CC 2007 03 12
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 12, 2007
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor Furlong, Councilman Litsey, Councilwoman
Ernst, Councilwoman Tjornhom, and Councilman Peterson
STAFF PRESENT:
Todd Gerhardt, Laurie Hokkanen, Kate Aanenson, Paul Oehme, Todd
Hoffman, and City Attorney Roger Knutson.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and welcome to those here in the council chambers this evening and
those watching at home as well. We're glad that you joined us. At this time I would ask
members of the council if there are any modifications or additions to the agenda that was
distributed. If not, without objection we'll proceed with the agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman Litsey seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendation:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated February 26, 2007
-City Council Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated February 26, 2007
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Park and Recreation Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated February 27,
2007
b. Award of Bid, Performance Stage, City Center Park.
Resolution #2007-18:
c. TH 101 Watermain Improvement Project 07-07: Accept Bids and
Award Contract.
Resolution #2007-19:
d. 2007 Sealcoat Project 07-04: Accept Bids and Award Contract.
f. Accept Donation from General Mills for Safety Camp.
g. Southwest Metro Transit: Approval of Joint Powers Agreement.
h. Approval of 2007 Fourth of July Fireworks Contract.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
City Council Meeting - March 12, 2007
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Deanna Brandt: I'm Deanna Brandt. 7570 Dogwood Road. Excelsior.
Mayor Furlong: Are you here to talk about that project?
Deanna Brandt: I'm here to talk about this project. This is the Dogwood Road project.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Well, we're at visitor presentations. That will be the next item on our
agenda so if we could wait and hold your comments so they're consistent with the presentation.
Very good. So if anybody is interested in talking about something other than the Dogwood Road
project, we'll pick that up and there will be a public hearing so everybody will have an
opportunity to talk. Okay, we'll move on now.
TANADOONA DRIVE/DOGWOOD ROAD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT 06-06:
PUBLIC HEARING AND AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Deanna Brandt 7570 Dogwood Road
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. Staff has been working on this, on the
Dogwood Road/Tanadoona project for over a year now with the property owners in this area.
Staff feels that the feasibility report that has been drafted for the project is fair and equitable to
the benefiting property owners in this area and the project is feasible and necessary and cost
effective as well. At this time I'd like to invite Jon Horn with Kimley-Horn and Associates to
give a brief presentation on the project and after the presentation we'd request that if there's any
questions arise by the council, be more than happy to answer at that time. And we also request
that a public hearing be opened after that. So at this time.
Jon Horn: Mayor and council good evening. My name is Jon Horn. I'm Kimley-Horn and
Associates. As Mr. Oehme mentioned, we've been working with him for about the last year
developing the Dogwood Road improvements project and just wanted to take a brief minute
tonight to walk you through the project. Talk a little bit about the proposed improvements, the
estimated costs, the proposed financing plan and we'll touch some, a little bit on the assessments
for the project. To review the project is the reconstruction of Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood at
this location. Basically in the northwest corner of the Highway 41 and Highway 5 intersection.
The purpose of the project is really to serve the existing properties in the area, as well as to meet
the needs of the proposed 19 lot residential subdivision in the Arbors development. The existing
roadways in the area are minimal. About 17 feet wide. They're constructed with millings and
aggregate base. It's a maintenance issue for city staff. There's also limited sanitary sewer service
in the area, and no water service in the area, so that's really the purpose for the project and what
we're trying to accomplish by this improvement project. A little larger view of the proposed
2
City Council Meeting - March 12, 2007
improvement project. In yellow it shows the reconstruction of the roadway. Highway 41 is over
in this location. It really takes Tanadoona Drive from it's current end at about this location.
Extend it to the west and then extends Dogwood Road down to the south. This is the proposed
area of the Arbors development at that location. And again improvements are reconstruction of
the roadway. Construction of some storm water improvements as well as sanitary sewer and
watermain. Just walk you through some of the key design issues for the project. The nature of
this area is very much environmental. A lot of trees. Lake Minnewashta's right there. It's a very
difficult area to try to squeeze a roadway into just because of the nature of the project area. One
of the key challenges that we've working through on this project is how best to fit that roadway
through the location. Also do we construct a rural section roadway with ditches or do we
construct an urban section with curb and gutter, which is the city standards and we looked at
those, that issue. We also looked at the issue of how wide should this roadway be. City standard
roadway width is 31 feet for new developments. Because of the nature of the roadway, of the
project area, we looked at a narrower roadway width. 24 to 26 feet wide as a part of the
development project. Right-of-way acquisition is an issue. There's not adequate right-of-way in
the area to build the proposed improvements. We need to acquire right-of-way through this area,
through the Peterson Trust property to allow the roadway improvements to occur. Also from the
Westwood Church property at this location. As well as an easement for a stormwater pond on
the Camp Tanadoona property. All those right-of-way acquisitions are in various stages of
progress. Appraisals have been done. Staff has had initial conversation with those property
owners in terms of what the value of that land is and how best to acquire that land. However
until the project is authorized to proceed forward tonight, maybe that's kind of the next step in
the acquisition of those easements. There are some issues with the trust property. The Peterson
Trust property in terms of screening. Some concerns about the widening of the roadway
improvements, eliminating some of their existing buffer between the roadway and their home,
and that has been one of the issues that we've been working through as a part of development
project. Stormwater detention treatment is also an issue just because of the fact that Lake
Minnewashta's right there. Apparently today there's really no means of stormwater treatment as
a part of this project. We've been looking for ways to try to treat that stormwater prior to it's
discharge to the lake. And then the sanitary sewer and watermain, as I mentioned, is an issue.
