CC 2007 05 14
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 14, 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, and Councilwoman Tjornhom
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:
Councilman Peterson
STAFF PRESENT:
Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Laurie Hokkanen, Kate Aanenson, Paul
Oehme, Lori Haak, and Todd Hoffman
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Greg Fletcher 7616 South Shore Drive
Steve Donen 7341 Frontier Trail
Vicki Frazier 610 Bighorn Drive
Joe Matchey Progressive Contractors
Dorthea Shay 7230 Frontier Trail
Boyd Peterson 9860 Pioneer Trail
Gaye Guyton 10083 Great Plains Boulevard
David Hromatka 7580 Canyon Curve
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Furlong: Thank you and welcome to everybody here in the council chambers and those
joining us at home. We're glad that you joined us this evening. As we get started I guess the
first question I would ask the members of the council, if there's any modifications or additions to
the agenda for this evening. If not, without objection we'll proceed with the agenda as
distributed. We'd like to start with a couple award presentations so I'm going to go down in the
front. We'll take care of those right now.
AWARD PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Furlong: We're here today to present Marilyn Luthy with a Certificate of Appreciation.
Marilyn has been a member of the Senior Commission for the last 3 years and during that time
the commission's placed an emphasis in getting the word out about programs and educational
opportunities for seniors in our city. Marilyn was very involved in the informational open
houses and senior picnics. Additionally she spends many hours assisting the Senior Center
Coordinator on the day to day activities that occur within the center. She's always there willing
to help other people. Escort groups and tours and assist with set-up's for events at the senior
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
center. Marilyn we certainly appreciate your service on the Senior Commission and thank you
very much and I'm pleased to present you with this certificate.
Marilyn Luthy: Thank you very much and I probably will continue to work…
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you very much. We're here tonight as well to present Dotti
Shay with a Maple Leaf Award. Dotti was appointed to the Environmental Commission April of
1998. From 1999 until 2002 Dotti served as Chair of the commission. A list of
accomplishments with the commission is long and comprehensive. She was involved in the
large environmental book purchase for the Chanhassen Library, promoting environmental
presentations by the Climb Theater to the local elementary schools. Implementing new
residential packets and information for new residents coming to the area. Promoting composting
and renewable energy programs. Producing multiple public education pieces for distribution to
our residents and with the Chanhassen Villager, and printing and selling of reusable shopping
th
Bags. And also involved with the commission's 4 of July float. She has helped with the Arbor
Day Poster contest and the Environmental Excellence Award programs over the years. Dotti on
behalf of the City Council and all of the public, I want to say thank you for your service on our
Environmental Commission over the last many years.
Dotti Shay: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: You're very welcome. Thank you.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman Litsey seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated April 23, 2007
-City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated April 23, 2007
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated April 17, 2007
-Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated April 24, 2007
th
b. Accept Donation from the Chanhassen Lions Club for the Senior Center 15 Anniversary
Commemorative Calendar.
Resolution #2007-30:
c. Tanadoona Drive/Dogwood Road Reconstruction Project 06-06:
Call Assessment Hearing.
d. Market Street Station: Approve Easement Amendment.
Resolution #2007-31:
f. Approve Purchase of Loader for Street Department.
2
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
h. Approval of Three Month Extension to Variance #05-10 for 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard,
Laura Cooper.
i. Approval of Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, Chanhassen Rotary Club, Fourth of
July Celebration, July 3 & 4.
j. Approve Release from Contract for Private Redevelopment Between the City of
Chanhassen and Coeur Terra, LLP.
k. Approve Professional Services Agreement with WSB & Associates, Inc., PW009Z.
l. Approval of Agreement with PCI for Temporary Concrete Batch Plant for TH 212
Project.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Debbie Lloyd: Good evening. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I'm going to keep this short
but I need to say this now to make it a matter of public record. As you are aware for over 6 years
I've watched what's happening with developments within Chanhassen. After shoreland code
wasn't properly applied in a subdivision within my neighborhood. It's sad to say that despite
bringing information to the attention of the city staff and council that their application of city
ordinance to all residents and developers doesn't exist within our borders. It does appear that
certain developers are set to higher standards than others. It is the ordinance, it is the city code
which puts each one of us on a level playing ground, and I didn't plan that. Thank you. Tonight
nd
you have before you the final plat for 2 phase of the Preserve for approval. As you are aware I
did raise questions about this development in an email correspondence.
Mayor Furlong: Excuse me Ms. Lloyd. Is this the reason why you pulled that item from the
consent agenda?
Debbie Lloyd: No. Not in and of itself solely. This relates to something else as well.
Mayor Furlong: Alright.
Debbie Lloyd: Condition 13 for Addition 1 of the Preserve specifically mentions the
construction of Bluff Creek Boulevard improvements to serve the development, and that the
development is assessed for this project, but there's no mention of setback. The ordinance
requires 50 feet. The setback of 3 homes from Bluff Creek Boulevard is less than what
ordinance requires along a collector street and less than what was required of Town & Country,
also a PUD established along the very same collector street. When the Preserve was approved
the developer claimed no variances were required. The only mention of any setback condition in
the report was a 40 foot setback for the primary corridor. That is the Bluff Creek corridor. The
exception for the street setback was not stated again. Therefore implied that they were meeting
all city standards. The Preserve is a multi-phased development and as such may have violated
3
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
other terms of their development contract. Specifically the cutting of mature oaks within the
secondary zone of Bluff Creek in Phase II before it was approved. That's on the agenda tonight.
The purpose of the PUD was to be sensitive to this surrounding area. Is this sensitive? The clear
cutting of mature oaks prior to the approval of the final plat for the phase? What corrective
actions will you take regarding the cutting of the trees? I suggest you postpone approval of the
final plat for the Preserve tonight. I have pictures of the destruction in case no one has seen what
went on there. In another development, Abra. Anyone drives down Highway 5 you can see that
Abra is not set back as much as other locations. Again, in the staff report not one mention of the
setback required from the right-of-way. I've checked with the State of Minnesota. I have the
right-of-way here. There's a 200 foot right-of-way for that highway in that portion of the city.
They're set back 50 feet from the pavement. MnDot says that the right-of-way extends beyond
the pavement. Those are issues I brought in email. I wish I would have time to, had time to send
formal letters so it would have been in your packet. This is not something I enjoy doing, but
something that needs to be addressed. I'm sure there's other situations out there. If council or
staff can't give honest answers to this, maybe we need citizens who are going to look at this stuff
and get a consensus as to what is important and needs to be remedied. Thank you for your time.
Mayor Furlong: Anybody else who would like to address the council during visitor
presentations. Again, if it's a matter relating to a public hearing later, this would not be the time
to come up.
Boyd Peterson: Good evening. Yeah, Boyd Peterson. 9860 Pioneer Circle. I'm here for some
other issues but the one this gal's talking about is pretty much right on the nose. It's appalling
what this city is going to let them people do in cutting them mature oak trees. Now we're
supposed to be a city of trees and we all know what drives development and it's money. And I
just hope to hell that they weren't supposed to do this and the city does something about it.
Whether fine them or put a big delay on them because money's driving this deal and they're just
driving this whole situation and they do what they want. There's no such thing as the easements
or setback. But the tree issue, that's ridiculous. It's the first I've ever heard of it but I was
appalled when I seen it.
Mayor Furlong: And we will be addressing that issue when we pick up item 1(e) apparently.
Later on this evening. Anyone else for visitor presentations this evening. Alright, thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING: 2007 STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT 07-02:
ASSESSMENT HEARING AND AWARD CONTRACT.
(Councilman Litsey stepped down for this item and recused himself from the discussion
and vote.)
Mayor Furlong: We'll move now to our first public hearing for the evening. This is relating to
item number 2 on our agenda relating to the 2007 Street Rehabilitation Project 07-02. We'll start
with a report from staff and open up a public hearing as well and then consider other items.
Councilman Litsey?
4
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Councilman Litsey: Yeah before we start I'd like to separate myself from that discussion and the
vote since I am a property owner in that area so if that would be okay, I'll just step down and
listen.
Mayor Furlong: That's fine, thank you. Staff report please.
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. Annually the city considers street
improvements to keep the streets well maintained in our city. Streets in this year's project are to
the point where minor maintenance such as sealcoats and other minor improvements can no
longer cost effectively be implemented. Streets proposed for rehabilitation were identified using
the city's pavement management program, and also staff has visually inspected each of these
streets. The project is a rehabilitation of 11 streets within our community. They are in no
particular order. Pleasant View Cove, which is just off of Pleasant View Road. Preakness Lane.
Pimlico Lane which is off of Kerber Boulevard. Canterbury Circle, Bighorn Drive, Belmont
Lane, Bighorn Drive and Shadowmere Terrace. And then also another neighborhood
recommended for rehabilitation of the streets is South Shore Court area, including Hill Street and
South Shore Drive. The rehabilitation generally includes milling of approximately 2 inches of
pavement surface and re-paving the entire roadway with the new surface. Also included in the
rehabilitation are replacement of severely damaged pavement areas. These areas would be
totally reconstructed. Replacement or damaged or severely settled curb and gutter. Drain tile
and storm sewer improvements are also proposed in the South Shore Drive, South Shore Court
area. Specifically by the townhomes. Sanitary sewer manhole adjustments are also included in
the project to reduce the amount of inflow. Surface water draining to our sanitary sewer system.
And then also we are proposing to place new curb and gutter along Hill Street in the South Shore
Court area.
Todd Gerhardt: Just want to interrupt you for one second. Can you pull the mic up under the
podium so everybody can hear you a little better.
Paul Oehme: Absolutely. I'll try to talk a little bit louder.
Mayor Furlong: You can bend down a little bit if you like.
Paul Oehme: Alright. The project, we have had several neighborhood meetings. The first one
th
with the residents was on November 6 of last year. We have had a public hearing for the
nd
project which was in January 22 this year, and we also recently had another neighborhood
meeting in May when we knew what the final assessment amounts were. For tonight's
assessment hearing, 169 notices have been sent out. Any issues that the City Council wishes to
discuss regarding the project, the financing, is appropriate during the public hearing or anytime.
Public testimony should be received for the project. The property owners should be reminded
they must file a written objection with the city either prior to or during the public hearing.
Objections after the public hearing are invalid. At this time staff has not received any written
notice of assessment appeals. The assessment amounts are proposed using the city assessment
practice of assessing 40% of the street improvements back to the benefiting properties. The
assessment practices are basically based on the benefit to the properties and are a per unit basis.
For example say front footage or appraised value of a particular property is not considered into
5
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
the consideration for the assessment amount. The assessments were broken up into
neighborhoods and project areas. The Derby Drive, Pleasant View area. The proposed
assessment amount for that area is $1,290.06. Bighorn Drive area is $1,141.59. South Shore
Drive, South Shore Court is proposed at $1,221.61. And then the Hill Street area is broken out
separately because they were receiving a benefit for the new curb and their proposed assessment
is $1,590.27. And the assessments were proposed at 8 years at 6% interest. The project costs,
total project cost right now is at $546,908.37 and you can see the break out. The amount of the
total assessment proposed is $212,612.30. At this time I stand for questions and just request that
a public hearing be open. Or assessment hearing.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this point? Okay. Then let's move on.
We'll open up the public hearing on this matter and invite interested parties to come forward and
address the council, or ask questions for staff to respond to.
