of their complaints do come from. But they’re also
in the neighborhood.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. So the fact that we don’t see a lot of citations from that, do you
think that’s a fact that the, maybe there’s not a lot of speed in the neighborhoods compared to the
collectors?
Sgt. Jim Olson: You know I think it’s part of that. It’s also volume. There’s more volume on
the collector roads and highways than there are going through the neighborhoods. Where if a
car, you know if a squad sits…direct the patrol for a half hour, 45 minutes a neighborhood you
know during the day or whatever, maybe you’ll only see 2, 3, 4 cars versus on a collector road or
a highway where they’ll see a much higher percentage or much higher number.
Councilman Lundquist: Alright, thank you.
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
4
Sgt. Jim Olson: You’re welcome. Any other questions?
Mayor Furlong: Further questions? Sergeant, I guess following on Councilman Lundquist’s
question I guess, just in terms of traffic stops for the month of April, we’re down relative to the
prior 3 months. Was there any particular reason for that? It looked like they were down
anywhere from right around 100.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes. When we have new FTO’s or new deputies that start, that certainly does
have an impact on, in the time spent to a certain extent out on the road because there’s some
office time that’s needed for initial training with that, and we had the same thing last year for a
month or two with some new deputies that started in the city. And that does have an impact on
them.
Mayor Furlong: So we did have some new deputies join us?
Sgt. Jim Olson: Yep. Not necessarily that are assigned to Chanhassen, but we do have some
internal…that are in Chanhassen or field trained officers that train new deputies that do work
either here in the city or other areas around the county.
Mayor Furlong: So the new deputy may be following one of our deputies through their shift
activities?
Sgt. Jim Olson: Yeah. And initially there’s some book work that needs to be done as far as
teaching how to do traffic stops and then different things before they’re actually out taking some
of these calls.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the other question goes back to, you addressed the increased
number of thefts and theft related for the month relative to the prior year. You mentioned 7 drive
off’s as part of that. Do you see any other trends in those numbers at all that we should be
concerned about?
Sgt. Jim Olson: You know last year for thefts we were extremely fortunate. That was a year that
was extremely, extremely low. The last year. We have not seen, in previous years, well in terms
of last year there was, we would have waves of thefts from vehicles that would go through
neighborhoods looking for, you know whether it be notebook computers or house stereos or
different things like that. I have not seen that this year at all. Or last year for that matter. You
know we don’t have 8, 10, 12’s on a night like we’ve had previously. You might get 1 here. 2
here. There really hasn’t been any pattern at all.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Then the other question I have with regard to, how we’re receiving the
reports this year with the Part I, Part II crimes. Clearly we see by the information that they’ve
gone back and updated last year’s calls for service to fit within those categories.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Yes.
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
5
Mayor Furlong: Is there a plan to go back further so that we can look for trends within some of
these categories? Are you aware?
Sgt. Jim Olson: They will be going back for the entire year from last year, but I don’t think.
Mayor Furlong: 2005?
Sgt. Jim Olson: Correct. But I don’t think they’ll be going back to previous years than that.
That does involve going back through all of those calls and looking through them all and data
entry and that is time consuming so I don’t think they’ll go to last year at all.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Okay. There are a couple other things I’d like to go over real quick. Last month
I talked a little bit theft from mailboxes. That we’re having an issue with that. I’m happy to
report that we did catch the people that were involved with that. It was actually a father-daughter
team that were going out and stealing mail, and they are pending charges as well and they were
all over the metro area. Our detectives were able to get a confession out of them at their
residence so that was a good thing. I also, we had an unfortunate call about a week and a half
ago that a local business where a car drove through the front of the business and it caused quite a
bit of damage. I’d like to commend the rescue personnel, fire department and ambulance
personnel that were involved with that call. It certainly was a very confusing scene initially upon
arrival and they did a great job of getting in there. Assessing what was going on and treating all
the patients. I just want to commend them for a very fine job that they did with them. There’s
one other thing. We have a lot of construction that’s occurring around the city and I’m sure you
have noticed some of that, but I’d like to ask people, please drive with care in construction zones.
Pay attention to the traffic control signs because there are, things do change occasionally. People
need to pay attention to those signs and watch out for construction workers. Is there anything
else for me at all this evening?
Mayor Furlong: No. Very good, thank you.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Chief Geske is here with the fire department. Good evening Chief.
Chief Gregg Geske: A couple things I’d like to start with. As you can see our call numbers
continue to trend downward, which is good I guess for, that turns our fire prevention, take credit
for that. Couple things I’d like to bring up. One is, we’re participating in what’s called the
Women’s Fire Service Expo. It will be June 10th and what it is, us along with Edina and
Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, Hopkins and Bloomington are putting on this day long expo out at the
Southwest train facility in Edina and we’re trying to I guess promote more women in the fire
service. We have quite a few on our department so we’re helping out in that regard. There’ll be
an article on it in the Chan Villager, for anybody who’s interested. On June 1st it talks about it.
If anybody’s interested they could also contact Ed Coppersmith to find out more about it here at
the city offices. We did have a OSHA walk through last week through our department and we
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
6
didn’t have any violations. We had a few recommendations that we’ll be completing and be in
compliance there but things went well for the OSHA inspection that we had. I’d like to bring up
this weekend they’re talking about warmer weather, in the 80’s and the holiday weekend.
Hopefully everybody that is out on any of our many lakes has water safety on their mind and I
know we had the water facility last year and I just want to bring it up. Everybody’s using
personal floatation devices and such. The water’s still pretty cool. About 63 degrees out there
yet so if you go out, you definitely want floatation devices as well. Along with that, we see an
influx in the start of motorcycle accidents and keep everybody in mind to watch out for the
motorcycles. A lot of the accidents that we have are people pulling out in front of motorcycles
so, there’s always the bumper sticker, start seeing motorcycles. It is that time of year so I just
want to bring that up. Along with that the season, there’s a more recreational fires. There is, the
city web site and you can find out about recreational fires. Basically they’re kept to a 3 by 3
enclosed area, and burning natural materials. Not rubbish and such is what our code is in the
fire. If you’re interested in getting burning permits for something outside a recreational fire, that
can be also, more information can be found through Ed Coppersmith or through Mark Littfin
who works with the city staff so, that’s all I have to report. Any questions?
Mayor Furlong: Any questions for the Chief? No? Very good. Keep up the fire prevention
activities.
Chief Gregg Geske: Oh you bet. Take credit where we can.
Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. Very good. We’ll move now to the next items on our agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN ON-SALE BEER & WINE LICENSE,
FRANKIE’S PIZZA, PASTA & RIBS, 7850 MARKET BOULEVARD.
Justin Miller: Mayor, members of the City Council. The city’s received a request for an on-sale
beer and wine license from Bruce Foster Restaurants Las Vegas, Inc., which is buying Frankie’s
Pizza, Pasta and Ribs restaurant on Market Boulevard. Law enforcement did conduct a
background check on the principals of the organization and no negative comments were found.
However we are still waiting on a report from the Henderson, Nevada Police Department and I
referenced that in the recommendation that we’re asking tonight. A public hearing notice was
published in the Chanhassen Villager and sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the
property and to date no negative comments have been received. So staff is recommending that
you hold the public hearing tonight and then approve their request for the on-sale beer and wine
license for Bruce Foster Restaurants Las Vegas, Inc., doing business as Frankie’s Pizza, Pasta,
and Ribs contingent upon receipt of the license fee, their liquor liability insurance, and a positive
response from the Henderson, Nevada Police Department. And be happy to answer any
questions. Otherwise we ask that you hold the public hearing.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions for staff? Okay, thank you. At this point we’ll open up
the podium for, we’ll open up the public hearing and invite interested parties to come forward
and address the council on this matter. No one? Without objection then we’ll close the public
hearing and bring it back to council for any discussion. Thoughts or comments. Based upon
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
7
staff’s recommendation. Thank you, including positive response from Henderson. Very good.
Is that a motion Councilman Peterson? Thank you. 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
approve the request for the on-sale beer and wine license for Bruce Foster Restaurants Las
Vegas, Inc., dba Frankie’s Pizza, Pasta and Ribs contingent upon receipt of the license fee,
liquor liability insurance, and a positive response from the Henderson, Nevada Police
Department. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AUTOMATIC SLOW-NO WAKE ORDINANCE FOR
LAKE SUSAN AND CONSIDER SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION
PURPOSES.
Don Asleson: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. This evening we’d like to update you
on the efforts of the Lake Susan Slow-No Wake Task Force and the task force and the staff have
been working on and the resulting automatic slow no wake ordinance proposed for Lake Susan.
Staff is requesting that council solicited public input prior to making a determination on the
proposed ordinance. Since council has had some experience with the slow no wake ordinance
amendment on Lotus Lake, the presentation’s going to be a little bit shorter and to the point.
Kind of the nuts and bolts of what the Lake Susan people came up with. Basically council
appointed 6 members to the Lake Susan Slow-No Wake Task Force on February 27, 2006.
Three meetings. Members volunteered for the 3 meetings. First meeting was an introduction,
second for the details and then third to wrap up with the recommendation and something for
council to consider. During the task force meetings, task force members reviewed other
metropolitan communities that were using the slow no wake surface zoning for their lakes, as
well as taking into consideration that Lake Susan is a recreational lake and any sort of ordinance
amendment does have consequences to the recreational users of Lake Susan. The results are a
little bit different than Lotus Lake because the data that we had to review was much different.
On Lotus Lake we had sampling points probably once weekly, where on Lake Susan it was
maybe one…point a month that was taken by the watershed district, so we had one point
representative for each month. So the task force was kind of given the challenge of how do you
make a determination with one point out of every month, and make a good conclusion out of
that? So one way that we did that was we did supply, staff provided the task force with a map of
structures, as far as sanitary structures on the shoreline and we met, the task force members after
a task force meeting, out on the shore and asked them you know what makes the most sense?
What elevation makes the most sense to have this slow no wake ordinance since the data that we
have isn’t that great. Since then, on May 2nd we did install a lake gauge so from here on out we
should be getting more accurate data as far as lake levels and we can track the elevation of the
lake a little bit better, and maybe at some point in the future re-evaluate that elevation and pin
point it a little bit better. Secondly, the task force decided that the restriction should remain on
the lake for 24 hours after it drops below 882.5. That’s a little different than Lotus Lake,
because as you know we have a 3 day. And notification is very much the same. Signs posted at
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
8
the access. Using the Clean Water hotline and the web site, cable channel 8 and e-mails to the
known representatives around the lake. Staff, we agreed with the 882.5, that elevation as a good
starting point. With the limited data that we had, we feel that’s a very good starting point. As
far as the delay, we feel that a 48 hour would be the bare minimum that staff could recommend,
just to create a buffer for water events like, let the lake draw down so if we get a small rain
event, we’re not bouncing back and forth between slow no wake and non-slow no wake. We
also agree with the notice recommendations. We have a lot of tools and I think we’re using all
the tools we can to get the word out. Looking at the chart here, the maroon line, kind of the
middle one, right below the yellow line is kind of the proposed lake level elevation. That takes
care of the two peaks. Big one in 2001 as well as the one in 2005. There’s a big gap of data that
seems to be missing. The watershed district really was only able to provide me with 2005 and
2000 basically historic data back up until 2001. Zooming in on the 2005 events, which kind of
drove the automatic slow no wake ordinance, you can see that we’ve got that one main event that
we only really got one point so we don’t know if that’s as high as it got or if it was coming back
down when they collected that point, but we do see that spike there. Additional task force
recommendations. They do want to re-evaluate the elevation that’s chosen this fall after we have
collected some data to see if that is a good elevation to have that where it’s at. Adjusting it up or
down according to whatever the data says. They’ve also suggested that after we set the lake
gauge, that it appeared to be 3 inches lower than we had anticipated standing on the shore, so if
council were to choose to revise that elevation, that would be reflected at the 882.75 which is the
3 inches above 882.5. So you know same with Lotus Lake, upon approval of the ordinance it
will be sent to DNR for final approval. DNR has up to 120 days to approve but once it’s
published and approved by the DNR, the ordinance will become active. So staff recommends
City Council solicit public comment during a public hearing on the proposed ordinance
amendment and amend city code to read, as written in the staff report, and at this time I’ll answer
any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Questions? What was that last point you mentioned about 3 inches and
adjustment?
Don Asleson: After the task force meetings were complete, there was a couple task force
members that suggested that the 882.5 elevation, after we had the lake gauge set was 3 inches
lower than they had anticipated being when they were standing on shore. In task force
discussions, I think generally all members agreed that the starting elevation should be
somewhere between 882 and 883.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Don Asleson: So if it’s 3 inches as a starting elevation, I don’t think it’s a big hang-up, at least
from a staff perspective.
Mayor Furlong: But didn’t they determine that 882 to 883 based upon other landmarks around
the lake?
Don Asleson: Right. And that’s still below those landmarks. As far as the sanitary sewer was
the landmarks that we used.
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
9
Mayor Furlong: The 883 would be, or the 882 ½?
Don Asleson: Yeah, it was actually 882 ½ . During discussions 882 was considered the low
side…to start at and 883 was considered too high. So during discussions we split right down the
middle and said let’s go with 882 ½.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so the gauge though, once it’s properly set will give us a better, more
accurate reading going forward. Alright, thank you. Any other questions? Okay. At this point
then, absent any questions, I will open up the public hearing and invite all interested parties and
guests to come forward and address the council on this matter and comment upon the task force
recommendations. Nobody?
Ken Wencl: Ken Wencl, Lake Susan. All I have to say is that Don did a fantastic job leading
this group of people. Five headstrong guys you know and that kind of stuff, but he did a great
job. Thanks Don.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Thank you Ken. Anyone else? Without objection then we’ll close
the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion. Must be nearing the end of the
high school schedule. Are we that close to summer vacation?
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Berg won’t pass you unless you get this meeting in.
Mayor Furlong: Make sure everyone gets an agenda and notes their attendance. Bring it back to
the point at hand. Council discussion of the proposed no wake ordinance for Lake Susan and the
task force and staff’s recommendation. Thoughts. Comments.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor I just wonder, as we did the Lake Lotus one 2 weeks ago,
why we would do this at 24 versus the 72 that we did so, and Don any objection? Does it drain
faster or is there some.
Don Asleson: Generally it was determined that the lake drains faster than Lotus Lake and that
kind of came from the residents who lived around the lake to visually see it. Since we don’t have
the data, just generally they said that it drains faster than Lotus Lake and they experienced, it
only takes a day or two to reasonably drop to a level below what would be considered an extreme
at water.
Councilman Lundquist: From your chart it looked like there was only one point in the last.
Don Asleson: It’s only one point a month so it’s tough to derive anything from that.
Councilman Lundquist: So would your, from a staff perspective, as we looked to enforce the
ordinance like this, I mean staff’s recommendation is 48 hours whereas we have 72 in the other
one. Would it be advantageous to just leave it at 72 across the board or being sensitive to the
fact that we want residents to be able to use the lakes when they can, but the occurrences of the
time when this will happen, is it worth having, you know throwing the dart board, the dart board
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
10
to each lake has it’s own time limit. Would it be better to just go 72 hours across the board and
call it good or? Maybe that’s a rhetorical question.
Don Asleson: Well I think because it drains faster, they have merit to what they’re asking for.
However I think at the same time we did suggest to the task force that you know, 3 days would
be the best because I think the concern is to, in addition to not creating confusion but if a no
wake happens on a Friday, not saying it will, but there may not be anybody around on the
weekend to remove the signs and everything and change all the posting until a Monday morning,
and so I think that by doing a 48 hours at least, it gives til Monday morning to pull that sign.
Councilman Lundquist: Well maybe a better question is, hypothetically if we have a rain event
that causes Lotus Lake to be high, or Lake Susan to be high, what’s the chances that both of
them are going to be over that mark at the same time?
Don Asleson: Probably pretty good.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: So is your thought Councilman Lundquist to err on the side of consistency?
Councilman Lundquist: I think I would just say, for ease of enforcement and consistency that we
go 72 hours across the board. I mean understanding that one is contrasting the other, but I think
what we’ve seen across these events is that they happen very infrequently and it’s, you know I
don’t want to keep people off the lakes any more than they have to be, but it just seems like it
would be, you’d need kind of a cheat sheet. This lake’s 24 hours. This lake’s 72 hours. This
lake’s 48 hours. We’re going to have a hard enough time I think enforcing the ordinance as it is
at 72 hours and if we start finagling the time, it may be easier to just hit it at 72.
Mayor Furlong: Any thoughts? Comments.
Ken Wencl: May I address?
Mayor Furlong: If we, I’d prefer not to Ken, only because we want to kind of keep the
discussion going. Unless other council would like to hear it. Let’s hear the thoughts here first.
Councilman Peterson: I think this is…to Councilman Lundquist’s point…I think 72…a
reasonable number to use. We haven’t been able to discern which, how much faster does the
lake go down. We don’t know that. I think we’ve also kind of discussed the fact that we might
bring this back…
Mayor Furlong: From an implementation standpoint. Councilwoman Tjornhom, thoughts?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: …get implemented and during major rain events, it will be posted on
a web site, is that correct? And people e-mail about this no wake…so each individual will be
notified, is that correct? That is on the lake?
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
11
Don Asleson: Yeah, I believe last year the way we did it, we put it on the web site. I’m not sure
if we used the web site but we did use the Clean Water Hotline, and one of the messages was
when it was anticipated to drop below so you know, all those.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And each lake would be listed individually?
Don Asleson: Right. Right, because they have different elevations.
Mayor Furlong: So I guess one would imagine, hypothetically if both of the two lakes that
we’ve discussed, Lotus Lake and Lake Susan go up and exceed the elevation where the
automatic no wake goes into effect, we might expect Lake Susan to come off earlier, if it does
indeed drain faster. But regardless, I think part of what I’m hearing as far as implementation and
ease of implementation as well. Ease of enforcement. Any other thoughts Councilwoman
Tjornhom or?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I guess I hate to keep people off the lake if they don’t have to be off
the lake. Because we don’t have that many days to be on it frankly. And I think if they did post
it on the web site and there’s a hotline, I think people are going to call…call and find out what’s
going on if the notice says 72 hours or it says 24 hours, you know they will have been notified to
that. So I don’t know if it would be a lot of lake jumping where they would say well why is it 24
hours here and why is it 72 hours here? I think people are intelligent enough to investigate what
they want…and follow those rules.
Mayor Furlong: I think from a practical standpoint, it will be a notification. Either there will be
a no wake existing on the lake or there won’t be. There’ll be a sign up at the landing or other
notice, and what we’re saying is when does that, when does that emergency ordinance come off
is really the issue.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And I’m assuming on the sign too it would say 24 hours.
Mayor Furlong: I guess my assumption is, there’s a no wake period until such time as the
criteria meets and the lake comes off. And if that’s the case, then it’s going to be a question for
staff to manage whether it’s 48 here, 24. I agree with Councilman Lundquist in trying to remove
variability in the ordinance. I mean that’s the thing we need to do. The question here is where
do we strike a balance. Given the lack of data that we have, it’s difficult I think to go down to
the task force recommendation one day and my concern there is just from a practical standpoint,
is to try to eliminate the situation where no wake is coming on and going off. Coming on and
going off and that’s what this whole purpose is to give it more time for the lake to settle so that
when it does come off, we’re reducing the probability that it’s going to go back on real quickly
with the next light rain storm. If there’s another heavy one, that may happen but just a normal,
normal rain over the evening or through the day would be, what we want to do is avoid it
bouncing back up and down. I’d be comfortable with the 48 or the 72. Trying to find a balance I
think given the lack of data and I would certainly go with the 72 if the council also wanted to put
that…to reconvene in a year. Barring an event though, which may not happen this year, all
we’re going to be able to look at then is data and probably re-evaluate whether the high water
mark point is correct. If we have an event, not that we’re hoping for that, but if we have that,
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
12
that might give us, the task force more information to evaluate how quickly it came down and
then stayed down. But even then it’s going to be one event. Most likely or two, so I think I’d go
with the 48, or the 72. I wouldn’t want to go to the 24 right now given lack of information. But
I think that does provide a fair balance with what we’re trying to do and with the hope and
expectation that at the 82 ½, 882 ½, it’s going to be a roller event that triggers it as opposed to a
normal event. So Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: Following one more question for staff. From your perspective, would it
be easier to administer with the same timeframe or would it be better for two different?
Don Asleson: I think having the same would be easier. However I think the task force, we did
do them separately so they could develop their own recommendations so, we did do those two
separate meetings. We did Lotus Lake separately from Lake Susan so that we could
accommodate the two different lake users.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. I agree with Don on that. Whenever you can stay
consistent, it’s going to be easier for staff to implement because if we have a major event, you
know somebody’s going to pull out one of the ordinances. Take a look at it. We may be all
gone you know down the line and they’re going to assume they’re all the same so, you’re going
to have that potential problem down the line and so it’s a good point to bring up and you do have
that potential of making a mistake down the line. But you’re still going to have to monitor each
of the lake levels and they’re all going to come on and off at different times so somebody is
going to have to go out and check these things. The process that we used, we kind of made it
lake friendly and let them kind of establish their own rules, recommendations on what they think
is appropriate for their areas. And I think soils are also an issue. The way Lotus Lake is made
up, you may want 3 days just to allow the soil to dry out as the lake level comes down. The
different banking in that area versus Susan which is a little more flat. So that’s also another
factor to look at.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Do we have any guidelines for Lake Ann?
Don Asleson: Not at this time because.
Councilman Lundquist: There’s no wake at Lake Ann anyway.
Todd Gerhardt: The two lakes that are most concerned in the community are Susan and Lotus. I
think we’re going to look at Riley at some point down the line also. We’ve had a couple
occasions down there where high water has been an issue.
Mayor Furlong: And if we pursued something on Lake Riley, a couple things. One, we’d
coordinate that with the City of Eden Prairie. And two, the Watershed District currently is
working on a project with regard to increasing the capacity at the outlet of that lake which, …to
wait until that’s done and we can see the effects of that before we try to pursue anything there.
So I guess the question here before us tonight, I mean everything that the task force did, I mean
that’s excellent. Get enough data, you go out and observe and I appreciate that and the time that
they spent doing that. I think the real issue here is, what I’m hearing, I haven’t heard any issue
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
13
with the task force recommendation, the 882 ½. I think that’s reasonable for reasons stated. I
guess it’s just a question of how long after once that event occurs, how long after it drops below
that, do we want to keep the no wake in place for purposes to avoid it jumping back in and for all
the other reasons in terms of letting the system settle back out and that so.
Councilman Peterson: From a practical standpoint, if we had next month…rain, are we not
going to be out measuring anyway…and pull off the signs after 24 hours if we want, right?
Kate Aanenson: Yep.
Councilman Peterson: If we saw…in 4 days and the other in 22 hours…
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor I would move that we, are we in a public hearing?
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, the public hearing’s been closed.
Councilman Lundquist: I would move that we approve the change in ordinance per staff and
task force recommendation with the modification of 72 hours before this comes, the no wake
comes off. Pending further review as scheduled in a year.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council
approve the ordinance amendment including the statement, watercraft utilized by resource
management, emergency and enforcement personnel acting in the performance of their
assigned duties shall be exempt from the provision of this ordinance, and amend City Code
to read as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 6-49 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended
to include the changes listed in bold to read as follows:
“Sec. 6-49. Slow--No wake areas.
(1) No person shall operate a watercraft in any marked slow--no wake areas in excess of slow--
no wake speed. Slow--no wake areas shall be marked in accordance with the applicable
regulations of the state department of natural resources. The location and boundaries of each
slow--no wake area established are shown on that certain map entitled Water Surface Use Zoning
Map of Chanhassen dated July 11, 1983, on file in the city hall. The map and all notations,
references and data thereon are hereby incorporated by reference into this article and shall have
the same force and effect as if fully set forth and described herein.
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
14
(2) Emergency slow-no wake areas may be established by resolution of the city council and shall
be marked in accordance with the appropriate regulations of the state department of natural
resources and posted at all public accesses.
(3) Special Slow-No Wake Restrictions
(a) Lotus Lake:
All persons shall operate watercraft at a slow-no wake speed on Lotus Lake whenever the
water elevation exceeds the 100-year predicted level for Lotus Lake of 896.8 MSL as set
forth in the 1994 Surface Water Management Plan. The slow-no wake surface zoning shall
remain in place until the water drops below the 100-year predicted level of 896.8 MSL for 3
consecutive days. Upon the placement of a slow-no wake restriction, notice will be given:
1. On a sign posted at the public access.
2. On the City of Chanhassen Web Page.
3. On the City of Chanhassen Clean Water Hotline.
4. On the Community Cable Access Channel.
5. In an e-mail format to known representatives on Lotus Lake.
6. To the Carver County Sheriffs Department.
7. To the public by other appropriate means determined by Council. ”
(b) Lake Susan:
All persons shall operate watercraft at a slow-no wake speed on Lake Susan whenever the
water elevation exceeds 882.5. The slow-no wake surface zoning will remain in place
until the water level drops below 882.5 for 72 hours. Upon placement of a slow-no wake
restriction, notice will be given:
1. On a sign posted at the public access.
2. On the City of Chanhassen Web Page.
3. On the City of Chanhassen Water Hotline.
4. On the Community Cable Access Channel.
5. In an e-mail format to known representatives on Lake Susan.
6. To the Carver County Sheriff’s Department.
7. To the public by other appropriate means determined by Council.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone, and for those serving on the task force, we do appreciate
all your efforts and we will reconvene the task force after this season for sure. Within about a
year after we get some more data to review. Get some better information to help them with, if
they want to revise their recommendation so very good. Thank you.
AWARD OF BIDS: 2006 G.O. IMPROVEMENT BONDS.
Greg Sticha: Good evening Mayor, council members. If you recall at our May 8th council
meeting the City Council authorized staff to issue a $6.6 million and general obligation
improvement bonds related to the development of the 2005 MUSA area. In connection with that
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
15
staff, along with our financial advisors, Ehlers and Associates this last week conducted a
conference call with Standard and Poors to review our current bond rating. After that conference
call and review of our financial position, Standard and Poors reaffirmed our current bond rating
of AA- this week. This last week. Today the actual bond sale took place and with that, what I
will do is let Mark Ruff and Bruce DeJong from Ehlers and Associates go over the details of the
bond sale.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Mark Ruff: Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Mark Ruff with Ehlers and Associates. I’m
going to speak first about the bond rating and results and then ask Bruce to talk about
specifically what the bids were. First of all, a reminder that a rating agency is an arbitrary third
party that’s really only interest is to look out for the interest of bond holders and tell bond
holders that, what point in time they have to assess risk on different cities, and we have cities in
Minnesota that are rated as high as AAA and some that are rated below investment grade and
even though we have never had defaults since the 1930’s on a general obligation bond, there is a
great deal of analysis that goes into these bond ratings and so I’m going to highlight a couple of
things out of the bond rating report because I think it is important for council and the public as a
whole to know how this arbitrary third party does view the city. Specifically Standard and Poors
had several good things to say about the city, and I want to highlight a couple of them. One is
financial management and liquidity are good. By liquidity they mean that, and they highlight the
formal reserve policy to keep general fund balance to at least 50% of the next property tax
revenue and state aid for cash flow purposes. So it’s clearly very important for them to have that
cash flow, as well as with the, they very much highlighted was the 15% catastrophic reserve.
Rating agencies are all about, as I said, making sure that bond holders get paid on a timely basis
and a good rating is dependent upon the amount of cash that you have in case there was some
crisis that would occur such as, whether it be a natural event or whether it be a legislative event
that could be termed as catastrophic for the city. And so I think that’s one thing that’s clear too
is that, is to. No political statement whatsoever there. ...the rating agency highlighted was the
updates annually to the city’s financial forecast. The rating agencies like the idea that you’re
looking out several years and not just looking at the next year for budgetary purposes. That
includes the 5 year Capital Improvement Plan, which is also something that they highlight as a
fact that as a rolling, in other words you’re not, you’re doing this every year even though you’re
planning out 5 years. You’re not waiting every 5 years to look and see what your capital
improvements are that are necessary. Other issues that they raised that I want to add some
clarification to. One is, they talk about a high per capita debt burden but I want to highlight to
the council that is when rating agencies look at debt burdens, they look at the county, the school
district and the city all combined, and as was highlighted in this report, the vast majority, over
70% of the debt burden comes from places other than the city, and so, when you just remove the
city portion, it’s again very small and very much on par and actually below most Minnesota
cities. The other thing that they would also do is compare you nationally, and clearly not as
many cities across the nation have the ability as we do in Minnesota of issuing bonds without
referendums and such and for cities and so that’s a key factor. And the last thing is, is that they
very much do highlight the effective management and I think your long term staff and I just want
to compliment Todd and Kate and Paul and Justin, as well as Greg in the work that they do. That
really does make a difference for the rating agencies is, and it’s not just the staff but the council
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
16
and the direction that you set and your consistency in that really is recognized by the rating
agency. So again I applaud with having a AA rating. It’s not an easy thing to do. We have
many communities that have striven for that for a number of years and still haven’t achieved it
so, again congratulations to you on that and then we’ll talk specifically about the bond sale.
Bruce DeJong: Mayor Furlong, council members. Bruce DeJong with Ehlers and Associates.
We had a very nice sale today. We were not expecting quite as many bidders as we actually
received because we were fairly aggressive in structuring this bond issue. With the uncertainty
of the speed and timing of the prepayments, we put in a call date that’s probably earlier than
what most of the bidders are expecting to see, so we have this structured for 7 years of principle
payments beginning in 2008 and we have a call feature in the bottom that allows you to call the
bonds that are due on February 1st of 2010 on February 1st of 2009. So pretty aggressive but
because this is being paid for almost entirely by the special assessments, we’re expecting that
that won’t cause any problems. And we actually received 6 bids today. The low bidder was
Griffin, Kubik, Stephens, and Thompson from Chicago, Illinois with a true interest cost of 3.93%
and the cover bid, the next lowest bid was only 3/100th’s of a percent higher than that so pretty
heated bidding for these bonds. The rating as we indicated, as Mark indicated is a AA- from
Standard and Poors, but these bonds will carry a AAA rating because Griffin and Kubik decided
to purchase insurance from Excel Capital Assurance, so they can sell those as AAA bonds out in
the market and that makes that easier for people to purchase. In this case we had fairly
significantly lower interest rates than we had projected. We were on a fairly strong uptake on
interest rates but with the stock market starting to go down, we also saw a little bit of that in the
bond markets so interest rates were pretty aggressive. We had projected 3.95 to 4.4 percent here
on your pre-sale report and the actual results of this sale ended up being 3.75 to 3.8 so almost a
flat interest rate there which led to some significant savings. Because you’ve had a, you know a
fairly significant change order already on this project, staff requested that we put those savings
into the bond issue for the capital project account so that we have those available if there are
other change orders. That was about $25,000 and the final resolution will reflect that change if
those proceeds weren’t there. So the principle amount did not change at all. Still $6,640,000
worth of bond proceeds. The discount allowance actually went down some from what we had
projected, so they’re not getting a lot to market these bonds. And the interest rate, significant
savings of $146,000 over the life of the issue. And the closing date is projected to be June 13th
so that’s when you’ll actually see the money in the checking account. Greg will be a happy man
that day, and we just ask that you award the bids to Griffin, Kubik, Stephens and Thompson and
adopt the resolution providing for the issuance and sale of $6,640,000 General Obligation
Improvement Bond, Series 2006A.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Bruce DeJong: Any questions?
Mayor Furlong: Questions. No? Very good, thank you. Appreciate your efforts. Any
discussion on this. It’s good news all around it seems. With the interest rate. The reaffirming
by Standard and Poors of our AA rating. All and all good news so it’s nice to see the benefits of
some of the hard work of so many people. Is there a motion to adopt the request of council
action?
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
17
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve as published.
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion?
Resolution #2006-38: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that
the City Council award the bids to Griffin, Kubik, Stephens and Thompson and adopt the
resolution providing for the issuance and sale of $6,640,000 General Obligation
Improvement Bond, Series 2006A.
LIBERTY AT CREEKSIDE, 1500 PIONEER TRAIL, 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 ALTERATION WITHIN
THE FLOOD PLAIN AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY
DISTRICT.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor. This item was tabled on your April 24th meeting. Since that
time the staff has been working with Town and Country Homes to revise the site plan and the
building elevations. The direction you gave staff and the applicant was to look at the views
specifically from 212 and try to differentiate this project from the project that was recently
approved on the Audubon Road side. So in working with the developer, they did introduce, on
the previous plan had, both plans have 146 units. The previous plan had 29 structures. This plan
has 37, and that was accomplished by adding the twin homes and breaking apart the fourplexes.
This is a preliminary plat. There are motions starting on page 17 of your staff report. I just want
to clarify, you will see this project again as that moves forward with the conditions that are
addressed. I would like to turn it over to the developer and to go specifically through the
changes that they made and the color scheme, so with that again as I indicated, staff is
recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions for staff? If not, I see the developer here. Good evening.
Shawn Siders: Good evening Mayor Furlong, council members. My name is Shawn Siders with
Town and Country Homes. A K. Hovnanian Company. With me this evening is Kevin Clark
our Vice President of Land Development. We’d like to thank you for working with and
challenging us to enhance the Liberty at Creekside community so it is a source of pride for the
residents of Chanhassen now and in the future. I’d like to take a few moments to provide a brief
overview of the modifications we have made to the plan since we last met with you. Provide
additional information regarding the architecture that will be used on the Premiere Homes
throughout the neighborhood and also provide a perspective from the 212 corridor once it is
constructed. Since we met with you in April we have eliminated actually the 7 six unit Premiere
buildings that were proposed for the site. In their place we have introduced 11 twin home
Premiere buildings creating additional breaks in the buildings which will provide more view
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
18
sheds throughout the neighborhood. On the south section of the neighborhood we’ve been able
to introduce a 4-2-4 home configuration of the Premiere units to create a more varied streetscape,
and I don’t know if you can see this or not but the twin homes are all I believe in red. Because of
the introduction of the twin home units we have also been able to break up the visitor parking
spaces within private street C which is a private street on the north edge of the property. The
parking areas are now dispersed on either end of the street and will allow for parking choices
closer to the residents and their visitors on both ends of the street. The Premiere homes offer
three distinct architectural styles which will be used in both the twin homes as well as the four
unit buildings. The mission style has brick on four sides of the building. In addition to the four
sided brick, these homes have a mixture of hip roofs on the front and rear that provide additional
architectural detail. As is the case with all of our homes within this community, the varied color
treatments on the front and rear ensure a varied streetscape and prevent monotony and we
provided a rendering of both the twin and the four unit. The Victoria style Premiere homes have
varied gables with eyebrows to break up the roof lines. The batting board pattern on the rears of
these homes further distinguishes the Victorian home from the others, while the trim placement
and color treatments enhance each unit. The farmhouse style Premiere homes offer stone
treatments on the fronts and the sides, the wrap around porch distinguishes these homes from the
others, while the gabled features on the rears of the homes break up the roof lines. We
understand the need to create a varied streetscape within the community. In addition to the
modified side layout, we will develop the site using all six color schemes on the Premiere homes.
Because the number of Concord units within the development are limited, we would suggest
dedicating three color schemes for those homes. And then lastly, during our previous
discussions there have been many questions regarding the views of this community from the 212
corridor. We’ve taken this opportunity to provide a perspective from the closest point of the
development to the 212 corridor. The home shown in this rendering are east of private street D,
and are approximately 250 feet away from 212. As you can see the varied architectural styles
and color treatments in addition to the extensive landscaping will ensure the views from 212 are
visually appealing. I would like to take this opportunity to thank yourselves and city staff for
your collective vision to challenge Town and Country Homes to create a distinct community.
Liberty at Creekside will be a valuable asset to the community and we are proud to be a partner
with the City of Chanhassen. I’d be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Siders? No? Very good. Thank you.
Anything else for staff at this point? If not, council discussion. Thoughts or comments.
Councilman Lundquist: I’ll go first. I like the changes and modifications that have been made to
the proposal. I think that the developer heard our feedback from before. Still you know, I still
have, share some or have some concerns about things like the road access and the access to the
park and some of that stuff from the meeting a month ago hasn’t changed. But as I said, a month
ago I mean those aren’t deal breakers for me. I mean they’re less than perfect things but we’re
going to have that in most developments. We’re not going to have everything so, we talked a
little bit 2 weeks ago about impact of one development on another and I think that as we look at
the road that goes to the northwest, obviously meets up with the one through there and so then
that, we had the discussion a month ago. Do we go straight south or do we go northeast from
there and again you know we’ve heard all the different discussions so that said, the northeast
seems to be the least intrusive. Maybe not ideal but nothing in the development right now that is
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
19
jumping up and down for me to say no so I think I’ll give the developer credit for breaking up
the barracks look and 600 of the same units, like we talked about a month ago and comfortable
with where we’re at now. Knowing that it’s not perfect but I think we’re in a pretty good spot
right now.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know I just would like to thank Town and Country for what you
did. I think I know I’ve probably been your worst nightmare…but I just really, I love what you
did. The changes that you made. The architectural changes that you made. The reconfiguration.
The different styles that you’ve used as far as housing type… I just want to thank you for that
because it’s going to be a good asset to our community right now. And I guess that’s all…
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: …we have a better product…something about the sheer scope of Phase I
and Phase II. You can’t not because…so that’s why I think we need to work harder to make it
both visually attractive from 312 and…so it’s not exactly the same as Phase I. That was my
goal…few weeks ago, few months ago…the changes and reinforce the fact that they listened…
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I think my thoughts are similar to what has been expressed by the
council. This council challenged Mr. Clark and Siders, your development with Liberty on Bluff
Creek to give us something better. Show us something more. I think we pushed to the limit
there in terms of that development, and I see here where we’ve done even better and each
development that goes in, I’ve always kind of used as a gauge, if this becomes the one on your
marketing brochure, then we’ve got that you know. Then we’ve done enough. If you’ve got
somebody else’s on there…maybe there’s more we can do. I think overall, in all seriousness, I
appreciate your professionalism in working with the staff. Listening to the council. Working
with the Planning Commission to try to find something that works for you but also works for us
and that makes a big difference. Others might have dug in their heels and said, no. This is it.
I’m not going to do anything more. You didn’t do that and we appreciate that and I think
because of that, where a few weeks ago had we put it to a vote, it probably wouldn’t have gone
the way you wanted it to. Tonight it will and I think the ability to work together to get that done
is a credit to you, a credit to our staff and others that were involved so appreciate everything
you’ve done to do that. And I do like this layout, this site plan better. Plain and simple and the
inclusion of the twin homes to break up, create more open space inbetween. The elimination of
some of the larger six unit homes. Spreading out the parking. Dispersing the different types of
products around the development. Overall make this a nicer neighborhood for those that live
there and others who drive by so, appreciate all your efforts there. With that I guess I would ask
if there are other comments or additional comments, that’d be fine. Otherwise is there a motion?
We’ve got a number of motions here I believe, is that right Kate?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve motions A, B, C and D with
the published conditions and findings of fact in the staff report.
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
20
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and the one question I’ll ask Ms. Aanenson, just to be sure with
regard to the conditions. Were they updated with all the comments made at the last meeting so
those are…
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. They’ve been modified based on these recent elevations too.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so the revised site plan as well as the recommendations from council at
our last meeting?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Are all included. Thank you. Any other discussions or questions?