There's currently 3 properties in this location that have sanitary sewer service. Otherwise
nobody else does. They're operating off of individual septic systems, and again environmental
issues associated with the close proximity to the lake. There's also no watermain in this area. So
no service and no fire protection for the project area. Briefly talk through the two design options
that are presented in the feasibility report. As I mentioned we looked at both a rural section
roadway as well as an urban section roadway. One option is to reconstruct Tanadoona Drive up
to the location of the proposed development to a 24 foot width with ditches. And then the
construction of this piece of Dogwood to a 31 foot width with curb and gutter. So that's really
the first option that we looked at. Second option was all curb and gutter along the entire
roadway segment, 26 feet wide through this area and 31 feet wide through that area. A couple
benefits of the storm sewer system and the curb and gutter. …for a little longer roadway life is
that curb and gutter protects the edges of the roadway. Provides for a better means to collect and
treat the stormwater. And really it's consistent with city standards. The city tries to build urban
section roadways with curb and gutter whenever possible, so from a staff perspective we're
recommending that the roadway be constructed with curb and gutter to an urban section
roadway. There's been a lot of discussion about what happens with this segment of Dogwood
3
City Council Meeting - March 12, 2007
Road. As I mentioned, an overlay be constructed to a 31 foot width. I know a number of the
property owners in the area would prefer to see that constructed to a narrower width, maybe 26
feet wide instead of 31. We're proposing a 31 foot width for a couple of reasons. One, it does
provide parking on both sides. We would not be able to maintain parking on both sides for a 26
foot width. You also notice that the roadway through this area is really getting pulled further to
the east. We're opening up quite a bit of space, existing right-of-way to the west side of the
roadway so it really does provide more of a buffer from those existing properties on the west side
of the roadway. We're proposing a 31 foot width through this area. Cost wise. Got a summary
of the proposed costs for the project. We're presenting costs for both options. Option 1 is a rural
section option. Option 2 is an urban section roadway with curb and gutter. Shows that the total
project cost for the option without curb and gutter is a little over $2.1 million dollars. With curb
and gutter it's a little over $2.3, so it's a little more expensive to build the curb and gutter. Really
just the cost for the curb and gutter and the storm sewer itself. Sanitary sewer and watermain
improvements are the same for both options. In terms of financing how the project is proposed
to be funded. A majority of the project costs proposed to be funded through assessments to
benefiting property owners, depending upon the option. A little over $1.5 million dollars will be
funded with assessments. Some of the project costs will be funded through the city's revolving
assessment fund. Depending upon the option a little over $400,000. And then the storm
drainage improvements, a majority of those are proposed to be funded through the city's
stormwater utility fund, and that's really the biggest difference between Option 1 and Option 2.
Just because Option 2 has that additional storm sewer. It's a little more expensive for the storm
water utility fund. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 to 365, depending upon the option
that's constructed. Briefly walk you through the proposed assessment methodology. This exhibit
basically shows all the properties within the project area. Again in yellow is the proposed
roadway improvements. There's a segment of the project area that's proposed to be assessed.
The lighter brown color would be assessed 100% for the cost of the roadway improvements.
Basically consistent with development policy. Developments typically pay for 100% of the cost
of the roadway. The existing properties that are shown in brown would be assessed at a 40%
rate, which again is consistent with the city's assessment policy for reconstruction of existing
streets, so just to kind of walk you through how we calculated the proposed assessments for the
streets. Maybe zoom in a little bit on that. The overall costs to be assessed is a little over a
million dollars. There's 44 properties in the project area that would be assessed. 18 would be
assessed at the 100% rate. Those are the new development properties. 26 at the 40% rate.
Those properties would be assessed at the 100% rate would be assessed for a little over $23,000
per unit. Those properties that are assessed at the 40% rate, a little over $9,400 a unit. The other
60% in reconstruction area would be funded by the city through that revolving assessment fund.
A little bit about the watermain assessments. Again yellow shows the roadway. Blue shows all
the properties that would be assessed for watermain. The light blue, the Westwood Church
property has already been assessed for watermain improvements. As a part of this project they
would only be assessed for the cost of the services that would get extended to their property.