Greg Drozdek: Hi. My name is Greg Drozdek. I live at 7743 South Shore Drive. The area
affected would be, so there's a South Shore Drive. South Shore Court area and the area in
question would be right here. This is south on South Lake Lotus Townhome Associations and
the gentleman had mentioned that appraised value of the houses was not included in the
assessment cost. But I feel that that is unfair to the residents of our South Lake Lotus
Townhome Association area. If anybody's ever been in that area, you can see that most of the
houses around there are probably you know $400,000 to a million dollar houses. We have our
$200,000 townhouses with basically one entrance from South Shore Drive into our area. So I'm
basically here to speak on behalf of the 14 units within my townhome association. I agree that
the project does need to happen. You know the roads are getting pretty beat up. I just feel like
the assessment that we're being offered is not in conjunction with the assessment that's being
placed upon the other properties in the area. Again, appraisal value is not included within this
but I just want to be on record to state that moving forward, that fiscal liabilities within our area
is different from the area around us. I had a conversation with Tom Workman, a colleague of
your's just recently. He's a neighbor right behind me and he was rather amazed that I was, that
he's getting the same assessment amount as the people within the units of our townhouse. He
was going to stop by here and I had asked him if it's okay if I brought his comment up to the
council. Basically I'll read what I had written down here. Makes it easier. My objection is to
the amount being assessed to the residents of South Lotus Villas. I agree that this project needs
to happen but do not feel that the lots in South Lotus Villas should pay the same amount as other
beneficiaries of the project. The purpose of this report is to outline why I feel this assessment is
unfair to the townhouse residents of the South Lake Lotus neighborhood. My objection here is
not to try to sideline the project. I believe it needs to happen, but I feel consideration should be
made to the residents of South Lotus Villas considering the demographic and financial viability
of the area surrounding us. Another point of consideration is direct benefit. Most of the homes
affected by this project get a direct curbside benefit while South Lotus Villas does not. The
driveway at South Lotus Villas also requires the same type of repair as the rest of the
surrounding streets. This project will only prove to devalue our property and perhaps the
property surrounding us by creating a lack of neighborhood synergy. What I mean by that is,
basically if you see this map here. Look at it again there. This one gives you a little bit better.
So here's the area in question. South Lotus. Here's South Shore Court. And then basically these
roads here, kind of like Hill Street. I had asked about that and they're getting a higher
6
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
assessment due to you know, not meeting the city standards of 20 foot roads and the 50 foot
setback so I completely understand that. But we only have this one little entryway and
technically if you could do a U turn here, we'd only have to use about a block of that road. And I
feel that if anything having our area looking different than the rest of the neighborhood is not
going to be beneficial to anybody. It's kind of like having a car in somebody's front yard with no
tires on it. You know what does that do for the rest of the value of the neighborhood, so that's
where my appeal comes in. Some of the facts I mentioned. There's 14 units in the South Lotus
Villas, so we have 14 areas of tax paying citizens. You know we're all upstanding members of
the community, although not as affluent as some of the others directly surrounding us. There's a
single point of entry from South Shore Drive to our townhouse community. The houses around
the neighborhood are you know $400,000 to a million dollar houses for the most part. New
roads will make our driveway or cul-de-sac look out of place for the rest of the neighborhood.
And I heard from one of the city engineers that the assessment can only be made if there's an
increase in home value that offsets the assessment amount. I don't know how true that statement
was but that's what I heard. And I feel that if anything this is going to degrade the value of our
property and possibly the property around us. I've also attached an estimate from Gary Harms
because I know being that it is a private drive, I'm not expecting the city to fix our driveway, but
I got an estimate from him as to how much it would cost to bring it up to par with the rest of the
neighborhood, and it's a rather large amount. He said if he came out at the same time as doing it,
as doing the rest of the project, it would be around $28,760. which amongst 14 units around
$2,000 some a piece. Amount assessed and really to tell you the truth, most people in my
townhouse community probably can't afford that kind of money. We had a roof project not too
long ago. It was kind of tough to come up with those funds. Then I also attached the aerial view
of the affected area as well as the aerial view with the townhouses in question and the roads
visible. So basically I'm not really expecting to win this battle. I'm just coming here to be on
record stating that in future assessments, or possibly if there's anything we can do with this
assessment, considering the valuation of our property, the direct benefit, if there's anything we
can do for this assessment it'd be wonderful to try to offset the cost because we'd like to be able
to do our own driveway on our own. And if there's nothing we can do at this time, I would just
like to be on record as far as any future assessments to maybe take the valuation of the property
within the neighborhood into consideration. What I'd actually see as being the most fair way to
do it would be maybe our buildings be assessed as a single unit as opposed to each individual
unit in the townhouse complex.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Thank you. Mr. Oehme, any comments? Maybe just discuss a
little bit the assessment practice how, and you could have done to your staff report but how the
different assessments come up. Based upon the city's historical practice for these types of
projects. How we've ended up where we are and other ones that we've looked at and why we
haven't pursued those historically.
Paul Oehme: Sure, yeah. We have to follow what state statute, Minnesota Statute 429 and the
statute does not allow us to look at property values, as I understand it, as being a component in
deciding what the assessed value will be. Our practice here is to try to do it as fair as we can.
There's no assessment practice out there that is perfect. Some cities do it per front footage.
Others do it, you know several, there are other different ways. This is the practice that we settled
on that we had felt allows for the most consistency and the, a good fair practice to implement for
7
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
properties. When you look at a townhome situation like we have here in South Shore Court, yeah
there is a private street adjacent to that abuts the road, but you know staff feels that there is a
definite benefit for those property owners to, to their value, to have a nice, new, newer street that
they can access and based upon what we've seen in the past, there is a market value that, or
benefit, direct benefit to those property owners. The gentleman just stood up and he had
received a quote from the contractor that potentially will be doing this project and a range of
$28,000. Now if you break that up between 14 units, about $3,000 a piece. That's about a new
driveway for a single family residential property owner, or there about's. I mean we consider
private driveways more or less an extension of people's private driveways so, I mean no matter if
you live in a single family unit or a townhouse, you still have to pay for the private access to
your property so I think there is some consistency there between what we're doing with the
townhouses and single family units.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any other comments regarding this particular assessment?
Steve Donen: Steve Donen, 7341 Frontier Trail. I'm not in the South Shore area so I don't have
any comments about that but I had an opportunity here to say something about, when you're
talking about roads you're looking at for the year. Laredo Drive is like my car is going to fail
prematurely because of Laredo Drive. I don't know how that one doesn't end up on the list this
year.
Todd Gerhardt: Next year.
Paul Oehme: It's on next year.
Steve Donen: Okay good, thank you. Now I have another comment, and this is more from a
future designs of cities and discussions around water infiltration and stuff, and I'd like to see us,
the idea of putting curbs on Hill Street will only direct the water into some drain and into Lotus
Lake, versus today as you know, it kind of goes into the yards and into their, into that large area
down below and it gets infiltrated before it hits the lake. I would like to suggest that maybe the
curb, other ways are not used on Hill Street and that maybe some infiltration opportunities exist
there or a better design versus just putting curbs and sewers in.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Mr. Oehme, with regard to the proposed changes to Hill Street with
regards to storm water management in particular, what is included in the plan?
Paul Oehme: We are, I think we are replacing a catch basin that's currently there. We are
directing the storm water into those catch basins. We do, there is limited resources for any
infiltration or ponding out in this area, but we have had comments from the property owners out
on Hill Street that you know we need to do something different with their access and drainage
out there because it is a fairly flat road. So we're trying to address the drainage particularly off
the properties under this situation.
Mayor Furlong: Did we look at anything with regard to improving, either reducing rate or
improving quality off that stretch? What options might be available.
8
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Paul Oehme: No. I mean the only option that we potentially would have is included in an
environmental manhole at this time or maybe a sump manhole. There is really no right-of-way
or easements that we can, that I'm aware of, that we can create our normal storm water pond for
rate and…
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Mayor Furlong: And I know, I'm going to say this, if we do something with regard to increasing
storm water management opportunities, that does not affect the assessments at all, is that correct
understanding?
Paul Oehme: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: So this would be covered out of city funds available for storm water
management. Ms. Haak, any comments or additional thoughts?
Lori Haak: I would say that Hill Street is fairly tight with respect to the roadway and you know
the other improvements that the city is doing in there, so I would say that in order to do
something as Mr. Donen suggested would be very difficult. Very difficult and without
additional, probably without additional right-of-way, and I haven't seen exactly how much right-
of-way we have there but I believe without additional right-of-way it would be impossible so.
Paul Oehme: There is no additional right-of-way out there. We actually had a, get an easement
from a property owner to encroach on their property just for construction purposes at this time so
in terms of any other water quality improvements, to try to put in their existing right-of-way,
there is no opportunities out there.
Mayor Furlong: In terms of ponding or something.
Paul Oehme: Right. Exactly.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. Probably the only thing that we probably could do
there is to work with the existing neighbors to do some lakescaping or rain gardens on private
properties, that they would have to take responsibility for or give us an easement over. Based on
the soil types that we have in Chanhassen, we haven't had a lot of success or haven't seen a lot of
rain gardens that would work in scenarios like this so the best approach would be to try to work
with property owners to either put some lakescaping in or some other type of filtration prior to
going into the lake. But that would mean for private property owners to give up their back yards
to some extent.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Okay, any other comments or comments as part of the
public hearing.
Vicki Frazier: Vicki Frazier, 610 Bighorn Drive. I'm just formally appealing the proposed
assessment. I don't think we should pay for it at all. We have one of the highest tax rates in the
9
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
whole Twin Cities and I don't think anybody should have to pay for the taxes we pay. So I'm just
formally appealing.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Vicki Frazier: Do I need to turn this in?
Todd Gerhardt: I'll take it.
Vicki Frazier: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, anyone else? Is it continuation or new information? Okay, quickly.
Greg Drozdek: First of all, as you know, you guys are aware, I'm in charge of, or one of Lotus
Lake Clean Water Organization and I think that we might be able to work together with the
property owners and maybe help the situation out so we should do that and I'll be glad to grab,
get that group together and see if there's any ideas we can do, so that's a great suggestion. And
then secondly, there is a house for sale that would be a great pond.
Mayor Furlong: It's not your's is it? Thank you. Anyone else wishing to comment as part of the
public hearing here? And again as a reminder, anyone that would receive, or is proposed to
receive an assessment, we need to have your written objection in before the public hearing is
closed, so this would be the last call for that. Anybody else wishing to make public comment on
this item? Okay seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. The
public hearing was closed.
Mayor Furlong: Okay the public hearing is closed. I guess at this point any follow up comments
or questions from the council to staff on any items raised or the scope of the project or any other
things?
Councilwoman Ernst: Just a quick question for Mr. Oehme. I think you had some quote up
there for the assessment and I don't recall what those were, and I didn't recall seeing them in my
packet. I'm sure they were in there but I didn't see them.
Paul Oehme: The proposed assessment amounts?
Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah.
Paul Oehme: They're right here. These.
10
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Councilwoman Ernst: So this, but did we go out for a bid on these? Did we receive other bids
so that we had a comparison?
Paul Oehme: Absolutely.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay.
Paul Oehme: This is the assessment amounts are based on the lowest responsible bidder and
that's the next item on your agenda.
Councilwoman Ernst: How many bids did we get on?
Paul Oehme: We had 8 bids from the receipt.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Paul, real quick, would you go over again just about the assessments
for, or our procedure for assessments for townhouses and the higher density units in a residential
neighborhood.
Paul Oehme: Sure. We do have an assessment practice. It's not a policy that we follow but we,
the practice states that we assess based on unit basis so everybody's assessed at the same rate no
matter what, I mean if they access off the road that's proposed to be improved upon. It's not
based upon traffic.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Or lots.
