Loading...
CC 2007 09 10 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 10, 2007 Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Litsey, Councilwoman Ernst, Councilwoman Tjornhom, and Councilman Peterson STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Laurie Hokkanen, Greg Sticha, Paul Oehme, and Todd Hoffman PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Chris Sohns Chanhassen PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Furlong: Good evening and welcome to everybody, for those here in the council chambers as well as those watching at home. We're glad you joined us. At this time, without objection, we'll proceed with the agenda as distributed with the council packets and I'd like to move onto the first item on the agenda which is our consent agenda item. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Furlong: At this point looking at it we have 3 items remaining, (a), (c) and (e). Mr. Gerhardt you wanted to separately discuss (c), is that correct? Todd Gerhardt: That's correct Mayor. We just want to make one modification to the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. With that, is there, I guess (a) and (e) are the two remaining. Is everybody okay with those to continue on the consent agenda or is there anyone else here either in the audience or on council who'd like to remove one of those items? Rick Dorsey: Mayor, council members. Rick Dorsey, 1511 Lyman Boulevard. 1(c), I just wanted to make sure it's available for me to speak to. Mayor Furlong: That's fine. Okay, anything else? If not, is there a motion to adopt items 1(a) and (e)? Councilman Litsey: So moved. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? City Council Meeting - September 10, 2007 Councilwoman Ernst: Second. Mayor Furlong: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approval of Minutes. e. Approval of Site Plan Review for Auxiliary Parking, Paisley Park, 7801 Audubon Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Do you want to pick up 1(c) right after visitor presentations? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, I think that's appropriate. Mayor Furlong: That's an unfinished business item. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. ND 1(C). THE PRESERVATION AT BLUFF CREEK 2 ADDITION, PROJECT 07-11: APPROVE CHANGES TO GRADING PLAN. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Oehme, we'll start with your update and then have opportunity for Mr. Dorsey's public comment. Paul Oehme: Sure. Thank you. City Council members, this item is just a request by the developer to modify the existing grading plan as has been previously approved. Approximately 43,000 cubic yards of excess material on site that the engineer did not anticipate. He would like to utilize the existing development to re-grade the property so material would not have to be hauled off site. He has submitted a grading plan and staff has reviewed that grading plan and has gone back and forth on several modifications and the plan before you tonight is we feel the best plan that we can come up with in terms of how to shape the site. The future development so the issue recently has Mr. Dorsey, the property owner to the east has raised some concerns about the grading and some of the touch down points in terms of the road and specifically a retaining wall along and adjacent to the development property. Just for background sake, Ryland Homes did meet with Mr. Dorsey I think back in May of some time and the issue at that time again was the road, the stub road. Mills Road. The elevations and the grade of that street. Mr. Dorsey requested a few modifications to that road and then also the retaining wall previously was about 12 feet high in one section. Mr. Dorsey did not, he can speak to this but he requested that that road, or that that retaining wall be lowered as you may recall under the second phase approval process. The applicant again did meet with him and we're trying to work out an agreement in terms of try to reduce the height of that wall and just recently today we did have a conversation on the phone with Mr. Dorsey and the developer and you know we have initially identified the potential to reduce that wall to under 4 feet. The only issue there is if we can reduce it under 4 2 City Council Meeting - September 10, 2007 feet but we would have to grade into private property. Mr. Dorsey's property to accommodate his request so. Back in May when the developer and Mr. Dorsey did meet, that was originally the idea. Since then there's been some ancillary requests that have been made to the developer that I guess at this time, and the developer can address this but I guess he's not to the point to make additional modifications to his plat and the development based upon the requests of Mr. Dorsey. So at this time the request before you tonight is to change the grading plan as proposed in your packet and basically another change would be to have Mr. Dorsey and the developer work together on reducing the height of that wall for, you know to accommodate both the development and the future development of Mr. Dorsey's property. So if you have any questions regarding that. Mayor Furlong: Okay, any questions for staff at this point? Okay. Alright. Mr. Dorsey, you wanted to make some comments. Rick Dorsey: Mayor, members of the council. I'm here tonight to ask you to table this item until an actual solution is created that we're in agreement to. If you recall back in May of, I think it's th about the 14, the Ryland Group came in and wanted to get a plat approval for Phase II. They also requested to go into Phase III area and do grading. An approval, my understanding was made subject to Ryland and myself coming to an agreement regarding a wall that was not originally in the plan that we saw and to come into an agreement on that so their approval, my understanding was, that it was subject to that. I met with the Ryland people, Mark Sonstegard in rd May, I think it was about the 23 of May and, on the site. I suggested a solution which we agreed to in principle for the retaining