The remainder of the dark blue area would get assessed 100% of the watermain costs. Just to
walk you through that. The estimated costs for the watermain is a little over $260,000. The
entire cost of which would be assessed. Four units would get assessed only the cost of the
services. The remaining 4 units would get assessed for the cost of the watermain at about $6,400
a unit for watermain assessments. And then the last but not least is sanitary sewer. Similar
exercise. Again in the green, light green shows the areas that would get assessed 100% of the
4
City Council Meeting - March 12, 2007
cost of the sanitary sewer. Westwood Church is also, already paid some sanitary sewer
assessments. They would only pay for the service costs. The remainder of the properties would
pay for 100% of the sanitary sewer costs. These 3 properties that are not in color have already
paid sanitary sewer assessments. They have existing lift station that provides for their needs.
They would not be assessed as a part of this project. And similar to the watermain, just walk you
through those numbers. A little over $474,000 would get assessed. Four units would pay a
service. The other 37 would pay for the rest of the project costs at a little over $12,600 per unit
for that. And the feasibility report does include a detailed assessment roll, identifying the
assessment amounts for all individual properties within the project area. And then very quickly
just to mention the proposed schedule for the project. Tonight's the public hearing and to
authorize preparation of plans and specifications. We would hope to approve the plans and specs
th
on March 26. If council wants to proceed forward, we'd then have a bid opening in late April.
Award a contract and assessment hearing in late May. The construction start in June and the
project because of it's size would take a majority of 2007 for construction. We'd have
construction complete in August of, October. I'm sorry, of 2007. So that's really kind of a brief
overview of the project. Proposed improvements. The cost. The funding and the schedule. I
guess with that I'll open it up to any council questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. At this point. Nothing at this time? Okay.
Very good. Then at this time we will open up the public hearing and invite interested parties to
come forward and address the council with their opinions or have questions that they might have
answered by staff.
Deanna Brandt: I'm Deanna Brandt, 7570 Dogwood Road, Excelsior. Just wanted to hand
this… Mr. Mayor and City Council members and city staff. I just wanted to do my last pitch
and effort in regards to the width of Dogwood Road. The green line on your map shows the
proposed Dogwood Road at a 24 or 26 with curb and gutter, foot width. And the orange part
shows the segment that would be, that is proposed currently to be 31 foot wide. Paul explained
to me thoroughly that the reason for the orange part to be 31 foot wide is because that's the city's
rules and guidelines to be within new development. On the second piece of paper I've got the
reasons to keep the proposed, and I suppose nobody can see that one. Reasons to keep the
proposed Dogwood Road a consistent 24 foot wide or 26 foot wide with curb and gutter.
Whatever it's ended up being. Now referring to the paved portion, not the portion that's all
cleared out but we understand that in some of the areas, on both sides of the paved section it may
vary in width due to utility issues. So direct discussion with Chanhassen's consultant at Kimley-
Horn. I forgot the gentleman's name that I talked to there. Was his name Pat? Jed. Jed, that's
how it was. Verified that there are no elevation issues that would make the 31 foot wide road
necessary. That was a potential issue that came up last time, that the elevation in that specific
section might warrant a wider road and since I don't know anything about elevations, I talked to
Jed and he said, no. There are none. Number 2. Developer, Carlson Custom Homes said that
for the 3 new homes to be built on Dogwood Road they would give up their on street parking, so
they do have 3 homes proposed to be on Dogwood Road. And then as verified in the meeting for
the pre-plat of this development Paul stated that the Fire Marshal verified that the 24 foot wide
road is safe. The minimum width he would like to see. My point there is that the 24 foot wide is
safe for the rest of Dogwood. Why isn't it safe for that little section? Allyson has in her
possession a signed petition from all of the owners on Dogwood Road stating that we do desire a
5
City Council Meeting - March 12, 2007
th
single road width all the way through to the West 78 Street extension. The homeowners have
never had on street parking. That was, you just don't when some places there's, it's only about
one car width, and we've creatively dealt with several wedding receptions, parties, using shuttles.
We've talked to neighbors. We get to park in their driveways. We kind of pull together on that.
We've always dealt with it. The proposed 31 foot wide section is only bordered by new
development on the east side. On the west side it's old property. Existing property. So only half
of it, it's not completely contained within the development. We are trying to maintain the
Dogwood Road experience that, I love it that Kate said that so many years ago when we were
first looking at this, and even a small savings in mature trees is beneficial. Even if it's you know
1 or 2. I believe Allyson brought up to me that they were kind of looking and she said you
know, maybe just a few, a small handful of trees would be saved if we went from a 31 to a 26 or
24. You know we'll take the mature trees. As long as you know it's safe. According to the Fire
Marshal. It's navigable. We all want it this way. Only half of it's in the new development so I'll
just, I'll leave it up to you guys to make your decisions.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good. Thank you.
Deanna Brandt: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Anyone else who would like to address the council on this matter? No? Okay.
This has been a public hearing so if anybody else is interested in commenting to the council, this
is your time. Otherwise without objection we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to
council. I guess the first question I would have Mr. Oehme would be to perhaps comment on
some of the issues that Ms. Brandt brought up.