Paul Oehme: Yeah, or property values or how big your lot size is. It's just based upon if you're
using the street, you're proposed to be assessed for the improvements. Just for the streets section.
Councilwoman Ernst: And you said that there was a statute that really dictated our practices on
this? What was that?
Paul Oehme: We follow the Minnesota State Statute 429. Our City Attorney can go into more
detail if he likes.
Roger Knutson: As much detail as you want but. Your real estate taxes as you know are based
on valuation. It's your classification set by the city, by the state and then it's your valuation and
your levy and you turn it together and that's what comes out. Special assessments under Chapter
429 cannot be based on the valuation of the parcels. It isn't like your real estate taxes. It's based
on benefit and nothing else. So in this case, the finding is by staff in your recommendation is to
find that these properties have been benefited to the extent of the assessment. Now if you
consider that whether you're in an expensive home or a not so expensive home, the trip
generation and the wear and tear on your use of the street is about the same. Typical single
family home would generate about 10 trips a day, and that's true whether it's a million dollar
home or a $200,000 home. So that's the basis for it.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: How do we assess apartment buildings?
11
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Paul Oehme: I don't think we ever assessed an apartment building in the city before. We'd have
to look into that. I don't, that's not part of our assessment description at all right now so.
Greg Drozdek: A question though. As far as our townhomes are concerned, most of those
places are single people, maybe 1 or 2 people…whereas some of the larger houses around the
area can have 2, 3 kids that drive cars. They've got boats and trailers on there. You know so as
far as the traffic generation, that's my objection…
Roger Knutson: Mayor, members of the council. There is a, I don't know what the correct term
is. The treatise published by the Engineer's Council on average trip generation by land use type
and some you say the average trip generated by, trips generated by a single family home are 10.
10 point something. It doesn't mean that it necessarily applies to you. You may have more or
less. You may be in a big home and have a retired couple who rarely leaves the home you know.
We can't go into that level of detail so we use averages.
Mayor Furlong: The foundational principle under 429 though is that the amount assessed cannot
exceed the value of the benefit received. Is that correct?
Roger Knutson: That's correct. You cannot assess more than the increase in the value caused by
the improvement.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions at this point for staff? Do we want to at this point
move on and handle both of the, question for council here. Should we go on, this is the first of
two parts of this. Should we go on and get the information with regard to the bid and consider
the engineer estimates. So why don't we go ahead with item (b) on the agenda. 2(b) for
consideration of awarding the contract.
th
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor. Bids were received on, for this project, on March 30 at 10:00
and we did receive 8 bids. The lowest responsible bidder was GMH Asphalt Construction with
the bid amount of $428,356.75. The bid was substantially lower actually than the feasibility
study that was produced by our consultant. At the time of the feasibility study it was anticipated
that oil and fuel costs would be significantly higher than they were in 2006. That did not turn out
to be. That also, they are significantly higher but we have received comments back from the
contractor that there's limited work out there, just based upon the housing market at this time so
we did receive several more bids than we had anticipated. GMH Asphalt Construction was the
contractor for last year's project, if you recall the Lake Susan Drive project, and Chanhassen
Hills street. Lake Ann Park project and their work has been satisfactory and…
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? And on the project last year, how was
their customer service level or their quickness to respond when issues were raised?
Paul Oehme: Yeah we did not have that big of an issue with them. They were very responsive
when they were told they had to clean up an area or get better access to a property owner. They
were fairly responsive to those issues. They did come out on Saturday I remember one time
about some drainage issues. Trying to get to get access to a driveway so they were fine.
12
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Mayor Furlong: Were they timely in terms of keeping to the schedule?
Paul Oehme: Yep. We did stay within the scope of the project last year. The budget and the
contract was completed in it's allotted time.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Thank you. Any questions? Other questions for staff. Why don't we
go ahead then and proceed with comments or thoughts by members of the council on both items
presented before us here. One is consideration of adopting the assessment roll for the various
projects and 2, awarding the contract. Councilwoman Tjornhom, your thoughts.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well I think there's two seasons, like I said before. There's winter
and road construction and assessment hearings I guess is the third season. No one likes it but it
all comes to us at some point when we live in Chanhassen I too will someday be getting my
assessment for my street and so while it's not the most pleasant part of the job, I think we got
some good bids and I think it's a worthwhile thing to be doing in our town and so I say let's move
forward.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: Well I think actually having 8 bids is a pretty competitive process to go
through and I'm glad to see that we had as many bidders as we did on this project and also to
know that we, that all houses, no matter what the cost is and what the value is of the house, is all
included in the assessment as all being the same because everyone uses the street. So I'm glad to
see that we did our homework on this and I would recommend that we move forward with it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I, with regard to the awarding the contract, certainly going to
be comfortable doing that given the number of bids and the values received. We are gaining
some benefit from, in this case, from the low housing market. Slow housing market, and once in
a while it's nice to be on the benefiting side of market trends. With regard to the assessments,
and this is always an issue as was mentioned earlier. We have over the years, my understanding,
involvement even prior to being on the council is looked at and have continued to do it over the
last few years, looked at all the different options on how assessments could occur. To the extent
that the assessment is limited to an amount less than or equal to value received, how can we best
do that? We've looked at front footage. We looked at acreage. We've looked at number of
driveways. I don't think we've looked at occupants, but I mean you can get down to a lot of
different ways but the bottom line is, is there a benefit being received? With regard to property
taxes covering it, which was also raised earlier this evening, that has been raised as well. The
assessment policy has property taxes covering 60% of the road, street costs and the assessment is
only 40%. So the property taxes are actually picking up over 50% of the street project. Now to
the extent that there is storm water issues or utility issues, and here there may be some minor
ones because of the nature of the project, those are also picked up through various funds that the
city has so the assessments are really only limited essentially, and maybe corrected here but my
limited understanding it's what you see. The curbs. The asphalt. That part that adds value. To
the extent that while the statute obviously doesn't, from what we've heard tonight, doesn't allow
us to assess based on property values, and for reasons stated I think that's reasonable. The other
13
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
philosophical argument is that, if benefit is being received from the property, then should all
property taxers pay for that benefit to that private property owner, and I think most would say no.
That if there's benefit being received by the private property owner, the property owner should
cover that cost. My sense is, and this has been a number of times that we've been through it and
to Councilwoman Tjornhom's point, it seems like we go through these on a regular basis. But
each and every time we come back to saying is what we're doing fair and reasonable? Is it
balanced? Is it fair to all? And my sense is it continues to be fair given the circumstances of
what we see. The allocation seems to be fair. The dollar amounts, going back to that, recalling
what some of the assessments were in prior years on a per house basis, is even less so we're
actually seeing lower assessments this time around than, in dollar amounts than we saw a number
of years ago even with the changes in petroleum prices so clearly we're benefiting from that. The
city's benefiting from our portion and so this is the right time to do these streets in terms of the
market cost for doing that. I'm comfortable going forward with what's been proposed and
recommended by staff. It's always good to have these challenges. I enjoy it because you know
are we doing the right thing. Are there other things we should be considering and time again we
come right back to what we're doing seems to be fair and as fair as we can get given the public
process and given the issue and matter before us so. I'm comfortable going forward and at this
time, unless there are other comments, would someone like to make, we have two motions in the
packet. Motions 2(a) and 2(b). If someone would like to make those motions. Or if there's
additional comments by members of the council.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, you can make it as one motion.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Can we wrap it up as one? Okay. I make the motion that we
approve the assessment roll for 2007 street improvement projects and that we accept the bid.
That we accept and awarding bid to a contract holder of GMH Asphalt Corporation in the
amount of $428,356.75.
Mayor Furlong: Adopt the resolution.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Adopt the resolution, yes for the 2007 street rehabilitation project.
That was too big of a number.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Ernst: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Greg Drozdek: …before you vote?
Mayor Furlong: Not at this time sir, I'm sorry. Thank you though. Any other discussion on
this?
14
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Resolution #2007-32: Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded
that the City Council approve the assessment roll for the 2007 street improvement project
#07-02 and adopt a resolution for assessments. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. Councilman Litsey recused himself from the vote.
Resolution #2007-33: Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded
that the City Council approve the resolution accepting the bid and awarding a contract to
GMH Asphalt Corporation in the amount of $428,356.75 for the 2007 Street Rehabilitation
Project 07-02. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0.
Councilman Litsey recused himself from the vote.
REQUEST FOR ON-SALE 3.2 BEER LICENSE, HALLA GREEN GOLF COURSE, 495
PIONEER TRAIL.
Laurie Hokkanen: The item before you is a request for a 3.2 beer license. The applicant is the
Halla Greens Golf Course located at 495 Pioneer Trail, as the mayor said. Law enforcement did
conduct the required background investigation and found nothing that would prohibit the
issuance of this license. It was also reviewed by the city attorney and so we do, staff
recommends approval. You are required to hold a public hearing before considering approval of
the selected items.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Seeing none, we'll proceed with opening
of the public hearing at this point and invite all interested parties to come forward and address
the council on this matter.
Boyd Peterson: Yeah, this is Boyd Peterson, 9860 Pioneer Circle. My property adjoins the
second fairway of this golf course and personally I've got a good working relationship with the
golf course…but when I first was kind of concerned about it, the bottom line is there's been two
individuals that have urinated back behind my pole barn and one was a young kid and one was a
middle aged guy. I have no problem with that you know if that's going to happen but the deal I
got is, you know we're in a residential area and it seems like every time you sell alcohol,
everybody wants to sell alcohol. Okay. We've got to generate more money by alcohol. We've
got a sport and there's a lot of kids that golf there, this and that, but there's alcohol okay. I don't
know when the golfers drink, hopefully when they're done and they go somewhere else. But just
as I told my daughter, she said dad, you know there's all these DWI laws. There's this. There's
that but everywhere you go they sell you alcohol and then you've got to drive somewhere to go
home or whatever, so my biggest deal is what is society doing? It's just our biggest problem
seems to be alcohol but yet every place wants to sell it. And you know if this passes, which we
all know it will because the neighbor sells it. That neighbor sells it so why can't I sell it? And
that's just how it's going to be. It's fairly obviously so there's ain't no stopping that but if there's
alcohol selling permit is…for them golf course, let's just put a little clause in it because the next
step is, let's be open longer so we can sell more into the night. I want to, I'd like to see
something on the clause if this gets passed, which it probably will, that there never, ever will be
lights put up on the driving range as long as this is allowed. Period. And sign here. Because
that's just the next step is going to be 24 hours a day over there and.
15
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Mayor Furlong: And with regard to hours of operations.
Boyd Peterson: Yeah that'd be, when are they going to be able to sell the beer you know?
What's the access to the kids that are going to be there all the time? There's stuff always going
on there.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Let's get some responses to those questions because I'm sure others may
have the similar question.
Kate Aanenson: There is restrictions on the hours of operation for the golf course itself so I
guess I'd ask for the city attorney's opinion on as far as if the golf course is operational, if that
would also assume that the club house would be non-operational at the same hours?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: So I think it's sunset.
Mayor Furlong: And those were as part of the conditional use permit allowing the golf course at
the beginning.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: And I remember talked long and hard about defining hours.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Many discussions regarding sunset.
Mayor Furlong: Right.
Kate Aanenson: Correct, and I just want to make one other note for clarification that's not in
here is that the building doesn't have occupancy yet. There's still some code issues to be
resolved so they cannot get the liquor until those are resolved also. Affecting the lot. It's not
really for it but just to put in there.