Clarifications?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves the Rezoning of the property located within the Liberty at Creekside
development with the exception of Outlot A and the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary
Zone (Outlot D), from Agricultural Estate District (A-2) to Planned Unit Development -
Residential (PUD - R) incorporating the development design standards contained within this
staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves the Preliminary Plat for Liberty at Creekside, plans prepared by Westwood
Professional Services, Inc., dated June 17, 2005, revised February 3, 2006, revised April 6,
2006, which may also be revised to incorporate lots around each dwelling unit, subject to
the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall prepare a noise analysis for noise that will be generated by traffic on
Highway 312. The analysis shall identify appropriate noise mitigation measures to meet
noise standards for residential homes as specified by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, which shall be implemented by the developer.
2. The developer shall provide a design plan that shows the color and architectural detail for
each unit on the site for final plat approval.
3. The developer shall pay $6,285.00 as their portion of the 2005 AUAR.
4. The developer shall revise the plat to incorporate the twin home units as shown on the
plan dated May 8, 2006.
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
21
5. The developer shall establish a separate outlot(s) for the land within the Bluff Creek
Overlay District primary zone.
6. Dedication of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone shall be made to the city or a
conservation easement shall be established over said outlot(s).
7. The wetland mitigation for Liberty on Bluff Creek shall be complete within one year of
the authorized fill on Liberty on Bluff Creek.
8. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420) and the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit for
Liberty on Bluff Creek.
9. Wetland buffers 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around Wetlands A and B and the constructed 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 must pay the City $20 per sign. All
structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
10. Due to a secondary access through the MnDOT right-of-way (ROW) to the north in the
northeast portion of the property, the applicant will be responsible for creating or
securing sufficient wetland mitigation for MnDOT that will meet all conditions imposed
on MnDOT and will be responsible for any and all fees associated with the redesign of
the wetland mitigation areas in MnDOT ROW. Final plat approval shall not be granted
until the wetland mitigation plan has been received and approved by the City and
MnDOT.
11. The plans shall be revised to show bluff areas (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and
a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe). All bluff areas shall be preserved. In
addition, all structures shall maintain a minimum 30-foot setback from the bluff and no
grading shall occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20
feet from the top of a bluff).
12. 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.
13. The applicant shall submit a plan for the revegetation of the farmed area south of Bluff
Creek that incorporates native plants and is consistent with the City’s Bluff Creek Natural
Resources Management Plan Appendix C. Special attention shall be paid to areas with
steep slopes (greater than 3:1).
14. Alterations appear to be proposed within a mapped FEMA unnumbered A Zone (100-
year floodplain). In lieu of a LOMA, the applicant shall obtain a conditional use permit
for alterations within the floodplain.
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
22
15. A storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) shall be developed for the
development and shall be completed prior to applying for the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit.
16. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) shall be provided for the proposed pond. The EOF
could consist of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf re-enforcement mat (a permanent
erosion control blanket). A typical detail shall be included the plan.
17. The plans shall show paths of access to both wetland mitigation areas as well as all
erosion controls and restoration practices.
18. 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.
19. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as-needed.
20. The applicant shall provide details for curbside inlet control. Wimco-type inlet controls
shall be used and installed within 24 hours of installation.
21. Typical building lot controls shall be shown on the plan. These controls may include
perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street sweeping, inlet control and
temporary mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the certificates of occupancy.
22. The proposed storm water pond shall be used as a temporary sediment basin during mass
grading. The pond shall be excavated prior to disturbing up gradient areas. Diversion
berms or ditches may be needed to divert water to the pond and a temporary pond outlet
is needed. The outlet could be a temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. A detail
for the temporary pond outlet shall be included in the plans. Additional temporary
sediment basins may be needed or an alternate location may be needed depending upon
site conditions during rough grading.
23. The ultimate outlet from the site to Bluff Creek shall be turned to the southeast to align
with the creek.
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
23
24. Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) should be provided over all
existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water
ponds. An easement adequate to provide access to the pond for maintenance purposes is
needed and should be shown on the plan.
25. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording, is $266,850.
26. 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 Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of
Transportation) and comply with their conditions of approval.
27. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated
for preservation and/or at the edge of proposed grading limits.
28. Silt fence or tree protection fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading around both
wetland mitigation areas.
29. A fenced access road will lead from the east mitigation area to the west mitigation area.
This will be the only access allowed to the western site. Fencing shall be placed on either
side of the access lane. After construction, the access lane shall be restored according to
the ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’.
30. A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to
construction.
31. No burning permits shall be issued for tree removal. All trees removed on site shall be
chipped and used on site or hauled off.
32. The applicant shall implement the ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ dated
9/29/05 for restoration within the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
33. The applicant shall submit a full sized ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ with
final plat submittal.
34. A turf plan shall be submitted to the city indicating the location of sod and seeding areas.
35. The developer shall pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final plat
approval in lieu of parkland dedication.
36. The applicant shall provide all design, engineering, construction and testing services
required of the “Bluff Creek Trail.” All construction documents shall be delivered to the
Park and Recreation Director for approval prior to the initiation of each phase of
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
24
construction. The trail shall be ten feet in width, surfaced with bituminous material and
constructed to meet all City specifications. The applicant shall be reimbursed for the
actual cost of construction materials for the Bluff Creek Trail. This reimbursement
payment shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and receipt of an
invoice documenting the actual costs for the construction materials utilized in its
construction.
37. The developer shall provide a sidewalk connection to the Bluff Creek trail through
private street B.
38. The developer must coordinate the location and elevation of the western street connection
with the Pioneer Pass (Peterson Property) and Degler property developments to the west
and northwest.
39. The height and length of retaining walls must be reduced to the maximum extent
possible.
40. The top and bottom of wall elevations must be shown on the final grading plan.
41. A building permit is required for any retaining walls four feet high or taller. These walls
must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
42. The style of home and lowest floor elevation must be noted on the grading plan.
43. Typical sections for each housing style must be shown on the final grading plan.
44. The final grading plan must be 50 scale so that staff can complete a full review of the
proposed grading.
45. The developer must verify the invert elevation of the sanitary sewer connection that will
be constructed with the 2005 MUSA Improvement Project.
46. The development may not proceed until the Phase II 2005 MUSA utility extension
project has been awarded.
47. Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges and the SAC
charge at the time of building permit. The 2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575.00/unit
for sanitary sewer and $4,078.00/unit for watermain. The SAC charge is $1,625.00/unit.
Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel
at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of
SAC units assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit
issuance.
48. The northern access (currently shown to the Fox property) must be shifted to the east to
the MNDOT right-of-way parcel. Prior to final plat approval, the developer must contact
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
25
the Fox family to coordinate the elevation of the northern street connection at their
property line.
49. The Arterial Collector Fee shall be paid with the final plat. The 2006 fee is
$2,400/developable acre.
50. The final plans must show the new orientation for Lots 13 and 14, Block 2.
51. The site plan and final grading plan must identify the proposed 10-foot wide bituminous
trail.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves Site Plan for 146 townhouses, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services,
Inc., dated June 17, 2005, revised February 3, 2006, revised April 6, 2006, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. The developer shall provide a design plan that shows the color and architectural detail for
each unit on the site for final plat approval.
3. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire-
resistive construction.
4. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
5. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either
be removed from site or chipped.
6. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire code Section
501.4.
7. A fire apparatus access road 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.
8. Fire apparatus access road and water supplies for fire protection is required to be
installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the
time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
26
9. 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.
10. Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
review and approval.
11. “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required on the private streets. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of sign. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire
Prevention Policy #06-1991.
12. Staff will work with the developer on materials, colors and diversity.
13. The developer shall incorporate the twin home units as proposed in the sketch plan dated
May 8, 2006.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves Conditional Use Permit for alterations within the flood plain and development
within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall implement the ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ dated
9/29/05 for restoration within the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
2. The applicant shall submit a full-sized ‘Preliminary Offsite Upland Planting Plan’ with
final plat submittal.
3. The wetland mitigation for Liberty on Bluff Creek shall be constructed prior to or
concurrent with wetland impacts on the Liberty on Bluff Creek project.
4. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420) and the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit for
Liberty on Bluff Creek.
5. Wetland buffers 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around Wetlands A and B and the constructed 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 must pay the City $20 per sign. All
structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
27
Kevin Clark: I just want to thank you mayor and council, and it really has truly been a joint
effort throughout this whole process. Both at Bluff Creek and here at Creekside and I guess
mostly we thank you for your patience with us. It seems like we’ve been…going to school on
this and I think we’ve benefited and we appreciate your input, your time spent with us and you
know your investment so we’re looking forward to moving forward.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and we look forward to your successful developments for our city.
Very good, thank you.
GALPIN CROSSING TWINHOMES, LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET
AND WEST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD, EPIC DEVELOPMENT XVI, LLC,
PLANNING CASE 06-13: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-
R), PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL CREATING 13 LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT
WITH A VARIANCE FOR A PRIVATE STREET AND MORE THAN 4 HOMES
ACCESSING A PRIVATE STREET; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. This item appeared before the Planning Commission on May 2nd.
They recommended, they took their motions separately. Voted 3 to 3 to, the motion was to
approve the rezoning. It was 3 to 3 so basically in effect that died. They also voted a negative 1
to 5 for the approval of the preliminary plat with the variances, and then also 1 to 5 against the
conditional use, so therefore they recommended denial and the findings of fact in your packet
reflect that motion for denial. What I’d like to do is take some time and go in your staff report is
the background, is take a few minutes and walk through the background of how this project came
about. And as you stated mayor, the subject site is located on West 78th. If you go in the
background and on page 3 of the staff report it talks about how this property got severed and that
was the creation of West 78th Street, severed the property into two parcels, and at that time sewer
and water was provided. Shortly thereafter in 2003, can you zoom out just a bit? Thank you.
The owner of the property, Mr. Pryzmus appeared before the, a conditional, or concept, excuse
me, concept approval for a plan and that was in 2003. That included the recreational fun center
and some town houses. Multi family on the north side and that included approximately 18.
There was a letter that was put out by the city at that time talking about kind of the concept had
not standing, so that sat for a while and then in December of 2005 a concept was brought
forward to the City Council. Maybe you can zoom in a little bit on that. So we’re looking at
again the entire PUD which included at that time office industrial or commercial, and then
residential on the north side. The council at that time gave conceptual approval but then based
on specific recommendations specifically regarding that retail study we completed, which to date
we haven’t gotten the final draft yet on that either so we haven’t given any standing on the retail
study and at a minimum, only twin homes be considered to be consistent on that north side. So
that was the marching orders that was given again when that appeared on the December 12th,
2005 conceptual approval. So with that to date the applicant has come forward with a twin home
plan. Just I’ll make another point. On this plan here there was shown 10. Then when it came in
it went to 12, and they came in requesting a PUD. The purpose of the PUD allows for the
flexibility in the ordinance. It also is a tool that we used before this property is in the overlay
district. If you look at the original plan that I showed you that had the 16 units on, all those units
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
28
were backed up against the creek itself and since we got the overlay district, we had that
buffer…and that’s what’s shown in green. The overlay district. Again in looking at the PUD, the
staff evaluates how that tool is used. Specifically in this case we’re looking at the green space
and the applicant to get that number of units, 12 we would have to do a private street. I just
wanted to show as an example, this blue line here would be, which is the private street. If you
went all the way up to the front of the houses, that’s the 50 foot setback so if you used a public
street, you’d actually would be back into the homes up in, approximately where the front door is
to get, that would be a 60 foot street. So if you used a public street, or certainly eliminate, it
pinches in. You’d be up against the setback line of the Bluff Creek. So in evaluating this, where
we are to date, the Planning Commission, if you looked at, as the staff went through these
exercises, looking at the different zoning applications and balancing the PUD. What benefits
was the city getting out of doing the PUD. Certainly there’s the preservation of green space.
When we looked at this overall PUD, when you go back to the original concept, one of the things
that we’ve always looked at is, and we’ve used the same application on the other side of the
street where we’ve preserved all this green space on the north side of West 78th and we’ve got
the impervious surface. So you had more hard cover. On the south side. This is one of the
applications we originally told the developer…and that preserves all that space on that, looking
across the view shed of the wetland. They chose to go forward with this application itself, so in
the staff report in the executive summary, what I’d like to do is just kind of walk through the
zoning options based on the fact that the Planning Commission did recommend denial of the
application. And obviously the first one is that you deny the application and that would be based
on the findings of fact and I know one of the questions that came up, because we spent 2 years
just talking about the project and most recently talking about architectural renderings. At this
point the applicant doesn’t know who the final builder is. To our knowledge they don’t know so
we don’t have, we did put design standards in there but we’re not tying it to a specific project but
to just sometimes unusual. And to be clear, and as city code, when you do a single family it
doesn’t require architectural guidelines and also in a traditional twin homes, but because this is a
PUD…request architectural standards and the staff did develop some but we don’t have a
specific product or project to look at these to tie it to. So that would be an issue, and then going
back to, if you wanted to look at this in a holistic sense, it’d be another issue. It talks about
whether that be considered green space for the other piece, or how that would be approved.
Then the other option that we put in there, again I’m on the second page of the executive
summary. It’d be approve subject to the staff report eliminating…so you actually include
architectural renderings but approve it the way it is. And then on C, would be to approve it for
just the 10 units. Not the 12, which would be eliminating 2 of the, spreading the units out…open
space. The property in the back of the subdivision is a traditional, what we call straight zoning.
10,000, each lot has to have 10,000 square feet. Again because this is a PUD, it’s clustered so
again if you put that public street in, which Vasserman has a public street, 60 foot right-of-way,
you’d certainly get significantly less units and how do you balance that, plus the appropriate,
based on the… So at a minimum the Planning Commission wanted less units and what zoning
application would apply for that. And then the other option would be to send it back to the
Planning Commission and let them review, and give you better direction on which ever way you
wanted to go on that. There isn’t, they’re at the 60 days, just…you have 120 days so there is
additional time to…45-50 days to evaluate that. The one concern I do have, if you remand it
back to the Planning Commission, they’ve got a full agenda on the second one in June, and then
the 4th of July is a Tuesday…so it doesn’t give a lot of time to try to meet that, if the Planning
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
29
Commission. I just want to point that out. If you did want to do that, then we would have to ask
for additional time…second meeting in June. So with that, if you had specific questions on the
project itself, I can go into more details…comments from the Planning Commission. And again
the findings of fact are in the staff report so I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Questions for Ms. Aanenson. Kate you mentioned different types of, …choose
my words correctly. Different types of zoning that will be available based upon the current
guiding. Looking in the staff report, single family residential, low density residential. R-4, or R
low and medium. Did we take a look at this site in terms of each of those types of zoning with
the guiding, and what would be available and would this meet any of those plans?
Kate Aanenson: I think in fairness, the fact that you’re pinched between the Galpin Boulevard
and the twin homes, I know we kind of felt the twin homes, it’s the application of twin home and
what allows you to get the most units.
Mayor Furlong: Are twin homes, the twin homes are allowed within one or all of these.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. It is, but so is single family for that matter. The difference is
the application and doing that PUD with a private street it does allow for more units. If you were
to do a straight 10,000 square foot lot with a public street, that would certainly eliminate some of
the units because you are required one more lot area per unit. But this takes the opportunity of
kind of spreading that green space around. And secondly, it requires more dedication of right-of-
way.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So it would be about, based upon the ordinance without the PUD there’d
be 8 units you think or 6 or?
Kate Aanenson: 6 to 8 maybe. Yeah, we laid this out this way. Again this incorporates a
private street so you could probably get 10 but if you use the public street, which is what
Vasserman did, so just to compare equal here, equal there. But again and the fact that it was
pinched.
Mayor Furlong: You’re saying there’s some reason to believe that a private street in this area.
Kate Aanenson: Well you’ve got a large public street here. Then to do another one, it creates a
lot of asphalt. But having said that, then it’s always the challenge of the trade of what did the
city get, and we don’t really know of the exact product yet. It’s a little bit more challenging.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. The other question that I think you addressed is that, when the twin
homes were presented and approved as a part of the concept plan, that was part of the concept
plan for the entire north and south parcels currently, correct?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. It is kind of a universal plan and the developer, they’re trying to put
something together that’s a little bit more challenged on that so we want to proceed with a
known quantity in their mind on the north side.
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
30
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? If not, is the
applicant here this evening? Good evening.
Perry Ryan: Good evening. Good evening Mayor Furlong and members of the council and staff.
Thank you Kate for going through that. I think Kate did a fine job of laying out all the facts.
This is just simply the graphic showing the overall as well as showing the twin homes on the
north side. The 12 units. What I guess I wanted to kind of go through a little bit here was, she
went through the history a little bit on there. We did gain concept approval from City Council on
December 12th. We went through at that, I believe there were 33 conditions that were
recommended in the letter we received from the city on December 13th. And we went through it
and as Kate pointed out, we were waiting for the market study. Our understanding was, that we
could move forward, that twin homes were at least conceptually agreed upon so we did move
forward. Submitted March 17th originally. Meeting all 33 of the conditions and just, she did
have, this is the concept plan. You can see the difference between the 10 units and the 12 units.
And I did want to do, if I can, was go through. We did move forward with the 12 units. It
wasn’t something that we’ve done. This overlay is doing, if we can zoom in just a little. Okay.
That’s fine. What this shows, and apparently one of the biggest challenges that the Planning
Commission was the number of units and we realized at the, it looks blurry because we’ve got
two overlays there so I just wanted to explain that. We didn’t understand that there was a
challenge with the number of units. We discussed with staff about going with planned unit
development. They gave us the 33 conditions as well as giving us some guidelines that may go
into the planned unit developed, as far as setbacks from West 78th Street. Setbacks from the west
side and all the particulars. What this is pointing out is, this lighter building here that’s kind of
shaded is the concept which was approved in late 2005. And the darker buildings are the…plans
which are conforming to the PUD standards as were set out in the staff report. In the May staff
report. What we wanted to point out, and again this is just kind of how we kind of went down
this road. As you can see on the concept PUD we have 3 buildings in this location almost
exactly as they were approved in the concept, and it’s quite clear what we did is we added this
building 11-12 and that was simply just by geometrics that we are able to accommodate the
concept plan. The concept plan didn’t have some of these setbacks in it. …photo on the wetland
as you can see where building 3-4 and building 5-6, and so basically from geometrics we are able
to accommodate this. We did look at the Vasserman Ridge project to the west. We looked at the
distances between these buildings and tried to do similarly the distances between these buildings
and there was room for one more building and that was simply the magic behind it being 12
units. As you can see, the view from the Vasserman Ridge neighborhood has, does not really
change from the approved concept plan. They wouldn’t really know that this building 11-12 is
in there. And then you go back to here, I’m looking on the overall layout. Again the area on the
cul-de-sac being the same as the concept. You know they’re still on…about 2 units per acre. It’s
12 units on 6 acres so we…substantial change. We’re certainly open. We went down the road
with staff. A good planned unit development on this parcel. We thought that was the direction.
I believe we’ve met all the conditions. There was additional conditions, they’ve got it up to 62
conditions and we’re comfortable with those conditions with the current layout so you know it’s
a matter of do we leave it as a planned development. Do you remove units 3-4. I believe the last
graphic that Kate had up was actually a graphic that we had given to Mr. Generous, do you want
to zoom in just a touch. This is the R-4 layout that we did actually, which meets the R-4
requirements except for the private drive. And as it points out, you know we are in a little bit of
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
31
a challenging situation. Now we are on West 78th Street. A street which does not allow direct
access to these units and so we’ve got a significant amount of street frontage that we cannot
access, which is really one of the main issues which is requiring us to do a private drive so with
that we’re simply looking for direction. Obviously we thought we were meeting all of the
directives which we received from staff. From City Council on the concept to build the 12 units.
It was something that we just did because we were able to do it and meet the guidelines. And so
this is, this is meeting the guidelines of the R-4 standards which is what the approval of
Vasserman Ridge was. We do have a couple different builders that are looking at this. The
architectural style would be very similar, almost exactly like what you see at Vasserman Ridge
kind of elevations. But that’s what we’re looking at and I’d be more than happy to provide that
as soon as we nail that down so. With that we’re just, we’re simply looking I guess for direction
on which way to zone it but I just wanted to go through how we kind of got to that point.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any questions for the applicant? What’s your, you had it
under your concept plan there, I think you had still the number on the south side of West 78th.
You still have the 5. I think that’s what you were pursuing. Is that what we had for that concept
or not, or did we reduce?
Perry Ryan: That was, when it came before the council staff was still looking for, staff was still
looking for, there were two kind of major things that staff was looking or recommended. And
one was the reduction in the amount of buildings. I don’t know what the exact total was. It
escapes me now. And the other one was meeting those setback requirements and this, which was
I think increasing one from…on the west side and the current layout does now meet all of those
setback requirements but we have not changed the number of buildings yet. We’re again kind of
waiting for that study to come back.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And there were traffic studies and everything else with that?
Perry Ryan: That’s been completed and submitted as well and I believe, correct me if I’m
wrong, I believe that shows that one of the things that this traffic doesn’t show the detailed plan
is that there’s a median in here and it does anticipate a right-in/right-out at this location.
Mayor Furlong: Out on Galpin?
Perry Ryan: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Is all the north and south of West 78th, Ms. Aanenson, is that all
guided the same?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Is it currently zoned agricultural?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: And what’s the guiding then?
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
32
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, low density residential, and again what I wanted to point out was how we
got to this point of looking at commercial to begin with is when Mr. Pryzmus wanted that
concept for the recreation center. It seemed to lend some credence that there’s carte blanc could
be used for commercial. And it was our understanding that was kind of a continuation of the
golf course, kind of that recreation sort of thing but that was really not the intent a long term use.
To go to something completely different, we felt we needed more information on that. So that’s
why we recommended against, as Mr. Ryan just pointed out, those conditions that really…
recommend reduce the number of building sites because it looks like kind of your traditional
commercial center.
Mayor Furlong: My recollection was that it was also, not commercial but office.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: It was staff’s recommendation for all these…
Kate Aanenson: Yes, and we have given him some guidance on if they wanted to pursue office,
then we’d look at that, because again looking at that as being the low density, single family.
Again if you went to twin homes, that could be consistent and how you apply the twin homes is a
separate issue but could you do twin homes on the south side? Certainly. That could be another
rezoning option too.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay, any other questions for the applicant? No? Okay, appreciate it.
So bring it to council for thoughts. Comments. Discussion.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I think that…I don’t recall the last time that we approved a
project, PUD…real challenge being able to rezone based upon… The retail market study, we
approved this sometime I think in December as I recall and that was one of the things we all kind
of wanted to wait and see what’s going to happen with that. There were some… And then lastly,
when I look at the concept of this, I looked at it as one project, not two separate parcels and
that’s probably the biggest challenge that I’ve got is, is now we’re trying to separate it and I
don’t think we really want to do that. I really would like to see both of them, especially what it’s
going to be because I’m being asked to rezone. Having 12 townhomes, 10 whatever ultimately
that go in there, just because there’s 12 townhouses that we think are going to look like
something isn’t really… I don’t want to use that term probably too much but it’s appropriate in
this case is that in the PUD we’re asking for something that has higher standards…and once we
approve the north side, that makes the south side less...so I think it’s premature.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah, I going to be brief because I guess for me it’s, I can’t vote on
something I can’t see or don’t know what I’m voting for or against. It wouldn’t be fair to you.
Especially after Town and Country…they spent hours I think trying to get me to vote for their
development. I think there’s too many. I think that they’re kind of crammed in there. I have to
agree with the Planning Commission on that. The first concept plan didn’t have as many. The
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
33
layout was different and this is not what I saw at that time and so I too think that it’s premature.
I don’t agree with splitting it up. I think it should be consistent in whatever does go in there, it
needs to be well thought out and needs to have some sort of...It’s hard to vote on something I
really don’t know what it’s…
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: I would concur with comments, especially around the, when we looked
at this as a concept, that we looked at it, I looked at it as a concept north and south of West 78th
Street and would concur with Councilman Peterson and Councilwoman Tjornhom on, I have a
difficulty looking at one without the other and so being that that’s what we looked at as a
concept, you know I certainly understand, given market conditions why the developer would
look that way but if we want to split it up, then let’s, you know I think we’re back at ground zero,
at the starting point and if we want to split it up, let’s go back and look at it that way versus a
split right down. And when this came through Planning Commission, I was surprised that we
were looking at two separate pieces so I would, I think given the approval of the concept to
where it was, that this is something different and whether it be, call it premature to approve
where we’re at now, or a totally separate concept, I think it’s semantics at that point but, that I’m
not ready to go forward right now. I’m not in favor of remanding back to the Planning
Commission because I think we’ve got more work to do than just sending it down so to speak,
but this is clearly, I consider it clearly different than what we looked at in December.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you, and my thoughts are consistent. There are a number of little
component, little pieces with regard to this application that I have trouble with but the biggest
component is the inconsistency with the concept plan that we approved just a few months ago,
and that we did look at a single concept plan across the entire property, both north and south of
West 78th. And this is not inconsistent with what we’ve done in the past as a council. There
have been other concept plans. Advance Fitness I think comes to mind where there was a
concept plan for a fitness center as well as some other retail. I think there was a bank. There’s
got to be a bank everywhere. But there was a bank. There was a restaurant. There was a hotel I
think, and when it became clear to the property owner, the developer that the fitness center
wasn’t going to go forward, as I understand it they requested can we go forward with the other
part anyway and the answer was no. We looked at it in it’s entirety when it was approved and I
think we need to be consistent here as well. I think I would be hesitant to even to suggest
splitting them up because of reasons presented in the staff report and presented to the council
back in December, as well as again in this staff report, that until you know what’s going on the
southern piece, you don’t know the best use for the northern piece. I think this is the northern
piece is more the tail wagging. It’s the wrong end that you lead the horse with, let me put it that
way. We wanted the southern part, that’s where the bridle is, and we want to look at that and
make sure that we’re not, I think keeping this open to the extent we can makes a lot of sense. So
I think to your point Councilman Lundquist, I agree with you. This is not what we had in mind.
It’s not what we spent a lot of time looking at but I think at this point, given the four options, I
agree with you. Sending this back to the Planning Commission I don’t think would provide
value at this point. Would just cause more troubles and delay likely what I’m hearing here. I
can’t see either options B or C, which is some form of approval this evening, going forward. So
from lacking the, what I consider the view of the entire north and south development, I don’t
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
34
think we have enough motivation to go forward and change zoning at this point on the PUD so,
and I’m hearing that pretty consistently here as well. Any other thoughts or comments or points
of clarification?
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor I would just, I mean I know Kate talked about time
constraints but I would be open to allowing the developer some latitude to bring back a,
something similar to the concept approval, but being cognizant that that would deviate from what
went through the Planning Commission so I think we’re kind of walking an interesting line there.
And then I’d be willing to take a look I guess but you know if we come back with something,
you know if we would opt to table and come back with something significantly different, I would
have an issue with that just being that it wouldn’t have gone through the entire public hearing
and planning process as that piece so.
Mayor Furlong: You’re saying versus tabling tonight versus denial this evening?
Councilman Lundquist: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Yep.
Councilman Lundquist: But you know with that caveat that we’ve got to be, I personally would
be not leave a lot of latitude for something significantly different. You know just out of respect
for the process and the public hearing and the Planning Commission.
Mayor Furlong: I guess what I was hearing Councilman Peterson you were saying it was the
overall project.
Councilman Peterson: …the issue and to your point is, which one’s first? And then I think I’m
leaning towards the south has got to be first and then offer your rezoning to the north. Just
because of all the…bottom line is it’s premature so…denying things. That seems to be the more
prudent way to go.
Councilman Lundquist: I could get there too but you know, there’s been a significant amount of
effort on the developer’s part and the staff part as well. Rather than you know cut that off, I’m
willing to allow some latitude but I think we need to be careful how far we go deviating from
this without going, you know starting back and going through the planning process again.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess my only comment there is, well we haven’t talked about the details
here. You know the density. Lack of architectural views, designs. I mean there’s been some
feedback and certainly at the Planning Commission I would hope they’ve reviewed those
Planning Commission meeting minutes. You know they dealt with it honestly and objectively
and I would think that staff and the developer would take those comments to heart if this comes
back as part of an overall development with the southern part, so I don’t think it’s a waste of time
by any means and hopefully there’ll be some efficiencies gained. Okay. Any other thoughts or
comments? If not, is there a motion?
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
35
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I recommend we deny the proposed development as submitted
by staff, subject to the findings of fact…
Kate Aanenson: Can I make a clarification on the motion? So that would be the PUD, the
preliminary plat, the CUP, findings of fact and then more specifically the two other items you
just addressed as would be the rezoning. The fact that there’s no architectural standards, and that
you saw the project as an entire concept added to the findings of fact.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none, proceed
with the vote.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
deny the request for rezoning from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Planned Unit
Development-Residential (PUD-R), Preliminary Plat creating 13 lots and one outlot with a
variance for a private street and more than 4 homes accessing a private street, and
Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, subject to
the findings of fact listed in the staff report and clarified by the Community Development
Director. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Perry Ryan: Just a small piece of direction. It was our understanding with the direction on that
study was supposed to be done April 1st. What I’m hearing from you guys is we can’t come
forward unless we come forward with the whole thing.
Mayor Furlong: That’s a, there’s a question. Where are we in that process?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. I guess the direction we’ve given the applicant is they wanted to pursue
industrial office. That’s a use that you’ve given us direction. We’re identified that. That they
can certainly pursue that. Is if they wanted to go for commercial, we would not support that until
we spent more time and analysis but we certainly directed Mr. Ragatz that if he wanted to look at
industrial zoning application.
Mayor Furlong: And I know we received some preliminary results back from that market study
but we haven’t received the final report.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Is that, have we shared that with them on the preliminary information?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Has that been shared with you?
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
36
Kate Aanenson: I talked to Mr. Ragatz on some of that, yeah.
Perry Ryan: Is the current concept layout…following industrial office as you suggest?
Kate Aanenson: No. It still has too many buildings. How that’s laid out and the footprint so.
Perry Ryan: …think of commercial with the southern part?
Kate Aanenson: Well we should be getting that this week but then the goal of that then to sit
down and let the staff kind of direct what, where we think we’re going. Then how we’re going
to implement and where we should go once we get that data. So if we say we’re going to rezone
another piece of property along Highway 5, I don’t think that’s going to happen anytime soon for
that. I think what we’re trying to do is kind of pick out those target areas that we want to maybe
specifically put into a study area and do a more specific analysis on that. That would be my
recommendation and then come back to you and we just haven’t had a chance to sit down and go
through all that.
Councilman Lundquist: Given that we just said we want to develop the south before we move
forward, I mean Kate when do you think that we’d at least have enough information to give, I
mean out of fairness to.
Kate Aanenson: Well I think clearly right now the market study and Mr. McCombs said that that
really for more strip commercial along Highway 5, we’re just getting the same sort of thing as
we already have. Do we need that? No. It’d be, you know I think what we’re looking at is to try
other opportunities for different types of retail and that would end up probably somewhere else
in the city. We do need more office. I think clearly that’s what he said is that we need to hang
onto our office, and we identified this since we knew this piece of property was in flux when we
looked at that 2005 area, we certainly, the staff identified this as an appropriate use for some
office. We always considered, based on it’s location, that’d be a nice medical, dental, those sort
of things in this location and while we would support a zone change, it wouldn’t be to just add
another, more strip center where we get kind of the same, the day to day things we already have.
That’s one thing that was pointed out in the study that we have a lot of already those things that
meet the daily need and those other uses may go somewhere south of 5.
Mayor Furlong: So with regard to the preliminary information we have, there’s nothing that I’m
hearing that has changed your mind based upon what you.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: What you thought for this particular property. Not maybe perhaps elsewhere in
the city there might have been some other things but based on the preliminary information from
that study for this property here.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
37
Perry Ryan: So where you ended there, did I hear you correctly, you did say that you would
support office use?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Perry Ryan: You would? Okay.
Kate Aanenson: We said that. We said that, no.
Perry Ryan: …you said industrial.
Kate Aanenson: No. Office, well office yes.
Councilman Lundquist: It’s OI.
Kate Aanenson: It’s OI. Office or industrial.
Perry Ryan: Because I mean with all due respect we’ve been waiting 5 months and so if we’re
not doing a detailed analysis on the site, we really need to move forward with something and if
we are to get some office, then we move forward with that concept plan.
Todd Gerhardt: Well Mayor, if I may. We started the retail study oh 3 months ago and we’re
looking for results from that. They gave some preliminary results and made some broad
statements and council had asked for some direction here. I think Kate gave that and as a part of
his preliminary presentation he recommended to staff and to the chambers that we shouldn’t be
adding more of what we already have in the downtown. Nothing against our dry cleaners or
things like that but that was one of the examples. You’re just going to continue to get more of
what you already have. You should try to get more uses that would support the current retailers
in the downtown, and he recommended trying to do more office and bringing users to your
current restaurants, to your dry cleaners and to your other establishments. I think he referenced a
study that they had done that most of those users during the noon hour, 60% of them go shopping
so they would go to the clientele in the downtown area and support the downtown area and make
it stronger.
Perry Ryan: So those ancillary deals like the cleaners and what not, which was actually added on
as possible additional amenities to the office use, which we talked about in the December City
Council meeting, not those additional uses but probably just the office use.
Todd Gerhardt: Correct.
Kate Aanenson: And just to be clear.
Perry Ryan: We’re looking for direction.
Todd Gerhardt: Yep.
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
38
Mayor Furlong: I would encourage you to set up a time and meet with staff because it’d
probably be easier outside of a council meeting to have the back and forth questions.
Kate Aanenson: And for the record, I’ve had this complete conversation with your partner so I
don’t know where the miscommunication is but he was in my office.
Perry Ryan: I just want it for the record.
Kate Aanenson: Yep, so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good, thank you.
ARBORETUM BUSINESS CENTER; 2970 WATER TOWER PLACE (LOT 1, BLOCK
1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS CENTER 5TH ADDITION); STEINER DEVELOPMENT,
PLANNING CASE 06-16: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 25,300 SQ. FT.
OFFICE-SHOWROOM-WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON 2.69 ACRES OF LAND ZONED
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. Planning Commission held a
public hearing on this project on May 2nd and they voted 6-0 to approve the project. The project
is kind of filling up the last few lots on the Arboretum Business Park. This property actually has
access facing, or excuse me, faces 41 while it has access off of Water Tower Place. Eventually
that street will go when 41 gets lowered, will have access to that street itself but right now it has
to come internally. The site plan itself, I’m not going to put up the big one. Here’s the material.
What we did have, and change to some of the entrance. If you look at the original one, this, can
you zoom in on that. A little bit more articulated on the views. The back of this building has
loading docks. It actually backs onto the other building so you’ve got back to back loading
docks, so there’s just a few questions on the sidewalk. Then the other issue that the Planning
Commission did spend some time on was, the roof top screening. Because of the elevation they
decided that that probably was, that’s something that we always make an evaluation on when
we’re looking at projects is sometimes trying to screen something so that it doesn’t need to be
actually, because it’s more of a kind of a visual and kind of as opposed to just leaving it natural
so they decided to use the charcoal gray painted, low profile HVAC equipment and that should…
So with that, what they’re asking for is site plan approval and the PUD standards were put in
place here a number of years ago. So unless there’s specific questions, I showed the materials.
The rock base block. It’s pretty articulated. It’s a nice looking building and the staff is
recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report, and I’d be happy to answer any
questions you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, this is not, this is not retail is it? This is just a showroom?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, office showroom. It’s similar to some of the other ones we have up
there. It’s mostly warehousing space.
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
39
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Kate, wouldn’t it be very similar to All About Lights building?
Kate Aanenson: Yep.
Todd Gerhardt: Just to the south.
Kate Aanenson: Yep.
Mayor Furlong: What about truck, as I recall when the building to the east, Vengra Designs was
put in there was concern about traffic flow between the two buildings. Where are, I’m looking at
that picture. Where are the loading docks? It looks like on the building to the east the docks are
angled. For truck flow.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, right. And then this will also have loading docks on the back side.
That’s always our goal to get loading docks so loading docks for that visual barrier. Engineering
did look at that and made some recommendations but I believe that the ultimate or circulation
pattern.
Mayor Furlong: So the circulation pattern would be from the street up inbetween the buildings
and then back out?
Kate Aanenson: Correct, and then ultimately when it gets developed when this access becomes
open. Right now it’s a cul-de-sac but right now there’s two access points. To review, this is a
truck traffic that will come through this way, reducing the conflict. The other issue was
providing additional sidewalk access points so people can walk.
Mayor Furlong: It looks like on the building to the east, on the…at least the one I’m looking at,
is that those docks are angled so that the trucks would back in.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Are the docks angled on this building?
Kate Aanenson: No they’re not.
Mayor Furlong: They’re straight. Is that going to cause a conflict or.
Kate Aanenson: We’ve got 66 feet between the two. For the loading. Paul.
Todd Gerhardt: Depends on the size of the truck right?
Paul Oehme: Exactly. Yeah, you know the access would come off from the east. East access
point. But if you, tractor trucks would have to back up and they’d come in at a 90 degree angle
there but for a 66 foot wide street, if that’s what it is, you know I think it would be, have enough
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
40
clearance there to have them turn in, back in at a 90 degree angle and then come out the same
direction they came in at.
Mayor Furlong: Where’s the 66? Is that to the property line? It’s only 44 to the property line.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, between buildings, and one of the conditions we had in there is a cross
access easement so they’re both backing across each other’s property.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. I’m just, I guess my questions is why aren’t we looking at the angled
docks so that we have a natural flow and easier…
Kate Aanenson: And making them do the angle?
Mayor Furlong: Well we’ve got an angle on the east building and as I recall, one of the reasons
for that was because we didn’t know what was going in to the west and for traffic flow. I guess
I’m just wondering why we wouldn’t have the same angled docks here so that we, it’s just a little
bit easier.
Paul Oehme: I think the access.
Kate Aanenson: Maybe the applicant can address that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Is that alright?
Mayor Furlong: Yep. No, that’s fine. Why don’t you come down. Let’s keep it efficient.
Joe Smith: Hi, good evening council members. Joe Smith from Steiner Development.
Mayor Furlong: Good evening.
Joe Smith: We have tried to come up with some flexibility with the back of this building.
Ideally what we’d like to do is have those be drive in doors. This building is planned to be an
office showroom, office so actually you’re not going to have over the road type trucks. They’re
going to be a UPS type truck, or FedEx type truck. They’re not going to be the 40, the 70 foot…
Mayor Furlong: Why don’t you get some of that at Buck’s Furniture or something? That all
doesn’t come through a, some of that must come on a truck.
Joe Smith: I guess it is possible. We had planned on putting one or two docks in and we would
angle them. Similar to what we’ve got at Vengra.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Joe Smith: But we’re still waiting to get the users. We don’t know what the users are yet.
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
41
Mayor Furlong: I guess from that standpoint, just looking at this, if we, if whatever docks go in
the back are angled so they line up with the other buildings. Once you’ve got driving doors, then
it’s a non-issue.
Joe Smith: Right. Right. Up to this point we’ve just tried to keep some flexibility as to.