Paul Oehme: Sure. Thank you Mayor. The, just kind of run down the list of Mrs. Brandt's
outline here. The elevation change, number one, there is a slight elevation change. I believe it's
between 1 and 2 feet, but no significant elevation change in that area but the issue in terms of the
60 foot wide roadway width, right-of-way that is needed here is for constructability of the road
as it's laid out here. There's approximately, in the new development section it's highlighted in
orange here on her sheet. The sewer in that area is going to be approximately 20 feet deep. For
constructability issues and for safety issues, to construct the side slopes of the excavation for the
trench of the sewer has to be at least a 1 to 1 slope. You know dirt's going to be stack piled on
either side of the excavation as well. I mean for constructability purposes, more or less all those
trees in that corridor will have to be, have to come down. We had looked at potential savings of
trees in this corridor but you know in our estimation it's potentially there could be a couple trees
that will be saved but we don't really know until we get out there and have a contractor look at
how he wants to stage it and where he can put the dirt and how he wants to construct it. The
issue with on street parking, yes if the roadway is narrowed down to the preferred 26 foot road
that I think some of the property owners out here would like, the parking would be eliminated.
Especially in the new development area. It's always been City's, the City's been pretty consistent
in terms of where, when new developments are platted and new roadway areas, or new roads are
being constructed, we try to get 60 foot wide roadway widths there. Right-of-way roadway
widths have always been 31 foot wide, and the road is shifting from it's current location to the
east onto the development site. Thereby basically eliminating the existing right-of-way and that
right-of-way is currently platted out there would potentially be vacated back to the existing
6
City Council Meeting - March 12, 2007
property owners. Staff just feels that you know with the new plat that's coming in there, we
think it's kind of a detriment to the new property owners that would be out here purchasing these
lots, if we would limit the parking in this area, especially since the roads are, or the property is,
the houses where they would build are much closer to the road than existing properties because
there'd be less area for the new property owners to park on their property and just try to allow
them as much flexibility in terms of where they can park out here in the future as we can. So just
trying to be consistent with other projects that the City of Chanhassen has approved in the past.
For those reasons you know we are recommending the 31 foot wide road width in the
development area. We are, have some constraints with Dogwood Road north of here so we are
recommending the 26 foot wide urban section at that location, but we feel that the 31 foot wide
roadway width in this area is the, is our recommendation.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any questions for staff? Follow-up questions.
Councilman Peterson: Either for Kate or Paul. As you look at the larger lots, the Brandt's.
Scale of your lots. 15 and 16. How much of those lots are developable? I know there's some
wetlands in there. Can you give me a ballpark? I mean is it substantial? Potential subdivision in
there.
Kate Aanenson: 16 is the back of the church, Westwood Church property. They'll be sharing
their future master plan at the Planning Commission at their next meeting so I'm not sure if they
intend to put residential units back there or not. But 15 certainly can be subdivided.
Paul Oehme: And in the feasibility study we are offering Lot 15 four services that they
potentially can subdivide along the east side of Dogwood at that location, and likewise the
church property. We are stubbing out some services to that property as well for them to
subdivide in the future as well.
Councilman Peterson: So we could potentially, well we could potentially get dozens of more
homes depending upon, depending upon who and when they do it, if they do it. Right?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Well the goal is always to plan for the ultimate development and
that's what the feasibility study shows. Now whether the church would choose to do subdivision
or find some other use that would need a sewer connection. But it could be subdivided, both
pieces.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah Kate. On Lot 16, when they come through, are they going to
have access to Dogwood?
Kate Aanenson: Not necessarily. You know it's steep back there. Right now the church doesn't
have plans to subdivide. But as we know, we always have to provide those opportunities if they
chose to sell it off. Certainly.
7
City Council Meeting - March 12, 2007
Todd Gerhardt: I think to answer your question, I think half of that site, you know maybe a third
of it would access off of Dogwood. The other two-thirds could go through the Westwood
development where they have a driveway to the internal size of their lot.
Mayor Furlong: But there would be access from, or likely access from Lot 15 onto Dogwood?
Paul Oehme: Correct. Yep there would be. And depending on, if they would subdivide that,
how would it lay out. We don't know exactly how many direct accesses there would be. There
might be a public street off of that lot.
Mayor Furlong: And then also down on the southern, southwestern part or lower left corner of
this, from 14 towards the lake, there are 3, two lines. Three potential lots there, even though
that's a single one but that's obviously, that was part of the potential subdivision and the right-of-
way was dedicated to the east of that parcel as well.
Paul Oehme: That's correct, yeah.
Mayor Furlong: …with the Arbors a few weeks ago.
Paul Oehme: We, one of the requirements for the development was to plat a roadway to the
south property on there.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other questions? Councilman Litsey?