Mayor Furlong: Approval tonight, if it goes forward would be.
Kate Aanenson: Is contingent upon.
Mayor Furlong: Contingent upon occupancy.
Kate Aanenson: Getting Certificate of Occupancy, that's correct.
Councilman Litsey: So the beer sales are tied, they can sell beer tied to the club house hours of
operation?
Kate Aanenson: That's what the city attorney just said.
16
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Councilman Litsey: Yeah, so it can't stay open all night.
Mayor Furlong: It's state statute.
Roger Knutson: It's because of the conditional use permit that limits the hours of operation of
the club. Since you can't be open, there's no ability to sell when you're not open.
Councilman Litsey: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: I think the issue of lights on the driving range was also brought up. It's
probably a little bit outside the scope of the issue related to granting the liquor license but I
believe that was also discussed at the time of the continued use. Or conditional use.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. No lights.
Mayor Furlong: And those were restricted as a condition?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So that would have to, for either of those to change, hours of operation
or the lighting or any of the other petitions associated with that conditional use permit. For any
of that to change it would have to go back through the public planning process, which would
include public hearings at the Planning Commission and coming back to the council as well.
Okay. Anyone else wishing to comment at the public hearing with regard to this matter? Please
come forward at this time. Okay seeing nobody, without objection we'll close the public hearing
and bring it back to council. Any discussion on council with regard to this matter?
Councilman Litsey: I had a question on Bluff Creek. The other golf course. They have a 3.2
also?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. And so does the RSS also has a 3.2. The city code was amended a few
years ago to allow golf courses to have a 3.2 license.
Councilman Litsey: So it's consistent with the code that was adopted?
Kate Aanenson: It's consistent with what the other ones have.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions or comments?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: You know Kate, this has just jogged my memory. I think I was on
the Planning Commission. Did this come through while I was on Planning Commission before?
This golf course the first time it came through.
Kate Aanenson: I believe so.
17
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Because I believe there was some questions about how they were
going to handle people not using the proper facilities when they're golfing and I thought we had
come to some sort of resolution with that. That there was going to be something somewhere or,
because it was so long ago I don't…how we had resolved that problem.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I guess it's a self policing issue. I can follow up on that but there's
restrooms on the facility.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But port-a-potties or something come to mind because that was a
condition that was going to be.
Todd Gerhardt: They have those now. My guess is that they would be removed once the club
house opens and use the indoor facilities at that time.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. That's one of the issues that's unresolved on the building.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. …golf courses and how they handle that sort of issue I guess.
Councilman Litsey: Issues in the field.
Councilwoman Ernst: Well don't we have code that would deal with that?
Todd Gerhardt: Usually on a golf course you'll have portable toilets throughout the 18 holes.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. And that's not the case on the Halla?
Kate Aanenson: Well you're really not that far from them. It's just a convenience issue I guess.
Councilman Litsey: Is there any way we could suggest that or?
Kate Aanenson: We can just notify the owner that that's been brought to our attention. Just a
policing. There is a manager on site so just bring it to their attention.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Because…private property owner has that kind of nuisance.
Mayor Furlong: Right. Okay. Any other questions? If not is there a motion to approve?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Motion to approve.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Litsey: I'll second that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
18
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Councilwoman Ernst: I'm sorry. The only thing that I would really like to say is to the
gentleman's point earlier, I can imagine how frustrating that would be. I will say however that
we try to keep government out of trying to put restrictions on property owners and how they run
their business and so on and so forth so, but definitely I think that your concerns need to be
addressed and I have a feeling they will be going forward so.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other discussion? If not there's been a motion made and
seconded to approve the application.
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council
approve the request for an on-sale 3.2 beer license for Halla Greens Golf Course contingent
upon receipt of the license fee and liquor liability insurance that meets minimum state
requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
REQUEST FOR ON-SALE INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE, HIGH TIMBERS
TH
LOUNGE, 591 WEST 78 STREET, HIGH TIMBERS LOUNGE, LLC.
Laurie Hokkanen: Alright, as you said this is a request for a license for an on-sale intoxicating
liquor for the High Timber Lounge. The High Timber Lounge currently has this type of liquor
license. They are anticipating new ownership and this approval would grant that, this liquor
license to the new ownership upon closing of that property. Law enforcement did the required
background checks and the city attorney reviewed the application and found no reason that it
should not be issued and a public hearing is required to be held before your consideration of
approval.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Before we move on with this. Mr. Knutson there was a comment
made on the prior item that the motion should be contingent upon the Certificate of Occupancy.
Kate Aanenson: Well I'm saying it is.
Mayor Furlong: Is that imbedded.
Kate Aanenson: …I just wanted to point out for the record. There's a member in the audience
here, just for their edification of that.
Mayor Furlong: The fact that we did not bring that up with the motion to approve.
Kate Aanenson: It's still covered in the license.
Roger Knutson: It's taken care of because they can't occupy the building so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. So back to this one now. Any questions for staff? On this
matter. It's a change of ownership so therefore a new application for a liquor license needs to be
made.
Laurie Hokkanen: Correct.
19
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. At this point we'll open up the public hearing and invite any
interested parties to come forward and address the council on this matter. Okay. Anyone?
Seeing nobody then without objection we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to council
for discussion. Any discussion on this item?
Councilman Litsey: Pretty straight forward.
Mayor Furlong: Seeing none, is there a motion to approve?
Councilman Litsey: So moved.
Councilwoman Ernst: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Second Councilwoman Ernst? Thank you. Any discussion on the motion?
Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council approve
the request for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license from High Timber Lounge, LLC
contingent upon receipt of the license fee and liquor liability insurance that meets
minimum state requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with
a vote of 4 to 0.
ND
1(e). THE PRESERVE AT BLUFF CREEK 2 ADDITION:
1) FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
2) APPROVAL OF PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT
CONTRACT.
Mayor Furlong: Is Ms. Lloyd still here? Oh, there you are. You wanted to discuss this. This
would be the time for you to come forward.
Debbie Lloyd: As I said, first of all you received my emails regarding the setback along the
boulevard. I guess the question I have, were not state funds sought for that boulevard? MSA
funds?
Mayor Furlong: Was it Bluff Creek Boulevard?
Debbie Lloyd: (Yes).
Mayor Furlong: Any questions? I think the answer is yes. Yeah.
Debbie Lloyd: So it is a collector and you only got, the state defined as a collector. Code clearly
states 50 foot setback. I mean that wasn't in the staff report. That's a shortcoming of the staff
report. Clearly the 40 foot was relative to the buffer for the wetland. For the protected zone.
The other issue is, and there is, there's one built home. There's a foundation going in. There's
another lot that doesn't look like it's going to have adequate space next to the model. I mean
there's another lot that's questionable. The one with the foundation going in, I asked about how
20
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
that was going to be configured because it looks like it's going to have a huge wall and a
driveway to back up into this garage and it doesn't look like there's even adequate space for that.
Let me grab something. The development contract. The opening. Right to proceed. Within the
plat or land to be platted the developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove
trees, etc.. I was appalled. I drove by and saw all these mature oaks. I don't know if you drove
by. They're just cut. They're not in Phase I. They're in the secondary bluff protected zone. I
mean I was just like appalled. So is this what happens? So you send out a message saying
they're not doing things right and they go and take care of and get rid of everything so that they
can proceed? And I didn't have time to really study what's before you tonight but it looks to me
like there were like 13 lots that they want approval for, but they want to grade everything.
Everything. What if more lots don't come in for a long time? We've disturbed all that earth for
something that may not take place. And the two, replacing these mature trees. Think about it. 2
to 1. What kind of penalty is that? If that's the kind of penalty that's leveled. Why wouldn't
anyone go in and clear their land? I mean I just, these are not the kind of you know standards I
think our city should live up to. And the responses to my emails were nothing but to me a
deterrent, a smoke like dig a little more. Dig a little more til we have time to get this through.
That's how I felt about it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Ms. Aanenson, I guess with regard to items raised by Ms. Lloyd.
Debbie Lloyd: And I'd like you to point out where the corridor is.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. As far as the other issues raised, I've responded to those twice and I don't
have all the information in front to respond to those. I'll just talk about the trees. I'll step back
and look at the whole AUAR area. So this is the 600 acres that we studied. So this is the site
that the Rottlund Homes, the Preserve. This is where the road stops approximately right here. If
you look at where the trees are on, can you zoom in on that just a pinch more? Just a little
tighter. That's good. Thank you. If you look at what we did on the project for this, this was
buildable. We saved all those trees. We saved this is the lot line here is not all of this. We
saved all these trees and we'll be saving those. If you look at what's on here, on a bigger scale,
what we showed to be graded, this was an original preliminary plat. I've got this, this is Lyman
Boulevard. Maybe you can now back out a little bit. This is the area of grading. Those trees
were to go out. The trees that were saved are over here. Down in here and then in the primary.
There's 20 acres of the primary zone. The sewer line did go a portion of the primary zone. They
were required, I don't have the preliminary plat in front of me. I didn't know how much detail
you were going to get into tonight. But I brought this down in case there was a question
regarding the plat itself. There is a tree replacement plan for the project. Again the way our
ordinance works is based on a canopy coverage, there is canopy there and they are required to…
replace trees in that area. Yes there were trees to come down there but if you look at the acreage
of trees we've preserved overall, it's significant and we've taken the Planning Commission down
there to show them what we've done. We've crossed the creek once and I think we've done a
very good job of trying to preserve trees. On every project there's going to be trees going down.
Now is this part of Phase I? They worked with engineering to, they have a grading plan for the
entire site to work that to mobilize, to get that, and I don't know if Paul wants to comment on that
at all but to do the grading of the entire site because they will be building this trail with this plat.
The trail that crosses the creek.
21
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry which? Could you show me that?
Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry. The trail, I'm sorry.
Mayor Furlong: Hit the table please, thank you.
Kate Aanenson: Okay. So this trail will be built this year. They're building that right now.
They've sent in the pictures for the crossing of the creek, so there's a bridge structure here that
will cross the creek. They're building that this year. That's why they wanted to grade the entire
site. Get in there and they worked that out with engineering. There's security in place. Again
following the grading plan that was approved for the entire site. So nothing has been changed on
that. They're following the plan so.
Mayor Furlong: I guess one of the questions I heard was they're grading within the area that,
they're grading, taking out trees prior to getting the second addition approved. Are you saying
that the grading plan was approved at the beginning for the entire site irrespective of when they
proceeded with the plans and specs.
Kate Aanenson: I'll let Paul answer that question.
Paul Oehme: Well yeah. In the preliminary plat phase we didn't put that, the grading plan for
the whole development all 2-3 phases of it and that was reviewed and we did approve of that on
that design. The developer has requested that mass grading be taken place. It is more beneficial
we feel for the entire site to be graded at one time instead of piecemealing it together because of
the…erosion control issues that happen with…there's less intrusive to the existing properties so
you get most of the grading done and then come back…so there is a lot of benefit in doing mass
grading project up front versus doing it separately down the road.
Mayor Furlong: Is this the first time we've done that or have we done that historically?
Paul Oehme: No, we've done it before too.
Mayor Furlong: Whole Town & Country.
Kate Aanenson: Lake Harrison, yeah. Again they are grading down in the secondary zone
because that's where the trail is going, on top of the sewer pipe. Again consistent with what
we've already approved so. So we're monitoring that, and.
Councilman Litsey: Wouldn't there be more erosion concerns though if the site's completely
graded than if?
Kate Aanenson: They have to establish seed and the like to the whole area so.