Mayor Furlong: That’s fine.
Joe Smith: We’ve tried to plan this so.
Mayor Furlong: The elevations are such that you can have both drive?
Joe Smith: Yep. Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Drive in and.
Joe Smith: More likely the drive in would be on the south end and the docks would be towards
the north end. We just tried to keep some flexibility because we don’t know if it’s going to be
end up being all office users or office showroom. Just the way the economics work for us.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s fine and if we put in a dock and we angle it, I think that would be
something with the truck traffic and if there’s no dock then a drive in would be fine. I’m sorry.
Kate Aanenson: Condition number…
Mayor Furlong: Is there a 19 already or did we just add it?
Kate Aanenson: We just added it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, alright. At least I didn’t miss it. Alright, that’s great. There’s a simple
answer, thank you. Any other questions for staff before we invite the applicant back out? No?
Anything else to add or comments on the building? I think those were mine. It looks like a very
nice design and it’s nice to see this development being completed and be nice to get those
improvements to 41 as well, to line that up. So any thoughts or comments?
Councilman Lundquist: I think it’s certainly within the standards. I don’t disagree with the
angled docks and…development so I think I’m in full support of it.
Mayor Furlong: Great.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: …office, Kate I had just one question. …the signage. When the
building does get built. I read it in the staff report that kind of ironed out all this. Right, yeah.
Kate Aanenson: They’ve shown on the site plan, depending on the tenants. The sign band and
logo?
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
42
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. So there’s approved placement for it. Yeah. We’ve got a limited, we’ll
take you through some code amendments so the Planning Commission at their next meeting, so
item D. One of the things we looked at now is voltage, color, intensity so.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay…I think it’s a great asset for this development.
Mayor Furlong: I agree with the statements made and I appreciate your willingness on the
docks. I think it will just make it a lot easier with the neighbor and for all the users of the
property throughout the development so I’m ready to go forward. Is there a motion?
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve staff’s recommendation with conditions 1 through
19. Published 18 with the addition of 19 on the angled docks.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approve Site Plan #06-16 for a 25,300 square foot one story office-showroom-warehouse
building, plans prepared by Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group, dated March 30, 2006,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. A separate sign permit will be necessary for each sign.
3. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
4. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
5. Air-test required on that portion of storm sewer within ten feet of building or water service.
Permits and inspections required through Chanhassen Building Inspections Division.
6. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete plans are
submitted.
7. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
43
8. The applicant shall obtain permission from the property owner to the north prior to silt
fence installation. If permission is not obtained, the plans shall be revised to accommodate
all sediment control measures on-site.
9. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as needed.
10. The owner/operator of the proposed development shall apply for and receive an NPDES
Phase II Construction permit prior to beginning construction activities.
11. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a permit from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District and comply with their conditions of approval.
12. The Black Hills spruce near the building shall be moved east to serve as screening for the
truck area. A narrower species of evergreen shall be considered for planting in this area.
13. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before building permit approval.
14. All lighting fixtures must be shielded with a total cutoff angle equal to or less than 90
degrees.
15. A professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans.
16. The applicant will be required to submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10 year, 24
hour storm event with a full size drainage area map prior to building permit issuance.
17. The applicant must verify with the City Building Department if the site connecting to the
existing 8-inch watermain on the east side is adequately sized to handle the two lots
consumption.
18. As the eastern access will service the two lots, cross-access easements will need to be
obtained and recorded against the lots.
19. Any future loading docks will be angled.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: UPDATE ON FIELD ALLOCATION
POLICY.
Todd Gerhardt: At this point I’d like to have Todd Hoffman come up and just give you a short,
little update on field allocation policy.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
44
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Todd. Mayor Furlong, members of the council. We talked about
soccer last week for a little while and I’m here this evening to assure you that the City has a
sound field reservation policy and I think you’ve all seen the letter sent out by Mr. Nygaard and
my response. Again our policy is sound. We will be speaking to their association in the future.
If you have any questions of me this evening or at a future date, just let me know.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Very good. You received some preliminary feedback from residents
that have received your letter?
Todd Hoffman: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s been?
Todd Hoffman: Satisfactory.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Comments? Okay. Anything else Mr.
Gerhardt?
Todd Gerhardt: I attended the 276 leaders meeting. A couple issues just to keep you up to date.
In Victoria, they did a land swap with Three Rivers Park system. About 13 acres. This is just to
the northeast of where Dairy Queen sits. In that area. And it’s also going to help them expand
their downtown area down the line. And so give you an update on that one. Eden Prairie
mentioned that they’re going to be looking at breaking ground here in the next month or so for
their fourth satellite fire station, and that’s just south of the new Highway 312 and Dell Road.
Last thing was Minnetonka School District has entered into a purchase agreement with the
Bennett Family Park area right off of 101, so didn’t get into a lot of details but said they’re
probably look at getting into more youth programming and activities in that area, so they’re just
celebrating their 50th anniversary in existence so interesting that the school district’s getting
involved in that complex which is softball and baseball fields for youth and seniors. Senior high
school people. And that’s all I have.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt? Very good.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
Councilman Lundquist: …one quick mulligan just to publicly thank Justin for his efforts and
everything you do and I guess find out what Mr. Gerhardt’s made out of without his second hand
man around.
Todd Gerhardt: I won’t survive.
Mayor Furlong: He’s got one more meeting left.
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, but best of luck Justin and thanks for what you’ve done.
City Council Meeting – May 22, 2006
45
Mayor Furlong: Any other comments or anything else to bring before the council this evening?
If not we will complete our work session items immediately following the meeting. With that is
there a motion to adjourn?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council
meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
MAY 16, 2006
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Debbie Larson, and Dan Keefe
MEMBERS ABSENT: Deborah Zorn, Kevin Dillon and Mark Undestad
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff,
Senior Planner; Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City
Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Vic Moravec 3821 Linden Circle
Greg Greenwood 6501 Kirkwood Circle
PUBLIC HEARING:
SOUTHWEST VILLAGE: REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS WITH VARIANCES
ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF REALIGNED
HIGHWAY 101 AND LYMAN BOULEVARD, SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT,
PLANNING CASE NO. 06-18.
Public Present:
Name Address
Len Simich SW Metro Transit
Kyle Williams LSA Design
Bob Worthington SW Metro Transit
Jim Dahlberg Quanbeck Dahlberg Associates
Jacob West The Shelard Group, Inc.
Aravind Gottemukkula Wenck Associates, Inc.
Gene F. Ernst Ernst Associates
Doug VanOrden Klingelhutz Companies
Tom Baker UHI Commercial Real Estate
Chuck Peterson CM Construction Company
Traci Dokken 4924 Green Valley Road, Minnetonka
Don Sinniger 600 Lyman Boulevard
Craig & Patty Mullen 611 Summerfield Drive
Derek & Heather Benson 604 Summerfield Drive
Planning Commission Summary – May 16, 2006
2
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Keefe asked for
clarification on the different setbacks, density, height of the parking ramp, signage, levels of
service, traffic signals and landscaping. Commissioner Larson asked why the parking ramp goes
above grade rather than below grade. Commissioner Papke asked staff to clarify the detailing on
the back side of the residential buildings, number and location of parking spaces for the retail
shops, adequate landscaping, safety concerns regarding the proximity of the residential area to
the highway, safety concerns associated with the glass staircase, and on page 28 of the staff
report where staff mentioned the applicant must show how bus passenger vehicle conflicts will
be minimized along the east/west access road. Chair McDonald asked for clarification of the
signage plan, and lack of personal space associated with the townhomes. Len Simich, Executive
Director of Southwest Metro Transit provided background information on the planning process
with the developers and the neighbors. Kyle Williams with LSA Design addressed the issues of
the glass staircase, the parking ramp elevation and height, retail parking, and timing for the third
phase of the parking ramp expansion. Doug VanOrden with Klingelhutz Companies talked
about construction specifications, price point, and the back elevation on the buildings. Chairman
McDonald asked for clarification of how parking for retail and transit customers will be
differentiated, and what type of retail stores will be locating in this project. The public hearing
was opened. Don Sinniger, 600 Lyman Boulevard asked for clarification of the trail planned to
go along Lyman Boulevard and his property. The public hearing was closed. After commission
comments and discussion the following motions were made.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for SouthWest Village clarifying
setbacks, signage, and retail building size as follows (amendments are shown in bold):
PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a Mixed Use PUD including a Transit Oriented
Development, Neighborhood Commercial and Residential. The use of the PUD zone is to
allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive
development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan
review based on the development standards outlined below.
b. Permitted Uses
· The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and
service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood and the
transit facility users. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is
a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Community
Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be
provided on these lots shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and
service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Commercial and transit uses
shall be limited to the area located north of the access point off of Highway 101.
Residential uses shall be located south of the Highway 101 access.
Planning Commission Summary – May 16, 2006
3
· Small to medium sized restaurant-not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no
drive-thru windows)
· Office
· day care
· neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,000 8,500 square feet per building footprint
· convenience store without gas pumps
· specialty retail (book store jewelry, Sporting Goods sale/rental, Retail Sales, Retail
Shops, Apparel Sales, etc.)
· personal services (an establishment or place of business primarily engaged in
providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a tailor
shop, Shoe Repair, Self-service Laundry, Laundry Pick-up Station, Dry Cleaning,
dance studios, etc).
· Park-and-Ride not to exceed 800 spaces.
· Residential High Density (8-16 units per acre).
c. Prohibited Ancillary Uses
· Drive thru Windows
· Outdoor storage and display of merchandise
d. Setbacks
The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following
table displays those setbacks.
Boundary Building and Parking
Setback
Lyman Boulevard 50 10 feet
Highway 101 35 20 feet north of the
Highway 101 access
and 50 feet south of the
101 access
Highway 212 excluding transit shelters and ramps 50 20 feet
Easterly Project Property Line 100 Feet
Internal Project property lines 0 Feet
Hard Surface Coverage 50 %
Commercial and Transit Facility Hard Surface Coverage 70 %
Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height 35 feet or 3 stories,
whichever is less
Maximum Commercial Building/Structure Height 1 story
Maximum Park-and-Ride Ramp excluding the elevator shaft
and stair well
25 35 feet or 3 stories,
whichever is less
e. Non Residential Building Materials and Design
Planning Commission Summary – May 16, 2006
4
1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of
architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a neighborhood and
transit friendly development.
2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all
walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in
place panels, decorative block, or cedar siding. Color shall be introduced through
colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous
bands are prohibited.
3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed
cement (“cinder”) blocks shall be prohibited.
4. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved
except as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HVAC
screen, and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area.
5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary
structure.
6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing
material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks,
etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment
shall be screened with material compatible to the building.
7. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large
unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by
architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations,
or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping
with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be
prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed
aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural
interest through building design or appropriate landscaping.
8. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall
receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities.
9. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with
the adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them.
Extreme variations between buildings in terms of overall appearance, bulk and
height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited.
f. Residential Standards
Planning Commission Summary – May 16, 2006
5
1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of fiber-cement siding, vinyl
siding, stucco, or brick with support materials such as cedar shakes, brick and stone
or approved equivalent materials as determined by the city.
2. Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as arched louvers, dormers,
etc.
3. All units shall have access onto an interior private street.
4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the
building or landscaping.
5. A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include
colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick and stone.
6. All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls.
g. Site Landscaping and Screening
The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property
abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to
protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding
neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise
pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare.
1. The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated
with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage,
parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc.
2. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the
site plan review process.
3. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be
landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree
wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas.
4. Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101 shall be
sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required
buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any
proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded.
5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be
required where deemed appropriate.
6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible.
Planning Commission Summary – May 16, 2006
6
h. Street Furnishings
Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design
and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street
furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian
movement.
i. Signage
The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the
development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the business’s ability to
attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic
safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private
property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is
the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and
image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public,
and to use signs which meet the city's goals:
(1) Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable
opportunity to advertise their name and service;
(2) Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this
objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or
illumination;
(3) Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards;
(4) Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a
manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract
motorists;
(5) Preserve and protect property values;
(6) Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally
compatible with, the principal structures;
(7) Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an
opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting
signs which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way
intersections.
1. Project Identification Sign:
One Two project identification signs shall be permitted for the
development at the entrance off of Highway 101. The total area of both
Project identification signs shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display
area nor be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback a
minimum of 10 feet from the property line.
2. Monument Sign:
Planning Commission Summary – May 16, 2006
7
One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development
off of Lyman Boulevard. This sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign
display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign shall be
setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line.
3. Wall Signs:
a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved
building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than
20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a
maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos
comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or
translucent facing.
b. Illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the
PUD site, are prohibited.
c. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is
restricted to the tenant’s proper name and major product or service
offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices
are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band
and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is
the sign.
d. Signs along the sides of the retail buildings are prohibited unless
the actual entrance into a tenant’s space is located at the side of
the building.
e. Wall-mounted signs along Highway 101 shall be limited to either
above the storefront windows when a shared entry configuration
exists, and for an unshared configuration, the signage shall be
located above the entry or above the tenant’s specific storefront
windows, but not both.
f. On the east elevation, signage shall be permitted above the
storefront only as well as small-scale pedestrian level decorative
signage, perpendicular to the wall (projecting signs). The size of
the sign shall not exceed 9 square feet.
g. A “SW” logo on the elevator shaft of the parking ramp building
shall be permitted. The size of the logo shall not exceed a 4 foot
diameter along the north elevation. This logo may be back lit.
h. A “SouthWest Transit” with a “SW” logo not to exceed a 4-foot
diameter along the west elevation shall be permitted. This sign
may be back lit.
Planning Commission Summary – May 16, 2006
8
i. A “SouthWest Transit” sign with letters 36 inches high shall be
permitted along the south elevation. This sign may not be
illuminated.
4. Festive Flags/Banners
a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached
to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area
lighting.
b. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl.
c. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users,
businesses, services, or products.
d. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two
feet.
e. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet.
f. Flags and banners which are torn or excessively worn shall be
removed at the request of the city.
5. Building Directory
a. In multi-tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be
permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet.
6. Directional Signs
a. On-premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The
maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the
ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so
located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties
(including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the
general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. No more
than four (4) signs shall be allowed per lot. The city council may allow
additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety
could be jeopardized.
b. Off-premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is
confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be
inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign
shall be no larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from
the roadway and shall be approved by the city council.
Planning Commission Summary – May 16, 2006
9
c. Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the
local transit authority.
d. Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and
other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street
fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate
vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs
should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area
and away from residential areas.
7. Prohibited Signs:
· Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign.
· Pylon signs are prohibited.
· Back lit awnings are prohibited.
· Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and
not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area
· Menu Signs are prohibited.
8. Sign Design and permit requirements:
a. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should
reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be
consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the
development. A common theme will be introduced at the
development's entrance monument and will be used throughout.
b. All signs require a separate sign permit.
c. Wall business signs shall comply with the city’s sign ordinance for
the Neighborhood business district for determination of maximum
sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the “street” front and
primary parking lot front of each building.
j. Lighting
1. Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the
development. High pressure sodium vapor lamps with decorative natural colored pole shall
be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian
scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot
areas.
Planning Commission Summary – May 16, 2006
10
2. Light fixtures should be kept to a
pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet).
Street light fixtures should
accommodate vertical banners for
use in identifying the commercial
area. The fixtures shall conform
with (Figure 36 – Chanhassen
Lighting Unit Design).
3. All light fixtures shall be shielded.
Light level for site lighting shall be
no more than 1/2 candle at the
project perimeter property line.
This does not apply to street
lighting.
4. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the
parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in
close proximity to buildings.
k. Non Residential Parking
1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever
possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be
protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city.
2. The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a
minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The
office/personal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and
provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per
thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square
feet thereafter.
l. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve variance request #06-18 to allow a 10-foot setback from Lyman Boulevard, a 20-
foot setback from Highway 101, and a 45-foot setback from Highway 212, as shown in
plans dated received April 13, 2006. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the preliminary plat for Planning Case 06-18 for SouthWest Village as shown in
plans dated received April 13, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
Planning Commission Summary – May 16, 2006
11
1. Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected for the
.95-acre commercial property and the housing units only as a condition of approval for
SouthWest Village. No fees will be collected for the transportation component of the
development. The park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat
submission and approval.
2. The preliminary plat must be revised to include a 25-foot wide drainage and utility easement
over the sanitary sewer and watermain along Highway 101, south of the SouthWest Station
entrance, and a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement over the storm sewer in the
northern portion of the property.
3. A catch basin must be installed at the ingress at Highway 101 and the storm sewer adjusted
accordingly.
4. The developer must submit written confirmation with the final plat application indicating that
the MNDOT pond located in the south loop of the Highway 101 ramp has been sized to
accommodate runoff from this development.
5. Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat submittals and must include
storm sewer inlet capacity analysis to verify that 100% of the runoff from a 10-year event can
be captured.
6. The utility plan must be revised to show the following:
a. Show the proposed water service to the bus station.
b. Due to differential settlement, the three valves and the sanitary sewer manhole must not
lie within the proposed paver-block circle at the intersection of the access road at the
western private driveway intersection. The valves can be relocated outside of the paver-
block circle. Sanitary sewer manhole 503 can be installed to the north of the paver-block
circle and an additional manhole can be installed to the west of the paver-block circle.
c. Sanitary sewer manhole 501 must not lie within the sidewalk.
d. Eliminate the 90-degree bend in the watermain at the Highway 101 intersection and
replace with two 45-degree bends.
e. The final utility plan must show the sewer and water services to the townhome units.
f. The lowest floor elevation of each unit must be shown on the utility plan.
7. MNDOT will be invoicing the City for a portion of the utility improvements for this
development. The developer must pay for 100% of the invoices that the City receives for
this work.
8. 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.
9. The applicant shall provide an additional connection between the residential sidewalks and the
trail along the intersection of Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard.
Planning Commission Summary – May 16, 2006
12
10. Encroachment agreements are required for the two drainage and utility easements due to the
extensive landscaping and sidewalk proposed.
11. The applicant should show emergency overflow paths for storm water.
12. The Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan (Sheet C-03) should be revised to include a
legend.
13. The applicant should work with the City to develop a plan that outlines storm water and snow
management related to the parking deck structure for this and future phases.
14. 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.
15. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed. A rock construction entrance should be shown on the plans.
16. Curbside inlet control details are needed. Wimco-type inlet controls should be used and
installed within 24 hours of installation.
17. Typical building lot controls should be shown on the plan. These controls should include
perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street sweeping, inlet control and temporary
mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the certificates of occupancy.
18. Water Quality and Quantity Fees:
Water Quality Fees
Parcel Size (ac.) Zoning Rate Per Acre Total
Retail 0.955 Commercial $12,100 $11,556
Parking Ramp 6.292 Commercial $12,100 $76,133
Housing 2.769 High Density Residential $3,400 $9,415
TOTAL Qual $97,104
Water Quantity Fees
Parcel Size (ac.) Zoning Rate Per Acre Total
Planning Commission Summary – May 16, 2006
13
Retail 0.955 Commercial $6,400 $6,112
Parking Ramp 6.292 Commercial $6,400 $40,269
Housing 2.769 High Density Residential $6,400 $17,722
TOTAL Quan $64,103
At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $161,207.
19. 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.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the site plan for two 8,500 square-foot retail buildings for Planning Case 06-18 for
SouthWest Village as shown in plans dated received April 13, 2006, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Applicant shall include overstory deciduous trees within the parking lot plantings for the
retail area.
2. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval.
3. Building Official Conditions:
a) The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
b) The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
c) Accessible routes must be provided to commercial buildings, parking facilities and public
transportation stops.
d) All parking areas, including parking structure, must be provided with accessible parking
spaces. As submitted, the retail buildings must have a minimum of 4 accessible parking
spaces, one of which must have an 8-foot access aisle.
e) The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the
proposed buildings, including but not limited to, allowable size and fire-resistive
construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine
compliance at this time.
Planning Commission Summary – May 16, 2006
14
f) The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures.
4. The grading plan must show proposed contours, minimum two-foot contour intervals and
proposed retaining walls, including the top and bottom of wall elevations.
5. Spot elevations must be shown along the east curb of the commercial area to ensure that the
parking and drive aisle area meets the minimum slope requirement.
6. The sidewalks and trails shown within the public right-of-way shall be privately owned and
maintained.
7. The developer must verify that the proposed eight-inch watermain will provide sufficient
flow for the proposed residential, commercial and sprinkling uses on the site.
8. Fire Marshal Conditions:
a) Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
b) A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, 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.
c) 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.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 501.4.
d) Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota State Fire Code
Section 501.4.
e) Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3 and 503.4.
f) 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 State Fire code Section 503.2.3.
g) Regarding the residential area, two hydrants will need to be relocated. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
Planning Commission Summary – May 16, 2006
15
h) Submit radius turn designs to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.4.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the site plan for 33 town houses for Planning Case 06-18 for SouthWest Village as
shown in plans dated received April 13, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. Four additional overstory, deciduous trees shall be planted parallel to the offstreet parking
area within the residential district.
2. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval.
3. Building Official Conditions:
a) The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
b) The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
c) Accessible routes must be provided to commercial buildings, parking facilities and public
transportation stops.
d) All parking areas, including parking structure, must be provided with accessible parking
spaces. As submitted, the retail buildings must have a minimum of 4 accessible parking
spaces, one of which must have an 8-foot access aisle.
e) The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the
proposed buildings, including but not limited to, allowable size and fire-resistive
construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine
compliance at this time.
f) The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures.
g) The applicant shall meet with the building official as soon as possible to discuss details of
building permit plans.
4. On-street parking is not permitted on the private streets.
5. The private street design must be adjusted to accommodate the turning movements of a fire
truck and a moving van.
Planning Commission Summary – May 16, 2006
16
6. The grading plan must show proposed contours, minimum two-foot contour intervals and
proposed retaining walls, including the top and bottom of wall elevations.
7. Note the lowest floor elevation of the proposed townhome units and include a grading detail
showing hold down information.
8. The first 30 feet of each private street extending from the access drive must be minimum 3%.
9. The sidewalks and trails shown within the public right-of-way shall be privately owned and
maintained.
10. The developer must verify that the proposed eight-inch watermain will provide sufficient
flow for the proposed residential, commercial and sprinkling uses on the site.
11. The four monument signs along the private streets are prohibited.
12. The monument sign at the entrance to the development off of Lyman Boulevard shall not
exceed 5 feet in height (including the logo).
13. Fire Marshal Conditions:
a) Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
b) A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, 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.
c) 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.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 501.4.
d) Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota State Fire Code
Section 501.4.
e) Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3 and 503.4.
f) 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 State Fire code Section 503.2.3.
Planning Commission Summary – May 16, 2006
17
g) Regarding the residential area, two hydrants will need to be relocated. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
h) Submit radius turn designs to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.4.
14. The trellis at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Highway 101 shall be eliminated.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the site plan for Phases I and II of the parking ramp and transit station for
Planning Case 06-18 for SouthWest Village as shown in plans dated received April 13,
2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. Building Official Conditions:
a) The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
b) The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
c) Accessible routes must be provided to commercial buildings, parking facilities and public
transportation stops.
d) All parking areas, including parking structure, must be provided with accessible parking
spaces. As submitted, the retail buildings must have a minimum of 4 accessible parking
spaces, one of which must have an 8-foot access aisle.
e) The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the
proposed buildings, including but not limited to,; allowable size and fire-resistive
construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine
compliance at this time.
f) The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures.
2. The applicant must show how bus-passenger vehicle conflicts will be minimized along the
east-west access road.
3. Bus routes through the site must be clearly shown on the plans.
4. The grading plan must show proposed contours, minimum two-foot contour intervals and
proposed retaining walls, including the top and bottom of wall elevations.
Planning Commission Summary – May 16, 2006
18
5. The grading plan must identify the proposed grades on each level of the parking ramp
6. The sidewalks and trails shown within the public right-of-way shall be privately owned and
maintained.
7. The developer must verify that the proposed eight inch watermain will provide sufficient
flow for the proposed residential, commercial and sprinkling uses on the site.
8. Fire Marshal Conditions:
a) Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
b) A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, 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.
c) 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.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 501.4.
d) Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota State Fire Code
Section 501.4.
e) Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3 and 503.4.
f) 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 State Fire code Section 503.2.3.
g) Regarding the residential area, two hydrants will need to be relocated. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
h) Submit radius turn designs to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.4.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CHAPEL HILL ACADEMY: REUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW A MONUMENT SIGN WITH LED LIGHTING, PLANNING CASE 06-19.
Planning Commission Summary – May 16, 2006
19
Public Present:
Name Address
Gene O’Brien Chapel Hill Academy Board Member
Jim Abrahamson 14530 Martin Drive, Eden Prairie
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked if the city
was concerned with the number of LED signs appearing in the city. Sharmeen Al-Jaff noted that
the Planning Commission will be seeing an ordinance amendment to that effect shortly.
Chairman McDonald asked for clarification on the location of the sign. Jim Abrahamson with
Sign Source of Eden Prairie spoke on behalf of Chapel Hill Academy. Chairman McDonald
opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed.
Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the Conditional Use Permit #06-19 for the use of an LED display within a
monument sign with the following conditions:
1. The applicant must obtain both a sign permit and building permit prior to erecting the
sign.
2. The foundation and sign connections (i.e. bolt type, bolt size, embedment and location)
must be designed by a structural engineer.
3. The site plan must be revised to show the proposed location of the monument sign
showing property line setback dimensions.
4. Brick used along the lower portion of the sign must be the same material as that used ion
the existing building.
5. The LED display shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m..
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
T-MOBILE: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 9 FOOT FENCE
ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6434 MURRAY HILL ROAD, (WATER TOWER SITE),
PLANNING CASE 06-21.
Public Present:
Name Address
Steve Edwards 501 50th Street West, Minneapolis
Gil Kreidberg 6444 Murray Hill Road
Planning Commission Summary – May 16, 2006
20
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Keefe asked about
security. Commissioner Larson asked for clarification on the size of the structure.
Commissioner Papke clarified screening requirements. Chairman McDonald asked for
clarification on the number and location of fences. Steve Edwards with T-Mobile spoke to the
issues of security fencing. Chairman McDonald opened the public hearing. Gil Kreidberg, 6444
Murray Hill Road expressed concern with the height of the equipment and adequate fencing for
screening. The public hearing was closed.
Larson moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Conditional Use Permit 06-21 for the construction of a 9 foot tall cedar fence with the
following conditions:
1. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to erecting the fence.
2. The fence plans and design must be signed by a structural engineer. The design must
demonstrate the fence’s ability to withstand a wind load of 90 MPH for a 3 second gust.
(Ref. 200 IBC Section 1609).
3. The proposed fence shall not impede nor alter existing drainage patterns.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
BLUFF CREEK BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: WETLAND
ALTERATION PERMIT FOR BASIN 8, PLANNING CASE 06-17.
Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification on
the mitigation action associated with this project. Commissioner Keefe asked about the
differentiation between the Type 1 through Type 5 basins. Chairman McDonald opened the
public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed.
Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve Wetland Alteration Permit 06-17 subject to the following conditions:
1. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420) at a ratio of 2:1.
2. The applicant shall provide plans for the mitigation of the additional 0.32 acres of
wetland to city staff for review and approval prior to wetland impacts occurring.
3. All exposed soils from temporary haul routes, exposed slopes above the normal water
level (NWL) and adjacent areas to the project shall be temporarily stabilized and seeded
within the 7, 14 and 21 day time frames, depending upon slopes. Any concentrated flow
areas shall receive temporary protection.
Planning Commission Summary – May 16, 2006
21
4. Erosion control blanket shall be used in concentrated flow areas and for slopes of 3:1.
All remain areas shall be mulched and seeded to control erosion.
5. The applicant shall apply for NPDES Phase II Construction Permit and comply with their
conditions of approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
NEAR MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSOCIATION BEACHLOT: REQUEST FOR A
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ADDITION OF A SECOND
DOCK ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF LOTUS
LAKE OFF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD (OUTLOT B, REICHERT’S ADDITION),
PLANNING CASE 06-20.
Public Present:
Name Address
Sam & Laurie Curnow 650 Pleasant View Road
David & Valerie Rossbach 670 Pleasant View Road
Amy & Jahn Dyvik 610 Pleasant View Road
Sean & Melinda Fitzgerald 630 Pleasant View Road
Beth Bitney 6645 Horseshoe Curve
Curt Schwieso 6681 Horseshoe Curve
Marianne McCord 6440 Fox Path
David Sanford 6440 Fox Path
John Hammett 6697 Horseshoe Curve
David Wanek 70 Hunters Court
Steve Wanek 6619 Horseshoe Curve
Kathy Pavelko 7203 Frontier Trail
Martin Immerman 491 Bighorn Drive
Pat Pavelko 7203 Frontier Trail
Steve Donen 7341 Frontier Trail
Greg Fletcher 7616 South Shore Drive
Mary Borns 7199 Frontier Trail
Gary M. & Peg Schelitzche 680 Pleasant View Road
Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Keefe asked for clarification of
the exact location for this proposal and if there were any size limitations on docks or boats on
Lotus Lake. Commissioner Larson asked for clarification on parking and the location of the new
dock. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification of permitted uses at beachlots, and staff view
of how this request fits with what they’re trying to accomplish on Lotus Lake. Chairman
McDonald asked about parking on Pleasant View Road. Jahn Dyvik, speaking on behalf of the
Near Mountain Lake Association, presented historical background on the association and
outlined their request. Commissioner Keefe asked the applicant to explain how the 8 homes
Planning Commission Summary – May 16, 2006
22
handle the boat docking today and how it would be handled in the future if a second dock was
added. Chairman McDonald opened the public hearing. John Hammett, 6697 Horseshoe Curve,
stated his main concern was the parking on Pleasant View Road. Steve Wanek, 6619 Horseshoe
Curve expressed concern with the variance request to allow 8 boats at two docks and the
precedence it would create. Steve Donen, 7341 Frontier Trail noted that boats moored on the
lake tend to get more use than if they have to be launched. In 2003 when a lake homeowners
association was formed, the three biggest issues on Lotus Lake were water quality, boat safety
and boat access. He read the intent section of the ordinance, Section 20-266 regarding beachlots
noting that this was a city wide issue, not just isolated to this one beachlot. Mary Borns, 7199
Frontier Trail stated concern with the precedence this would create. Dave Rossbach, 670
Pleasant View Road reiterated reasons why this request should be approved. Debbie Lloyd,
7302 Laredo Drive, a resident of Chanhassen since 1980 and member of Sunrise Hills Civic
Association whose beachlot has one dock and no boat mooring was also concerned with the
precedence this would create. Greg Fletcher, 7616 South Shore Drive was concerned with safety
on the lake. Kathy Pavelko, 7203 Frontier Trail was concerned with the issue of precedence.
Chairman McDonald closed the public hearing. After commission comments, the following
motion was made.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission denies the request for a
Conditional Use Permit amendment and Variances for the lot area requirement necessary
for the second dock and the number of boat slips per dock based on the findings of fact in
the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property.
3. A revised conditional use permit with intensified use may reduce public safety due to
parking on the sub-standard streets and poor sight lines.
4. If these variances are approved, other recreational beachlots in Chanhassen will likely
seek variances from lot area and boat limit restrictions.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 2, 2006 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:25 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 16, 2006
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Debbie Larson, and Dan Keefe
MEMBERS ABSENT: Deborah Zorn, Kevin Dillon and Mark Undestad
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff,
Senior Planner; Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City
Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Vic Moravec 3821 Linden Circle
Greg Greenwood 6501 Kirkwood Circle
PUBLIC HEARING:
SOUTHWEST VILLAGE: REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS WITH VARIANCES
ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF REALIGNED
HIGHWAY 101 AND LYMAN BOULEVARD, SOUTHWEST METRO TRANSIT,
PLANNING CASE NO. 06-18.
Public Present:
Name Address
Len Simich SW Metro Transit
Kyle Williams LSA Design
Bob Worthington SW Metro Transit
Jim Dahlberg Quanbeck Dahlberg Associates
Jacob West The Shelard Group, Inc.
Aravind Gottemukkula Wenck Associates, Inc.
Gene F. Ernst Ernst Associates
Doug VanOrden Klingelhutz Companies
Tom Baker UHI Commercial Real Estate
Chuck Peterson CM Construction Company
Traci Dokken 4924 Green Valley Road, Minnetonka
Don Sinniger 600 Lyman Boulevard
Craig & Patty Mullen 611 Summerfield Drive
Derek & Heather Benson 604 Summerfield Drive
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
2
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Thank you staff. Dan, do you want to start?
Keefe: Sure. Going to the variance first in regards to, yeah it seems to be pretty well thought out
site plan. A really well thought out site plan. The question that I’m kind of struggling with a
little bit is, you ask for a 45 foot setback from 212 but only 10 foot setback from Lyman. It
seems that the parking ramp would be maybe be the one that wants to be closer to the highway,
and the setback be wider near the residential areas. So I mean like the whole thing wants to kind
of, so can you speak to how it ended up the way that it did?
Al-Jaff: One of the reasons why the site ended up laying out the way it did was the location of
entrance into the site.
Keefe: Okay.
Al-Jaff: This will fit throughout working with MnDot, it was set at an early stage which
basically decided what and where the residential portion was going to be located. Specifically
where. How far it will be set back. You need that straight alignment and that’s what’s going to
divide the site.
Keefe: Okay. So if I’m looking at the 10 foot setback on that southern end right, and that’s
where it is. On that southern end. I mean I presume there were a number of different
configurations on the residential in terms of laying it out.
Al-Jaff: It really is more than 10 but let’s, there will be pillars that will come into play and we
just wanted to be on the safe side. We didn’t want to come back before the Planning
Commission and that’s why the 10 feet came in.
Keefe: Okay. And is there, is there, I mean I think we looked at something like this the last time
we met which just seemed like a fairly intensely used parcel, and it seems like there’s a lot going
on that’s being kind of put into this particular parcel. Was it ever considered to cut back on the
amount of residential?
Al-Jaff: I think that’s an excellent question. One of the things that, this site was guided 16 units
per acre and it was one of the concerns that the neighbors had. They basically requested a
reduced number per acre. This site is just over 11 units per acre, and also remember that you’ve
got 100 foot buffer. This entire area is purely landscaping and it’s not being counted towards the
density of this portion, so yes it might appear as if it is dense but it is substantially below what
the ordinance allows.
Keefe: Yeah, I mean we’re asked to consider a variance on setbacks and just you know, push
and particularly that much into the variance means a 50 foot setback by ordinance and we’re
talking about 40 feet. Taking up 40 feet of that setback so that’s pretty material. Okay. Can you
speak a little bit to the height of the parking ramp. I read something that said I think it’s going to
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
3
be a phased parking ramp where you build two stories, and I guess my question there is, the 35
foot maximum would be per 3 stories I presume.
Al-Jaff: That’s correct and…
Keefe: Starting at grade level.
Al-Jaff: That’s correct.
Keefe: When is it expected that the third ramp, or the third story would be added?
Al-Jaff: I believe that’s a question for the applicant.
Keefe: The applicant, okay.
Al-Jaff: I know they intend to start somewhere in October or November. But when they will
add the third story. I think it’s something that will have to do with funds. When funds are made
available.
Keefe: Okay, so more by funds than the amount of parking that would be required.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Keefe: Okay. You spoke of, is this ramp similar to the one…that this ramp would look similar
to the one at, on Highway 5 in Eden Prairie?
Al-Jaff: The applicant doesn’t like me to say this but I think it will look nicer.
Keefe: Yeah, you mentioned that parking ramp. It’s a nicely designed parking ramp. It’s my
personal opinion that parking ramps don’t look all that great in general.
Al-Jaff: I think this is going to look very nice. I mean it’s the use of the trellises, the
landscaping, the brick. It’s the different elements that will make this ramp look attractive.
Keefe: Better than your average parking ramp, okay. The signage on the ramp, the SW is for
Southwest.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Keefe: But you said maybe there’s going to be some additional signage or is it just that logo?
Al-Jaff: It’s the Southwest logo and there will be a sign that says Southwest Station.
Keefe: And would that be on the 212? Would it be on the.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
4
Al-Jaff: There’s one that faces the south elevation and it will be just above the entrance into the
ramp. And there will be another one that will face north.
Keefe: Okay. Traffic, I was looking at the level of service and a fairly low level of service. Is it
contemplated that there will be a high density of traffic right when this project is completed and
then sort of along with that, are we contemplating lights in this area? Stop lights.
Al-Jaff: Yes. There will be stop lights in this area. There will be crossings in this area and with
212 going through, and the realignment of 101, the traffic patterns will change. There is a study
that is only enclosed, the summary of the study and it is on page 7 of the staff report that looks at
the levels of service.
Keefe: Right.
Al-Jaff: And again yes, it will increase.
Keefe: And at what point is this, although as projected, is it an opening or is a stabilization or
from a timing standpoint? I mean is it going to decline significantly from what we’re seeing
here? What’s your take on that?
Fauske: The traffic projections shown in your report on pages 7 and 8 indicated the 2011 build
situation. So that would assume full development of the parking ramp. That’s what we require
them to look at when we’re looking at traffic scenarios.
Al-Jaff: The person that prepared the study is with us today so if you would like to direct some
questions to them later on.
Keefe: Okay, later on. And then one thing, just a comment. It did look like the landscaping was
more than double. A lot of times we get a number of applicants in here that just sort of meet the
minimums and in this case, can you speak to the landscaping just a little bit in regards to just, it
looks like they put trees and bushes and would you say that it’s concentrate on that berm? Is that
it or is it sort of throughout the project?
Al-Jaff: Yeah, it’s throughout the project. I mean truly it’s one of those situations when you’re
lucky to be working on a project like that. It makes it so much easier. Yes, there are more than
double what the ordinance requires. One of the things that happens throughout the meetings was
the neighbors requested that additional landscaping be put on this site and there are some
existing trees in this area. Whatever can be done to save them. Those are mature trees. They
are in excellent shape. And that’s exactly what the applicant has done. There will be a few trees
in this, along this area that will have to come down. One row only, and they will be replaced.
This portion of the site does not have any vegetation and what the applicant is trying to do is to
try and meet what we already have in this area. Try and make it compatible as far as the
boulevard. What the applicant has done is created a double boulevard. As you can see you’ve
got two sidewalks, two green spaces, and within those green spaces you’ve got the two rows of
trees, and that is true around here as well. And it’s not just the trees but the shrubs and the
flowers and the trellises.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
5
Keefe: It seems like they’ve done a really nice job…
Al-Jaff: They’ve done a very, very nice job.
Keefe: That’s all.
McDonald: Debbie.
Larson: I just have one question and it’s regarding the parking structure. Was it ever
considered, or I guess it was considered to go below grade but why was the final decision made
to go up rather than having a lower level?
Al-Jaff: Because MnDot, the architect is here with us today so that would be a question that you
can ask him as well. When MnDot finished the final grade on this lane, the bus lane, they raised
it. And as such the entire site needed to be raised.
Larson: Why? Why can’t you go down? I mean several parking structures…they go down and
up. I just, and then well the other reason too, I’m even mentioning it is, there was something
about the lights. It will help block headlights or something?
Al-Jaff: If you go higher you are able to raise those, you’ll be able to raise the walls and you will
be able to block off the headlights.