Councilman Litsey: Yeah, had a question. Potentially the scenario for Lots 15 and 16 could be
similar to Arbors development in the sense there could be some new development going in there,
right?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Litsey: And if that occurs, they'll be using the roadway that's now being proposed
to be reconstructed at 26? Potentially.
Paul Oehme: Potentially. We don't know exactly how it will lay out. 16 might come through
the church site so depending upon how many trips that would be generated back there, we
wouldn't allow full access depending upon how that develops.
Councilman Litsey: But 15 might be…
Paul Oehme: Yeah, and we looked at potentially how many future parcels would be back there
and between 4 and 5 maybe.
Councilman Litsey: So if we did the road the same for that 26 feet all the way through,
potentially it could be consistent with what's happening with the Arbors and the future
development, I mean in terms of how the road handles that? Does that make sense?
8
City Council Meeting - March 12, 2007
Paul Oehme: Yes. We'd handled that development the same way with the Arbors.
Councilman Litsey: Except we wouldn't be going back on the newer developments so like Lot
15 to widen the road though, right?
Paul Oehme: Not necessarily, no. Depending upon what, how the, you wanted to develop that
piece of property.
Councilman Litsey: I guess what I'm getting at is because potentially at 26 feet throughout the
whole length of the roadway, that could be consistency with future projects.
Paul Oehme: Could be, yes.
Councilman Litsey: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: …in neighborhoods like this, we always try to get to the city standard and some
of you've heard this in the existing neighborhoods that we've gone in and done reconstruction.
Koehnen and the older part of downtown, you know there was always the request to try to reduce
the size of the road and you know it plays into feeling safe as you drive out there. There may not
be a car parked out there but when 2 cars pass, you want to have a wider road. When you're
traveling 15-20 miles an hour, you know 24 feet, I'll use a parking stall as an example. Those are
typically 9 feet. And that gives you 18 if you use 2 parking stalls. You want a wider width than
that just to feel safe when you're passing somebody on the road. And then in the wintertime you
usually have snow along the curb or something like that so that will even narrow up your road,
like the last snowfall we had so you know. When we come in and redevelop these
neighborhoods, we try to get it to the city standard and in this case, the existing right-of-way, you
know trying to get a project that fits into our budget and the neighborhood's budget without
having to go in and buy existing right-of-way would have drove this project probably outside the
realm of seeing this project move ahead. So I think the 26 is something that we can live with.
Going less than that I think you're really getting into a situation where people are going to not
feel safe as they bypass somebody on the road.
Councilman Litsey: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions or discussion? Thoughts on the overall project. We've had
some questions on width in one section. Staff is recommending, well their recommendation's in
the staff report. It's also the issue between a rural and an urban roadway. Any comments on the
assessments or overall thoughts, comments?
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I think as far as the assessments, the numbers seem to play it
out reasonably and they pretty much parallel what we've done in the past, so that part I think is
really… I think the real issue is 24 versus 26. And as I listen and as I look, and what the
potential development, potential use and activity of that road might be, I guess I'd be biased,
even though I empathize greatly with the residents, we also are obliged to think about how many
more residents will be using that road, which will make it more difficult and more active and
9
City Council Meeting - March 12, 2007
more dangerous. The Fire Marshal has consistently said you know that the bigger the road, the
safer. There's always minimums but when we have an opportunity to make something safer,
we've also been obliged as a council to do that. So as far as my perspective on it, you know I
think that the 26 is going to be safer. I think it's going to meet the needs of the area better long
term than the 24. You know I'd like to be able to go less, but I can't really see a compelling
reason to do so. So you know, as far as the other issues, I think there really hasn't been a… on
any of other issues. I offer that as my respective opinion.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor I have a question for Mr. Oehme.
Mayor Furlong: Sure.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: When we talk about safety and obviously speed in neighborhoods is
a safety issue we face in Chanhassen. Do you think it is safer to have a 24 foot road? Would
that slow cars down? Because it is a smaller area of surface to be driving on or is that not
exactly the way that these cars.
Paul Oehme: I don't think it's the exact way I would think about it. 31 foot roads give you more
opportunity for driving. For reacting to potential issues that may arise. Balls running in front of
your car or bikes. Bicycles on the road. I think the narrow road does give you a little bit more of
a channel effect. Maybe it does maybe feel like you should drive a little bit slower even though
people potentially wouldn't drive slow on a narrow roadway. You know this 31 foot road,
depending upon the topography of the area and the curves that are in the area, it can drive similar
to a narrower road, and especially in this area there is a hill. We have a steep curve at the north
th
end of Tanadoona. And then also a stop condition down at 78 Street and Dogwood so in terms
of speeding in this area, I don't think it's going to be an issue just because of the restraints in this
area. So based upon narrowing a roadway down, especially in this area, I don't think it's really
going to have any effect in terms of speeding or feeling of safety versus a 31 foot road. Does
that answer your question?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And offhand do you know what the size is of Pleasant View Road
that goes along Lotus Lake?