Councilman Litsey: Do they do that?
22
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Todd Gerhardt: You want to grade the site completely so you have natural drainage that would
go with the new development you know. When you stop you start getting erosion of your road
beds and gullies in areas that shouldn't be there and your water's going to be re-directed out with
the grading plan. That's why we get a grading plan so we can direct the water ultimately where
it's supposed to go at the end of the development. Now in this case they had two phases. Graded
the first phase. That kind of comes to a hill and it stopped there. Then as you go down towards
Lyman, it makes sense that you want to grade the rest of that all the way down to Lyman so you
don't have it all going to the ditch. So you can redirect it to the ponds and get it pre-treated
before it goes into Bluff Creek.
Paul Oehme: The next phase of this project too, we're trying to balance this site out with
material right now, is the cut phase of the development. The next phase of the development so
they would eventually have to stockpile material someplace until they use it for the next
additional phases. It doesn't make sense to stockpile like that in piles…because you will have
erosion control problems…
Todd Gerhardt: Kate, could you talk a little bit about the setback from Bluff Creek Boulevard?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. I mean I've addressed that. There's a difference of opinion on the, where
we look for the 50 foot and I've addressed and I don't have all that in front of me to go through
that in detail and the specific lots. I did look at that but I'd have to go back and look at my notes
on that so.
Mayor Furlong: Have they done anything at this point that's inconsistent with…
Kate Aanenson: With what they've done, no.
Mayor Furlong: What was approved.
Kate Aanenson: No. No. There's a difference of opinion on that and I don't want to get into a,
I've been doing this for a long time. 7 years going back and forth on this. Getting a legal
opinion on when I say something so I'd just as soon have everything in writing.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: In my own protection. So back to this grading, I just want a further
clarification. I did pass out for the developer, I did mention in my staff report that we did ask for
a trail head here. The bridge will be crossing. This road here will actually be a public street as it
goes across to the industrial park on the other Degler parcel. So in looking at that we felt that
probably wouldn't be the best place for homes to be placed so they actually dedicated, we
compensated them for not building but with this plat they will be dedicating the right-of-way and
again to get the bridge to go across, so that is where, in my staff report I put in a dollar amount.
The applicant did request that we put in the development contract which makes sense, so I did
23
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
make that amendment and I'll give that to the developer and Mrs. Lloyd too, but that's the
compensation that we owe them in the amount of $216,709. to make sure that's clear so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you.
Debbie Lloyd: I do want to make one thing clear. Those trees you know, grading I'm not expect
in that but I can tell you those trees were not scheduled to go down in Phase I for anything I've
read. Yeah, tree preservation or whatever. Those trees should have gone down after approval of
Phase II. If you approve their removal.
Mayor Furlong: And I think what we just heard this evening, and Mr. Oehme if I heard
something wrong tell me, that there's a, the sequencing of the plats is independent of the grading
plan. And that the grading plan was approved for the entire area, or in this case it sounds like
there were two phases but the grading plan had been priorly approved in it's entirety, is that
correct?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, I mean there's a, staff has looked at the grading plan when it came at
preliminary plat time and I know council had reviewed that grading plan and that's the plan
that…
Councilman Litsey: And that's the portion of the project that the cutting of the trees would be
covered under?
Paul Oehme: Yeah, absolutely. I mean…
Councilman Litsey: Obviously you can't grade if you don't have the trees down.
Paul Oehme: Exactly. With the grading plan that was approved, that's the only way…
Councilman Litsey: And those trees ultimately would have come down at some point in time for
the project. Okay, thanks.
Mary Born: I'm Mary Born, 7199 Frontier Trail but my question is don't they need the
contractor must have a permit to do the work, correct?
Kate Aanenson: Yes. He has to have a letter of credit, which he does.
Mary Born: Is the contractor holding a permit that's been approved by the City?
Paul Oehme: For what portion?
Mary Born: The portion that's been done so far.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
24
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Paul Oehme: Yeah. I mean he has acquired the MPS permits. Erosion control to look at all the
issues associated with the grading.
Mary Born: So he had signed and returned permits from the City?
Todd Gerhardt: That's correct.
Mary Born: And is it normal to do that before we're at the next phase? The Phase II.
Mayor Furlong: Again what I'm hearing tonight is that the aspects of the whole project are
somewhat independent in terms of timing. If there's a different way of saying that.
Kate Aanenson: We have projects where they grade the entire site and we did that actually K.
Hovnanian graded beyond their site limits for Phase I, just because they wanted to balance it so
the goal is to have security in place and approved for the grading. That doesn't mean you're
going to final plat that. Final plat is different legal applications as far as showing lots of record
and those sort of things and that, there's typically an assessment running with the county. The
grading sometimes is just the prep part of the site to get it ready so there's no utilities in or
anything because once you do that part of it, that's a different assessment part so.
Mayor Furlong: Have they started doing anything that they weren't allowed to do based upon
their approvals received at the time?
Paul Oehme: Not that…
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Rick Dorsey: Rick Dorsey, 1551 Lyman Boulevard and I have a different issue. It's dealing
with the grading but I appreciate the staff having in there that there's some talk of a retaining wall
and it's kind of the first I've heard of it. It's not going to be approved or whatever at this time but
my question or concern is, if they do the grading right now for Phase III, which the wall isn't
approved for, a 12 foot wall in two stages, it kind of makes it mandatory that that wall will go in
and staff hasn't approved, or you know isn't recommending it I believe for. Okay, go ahead.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. This is the end of the 12 lots are in this area here. The applicant would
like to put a retaining wall. It's approximately 12 feet. They're adjoining Mr. Dorsey's property
here. If you look at the change in grade. If you look at the change in grade, you're at 931 so
you're at the top of the wall. So what it is, is for these homes are looking into the wall so you
won't have a wall on your side because you're pretty much at grade on your side. So these
people have protection from whatever happens on your side.
Rick Dorsey: But I guess my question is, if they start grading now and you haven't approved that
wall, can they do that? I mean it's forcing that there will be a wall there without an approval.
Kate Aanenson: It's my understanding engineering did give approval for that wall.
25
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Rick Dorsey: When? I guess that was my question. This is the first I've heard of it.
Kate Aanenson: As part of the grading. It's on the preliminary plans too so.
Rick Dorsey: There was no wall because I got a copy of the grading plan and there was no wall.
There's a swale. I mean I'm just asking a question because that means there's a fence that I'd
have to put up if you have a 12 foot wall, on my property, and it drops 12 feet to the other side,
you're certainly going to have to have a fence going up and I'm unaware of it.
Kate Aanenson: Well they would have to put the fence on their side.
Rick Dorsey: Well still, I mean I'm just unaware of it. It was never even brought up so I just
wanted to ask the question. Is that part of Phase III and they haven't got you know approval for
Phase III and you're not recommending it at this point, it's just a timing issue is what I'm asking.
Kate Aanenson: This is an engineering report that got put in. What it says is, if we knew it was
to happen on this site, this is part of engineering so this isn't my comments. This is a retaining
wall. There may be an opportunity to reduce the height of the wall or eliminate the property to
the east. We're asking that it be, staff is recommending that the wall be deleted from Phase II
improvements and if necessary constructed in future phases. We don't know, they're trying to
protect their buffer from whatever happens on your side so.
Rick Dorsey: Well I'm thinking too that if they grade it now and they make it, so there's a 12
foot drop and I have farm equipment running along the edge of it, at this point in time you know
how is their safety protected?
Kate Aanenson: They'd have to put a fence up on it.
Rick Dorsey: Well to me, could I ask that we just come back to this, just so we have a chance to
look at the plan because we really have not seen this plan with the wall in it. This is the first I've
seen of it. So that's what I would ask tonight, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. How is the wall fitting into the second addition? Final plat that's being
requested and the development contract.
Kate Aanenson: It's really engineering's issue so I'll let Paul answer that.
Mayor Furlong: I'll rephrase the question. I pose the previous question.
Paul Oehme: There's 15 lots…would be just to get the wall built at this time because of the
grading that's going on on the site. It's better to do the wall construction and to construct some of
this infrastructure at this time just so we don't have to go back in and do that. Just rough in…so
you know the developer is requesting that that portion of the infrastructure be built at this time.
We reviewed that portion and did not feel that it's, would negatively impact the surrounding
property owners. We've done walls on other developments within the city as well so staff
wasn't…
26
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and council, if I could just add onto what Paul is saying. They're mass
grading the rest of the second part of the site, all the way down to Lyman and they're coming in
and making a 12 foot cut through that hill. You can't leave the 12 foot cut exposed. You have to
put in a retaining wall to hold that back.
Rick Dorsey: What I'm saying is if they're going to do that though, that was my question…
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, I just asked the applicant. They would like to put the wall in now
because just for what the city manager just said. They've got a 12 foot cut. And that's, they're
trying to protect their property for their residents, similar if you come in with your project and
you're going to want to do the same thing to maximize or to work out through your development
so, they'll have to put a fence on the top, I'm assuming for security. For protection.
Todd Gerhardt: Our ordinance allows that you have to put up fence on anything that's over 4
feet in height. You have to put the retaining wall in as you're cutting the property. You can't
leave a 12 foot cut exposed without fence and you're going to see erosion. That wall's going to
come tumbling down, or the 12 foot earth berm that's left that's on Mr. Dorsey's property is going
to erode into the Ryland property. They have to put the wall up with the grading.
Rick Dorsey: Again I would, I guess I'd like to have it held off until we have a chance to look at
this. You know Phase II is coming to I believe just this row of houses right here. About 3 acres
of land. Right across here. And the wall is beyond that into Phase III. I understand they want to
do it. I understand all that. It's just the first we've seen of it. I would like at least the opportunity
to look at it because it does impact our property. The original plan had swales along the edge.
This isn't what that is so, it's different than what was originally approved at the preliminary plat.
This isn't the final plat for Phase III at this point in time. It's for Phase II so they're doing work
in Phase III that's not been approved yet. So for my perspective I just would like time to at least
review it before you approve it.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Now that we're granting it, how much time would you like?
Rick Dorsey: I just need to talk with somebody and you know this is the first I've seen of it so.
A reasonable amount of time and just be able to address any issues.
Mayor Furlong: I guess the question I have with regard to the, what was approved. I mean why
the reason for the change?
Todd Gerhardt: The applicant's here this evening, if he can come up and explain.
Mayor Furlong: Would you like to address that?
Matt Dusett: I'm Matt Dusett with Ryland Homes. Looking at it, looking back at the old plans
myself but I believe this wall's been on there ever since. Like I said I'd have to look at it. It's not
something we just threw in there because Alyson Fauske, the Assistant City Engineer did
question me on that and this point and you know we were working on it, and I'm not opposed to
27
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
lessening the wall. Like I said right now I'm trying to protect my homeowners who are building
back there with, we don't know what's going to go on behind here. The way I see it, it's a 12 foot
buffer for the homeowners and on top of that you know where our landscape plan shows trees on
top of there you know, and then obviously the fence which like you said is mandatory that you
put a fence along any higher than 4 feet. So like I said, I'd have to look back in the initial plans
but as far as I remember, that wall has always been there so I don't know if it got highlighted a
little darker in this plan but you know like I said, it's always been there.
Kate Aanenson: Matt, can we wait 2 weeks on the wall and then just approve the second phase
and then come back with the wall?