Larson: …headlights too. I mean who’s benefiting from the higher structure?
Al-Jaff: Anybody that might be able to see the ramp. The third.
Larson: Okay.
Al-Jaff: I should add something. Speaking of the ramp, and I think this mass model that we see
here will be able to explain it further. This section of the building will actually slope down, so at
this corner you’re practically looking at a story and a half. You’re really not looking at the 35
feet.
Larson: Okay.
Al-Jaff: And then as you get closer to the highway is when the building goes up. No one, none
of the residents will be impacted by this change to the height of the building.
Larson: Okay. That’s all I have then, thank you.
McDonald: Kurt.
Papke: One of the issues in these kind of housing developments is sometimes the back side of
them, you see this long row of flat garages. I’m not sure if I’m interpreting the drawings
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
6
correctly but it looks like in most of these every other unit has an awning or something or, can
you explain that, what that really is? I didn’t quite understand how that would look.
Al-Jaff: Let me see if I can find a profile.
Papke: Could you describe what, I mean you can see right on that, what would be right there?
There’s something over the garages.
Aanenson: It’s the shed roof. It’s similar to what we’ve done on the last few projects. When we
looked at the design standards. Instead of just having that flat façade, trying to incorporate a
shed.
Papke: Okay.
Aanenson: So it is on every other unit and it projects out a couple of feet.
Papke: Okay. One of my concerns, I have a couple of questions on the traffic flow, and one of
my concerns, if I understand correctly, obviously if you just look at the plan, there’s nowhere
near enough parking for the retail, okay. So you’re assuming that many people will park in the
ramp, and that’s why you have the sharing set up. But even with that, I’m just a little concerned
on the very north side there, the north two units of the retail. You know they’re all quite a ways
from the parking. Are there any concerns about the desirability or how that might limit the
businesses that could use that? There’s just not good access to those northern units because you
can’t park on the west side because that’s 101 and there’s no parking on any other side so
anybody who goes to those northern most units is going to have a hike. What was the, you know
as you looked at this, what was the thinking on that?
Al-Jaff: In all honesty I didn’t see it as a long walk. I mean this is a transitory development. I
do expect people to walk within this area. The sidewalks are wide. It is, the way it was laid out
was to make it attractive for people to enjoy a walk through the area. So that’s why I wasn’t
concerned with that element of it. Also there is a cross parking agreement between the retail
portion and the first floor of the parking ramp. There are 75 parking spaces.
Papke: Right, so are you thinking maybe you know a restaurant or something where you’re not
going to get a real frequent, you know obviously a dry cleaner won’t work because you just want
to hop out of your car and pick up your stuff. So is that kind of what your thinking is?
Al-Jaff: My guess is a dry cleaner will be one of the interior units. I can see a coffee shop in this
area before you catch your bus, you go grab a cup of coffee.
Papke: Okay. Getting back to some of Dan’s questions on the setback from Lyman. The
original design called for, I believe it was called an enhanced landscaping on the south side there,
and there was kind of a landscaping buffer.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
7
Papke: And now you mentioned we’ve got trees and stuff there. How, the enhanced landscaping
on the south side there was for screening purposes. Have we retained enough of that with what’s
going on? I know that there’s a great landscaping plan. I don’t fault the overall plan. But on
that south side there, have we retained enough to the point where the sight lines and landscaping
is really enough?
Al-Jaff: I believe that we have been able to accomplish that. In addition to what you see before
you, the applicant worked privately with the homeowners in this area to establish a landscape
buffer along the northerly portion of their property.
Papke: Okay. So there’ll be something on the other side as well?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Papke: Okay.
Al-Jaff: So we had a buffer along this section of Lyman Boulevard, and then a second buffer
along.
Papke: Is that what’s shown on the model over there?
Al-Jaff: This puts all of the trees that…
Papke: Okay, but that gives you kind of the general impression of what they’re going to do?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Papke: Okay. On that same vein, one of the things that’s just caught my attention in the news
lately, a lot of, maybe not a lot. Been reading about cars running off the road. People falling
asleep at the wheel. They crash into the building. 10 feet away, 101 and Lyman. Okay,
somebody makes a right turn northbound. What prevents somebody from just smashing into one
of these housing units. 10 feet away from, yes there’s sidewalks and stuff. I know it’s not
physically 10 feet from the front door to the curb, but what kind of safety. I’m just concerned
from a safety perspective. The entrance to Best Buy, there’s concrete pillars so you don’t crash
through the front door accidentally and smash into. What physical barriers do we have on the
south side here to prevent some happenstance?
Al-Jaff: Well you have the curb itself. Granted, cars can go over the curb. You’ve got the
double boulevard. And then also keep in mind that true, we are requesting a, or the applicant is
requesting a 10 foot setback from the property line, but the physical setback from Lyman
Boulevard exceeds 40 feet. So there is a separation between the roadway and these units. So the
combination of the boulevard, the trees.
Papke: But is there any physical barrier in there of any kind, other than the curb?
Al-Jaff: Other than, no. No concrete pillars or anything like that.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
8
Papke: Okay. Okay. The glass block staircase. Very unusual. Very interesting architectural.
Are there any safety concerns with that? You know I can’t imagine them getting shattered but
you’re going to be able to see people walking up there. Are there any concerns that, from a
safety perspective, oh I can see who’s going in and out of the ramp. Is it a positive or negative
from a safety aspect? I don’t know. It’s just unusual that you have visibility for everyone who’s
using the stairs.
Al-Jaff: I think it was an interesting architectural element.
Papke: It’s very interesting architecturally.
Al-Jaff: That would be a question maybe to ask the applicant.
Papke: Okay. Last question. On page 28 of the staff report you mentioned that the applicant
must show how bus passenger vehicle conflicts will be minimized along the east/west access
road. Could you speak to what sort of conflicts you’re thinking of and what kind of
minimization you might be suggesting?
Fauske: Good evening. The conflicts that we were looking at is, we just wanted to look at the
movements coming in through, this is the corridor that we were speaking of. We just want to see
some, you know beg the question of the applicant, what kind of minimization aspects are you
looking at for conflicts through here? The suggestions, they do have the paver circular area in
here, which is a physical barrier in the driver’s mind as far as a change in the road surface is
coming about. Slow down but we just wanted to make sure that we could look at anything in,
you know if there’s anything we could do to minimize those.
Papke: What kinds of problems are you foreseeing?
Fauske: Well we just wanted to bring it to the forefront. This is new for us too with a larger
park and ride facility here. Certainly not the scale of the Eden Prairie Southwest station but just
to look at, is there a way that, are we confident that there’s, with a constant flow of traffic
through here, it will inhibit traffic trying to make a left turn through here. What sort of aspects
can be put in through that area to make traffic flow properly?
Papke: Any yield signs or any kind of traffic control at that paver circle there, or is it just, you
just wing it?
Fauske: They have a signage plan included in your packet here, and I apologize, I don’t know
the number off the top of my head.
Papke: I think there’s stop, there’s octanginal stops on the northbound, coming out of the
residential there, but is there?
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
9
Fauske: They’re stopping traffic, if you look at again this is the corridor we were speaking of.
They do have traffic stopping, coming out of the ramp here. Coming out of the commercial area
here, so basically for free flow condition through here.
Papke: Okay, so free flow east/west?
Fauske: Correct, and we just wanted the applicant, just to kind of open up that discussion as far
as in their experience is this enough or do we have to look at doing something more?
Papke: Okay. And I think that’s all I have, thanks.
McDonald: Thank you. I’ve just got a couple questions for you. Going back to the signage.
You know you had talked about the signs you’re looking at putting in but in the report there’s 4
additional signs that the applicant wants. Can you identify those for me?
Al-Jaff: Sure. When you said the 4 additional signs, we’re talking about the residential portion?
Is that what you?
McDonald: I believe so. There’s 4 additional monument signs I think.
Al-Jaff: Okay. I apologize. What the applicant is requesting is monument signs that would lead
into the residential portion and this is where they would be located. What staff is recommending
is that, if they wanted to utilize house numbers for instance. That would be permitted, but we
can’t allow continuous monument signs throughout this area.
McDonald: Okay.
Al-Jaff: I just think that there were too many monument signs on this portion of the site.
McDonald: So what you’re recommending is more along the ways of a street sign with numbers
that would point down which house numbers are down this street or kind of a direction as to
where places are located.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
McDonald: Which is typical of other areas I think throughout the city that we’ve got those types
of signs.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
McDonald: Okay. The other question I had was, on the retail, what types are targeted? Are we
looking at to go in there? Do we have any idea of what kind of commercial?
Al-Jaff: If you, when we put the permitted uses together, we looked at retail that was
neighborhood oriented. And that would be a question to ask the retail developer portion of the
site.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
10
McDonald: Well I’m just wondering about it going from the 8,000 square feet up to the 8,500.
If there’s something in particular planned for there that would need the extra room. Okay. The
other questions I’ve got is getting back to the fact that we’ve got a lot of things in here that have
been put together very nicely, but what I’m concerned about that’s missing is there’s no personal
space. There are no decks. There’s no patios. There’s no yards of any type. These are
townhomes, which I take it are targeted toward families with children. Would that be a fair
assumption or not?
Al-Jaff: I, I mean a family with children could live in these neighborhoods but I actually
envision somebody who is downsizing in these areas. In these townhouses.
McDonald: So somewhat similar to the clientele that’s down at Southwest Station in the condos
down there?
Al-Jaff: Potentially, yes.
McDonald: Okay.
Al-Jaff: It would be a question to ask the applicant because I’m sure they’ve done their
marketing study.
McDonald: Well I was just wondering if it was addressed as a part of staff’s overview of all of
this is that you know throughout other developments there’s at least space for people to gather or
to do things but.
Al-Jaff: We did think about it and I mean I place myself in one of those units and I thought
okay, what would I do? Chances are I would be in this area. I mean think of the entire
development as one development. Yes, it does have a residential component. You have open
spaces. Public gathering spaces. There is one here. There’s another in this area. There will be a
third in this area. So if you choose to go to a public space, these spaces will be available to you.
McDonald: So when you’re talking about an urban space, and as part of the variance and
everything, what you’re envisioning here is more of a neighborhood that would be similar to I
think St. Louis Park calls it Grand. That type of space there except we don’t have residential
above retail but that’s the type of area you’re looking at. Which then begins to fit with some of
your variances of what you’re asking for, of putting the house closer to the street because again
what’s envisioned is this is more of an urban setting with people without a lot of children or
needs to do barbeque or play softball or.
Al-Jaff: Of course this is going to be substantially less dense than what you see in St. Louis Park
but.
McDonald: Okay. I’m just trying to get a feel for what the intent of the development is. I have
no further questions for you.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
11
Keefe: Just one additional question in regards to, on page 40, and just going back to parking.
This is more of a technical question because the integrated shopping center, provide a minimum
of 5 spaces per thousand or 1 per 200. And then it goes on to say, the integrated office building
will provide 4 ½ per 1,000 and then for the first 49,000 and then it goes down to 4 per 1,000 for
the next 50. And then 3 ½. I’m just, none of that adds up to 5 and just clarification on that.
Al-Jaff: You said on page.
Keefe: 40 of 48, if you want to look at it more.
Aanenson: I can…per city code. There’s a different standard for each unit so…
Keefe: 5 per 1,000 right?
Aanenson: And then depending on the size of the office, that’s proportional to the use. And
that’s pretty much what we had in parking…
Keefe: So is it retail or is it office?
Al-Jaff: It is retail. It’s intended.
Aanenson: It could be office.
Al-Jaff: It could be office.
Aanenson: You’re looking at the units that are coming in under the PUD…so if it was an office
use…
Keefe: Okay, so let me just follow along. Is that the amount of square footage is, well how
much square feet of retail is there?
Al-Jaff: 18,000.
Keefe: 18,000 so what, you need to get, what is it 5 times 18 is what’s required?
Al-Jaff: I believe the total number is.
Keefe: It’d be 90 spaces to meet retail?
Aanenson: I think what you’re saying is we could probably…
Keefe: Yeah, well that and I’m just you know, if it’s retail it’s about 2,000 right. If it’s office,
then it’s something different and I don’t know. And if it’s cross access into the parking ramp, we
just want to make sure that we’ve got enough allowable space because if you get 75 spaces, plus
whatever is outside, you’re probably okay but I’m just a little confused by the wording.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
12
Al-Jaff: Well we will make sure that whatever we have would have to match with the number of
parking spaces, or parking would have to match with whatever.
Keefe: The use.
Al-Jaff: Yes.
Aanenson: ...I believe what you’re saying, so the number put in there based on our ordinance…
overshoots…
Keefe: Just clarification, thanks.
McDonald: Anyone else with follow up questions? Then I guess the applicant, if there’s
someone here to address the commission.
Len Simich: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the commission. My name is Len Simich.
I’m the Executive Director of Southwest Metro Transit. As Sharmeen mentioned, we do have a
number of individuals that have been involved with this project. Either members of my team or
the two developers that will be developing on site, so any questions you may have, we’d be
happy to answer. What I passed out, and I won’t go through it in any detail. It’s just a little
information about Southwest Metro Transit. We are the transit provider for the City of
Chanhassen, as well as Eden Prairie and Chaska. This is our second transit oriented
development. You did mention the Eden Prairie site. That was our first. It has been very
successful for us and we have made the determination years ago that as we start to expand in
terms of our park and ride needs, we would develop in such a way where we’d bring a total
development together that includes both the housing, retail, on some sites where it makes sense
the office. We’ve been working on this project for about 3 years now. It goes back even further
than that in terms of when we did our initial demand estimates for this area in terms of what the
needs would be. We identified back in late 80’s, early 90’s that this site, as well as another one
in Chaska and the one we have in Eden Prairie that would be built in conjunction with the
expansion of the Highway 212. Currently we have both this one and the one in Chaska moving
along on dual tracks. Just to answer a couple of questions. As we set out back 3 years ago, we
heard a number of things very loud and clear. One is we want a development that wasn’t your
typical development that we had seen in Chanhassen. Make it unique. Make it with a lot of
interest. Put a lot of amenities into it. In a sense, spare no expense. The Planning Commission
for you, as well as the City Council really wanted to see this type of development, and I think
we’ve come a long way in trying to provide that. We found some good partners that were
willing to offer that up. Just to answer a couple questions, because we have very similar ones as
we went through the process in terms of the setbacks and so forth, and I think Sharmeen did a
good job when she covered the setback from Lyman, but again it’s 10 feet from the right-of-way.
I just wanted to clarify that. We’re really talking about 30 feet from the roadway, so it isn’t that
it’s right up top, but we did want to make sure that we pulled the houses up. We thought it
would give a lot more architectural interest, especially for the neighbors to the south. You’re
looking at front doors with a lot of the amenities with the parking and the garages hidden with
the back side. Also the housing acts as a good buffer. That was one of the other goals. Initially
when we started looking at this site we envisioned a lot of the retail, much like we have in Eden
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
13
Prairie. Again through the neighborhood meetings, they spoke loud and clear that they’d like to
see housing. Owner occupied housing. Don’t intensify it to the 16 units an acre. Save our 100
foot buffer. Do a number of the things that I think you see in this plan. So we’re quite proud of
what we have here. We look forward to building it out in the city of Chanhassen and again I’ll
sit back and answer any questions or have members of my team any of those questions as well.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Kurt, did you have some questions?
Papke: One of them was the glass block staircase. Any safety, privacy issues with that?
Kyle Williams: I’m Kyle Williams with LSA Design. We’re the site plan developers and the
transit architects. It’s not glass block. It’s just glass. Tempered glass, and there are advantages
to having glass. In transit facilities, passive security is seeing who’s there, both in the stair tower
looking out and looking in. Police drive by, they can look in and see some lighting and visibility
are what we strive for. So it’s a very positive thing. And one of the reasons we are against the
idea of burying the level of the deck. Initially we had about a 6 to 8 foot drop from the east/west
road down to the transit facility. So there would be level access from the half level down to the
bus way. MnDot picked the corner of the bus way up. Therefore the full lower level would have
been underground. From an accessibility standpoint, you’d have to go up steps or an elevator to
get there. It also, before we had lights that would come in about half way on the deck, so again
light and visibility from a passive security standpoint is a positive thing. Once we raised the
whole thing up, the deck is underground, and if we could avoid it, we would like to. Technically
it’s possible. We would have to sprinkler half the deck. We’d have to put in extra security
cameras and be more concerned about safety. Technically it’s very possible. From a desirability
standpoint, it’s not so we would prefer to bring it up. And then from the height standpoint, as
that comes up, the deck goes up. The deck floor to floor is about 11 foot 6 so the actual deck
floor to deck floor is 23 feet as you have the first level grade plus two structured levels. If we
add a spano panel, then we go up another minimum 3 ½ feet for safety. If we go up another
couple, it helps to mitigate lights shining from that third level out towards the neighbors. I
would be more concerned as a neighbor having lights, headlights shine on me than the height of
a building. …in the 100 foot buffer on the easterly side of the bus way and then adjacent to the
deck as well. And as Sharmeen mentioned, that is the ramp side of the deck so if you took an
average height of the deck, there’d be 17 ½ feet approximately versus the 35 feet. So we think
that that’s a positive thing to have it a little bit higher actually. Then we can just have some
more articulation. Architectural articulation as you can look at the elevations so it’s not just one
big plane or flat piece. It is a parking deck. You can’t really hide the fact that it’s a parking deck
as much as you can dress it up, but some articulation of vertical height. Some articulation of the
horizontal depth like with the trellises and the landscaping. We have brick bases that will
articulate some of that depth, so we can do some things that will help mitigate the fact that it’s a
very large building. We can’t hide the fact that it’s a large building but we can mitigate I think
the impact that it has on the adjacent. Was there another question of architect? I can’t
remember. On the deck.
Papke: Ah no, not on the parking ramp.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
14
Kyle Williams: We could let the retail, it is 8,500 square feet. 17,000 square feet of retail. The
agreement is that the retail developer is allowed 5 cars per 1,000 or 85 cars total. Those will be
signed vehicle spaces on the westerly portion of the first level of the deck. So in terms of access
those will all be dedicated to retail. The rest of it will be transit, and they have agreed, the
developer’s agreed that if, whatever uses they end up with, they don’t have final agreements yet.
Whatever uses they have, they will maintain that maximum parking.
Keefe: Follow up question on parking. What’s your build out on the parking ramp from 2 to 3
levels in terms of timing? What it depends on. I heard maybe it’s economics. Is there another
driver?
Len Simich: You’re correct in terms of economics. That will be the driving factor. We are
bidding this with an alternate for the final level. However right now our budget projections
really look at the surface plus one at this time. But we’ll design it in a way where that third level
can be added, I won’t say in an easy manner but it will allow us to do so. If we, we did this the
same exercise in Eden Prairie and we initially went in, we put 4 levels plus the fifth as an
alternate. We were able to find a way to fund it at that time because I think it suits everybody’s
needs and just works better if you can do it at once, but right now we’re looking at 2 plus 1. And
until the funding becomes available…
Keefe: Well and just to that point, just briefly on a quick business question. You’re the land
developer on this and then the owner of the parking ramp, is that where it is? Is that kind of how
it works out or how does it? Because you’ve got a separate retail developer and a separate
residential developer I presume.
Len Simich: Yes, Southwest Metro basically assembled the property. Did the overall plan and
brought developers in to execute their portions. Housing will be a sale, so that’s total spin off of
our property to the housing developer. The retail is a lease. They’ll be leasing the property. We
have a 30 year plus two 10 year options.
Keefe: Okay. And then you would retain ownership of the land?
Len Simich: We would retain ownership.
Keefe: Is it a free ramp, is that right? Yeah.
Len Simich: Correct. The parking ramp is free and as Kyle mentioned, we have dedicated stalls
for the retail. It will be I believe 85-90 stalls. Those are stalls that the retailer is actually paying
for in terms of the construction, so it’s a little bit different. It’s not the money we’re using per se
to build the transit stalls. They’ll be separate for development.
Keefe: So the third level is really contingent on getting state funding for the third level, is that
kind of how it works?
Len Simich: Actually most of this project is being developed with federal funds. 20% state,
80% federal.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
15
Keefe: Okay.
McDonald: Kurt, were you through?
Papke: I had a question on the housing. Two questions, and they’re related. You were speaking
of ceilings in some. Are these standard 8 foot ceilings in these units or 9 foot ceilings? What
kind of.
Len Simich: I’m going to have the developer… He can answer that probably better than I can.
Papke: And then a related question, what’s your price target on these?
Doug VanOrden: I’m Doug VanOrden with Klingelhutz Companies. I basically do the
development. As far as the housing, the first floor I believe is 9 foot ceilings, and the second
floor would be 8 feet. And in today’s dollars I’m assuming it’s going to be oh roughly $220,000
to $260,000-$270,000.
Papke: Okay.
Keefe: Are there any additional amenities on the housing that you can speak of? I mean there’s
some nice articulation on the front from particularly the south end on the Lyman Boulevard side,
and the sort of walk up entrances but in terms of decking and patios.
Doug VanOrden: No. One thing we do have is, I have 10 feet from the sidewalk to the building
in case, in answer to the question on barbeques or whatever, and they could possibly have a patio
in the front next to the door if they wanted. They could have that amenity, or as far as
barbequing, if they didn’t choose to do it there, they would have to do it in the driveway. And as
far as the amenities, we thought we came a long way on the architectural design of the building.
When we initially started we didn’t have nearly as much stone or hard surface or our roof line
wasn’t as intriguing as it is now. We went to great lengths to make this fit in to the urban type
look and as far as the urban type look, I kind of compare this just somewhat to, it’s a different
design but in the Eden Prairie area when you go to PetSmart on the road there, you see the
townhouses that are close to the road. I kind of compare that to that. I think it’s a rather unique
design.
McDonald: Debbie, do you have any questions?
Larson: What’s the target date to start this or does it just depend on the other two?
Doug VanOrden: Right. Our target date, and Len can correct me if I’m wrong but I think we’ll
be about June of next year. What we’ll do is June of next year we’d be working on our
infrastructure. We hope to have one building at least up by end of October. And of course that
depends on weather.
Larson: October of this year or next year?
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
16
Doug VanOrden: October of next year. We’re not, we won’t be starting on, we won’t have
acquisition of the land until next year. I believe next May is when we have our closing date. So
immediately after that we would start on the infrastructure.
Len Simich: If I could just add to that. A lot of this is going to be a phased approach. We hope
to actually start beginning by the end of this year, and then for staging purposes and so forth, the
retailers can’t get in til the parking ramp’s done, so on and so forth so it’s kind of a staged
closing. But we’re all shooting for October of ’07 date.
McDonald: Further questions? I have a question for the housing director. This is really a very,
well it’s a different design than anything we’ve seen before and I like the front of it, the way you
break it up and everything. My only disappointment was, I didn’t see a drawing similar to the
back. I would like to know what the back looks like because all we have is just a line drawn
more or less of the detail for the back of the homes.
Doug VanOrden: I think the back is basically hardy plank. We went all out on the, anything
that’s visible from the road as far as curb appeal. On our sides and the front.
McDonald: And I guess what my question is, on the back, what’s it going to look like? I mean
you’ve got a lot of detail on the front, but again from the drawing that’s shown for the back side
it looks like it’s just kind of a flat surface all the way along the back of it and I’m not sure that’s
exactly what it is but could you give a little bit more detail there as to what to expect.
Doug VanOrden: I’m going to have to refer.
McDonald: Yeah, go right ahead.
Doug VanOrden: Basically what we have here is, you have kind of like the shed roof over the
garage. You’re going to have planters in the back that will be appealing and the rest of it will be
basically hardy plank.
McDonald: Okay. Are there going to be any back doors or anything to these or is it all entrance.
Doug VanOrden: All through the garage door.
McDonald: Okay. Then I had a question about the parking ramp, and I want to commend you
on your design. I believe that you have brought forward a real good product so I thank you for
that.
Doug VanOrden: Well we look forward to starting on these. This is the first type design we’ve
had like this and we’re real anxious on getting started.
McDonald: Well again, thank you very much. I have a question about the parking garage and
the stalls for retail. You mentioned a couple of things and you talk about dedicated stalls. Is that
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
17
like with signs for each of the particular shops so there’s so many stalls per shop and if you’re
going to shop there, that’s the only place you can park?
Len Simich: Mr. Chair that is correct. They will be designated with signage, probably some
other type of striping. We do the same thing here in Chanhassen at the market location where
right now it’s a surface lot. Those are colored blue and with signage and the transit customer has
to stay in that area. So we’d be doing something very similar in this location as well.
McDonald: Okay, because the question I have is, as a retail customer, if I go in and slots are
filled up, what’s to stop me from parking someplace else? I mean what’ the impact?
Len Simich: To stop people from parking someplace generally is because we’re going to be very
successful. Because my customers for the most part are in by 8:30-9:00. Both of our trips are
work related trips, so most of the retail operations start later in the day. That’s what we’re
experiencing in Eden Prairie as well, so if there are open stalls, they can use those stalls. The
realities are, as we continue to grow those stalls probably will be taken.
McDonald: Okay. And again from your experience at Eden Prairie, is there a lot of drive in
traffic or is it more walk in traffic from customers riding the bus or people within the
neighborhood so parking doesn’t really become a big issue.
Len Simich: We’re seeing quite a bit of the drive in, drop off as well as the walk up. Much
more than we have seen in the course of the last 5 years. So we’re seeing more and more of that
occurring. In terms of the actual percentage, it’s still relatively low. Most people are coming in
and parking but we have seen an increase in that and that’s part of the reason this one I believe
will have more of that because there’s going to be more households in close proximity than what
we have in Eden Prairie.
McDonald: Okay. And can you speak to the types of retail? Are there any plans at this point as
to what we’re looking at for the retail space types?
Len Simich: If I could I’ll bring up the retail developer. Mr. Baker or I don’t know how much
you’re going to be able to share.
Tom Baker: My name’s Tom Baker with UHI Commercial Real Estate and at this time there are
no retailers that have committed. We haven’t even started marketing the project.
McDonald: Okay. So at that point everything is wide open as far as what it is you’re looking
for, coffee shops, quick food stores. You’re open to whatever is within the plan at this point.
Tom Baker: Whatever’s been an approved use.
McDonald: Okay. Do you have a follow up you wanted to ask?
Larson: Well just out of curiosity, do you have any thoughts as to what kind of price you’re
going to be asking for square foot on these?
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
18
Tom Baker: Still developing it based on what construction costs are doing. But I would guess
it’s in the mid 20’s.
McDonald: Does anyone have any questions for retail, go ahead.
Keefe: I don’t necessarily have retail.
McDonald: Okay.
Tom Baker: Okay, thank you.
McDonald: Thank you.
Keefe: Just a question in regards to ownership and maintenance, particularly with parking areas
and if you have separate owners for the retail and the residential, how is the property, overall
property maintained? And what is the strategy for that, that we don’t end up with.
Len Simich: That is a good question because that is one of the things that generally these deals
blow up on. And we’ve learned a lot with our Eden Prairie development. We had in terms of
our overall covenants and our declarations, also because we are going to own the property that
the retail sits upon, we, Southwest Metro will be taking responsibility for the maintenance.
Charging it back through a CAM…maintenance charge. We also have already discussed the
housing and will be partnering a lot but since the housing will be a separate association, they’ll
probably be handling most of that themselves, but we may use similar contractors and so forth,
so we’ll work hand in hand with the housing but from a retail standpoint, Southwest Metro will
actually be taking the lead.
Keefe: And the private streets that go through the residential area, is that maintained then
through the residential association or?
Len Simich: Correct, and that’s probably one of those classic examples of where we would park.
Because our customers do start arriving early, we need to make sure that the playing is done and
things like that. So it just makes sense. Plus we’ve opened up to move into the residential as
well.
Keefe: Okay.
McDonald: Alright, thanks. I think that’s all the questions we have for the applicant. Thank
you very much for coming up and giving us all this good information. At this point then what I
would do is open the meeting to the public and anyone wishing to address this, if you would step
up to the podium. State your name and address and address your comments. Okay, I guess
everybody’s here for something else. Oh!
Don Sinniger: Good evening. My name is Don Sinniger and I’m a resident at 600 Lyman
Boulevard. I actually have my house on the plan right here, next to the 100 foot berm on the
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
19
eastern side of the development. Today I spent a good part of today calling and talking to
several people at the City of Chanhassen. I became a resident of Chanhassen in the summer of
2004 so unfortunately I wasn’t able to attend the neighborhood meetings that talked about a lot
of this and trying to get the input from the neighbors. And I’ve just recently learned of a regional
trail that is being proposed, that’s on the plan to go on the Lyman side of the development and
then going east down Lyman and to a small road, Quinn Road, which I can actually show you
from this road here. Let’s see here. Right over here, like this? Okay. Okay, so right in this area
is my lot. This is a kind of a drainage pond area right in here, and my lot goes right like this.
There’s one other lot behind me here and then there’s a lot next to us here and then there’s Quinn
Road which goes this way and it dead ends up here and there’s residents along here also. I just
recently learned last week at a neighborhood meeting that there will be a regional trail, which I
haven’t been able to get a lot of details regarding this, that will go along the front of the
development here. And then will cross the entrance here. Go across the front of the berm area
here, and then go through my front yard. I understand there’s a city easement, right-of-way
easement. I have not been able to find out how far that is that goes through right here, and I have
also not been able to find out a right turn lane that is being proposed into here, if it will also take
any of my lot for the easement here. And these are the questions that I’ve been trying to find out
through the neighborhood meeting last week and then through phone calls today and I’m hoping
that by me coming here tonight I can start some dialogue to see what we can find out on this.
I’m especially interested in knowing this soon because I’m planning to have irrigation installed
in my yard, and if I had that done within the next month, like I’m planning to, if this trail comes
through in 6 months to a year, I have to pay for this again. So that’s my question right now.
McDonald: Kate.
Aanenson: Do you have the overall…? This is the gentleman’s home right here. So at this time
with this project we’re recommending a sidewalk be placed across here, as shown on the site
plan, across this property. It’s proposed at some time in the future to take a sidewalk all the way
over to Quinn Road. Ultimately Quinn Road will tie back up, when that property develops, all
the way over towards North Bay, and as you’re aware Lakeview Hills will be in for
redevelopment here shortly, so ultimately it’s open to the opportunity for those people also, if
they want to ride their bikes or walk on that sidewalk, shown on this plan. It’s a little harder to
see. There is right-of-way and we’d be happy to meet with you and show you exactly where that
right-of-way is. Any future sidewalk again is not being built on this gentleman’s property with
this project. We just identified that there will be a trail in the future. When that gets put into a
capital improvements plan to go across, all the way across here to Quinn Road. And that will
allow also people from Summerfield to cross here too, or…so it’s not being proposed to be built
any time soon. If you wanted to talk to Park and Rec’s department, to Todd Hoffman to find out
what he would be putting that in the capital improvement budget.
Al-Jaff: I believe that Mr. Hoffman did speak to you…this morning.
Don Sinniger: Yep, I spoke to him briefly today. Yep. I guess I was curious to know if there’s,
any kind of time line here. If we’re looking at a year? If we’re looking at.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
20
Aanenson: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately that really is not part of this application but we’d be
happy to meet with him separately and try to answer his questions.
McDonald: Okay, if you all could go ahead and do that, then, does that answer your questions
concerning this particular project then?
Don Sinniger: Yes it does.
McDonald: Okay.
Don Sinniger: Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward and address this plan that’s
before us? Okay, seeing no one, I close the public meeting and I bring the issue back before the
council for discussion. Who would like to start? Kurt, you get to start.
Papke: Well I think the planning group and the applicant, and the neighborhood, Springfield and
surrounding neighbors I think have, there’s been a tremendous community effort in refining this.
It’s certainly a lot different from the preliminary proposal that we first looked at. And I think the
results show it. This is, you know considering we’re talking a parking ramp, retail, and housing
here, this is an incredibly complex project and to have it, you know granted there’s a lot of
conditions here in the staff report but to have it come through with so few controversial issues, to
not have any city residents stand up and pound on the table you know angry about something I
think is a major accomplishment so I’d like to commend the city staff for bringing this, and the
applicants and the residents for working together on this, so I think this is a great development.
McDonald: Okay. Debbie.
Larson: Well everything that Kurt said. I mean it’s beautiful. The city of trees remains.
Quadrupling I think what the minimums are, which is lovely. The design. The materials. I think
everything is great. Be interesting to see Chanhassen have urban development. That to me is
very different than from what we’ve seen before, but it’s inevitable and I think it’s a nice
application.
McDonald: Thank you. Dan.
Keefe: I think it’s a really well designed project. I think they’ve put a lot of thought and effort
into the site plan and I’m in full support of this project.
McDonald: I guess the only comments that I would have is also to kind of echo what my fellow
commissioners have said. This has been a rather unique approach that’s been brought before us,
I think as far as the planning and the amount of work that’s gone into it, and you know it would
appear that any problems have already been taken care of so things look pretty easy as far as our
job at this point. With that I guess what I’d like to do is talk about motions and because of the
way that this is broken up, I guess I’d like to suggest that we vote on each one of these
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
21
independently, with maybe the exception of 1 and 2 since the variances are tied together. I’ll
open for discussion is anyone would like to just lump them all together.
Keefe: Just a point of clarification. I’m comfortable that the hardship concerns have been
satisfied in regards to the variance for setbacks and is everybody comfortable with the conditions
for the rationale for hardships that are outlined in the staff report and those appear on page 11, or
page 12. I’m just concerned in terms of the variances that we grant.
Papke: I almost don’t look at these as hardships. And the terminology almost begs to be refined
a little bit. They’re almost opportunities here. I think we’re going for a certain look. A certain
design. A certain architecture, and I think the variances make sense in light of that so to try to
justify in our own brains here a hardship, you know I don’t know. What the other
commissioners think about it.
Keefe: Well I tend to agree with you. I don’t see them as real hardships. I mean that’s why
some of the questions I think were asked. You’re trying to achieve a certain look and feel with
all of this, and I think based upon that, what we’ve done, we’ve made the plan accommodate that
and we’ve done a good job. A lot of the questions I think I asked, and hopefully what the
commissioners asked again to address some of those things, especially about the variance. I
don’t feel that there’s a problem with that particular variance based upon the design and plus the
fact houses are still 30 feet off the road. 30-40 feet off the road itself. So I’m not sure that again
I would see that as a hardship that needs to be proved. It’s, I think they made their case for the
design and the development and kind of move on from there. The reason I suggested
independent voting on these was, yeah. I had some issues with a couple of them but what I’m
sensing is pretty much you know a consensus on these and if you want to propose them all at
once, we can vote on them all at once so.
Papke: Even if we put them all to one vote, we could still propose friendly amendments to the
individual ones so, you know and unless somebody feels there’s something. I haven’t heard any
controversy about any of the issues so far so I’m not expecting a high probability that any one of
them is going to get voted down.
McDonald: Okay. In that case then I’d be open for a motion.
Papke: Alright, I’ll give this a shot. It’s going to be long winded. Mr. Chair, I move that the
Planning Commission, number one, the Planning Commission recommends City Council
approve the Planned Unit Development Amendment for South West Village clarifying setbacks,
signage and retail building size as follows, as stated in staff report. Number two, the variance. I
move that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve variance request
#06-18 to allow 10 foot setback from Lyman Boulevard, a 20 foot setback from Highway 101,
and a 45 foot setback from Highway 212 as shown on the plans dated Received April 13, 2006.
Number three, the subdivision. I move that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the preliminary plat for Planning Case 06-18 for South West Village as shown
in plans dated Received April 13, 2006, subject to the conditions 1 through 19. And then number
four, I move that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan
for two 8,500 square foot retail buildings for Planning Case 06-18 for South West Village as
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
22
shown on plans dated Received April 13, 2006 subject to conditions 1 through 8. Then I move
that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan for phases 1
and 2. Not 1 and 1 as shown in the staff report, but phases 1 and 2 of the parking ramp and
transit station for Planning Case 06-18 for South West Village as shown in plans dated Received
April 13, 2006, subject to conditions 1 through 8.
Keefe: On page 44, the residential.
Papke: Ah! And then number 4(b). Residential. I move that the Planning Commission
recommends the City Council approve a site plan for 33 townhouses for Planning Case 06-18 for
South West Village as shown on plans dated Received April 13, 2006 subject to conditions 1
through 14.
McDonald: Okay. And isn’t there a 4(c)? Page 46.
Keefe: He did (c).
McDonald: Okay. Is there a second?
Keefe: Second.
McDonald: Okay, the case we have before us, motions recommending that we accept motions 1,
2, 3, 4A, 4B and 4C.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the Planned Unit Development amendment for SouthWest Village clarifying
setbacks, signage, and retail building size as follows (amendments are shown in bold):
PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a Mixed Use PUD including a Transit Oriented
Development, Neighborhood Commercial and Residential. The use of the PUD zone is to
allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive
development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan
review based on the development standards outlined below.
b. Permitted Uses
· The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and
service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood and the
transit facility users. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is
a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Community
Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be
provided on these lots shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
23
service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Commercial and transit uses
shall be limited to the area located north of the access point off of Highway 101.
Residential uses shall be located south of the Highway 101 access.
· Small to medium sized restaurant-not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no
drive-thru windows)
· Office
· day care
· neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,000 8,500 square feet per building footprint
· convenience store without gas pumps
· specialty retail (book store jewelry, Sporting Goods sale/rental, Retail Sales, Retail
Shops, Apparel Sales, etc.)
· personal services (an establishment or place of business primarily engaged in
providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a tailor
shop, Shoe Repair, Self-service Laundry, Laundry Pick-up Station, Dry Cleaning,
dance studios, etc).
· Park-and-Ride not to exceed 800 spaces.
· Residential High Density (8-16 units per acre).
c. Prohibited Ancillary Uses
· Drive thru Windows
· Outdoor storage and display of merchandise
d. Setbacks
The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following
table displays those setbacks.
Boundary Building and Parking
Setback
Lyman Boulevard 50 10 feet
Highway 101 35 20 feet north of the
Highway 101 access
and 50 feet south of the
101 access
Highway 212 excluding transit shelters and ramps 50 20 feet
Easterly Project Property Line 100 Feet
Internal Project property lines 0 Feet
Hard Surface Coverage 50 %
Commercial and Transit Facility Hard Surface Coverage 70 %
Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height 35 feet or 3 stories,
whichever is less
Maximum Commercial Building/Structure Height 1 story
Maximum Park-and-Ride Ramp excluding the elevator shaft
and stair well
25 35 feet or 3 stories,
whichever is less
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
24
e. Non Residential Building Materials and Design
1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of
architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a neighborhood and
transit friendly development.
2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all
walls shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in
place panels, decorative block, or cedar siding. Color shall be introduced through
colored block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous
bands are prohibited.
3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed
cement (“cinder”) blocks shall be prohibited.
4. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved
except as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HVAC
screen, and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area.
5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary
structure.
6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing
material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks,
etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment
shall be screened with material compatible to the building.
7. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large
unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by
architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations,
or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping
with the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be
prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed
aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural
interest through building design or appropriate landscaping.
8. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall
receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities.
9. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with
the adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them.