Paul Oehme: Oh boy.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: That's a really narrow road too.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, that is very narrow. I do think it's down to 17 feet in some areas, especially
by, one of those curves that has a stop condition up there does neck down I think to 17 or 16 feet.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: When you meet other cars in certain spots.
Paul Oehme: Right. It's a dangerous little intersection out there, and there especially, I mean we
don't have no right-of-way to improve that area. There are houses right directly on that road and
10
City Council Meeting - March 12, 2007
we've struggled with what we can do there to improve that situation and to this point we really
haven't had any opportunities to improve that street so, we just don't want to limit ourselves with
new developments.
Todd Gerhardt: And that's one that we don't want to duplicate you know.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Right.
Todd Gerhardt: We've got the opportunity here to enhance a situation from what it is today. Not
to meet our standards but also to find a project that is doable. I think we tried 4 or 5 times, you
know I think we had 4 or 5 feasibility studies that we've looked at in the past and we haven't
found a project that we could do. This time we have and so we just don't want to duplicate that
and try to make a situation better.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yeah I think that's where I'm coming from. Unfortunately there aren't
a lot of do over's in projects like this. Once the curb and gutter is in, it's kind of there for a long
time and you have the potential of a new development coming onto that road at some point and
putting that experience, which is wonderful for the neighborhood, onto other people who
probably don't want that experience for you know, they don't understand where they're coming
from. So I empathize with the neighbors wanting to keep their road and the trees, but at the same
time because of safety and because of just consistency of what we do do in this town, I think I
too am leaning towards the 26 foot roadway.
Councilwoman Ernst: Mr. Mayor, I just have one question. When we were talking about the 24
versus the 26. Was it 24 versus the 26 or the 26 versus a 31?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, I was going to clarify that.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah I think you should clarify that.
Paul Oehme: Yeah.
Councilman Litsey: That was going to be my question too.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, if you look on the map here. What staff is recommending, and it's in the
background, is a 26 foot wide roadway width along Dogwood and Tanadoona basically from the
north end of the development site. The project area here. We have limited right-of-way along
this section of roadway here. We're trying to maximize the roadway width in that area as much
as we can, but still keep in consideration the cost and the right-of-way constraints that we have
out here. In a new development area, which is shown here in orange, we are proposing to stick
to our 31 foot wide roadway width in the new development just being consistent with past
th
projects of our roadway width for the city in new developments. 78 Street will be 31 foot wide
th
road. The cul-de-sac in the new development is proposed to be 31 foot wide, and 78 Street is,
that is currently built is all 31 foot wide as well. And again, 31 foot is recommended in the
development. Because we do have the right-of-way and just being consistent with our standards.
11
City Council Meeting - March 12, 2007
Councilwoman Ernst: So the proposal is to go 31 feet?
Paul Oehme: Correct. 31 foot in the orange here.
Councilwoman Ernst: In the orange.
Paul Oehme: And 26 along Dogwood out to Tanadoona in the rest of the project area.
Mayor Furlong: 26 foot curb and gutter.
Paul Oehme: With curb and gutter, correct. Yeah the curb and gutter, we're proposing that.
Again it's an urban section. It's our standard. We want to treat the water before it runs into
Minnewashta. There are two ponds that are proposed to be constructed. One in the development
site, co-located at the southern part of the development, and then we are working with Camp
Tanadoona in acquiring an additional easement on their property to construct another pond in the
northwest corner of the project site to treat the runoff from Dogwood and Tanadoona before it
runs into the lake. So we need the curb and gutter to direct the water into storm water pipes and
then into ponds. If we aren't able to acquire the property on Camp Tanadoona for a pond, we
would look at environmental manholes to at least capture some of the sediment before it runs
into the creek…
Councilwoman Ernst: Thank you for the clarification.
Councilman Litsey: Paul, a question on the, between the 24 and 26. You pick up an extra 2 feet
by putting in the curb?
Paul Oehme: That's basically it. It is just the curb. The curb.
Councilman Litsey: So the perception is a little larger roadway on 26, or at least curb and
gutter?
Paul Oehme: Yes. If we want, this drawing here shows the option 1 with the rural section from,
out along Tanadoona and Dogwood Road basically outside of the development site. If we went
with the 24 foot wide road, we'd basically have two 12 lanes, travel ways but we'd also need
about 12 feet of ditch section to capture that water to direct it into ditch sections into where we
want the water to go, so we're not really saving width or trees in this area if we went with the
rural section. It'd just be based upon, we still need to direct that water someplace. Away from
the roadway from the properties.
Councilman Litsey: But the 26, being it's curbed and guttered and has a way to channel the
water would not need such a large cut?
Paul Oehme: A little bit less of a cut, right. Here's the urban section road. This is the Option 2.
With the urban section. So basically we have, we still have about 13 foot wide roadway width
there. We don't have the ditch section anymore. The road, there's no ditch section again but to
build a road, there is some topography out here. There is a pretty substantial hill. Do we cut into
12
City Council Meeting - March 12, 2007
that roadway and grade back? Back of the curb to make the grades tie back into existing
topography so we are still serving some of the property out here. It's not shown. It's not, it's
probably not as extensive as with the ditch section but we still are you know, the footprint of the
road, the urban section versus a rural section is virtually the same.