Matt Dusett: You bet. I mean we can, my whole goal is to not to hold up you know, I'd like to,
we can not even touch this letter right now and leave it the way it is. We can decide what we're
going to do with it at that point because Alyson did come up with a site plan that we could work
on possibly not putting that wall in there but like I said at this point I'd rather spend the money
on protecting my homeowner's back yards for what's going to go in on the property over here so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so with regard to what's before us this evening, there's a portion that
sounds like there'd be agreement to delay for a couple weeks.
Kate Aanenson: Approving a step in phase but then eliminate the, just hold off on any retaining
walls until 2 more.
Rick Dorsey: …excavation?
Matt Dusett: And cut. I mean we've got.
Rick Dorsey: Excavation people here?
Matt Dusett: We've got some 10 foot, 12 foot cuts in here to begin with grading. I have to talk
but you know we've got a lot of work grading to do in here as it is so if we can get it resolved in
the next couple weeks, I don't see it being a problem. We're not going to get buckets in the
ground anytime real soon. We got delayed. We've done the permits for demo'ing the house so,
right now we're waiting on that and I'm not in a huge rush to get going on it so if, we have plenty
of work to be doing over here. If we can get going on over here whenever, then discuss it at
another point.
Mayor Furlong: I guess the question is, do we need to approve everything under 1(e), anything
under 1(e) tonight or would 2 weeks, do you need some things approved tonight to keep going
over the next 2 weeks or could this wait for 2 weeks?
Kate Aanenson: Well I think it'd be nice to get the development contract put in place.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, could I suggest that you approve the development contingent upon
meeting Mr. Dorsey's satisfaction with the wall with the contractor. We don't have to bring it
back then.
28
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Roger Knutson: We would if they don't agree.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, if you don't agree then we'll bring it back or if there's an issue, we would
bring it back and then you'd have to hold off the grading for 2 weeks if you can't come to
resolution on what's going on.
Rick Dorsey: So just to make it clear, my biggest concern is if you make the cut, then you make
the wall necessary. And so.
Mayor Furlong: Over the next 2 weeks he's going to stay out of that area.
Rick Dorsey: Okay, so there's no approval being done for grading then? Is that what you're
saying?
Mayor Furlong: No. That's not what I'm hearing.
Rick Dorsey: Okay. That's what I'm trying to understand. If you give the approval to grade, you
give the approval to grade. Based on their plan.
Councilman Litsey: I think they'll hold off on excavation there and the wall in that area.
Mayor Furlong: In that area until they can review alternatives that have been presented by the
city staff.
Rick Dorsey: If it should be determined as they said it may be an option to not put a wall in
there in the first place, which the city doesn't like walls anyway is my, having been to many of
these meetings. We'd just as soon avoid them if we can.
Councilwoman Ernst: Just from what I heard, we have to put, we have to put something there.
Rick Dorsey: No, because the grading has changed. There never was a 12 foot cut there. There
was a blending of the two properties together previously.
Mayor Furlong: Here's what I would suggest. If there is a way that we can approve this tonight,
because it sounds like the, it will be appropriate to do that, contingent upon some review of this
small item, this particular item. Small's the wrong word but this particular item over the next 2
weeks.
Rick Dorsey: Mayor excuse me, I'm not sure you're getting my point. If you approve, from the
way I understand this, if you approve this plan and it's allowing them to go forward and do their
mass grading, which I'm not saying I disapprove of but the plan they're showing here is not the
plan that was originally approved by the council. The plan that was originally approved did not
have a 12 foot cut along the property line. It blended together. If I had put houses in there
someday, they're at the same level. Now I'm looking at them that these are going to be 12 feet
higher than these and they're going to have a fence. That's something totally new to me and
29
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
something you didn't approve. So by approving it tonight you're saying yes you are approving it,
is my interpretation of it.
Mayor Furlong: I heard a recommendation that we approve it contingent upon over the next 2
weeks the property owners getting together, looking at options with city staff and coming
forward if it cannot be agreed to during that time, then it would come back to us in 2 weeks. Is
that? Does that address the issues?
Rick Dorsey: What's the difference between that and not approving it for the 2 weeks then? I
guess that's what I'm asking. If we don't come to an agreement where are we at if we approved
it?
Mayor Furlong: And I asked that question, if we could wait for 2 weeks and what I was told is
that there's a lot to do outside of this area that can be started during that period.
Rick Dorsey: Yeah, no I know I understand that and what I'm saying is the grade has to match
up and they've got a plan, okay. And if you're saying go ahead with this part of the plan, they
can't not do what's on this plan the way that it's currently here. No matter if I disagree or not
because how are they going to change it? They can't in the middle of their property have houses
at different levels. That won't happen. Roads won't match up.
Mayor Furlong: Well I guess I'll ask the applicant again, if you could address the question.
Rick Dorsey: Can you wait for 2 weeks until we meet? Before you get approval tonight.
Matt Dusett: Like I said our biggest thing, and part of this development agreement is we want to
get rolling on this trail. We want to get that in for the city before fall and part of this agreement
is getting you know, rolling forward with that. Getting the bridge in. Donating your parcel of
land over on the northwest corner of it and that's more or less that portion of it. I'm not concern
right away, like I said for this area. I can leave this whole area along for right now. One note, if
we didn't, if this wall wasn't on here, looking at these existing grades, we would have lowered
these houses 11 to 13 feet, which would have completely changed every single road in here if
this wasn't the plan that was approved so I'm almost 99.9 percent sure this is the exact same plan
that was approved. It's just not feasible for design…
Rick Dorsey: Just so you know, I picked up a plan 3 weeks ago from Alyson in the engineering
department and it's not the same. So I'll bring it in tomorrow if staff would like to see what I've
got.
Mayor Furlong: I think what we need to do is find a way to move forward here and address your
concerns and at the same time moving forward for the developer with regard to the property
owner so, what I'm hearing is sir, and I'm sorry I didn't catch your name.
Matt Dusett: Matt.
30
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Mayor Furlong: Matt. Thank you. For that, by approving this tonight any grading would not
preclude any changes in this area, if that's what is required.
Matt Dusett: Yeah…
Mayor Furlong: Changes on this plan.
Matt Dusett: The eastern half.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So Mr. Knutson, do you want to provide us with some language on a
contingency that would address what we're trying to do here.
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.)
Roger Knutson: …grading issues and the wall issue, I'll let someone else describe it. The
eastern part of the property. Eastern part?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Roger Knutson: Or Phase III, whatever it is. Phase III. Working out satisfactory to city staff
and Mr. Dorsey. And if that can't be worked out, to be brought back for your ultimate resolution
in 2 weeks.
Councilwoman Ernst: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. So that motion is made and by doing so you're adopting the
motion for 1(e) on the recommended motion for 1(e) subject to that language?
Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on this motion? Given that it was pulled from the consent
agenda, I think, I don't know that we need extensive discussion but I want to make sure anyone
on the council has an opportunity to discuss any other issues.
Councilman Litsey: I just thought this seems consistent with the way you've handled past
projects and I see no reason to doubt staff's recommendations and how they want to handle it so
I'm comfortable I guess.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. So the motion has been made with the conditions
recommended subject to the issues recommended by Mr. Knutson.
31
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
nd
approve the final plat for The Preserve at Bluff Creek 2 Addition, plans and
specifications and the development contract subject to the applicant, city staff and Mr.
Dorsey working out a satisfactory resolution to the grading and retaining wall issues in
Phase III. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
1(g). APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE REGARDING WETLAND
BUFFERS AND SETBACKS.
Councilman Litsey: Yes Mayor, I asked this to be pulled from the consent agenda. I just wanted
to make a few comments prior to us acting on this amendment. And I jotted some things down
because this has been an ongoing discussion and a lot of factors have come into play and coming
to where we're at tonight but the past several years the City of Chanhassen has been working on
updating it's 1994 Surface Water Management Plan and the purpose of this plan is to provide for
the protection and management of the city's wetlands and associated natural resources. The
Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan was recommended for approval by the
th
Planning Commission on August 15 of 2006 and it was subsequently adopted by the City
Council on August 28, 2006. And for interested people the details of that plan are available on
the city's web site. Revisions to the city code were needed to achieve the goals set forth in the
Second Generation Surface Water Management Plan. The Planning Commission held a public
th
hearing on December 5 of 2006 to review the suggested code revisions and receive public
comments if there were any. There were no public comments at that meeting so the Planning
Commission moved ahead and voted 7-0 is my understanding at that meeting recommending the
proposed code revisions. These code revisions came before the City Council at it's meeting on
January 8, 2007 and this actually happened to be my first meeting as a newly elected council
member. By this time two significant issues, referred to I guess the sticking points, had surfaced
regarding the recommended code revisions from the Planning Commission. The one issue had to
deal with impervious surface definition and the other issue had to do with wetland classifications
along with their corresponding buffer setback requirements. Since the first City Council meeting
in January, a considerable amount of time has been spent by both staff, which I very much
appreciate and members of this council trying to address these two issues and I know it's been a
struggle and I appreciate everyone hanging in there on this. The matter before the City Council
this evening has to do with revisions to the city code regarding wetland regulations. Included in
this are wetland classifications and their corresponding buffer setback requirements. Prior to
rd
City Council work session held on April 23 I was receptive to several proposed modifications
supported by staff regarding wetland classifications and their corresponding buffer setback
requirements. These modifications include creating an additional wetland classification called
outstanding for the more vulnerable wetlands. Reducing the buffer and setback requirements for
the preserve wetland classification. This was in consideration of the additional protections being
provided under the newly created outstanding classification. And then reducing the setback
requirements for accessory structures in all wetland classifications other than outstanding,
therefore affording homeowners more use of their property. What I'm not prepared to support
this evening however the additional changes recommended by Councilmember Peterson and
rd
received favorable by the remainder of the City Council at the work session held on April 23.
These changes reduced both the buffer and setback requirements for Manage 1, 2 and 3 wetlands
which made up the bulk of the wetlands in the city. I did not feel there was ample justification
32
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
for this reduction which is inconsistent with the Planning Commission recommendations,
previous staff recommendations and the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
Guidelines. I understand that there needs to be a reasonable balance between property rights and
environmental protection. With this proposed change however the pendulum is swung too far in
my opinion at the expense of the environment. In my opinion this needlessly compromises
Chanhassen's long distinguished history of wetland protection. I strongly encourage my
colleagues on the City Council to vote against this change. Thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Okay, there were requests by one resident to speak this evening on
this so Mr. Donen, if you'd like to make some comments.
Steve Donen: Yes I would, I'm Steve Donen, 7341 Frontier Trail. I couldn't agree more. A
couple things though that you said this is a public comment in December with certain provisions
associated with that. In other words it went open for public comment but we didn't know what
all the changes to the wetlands would be, so the public couldn't come in and comment on, if the
language was changing or if requirements were for their land, so along with what you're saying,
which I agree 100% with, publicly I haven't seen what's being recommended. In the staff report,
which is an excellent report, don't get me wrong. I mean you did a nice job, it came out on
Thursday. Okay? And we're trying to vote on this tonight as an ordinance approval. I think
we're too early, and I could bring up a lot of other discussions but I think we need to step back.
Get public opinion on the new recommendations. What does all the different wetlands look like?