Extreme variations between buildings in terms of overall appearance, bulk and
height, setbacks and colors shall be prohibited.
f. Residential Standards
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
25
1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of fiber-cement siding, vinyl
siding, stucco, or brick with support materials such as cedar shakes, brick and stone
or approved equivalent materials as determined by the city.
2. Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as arched louvers, dormers,
etc.
3. All units shall have access onto an interior private street.
4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the
building or landscaping.
5. A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include
colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick and stone.
6. All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls.
g. Site Landscaping and Screening
The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property
abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to
protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding
neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise
pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare.
1. The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated
with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage,
parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc.
2. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the
site plan review process.
3. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be
landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree
wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas.
4. Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101 shall be
sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required
buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any
proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded.
5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be
required where deemed appropriate.
6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
26
h. Street Furnishings
Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design
and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street
furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian
movement.
i. Signage
The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the
development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the business’s ability to
attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic
safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private
property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is
the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and
image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public,
and to use signs which meet the city's goals:
(1) Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable
opportunity to advertise their name and service;
(2) Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this
objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or
illumination;
(3) Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards;
(4) Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a
manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract
motorists;
(5) Preserve and protect property values;
(6) Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally
compatible with, the principal structures;
(7) Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an
opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting
signs which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way
intersections.
1. Project Identification Sign:
One Two project identification signs shall be permitted for the
development at the entrance off of Highway 101. The total area of both
Project identification signs shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display
area nor be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback a
minimum of 10 feet from the property line.
2. Monument Sign:
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
27
One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development
off of Lyman Boulevard. This sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign
display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign shall be
setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line.
3. Wall Signs:
a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved
building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than
20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a
maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos
comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or
translucent facing.
b. Illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the
PUD site, are prohibited.
c. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is
restricted to the tenant’s proper name and major product or service
offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices
are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band
and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is
the sign.
d. Signs along the sides of the retail buildings are prohibited unless
the actual entrance into a tenant’s space is located at the side of
the building.
e. Wall-mounted signs along Highway 101 shall be limited to either
above the storefront windows when a shared entry configuration
exists, and for an unshared configuration, the signage shall be
located above the entry or above the tenant’s specific storefront
windows, but not both.
f. On the east elevation, signage shall be permitted above the
storefront only as well as small-scale pedestrian level decorative
signage, perpendicular to the wall (projecting signs). The size of
the sign shall not exceed 9 square feet.
g. A “SW” logo on the elevator shaft of the parking ramp building
shall be permitted. The size of the logo shall not exceed a 4 foot
diameter along the north elevation. This logo may be back lit.
h. A “SouthWest Transit” with a “SW” logo not to exceed a 4-foot
diameter along the west elevation shall be permitted. This sign
may be back lit.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
28
i. A “SouthWest Transit” sign with letters 36 inches high shall be
permitted along the south elevation. This sign may not be
illuminated.
4. Festive Flags/Banners
a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached
to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area
lighting.
b. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl.
c. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users,
businesses, services, or products.
d. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two
feet.
e. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet.
f. Flags and banners which are torn or excessively worn shall be
removed at the request of the city.
5. Building Directory
a. In multi-tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be
permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet.
6. Directional Signs
a. On-premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The
maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the
ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so
located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties
(including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the
general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. No more
than four (4) signs shall be allowed per lot. The city council may allow
additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety
could be jeopardized.
b. Off-premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is
confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be
inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign
shall be no larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from
the roadway and shall be approved by the city council.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
29
c. Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the
local transit authority.
d. Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and
other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street
fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate
vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs
should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area
and away from residential areas.
7. Prohibited Signs:
· Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign.
· Pylon signs are prohibited.
· Back lit awnings are prohibited.
· Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and
not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area
· Menu Signs are prohibited.
8. Sign Design and permit requirements:
a. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should
reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be
consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the
development. A common theme will be introduced at the
development's entrance monument and will be used throughout.
b. All signs require a separate sign permit.
c. Wall business signs shall comply with the city’s sign ordinance for
the Neighborhood business district for determination of maximum
sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the “street” front and
primary parking lot front of each building.
j. Lighting
1. Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the
development. High pressure sodium vapor lamps with decorative natural colored pole shall
be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian
scale lighting shall be used in plaza and sidewalk areas and may be used in parking lot
areas.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
30
2. Light fixtures should be kept to a
pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet).
Street light fixtures should
accommodate vertical banners for
use in identifying the commercial
area. The fixtures shall conform
with (Figure 36 – Chanhassen
Lighting Unit Design).
3. All light fixtures shall be shielded.
Light level for site lighting shall be
no more than 1/2 candle at the
project perimeter property line.
This does not apply to street
lighting.
4. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the
parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in
close proximity to buildings.
k. Non Residential Parking
1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever
possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be
protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city.
2. The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a
minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The
office/personal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and
provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per
thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square
feet thereafter.
l. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve variance request #06-18 to allow a 10-foot setback from Lyman Boulevard, a 20-
foot setback from Highway 101, and a 45-foot setback from Highway 212, as shown in
plans dated received April 13, 2006. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the preliminary plat for Planning Case 06-18 for SouthWest Village as shown in
plans dated received April 13, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
31
1. Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected for the
.95-acre commercial property and the housing units only as a condition of approval for
SouthWest Village. No fees will be collected for the transportation component of the
development. The park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat
submission and approval.
2. The preliminary plat must be revised to include a 25-foot wide drainage and utility easement
over the sanitary sewer and watermain along Highway 101, south of the SouthWest Station
entrance, and a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement over the storm sewer in the
northern portion of the property.
3. A catch basin must be installed at the ingress at Highway 101 and the storm sewer adjusted
accordingly.
4. The developer must submit written confirmation with the final plat application indicating that
the MNDOT pond located in the south loop of the Highway 101 ramp has been sized to
accommodate runoff from this development.
5. Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat submittals and must include
storm sewer inlet capacity analysis to verify that 100% of the runoff from a 10-year event can
be captured.
6. The utility plan must be revised to show the following:
a. Show the proposed water service to the bus station.
b. Due to differential settlement, the three valves and the sanitary sewer manhole must not
lie within the proposed paver-block circle at the intersection of the access road at the
western private driveway intersection. The valves can be relocated outside of the paver-
block circle. Sanitary sewer manhole 503 can be installed to the north of the paver-block
circle and an additional manhole can be installed to the west of the paver-block circle.
c. Sanitary sewer manhole 501 must not lie within the sidewalk.
d. Eliminate the 90-degree bend in the watermain at the Highway 101 intersection and
replace with two 45-degree bends.
e. The final utility plan must show the sewer and water services to the townhome units.
f. The lowest floor elevation of each unit must be shown on the utility plan.
7. MNDOT will be invoicing the City for a portion of the utility improvements for this
development. The developer must pay for 100% of the invoices that the City receives for
this work.
8. 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.
9. The applicant shall provide an additional connection between the residential sidewalks and the
trail along the intersection of Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
32
10. Encroachment agreements are required for the two drainage and utility easements due to the
extensive landscaping and sidewalk proposed.
11. The applicant should show emergency overflow paths for storm water.
12. The Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan (Sheet C-03) should be revised to include a
legend.
13. The applicant should work with the City to develop a plan that outlines storm water and snow
management related to the parking deck structure for this and future phases.
14. 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.
15. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed. A rock construction entrance should be shown on the plans.
16. Curbside inlet control details are needed. Wimco-type inlet controls should be used and
installed within 24 hours of installation.
17. Typical building lot controls should be shown on the plan. These controls should include
perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street sweeping, inlet control and temporary
mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the certificates of occupancy.
18. Water Quality and Quantity Fees:
Water Quality Fees
Parcel Size (ac.) Zoning Rate Per Acre Total
Retail 0.955 Commercial $12,100 $11,556
Parking Ramp 6.292 Commercial $12,100 $76,133
Housing 2.769 High Density Residential $3,400 $9,415
TOTAL Qual $97,104
Water Quantity Fees
Parcel Size (ac.) Zoning Rate Per Acre Total
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
33
Retail 0.955 Commercial $6,400 $6,112
Parking Ramp 6.292 Commercial $6,400 $40,269
Housing 2.769 High Density Residential $6,400 $17,722
TOTAL Quan $64,103
At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $161,207.
19. 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.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the site plan for two 8,500 square-foot retail buildings for Planning Case 06-18 for
SouthWest Village as shown in plans dated received April 13, 2006, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Applicant shall include overstory deciduous trees within the parking lot plantings for the
retail area.
2. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval.
3. Building Official Conditions:
a) The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
b) The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
c) Accessible routes must be provided to commercial buildings, parking facilities and public
transportation stops.
d) All parking areas, including parking structure, must be provided with accessible parking
spaces. As submitted, the retail buildings must have a minimum of 4 accessible parking
spaces, one of which must have an 8-foot access aisle.
e) The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the
proposed buildings, including but not limited to, allowable size and fire-resistive
construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine
compliance at this time.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
34
f) The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures.
4. The grading plan must show proposed contours, minimum two-foot contour intervals and
proposed retaining walls, including the top and bottom of wall elevations.
5. Spot elevations must be shown along the east curb of the commercial area to ensure that the
parking and drive aisle area meets the minimum slope requirement.
6. The sidewalks and trails shown within the public right-of-way shall be privately owned and
maintained.
7. The developer must verify that the proposed eight-inch watermain will provide sufficient
flow for the proposed residential, commercial and sprinkling uses on the site.
8. Fire Marshal Conditions:
a) Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
b) A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, 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.
c) 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.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 501.4.
d) Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota State Fire Code
Section 501.4.
e) Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3 and 503.4.
f) 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 State Fire code Section 503.2.3.
g) Regarding the residential area, two hydrants will need to be relocated. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
35
h) Submit radius turn designs to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.4.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the site plan for 33 town houses for Planning Case 06-18 for SouthWest Village as
shown in plans dated received April 13, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. Four additional overstory, deciduous trees shall be planted parallel to the offstreet parking
area within the residential district.
2. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval.
3. Building Official Conditions:
a) The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
b) The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
c) Accessible routes must be provided to commercial buildings, parking facilities and public
transportation stops.
d) All parking areas, including parking structure, must be provided with accessible parking
spaces. As submitted, the retail buildings must have a minimum of 4 accessible parking
spaces, one of which must have an 8-foot access aisle.
e) The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the
proposed buildings, including but not limited to, allowable size and fire-resistive
construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine
compliance at this time.
f) The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures.
g) The applicant shall meet with the building official as soon as possible to discuss details of
building permit plans.
4. On-street parking is not permitted on the private streets.
5. The private street design must be adjusted to accommodate the turning movements of a fire
truck and a moving van.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
36
6. The grading plan must show proposed contours, minimum two-foot contour intervals and
proposed retaining walls, including the top and bottom of wall elevations.
7. Note the lowest floor elevation of the proposed townhome units and include a grading detail
showing hold down information.
8. The first 30 feet of each private street extending from the access drive must be minimum 3%.
9. The sidewalks and trails shown within the public right-of-way shall be privately owned and
maintained.
10. The developer must verify that the proposed eight-inch watermain will provide sufficient
flow for the proposed residential, commercial and sprinkling uses on the site.
11. The four monument signs along the private streets are prohibited.
12. The monument sign at the entrance to the development off of Lyman Boulevard shall not
exceed 5 feet in height (including the logo).
13. Fire Marshal Conditions:
a) Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
b) A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, 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.
c) 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.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 501.4.
d) Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota State Fire Code
Section 501.4.
e) Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3 and 503.4.
f) 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 State Fire code Section 503.2.3.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
37
g) Regarding the residential area, two hydrants will need to be relocated. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
h) Submit radius turn designs to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.4.
14. The trellis at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Highway 101 shall be eliminated.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the site plan for Phases I and II of the parking ramp and transit station for
Planning Case 06-18 for SouthWest Village as shown in plans dated received April 13,
2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. Building Official Conditions:
a) The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
b) The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
c) Accessible routes must be provided to commercial buildings, parking facilities and public
transportation stops.
d) All parking areas, including parking structure, must be provided with accessible parking
spaces. As submitted, the retail buildings must have a minimum of 4 accessible parking
spaces, one of which must have an 8-foot access aisle.
e) The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the
proposed buildings, including but not limited to,; allowable size and fire-resistive
construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine
compliance at this time.
f) The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures.
2. The applicant must show how bus-passenger vehicle conflicts will be minimized along the
east-west access road.
3. Bus routes through the site must be clearly shown on the plans.
4. The grading plan must show proposed contours, minimum two-foot contour intervals and
proposed retaining walls, including the top and bottom of wall elevations.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
38
5. The grading plan must identify the proposed grades on each level of the parking ramp
6. The sidewalks and trails shown within the public right-of-way shall be privately owned and
maintained.
7. The developer must verify that the proposed eight inch watermain will provide sufficient
flow for the proposed residential, commercial and sprinkling uses on the site.
8. Fire Marshal Conditions:
a) Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
b) A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, 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.
c) 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.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 501.4.
d) Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota State Fire Code
Section 501.4.
e) Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3 and 503.4.
f) 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 State Fire code Section 503.2.3.
g) Regarding the residential area, two hydrants will need to be relocated. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
h) Submit radius turn designs to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.4.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
39
PUBLIC HEARING:
CHAPEL HILL ACADEMY: REUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW A MONUMENT SIGN WITH LED LIGHTING, PLANNING CASE 06-19.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gene O’Brien Chapel Hill Academy Board Member
Jim Abrahamson 14530 Martin Drive, Eden Prairie
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Dan, why don’t you start?
Keefe: Do we have an amber light like this in the city?
Al-Jaff: Everything that we have is red.
Keefe: And then just in terms of the, I don’t know what you would call it. The brightness of it,
is it similar to the red then?
Al-Jaff: Correct. And they are adjustable so it’s, if it was too bright, we will definitely ask the
school to turn it down.
Keefe: Okay.
Larson: No questions.
McDonald: No questions? Kurt.
Papke: Well we’re not quite Las Vegas yet but we seem to be getting more of these lately. We
have Walgreen’s that has one. We have one down at 101 and Pioneer Trail, that I won’t go into
detail on. Do we have any, you know there’s nothing in the city code yet limiting how many of
these go in. Are there any issues? Concerns? You know obviously some of the residents cared
enough about this that they wanted to see them turned off during off hours. Does city staff have
any concerns that we’re getting too many of these or?
Al-Jaff: You will be looking at an ordinance amendment in the near future. In fact it should be at
your next Planning Commission meeting.
Papke: Okay. And to that point, with the hours, limited hours of operation here, in the interest
of applying this consistently, do we enforce that with anyone else doing that?
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
40
Al-Jaff: This is a condition that we are adding to the specific conditional use permit. It’s the
close proximity to the residential neighborhood. LED signs have to get a conditional use permit
and that’s when we add those conditions.
Papke: Okay. And is this an animated sign where the letters move and scroll?
Al-Jaff: Yes. That is one of the aspect of the sign, yes. They could move.
Papke: Okay.
McDonald: I guess the question I’ve got, you’ve raised it. Where’s the sign going to be located?
I couldn’t figure that out because there’s, it looks as though there’s 3 spots that have been
identified for placement of this.
Al-Jaff: Okay. It is intended to be along, I will fold this. This is West 78th Street. And then you
have Great Plains Boulevard in this area. This is the 15 foot setback. This is the existing
parking lot that you have in front of Chapel Hill. The sign will be closer to the parking lot facing
or perpendicular to West 78th Street.
McDonald: Okay. So it’s going to be more to the back and shielded by the building a little bit as
far as the neighbors to the east and everything?
Al-Jaff: That’s correct.
McDonald: Okay.
Al-Jaff: Definitely more towards the commercial portion of the city, and closer to downtown.
McDonald: Okay. And you had mentioned about an additional condition. I don’t see that in
your recommendation. Is that something we need to add?
Al-Jaff: I handed out.
McDonald: Oh, I’m sorry.
Al-Jaff: That’s okay.
McDonald: Okay, thanks.
Al-Jaff: You’re welcome.
McDonald: With that is the applicant present?
Jim Abrahamson: Good evening. I’m Jim Abrahamson with Sign Source in Eden Prairie.
Representing Chapel Hill Academy. The, just to make a quick correction, the size of the
characters will be 6.3 inches, not 9 so. And it is totally adjustable by the internal computer in the
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
41
office. As far as animation or none. Scrolling, rolling, any of that. If it’s something the
neighbors don’t like it, then you can turn it off because it just changes from one message to the
next. This type of sign is becoming more popular because people are finding that the old you
know changeable letters, even your gas stations now, in the middle of winter it’s really hard to
maintain that and kids run out and change the message and you have kind of issues there but. If
there’s any questions you have, I’d be happy to answer them.
McDonald: Okay. Debbie.
Larson: No.
McDonald: I guess you get lucky. We have no questions. Okay, thank you very much. At this
point I will open up the meeting to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward and address this
planning case, please do so. Okay, seeing no one get up, close the public meeting and I bring the
issue back before the commissioners for discussion. Kurt, you can start?
Papke: I don’t have anything.
McDonald: You don’t have anything? Debbie?
Larson: Looks fine to me.
McDonald: Okay. In that case then I’m open for a motion.
Keefe: Mr. Chair I’ll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
Conditional Use Permit #06-19 for the use of an LED display within a monument sign with the
following conditions, 1 through 5.
McDonald: Second?
Larson: Second.
McDonald: Okay. So seconded.
Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the Conditional Use Permit #06-19 for the use of an LED display within a
monument sign with the following conditions:
1. The applicant must obtain both a sign permit and building permit prior to erecting the
sign.
2. The foundation and sign connections (i.e. bolt type, bolt size, embedment and location)
must be designed by a structural engineer.
3. The site plan must be revised to show the proposed location of the monument sign
showing property line setback dimensions.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
42
4. Brick used along the lower portion of the sign must be the same material as that used ion
the existing building.
5. The LED display shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m..
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
T-MOBILE: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 9 FOOT FENCE
ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6434 MURRAY HILL ROAD, (WATER TOWER SITE),
PLANNING CASE 06-21.
Public Present:
Name Address
Steve Edwards 501 50th Street West, Minneapolis
Gil Kreidberg 6444 Murray Hill Road
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Anyone have any questions for staff?
Keefe: Just a quick question on security and access. You know in terms of keeping kids out.
It’s next to a junior high. What is the fencing material? That it’s going to be made out of.
Al-Jaff: It is wood.
Keefe: Okay, and then T-Mobile would maintain a lock on the access to it, is that how it works?
Al-Jaff: Well the city has a gate on this site so, but that will only prevent vehicular traffic. Kids
do use that area. There is traffic used to the area, and the proposed fence will provide the added
security.
Keefe: Any concerns from a security perspective in relation to kids that the city has? Would
have. Nothing that you can think of.
Aanenson: …to the City Council to validate that when they approve that.
Keefe: Okay.
Larson: Has that got a cover on the top? I’m trying to decipher the drawings here. I’m sorry, is
there like a roof on this or is it just a fence all the way around?
Aanenson: No, it’s a fence all the way around.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
43
Larson: Okay. It’s really hard for me because this is microscopic and I refuse to get glasses.
How large is this structure? Width and depth.
Al-Jaff: It is 8 feet by 15 feet.
Larson: Okay. That’s all I have.
Al-Jaff: I apologize. It is 15 by 20.
Larson: 15 by 20?
Al-Jaff: Yes.
Larson: See, you couldn’t see it either.
Al-Jaff: Yes, my glasses are on the table.
Larson: Okay. No further questions.
McDonald: Kurt.
Papke: This is a big fence and it’s going to be pretty visible. Is it going to be stained or anything
like that? And if so, who maintains that?
Al-Jaff: They will be maintained by T-Mobile. I was out on the site today and it is fairly
screened. You won’t be able to see it. You’ve got the existing fences in this area. The base of
the.
Papke: If you can’t see the fence, then why would we bother to put it in there?
Gil Kreidberg: I’ll tell you why if you want to know. I’m the one who lives right next to it. It
will be 4 feet off my property and sits 3 feet over my fence. And it’s the only way…reasonable
deal because otherwise it’s an obstruction and a clear negative to the value of my property to
have a ventilating system. Just give it a straight line shot to my house…
Aanenson: Which is just one property owner.
Papke: Okay, so it is visible. It will be visible by somebody. So we do care about the
appearance is kind of where I’m going with this. So I assume it’s going to be stained. It’s not
going to be just bare wood? It will have to be maintained and that will be maintained by T-
Mobile?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Papke: Okay.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
44
McDonald: Okay. Is this fence going to go all the way around the perimeter fence? You keep
talking about fences and gates.
Al-Jaff: There is a fence that goes around the entire property itself. The entire city property.
The water tower property. And then there will be a second fence, which is what the conditional
use permit is for that will go around this equipment. And this fence that we’re getting the
conditional use permit for is 15 feet by 20 feet.
McDonald: Okay, so we’re only talking about a fence around their equipment? Not a fence
around the base of that water tower?
Al-Jaff: That is correct.
McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions. Is there an applicant here or? If you would
state your name for the record please.
Steve Edwards: My name’s Steven Edwards. I work at 501 50th Street West. I’m representing
T-Mobile. Thanks for the opportunity to speak Mr. Chairman and council members. I hope this
gives you a better depiction of the actual size of the equipment. What we’re looking to do is
there is an existing fence around the property and what our fence will actually do is a security
fence. Typically we use a 6 foot 5 fence in circumstances like this, but there is an adjacent
property owner who’s fence is a little bit lower than our’s and his will have a pretty good shot
into our fence, so at the request of the neighbor we are proposing to use a higher fence. One of
the reasons we are, we’re having to use a higher fence is located on the back of the water tower
in this area right here is the actual spillway of the tower. And at the request of the building
inspector we’ve been asked to actually elevate our equipment by 18 inches, so any spillway that
comes out of the water tower will not enter into our equipment. It’s another reason for the higher
fence.
Papke: So is there adequate spacing on the bottom of the fence for water flow here in that
condition?
Steve Edwards: We’re wanting to have the bottom of the fence raised also.
McDonald: Okay. And then that will provide you with the security and also the screening that’s
required for this project?
Steve Edwards: Correct.
McDonald: Anyone else have any questions? Okay, I guess that’s it. Thank you very much. At
this point I’ll open it up as part of the public meeting. Anyone wishing to make comment on this
case, if you would come forward and state your case. State your name and address for the record
please.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
45
Gil Kreidberg: My name’s Gil Kreidberg. I reside at 6444 Murray Hill Road. If you can look at
this picture here. This property right here, all of this here is mine. My house sits at ground that’s
noticeably higher than where the base of the water tower and this ground is here. The land
where they propose to put this unfortunately slopes from the tower down so even though I have a
6 foot high fence here, when they build this up to put the asphalt down and then build it up
another 18 inches, this thing really gets tall. And unfortunately conceptually the back part of
this, the furthest from the tower, which is unfortunately going to be 4 feet off my fence, is the
tallest part and represents a ventilating system for the equipment. Rather than look from every
aspect of my home back into this, even when the leaves are up, I still get a good shot in the
winter. It’s panorama. I’m not trying to preclude this. I’m trying to work with the city and
trying to work with T-Mobile by saying if you put up this wood fence, it’s high enough to at least
block it so I’m only looking at a wood fence instead of all this equipment. I’m not going to
make any bigger deal and move on so, that’s the reason for it. Because the other neighbors are
pretty blocked because the only other people are here and the tower blocks their view so it’s just
I get a full shot, and maybe my neighbor down here with one house further to the south of me,
but then they’ll have the same benefit of the wood fence blocking their line too. So I appreciate
your consideration. Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to make comment? Okay, seeing no one else get
forward, or step forward, I’ll close the public meeting and bring it back up before the
commissioners for discussion. Any discussion? Then I’m open for a motion.
Larson: I’ll give it a shot. Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use
Permit 06-21 for the construction of a 9 foot tall cedar fence with the following conditions, 1
through 3.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Keefe: Second.
Larson moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Conditional Use Permit 06-21 for the construction of a 9 foot tall cedar fence with the
following conditions:
1. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to erecting the fence.
2. The fence plans and design must be signed by a structural engineer. The design must
demonstrate the fence’s ability to withstand a wind load of 90 MPH for a 3 second gust.
(Ref. 200 IBC Section 1609).
3. The proposed fence shall not impede nor alter existing drainage patterns.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
46
PUBLIC HEARING:
BLUFF CREEK BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: WETLAND
ALTERATION PERMIT FOR BASIN 8, PLANNING CASE 06-17.
Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Kurt, any questions?
Papke: What actually is the mitigation action here? Are you going to dredge? Are you going to
plant? Can you describe what actions you’ll be taking in the mitigation area?
Haak: Absolutely. The applicant is proposing, and actually these cross sections show it a little
bit. The existing grade is the solid, or the, actually it’s a little hard to see here. There’s actually
removal of some material. What I’ve drawn in in blue in those two cross sections is the finished
grade of the wetland, and it’s very common in wetland mitigation to basically just excavate out
an additional area adjacent to existing wetland. It really helps the long term viability of the
wetland because a 1 acre wetland isn’t really that large if it was isolated in it’s own little area so
yes, it would be the excavation of some material. In this case it’s a couple feet of material, and
then there is some seeding that goes on with wetland mixes to ensure that the plants that are
established are good plants. In addition there’s a 5 year monitoring period that’s required for all
mitigation areas created within the city, and that’s actually a state requirement. So these will be
monitored to make sure that they’re viable wetlands before they’re signed off on by the city.
Papke: So just to summarize, you know in my own words. You’re basically going in with a
backhoe and take out part of the bank and just make it a little bit wider is the bottom line.
Haak: Correct.
Papke: And then put some seeds in there and hopefully something will come up.
Haak: Yes.
Aanenson: Can I just add one other thing to that. When we looked at the Preserve site, this was
a site that was identified as wetland replacement on the Preserve subdivision site, and some of
the comments we got, because…by putting the sewer line through that area, so this is backing up
some of…coming up against that sewer line itself so actually…so that was incorporated in the
Preserve plan…but this will go onto the Degler property.
Papke: Could you point out where the proposed trail is in relationship to this? So will this
improve the sight lines of the trail, if you will?
Haak: I’m actually now certain where the, I’ve drawn it in in yellow here, which is what they’re
showing on the plan in the mitigation plan.
Aanenson: The sewer line.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
47
Haak: Right, which is, and the sewer line goes like this. So actually it will be nice along the
view shed of that trail.
McDonald: Okay. Debbie, do you have any questions? No?
Keefe: I just have one question in regards to, the Basin 5 is a Type 4 basin. Basin 6 is a Type 3
basin. You have a Type 1 and then they’re all going to be Type 1.
Haak: I knew that somebody was going to ask that.
Keefe: Without getting into too much detail,
Haak: That’s alright. The edges of the wetlands are different than the middle. And when you
type the entire basin, you type the deepest part. So a Type 4 is a deep wetland. Open water, you
know cattails around the edges, but then when you go up towards the side, it is classified as a
different type of wetland. Because it’s a little bit drier, it doesn’t flood as often. It doesn’t have
standing water.
Keefe: Okay. So we’re taking Basin 8, which is a Type 1, right? That’s the one we’re taking
out, correct? Or filling.
Haak: Right.
Keefe: Which is an open water.
Haak: Type 1, yes. Type 1 is not open water.
Keefe: Okay. Type 1 is?
Haak: Is more of a meadow. A wet meadow.
Keefe: Okay. Alright.
Haak: Yep, as the number goes up it gets wetter. Up to 5 and then it changes to water.
Keefe: Okay, so we’re taking out one that’s virtually a meadow.
Haak: Correct.
Keefe: And we’re placing meadow around ones that are, have more open water potential?
Haak: Correct.
McDonald: I have no further questions. I guess in this particular case you’re also the applicant
so there’s nobody else to bring up. This is a public meeting so if anyone from the public wishes
to speak, state your name and address and state your comments. Okay, seeing no one step
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
48
forward, I will close the public meeting and I’ll bring the issue back before the commissioners
for discussion. No discussion. Okay. Then I would be open to a motion.
Keefe: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve
Wetland Alteration Permit 06-17 subject to conditions 1 through 5.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Papke: Second.
Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve Wetland Alteration Permit 06-17 subject to the following conditions:
1. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420) at a ratio of 2:1.
2. The applicant shall provide plans for the mitigation of the additional 0.32 acres of
wetland to city staff for review and approval prior to wetland impacts occurring.
3. All exposed soils from temporary haul routes, exposed slopes above the normal water
level (NWL) and adjacent areas to the project shall be temporarily stabilized and seeded
within the 7, 14 and 21 day time frames, depending upon slopes. Any concentrated flow
areas shall receive temporary protection.
4. Erosion control blanket shall be used in concentrated flow areas and for slopes of 3:1.
All remain areas shall be mulched and seeded to control erosion.
5. The applicant shall apply for NPDES Phase II Construction Permit and comply with their
conditions of approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
NEAR MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSOCIATION BEACHLOT: REQUEST FOR A
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ADDITION OF A SECOND
DOCK ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF LOTUS
LAKE OFF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD (OUTLOT B, REICHERT’S ADDITION),
PLANNING CASE 06-20.
Public Present:
Name Address
Sam & Laurie Curnow 650 Pleasant View Road
David & Valerie Rossbach 670 Pleasant View Road
Amy & Jahn Dyvik 610 Pleasant View Road
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
49
Sean & Melinda Fitzgerald 630 Pleasant View Road
Beth Bitney 6645 Horseshoe Curve
Curt Schwieso 6681 Horseshoe Curve
Marianne McCord 6440 Fox Path
David Sanford 6440 Fox Path
John Hammett 6697 Horseshoe Curve
David Wanek 70 Hunters Court
Steve Wanek 6619 Horseshoe Curve
Kathy Pavelko 7203 Frontier Trail
Martin Immerman 491 Bighorn Drive
Pat Pavelko 7203 Frontier Trail
Steve Donen 7341 Frontier Trail
Greg Fletcher 7616 South Shore Drive
Mary Borns 7199 Frontier Trail
Gary M. & Peg Schelitzche 680 Pleasant View Road
Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Thank you for the report staff. Questions. Dan, you want to start?
Keefe: I’ve got a couple questions. In regards to the, what is it 27,000 square feet that’s
currently there, and that’s above the OHW?
Haak: Correct.
Keefe: I mean you know when I drove by it, I mean I’m just curious to know where it’s dry. Is
it just dry down by the, because when I drove by it looked like a lot of, it was still, it was pretty
wet down there. …been wet a lot lately so I’m just kind of curious if these two docks, this
additional dock was put in, is it fairly, well it looks like from the picture it’s a fairly sort of dry,
cleaned out area.
Haak: Right. In the staff report it shows the area that’s maintained by the association, and again
north of this, it is forested and predominantly wetland also. And yes, it is wet. As a matter of
fact in the research it appears that there may have been some alteration in this area to get it to this
condition, which may have been the reason for the original condition of no additional alteration
to the lot. But that was prior to any wetland ordinances so that is not something that we have
control over at this point.
Keefe: Right, and what is the area that we’re looking at here? I mean is this the full extent of
the area that may have been filled or may.
Haak: I believe it’s pretty close but the applicant would be able to speak to that much better.
Keefe: Alright. Then a question in regards to docks and Lotus Lake. Are there limitations on
the slip size or size of boats or anything along those lines that you’re, so in other words, if an
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
50
additional dock was allowed, is there limitation in terms of the size of the boat that could be put
in there? I mean is there a limit associated with a lake issue more than a.
Haak: No. Currently there are no limitations on motor size or anything of that nature on actually
any of the lakes except Lake Ann, to my understanding. Except for the limitations that come
with limited public access and those sorts of things. We do have several lakes that don’t have
actual public accesses so that does limit the boat traffic, but Lotus Lake does not have any
horsepower restrictions or anything like that.
Keefe: Yeah, and it may be just a function of practicality and the size of the lake but you know,
you’re seeing on a lot of lakes the size of the boats get bigger and they get faster and potentially
more destructive I guess with the larger motor and the larger wake, but there aren’t any limits on
this that you’re aware of?
Haak: No.
Keefe: Okay, thank you.
McDonald: Debbie.
Larson: My question is regarding the parking for this. On page 7 there’s a photograph, and
actually I’m very familiar with the road since I drive it quite often. And when there’s, if they
add another dock, are people planning on driving from their properties down to it? Are they just
going to walk over there? What’s the intent there because I know when there’s cars parked on
either side of the road, it’s hard to get one car inbetween the two. That’s probably my biggest
concern here above the other things.
Haak: That’s something certainly that you can address to the applicant. In the application they
indicated that the residents are all located within 500 feet of this lot so they would be walking
and I believe in something that I read, and I can’t put my finger on it just now, that there is some
on street parking for some of the residences in that area. But that’s not related to the beachlot
and that’s again, that’s the statement of the applicant and staff is, continues to be concerned
about parking and traffic flow in this area.
Larson: Okay. And the other thing, going back to the picture you just had up, so would this new
dock be, yes that one. Would it be to the right of the tree? Is that where they’re proposing to
have that, based on this picture?
Haak: And again, I think the applicant would be better prepared to speak on that. It’s really not
clear from the couple drawings that I have exactly where those would be. Actually here’s the
proposal, so again, if you compared the, just going again off what the applicant submitted, this is
the existing condition. This is the proposed condition. So in my estimation it looks like they’re
leaving the southern dock in place and they would be adding one more dock to the north.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
51
Larson: Okay. And then one more thing in regard to the, what did you call it now? The high
water. Is that where your main concern comes in or is it because the lot size is smaller than what
the precedent, I mean not the precedent but the, I’m brain dead.
Haak: The standard in the code?
Larson: Yes.
Haak: Yeah, there’s several things. Beachlots by nature, there’s really a sorted past of beachlots
in this city. They’re an intensely used piece of property for multiple residents, and so that in and
of itself has some special concerns which I believe really began this whole beachlot ordinance.
Actually what I’ve been told was quite a battle and there are concerns when you have multiple
use, people using a small piece of area. So in addition to the traffic concerns, it’s also just the
precedent that this would set for other associations. Staff does anticipate that there would be a
number of additional variances that would be requested should this application be approved.
Larson: It’s hard to really tell from here. I’m sure this picture was taken before weeds and all
that growth. Is it relatively clear on this end? Because the aerial shots that you have, it looks
real weedy. Which I’m assuming those are at different times of the year.
Haak: Yes. These shots are taken once vegetation starts growing. Actually from other
exploration that we’ve done in this north bay of Lotus Lake, it does appear to be very open early
on in the year and then boy, it must be late June or July that it really, that the vegetation really
starts to emerge. So at this time really you wouldn’t be able to see any of this that’s out there.
Larson: But based on this picture that you’ve got up, where are the sailboat moorings?
Haak: Actually there aren’t sailboat moorings on this particular beachlot.
Larson: Oh, I thought there was moorings.
Haak: No. Just, well there are on other beachlots but not this one.
Larson: Okay. Alright. Thank you.
McDonald: Kurt.
Papke: Two questions. First one, is there a spot on this beachlot where one of the property
owners could pull their boat up on the beach to have lunch or something like that, other than a
dock? I’m just looking at their ability to use the beachlot and their boat without adding a dock.
Haak: City code does allow for docking other than overnight of any number of watercraft on any
dock. So you can have, if you wanted to sandwich 6 boats on one dock during the day, this
could happen. It’s just the overnight storage.
Papke: Okay. So we could put more than 3 on the dock during the day.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
52
Haak: Correct.
Papke: But let’s say you know there’s more than 6 homeowners in the area here. Could
somebody also pull their boat up on the shore and go have lunch or something like that, if there
wasn’t space? I’m just, just to understand how the beachlot is laid out here and the water levels
and all that kind of stuff.
Haak: I believe the original conditional use permit speaks at least to the launching of boats. I
don’t believe.
Papke: You couldn’t launch here but let’s say you put your boat in in the morning at you know
the boat launch on the south side and then, you know could I stop during the day and have lunch
by pulling my boat up on the beach, is kind of the bottom line.
Haak: And again that’s a good question for the applicant. If there’s actually enough area to do
that currently.
Papke: Okay, so you’re not certain yourself whether it occurs?
Haak: No.
Papke: Okay. The other question has to do with the, the findings of fact here and some of the
findings. Question number 2 speaks to the fit of this with the comprehensive plan but you better
than anyone else in Chanhassen obviously knows. We have an existing surface water
management plan and we have a new one that we’re in the process of revising. From your
perspective as the person who’s responsible for the creation and compliance to our surface water
management plan, how does this fit in with what you’re trying to accomplish on Lotus Lake?
Haak: That’s a difficult question to answer because issues like this are not explicitly addressed.
However, based on.
Papke: What are we trying to do with Lotus Lake then?
Haak: Right, and the answer is, improve the water quality. The current water quality of Lotus
Lake has put it on the impaired waters list for basically the federal government, and the State of
Minnesota as well as the City of Chanhassen are, and the watershed districts actually that
encompass the lake, or watershed district rather, are responsible for addressing those limitations
and that listing in relatively short order. And it’s listed for excess nutrients, which is basically
phosphorus and that can be tied to the sediment levels in the lake. So I would say it’s not, again
it’s not one of the explicit things in that plan, but it does go counter to that.
Papke: It’s not explicit but from your perspective it’s Lotus Lake is impaired and it’s one of the
city’s goals to try to improve the water quality and so the Planning Commission should be
guided to things, to taking actions that improve the water quality, not make things go the other
way.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
53
Haak: That’s correct.
Papke: Does that sum it up?
McDonald: Okay. The question I have for you is, how many associations are on Lotus Lake that
we could potentially be dealing with?
Haak: Where’s Steve? How many is it?
Steve Donen: I don’t know but there’s 340 homes that are getting access to the lake…
Papke: How many of those are on there?
Steve Donen: 114 homes.
Haak: And I think that’s about right. There’s about 114 homes.
Steve Donen: …more people coming out on their boats.
Haak: And the number of the beachlots, I’m thinking it’s probably about a half a dozen.
McDonald: Okay. But as far as associations themselves, and I understand about the individuals
but are there any other associations that deal with where we group a number of these.
Haak; Oh absolutely, and that’s what I’m saying. There’s about a half a dozen.
McDonald: About a half a dozen total associations around the lake.
Haak: Correct.
Aanenson: And to that Mr. Chair, just to clarify. The reason the beachlot ordinance came about,
when you go back to Minnewashta at the time that those subdivisions were put in place in the
mid 1940’s, 50’s, what they did is provide a small fire lane and when the regional park came in
place, the city at that time decided that they needed to cap and decided a reasonable amount of
square footage for a beachlot. Because some of those associations had up to 100 homeowners.
Now it’s not reasonable to say that all those homeowners should get a boat, so they developed a
beachlot ordinance. So we have non-conforming situations and that’s some of the ambiguity, so
you have to compare apples to oranges. There were non-conforming situations that the City
made a determination through a public hearing process to decide what was the appropriate level
of use when they came into play. Some of us were here. Some of us weren’t, so that was
determined, so they’re not all equal. Then with the beachlot association, there’s a lot of ones that
came in meeting the current standards which we’re addressing today. The 30,000 square feet for
the first dock. 20,000 for the additional, and then they can have other things such as sanitary
facilities, those sort of things. There’s additional things that they can ask for, so those standards
have been in place for a number of years. So there’s two different types of permits out there and
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
54
it gets a little hard to compare when some people have very narrow ones, but the control point is,
is that it’s not to have everybody in an association keep their boat on a dock overnight. That’s
the control point.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Other question I’ve got is, I’d like to address the issue about
traffic on Pleasant View. This particular beachlot does not have access for a car, is that right?