Councilman Litsey: Thanks. That's all.
Mayor Furlong: Any other thoughts or comments?
Councilwoman Ernst: The only thing I would like to say really is that I too empathize and I
think if the scenario was that everything was going to be the same way that it is today, the same
people were going to be there, but I would have a tendency to lean that direction but based on the
fact that things aren't going to remain the same forever as they are today, so taking that into
consideration. We know that there's going to be new development coming in and not knowing
how the new neighbors would feel in that situation, I would lean more towards building to city
standards. 31 foot.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Litsey, thoughts.
Councilman Litsey: I guess where I'm troubled a little bit and I'm struggling with is there's some
future development that's going to probably…Lot 15, potentially 16 and they're going to expect
the 26 foot road to handle that. And it's really going to parallel what's going to happen with
Arbors. I understand you want to be consistent with standards but also maybe we need to be
consistent with road type and how long is that where you want to do the 31 feet? How long is
that section? Roughly how many feet is that?
Paul Oehme: 500 feet.
Councilman Litsey: So block and a half. City block and a half. 300 feet to a block. You know I
just think perhaps with consistency throughout that whole area that it makes more sense to stay
with the 26. I'm not in favor of the 24. I mean the rural. And I know how the neighbors, you're
accepting of the 26.
Deanna Brandt: Oh absolutely.
Councilman Litsey: I guess that's my thoughts.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor can I just add one point?
Mayor Furlong: Certainly.
Todd Gerhardt: Just for clarification. The reason we're able to put the 31 on the Arbors
development is that they've come in with a subdivision and when somebody comes in with a
subdivision the city has the authority to take excess right-of-way for city standard streets. When
13
City Council Meeting - March 12, 2007
Lots 15 and 16 come in and subdivide, you would have the same capability and odds are we
would make it a recommendation to take excess right-of-way there for if and when Dogwood
should be reconstructed in 35-45 years from now, we could potentially upgrade that road to a 31.
You know that's something that we would consider as you go through but at the time of
subdivision is the time to take that excess right-of-way. So that's why staff is recommending 31
at this point, so I just wanted to make sure that everybody on the council understood that and
clarified that.
Councilman Litsey: Are we going to be faced with a situation if that happens though, we're
going to be going back and forth between 31 and 26 because you take it where the new
subdivision's going in but there's going to be existing property in there so are we going to be
alternating back and forth?
Todd Gerhardt: It will not be a clean you know reconstruction. It's something that the
neighborhood and the council would talk about. Those are things we talk about in some of our
older neighborhoods. Should we at that time make the road to city standard when they've also
used the 28 or 30 foot. So I'm just telling you that down the line you have the capability of
upgrading Dogwood to a 31 when and if they come in and subdivide and the time to do that
would be 35-40 years when Dogwood would come in for a reconstruction. Staff would look at
upgrading that 26 to a 31.
Councilwoman Ernst: So would it then be fair to say that we're calling this somewhat of a
compromise where we're making this 26 feet today to try and accommodate the existing
residents in that area and making this a 31 and eventually coming back and, depending on what
that looks like.
Mayor Furlong: I guess my reaction is, it's difficult to predict what's going to happen in 30 or 35
years. This road has been in need of reconstruction for a very long time and I think what I'm
hearing Mr. Gerhardt say is, is in the area of the Arbor development, because the city has a
standard roadway and we have right-of-way being granted to the city as a part of that plat, that
building, staff is recommending to build your standard road there. There's no restriction on not
building a standard road there. In the section to the north of that along Dogwood however there
are restrictions in terms of lack of existing right-of-way and so the ability to build a standard
road there is limited. That's your restricting factor in that section to the north. If, I don't want to
put words in your mouth. If there was complete right-of-way there, would you be
recommending a standard road? If the right-of-way existed.