What does the picture of that look like in front of us? And let us comment on that whole picture,
okay. So that's what I’m kind of saying. Along with my issues, I did a lot of research on these
setbacks and did a lot of looking and I just can't say it better than what you said. I mean we are
going to the far extremes to the wrong side of this one. I would argue that structure setbacks
aren't as important because between the structure setback and the wetland is just grass normally
anyway and that doesn't do much for us, okay. But that buffer zone is critical and that's the key,
and there are lots of studies out there that would tell that even 25 feet isn't enough, okay. But I
know Lori did a lot of good work. She does and when she came out with, when the group came
out with their original proposal of the 30 feet for Manage 1, 25 feet for Manage 2, and 20 feet,
I'm sure they did a lot of work to get that. Dropping that back now is to me, telling me there's
something wrong and that's what really my intention is, is when staff recommends it and I know
she didn't just come up with that with just out of the clear blue, okay. So another reason for I
think we should delay this. Bring it back open for what does the picture look like? Put all the
new recommendations in for the different wetland classifications look like on a map and the
whole ordinance and then take another look at it with public input and then come back and vote
on it again. So that's where I'm coming from.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I guess Ms. Haak, any comments? Question's been raised
about the process. You throw out any thoughts or comments and also a comparison of what's
being considered here this evening versus our current ordinance.
Lori Haak: I think the process that we followed is real consistent with what we've used for other
ordinance amendments. Certainly you know there was a public hearing and changes were made
but I believe the council has the ability to make those changes at that level. So you know, it's
really a matter of the council's preference as I see it. In making additional comment periods
33
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
available. I do think that we've, at least staff has had several conversations. I believe I've
included those in your packets with respect to developers and the development community
regarding the proposed changes and we've been following this but I didn't receive any comments
with regard to the current staff report so I guess I can't speak to their concerns here.
Mayor Furlong: Fair enough, thank you.
Mary Born: Mary Born from 7199 Frontier Trail and I concur with both Bryan Litsey from the
council member and Mr. Donen and I think Bryan summed it up pretty well when he said that we
would be needlessly compromising our standards. As a country and, as a country we're trying to
educate our young people to preserve our resources and to make things better and that we've
been in the wrong direction. We need to go in the right direction and it seems to me by changing
these buffer zones that we would be taking a big step backwards. We live on Lotus Lake and we
have a Lotus Lake Clean Water organization which is 120 paid members who live both on and
off the lake and we are attempting to build up some funds through the watershed district to try to
improve the quality of Lotus Lake and to hear at the same time that we're trying to make this
improvement and putting so much effort into our project, to hear that the other hand, that the
standards would be lowered I think would defeat the purpose that we're working towards.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Alright, thank you. Appreciate those comments. Any other
thoughts or comments from council members?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well I'm trying to find the graph where we were before we changed
everything, because I think there's some confusion. Not your recommendation but…
Mayor Furlong: Yep.
Lori Haak: I think this is the table that you're referencing that I've included in just about every
other staff report that we've had on this issue. Is that the one? Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, so these are
the current ordinance requirements. The existing wetland classification system. We have three
classes of wetlands. Pristine, which is 1%, Natural, which is 30 and Ag/Urban which is 69%.
Currently the minimum buffer required for ag/urban is 16 1/2 and as you can see here, this is
69% of our wetlands, so that's the majority, and there's a 40 foot setback there. Now there's a 20
foot, or I'm sorry buffer requirement for natural wetlands with a 40 foot setback. And on the
pristine, which again is 1%, you have a 50 foot average setback and that's the only limit is
actually still an average with the 35 foot minimum buffer and then a 50 foot setback. So those
are the current standards as they are in place today.
Councilwoman Ernst: And can you show that in comparison to what we're talking about today?
Lori Haak: Sure. The recommendation that's in your staff report is this lower table here. Again
there's a couple more wetlands that we found, but I'm sorry Councilman Litsey mentioned the
outstanding classification. Again that's 1% of the wetlands. There would be a 50 foot buffer
requirement. A 50 foot structure setback for principle structures and a 50 foot accessory
structure setback which is consistent with current ordinance, and this is where we start getting
into the changes. We have actually instead of 3 classifications for wetlands we would have 5.
34
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
The outstanding, the preserve, manage 1, 2 and 3 with outstanding being the least impacted and
Manage 3 being the most degraded, which is why the buffer requirements change between those
classes. The major difference that you can see here with the changes, and this has been pointed
out by several council members and the mayor during our work sessions which obviously the
public haven't been privy to this part of the discussion but a good part of the discussion was that
the bulk of the wetlands are moving from the lowest classification to the next lowest
classification. So in essence in this area you have 69% of the wetlands that have a 16 1/2 foot
buffer requirement and in this scenario 55% have the Manage 2, which is a 20 foot buffer, and
actually some of those, because even if you add these two numbers together, assuming that those
would compromise, or I'm sorry compose the ag/urban wetlands, you'd still have an additional
9%. I'm not so good at math but that one I can do. We'd still have an additional 9% or about
half of these wetlands, right? Well it would have a 25 foot buffer, so there is some increase here
still with the proposed system, and that was visited in the staff report.
Councilwoman Ernst: So bottom line Lori, what we were looking at trying to do with this,
because we've visited this and revisited and revisited it, and what we're trying to do is to allow
people to utilize their property but not to compromise anything with the environment. And
bottom line, you came, or staff came back with recommendations that we have in front of us
today and that's what, my plan is that we're going to go with.
Councilman Litsey: But that's where I beg to differ. Staff didn't, this got brought back to the
council tonight because of recommendations from Councilmember Peterson. Staff's
recommendation was not this. Now it's before us but their recommendations all along have been
consistent, and this is not it. This is less than what was originally proposed by staff and we
asked staff to do a general acceptable range comparing other communities, correct? This is on
the low end of that comparable study.
Councilwoman Ernst: Actually I think this was on the low end.
Councilman Litsey: Well I have the chart in front of me now. It doesn't meet the BWSR
standards. It's not consistent with that. The general acceptable range is on the low end of that.
Mayor Furlong: I think, and I don't have that in front of me Councilman Litsey but I know we
considered that and looked at that as well as the other comparison to what other cities have
throughout the area and there's a lot of, a lot of other things. Any other questions or comments?
Councilman Litsey: I just say that. Let me take Manage 3 which was used a lot for
comparisons. Under this proposal before us tonight the buffer zone, 16.5 and on the general
acceptable range, 6.5 is the low end. 25 was on the high end so we are on the very low end.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Litsey: And correct me if, staff can correct me if I'm wrong but that's how I'm
reading these charts.
35
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Todd Gerhardt: Do you have that chart Lori that you can put up to show the ranges from the
other communities?
Lori Haak: Yeah.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But there were a couple charts you had, not just those. We had
several communities, not just that one chart.
Lori Haak: I think yeah, there's two different charts.
Mayor Furlong: There's lots of charts.
Lori Haak: Yeah.
Councilman Litsey: We've been inundated.
Lori Haak: We've had this discussion before. I believe this is the chart that Councilman Litsey
was discussing. This is the general acceptable range that was brought back to you in one of the
last work sessions. These are the standards, the BWSR draft management standards that were
referenced and this was the staff recommendation at that time. This is the wetland buffer and
setback requirements in other communities and so that was the other major chart that we looked
at during the work sessions.
Councilman Litsey: But just to be clear that comparison you just showed us is your
recommendation. Recommendations previous to this. The new recommendations are less than
what's on the chart.
Lori Haak: Yeah, this was from staff's report of April 23, 2007.
Councilman Litsey: Exactly.
Mayor Furlong: I think with regard, Councilman Litsey with regard to the buffer size or the,
what's on that chart there, the generally acceptable range for the buffer portion of the buffer
setback combination for Manage 1, 2, and 3. The buffers being proposed…for that range. The
setback portion, if we can go back to that screen, I think shows ranges anywhere from 0 up to 40.
So there, and what's in front of us tonight is 30. So you know as I look at this, and as anytime
you look at it, I think it was brought up, I mean whenever you're trying to, there are a lot of
moving parts and moving pieces that we're looking at so.
Councilman Litsey: I agree but correct me if I'm wrong. There's people in the audience more
knowledgeable than I am but buffers are probably the most critical part of the process here.
Setbacks, we didn't compare apples to apples. We didn't look at lot sizes between cities. We
didn't look at all the variables that exist. We took one snapshot and looked at that and when you
do statistical analysis, that doesn't create a valid picture for you and so, and I think we've helped
property owners a lot. I agree with everything that we've done up to this point in terms of
allowing some accessory structures to be closer to that buffer zone and things like that and as
36
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
talked about here by experts better than me, that that doesn't have as great an impact. It's the
buffer zone that creates the real impact on the environment and I'd just like to see us, I don't
think, how many variances do we have a year that come, that people have a dispute with that? I
don't mean to put you on the spot but there just can't be that many or it would stand out like the
assessments earlier on roads and it's not a huge issue for this, the council has to deal with is it? I
mean.
Mayor Furlong: Well I think we did receive some comments from some property owners and
developers perhaps with regard to how important that issue is.
Councilman Litsey: Well developers, I saw that. I don't know about property owners and
developers have a vested interest in it.
Mayor Furlong: Understand.
Councilman Litsey: I mean I'm more concerned about property owners and how they can use
their land and developers have to work, they have to work around that. That's part of the process
and I don't want that compromise. So I'll leave it at that.
Mayor Furlong: I think the, thank you. I think as I left this, and I think it goes back to the
question raised by Councilwoman Tjornhom, and with that chart, I think what we're getting into
when we've got nearly 70% of the current wetlands and their current ordinance have a set, a
buffer, excuse me, of 16 1/2 percent and under this new ordinance we're going to have 5% with
that same level. That tells me we're increasing the buffer over approximately 65% of the
wetlands, just in that area. The other thing that I saw here, and Councilman Litsey brought it up,
was the, what I view as an incentive, which our current ordinance doesn't allow accessory
structures within the setback area. Here and, accessory structures are swing sets or those types of
things. From a use of the backyard, people like to have the swing set generally in the back yard
versus the side yard or the front yard. We have a number of properties in the city, property
owners that are, come up to a wetland. May not have a buffer there or may have a buffer less
than our current, this proposed ordinance, and again which would increase the buffer from our
current, and there's an incentive now for someone if they want to get accessory structures back in
the back yard, the incentive is okay, you've got to put a buffer in place and dedicate the buffer so
this ordinance has the opportunity to create incentives for people to increase buffers on existing
plats, existing developments that doesn't exist right now. That's something that I think is very
important. It's a way to incentivize property owners to try to improve the wetland shoreline, and
to increase buffers. I mean I think what's coming up here when you get it all down is we've got a
balance, and I think you used that word, of balancing the public interest in terms of protecting
and improving our natural resources with the property owners likes and desires for reasonable
use and enjoyment. And any time you're dealing with those types of questions, you're going to
have some differences of opinion and how far should we go? Are we going too far? Are we not
going far enough? I think the other thing I'm hearing here, and getting back to it is, you know
sometimes in St. Paul or Washington D.C. someone proposes a 10% increase in spending and
they end up with a 5% increase and somehow that's a cut because you didn't go all the way to the
10. Well I think you still went up the 5 and we're doing that again for the vast majority of
wetlands, we're increasing that buffer and so I think you know this is not something that is every
37
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
finished. It's something that evolves as cities grow and as information comes out, but overall I
think it's an issue of again, balancing that public interest of protecting and improving our natural
resources with the private property rights of reasonable use and enjoyment and so I think that we
have discussed this, as you said, this was, it first came to the council in January. To Mr. Donen's
comments about going back, I mean if we went back every time council made a change we'd
never get anything done. It's the first time the council gets to look at it after it goes through that
process, and that's why it's very important that people come to the public hearings at the Planning
Commission and participate in the process. So I think here we are in May. We've been dealing
with this since January. It's been well publicized what we're been working on throughout that
time and even to the point that two council meetings ago when this first came to our council, and
I think Councilman Peterson proposed we table it to bring it back to work session, which we did
last time, and there was agreement from the majority of the council to come forward again so my
sense is, unless there's a desire to table or change, that we move forward at this point. But
certainly if there's.