There is no pull off or road going down into the beachlot itself, is there?
Haak: No, there’s not. There’s a gravel path I believe but…
McDonald: Okay, it’s more of a pedestrian path.
Haak: Correct.
McDonald: Where are the cars coming from? Why are people parking here?
Haak: And that’s a good question. Again staff has just heard that concern voiced by several
residents and perhaps the applicants can speak to it a little bit better. But at this time, you know
certainly the beachlot isn’t in use currently since this application has been submitted, so staff
really hasn’t had an opportunity to evaluate that during the summer months.
McDonald: Okay. And then because this is a substandard road I guess within the city, what are
the ordinances as far as parking? What’s allowed? There is no shoulder on this road. It’s pretty
much the road and then you either go off into the lake or you’re in somebody’s garage or house.
What’s the ordinance? What do we enforce?
Haak: I don’t believe it’s posted no parking. I believe that’s been requested and discussed on
several occasions but there’s currently no restriction.
McDonald: Okay, so parking would be allowed. It’s just.
Aanenson: Well let’s back up. It is a conditional use. You can attach any conditions that you
believe are appropriate to mitigate any impacts. So if you chose to allow it, then you can attach
any conditions you chose to put no parking. That would be in my opinion a reasonable condition
too.
McDonald: Okay. Other than that I have no further questions for you. Thank you very much
staff. Is there an applicant present to present, yes. Please come up and give us your name and
address and.
Jahn Dyvik: Thank you. Hello. My name’s Jahn Dyvik. I live at 610 Pleasant View Road and
I’m a member of the Near Mountain Lake Association. I’m representing the group this evening.
We have some of the other members back here. Dave Rossbach at 670 Pleasant View. Sam and
Laurie Curnow at 650. Gary and Peg Schelitzche at 680. And Sean and Melinda Fitzgerald at
630. And then my wife Amy and I at 610. If you look at the first, this one. That photo there on
the cover shows our recreational beachlot, known as Outlot B from the lake side, so that extends
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
55
all the way from the left side of the picture there to the right side, just beyond the boat. And it’s
about 600 feet of lakeshore. I believe it’s the second longest shoreline beachlot after Lotus Lake
Estates, if I’m not mistaken. Our association was formed in 1978. It’s one of the oldest, if not
the oldest association on Lotus Lake. Most our members have been around for quite a while so
we have an average member of about 16 years. So we have a long, it’s been around for a while
and we have a long standing record of good stewardship towards the lakeshore and the
neighborhood. In fact we’ve been very conservation minded towards the lakeshore and water
quality and wildlife during that time. Of that 600 feet of the Outlot B length, we mow a section
of about 100 feet of length on the southern end of that outlot. And then of that 100 feet we mow
out to the water edge for about 30 feet, so one thing I was going to point out was there’s this
lakescaping for wildlife and water quality that the DNR puts out and as I was reading it a few
weeks ago, I was thinking boy. We’re doing this kind of thing. We’ve been doing this kind of
thing for 30 years. So all the issues that address water quality and wildlife preservation, are
things that we’ve been conscience of. For example, not using fertilizers on the grass and
minimizing the lawn area, and they’re especially big on maintaining extensive buffer zones along
the lakeshore to keep that natural vegetation and not removing aquatic vegetation and so forth.
This is our plat from 1978 showing not only Outlot B but the 8 home sites, 1 through 8 shown
there. And it also shows the existing location of the dock that we have with our prior conditional
use permit. Now that Outlot B, prior to being formed into that recreational beachlot was actually
extensions of Lots 6, 7 and 8, so they had beachlots that looked like this. At the time they were
pulled out like Outlot B, C and D, and they were tied with 6, 7 and 8…combining those into one
recreational beachlot for the whole association. Which I guess they felt was a better idea than
having each of those outlots have their own individual dock. They combined that recreational, or
combined that land into one recreational beachlot. And you can see Pleasant View Road
between that outlot and our home sites. This is a side lot view of the Outlot B. You can see
where, you were asking about the vegetation. You can see where we have a dock. Those are lily
pads that you see on either side there but where we have the dock we don’t have that natural
vegetation. But you can see that’s heavily wooded and that natural vegetation along the
shoreline and also in the water. This next slide is from the Carver County GIS web site. It
shows the designated flood plain based on FEMA’s shape file data and you’ll see that our lot
doesn’t fall in that flood plain. And then just wanted the wetland area…and you can see there,
the brown area is the designated wetland. It’s kind of, it hits about the northern 150 feet of the
shoreline, but it doesn’t affect the southern part of the lot. So our request is to, for a conditional
use permit that will allow us to have two very simple 50 foot straight docks. Seasonal docks on
the southern end of Outlot B. Each to have 4 boat spaces. We don’t believe this is going to
increase boat traffic on the lake because it’s simply to provide overnight moorings that we’re
already using on the lake. This is the proposed dock. You saw this already. Lori showed this to
you. And again this sketch here shows the 1978 survey and if you look at this compared to the
2005 survey you see that it’s significantly smaller and I’ll get into this in a moment but it appears
that we’re losing land probably because of settling of the land of the lot, which changes your
survey reference lines. I’ll get into that viewpoint in a moment. As was stated, the requirement
is by city code to have 200 feet per dock and 30,000 square feet for the first dock, and 20,000 for
the second. We’re asking for a variance on that land area requirement. We believe that those
requirements, the one that really should be the driver should be the length of the lakeshore,
because that’s what really determines the dock density on the lake. For example for our 600 feet
of lakeshore with 2 docks it would be 1 dock per 300 feet, which is still much lower than typical
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
56
densities on residential lots or other recreational beachlots. Another point is that the length of
the shoreline is pretty constant. That doesn’t change. It’s about 600 feet, but the land area does
change it, as in our case, especially if your survey reference line changes because of settling.
Also our land area calculations are sensitive because we have a very long lot that’s laying along
the shoreline. If you have a short shoreline and a deep lot, then any changes, you know…doesn’t
affect areas that much but because we have that very shoreline dominant lot, any small changes
do affect the area calculation. And it’s a little piece of land so that we’ve been very susceptible
to, you know to varying and in our case shrinking land area. Now we’ve never added fill to this
lot. Had we done that, we could have maintained that elevation and the area but we haven’t done
that because we wanted to respect the natural state of it, but at the same time we don’t want to be
penalized for that. Here’s an example of land area calculations. Currently on this Carver County
GIS web site, it lists Outlot B as having 57,000 square feet. 1.3 acres. And as Lori mentioned
the, on record with Chanhassen they have, since about 1985 they’ve had 4,000 to 6,000 square
feet and that’s from that 1978 survey which probably had an elevation at the time of 895.9 feet.
And then the survey we had last year was 38,350 square feet. That was to the edge of the ice and
that was a surveyor actually contacted DNR and it was by their guidance to use the edge of the
ice as that reference. Now but he also did the calculation based on the ordinary high water line,
and that’s where that 27,000 square feet comes from. But if you look at those two different
cases, and on that 2005 survey, there’s a difference in elevation. The ordinary high water line is
896.3 feet. The edge of the ice at the time was 895.8 feet, so 6 inches difference and it made a
difference of 11,350 square feet, just from 6 inches in elevation it changed. So if you were to
extrapolate that further and say okay, let’s take Lotus Lake’s average elevation of 895.4, you can
say that well I can extrapolate the land area to 47,000 square feet, and I’m not proposing that
we’re trying to claim that. I’m just making the point that it’s really hard for this kind of lot to
determine what the area really is. Now here’s a chart showing the 10 years of Lotus Lake level
and then the red line there is the ordinary high water mark and in 10 years there’s 5 instances
where we actually were at that ordinary high water line. Due to the general conditions of the
variance, these are in the application. There’s 6 points, or 6 general conditions that we need to
meet for variance, and our response to those was simply that we want to have reasonable use of
the lot. And you know reasonable use is kind of a subjective term but we don’t think it’s
unreasonable with the amount of shoreline that we have to request a second dock. A point or
two was just simply that we recognize that a variance is needed in this case. Three was, we’re
only looking for enjoyment of the lake. The purpose is not based on desire to increase property
values. We’ve been around for a long time and you know we’re not looking for artificial
increases in property value. It’s simply for enjoyment of the lake. Our hardship is not self
created, and again there’s no self created hardship. That’s another subjective term but we
believe that it’s not. And then especially of point 5 and 6. We don’t believe that there’s any
detriment to the public welfare. We’re going to continue to maintain our shoreline in it’s natural
state and as far as street congestion is concerned, we believe there’s no impact there at all, and
I’ll get into that in a moment. As far as other non-conforming shoreline uses, I guess it doesn’t
really matter in this case. This is Lotus Lake Betterment Association, and they have a 100 foot
dock and 25 feet of lakeshore, and it doesn’t really matter how many boats they have on there
but according to Section 20-266, you need 200 feet and they have 25 feet. So we were just
looking at, if there were other non-conforming uses that were approved by the city, and we
believe that this is one of those. With Lotus Lake Estates, as was mentioned earlier, they have 3
docks. They do have enough shoreline and area to grant them that. However they have 4
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
57
moorings, sailboat moorings and according to city code you can only have 3, so again they were
granted a non-conforming use. And then as was cited also, the Fox Chase, even though they
don’t have a beachlot, they do have an association that shares a permanent 7 slip dock, and that’s
right across the lake from us. So again a non-conforming use of docks on the lake. Parking and
traffic. As was stated, we all live within 500 feet of the beachlot so we always walk over there.
We don’t park there. The speed limit is 25 miles per hour on Pleasant View Road. The entries
to the beachlot lies along a straight section of road. Pleasant View Road’s pretty windy, and
there are a number of limited sight line sections but this is not one of them. There’s about 800
feet of unobstructed sight line along that stretch of Pleasant View. And cars never park on the
west side, which is the lake side of the road, as was shown in the example from the staff report.
On a very rare occasion they might park on the east side, but that’s more because they don’t want
to negotiate the steep driveway for my residence at 610 Pleasant View Road so it’s usually when
visitors come they want to park down there. It really doesn’t have anything to do with Outlot B
so, my point here is that parking in the street is almost never due to Outlot B activities. And then
lastly we have support from the neighbors. John Nicolay at 608 Pleasant View. He borders the
south border of Outlot B. He says that he supports it. He doesn’t believe there’s going to be any
impact on the lake and traffic and so forth. Tom and Judy Meier. They’re on the north end, sort
of on the north end of Lotus Lake. Not too far from the north end of our south lot. They say that
they support the proposal. And then Pete and Jane Field, and they’ve been around for a long
time. They’re 665 Pleasant View and they, they’ve seen, actually they were around when this
development was built and they cite in their letter here that we’ve taken, we’ve been exemplary
in the care of our shoreline and lake and don’t have a problem with this proposal. So in
summary we’re asking for a second dock. We have 600 feet of lakeshore which far exceeds code
requirement. We have a long history of preserving and protecting the lakeshore. We’ve been
practicing lakescaping practices for quite a while. 85% of our outlot is maintained in it’s natural
state. 95% of the shoreline is preserved in a buffer zone. We don’t believe parking or traffic
flow is impacted, and we don’t believe boat traffic is impacted, as we’re just looking for
overnight mooring. And finally that the surrounding neighbors support our request.
McDonald: Questions? Dan.
Keefe: Yeah, I’ve got a question. How does your association, it’s 8 homes right?
Jahn Dyvik: Yes.
Keefe: How do you manage the parking of boats today at the one dock that’s there?
Jahn Dyvik: We have 3 boats at the dock. Currently there’s an association document that gives
those 3 boats the rights to those spots to the 3 houses that are directly across from the
recreational beachlot.
Keefe: So it’s 6, 7 and 8, is that right?
Jahn Dyvik: 6, 7 and 8.
Keefe: So they have the right to park their boat there. It’s not a shared.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
58
Jahn Dyvik: Not the way it is currently.
Keefe: And it’s an overnight? It’s a permanent situation for them?
Jahn Dyvik: Well it can be changed. There’s a period of time that that association document is
good for, and then after that it can be changed or it can be continued on in that form by vote.
Keefe: Alright. And I’m just considering the question on how, you know if, say you stay with
one dock and 3 boats, how would everybody get an opportunity to, I mean what do the other
owners do if those 3 choose to have boats on there? How does 1 through 5 get access, boat
access to the property? To the beachlot, or do they?
Jahn Dyvik: Well currently they don’t have overnight mooring. They can have boats there
during the day and then they take them out.
Keefe: Okay. And there’s capacity at the dock, even with the 3 boats? That are parked there
overnight.
Jahn Dyvik: Yeah, you can stick an outboard boat. That’s happened at times when we’ve had a
fourth fishing boat or as someone asked earlier, sometimes we have boats pulled up on shore you
know when you’re just going to be there for the day and then…
Keefe: Okay.
McDonald: Debbie.
Larson: Well, okay so there’s 4 additional lots that currently can’t use it? Is that right?
Jahn Dyvik: There’s 5.
Larson: There’s 5 additional lots. So have you guys all worked it out between all of you, even if
we did put in one more dock, it still doesn’t give everybody overnight.
Jahn Dyvik: Well we’re asking for 2 docks with 4 spaces per dock.
Larson: But the first one doesn’t hold 4?
Jahn Dyvik: It holds 3.
Larson: It holds 3 but you want to be able to add a fourth?
Jahn Dyvik: Change that to 4, yeah.
Larson: And you wouldn’t change the size? It would just be.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
59
Jahn Dyvik: No, they’re 50 foot docks and the requirement on that is they can’t exceed 50 feet
or, they can be 50 feet or to 4 foot depth. In our case 50 feet is at about 4 feet.
Larson: Okay. You know, one of the concerns or the questions maybe I have is okay we’ve had,
you’ve shown us the 10 year ordinary high water level. It’s decreasing on the property, or
should I say it’s the lot is going away. And over 10 years, or since 1978, which is more than 10
years, looks like a big chunk of land is disappearing. What’s going to happen in the future if we
were to go ahead and okay this, which you know I’m all for people having boat access. I use the
lake myself. I understand your concerns but if the shoreline is going away, that increases the
problem that we have as far as the restrictions that we’re being held to. So you know, what do
we do about that? You know what I mean? The lot’s getting smaller. You want to add more
capacity to that lot as far as back space. I don’t know how you know we can get around that.
Jahn Dyvik: Yeah but we’re doing what we can to protect that shoreline as you can see by the
natural buffer zone there.
Larson; Well I understand that.
Jahn Dyvik: There might be other factors going on. Who knows the hydraulics of the lake
might be changing when there’s development going on. I don’t know but I don’t know how to
answer that question. Do some sort of restoration effort.
Larson: Well yeah, that’s kind of what I’m wondering if the city’s open to something like that or
I’ll ask them but that’s a concern for me.
Jahn Dyvik: It was asked earlier about how wet it is down there. In April, this past April I did
hear was the second wettest April on record and yeah, there’s water down there now. Normally
that is a dry area. Through there. Where the sign is currently posted.
Larson: And I guess the one other thing that you had mentioned, is that people don’t park on the
lake side. Well I drive that road probably twice a day anyway. In the summer time there’s
sometimes cars on both sides of the road in that little stretch so.
Jahn Dyvik: Yeah, whenever I’ve had visitors up to my house, I always tell them to park on the
east side of the road. There were some instances where they parked on both and then, in fact I
think the sheriff one time said you know…
Larson: Well I respect that they weren’t residents but.
Jahn Dyvik: Yeah, but we do encourage everybody to park on the east side when they’re, when
they know…
Larson: Is it allowed on both sides right now? To park.
Aanenson: Yes.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
60
Larson: You can park legally on both sides?
Aanenson: Yes.
Jahn Dyvik: Yeah, there are no no parking signs.
Larson: I mean you know, I guess it’s, that’s not such a huge issue because it does make people
drive slower and I think that’s good. It’s the kind of road that you want everybody to drive slow
anyway.
Jahn Dyvik: There’s a lot of pedestrians and runners.
Larson: Yeah.
Jahn Dyvik: And if you would want to institute no parking on one side, I mean that would be.
Larson: Well you know, I don’t know if that’s the concern so much as the fact that the lot’s
disappearing. But that’s really all I have at this point.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Kurt. No questions? I have a couple of questions. You are not
the first ones that have come before the council that I’ve been here asking for access on Lotus
Lake. And one of the things before with Fox Run I believe, they were looking to add docks.
One of the big complaints I heard about the area was the fact that this was going to add impact to
the area. Extra traffic. Extra boats, and they were only looking at mooring 1 boat. You’re
asking to more actually an additional 5 boats. You say there’s no impact upon the lake. I’m
confused. How can there not be impact when before there’s 1 boat and all I hear is the impact to
the area.
Jahn Dyvik: Well we, many of us already have boats and they just trailer them so these are boats
that are being used on the lake and they just go through the process of launching them at the
ramp and all this does is allow us overnight mooring.
McDonald: But the issue was the mooring, and again that’s what this individual wanted, and the
problem was the impact at that end of the lake where you’re at, and a lot of it is because of the, I
guess it’s the lilies and those things that grow in that area. There was quite a bit of, as I
understand you have to cut the lilies out to create channels.
Jahn Dyvik: We don’t cut our lilies.
McDonald: Okay, you all don’t but just above you, the people up there have to you know clear
channels. I’m just, you know what I’m wrestling with is, I cannot understand how before the
biggest reason for not allowing 1 boat and 1 slip is the impact on the area, and now there is no
impact on the area but adding 5 boats.
Jahn Dyvik: Are you referring to the request last summer?
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
61
McDonald: It would have been last summer.
Jahn Dyvik: I believe there was a wetland there and conservation easement in that case.
McDonald: That was true. That was one of the reasons it was finally you know voted down.
It’s the reason I voted against it but I’m just telling you the reasons we heard were impact upon
the lake. And that seems to be a big thing with people that live up on the lake is the impact of
additional boats and additional people up on the lake. And what you’re asking us to do is to add
additional people and access. I understand that these boats come and go anyway, but now what
we’re doing is we’re going to cluster all these boats at night at a particular end of the lake and
that was one of the big objections before as to why we shouldn’t be allowing anything up at that
area. And I just don’t see anything within your proposal that addresses that issue.
Jahn Dyvik: Yeah, I don’t know what, how to answer that.
McDonald: Okay.
Jahn Dyvik: It’s our opinion that the impact would be minimal.
McDonald: Then the issue of Pleasant View Road. I am perplexed because I have been down
there quite a few times. There are no roads from Pleasant View Road down. So why does this
particular area become such a bottleneck? Is it because of people that are going on the boats that
are parking there and then going down to the dock or?
Jahn Dyvik: No, as I said, almost all of the parking there is due to visitors at my house, and
that’s not very often even that but occasionally. I have a hard drive for them to negotiate.
McDonald: Well that’s all the questions I have. Do you have anything else you wanted to
address to the council? Then at this point I would open up the meeting to the public and anyone
wishing to come forward, please address the commissioners and state your name and address.
Come on up.
John Hammett: Thank you council members. I’m John Hammett. I live at 6697 Horseshoe
Curve. 10 year resident. My family and I drive Pleasant View Road several times a day,
particularly past the property in question. My concern is the parking on there. I don’t know of
the number of visitors at certain houses but over the last couple of summers I’ve noticed often
congestion in that area. Parking on one side of the road and on both sides of the road. And I’m
concerned about that for safety. I see this is adding impact to that.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wish to make a statement to the commission?
Steve Wanek: Good evening.
McDonald: Good evening.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
62
Steve Wanek: I’m Steve Wanek. I live at 6615 Horseshoe Curve and I guess I have a couple of
issues with this proposal. The first one is mainly the variance issue and the extension of
variances. This proposal suggests not only more docks with a 3 boat limit, but it goes up to 8.
And it’s predicated somewhat on the fact that there are other associations which have been
granted variances, or at least are abusing their right to use their property within the ordinance.
My suggestion is, because most of these associations have many homes hooked to them, that this
group is asking for a variance based on other variances, or at least violations. The next group
will come in and ask for more dock space as well because there are many more homes connected
to these associations than there are boats on the lake now by quite a magnitude. I don’t know the
exact numbers but it’s very high. If you grant this, I believe that you’ll see more cases asking for
variances and possibly legal battles. That’s up to you as far as the legal side. I think the other
issue is the practicality of this. I’m going to get very far into that. These people get to use their
land the way they see fit but if two straight docks in a relatively shallow area as that is there, and
that’s one reason why their land comes and goes because the grade is shallow in there. If you put
two 20 foot boats or two 15’s, which most people don’t have. I don’t. On those docks. You’re
going to consume 30 to 40 running feet which will put you within 10 feet of the shore so, that’s
going to be very shallow in there, and I believe there will be more requests if you grant boats
possibility there, you’ll get more requests to lengthen the docks to go out beyond the 4 foot, or
you know either to have the docks longer than 50 feet, which is what they’re suggesting at this
point. Or to widen them so the boats can maneuver in that area. But the basic issue here is boat
traffic and the number of boats on that lake. And so those are my main concerns there.
Furthermore, I guess, and I didn’t research this very closely yet but in looking at the aerial
photos, I noticed that this land has no taxes on it and I’m very curious about that and I’ve got to
research that a little more. But it possibly is done another way. The little bit came up about
valuations. I found that very interesting because at least by my records there’s no taxes paid on
this property. I’ll see about that at another date, and that may not be an appropriate issue to bring
up before this committee.
McDonald: I’m afraid we have no taxing powers so no, it’s not. Anyone else wish to come
forward?
Steve Donen: Steve Donen, 7341 Frontier Trail. First of all I guess I’d like to point out that I
bought a house on the lake as a… The reason I did is because I like to go, I go down there at
2:00 in the afternoon, 4:00 in the evening, 8:00 at night. Jump in the boat. Spin around the lake
and come back. I wouldn’t do that probably if I had to launch it. I surely wouldn’t do it very
often. I also know I didn’t buy a house on the lake that didn’t have a dock because I didn’t want
anybody to use it more than that. So having overnight mooring increases the use of this lake.
Don’t let that fool you. It will. Okay? Absolutely. So lake association discussion here. Back
in 2003 the lake association got together, a homeowners on the lake association got together and
voted on what the three biggest issues were on the lake. Actually they…to the three top ones
were lake quality, water quality. Second one was boat safety. Third one was boat access. The 2
out of 3 are boat access and lake usage. Were the biggest issues of homeowners on the lake. For
that reason this is adding 5 more boats to the lake. It’s adding full use of 5 more boats to the
lake. It’s an issue for this lake. I guess the other points have been brought up a number of times
now. The lake association, there’s many other ones. Six of them altogether I guess you said
today. I could see them all walking in saying, adding a couple more boats. Access is here. I
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
63
want to have a couple more. I was wrong earlier. There are 340 access houses that can either
through association or direct access can get access so I’m sure that if I was one of those other
guys who bought a house who didn’t have lake access, boy I sure would like to have it. I might
come up here and ask you guys also. So 340 more people might come traipsing in as Steve said
earlier, and I’m sure others will too. To ask this question. Now I do feel for everybody who
doesn’t have access to the lake. I do. I understand that but when I bought my house I knew that
answer. Okay. I knew that my house did not have access, if my…and I made a decision to buy
the house based on it. Okay. I’m just looking through my notes here. Couple comments on
what people can do with their boats if they want during the day. Many people come on the lake
and will set their boats, they actually will have their lunch on their boat. Many people will put a
little anchor out 3 feet from the shore and let the boat sit there and walk on the shore if they
want, so if there was a concern about the lake access, or people being able to use their shorelines
during the day, there’s multiple ways of doing that. I was going to read something here from the
intent of recreational beachlots are in the Section 20-266 for you guys. The intent of this
ordinance, and this is a little bit for Debbie. Based on experience it is recognized by the city that
the use of lakeshore by multiple parties may be intensive use of lakeshore. May be an intensive
use of the lakeshore and may present conflicts but may bring uses of the lakeshore or the use of
other lakeshore on the same lake or the lake itself. Further, beachlots may generate complaints if
they are not maintained to the same standards as single family lakeshore lots. There so for the
city requires these conditions. This issue of adding more boats to the lake is not only to the
immediate area. This is an issue for the whole lake, and they recognized this when they set these
issues in the square footage, the length of the lake, so on and so forth. So it’s a, the ordinance is
designed… Now I will say, I want to compliment you guys. It’s a pleasure that you’re
practicing proper shoreline control, okay. It’s spectacular…so I’ll throw in a little bit of positive
for you. That we appreciate it so, that’s all I have. Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward and address the commission?
Mary Borns: I’m Mary Borns from 7199 Frontier Trail, and I also feel that by expanding the use
from 3 to 8, which is 100% of the lots that are at this association is going to create major
problems for the other 340 association owning lots on the lake. I think it would be hard to deny
them, and I personally know that 2 of the lots, Sunrise Hills and Frontier Trail are not even
allowed to have night mooring. That they cannot tie up to the dock throughout the evening
hours. So I think that this association is very fortunate in having 3 spots and I would hope that if
somebody’s on vacation they would give up their spot to someone else. It’s only a 246 acre lake
and I think that if the DNR proposed to add an additional 5 spots, room for 5 boats and trailers in
the parking lot, I think that we would see a lot of opposition to that also. I think that if, safety’s
been a major concern for years and we are patrolled every day. Most summers we’re patrolled
every day for an hour or two during the afternoon, including weekends, but weekdays also, and
it’s because of the safety concern and I think that if even one person is hurt or killed in a boating
accident, that it won’t be worth it to the amount of improvement to their lakeshore lots, or to
their homes with the association and even the amount of tax dollars that are generated by that. I
don’t see that we can put a value on the life of adding the additional traffic to the lake.
McDonald: Thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
64
Dave Rossbach: My name’s Dave Rossbach. I live at 670 Pleasant View Road. I’m in this
association. Been there since ’83. Long time. Seen a lot of changes in the city since then.
We’ve got 600 feet of lakeshore. 600. Does anybody in here have 600 feet of lakeshore? I
don’t think so. We’ve taken care of this land all this time. Having to put fill in there. I’ll bet
nobody here can say that. On their lakeshore. I bet they filled it, took care of their shoreline…
Back in ’87 or whenever, when this Reichert thing happen, we just barely bought my house. Or
not ’87, 80, when was it? 3. Anyways. We probably would have had 3 docks down there if
we’d a gotten off our butts and maybe went for it back with the rules and the regulations that the
city had then. And we didn’t. We left it the way it is. We thought hey, this is great. We have
one beachlot. We’re going to keep it nice. The lake level went up and down. We lost some
property. Maybe we shouldn’t do that. Maybe we should have came and just filled it in. Like
everybody else. Keep our shoreline. We didn’t, and now we’re asking for a measly dock. So
we don’t have to haul our boats in and out all the time. I’m not one of the select few that get to
put mine there. Granted I didn’t buy per se lakeshore, you know. I don’t get to put out a hockey
rink or anything like that in the winter time. Put lights up. But we take care of our property. We
don’t bother our neighbors. You have letters from our neighbors saying that we’re good
stewards of the land. And as far as the parking on the street goes. Speed has increased on that
road tremendously. We’ve complained time and time again about that. We have police, don’t
we in this city? To hand out tickets for parking. If it’s an issue, they should be there to hand out
tickets. If there’s no signs that say you can’t park here, we can park there. We don’t. Every one
of us walk down to that lakeshore. Nobody drives there. I mean you’re 500 feet away. Why
would you drive? You know yeah, occasionally if I have to take something down there and
unload it, I do. I take my truck down there and I park and I unload it. Lawn mower. You
know…wheelbarrow, whatever. I do. And then I go home. But that’s all I got to say.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wish to address the council up here?
Debbie Lloyd: Good evening. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I’ve been a resident of
Chanhassen since 1980. A member of Sunrise Hills Civic Association. We have a beachlot. Our
association was founded in the 50’s. We have one dock. We don’t moor any boats. We have 55
homeowners. You can bet many of us would like to have our boats moored, but it’s not a
marine. We respect the lake. You’ve heard a lot of discussion about lake quality. I won’t go
over that. But I’m just going to stand here and say I’m in full support of the staff report. Many
of you know I speak regularly at these meetings. There is no precedence set by any of these
other associations that have deviations from what the code states. They were legally, they were
legal remedies to situations. I sympathize with these homeowners but that’s the way their land
was developed. With one dock. To deviate from that, it’s a variance and for a variance you need
to go through all those requirements diligently and make sure that you have reasonable and
returns from those variances is covered. And I challenge you to do that. Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to address the commission?
Greg Fletcher: Hi, good evening. I’m Greg Fletcher. I live at 7616 South Shore Drive. And
I’m against the variance, mostly due to the safety. We take the kids out on the lake and it’s
pretty scary pulling them on tubes on the lake when you have boats following you by you know a
couple hundred yards and they’re not paying attention. A kid falls off, someone’s going to get
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
65
run over. Sitting on the lake in that hot afternoon with, if you were to stop and look around, you
could probably count 20 boats on there, and that’s a lot. Adding 5 more would be significant I
think. It’d be a safety issue. I agree with the staff and support their recommendations and I also
feel that to establish this would open a precedent for all the other associations to request
additional docks and slip space on the lake which would just compound the problem. Thanks.
McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to address the commission?
Kathy Pavelko: I’m Kathy Pavelko. I live at 7203 Frontier Trail. I’m also a member of this
Sunrise Hills Association, and I live on the lake. They’re asking for a variance and you’ll set a
precedent by allowing them another one. Another dock and they say 200 feet, and they say they
have 600 so what’s to stop it from coming back 2 years from now and saying well we have 600
feet. You allowed us an extra one. Now we can go with 3 because you said that that 200 was
enough. Without the square footage. So you just set another precedence. They could ask for
another dock. There’s too many. I mean Sunrise Hills, 55 homeowners. Why can’t they all
have lakeshore property? Docking. It opens up a can of worms. Every other association can
start asking for variances.
McDonald: Okay. Thank you very much. Does anyone else wish to make comment? Seeing no
one step forward, close the public meeting and I’ll bring the issue back before the
commissioners. Start with Dan.
Keefe: In looking at everything, and I don’t have first hand experience but it sure looks like this
association has maintained the lake very well. Maintained their beachlot and I think everybody’s
in appreciation of that. It’s my opinion that, I don’t think parking is, I drive Pleasant View all
the time. I don’t think parking is an issue necessarily in relation to this particular request. I
think it’s a little bit overblown in regards to the parking issue. Although I think in general
parking is an issue and I think speeds are an issue on Pleasant View but I think parking’s a little
bit overblown in relation to this particular request. I’m very much in sympathy with what their
wants and desires are but it’s my opinion that I do think that granting 5 additional boats will
increase the boat traffic and the lake use. You know other associations have many more homes
that all don’t have a dedicated dock, or dedicated boat space let me put it that way. I’m a little
bit troubled by, with the way the association operates. Only 3 out of the 8 residents have the
ability to use their dock but I guess that’s for you guys to decide. And then it’s really a request
for a variance that really in effect increases use of the lake and I think approving the hardship
conditions would be difficult. I’m in agreement with staff’s report.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Debbie.
Larson: Okay. First of all the presentation that we had I thought was very good. You know
people that, this association has been in for what, 28 years. Most of the people that are a part of
this have been around 16 years it says. They want a dock so they can park their boats at night. I
understand that. That’s a convenience item and I think that’s a positive and I don’t see a
problem with that since those boats, if they’re using them, are on the lake every day anyhow and
probably off the lake by nightfall. So it would be something that would be convenient for them.
They’ve maintained the lot. They’ve been sensitive to the conservation of it and the fact that the
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
66
lot is sinking a little bit, is not to their fault. They have kept it natural. The neighbors don’t
seem to have a problem with it and as far as I’m concerned, you know the parking on the street
really I guess isn’t that huge of an issue because it’s a slow street anyhow. But what I did is I’ve
been listening to everything here and because I’m sort of not sure which way I wanted to go on
this, I did the list. Put the line down the middle and I made a list of the up side, down side.
Okay, I just listed the 4 up side prop things. The down side is, the lakeshore is declining. The
second one, roadway parking. You know not a huge issue but it’s somewhat of an issue. Lake
safety. That’s pretty big. I use that lake personally a lot. I use that end of the lake a lot. I’m a
kayaker. I don’t have a motor boat and there are people that, when they go through the narrows
at that end of the lake, they tend to go fast and I’ve seen little kids out there swimming just
beyond some of the swimming areas almost get hit by boats because they’re driving like this and
not watching where they’re going. Not to say that any of you would do this but if we’re adding
boats to that end of the lake, I don’t remember which gentleman pointed out, you know the fact
that it’s convenient. You can go down to the dock, you will be using it more. One of the things
that the city is afraid of here is, the lake is impaired. It’s not in the best quality and they’re trying
to improve it and adding boats to this is, not that you’re adding boats but you’re probably
increasing the usage of the current boats that are on there and that is not going to necessarily help
the impairment of the lake or help improve. It may not make it worst, but it’s not going to help it
get better. Congestion at that end of the lake to me is a huge issue because it’s where everybody
turns around, so sometimes several boats are in that end of the lake and it is a safety thing. And
setting the precedent if it’s approved. It will set a precedent. There’s a couple other associations
that have been able to get around it, you know like you said 55 people using one dock. You
know perhaps it’s the type of thing where maybe everybody should not leave their boats
overnight and just have it be a daytime use thing. I don’t know, but I’ve got 6 against and 4
positives and so I’m really afraid I’m going to have to vote against it. I’m so sorry.
McDonald: Thank you Debbie. Kurt.
Papke: I think we can debate quite a bit over the consequences to the environment and the safety
and so on, but if I look at this strictly in terms of our, the rules that we have to follow in allowing
a variance, I don’t see any way one can show that we’ve demonstrated a hardship here. I believe
that they do have reasonable use of their property and so I just don’t see any justification for a
variance under these circumstances. I certainly, if I was in the position of the applicants, I’d
certainly want to do this as well but I just don’t see the justification for a variance.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. I guess my comments aren’t, I don’t want to retread over old
ground but one of the things that’s happened is that the city has been tasked with the protection
of all the waterways and water within the city itself. You’re not the only lake owners that come
before us and ask for things that we end up having to turn down. The city’s been asked to step in
for a number of reasons. One of which was again there’s been a number of studies done. Water
quality comes up as the biggest thing that the residents of Chanhassen wish that their lakes would
be improved with. That’s not just Lotus Lake. That’s every lake within the city, so because of
that you know rules and regulations have been put in place. You’re right. 15-20 years ago you
could have put the dock in. You didn’t because you know you felt that it was not right to do so
with the lake. I applaud you for doing that but that doesn’t change things just because you could
of, we ought to allow you to do it now. What happened between then and now is the fact that
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
67
there are rules in place and I think as we have pointed out today, just as in the past, you have not
demonstrated the hardship required for the variance. The other examples you cite are
extraordinary. They were different. There were other reasons for those being granted and they
were not granted easily, and there’s a reason for that. And again it comes down to control of the
lake for everyone’s use. I’m not going to go over issues about water density with boats and
everything. We’ve done that before and again as I said, that seems to be the number one
argument that other owners of the lake always bring before us when someone else is asking for a
dock so I haven’t heard anything yet that would change my opinion that putting in a dock is
probably going to affect that in a negative way. The boat slips. I understand your problem but it
wasn’t until you got up and actually told me that you’re not allowed the use of those overnight
slips because the people of Lots 6, 7 and I guess it’s 8 are somehow deeded in, that they’re the
ones that get to allow the overnight. That’s a problem that you all need to address with your
association. The slips are there and they should be shared on a fair basis. If it’s because of the
way the land’s developed, that’s no different than the gentleman across the way because he has a
covenant on the land use that says he can’t put a dock in. It’s the same issue. Again, you
haven’t gotten over that burden of showing that you really have a hardship. You have use of the
property as it was intended and as it was put together for development. So I think for all those
reasons, that’s again staff’s report I think you have not shown the burden that you need to show
to overcome what staff has presented before us. So I also would vote against it but again it’s for
the reasons as I stated and within the staff report that the burdens that are there have not been
met. With that I would accept a motion.
Papke: Mr. Chair, I’ll make a motion that the Planning Commission denies the request of a
Conditional Use Permit and variance for the lot area requirement necessary for the second dock
and the number of boat slips per dock based on the findings of fact in the staff report, and issues
1 through 4 as listed in the staff report.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Keefe: Second.
Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission denies the request for a
Conditional Use Permit amendment and Variances for the lot area requirement necessary
for the second dock and the number of boat slips per dock based on the findings of fact in
the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property.
3. A revised conditional use permit with intensified use may reduce public safety due to
parking on the sub-standard streets and poor sight lines.
4. If these variances are approved, other recreational beachlots in Chanhassen will likely
seek variances from lot area and boat limit restrictions.
Planning Commission Meeting – May 16, 2006
68
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
McDonald: Okay, recommendation of staff is accepted. Our motion to add a dock is denied.
You do have a right to take this up before City Council which would be your next step and at that
point you may present your case to them but our recommendation to the City Council will be that
they deny your request for an additional dock.
Aanenson: Thank you Mr. Chair. I just want to make sure that was clearly indicated that they
could be appealed so if you want to check, anybody tracking this item may want to check to see
when it will be at the City Council docket because they will also open up for comments, so if
you want to check with staff or the city’s web site to check the agenda.
McDonald: Okay. Thank you for that.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 2, 2006 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None.
Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:25 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
DATE: June 12, 2006 RESOLUTION NO: 2006-
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING 2005 FUND TRANSFERS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, has determined that it is
expedient to close and transfer the following balances to an appropriate fund in order to more clearly show
the financial condition of the city; and
WHEREAS, fund 499 (TIF#9 VOP Apartments) and fund 500 (101 Gap) are to be closed as of
December 31, 2005 and the appropriate fund to receive the balances as listed below;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Chanhassen, Minnesota, as
follows:
1. Authorization; Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes the Finance Director to close the
following funds and transfer the balances as shown.
Transfer from: Transfer to: Amount
800 Historic Preservation Trust Fund 499
525.00
(18,465.82) 463 212/101 Gap 500 7,117.00
7,342.17
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 12th day of June, 2006.
.
ATTEST:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
YES NO ABSENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Karen J. Engelhardt, Office Manager
DATE: June 2, 2006
SUBJ: C.J.’s Coffee & Wine Bar, 600 Market Street, Suite 170:
Approval of Request to Amend the Liquor Licensed Premises
Area for a Charity Event on June 13, 2006; and Approval of
Request to Amend the Liquor Licensed Premises to Include the
Sidewalk Area
Staff has received two requests from Cindy Baker, owner of C.J.’s Coffee &
Wine Bar located in Market Street Station:
Charity Event: Ms. Baker will be conducting a fundraiser for the American
Heart Association on Tuesday, June 13 from 4:30-8:30 p.m. She is requesting
permission to rope off the parking lot area between C.J.’s and the Movie Theater
(see attached map) to allow guests to purchase beer or wine inside the restaurant
and carry it to outdoor tables to listen to a band. Ms. Baker has received
permission of the landowner and has liquor liability insurance to cover the
event. (Staff requested this information in writing; however, it was not received
as of the time this packet was published.) She also intends to have people
posted at the points of entrance/exit to ensure that no liquor is carried outside the
roped off area.