Paul Oehme: I would, yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So that's kind of what I assumed because what I've been hearing here, in
reading the staff report is, where we have the opportunity to build a standard road without
restrictions, such as lack of right-of-way, staff is saying we should do that. For the other section
it is a compromise I guess on staff's part, to answer your question Councilwoman Ernst, with
regard to we lack right-of-way there. To acquire that right-of-way may make the project
economically unfeasible and so let's accommodate or get what we can here now and that's
upgrade a road that's in significant need of upgrading. Get the utilities. Get the water and sewer
14
City Council Meeting - March 12, 2007
in place. Get the curb and gutter in place so we can start doing some better management of
storm water in this area, both in terms of managing the quality of that storm water by working it
through the ponds, and the rate that that storm water falls off, so we get to do a lot of things, not
just for the residents but for the city and lake quality and anybody that has property on that lake,
you measure lake quality. The compromise here, I don't see as should we take the 31. Take an
area where we can put a standard road in and reduce that to a sub-standard road. The
compromise is on the city's part from staff's part saying, with all the other things that we could
get done here, to hold out for a standard road throughout the whole stretch isn't reasonable. That
by allowing a narrower road in that section to the north, that's workable given all the other good
things that are getting done, both for the residents along the road. For the public interest. For
even making it possible for this Arbor development to go in, and the economics of that through
the assessment as well. So I mean as I look at it and recognize the desires of the residents along
here, in terms of trying to balance everything out and looking at the information and thought for
reasoning that I saw in the staff report, I think going with staff's recommendation does make
sense. Is it perfect in everyone's mind? No. But now I'm going to back up to a comment made
by Mr. Gerhardt. This is the fourth or fifth time that something has tried to be done here and
we're that close to getting it done and I think if the only issue that we're dealing with is a section
of an orange marker this big on my map that says should it be 31 or 24 or, you know we've hit
the ball out of the park here and I think where we can meet city standards, we should do it for a
variety of reasons that exist with that. Where there is a restriction because of the right-of-way in
that section, staff's willingness to compromise to a narrower road, I think we should support that
as well. So those are my thoughts and gathering thoughts and so from my standpoint,
recognizing the comments made about a desire for something a little bit narrower in that section,
that we can do a city standard, I recognize the desire but I think where we can build a city
standard road for all the reasons that we do it everywhere else in the city and we should certainly
do that. Any other thoughts?
Councilman Litsey: Well I think the potential exists that we would come back and widen it just
to standards that are being recommended all along that roadway, then that does make some sense
but I just want to make sure that we would look at going back and doing that if the opportunity
came up. Otherwise it's going to go, it's going to be piecemeal.
Mayor Furlong: We have throughout the city, and this often happens that I've seen it and I'm
sure Ms. Aanenson you've seen it too where we have a new neighborhood being developed next
to an existing neighborhood. You have different street widths. We've got it all over the city and
there's a funneling action with the curb coming down. I know that we've seen that too and you
minimize that channel so you make it smooth. I mean it's not a step function, but we do that
throughout the city where we can, in exactly these types of situations where you have a newer
development coming in next to an existing. So this isn't unique in terms of the difference there.
Councilman Litsey: Yeah I just wanted to be clear in my mind that we would work towards
making it consistent all the way down to the next connection if we had the opportunity and you
helped me to make it clear so. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Sure. Any other comments? If not is there a motion?
15
City Council Meeting - March 12, 2007
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I'd move that the City Project 06-06 wherein we adopt the
resolution authorizing the preparation of plans and specs for the improvements.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you, is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Just confirm that motion's
consistent with staff's recommendation in the report Mr. Peterson?
Councilman Peterson: That's affirmative.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any discussion on the motion? If not we'll proceed with the vote.
Resolution #2007-20: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded
that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the preparation of plans and
specifications for Tanadoona Drive/Dogwood Road Reconstruction Project #06-06. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: For the big snow, I think our crews did a great job. You may have gotten a few
calls in neighborhoods where you had high traffic, where they compacted the snow and we didn't
get in there in a timely manner to get it up before everybody started to do their weekend errands
so, probably Chaparral neighborhood was one that I went out and investigated. I want to thank
Mike and his crews. They got the grader out and scraped off as much as they could as it warmed
up. The 20 degree weather early last week didn't help so, other than that I think the crews did a
great job. We had a truck that kind of tipped over in an area. Kind of went off on the soft part of
the road and tipped over but we got that back up and moving. That didn't help. That slowed
down a little bit of the snow removal. But other than that I think the crews did a great job. One
other thing I'd like to note, Kate spoke at the Sensible Land Use Coalition this past week, or two
weeks ago, and again representing the city. Talked about the 2005 MUSA area. Developments
along the 312, the process that we went through on that. Talked about the market study that we
did so again, thank you Kate for representing the city with those. We're trying to get the word
out that Chanhassen's on the map and Kate did a great job from the feedback I've got from
people that attended the Sensible Land Use Coalition so I wanted to thank her publicly on that.
That's all I have so a pretty quiet week.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Gerhardt. Okay. Did you have one?
Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah I just had one quick comment. As far as the snow removal goes. I
have to say that Chanhassen was probably one of the better cities around because I know half the
people couldn't make it into work because they couldn't get out of their garages and into work so,
I could get into work and I can thank our crews for that.
16
City Council Meeting - March 12, 2007
Councilman Peterson: And you took the bus.
Councilwoman Ernst: Yes I did.
Mayor Furlong: Very good.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, the crews do a great job. I think that's one of the big perks that we give
back to the residents here. I think based on Paul's surveys I think neighboring communities, we
get our roads open a couple hours earlier than most and so, we have the luxury of doing that and
experienced drivers so, I think that's a great job on their behalf.
Councilman Litsey: You're taking away one excuse Todd to get to work.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt? Seeing none, correspondence
packet.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
None.
Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman Litsey seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council
meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
17