Councilman Litsey: Well I agree that council's done a lot of good things over the last few
months in regards to this and staff has too and it's been a real educational process, so the things
up to this tonight that we've done, outside of this latest, this change that I've alluded to, I think
they're good things and I think they represent actually compromise on my part. I had some
issues with outstanding classification. Whether that should be more or not, and preserve
something. I understand so there's been a give and take. I think we've got a chance here to get it
right and I think your point's well taken that this evolved over time, but I don't think you go from
one extreme to the other if you're going to do it. I think you go in increments then and say, okay
let's try what was proposed by staff and if we find that's too cumbersome on developers or
homeowners or there's a lot of feedback on that, then let's adjust it but you can't go backwards
once you've approved those things and it's, we're talking about the environment here. I think
we're setting a direction for the future and this has become kind of a passion of mine but I just, I
think we stay with staff recommendations. They're learning in this. I think they're guiding us
correctly. The rest of it I agree with so.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Is there any other discussion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I just want to have it spelled out clearly that we are not reducing it,
and I think maybe there's some misunderstanding about that. We're not taking the current
classifications and standards and cutting them. I mean we're adding to them. If you do any
reading of our packets, I think a brief history was is that as a city we were on the cutting edge
way back with our setback and I think we've been a leader every since with protecting our
wetlands and trying to do all we can for our lakes and keep everyone's enjoyment of their
property also in mind and so I, I, when I support this tonight again I'm not cutting back on
setbacks. We are adding to the strict standards we already have in place.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other comments? No? I think we've done with public
comments, unless it's, I mean what is the issue? For what purpose?
Steve Donen from the audience asked to speak publicly again on this item.
38
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Councilman Litsey: I'd like to hear.
Steve Donen: If I can't I can't, but I'd like to.
Mayor Furlong: No, that's fine.
Steve Donen: Steve Donen, 7341 Frontier Trail. Okay. This is what I came here originally to
tell you so here it goes. I represent the Lotus Lake Clean Water Organization. We have 125
voting members from Chanhassen. We're made up of lakeshore owners. We're made up of
watershed, people in the watershed and we're worried about, and we also, people who use Lotus
Lake. We appreciate the effort, as I said earlier, both staff and the council in regards to this
wetland ordinance. We appreciate the efforts that you guys have done. This ordinance gives us
an opportunity to improve our ability to protect our precious natural resources, our wetlands,
which in the end protect our lakes, because wetlands usually drain towards the lake and if they're
in good shape, the lakes are in better shape. Regarding this ordinance tonight, staff made a
recommendation for buffer distance between developments. The City Council has asked them to
reduce them. I understand that this was, they came back with a second go around today, you
still increased over what we did previously. What staff came forward with when they originally
did this was a larger than what you're talking about tonight. Okay, they've done all the studies. I
did the studies too and I would have to say the numbers that came with previously were the
correct numbers, okay. They did a nice job on that, okay. So I'd like to, the structure setbacks
aren't a big deal because they don't affect the water quality. It has less of an impact. It gives
people a nice yard to use and we can put, small structures in to use it but the buffers are the
important thing, okay. I have completed my search of data, as you all know I tend to do that
every now and then. It appears and whether it's in Ohio or Washington or anywhere else, that 25
to 35 feet seems to be around the norm. Okay. There are exceptions. There are lower and there
are higher and sometimes that's because it's a quarter of an acre wetland versus a 300 square
miles of wetland, okay, but in the realm we're talking about 25 to 35 feet. In Ohio for example
they do 75 to 120 feet okay, as their standards and they've done a lot of work on that. A study by
the Minnehaha Watershed District in 2001 showed that anything less than 50 feet seemed to have
minimal affect, okay. So Minnehaha's analysis of this issue said 50 feet was the right answer.
Okay? And I haven't been able to get a copy of that yet. The staff report came out on Thursday
so I haven't had a chance to get a copy of that for that 2001 study, okay. The minimum standards
that you guys talked about in that, and you guys didn't refer to that…okay. The Minnesota
Routine Assessment Method recommends 25 feet for Manage 3. They did this because that's
about the right number. Okay. 16's a low but it seems like the right number. Okay. So we've
got said analysis that says 25 feet's the right answer. I mean it seems like a reasonable answer,
okay. To what's been done in the past. Other places. If you go to your report for example you'll
notice that Woodbury, okay is 25/25. Woodbury's a lot like us. They're a growing community,
okay and they have, and they live close to a big river, okay. And they're 25/25. You look at this
you'll see that Eden Prairie is a 25 foot buffer, okay. See that? Now you can look at Plymouth
and it has 15/10 so I called Plymouth. Guess what? Plymouth's ordinance is 12 years old, okay.
They told me they want to get it updated too. Okay. 25 foot seems like a reasonable approach,
and it was originally the staff recommendation. Okay. We've actually reduced those numbers
from their original recommendation. Not from what we're doing today, by 20%. 20-25%
depending on what your number is, okay. So we have reduced what staff originally
39
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
recommended, okay. For what reason I'm really not sure beyond maybe some developers won't
be able to develop their land. I don't know the details as to why. We get the same thing with
being 25 feet. Somebody wants to build their little structure and they want to increase it 25 feet,
that's good right? So our recommendation, as the Lotus Lake Clean Water Organization, was
either to keep the minimum of 25 feet so they're all 25 feet in those manage areas, or do the
30/25/20, which is what the original staff recommendation was. Okay. Our reduction it might
not seem like very much from that but they are 20 to 25% of the area, okay. Or move 5 feet,
that's 25% of the distance that you moved from the original report. We are recommending again
that we follow the Woodbury recommendations. It's a growing community. Has a lot of
opportunity for growth. We have a lot of opportunity for growth in our community and it's going
to grow. We know it is. It's a wonderful place to live. We have plenty of undeveloped land and
can make these minor modifications with a very low affect on development and growth
opportunities without doing more damage to our wetlands. We do not, again we as a group,
we're not against development. We like development. We just want to do it responsibly. Okay.
I think we can take a little bit, 5 more feet on this thing and be where we want to be. Okay. So
let's reduce the structure setback a third. 300%, okay. That the unusual ones, it doesn't make a
difference but let's get our minimum of 25 feet or do the original staff recommendation.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Any other comments? On this. If not is
there a motion?
Councilwoman Ernst: I have a comment and a motion.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then before you get to your motion, let me make a suggestion so go
ahead.
Councilwoman Ernst: I would just like to thank staff for all their hard work that they've done on
this because I know that they have and I, from staff I've not heard of any negative impacts on the
new recommendations that actually staff is recommending as part of the action tonight. And I
think it also allows our property owners more flexibility at the same time. I think it's a win/win
for everyone and that's actually my comment that I wanted to make before I make the motion.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Just real quick, there were a number of repeated comments and
recommendations so I don't think we need to go into it because a lot of the issues that have been
raised I think through this discussion have also been addressed. The one recommendation I
would make in terms of the motion is, suggest that we consider the, when I get to it here, that we
consider the motion on the ordinance separately from the motion approving the summary
ordinances for publication purposes. So.
Councilwoman Ernst: I'm not sure what you want.
Mayor Furlong: So the first motion would be dealing with the ordinance alone.
Councilwoman Ernst: Oh yeah, that's the one I was on.
Mayor Furlong: Do you have that page? What page number is that?
40
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
Councilwoman Tjornhom: 3 of 3.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Councilwoman Ernst: Make a motion that we adopt the ordinance amending Chapters 1 and 20
of the City Code to bring the code into compliance with the City's Second Generation Surface
Water Management Plan.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion?
Councilman Litsey: I'll just say that if this passes I think it's a poor policy decision that will have
ramifications, future ramifications for this city that are hard to measure but I think they'll be
apparent when it's too late to correct them so I'll leave it at that.
Mayor Furlong: Any other discussion on the motion?
Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approve a motion adopting ordinances amending Chapters 1 and 20 of the City Code to
bring the code into compliance with the City's Second Generation Surface Water
Management Plan. All voted in favor, except Councilman Litsey who opposed, and the
motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1.
Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Is there a motion with regard to approving the summary
ordinances.
Councilwoman Ernst: That we approve the summary ordinances for Chapters 1 and 20 for
publication purposes.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Any discussion?
Councilman Litsey: Want to use this technicality, I can't even say the word, technicality as a
protest. I'll go along with doing this so.
Mayor Furlong: Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approve the summary ordinances for publication purposes amending Chapters 1 and 20 of
41
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
the City Code to bring the code into compliance with the City's Second Generation Surface
Water Management Plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a
vote of 4 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Furlong: Any council presentations? I'd like to extend my thanks and appreciation to
city staff, especially Ms. Haak and others that were out at Lake Ann this weekend. We had a
number of members from city staff. The ones that I'm aware that were there included members
from the planning department, administration department, park and recs. I think we had others
as well so a number of staff volunteering their time. We also had a number of employees and
their families from General Mills come out and plant rain gardens and the plants in the rain
gardens. We've talked a lot about storm water management and some of which came up earlier
this evening. We, oh as our park system develops, especially Lake Ann Park, developed before
there was a lot of the current practices with regards to storm water management. When the city
upgraded and expanded the parking and roads last year, one of the components was to include
rain gardens to help reduce the rate and increase the quality of runoff from the park, from our
own park into Lake Ann and so our staff and volunteers were out there planting hundreds of
plants, and I know they made good progress. They're going to be out there again this Thursday I
understand.
Lori Haak: If I might extend the invitation to the City Council as well as the members of the
public present, as well as those still tuned in on cable channel 8. We will be out planting the
remainder of those plants. We've got about 1,300 in the ground on Saturday and we'll be putting
the remaining about 600 in the ground this coming Thursday evening from, or afternoon to
evening, from 1:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. or the last plant is in the ground. And so anyone who's
interested can certainly contact me. I'd be happy to share some additional details with them.
Mayor Furlong: Good. Thank you for heading up that project and again our thanks to all the
volunteers, whether city staff or the General Mills employees and their families that were out
there en masse working on this project so I thank you. Any other council presentations? No?
Administrative presentations Mr. Gerhardt.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: Well as we're handing out thank you's, I want to thank the mayor. He gave a
presentation to about 20 chamber members last Thursday morning at 7:00 in the morning. It's
called Breakfast with the Chamber and really I call it kind of the State of the City. Updated
those 20 members on what's going on in the city and some future projects. The comp plan
update and did an excellent job. I think he was very well received by those 20 people. You did a
great job and thank you for doing that.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Todd Gerhardt: Second thing is we were going to go meet and talk on hook-up's and some
changes to that. I've asked Jessica to go home due to the hour and that we'll get this on a future
42
City Council Meeting - May 14, 2007
agenda. It's not time sensitive so you know as we move ahead here, I just thought that was a
good decision and thanked her for coming in and you might get a little extra bill there but you
know due to the hour I asked her to go home.
Mayor Furlong: Without objection.
Todd Gerhardt: Thought so.
Councilman Litsey: Second that decision.
Todd Gerhardt: So that's all I had.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt, or other comments?
Councilman Litsey: I'd just like to make one comment. I do appreciate Mayor all the functions
that you have to attend. I never realize how many there were that you attend on our behalf until I
got into this position and our paths have crossed a few times at some of these functions. I do
very much, you do a good job representing the community and very much appreciate that.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions?
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
None.
Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman Litsey seconded to adjourn the City Council
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The
City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m..
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
43