Staff has discussed this proposed event with Sgt. Jim Olson, Fire Marshal, and
State of Minnesota Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement personnel, and all feel
that this is a workable situation. In the event of an emergency, the area could be
cleared quickly to allow access by an ambulance or other emergency vehicle.
Ms. Baker is also working with the Planning Department for the issuance of a
special event permit and a loud speaker permit for this event.
In order to display and consume alcohol in the roped off area in the parking lot,
the city would have to amend the licensed premises for C.J.’s Coffee & Wine
Bar to include this outdoor area for one day, June 13, 2006.
Consumption on Outdoor Patio: Ms. Baker is also requesting permission to
serve beer and wine to patrons on the outdoor patio on a continuing basis. She
intends to cordon off a portion of the sidewalk area with portable decorative
patio fence as shown on the attached sheet. The tables would not obstruct
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
June 2, 2006
Page 2
pedestrians using the sidewalk. This is similar to other establishments in the
metro area.
Currently, there is only one entrance directly into C.J.’s on the east side of the
building. As such, there is no way to restrict access to the patio area from within
the restaurant only without installing a second door. Ms. Baker feels that the
area can be monitored adequately from within the restaurant; but if a problem
arises, a second door could be installed over the winter months.
Staff has discussed this proposal with Sgt. Jim Olson, the Fire Marshal, and the
Planning staff. No one has an issue with the proposal. Additionally, a
representative from the Alcohol & Gambling Enforcement Division of the State
of Minnesota did an inspection of the site and feels that this setup will work.
Ms. Baker also has the permission of the land owner and the liquor liability
insurance carrier will include this area for coverage (still waiting for written
confirmation of this information).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of expanding the licensed premises for C.J.’s Coffee
& Wine Bar as follows:
1. To include a roped off area of the parking lot for a charity event on
Tuesday, June 13, 2006, for one day only.
2. To include the sidewalk portion adjacent to the restaurant on an ongoing
basis. This area will be cordoned off with portable decorative patio
fence and will be monitored to determine if installation of a second door
is warranted.
3. Written documentation is provided indicating the landowner’s
permission and expansion of the liquor liability insurance covering the
special event and the outdoor seating area.
Approval of these requests requires a simple majority vote of those City Council
members present.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: June 12, 2006
SUBJ: Award Contract for Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements
Project No. 06-05
REQUESTED ACTION
Approve resolution accepting bid and awarding a contract to S.M. Hentges &
Sons, Inc. in the amount of $4,448,083.38 for Bluff Creek Boulevard
Improvements.
BACKGROUND
On April 10, 2006, the Council approved plans and specifications and authorized
advertisement for bids for the Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements Project
06-05. The improvements included as a part of this project are as follows:
· Construction of Bluff Creek Boulevard from Audubon Road to approximately
4,100 feet to the east.
· Construction of turn lanes and a traffic signal at the Audubon Road and Bluff
Creek Boulevard intersection.
· Installation of trunk watermain along Bluff Creek Boulevard.
· Installation of trunk sanitary sewer along Bluff Creek Boulevard.
· Construction of storm sewer and ponding improvements along Bluff Creek
Boulevard.
· Construction of retaining walls in the vicinity of the Bluff Creek crossing.
· Installation of street lighting and landscaping along Bluff Creek Boulevard.
These improvements are proposed to be constructed during the 2006 and 2007
construction seasons and are necessary to prepare for the development of the 2005
MUSA Expansion.
Bids were opened for the project on Friday, June 2, 2006 at 11:00 AM. One (1)
bid was received as follows:
Todd Gerhardt
June 12, 2006
Page 2
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
Bidder Amount
S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. $4,383,058.38
Engineer’s Estimate $4,850,000.00
The bid was tabulated and minor errors were found; however, they did not have a
major impact on the bid amount. The bid was submitted with a proper bid
guarantee in the amount of 5% of the bid.
Since there was only one bid, S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. was the low bidder with
a total base bid amount of $4,383,058.38. The low bid is approximately 10% less
than the Engineer’s Estimate. The bid was also lower then the estimate in the
Feasibility Study and Report.
The plans and specifications included a bid alternate for the construction of a
temporary roadway to service the proposed adjacent developments during this
winter. This alternative was included since the project schedule may not allow
Bluff Creek Boulevard to be paved in its final condition prior to the end of the
2006 construction season. S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc.’s bid alternate amount
was $65,025.00. The bid amount to construct this roadway was also lower
than the Engineer’s Estimate. The total bid amount including the base bid and
bid alternate is $4,448,083.38. Staff recommends that the bid alternate be
awarded to provide some flexibility in meeting the needs of the adjacent
developments during the winter season.
Although there were over 50 planholders for this project, only one bid was
received. One additional bid was received; however, it was submitted late and
was not opened. Several contractors were contacted in an attempt to determine
why only one bid was submitted considering the number of planholders.
Numerous responses were given; however, the most common reasons contractors
gave for not bidding the project were due to recent wins on other projects/enough
work for the season, concerns about too much competition based on the
planholders list, and concerns regarding the construction in the clay soils.
Contractors also commented that other jobs they had bid on recently had received
very few bids.
S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. has not recently completed a City project but has
worked on development projects within the City. S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. has
worked with our consulting engineer on similar projects in other local
communities. We believe that they are competent to successfully complete this
project. Award of the project, including the base bid and bid alternate, to S.M.
Hentges & Sons, Inc. is, therefore, recommended.
Todd Gerhardt
June 12, 2006
Page 3
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
Funding for this project is proposed through a combination of special assessments
to the benefiting properties in the 2005 MUSA, Water Utility Funds, Sewer
Utility Funds and MnDOT State Aid Funds. The proposed financing plan is
summarized in detail in the project feasibility report. Based upon the low bid
cost, the total estimated project cost (including indirect cost) is $5,956,000.
Special assessment amounts for individual property owners will be determined
based on the actual project cost. Any additional projects costs will be funded
through a combination of Water Utility Funds, Sewer Utility Funds and MnDOT
State Aid Funds.
Funding for the total project cost (including all indirect costs) is proposed as
follows:
Assessments $4,615,300.00
Water Utility Funds $ 114,300.00
Sewer Utility Funds $ 144,400.00
MnDOT State Aid Funds $1,082,000.00
Total $5,956,000.00
The final project cost will be determined prior to the assessment hearing in
November 2006.
The proposed schedule for the project is as follows:
Award Contract June 12, 2006
Start Construction June 26, 2006
Assessment Hearing November 13, 2006
Construction Complete June 29, 2007
Attachments: 1. Project Location Map
2. CIP Project Sheets
3. Resolution
c: Jon Horn, Kimley-Horn & Associates
C:\DOCUME~1\karene\LOCALS~1\Temp\Staff Report.doc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: June 12, 2006
SUBJ: Approve Assessment Agreement waivers for Bluff Creek
Boulevard Improvements - Project No. 06-05
REQUESTED ACTION
Approve assessment agreements for Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements.
BACKGROUND
The City Council is requested to approve agreements for special assessments with
the Degler, Peterson-Jacques, and NDI Minnesota for the Bluff Creek Boulevard
Improvements. These properties will be assessed the majority of the cost of the
project. The special assessment agreement for Liberty at Bluff Creek
Development (Parcels 1 & 2 on the preliminary assessment roll) for the Bluff
Creek Boulevard project was included in the Development Contract. Since the
other development contracts have not been approved by the City Council, a
separate special assessment agreement should be approved prior to award of the
construction contract. It is anticipated that all three property owners will have the
special assessment agreements signed prior to City Council consideration of
construction contract award on June 12, 2006.
Attachments: 1. Public Improvement and Special Assessment Agreements
2. Preliminary Assessment Roll
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, Public Works Director/City Engineer
DATE: June 12, 2006
SUBJ: Approval of Resolution Establishing Parking Restrictions Along
Bluff Creek Boulevard from Audubon Road to Powers Boulevard
City Project No. 06-05
REQUEST (Simple Majority Vote Required)
The City Council is requested to approve the attached resolution establishing a no
on-street parking zone along Bluff Creek Boulevard from Audubon Road to
Powers Boulevard.
DISCUSSION
Bluff Creek Boulevard has been designated by the City, with MnDOT approval, as
a Municipal State Aid (MSA) street. Based on the proposed roadway section, one
of MnDOT's requirements for designation as a MSA street is that no on-street
parking be allowed on either side of the roadway. In order to receive MnDOT
approval for use of state aid funds for the Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements
project, MnDOT’s state aid office is requiring a no parking resolution along both
sides of the roadway from Audubon Road to Powers Boulevard.
Attachment: Resolution
c: Jon Horn, Kimley-Horn and Associates
g:\eng\public\06-05 2005 musa phase ii\bluffcreekblvd_noparkingresolution 061206.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
DATE: June 12, 2006 RESOLUTION NO: 2006-
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
APPROVE RESOLUTION RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS
MUSA EXPANSION (BLUFF CREEK BOULEVARD), BID PACKAGE #2
S.A.P. PROJECT NO. 194-125-001 & PROJECT NO. 06-05
WHEREAS, the City has planned the improvement of Bluff Creek Boulevard, State Aid
Route No. 125 from Audubon Road to Powers Boulevard in the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the City will be expending Municipal Street Aid funds on the improvements of
this street; and
WHEREAS, this improvement does not provide adequate width for parking on both sides of
the street; and approval of the proposed construction as a Municipal State Aid Street project must
therefore be conditioned up certain parking restrictions.
NOW THERE BE IT RESOLVED that the City shall ban the parking of motor vehicles on
Bluff Creek Boulevard at all time.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 12th day of June, 2006.
ATTEST:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
YES NO ABSENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
FROM: Paul Oehme, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: June 12, 2006
SUBJ: Authorize Construction Phase Services
2005 MUSA Expansion/Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements
City 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 $489,600 for construction phase services
for the 2005 MUSA Expansion/Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements, City
Project No. 06-05.
BACKGROUND
On February 27, 2006, the City Council received a feasibility report for the Bluff
Creek Boulevard Improvements, which is the second phase of the 2005 MUSA
Improvements. The public hearing for the improvements was held on March 13,
2006. The project includes the following improvements:
1. Roadway Improvements
· Construction of Bluff Creek Boulevard from Audubon Road to
approximately 4,100 feet east.
· Construction of turn lane and traffic signal improvements at the Bluff
Creek Boulevard/Audubon Road intersection.
· Construction of cast-in-place, precast, and modular block retaining
walls at the Bluff Creek Boulevard bridge crossing of Bluff Creek.
· Installation of streetlight and landscaping improvements along Bluff
Creek Boulevard.
2. Watermain Improvements
· Extension of trunk watermain along Bluff Creek Boulevard.
3. Sanitary Sewer Improvements
· Extension of trunk sanitary sewer along Bluff Creek Boulevard.
4. Storm Drainage Improvements
· Storm sewer and ponding improvements along Bluff Creek Boulevard.
· Construction of wetland mitigation improvements.
Todd Gerhardt
June 12, 2006
Page 2
On April 10, 2006, the City Council approved the plans and specifications for the
project and authorized advertisement for bids. Bids were received on June 2,
2006. The award of the construction contract for the improvements is on the
agenda for the June 12, 2006 City Council meeting.
DISCUSSION
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn) has provided all of the past
design and construction engineering services for the 2005 MUSA Expansion
improvements. Staff has solicited a proposal from Kimley-Horn for construction
phase services for the Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements. These services
include construction administration, inspection, staking, and quality control
testing.
It is staff’s opinion that these construction phase services should be performed by
Kimley-Horn due to the following:
· The quality of their previous services for the 2005 MUSA area.
· Their knowledge and background of the project area.
· Their knowledge of the property owners/developers in the project area.
· The tight schedule required to allow these improvements to proceed to meet
the needs of the area property owners/developers.
· They are already working in the project area providing construction phase
services for the TH 212 project and private development improvements
adjacent to Bluff Creek Boulevard.
Kimley-Horn’s estimated cost for the Bluff Creek Boulevard construction phase
services is as follows:
Work Task Estimated Fee
1. Construction Administration and Inspection $ 376,000
2. Construction Staking $ 50,000
3. Quality Control Testing $ 40,000
Subtotal $ 466,000
Reimbursable Expenses $ 22,600
Permitting Fees $ 1,000
Total Estimated Cost $ 489,600
These services will be performed on a time and materials basis not to exceed
$489,600. The hourly rates Kimley-Horn and Associates are proposing are the
same as for their previous preliminary design, final design, and construction phase
work tasks and they are competitive with other consulting firms. They will be
Todd Gerhardt
June 12, 2006
Page 3
required to submit time sheets verifying the hours worked on the project. Staff
will review these time sheets for accuracy.
The estimated cost for the construction inspection and staking services is
approximately 10% of the project construction cost, which is very typical for
projects of this nature. Funding for these construction phase services is included
in the overall project budget and will be provided primarily by assessments to the
benefiting property owners as identified in the Bluff Creek Boulevard
Improvements feasibility study.
The proposed schedule for the Bluff Creek Boulevard Improvements is provided
below:
Bid Opening June 2, 2006
Award Contract June 12, 2006
Start Construction June 26, 2006
Construction Substantially Complete - Utilities and Grading Nov. 17, 2006
Construction Complete June 29, 2007
c: Jon Horn, Kimley-Horn & Associates
g:\eng\public\06-05 2005 musa phase ii\bkgd 061206 bkgd 2005 musa bp 2 construction services.doc
SI
T
E
D
A
T
A
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: May 16, 2006
CC DATE: June 12, 2006
REVIEW DEADLINE: June 13, 2006
` CASE #: 06-18 SouthWest Village
BY: Al-Jaff, et al.
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: 1. Planned Unit Development Amendment to the existing standards.
2. A Variance to allow reduced setbacks from collector Roads.
3. Preliminary Plat to subdivide 10.01 acres into 35 lots and 3 Outlots – SOUTHWEST
VILLAGE.
4. Site Plan Review for the construction of two multi-tenant commercial buildings, a
parking ramp, 1 six-plex, 3 five-plex, and 3 four-plex townhomes.
LOCATION: Southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman
Blvd.
APPLICANT: SouthWest Metro Transit
13500 Technology Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
(952) 974-3101
PRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development, Mixed Use – PUD, Mixed Use
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Mixed Use
ACREAGE: 10.01 Acres DENSITY: 11.9 Units per Acre
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Planned Unit Development Amendment to existing standards, a variance
to allow reduced setback from collector roads, preliminary plat to subdivide 10.01 acres, and site plan
approval for a parking ramp, retail, and a housing element. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to
all property owners within 500 feet. Staff is recommending approval of the request.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving amendments to PUDs because the City is
acting in its legislative or policy making capacity. A PUD amendment must be consistent with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan.
The City’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project
meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of
discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is
a quasi judicial decision.
The City’s discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed
plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these
standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
The City’s discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project
complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the City must then approve the
site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
AP
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 2 of 50
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The request consists of multiple applications to facilitate the construction of a mixed-use
development (parking ramp, retail and housing). The requests include a Planned Unit
Development Amendment to existing standards, a Variance to allow reduced setback from
collector roads, Preliminary Plat to subdivide 10.01 acres, and Site Plan Approval for a parking
ramp, retail, and a housing element.
The site is located at the southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and
north of Lyman Blvd. Access to the site will be gained off of Lyman Boulevard and a right-
in/out only off of Highway 101. The site is zoned Planned Unit Development-Mixed Use.
Lake Susan Drive
Hw
y 101
G
re
at P
lains
B
lvd
Mary
J
a
ne
Ci
r
L a k e S u s a n D ri v eC
h
a
n
hassen H ill s Dr N orth
Barbara Crt
L
a
k
e
S
u
s
a
n
D
r
ive
Lym a n Blv d (C .R. 18 )
H
wy 1
01
Gre
at
P
l
a
i
n
s
B
lv
d
Sum m e rfield Dr iv e
S u m m e r f i e l d D rive
G
r
eenview D r i v e Overlook
Crt
S
p
ringfield D ri v e
Springfield D
r
i
v
e
S un n y v a l e D r i v e
Sunnyvale
D
r
i
v
e
S
h
o
r
e
v
i
e
w
C
r
t
P ar kla n dWa y
G re e
Deerfoot Trail
Deerfoot Trail
Lyman Blvd (C.R. 18)
l
Lyman Blvd (C.R . 18)
Quinn Ro
ad
Marshland Trl
M
o
n
k
C
r
t
R ic e CMissio
n
Way Hill W Mission W ay Hill E
Heart
l
and Crt
Bla
c
k
bird Crt
Lake Riley Blvd
Ch a n h a s s e n H ills D r S o u th
L
a
k
e
Su s a n C o u rt
Cha n h a s sen Hills Dr North
P ro p o s e d T .H .2 1 2
P r op o s e
Subject Site
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 3 of 50
1. Planned Unit Development Amendment: The first request is to amend multiple elements of
the Planned Unit Development Design Standards. They include setbacks, height of parking
ramp, location of the retail element, and signs.
2. Variance: The second request is for a variance to allow a reduced setback from Highway
212, Highway 101, and Lyman Boulevard. The City Code requires a 50-foot setback from
arterial and collector roads.
3. Subdivision/Preliminary Plat: The third request is for the subdivision of 10.01 acres into 35
lots and 3 outlots. Lot 1 will house the parking ramp. Lot 2 will house two retail buildings and the
remaining 33 lots will house townhouses. Outlot A contains surface parking areas and drive isles,
Outlot B contains a 100-foot wide landscape buffer, and Outlot C contains all driveways and
common areas for the townhouses.
4. Site Plans: The final request is for three site plans. Site coverage is averaged over the entire
development. This is permitted under the PUD ordinance (section 20-505 (e)). The total
permitted site coverage is 64.5 percent. The proposed development has a total hard coverage
area of 62.5%.
4A: The first site plan is for a parking ramp. It will be located along the northeast portion of the
site. The ramp will be built in two phases. The first phase will include the first two stories of the
ramp while the third and final deck will be built at a future date. The design of the ramp and the
station is attractive and is proposed to be constructed of high quality materials. They include
brick and smooth and rough-face block. The stairwell into the parking ramp is made of glass
which adds an element of transparency. Entrances into the ramp and the station are defined by
arched entryways. Decorative metal rail is used on all four elevations. Wood trellises are used
as an accent and will provide an additional element of interest.
4B: The second site plan request is for the retail element. It is intended to occupy the
northwesterly portion of the site. It consist of two buildings with an area of 8,500 square feet
each (17,000 square feet total). The materials used on the retail buildings include brick, smooth-
face block, EIFS accent panels, and glass. All four elevations of each of the retail buildings have
received equal attention to detail. The buildings are separated by a plaza with a fountain and
landscaping.
4C: The third site plan is for the townhouses. The applicant is proposing 1 six-plex, 3 five-
plexes, and 3 four-plexes. They are proposed to be located along the southern portion of the site.
Materials on the exterior of the homes include brick, cultured stone, hardi-plank siding, hardi-
shingle siding, hardi-board trim and fiberglass shingles. Flower boxes and window shutters are
used to accent the buildings. All the garage doors and parking will be hidden behind the buildings
and the main focus from Lyman Boulevard and Highway 101 will be the architectural design of
these townhouses. This type of urban housing is typically located closer to the right-of-way to
provide an urban edge to the public realm. That is the main reason for the variance request.
The applicant intends to hold a neighborhood meeting on May 11, 2006. At the time of writing
this report, the meeting had not yet taken place.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 4 of 50
Staff regards the project as a well-designed development. The overall design is sensitive to the
surrounding area. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan,
subdivision, planned unit development amendment, and variance with conditions as outlined in
the staff report. Construction on this project could begin as early as fall 2006.
The six motions for this application can be found on pages 32 through 48 of this staff report.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 18, Subdivisions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 2, Amendments
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 6, Site Plan Review
Chapter 20, Article VII, Planned Unit Development District
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial, and Office-
Institutional Developments
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 9, Design Standards for Multifamily Developments
SouthWest Village Design Standards.
BACKGROUND:
On February 18, 2004, the City of Chanhassen and SouthWest Metro Transit began a series of three
neighborhood meetings. The intent of the planning process was to arrive upon a park-and-ride
layout design and a planned unit development that meets the functional needs of transit patrons
and compliments the community within the area’s limitations. The February 18th neighborhood
meeting focused on the Project Background and Intent; March 31st dealt with Alternative Design
Concepts and Land Use Schemes; and the April 21st meeting focused on a preferred layout
concept, Land Use, and a draft PUD ordinance.
Each meeting resulted in a list of
questions and suggestions. The
questions and concerns were addressed
and posted on the City’s web site. The
suggestions (to the extent feasible) were
incorporated into a draft PUD ordinance.
The final draft layout that was arrived at
reflected a park-and-ride facility along
the north portion of the site, a
commercial component in the center and
a residential development along the
south portion of the site.
Access to the site was a concern to the
neighbors. Numerous meetings took place with Minnesota Department of Transportation. These
meetings resulted in permitting a right-in/out access off of Highway 101 and allowing full access
off of Lyman Boulevard to maintain a 100-foot setback from the easterly property line. This
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 5 of 50
setback will allow for adequate buffer between the subject site and the residential neighborhood
to the east.
MNDOT also agreed to a bus slip lane off of the Highway 212 eastbound on-ramp.
A number of studies were requested by the residents. SouthWest Metro Transit hired consultants
to conduct these studies and present them to the neighborhood. They included:
AM BUS MOVEMENT PM BUS MOVEMENT
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 6 of 50
1. PHASE I ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PARK & RIDE
DEVELOPMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 101 AND THE
PROPOSED HIGHWAY 212 ON EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES
IN CHANHASSEN, by Shenehon Company.
The study concluded that the development could potentially have a positive impact on
values by creating a buffer to the interstate, preventing higher impact development on the
site, and adding convenience to the homeowners in the area.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT – NOISE AND AIR QUALITY, by David Braslau
associates, Inc.
The study concluded: The proposed Park-and-Ride facility is planned to serve a
maximum of eight buses per hour with parking for 800 motor vehicles. During the AM
period buses will enter and depart along the north access to the facility and will therefore
have minimal impact on both noise and air quality.
During the PM period, buses will enter at the north from TH 101 and circle the parking
ramp to return to TH 101 to reach the TH 212 westbound on-ramp. These buses will
travel along the east roadway of the facility and between the parking ramp and the new
residential structures to be constructed as part of the project. These buses will have
somewhat more impact on noise and air quality, although the impacts will be limited.
Noise levels during 6-7 AM, which fall under the nighttime period, are expected to exceed
the Minnesota noise standards primarily due to traffic on the new TH 212, its ramps, and
TH 101.
Appropriate construction of the new housing proposed for the site can permit higher
noise limits to be applied and therefore can comply with noise standards. Noise levels
during the PM Peak Hour are generally under the state noise standards except for the
apartments that face the access roadway carrying departing buses. However, the 2 dBA
exceedance is within modeling error and may not be a problem if no outdoor uses are
planned for the north side of these buildings. The buses alone are not sufficient to cause
the noise standards to be exceeded. Contributions from the other roadways are sufficient
for this small exceedance of the standards.
Predicted air quality (carbon monoxide concentrations) is well below both the 1-hour
and the 8-hour standard and no air quality problems are anticipated with operation of
the facility. As new diesel engine and diesel fuel regulations are implemented, the
potential for odor associated with the facility will also decrease. Appropriate equipment
will be able to operate at the facility with little or no odor impacts.
3. TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED TRANSIT-ORIENTED FACILITY IN
CHANHASSEN, by Benshoof & Associates, Inc.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 7 of 50
Levels of service (LOS) are classified as follows:
LOS A – free flow
LOS B – stable flow, with high degree of freedom
LOS C – stable flow, with restricted freedom
LOS D – high-density flow with restricted speed and freedom
LOS E – unstable flow; at or near capacity
LOS F – forced flow; volume exceeds capacity
The study concluded that the area surrounding the site will operate as follows:
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 8 of 50
On June 23, 2004, the City Council approved rezoning the property to Planned Unit
Development-Mixed Use, and adopted the Planned Unit Development Ordinance that regulated
and set standards for the development of this site including permitted uses, landscaping, setbacks,
signage, building materials, architectural standards, parking, etc.
1. PUD AMENDMENT
There are multiple amendments requested by the applicant.
The first amendment deals with the size of the retail buildings. Section b. Permitted Uses of the
Planned Unit Development Design Standards states “neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,000
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 9 of 50
square feet per building footprint.” The intent of limiting the square footage of the
commercial/retail buildings is to insure that the type of retail operations are neighborhood
oriented in size and service. The applicant is proposing retail buildings with an area of 8,500
square feet. This increase is in keeping with the intent of the ordinance and staff is
recommending approval of the 500 square-foot increase.
The second amendment is to setbacks from all collector roads and height of the parking ramp.
Section d. Setbacks of the Planned Unit Development Design Standards requires a 50-foot setback
form Lyman Boulevard, 35 feet north of the Highway 101 access and 50 feet south of the 101
access, and 50 feet from Highway 212.
The applicant is requesting the setback be reduced to 10 feet from Lyman Boulevard and 20 feet
from Highway 101 for the town houses. The homes will maintain a 40-foot setback from the actual
roadway of Lyman Boulevard and an average of 70 feet from the roadway of Highway 101. This
amendment is to facilitate a more urban style design. The city typically requires a larger front yard
setback to allow for parking. In this case, all parking will be provided behind the homes.
The applicant is also requesting to maintain a 20-foot setback from Highway 101 for the retail
building to stay consistent with the concept of an urban development. There is an equal level of
attention given to the sidewalks and plantings along all sides of the retail buildings. The sidewalks
are 15 feet wide to allow for enhanced pedestrian amenities (i.e. landscaping, planters, benches,
light fixtures, etc.). The northeasterly corner of the retail building encroaches 5 feet into the
required 50-foot setback from Highway 212. The encroachment is actually into the bus slip lane
and not the actual highway lanes (lanes open to all types of vehicles).
The section of the ordinance dealing with the maximum height of the park-and-ride ramp, excluding
the elevator shaft and stair well, requires the structure not to exceed 25 feet or 3 stories, whichever is
less. The applicant is requesting the height of the ramp be increased to 35 feet. MnDOT’s final
design raised the busway and on-ramp grade elevation, which in turn made it impractical to have the
first level of the deck one-half level below the entrance grade from 101. The first level was raised
to match the busway elevation. The maximum height proposed will also allow for higher spandrel
panels on the upper level to more effectively shield headlights of cars.
The third amendment deals with signs. Section 1. Project Identification Sign allows one project
identification sign for the development at the entrance off of Highway 101. The sign may not
exceed 80 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than 8 feet in height. The sign shall be
setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. The applicant is proposing two signs to
allow for symmetry in the design. The sign display area is 35 square feet. The majority of the
sign is an architectural element that frames the entrance into the development.
The ordinance also allows a monument sign at the entrance to the development off of Lyman
Boulevard. This sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five
feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. The
applicant is proposing a sign that has a total sign display area of 9 square feet, with an overall
sign height of 4 feet 6 inches. However, the logo on the sign extends one foot above the
maximum permitted of 5 feet. Staff is recommending the logo be lowered to meet the 5-foot
height requirement.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 10 of 50
The applicant is also proposing 4 additional monument signs at the entrance of the townhouses.
These signs are excessive and should be eliminated. The applicant may choose to locate
communal mail boxes or house numbers directional sign in these areas. The applicant
requested house numbers be placed on these 4 decorative walls. The walls will act as a
decorative fence and provide some screening to the backs of the residential units. These
walls may not be used for an identification sign.
The section of the ordinance addressing wall-mounted signs focused on the retail building and
did not take the bus station location into account. The applicant is requesting the size of the
“SW” logo on the elevator shaft of the building be allowed at a 4-foot diameter along the north
elevation. The applicant is also requesting a similar sign with “SouthWest Transit” letters at 36
inches. These two signs are proposed to be backlit. There are no residential neighborhoods that
can view these two elevations. This is a reasonable request and staff is recommending approval
of it. The applicant is also requesting 36-inch non-illuminated letters at the south elevation of
the building. Staff is recommending approval of this amendment.
Staff needs to point out the location of
the retail buildings has moved between
the concept stage and the proposed
development. The retail building was
centered between the transit building
and the housing element. The current
plans moved the retail element to the
west and along Highway 101. As such,
staff needs to amend the wall sign
criteria to make it more appropriate for
the current location. The main change
will be adding language that prohibits
signs along the sides of the retail
buildings unless the actual entrance into
a tenant’s space is located at the side of
the building. Staff is also
recommending the wall-mounted signs along Highway 101 be limited to either above the
storefront windows when a shared entry configuration exists, and for an unshared configuration,
the signage would be located above the entry or above the tenant’s specific storefront windows,
but not both. On the east elevation, signage shall be permitted above the storefront only as well
as small-scale pedestrian level decorative signage, perpendicular to the wall (projecting signs).
The size of the sign shall not exceed 9 square feet.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FINDINGS:
The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse
affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are:
a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of
and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 11 of 50
Finding: It complies with providing mixed use (residential and neighborhood commercial)
and a transit facility at the intersection of realigned Highway 101 and future Highway 212.
The plan also requires all mixed use developments to be developed as a Planned Unit
Development.
b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area.
Finding: The proposed uses are and will be compatible with the present and future land uses
of the area through the implementation of the design standards, landscaping buffers,
architecture, etc.
c) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning
Ordinance.
Finding: The proposed uses will conform with all performance standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance such as design standards, signage, durable materials, uses, etc., if the
setback variance is approved.
d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
Finding: A study conducted by Shenehon Company found that the proposed uses will have
no measurable negative impact on the property values of the nearby residences. It could
potentially have a positive impact on values by creating a buffer to the interstate, preventing
higher impact development on the site and adding convenience to the homeowners in the
area.
e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not
overburden the city's service capacity.
Finding: The site is located within the Municipal Urban Service Area. The proposed use
can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service
capacity.
f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property.
Finding: Based upon studies conducted by Benshoof and Associates, traffic generation by
the proposed uses is within capabilities of streets serving the property.
2. VARIANCE
The applicant is requesting a reduced setback from collector roads. The City Code requires all
buildings to maintain a 50-foot setback from arterial or collector streets. The reason behind the
variance request is for design purposes, to reflect an urban townhouse and retail development.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 12 of 50
VARIANCE FINDINGS
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a
variance unless they find the following facts:
a) That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet these criteria.
Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does cause an undue hardship. Due to the type
of development the applicant is proposing, it is important to bring the buildings closer to the
street. All the parking lots and garages are completely hidden from views by the buildings.
b) The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are not applicable to all properties
that lie within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District. PUDs may provide flexibility in
the standards in an effort to meet comprehensive plan policies for the creation of diversified
housing.
c) The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential
of the parcel of land.
Finding: The proposed variance is necessary to accommodate the proposed development style.
This is a mixed use development with urban housing and retail. Urban townhouses and retail
are generally located closer to the right-of-way and have a sidewalk around them.
d) The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The proposed variance is necessary to accommodate the proposed building within the
site. The proposed townhouses provide diversified housing.
e) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
f) The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property
or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 13 of 50
Finding: The proposed variation still maintains extensive areas of open space and will not
impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the
congestion of the public streets.
3. SUBDIVISION
The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to replat 10.01 acres into 35 lots and 3
outlots. The site is zoned Planned Unit Development-Mixed Use and is located at the
southeast intersection of the future alignment of Highways 212/101 and north of Lyman
Boulevard.
Lot 1 is proposed to be the future site of the parking ramp with an area of 3.128 acres. Lot 2 will
house two retail buildings. This lot will have an area of 0.955 acres. The remaining 33 lots will
house townhouses with an area of 1.226 acres. Outlot A contains parking areas and drive isles
(1.368 acres). Outlot B contains a 100- foot wide landscape buffer (1.795 acres). Outlot C contains
all driveways and common areas for the townhouses (1.547 acres).
The ordinance states that, “All lots shall abut for their full required minimum frontage on a
public street as required by the zoning ordinance; or be accessed by a private street; or a flag lot
which shall have a minimum of thirty feet of frontage on a public street.”
All lots have street frontage (either public or private). Access, on the other hand, is mainly gained
from a right-in/out only off of Highway 101 and a full access off of Lyman Boulevard. A private
street and cross-access easements will be shared between the properties. Private streets are
permitted in this district if the following conditions exist:
1. The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public
street. In making this determination the city may consider the location of existing property
lines and homes, local or geographic conditions, and the existence of wetlands.
2. After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street
system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street
system consistent with the comprehensive plan.
3. The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources
including wetlands and forested areas.
A public street is not required to serve these parcels. In fact, the majority of our commercial and
high-density establishments have cross-access easements, share curb cuts and access (Market
Square, Chanhassen Retail, Frontier, Byerly’s, Crossroads Plaza, Villages on the Pond, Market
Street Station, etc.).
The subdivision request is a relatively straightforward action and staff is recommending approval
with conditions.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 14 of 50
There are no minimum lot areas within a PUD. The following are the lot tabulations for the
project:
Areas: Gross = 436,240 square feet or 10.015 acres
BLOCK 1:
Lot 1 = 136,258 square feet or 3.128
acres
Lot 2 = 41,580 square feet or 0.955
acres
BLOCK 2:
Lot 1 = 1,885 square feet
Lot 2 = 1,411 square feet
Lot 3 = 1,411 square feet
Lot 4 = 1,405 square feet
Lot 5 = 1,411 square feet
Lot 6 = 1,877 square feet
BLOCK 3:
Lot 1 = 1,884 square feet
Lot 2 = 1,415 square feet
Lot 3 = 1,415 square feet
Lot 4 = 1,415 square feet
Lot 5 = 1,880 square feet
BLOCK 4:
Lot 1 = 1,879 square feet
Lot 2 = 1,411 square feet
Lot 3 = 1,411 square feet
Lot 4 = 1,411 square feet
Lot 5 = 1,875 square feet
BLOCK 5:
Lot 1 = 1,884 square feet
Lot 2 = 1,415 square feet
Lot 3 = 1,413 square feet
Lot 4 = 1,413 square feet
Lot 5 = 1,884 square feet
BLOCK 6:
Lot 1 = 1,884 square feet
Lot 2 = 1,415 square feet
Lot 3 = 1,415 square feet
Lot 4 = 1,889 square feet
BLOCK 7:
Lot 1 = 1,884 square feet
Lot 2 = 1,415 square feet
Lot 3 = 1,415 square feet
Lot 4 = 1,889 square feet
BLOCK 8:
Lot 1 = 1,884 square feet
Lot 2 = 1,415 square feet
Lot 3 = 1,415 square feet
Lot 4 = 1,889 square feet
OUTLOT A (parking areas and drive isles) =
59,600 square feet or 1.368 acres
OUTLOT B (100-foot wide landscape
buffer) = 78,203 square feet or 1.795
acres
OUTLOT C (all driveways and common
areas for the townhouses) = 67,385 square
feet or 1.547 acres
SUBDIVISION FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance.
Finding: The subdivision meets the intent of the city code subject to the conditions of the staff
report and the PUD.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 15 of 50
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water
drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in
this report.
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage
disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will be served by adequate urban infrastructure.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions
of approval.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will
expand and provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following
exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure.
4. SITE PLAN
There are three site plans attached to this application. All three developments must comply with
the Development Design Standards for SouthWest Village (attached). A PUD is required to be
developed to higher quality than other projects.
The first site plan is for a parking ramp. It will be located along the north east portion of the site.
The ramp will be built in two phases. The first phase will include the first two stories of the
ramp while the third and final deck will be built at a future date. The design of the ramp and the
station is attractive and is proposed to be constructed of high quality materials. They include
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 16 of 50
brick and smooth and rough-face block. The stairwell into the parking ramp is made of glass
which adds an element of transparency. Entrances into the ramp are defined by arched
entryways. Decorative metal rail is used on all four elevations. Wood trellises are used as an
accent and will provide an additional element of interest. The east elevation has the least level of
detail; however, the applicant is proposing to screen the ramp with landscaping.
WEST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 17 of 50
VIEW OF STATION-NORTH ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
The second site plan request is for the retail element. It is intended to occupy the northwesterly
portion of the site. It consist of two buildings with an area of 8,500 square feet each (17,000
square feet total). The materials used on the retail buildings include brick, smooth-face block,
EIFS accent panels, and glass. All four elevations of each of the retail buildings have received
equal attention to detail. The buildings are separated by a plaza with a fountain and landscaping.
The trash enclosure for the transit station and the retail building will be located inside the transit
station building. The enclosure is proposed to be built of materials that match the buildings.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 18 of 50
INTERIOR STREET VIEW VIEW AT CENTER PLAZA
LOOKING SOUTH WITHOUT TREES
TYPICAL CORNER ENTRY VIEW FROM NORTHEAST
The third site plan is for the town houses. The applicant is proposing 1 six-plex, 3 five-plexes,
and 3 four-plexes. They are proposed to be located along the southern portion of the site. Materials
on the exterior of the homes include brick, cultured stone, hardi-plank siding, hardi-shingle siding,
hardi board trim and fiberglass shingles. Flower boxes and window shutters are used to accent the
buildings. All the garage doors and parking will be hidden behind the buildings and the main focus
from Lyman Boulevard and Highway 101 will be the architectural design of these townhouses.
This type of urban housing is typically located closer to the right-of-way to provide an urban edge to
the public realm. That is the main reason for the variance request.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 19 of 50
Staff has been working with the applicant to add landscaping along the rear of the housing
units. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant submitted a revised landscaping
plan that reflects landscape islands between the garage doors. This will help soften the
continuous appearance of the asphalt driveways.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 20 of 50
The applicant has done a commendable job on the sidewalks and pedestrian connections on this site.
The added landscaping and double boulevard trees will provide a calming affect to a busy area.
Staff is recommending one additional connection between the residential sidewalks and the trail
along the intersection of Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard.
With this project, the city proposes the creation of a gateway treatment at the intersection of
Lyman Boulevard and Highway 101. The applicant submitted a design that frames this
intersection with landscaping, decorative fencing, wider sidewalk and trellis. Staff is
recommending that the trellis be eliminated. This design will be repeated as each corner of the
intersection develops. The city will be responsible for the southeast corner instillation.
LIGHTING/SIGNAGE
The applicant prepared a lighting plan that is
in keeping with the approved standards. The
applicant did not include photometrics. A
detailed plan must be submitted to the city
prior to issuance of a building permit.
Light level for site lighting shall be no more
than 1/2 foot candle at the project perimeter
property line. This does not apply to street
lighting.
The signs for this project include two project
identification signs to allow for symmetry in
the design. The sign display area is 35 square
feet each. The majority of the sign is an architectural element that frames the entrance into the
development.
The ordinance also allows a monument sign at the entrance to the development off of Lyman
Boulevard. This sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five
feet in height. The sign shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. The
applicant is proposing a sign that has a total sign display area of 9 square feet, with an overall
sign height of 4 feet 6 inches. However, the logo on the sign extends one foot above the
maximum permitted of 5 feet. Staff is recommending the logo be lowered to meet the 5-foot
height requirement.
The applicant is also proposing four additional monument signs at the entrance of the
townhouses. These signs are excessive and should be eliminated. The applicant may choose to
locate communal mail boxes or house numbers directional sign in these areas.
The parking ramp and station are proposing a “SW” logo on the elevator shaft of the building.
The size of the logo is proposed at a 4-foot diameter along the north elevation. The applicant is
also requesting a similar sign with “SouthWest Transit” letters at 36 inches. These two signs are
proposed to be back lit. There are no residential neighborhoods that can view these two
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 21 of 50
elevations. The applicant is also requesting 36-inch non-illuminated letters at the south elevation
of the building.
Signs along the north and south elevations of the retail buildings are prohibited unless the actual
entrance into a tenant’s space is located at the side of the building. Staff is recommending the
wall-mounted signs along Highway 101 be limited to either above the storefront windows when
a shared entry configuration exists, and for an unshared configuration, the signage would be
located above the entry or above the tenant’s specific storefront windows, but not both. On the
east elevation, signage shall be permitted above the storefront only as well as small-scale
pedestrian level decorative signage, perpendicular to the wall (projecting signs). The size of the
sign shall not exceed 9 square feet.
PARKING
The ordinance for this development treats the retail element as an integrated shopping center
which requires a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The
applicant is providing 27 surface parking spaces. The remaining 58 spaces will be provided on
the first level of the parking ramp.
The residential parking standards require 1 visitor parking stall for every 4 units. The applicant
is showing 33 town houses which translates to 8.25 visitor parking spaces. The applicant is
providing 16 guest parking spaces. The applicant is also providing a two-stall garage with each
unit which is in compliance with ordinances.
ARCHITECTURAL COMPLIANCE
Size, Portion and Placement
Entries: All building have pronounced entrances.
Articulation: The buildings incorporate adequate detail and have been very tastefully designed.
The architectural style is unique to the buildings but will fit in with the surrounding area. The
buildings will provide a variation in style through the use of brick, glass and block. The
buildings utilize exterior materials that are durable and of high quality. Samples of the materials
will be made available at the meeting. Renderings are shown throughout this report.
Signs: All signage must meet the sign criteria in the Planned Unit Development Design
Standards for SouthWest Village.
Material and Detail
High quality materials are being used on all buildings.
Color
The colors chosen for the buildings are earth tones. The selection is unique, but blends in with
the surrounding buildings.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 22 of 50
Height and Roof Design
The maximum building height in this Planned Unit Development varies based on the use. All
buildings meet the minimum set in the ordinance with the exception of the parking ramp. The
ordinance limited the height to 25 feet; however, due to final grading plans for the highway, the
parking ramp had to be raised to a height not to exceed 35 feet. The rooflines are staggered,
adding articulation to the design of the buildings. All rooftop equipment must be screened from
views.
The ordinance requires a pitched element on buildings. There are arched, staggered and pitched
elements on these buildings. They comply with this requirement.
Facade Transparency
All facades viewed by the public contain more than 50 percent windows and/or doors.
Loading Areas, Refuse Areas, etc.
The trash enclosure is located inside the ramp structure. Recycling space and other solid waste
collection space should be contained within the same enclosure.
Multi Family Design Standards
Sec. 20-1088. Architectural style.
• Architectural style shall not be restricted. Evaluation of the appearance of a project shall
be based on the quality of its design and in relationship to its surroundings, guided by the
provisions of this section. Site characteristics to be evaluated for this purpose include
building and landscaping, colors, textures, shapes, massing of rhythms of building
components and detail, height of roof line, setback and orientation. Designs that are
incompatible with their surroundings or intentionally bizarre or exotic are not acceptable.
• Monotony of design, both within projects and between adjacent projects and its
surroundings, is prohibited. Variation in detail, form, and sighting shall provide visual
interest. Site characteristics that may be used for this purpose include building and
landscaping, colors, textures, shapes, massing of rhythms of building components and
detail, height of roof line, setback and orientation.
• All building shall have a minimum of 20 percent of accent material. Accent material may
include brick, stone cut face block or shakes. The use of any EFIS shall not be on the first
story of any building or one story in height.
Findings: The proposed development has been well situated within the site. It attempts to
fit into the environment in which it is located including incorporating urban style housing.
The buildings offer much variety including colors, finishes, roof lines and materials. The
buildings are oriented to the street to provide an urban edge.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 23 of 50
Sec. 20-1089. Land use.
All development shall create a unified design of internal order that provides desirable
environments for site uses, visitors and the community. The following design elements shall be
incorporated into a project:
• The project shall create a unique neighborhood identity.
• Creation of interconnecting neighborhoods in collaboration with adjoining landowners
(street, walkways, preservation of natural features, parks and gathering places).
• Each neighborhood has a focal point or gathering place including parks, greens, squares,
entrance monuments, historic structures (silos/barns) or public furniture (gazebos,
benches, pergolas). Community features may include: landscaping, lighting, benches,
tables.
• Recreation facilities (playgrounds, tot lots, swimming pools and gardens).
• Diversity of product type and design to accommodate different age groups and
individuals in different socio-economic circumstances.
• Broad variety of housing choices--twin homes, row houses, town homes, flats above
garages, apartments over shops, garden apartments, senior living opportunities and
condominiums.
Findings: This project creates its own little unique setting. It is an integral part of
SouthWest Village, which is a transit oriented development. The common areas include the
entire development which offers a plaza, sidewalks, trails, and a gateway component.
Sec. 20-1090. Curb appeal.
To encourage roadway image or curb appeal projects shall create a variety of building orientation
along the roadways; attractive streetscape and architectural detail. All projects shall incorporate
two or more of the following design elements:
• Orientation to the street or access road:
ƒ Setbacks
ƒ Spacing between buildings and view sheds.
• Architectural detail/decorative features.
ƒ Windows.
ƒ Flower boxes.
ƒ Porches, balconies, private spaces.
ƒ Location and treatment of entryway.
ƒ Surface materials, finish and texture.
ƒ Roof pitch.
ƒ Building height and orientation.
• Location of garages.
• Landscaping including fencing and berming.
• Street lighting.
• Screening of parking, especially in apartment and condominium developments.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 24 of 50
• Variations/differentiations in units including, but not limited to, color, material,
articulation etc.
Findings: The proposed development has been well situated within the site. It attempts to
fit into the environment in which it is located which is a transit-oriented development. The
homes have elements such as flower boxes, shutters, entry stoops, landscaping, and screened
parking.
Sec. 20-1091. Transportation diversity.
All developments shall incorporate multi-modal transportation including two or more of the
following elements:
• Streets with trails incorporated.
• Off-road trails and bike paths.
• Provisions for mass transit with bus stops and shelters incorporated into the
developments.
• Sidewalk connecting internal developments.
ƒ Undulating sidewalks. Use of pavers or stamped concrete.
ƒ On-street parking and use of roundabouts.
ƒ Landscaped boulevards or medians.
Findings: The project is a transit-oriented development with sidewalks, trails, public
transportation, etc.
Sec. 20-1092. Integration of parks, open space, natural historic or cultural resources.
• Integrate nature and wildlife with urban environment.
ƒ Trails and sidewalks.
ƒ Vistas.
ƒ Historic features.
• Preservation of natural features that support wildlife and native plants (slopes, trees,
wetlands).
Findings: The proposed development is integrated into the city’s trail system. The
development preserves a 100-foot landscape buffer along the east edge of the site.
SITE PLAN FINDINGS
In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance
with the following:
(1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the
comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted;
(2) Consistency with this division;
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 25 of 50
(3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and
soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the
neighboring developed or developing areas;
(4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features
and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development;
(5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special
attention to the following:
a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a
desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design
concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and
uses; and
d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in
terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior
drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking.
(6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface
water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects
of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on
neighboring land uses.
Finding: The proposed development is consistent with the City's design requirements, the
comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, the design standards, and the site plan review
requirements with the exception of the setbacks which will require a variance and PUD
amendment. Staff is recommending approval of both. The site design is compatible with the
surrounding developments. It is functional and harmonious with the approved development for
this area.
Staff regards the project as a reasonable use of the land. The overall design is sensitive to the
City’s image. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the site plan with
conditions outlined in the staff report.
WETLANDS
In conjunction with the Trunk Highway 212 project, this site was assessed by MnDOT’s
consultant, EnviroScience, for the presence of wetlands in October 2002 and April 2003. Two
areas on this site were mapped by the NWI as wetlands. Upon examination of the hydrology,
soils and vegetation in these two areas (165 and 166 in the August 14, 2003 EnviroScience
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 26 of 50
report), it was determined that these two areas are not jurisdictional wetlands. Consequently, no
wetland impacts are proposed for this site.
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
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.
Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed. A rock construction entrance should be shown on the plans.
Curbside inlet control details are needed. Wimco-type inlet controls should be used and installed
within 24 hours of installation.
Typical building lot controls should be shown on the plan. These controls should include
perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street sweeping, inlet control and temporary
mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the certificates of occupancy.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEES
Water Quality Fees
Because of the varying development types proposed for this development, the water quality fees for
this development are broken down, as follows:
Parcel Size (ac.) Zoning Rate Per Acre Total
Retail 0.955 Commercial $12,100 $11,556
Parking Ramp 6.292 Commercial $12,100 $76,133
Housing 2.769 High Density Residential $3,400 $9,415
TOTAL Qual $97,104
The total water quality fees associated with this project are $97,104.
Water Quantity Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average
citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition,
proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 27 of 50
Parcel Size (ac.) Zoning Rate Per Acre Total
Retail 0.955 Commercial $6,400 $6,112
Parking Ramp 6.292 Commercial $6,400 $40,269
Housing 2.769 High Density Residential $6,400 $17,722
TOTAL Quan $64,103
The total water quantity fees associated with this project are $64,103.
SWMP Credits
The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided on-site to treat
runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer
calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant’s SWMP fees for oversizing in
accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be
assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas.
At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $161,207.
OTHER AGENCIES
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.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The site is bound by the new Highway 312 to the north, Highway 101 to the west, Lyman
Boulevard to the south, and large-lot residential to the east.
The high point of the property lies in the west-central portion of the site and gently slopes. Steep
slopes exist within the treed area in the northeast corner of the parent property.
EASEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
MNDOT has acquired right-of-way for Highways 312 and 101. The preliminary plat identifies a
194-foot wide right-of-way for Highway 101.
The existing roadway easement for Lyman Boulevard along the property boundary is 86 feet
wide from the east property line to approximately the location of the development’s access to
Lyman Boulevard. From this point west, the roadway easement tapers out to a width of 146 feet.
The developer will dedicate an additional 14 feet of right-of-way; therefore, the total roadway
easement/right-of-way width for Lyman Boulevard will be between 100 feet and 160 feet.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 28 of 50
The preliminary plat must be revised to include a 25-foot wide drainage and utility easement
over the sanitary sewer and watermain along Highway 101, south of the Southwest Station
entrance, and a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement over the storm sewer in the northern
portion of the property. Encroachment agreements are required for these two easements due to
the extensive landscaping and sidewalk proposed.
ACCESS AND SITE CIRCULATION
A traffic study was completed for this site by Benshoof and Associates. The analysis concluded
that one full access at Lyman Boulevard was insufficient for the projected traffic volumes for
this site; therefore, a right-in, right-out access is required at Highway 101. This access is
approximately 420 feet south of the Highway 312 on-ramp and 280 feet north of Lyman
Boulevard, which is acceptable to MNDOT. Improvements to Highway 101 at this location
include widening to a four-lane, divided roadway with left and right turn lanes at street
intersections and the access to SouthWest Village.
Full access to the site will be from Lyman Boulevard and is approximately 460 feet east of
Highway 101. Turn lanes will be constructed at Highway 101 and the SouthWest Village
entrance with the MNDOT project.
Most vehicles entering the site will use the full access at Lyman Boulevard and will exit onto
Highway 101. The southern access to the parking ramp aligns with the eastern access to the
townhome development. The western access to the townhome development is approximately
300 feet away and aligns with the access to the two commercial retail buildings, which also
serves as the second access to the parking ramp.
The applicant must show how bus-passenger vehicle conflicts will be minimized along the east-
west access road. Bus routes through the site must be clearly shown on the plans.
All streets and driveways within this development will be privately owned and maintained.
The private streets within the townhome area will be 20 feet wide; therefore, on-street parking is
restricted. The developer proposes to construct 16 guest parking stalls along the southern private
drive. The private street design must be adjusted to accommodate the turning movements of a
fire truck and a moving van.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
The applicant should show emergency overflow paths for storm water. The Grading, Drainage
and Erosion Control Plan (Sheet C-03) should be revised to include a legend.
The applicant should work with the City to develop a plan that outlines storm water and snow
management related to the parking deck structure for this and future phases.
The grading plan is incomplete. It must show proposed contours, minimum two-foot contour
intervals and the proposed grades on each level of the parking ramp.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 29 of 50
Note the lowest floor elevation of the proposed townhome units and include a grading detail
showing hold down information.
Spot elevations must be shown along the east curb of the commercial area to ensure that the
parking and drive aisle area meets the minimum slope requirement.
The first 30 feet of each private street extending from the access drive must be minimum 3%.
The sidewalks and trails shown within the public right-of-way shall be privately owned and
maintained.
A catch basin must be installed at the ingress at Highway 101 and the storm sewer adjusted
accordingly.
The developer indicated that the proposed MNDOT pond located in the south loop of the
Highway 101 ramp has been sized to accommodate runoff from this site. According to the
developer, the design of this pond assumed 100% impervious surface, post-development from
this site. The developer must submit written confirmation from MNDOT that runoff from this
development can go to this pond.
Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat submittals and must include storm
sewer inlet capacity analysis to verify that 100% of the runoff from a 10-year event can be
captured.
RETAINING WALLS
Staff is unable to determine if retaining walls are required or proposed on the site since the
grading plan is currently incomplete.
UTILITIES
The developer proposes to install eight-inch diameter watermain and eight-inch diameter sanitary
sewer to serve the development. The lateral utilities shall be privately owned and maintained,
except for the sanitary sewer and watermain along Highway 101, south of the SouthWest Station
entrance and the storm sewer in the northern portion of the property.
The developer must verify that the proposed eight-inch watermain will provide sufficient flow
for the proposed residential, commercial and sprinkling uses on the site.
The utility plan must be revised to show the following:
a) Show the proposed water service to the bus station.
b) Due to differential settlement, the three valves and the sanitary sewer manhole must not lie
within the proposed paver-block circle at the intersection of the access road at the western
private driveway intersection. The valves can be relocated outside of the paver-block
circle. Sanitary sewer manhole 503 can be installed to the north of the paver-block circle
and an additional manhole can be installed to the west of the paver-block circle.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 30 of 50
c) Sanitary sewer manhole 501 must not lie within the sidewalk.
d) Eliminate the 90-degree bend in the watermain at the Highway 101 intersection and replace
with two 45-degree bends.
e) The final utility plan must show the sewer and water services to the townhome units.
f) The lowest floor elevation of each unit must be shown on the utility plan.
MNDOT will be invoicing the City for a portion of the utility improvements for this
development. The developer must pay for 100% of the invoices that the City receives for this
work.
The developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots,
therefore the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived.
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.
LANDSCAPING
Minimum requirements for landscaping for the SouthWest Village development include 850
square feet of landscaped area around the retail parking lot, 3 trees for the retail parking lot, and
bufferyard plantings along all property lines. The applicant’s proposed as compared to the
requirements for all landscape requirements is shown in the following table.
Required Proposed
Vehicular use landscape area 850 sq. ft. >850 sq. ft. green space
Trees/vehicular use area:
Overstory trees
Islands/peninsulas
3 canopy trees
1 islands/peninsulas
13 canopy trees
2 islands/peninsulas
Hwy. 101
bufferyard B – 330’
30’ width
3 canopy trees
7 understory trees
7 shrubs
25 canopy
40 understory
74 shrubs
Hwy. 212
bufferyard B – 240’
20’ width
5 canopy trees
7 understory trees
12 shrubs
22 canopy
18 understory
168 shrubs
Lyman Blvd.
bufferyard B – 210’
15’ width
4 canopy trees
8 understory trees
13 shrubs
21 canopy
8 understory
>100 perennials
East property line
bufferyard C – 380’
30’ width
8 canopy trees
19 understory trees
19 shrubs
91 canopy
31 understory
28 shrubs
The applicant meets minimum requirements for parking lot plantings and all bufferyard
categories. Parking lot plantings for the retail area show Austrian pine. Staff recommends that
overstory shade trees also be included within this area, replacing some of the pines. The intent
of locating trees within a parking area is to provide shade and reduce the heat island effect
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 31 of 50
associated with large expanses of pavement. Pine trees will not have as great an impact in
alleviating this problem as shade trees.
In the residential area, staff recommends that additional trees should also be planted parallel to
the offstreet parking area.
PARKS
This property is located
within the neighborhood
park service area for
Chanhassen Hills Park and
the community park service
area for Bandimere Park.
Future residents and visitors
to SouthWest Village will
access Chanhassen Hills
Park from Lyman Boulevard
and Bandimere Park from
Highway 101. Both parks
will be connected to
SouthWest Village by off-
street trail routes.
Chanhassen Hills Park is
7.62 acres in size and
features two newly installed
playgrounds, a basketball
court, ballfield and trail.
Limited off-street parking is
available at the park.
Bandimere Park is 36 acres
in size and contains
extensive off-street walking
trails, community ballfields,
picnic areas, two large
playgrounds, and ample parking. No additional parkland acquisition is being recommended as a
condition of this subdivision.
TRAILS
SouthWest Village will have direct access to the city’s comprehensive trail system. Extensive
public trails can be accessed in all directions upon leaving the subject property. The design for new
Highway 212 includes well thought out trail connections utilizing bridge crossings on Highway 101
and Lyman Boulevard.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 32 of 50
It should be noted that the nature of the pedestrian crossing in this area will be challenging. The
roadways adjacent SouthWest Village are wide and will carry significant traffic loads. Traffic
calming design elements should be incorporated into the site plan where appropriate. Care must be
taken to ensure that on-site pedestrian sidewalks and trail sections located within public right-of-
ways are constructed using low maintenance materials. These walkways must also be designed to
permit convenient snowplowing and sweeping utilizing light truck and tractor-mounted equipment.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 33 of 50
The construction of new Highway 101 south will include the installation of a ten-foot trail
adjacent to the subject property. As a component of the Highway 212/101 project, MnDoT
is installing a 12 foot wide trail adjacent to Lyman Boulevard from Highway 101 east to
Quinn Road.
Two homeowners (600 Lyman Boulevard and 8990 Quinn Road) directly east of the
SouthWest Village, have expressed concern regarding the trail extending to Quinn Road as
currently proposed in the MnDot 212 plans. Staff met with the homeowners on May 30,
2006. As an alternative to MnDots proposal, staff is proposing to work with MnDot to
narrow the trail from 12 to 10 feet in width and a 4 foot boulevard
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the following six motions:
1. Planned Unit Development Amendment – Page 34
2. Variance – Page 42
3. Subdivision – Page 42
4A. Site Plan-Retail – Page 44
4B. Site Plan-Residential – Page 46
4C. Site Plan-Parking Ramp – Page 48
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 34 of 50
1. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT
“The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approves the Planned Unit
Development amendment in the attached ordinance for SouthWest Village clarifying setbacks,
signage, and retail building size incorporating the changes as shown below (amendments are
shown in bold):
PUD DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a Mixed Use PUD including a Transit Oriented
Development, Neighborhood Commercial and Residential. The use of the PUD zone is to
allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more sensitive
development. Each structure proposed for development shall proceed through site plan
review based on the development standards outlined below.
b. Permitted Uses
• The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and
service uses consistent with meeting the daily needs of the neighborhood and the
transit facility users. The uses shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is
a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the Community
Development Director shall make that interpretation. The type of uses to be
provided on these lots shall be low intensity neighborhood oriented retail and
service establishments to meet daily needs of residents. Commercial and transit uses
shall be limited to the area located north of the access point off of Highway 101.
Residential uses shall be located south of the Highway 101 access.
• Small to medium sized restaurant-not to exceed 8,000 square feet per building (no
drive-thru windows)
• Office
• day care
• neighborhood scale commercial up to 8,000 8,500 square feet per building footprint
• convenience store without gas pumps
• specialty retail (book store jewelry, Sporting Goods sale/rental, Retail Sales, Retail
Shops, Apparel Sales, etc.)
• personal services (an establishment or place of business primarily engaged in
providing individual services generally related to personal needs, such as a tailor
shop, Shoe Repair, Self-service Laundry, Laundry Pick-up Station, Dry Cleaning,
dance studios, etc).
• Park-and-Ride not to exceed 800 spaces.
• Residential High Density (8-16 units per acre).
c. Prohibited Ancillary Uses
• Drive thru Windows
• Outdoor storage and display of merchandise
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 35 of 50
d. Setbacks
The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following
table displays those setbacks.
Boundary Building and Parking
Setback
Lyman Boulevard 50 10 feet
Highway 101 35 20 feet north of the
Highway 101 access
and 50 feet south of the
101 access
Highway 212 excluding transit shelters and ramps 50 20 feet
Easterly Project Property Line 100 Feet
Internal Project property lines 0 Feet
Hard Surface Coverage 50 %
Commercial and Transit Facility Hard Surface Coverage 70 %
Maximum Residential Building/Structure Height 35 feet or 3 stories,
whichever is less
Maximum Commercial Building/Structure Height 1 story
Maximum Park-and-Ride Ramp excluding the elevator shaft
and stair well
25 35 feet or 3 stories,
whichever is less
e. Non Residential Building Materials and Design
1. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of
architectural standards and site design. The intent is to create a neighborhood and
transit friendly development.
2. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Major exterior surfaces of all walls
shall be face brick, stone, glass, stucco, architecturally treated concrete, cast in place
panels, decorative block, or cedar siding. Color shall be introduced through colored
block or panels and not painted block or brick. Bright, long, continuous bands are
prohibited.
3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face. Exposed
cement (“cinder”) blocks shall be prohibited.
4. Metal siding, gray concrete, curtain walls and similar materials will not be approved
except as support material to one of the above materials, or as trim or as HVAC
screen, and may not exceed more than 25 percent of a wall area.
5. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary structure.
6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing
material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks,
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 36 of 50
etc., are to be fully screened by compatible materials. All mechanical equipment shall
be screened with material compatible to the building.
7. The buildings shall have varied and interesting detailing. The use of large
unadorned, concrete panels and concrete block, or a solid wall unrelieved by
architectural detailing, such as change in materials, change in color, fenestrations,
or other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with
the size, mass, and scale of the wall and its views from public ways shall be
prohibited. Acceptable materials will incorporate textured surfaces, exposed
aggregate and/or other patterning. All walls shall be given added architectural
interest through building design or appropriate landscaping.
8. There shall not be underdeveloped backsides of buildings. All elevations shall
receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities.
9. The materials and colors used for each building shall be selected in context with the
adjacent building and provide for a harmonious integration with them. Extreme
variations between buildings in terms of overall appearance, bulk and height,
setbacks and colors shall be prohibited.
f. Residential Standards
1. Building exterior material shall be a combination of fiber-cement siding, vinyl
siding, stucco, or brick with support materials such as cedar shakes, brick and stone
or approved equivalent materials as determined by the city.
2. Each unit shall utilize accent architectural features such as arched louvers, dormers,
etc.
3. All units shall have access onto an interior private street.
4. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material compatible to the
building or landscaping.
5. A design palette shall be approved for the entire project. The palette shall include
colors for siding, shakes, shutters, shingles, brick and stone.
6. All foundation walls shall be screened by landscaping or retaining walls.
g. Site Landscaping and Screening
The intent of this section is to improve the appearance of vehicular use areas and property
abutting public rights-of-way; to require buffering between different land uses; and to
protect, preserve and promote the aesthetic appeal, character and value of the surrounding
neighborhoods; to promote public health and safety through the reduction of noise
pollution, air pollution, visual pollution and glare.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 37 of 50
1. The landscaping standards shall provide for screening for visual impacts associated
with a given use, including but not limited to, truck loading areas, trash storage,
parking lots, Large unadorned building massing, etc.
2. Each lot for development shall submit a separate landscaping plan as a part of the
site plan review process.
3. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces, except for plaza areas, shall be
landscaped, rockscaped, or covered with plantings and/or lawn material. Tree
wells shall be included in pedestrian areas and plazas.
4. Undulating berms, north of Lyman Boulevard and east of Highway 101 shall be
sodded or seeded at the conclusion of grading and utility construction. The required
buffer landscaping may be installed where it is deemed necessary to screen any
proposed development. All required boulevard landscaping shall be sodded.
5. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing walls may be
required where deemed appropriate.
6. Native species shall be incorporated into site landscaping, whenever possible.
h. Street Furnishings
Benches, kiosks, trash receptacles, planters and other street furnishings should be of design
and materials consistent with the character of the area. Wherever possible, street
furnishings should be consolidated to avoid visual clutter and facilitate pedestrian
movement.
i. Signage
The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the
development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the business’s ability to
attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic
safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private
property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is
the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and
image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public,
and to use signs which meet the city's goals:
(1) Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable
opportunity to advertise their name and service;
(2) Preserve and promote civic beauty, and prohibit signs which detract from this
objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or
illumination;
(3) Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards;
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 38 of 50
(4) Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a
manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract
motorists;
(5) Preserve and protect property values;
(6) Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally
compatible with, the principal structures;
(7) Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an
opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting
signs which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way
intersections.
1. Project Identification Sign:
One Two project identification signs shall be permitted for the
development at the entrance off of Highway 101. The total area of both
Project identification signs shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display
area nor be greater than eight feet in height. The sign shall be setback a
minimum of 10 feet from the property line.
2. Monument Sign:
One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development
off of Lyman Boulevard. This sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign
display area nor be greater than five feet in height. The sign shall be
setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line.
3. Wall Signs:
a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved
building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend greater than
20 feet above the ground. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a
maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos
comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or
translucent facing.
b. Illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the
PUD site, are prohibited.
c. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is
restricted to the tenant’s proper name and major product or service
offered. Corporate logos, emblems and similar identifying devices
are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band
and do not occupy more than 15% of the sign area unless the logo is
the sign.
d. Signs along the sides of the retail buildings are prohibited unless
the actual entrance into a tenant’s space is located at the side of
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 39 of 50
the building.
e. Wall-mounted signs along Highway 101 shall be limited to either
above the storefront windows when a shared entry configuration
exists, and for an unshared configuration, the signage shall be
located above the entry or above the tenant’s specific storefront
windows, but not both.
f. On the east elevation, signage shall be permitted above the
storefront only as well as small-scale pedestrian level decorative
signage, perpendicular to the wall (projecting signs). The size of
the sign shall not exceed 9 square feet.
g. A “SW” logo on the elevator shaft of the parking ramp building
shall be permitted. The size of the logo shall not exceed a 4 foot
diameter along the north elevation. This logo may be back lit.
h. A “SouthWest Transit” with a “SW” logo not to exceed a 4-foot
diameter along the west elevation shall be permitted. This sign
may be back lit.
i. A “SouthWest Transit” sign with letters 36 inches high shall be
permitted along the south elevation. This sign may not be
illuminated.
4. Festive Flags/Banners
a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached
to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area
lighting.
b. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl.
c. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users,
businesses, services, or products.
d. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two
feet.
e. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet.
f. Flags and banners which are torn or excessively worn shall be
removed at the request of the city.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 40 of 50
5. Building Directory
a. In multi-tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be
permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet.
6. Directional Signs
a. On-premises signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The
maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the
ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so
located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties
(including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the
general appearance of the site from public rights-of-way. No more
than four (4) signs shall be allowed per lot. The city council may allow
additional signs in situations where access is confusing or traffic safety
could be jeopardized.
b. Off-premises signs shall be allowed only in situations where access is
confusing and traffic safety could be jeopardized or traffic could be
inappropriately routed through residential streets. The size of the sign
shall be no larger than what is needed to effectively view the sign from
the roadway and shall be approved by the city council.
c. Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the
local transit authority.
d. Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional and
other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street
fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate
vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs
should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area
and away from residential areas.
7. Prohibited Signs:
• Individual lots are not permitted low profile ground business sign.
• Pylon signs are prohibited.
• Back lit awnings are prohibited.
• Window Signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and
not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area
• Menu Signs are prohibited.
8. Sign Design and permit requirements:
a. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should
reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be
consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 41 of 50
development. A common theme will be introduced at the
development's entrance monument and will be used throughout.
b. All signs require a separate sign permit.
c. Wall business signs shall comply with the city’s sign ordinance for
the Neighborhood business district for determination of maximum
sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the “street” front and
primary parking lot front of each building.
j. Lighting
1. Lighting for the interior of the development shall be consistent throughout the
development. High pressure sodium vapor lamps with decorative natural colored pole shall
be used throughout the development parking lot area for lighting. Decorative, pedestrian
scale lighting shall be used in plaza
and sidewalk areas and may be
used in parking lot areas.
2. Light fixtures should be kept to a
pedestrian scale (12 to 18 feet).
Street light fixtures should
accommodate vertical banners for
use in identifying the commercial
area. The fixtures shall conform
with (Figure 36 – Chanhassen
Lighting Unit Design).
3. All light fixtures shall be shielded.
Light level for site lighting shall be
no more than 1/2 candle at the
project perimeter property line.
This does not apply to street lighting.
4. Lighting for parking areas shall minimize the use of lights on pole standards in the
parking area. Rather, emphasis should be placed on building lights and poles located in
close proximity to buildings.
k. Non Residential Parking
1. Parking shall be provided based on the shared use of parking areas whenever
possible. Cross access easements and the joint use of parking facilities shall be
protected by a recorded instrument acceptable to the city.
2. The development shall be treated as an integrated shopping center and provide a
minimum of one space per 200 square feet of commercial/retail area. The
office/personal service component shall be treated as an integrated office building and
provide 4.5 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 49,999 square feet, four per
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 42 of 50
thousand square feet for the second 50,000 square feet, and 3.5 per thousand square
feet thereafter.
l. Residential Parking shall comply with city code requirements.”
2. VARIANCE
“The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approves variance request #06-18 to
allow a 10-foot setback from Lyman Boulevard, a 20-foot setback from Highway 101, and a 45-
foot setback from Highway 212, as shown in plans dated received April 13, 2006”
3. SUBDIVISION
“The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approves the preliminary plat for
Planning Case 06-18 for SouthWest Village as shown in plans dated received April 13, 2006,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected for the
.95-acre commercial property and the housing units only as a condition of approval for
SouthWest Village. No fees will be collected for the transportation component of the
development. The park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat
submission and approval.
2. The preliminary plat must be revised to include a 25-foot wide drainage and utility easement
over the sanitary sewer and watermain along Highway 101, south of the SouthWest Station
entrance, and a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement over the storm sewer in the
northern portion of the property.
3. A catch basin must be installed at the ingress at Highway 101 and the storm sewer adjusted
accordingly.
4. The developer must submit written confirmation with the final plat application indicating that
the MNDOT pond located in the south loop of the Highway 101 ramp has been sized to
accommodate runoff from this development.
5. Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat submittals and must include
storm sewer inlet capacity analysis to verify that 100% of the runoff from a 10-year event can
be captured.
6. The utility plan must be revised to show the following:
a. Show the proposed water service to the bus station.
b. Due to differential settlement, the three valves and the sanitary sewer manhole must not
lie within the proposed paver-block circle at the intersection of the access road at the
western private driveway intersection. The valves can be relocated outside of the paver-
block circle. Sanitary sewer manhole 503 can be installed to the north of the paver-block
circle and an additional manhole can be installed to the west of the paver-block circle.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 43 of 50
c. Sanitary sewer manhole 501 must not lie within the sidewalk.
d. Eliminate the 90-degree bend in the watermain at the Highway 101 intersection and
replace with two 45-degree bends.
e. The final utility plan must show the sewer and water services to the townhome units.
f. The lowest floor elevation of each unit must be shown on the utility plan.
7. MNDOT will be invoicing the City for a portion of the utility improvements for this
development. The developer must pay for 100% of the invoices that the City receives for
this work.
8. 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.
9. The applicant shall provide an additional connection between the residential sidewalks and the
trail along the intersection of Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard.
10. Encroachment agreements are required for the two drainage and utility easements due to the
extensive landscaping and sidewalk proposed.
11. The applicant should show emergency overflow paths for storm water.
12. The Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan (Sheet C-03) should be revised to include a
legend.
13. The applicant should work with the City to develop a plan that outlines storm water and snow
management related to the parking deck structure for this and future phases.
14. 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.
15. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as needed. A rock construction entrance should be shown on the plans.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 44 of 50
16. Curbside inlet control details are needed. Wimco-type inlet controls should be used and
installed within 24 hours of installation.
17. Typical building lot controls should be shown on the plan. These controls should include
perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street sweeping, inlet control and temporary
mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the certificates of occupancy.
18. Water Quality and Quantity Fees:
Water Quality Fees
Parcel Size (ac.) Zoning Rate Per Acre Total
Retail 0.955 Commercial $12,100 $11,556
Parking Ramp 6.292 Commercial $12,100 $76,133
Housing 2.769 High Density Residential $3,400 $9,415
TOTAL Qual $97,104
Water Quantity Fees
Parcel Size (ac.) Zoning Rate Per Acre Total
Retail 0.955 Commercial $6,400 $6,112
Parking Ramp 6.292 Commercial $6,400 $40,269
Housing 2.769 High Density Residential $6,400 $17,722
TOTAL Quan $64,103
At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $161,207.
19. 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.”
4. SITE PLAN
4A. RETAIL
“The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approves the site plan for two 8,500
square-foot retail buildings for Planning Case 06-18 for SouthWest Village as shown in plans
dated received April 13, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall include overstory deciduous trees within the parking lot plantings for the
retail area.
2. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval.
3. Building Official Conditions:
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 45 of 50
a) The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
b) The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
c) Accessible routes must be provided to commercial buildings, parking facilities and public
transportation stops.
d) All parking areas, including parking structure, must be provided with accessible parking
spaces. As submitted, the retail buildings must have a minimum of 4 accessible parking
spaces, one of which must have an 8-foot access aisle.
e) The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the
proposed buildings, including but not limited to, allowable size and fire-resistive
construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine
compliance at this time.
f) The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures.
4. The grading plan must show proposed contours, minimum two-foot contour intervals and
proposed retaining walls, including the top and bottom of wall elevations.
5. Spot elevations must be shown along the east curb of the commercial area to ensure that the
parking and drive aisle area meets the minimum slope requirement.
6. The sidewalks and trails shown within the public right-of-way shall be privately owned and
maintained.
7. The developer must verify that the proposed eight-inch watermain will provide sufficient
flow for the proposed residential, commercial and sprinkling uses on the site.
8. Fire Marshal Conditions:
a) Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
b) A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, 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.
c) 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.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 501.4.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 46 of 50
d) Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota State Fire Code
Section 501.4.
e) Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3 and 503.4.
f) 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 State Fire code Section 503.2.3.
g) Regarding the residential area, two hydrants will need to be relocated. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
h) Submit radius turn designs to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.4.”
4B. RESIDENTIAL
“The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approves the site plan for 33 town
houses for Planning Case 06-18 for SouthWest Village as shown in plans dated received April
13, 2006, and amended landscape plan dated received June 2, 2006, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Four additional overstory, decidous trees shall be planted parallel to the offstreet parking area
within the residential district.
2. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted before final approval.
3. Building Official Conditions:
a) The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
b) The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
c) Accessible routes must be provided to commercial buildings, parking facilities and public
transportation stops.
d) All parking areas, including parking structure, must be provided with accessible parking
spaces. As submitted, the retail buildings must have a minimum of 4 accessible parking
spaces, one of which must have an 8-foot access aisle.
e) The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the
proposed buildings, including but not limited to, allowable size and fire-resistive
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 47 of 50
construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine
compliance at this time.
f) The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures.
g) The applicant shall meet with the building official as soon as possible to discuss details of
building permit plans.
4. On-street parking is not permitted on the private streets.
5. The private street design must be adjusted to accommodate the turning movements of a fire
truck and a moving van.
6. The grading plan must show proposed contours, minimum two-foot contour intervals and
proposed retaining walls, including the top and bottom of wall elevations.
7. Note the lowest floor elevation of the proposed townhome units and include a grading detail
showing hold down information.
8. The first 30 feet of each private street extending from the access drive must be minimum 3%.
9. The sidewalks and trails shown within the public right-of-way shall be privately owned and
maintained.
10. The developer must verify that the proposed eight-inch watermain will provide sufficient
flow for the proposed residential, commercial and sprinkling uses on the site.
11. The four monument signs along the private streets are prohibited.
12. The monument sign at the entrance to the development off of Lyman Boulevard shall not
exceed 5 feet in height (including the logo).
13. Fire Marshal Conditions:
a) Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
b) A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, 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.
c) 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.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 501.4.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 48 of 50
d) Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota State Fire Code
Section 501.4.
e) Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3 and 503.4.
f) 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 State Fire code Section 503.2.3.
g) Regarding the residential area, two hydrants will need to be relocated. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
h) Submit radius turn designs to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.4.
14. The trellis at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Highway 101 shall be eliminated.”
4C. PARKING RAMP
“The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approves the site plan for Phases I and
II of the parking ramp and transit station for Planning Case 06-18 for SouthWest Village as
shown in plans dated received April 13, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
1. Building Official Conditions:
a) The buildings are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
b) The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
c) Accessible routes must be provided to commercial buildings, parking facilities and public
transportation stops.
d) All parking areas, including parking structure, must be provided with accessible parking
spaces. As submitted, the retail buildings must have a minimum of 4 accessible parking
spaces, one of which must have an 8-foot access aisle.
e) The location of property lines will have an impact on the code requirements for the
proposed buildings, including but not limited to,; allowable size and fire-resistive
construction. The plans as submitted do not have the information necessary to determine
compliance at this time.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 49 of 50
f) The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss property line issues as well as plan review and permit procedures.
2. The applicant must show how bus-passenger vehicle conflicts will be minimized along the
east-west access road.
3. Bus routes through the site must be clearly shown on the plans.
4. The grading plan must show proposed contours, minimum two-foot contour intervals and
proposed retaining walls, including the top and bottom of wall elevations.
5. The grading plan must identify the proposed grades on each level of the parking ramp
6. The sidewalks and trails shown within the public right-of-way shall be privately owned and
maintained.
7. The developer must verify that the proposed eight inch watermain will provide sufficient
flow for the proposed residential, commercial and sprinkling uses on the site.
8. Fire Marshal Conditions:
a) Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
b) A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, 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.
c) 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.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 501.4.
d) Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota State Fire Code
Section 501.4.
e) Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3 and 503.4.
f) 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 State Fire code Section 503.2.3.
SouthWest Village
Planning Case 06-18
May 16 June 12, 2006
Page 50 of 50
g) Regarding the residential area, two hydrants will need to be relocated. Contact
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location.
h) Submit radius turn designs to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.4.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact.
2. Ordinance Amendment.
3. Application.
4. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing.
5. Plans dated “Received April 13, 2006 and Landscape Plan amended June 2, 2006.”
g:\plan\2006 planning cases\06-18 southwest village\staff report.doc