wall itself being I would allow him to back grade into my property so that we could reduce that wall down to 4 feet. That was at that point in time a letter was drafted and sent to the city staff. As well it identified another issue that we're concerned with. It was a stub road. Mills Road coming into my property. It happens to come into my property and I don't know if Paul has some maps here he can bring up, put up here. Do you have the big ones so you can show the? The concern is that the stub road comes into my property at the highest point, which definitely will create a problem someday when my property develops in that this road will come into the property. This is the segment we're talking about right here. At the property line is about 938 feet where it comes in. Right, I don't know if you can see here but the contours, there's a knoll here. Flattens out and then drops down and no different than, what we found is no different than on the Ryland development in order to put roads in at a future date, there will be grading issues and we'll likely have to take our grade down the same way that they had to take their's down. In doing so we'll be looking at an elevation of approximately 929, or 25 feet. They're going to come in at this spot and leave it for me at 938. That leaves about a 15 foot drop to 20 foot drop in that area, not knowing exactly what it will be. I guess I have an option of be sarcastic of putting a bridge across. Leaving it there. Putting walls up and having a big bridge go into the property. It is, what it is, it's a knoll that goes straight in a ways and it's a remnant of when they rebuilt Lyman Boulevard back in 1981. They shaved the top of the hill off and used the fill for the road, so there's a remnant there and it drops off to either side. Our feeling is having the road tie in right there really makes it very difficult in the future for us to think about any planned development. Our recommendation was that we try and seek a solution that would provide another location for that road to come into the property, which is something I've actually talked about many times in the past. Preference would be with the rest of their plan would have been to line up with this road here, come in where the elevations down on their 3 City Council Meeting - September 10, 2007 property to about 920 and 932 on our property with the understanding that our's will have to probably be cut down to that same 920 level. Short of that, if you can imagine it, what you're going to see is coming onto my property is to be low and come up to this plateau or where the road's going to come in. Breaking up whatever you could look at there as far as the neighborhood, making it difficult to deal with compared to on other developments that are there. If you remember way back we talked about trying to put a road on the property line so that wouldn't be an issue. That didn't work out so we're at where we are today and so what I would like is in that Phase III is only part of a concept plat, or plan I should say. There's been no final plat for Phase III and Phase II, my understanding again was that it was approved subject to us coming to an agreement and to my knowledge we haven't come to an agreement. So I don't know where the City's at with that. I'd like to know where the City is at with that because I wasn't notified that there was an agreement formally, and if there was the plan that's being presented tonight requests that the walls remain at 7 feet high. The reason why of getting it down to 4 feet is because then there wouldn't have to be a fence on top of it. A safety fence and as well the taller the wall is in the future, if we have to bring our grade down to the same level as their's, you're going to end up with a wall being there someday in the future that's in the back yards of these homes right here that won't disappear. So I've made available land to allow them to grade back into it to try and resolve that. I think we can resolve the wall part of it, so really the area of concern for me is this area right here at this point in time and so with the past history then, we do and then figure out what we're going to do afterwards with what's gone on here. My preference is that we plan what's going to go on and then do it so that as we get into final platting of that area, in that it is not final platted today, there's options available is what my point is. So rather than approving it and moving forward, like we have a solution, I'd prefer to hold off until we do have that solution. Any questions? Mayor Furlong: Yeah, just a quick question. With the, so you're okay with them moving to a 4 foot wall. Your development of a wall there of 4 feet… Rick Dorsey: I'll provide them space to back grade on my property so we can do that for the benefit of the future of the area. Mayor Furlong: Okay, and I think that was one of the issues that we had looked. That the private parties seek a private solution on that. With regards to the stub road, I recall that we talked about that at the time of the preliminary plat. That was one of the issues that you had brought up. As far as the location there. Rick Dorsey: When we were talking about the preliminary plat, what we talked about was a road going along the property line so that we'd have a division between the two properties and we wouldn't necessarily have a road depicting one spot to go into the property. If we would have had a road going along the property line that is here, you could have tied into it at any one of a number of spots. That was what it was and that didn't happen. We're left with one spot. Like I say, the location or choice of that is, was a concept plat, or plan approval. Not a plat approval for Phase III. We have time to look at it. We see that there is a problem with it coming into our property and we'd like to have time to work on that before we keep approving plans and make it so that down the road in the future there's nothing there. I mean I provided solutions, possibilities. You know we'd like to present those to you or somebody to. 4 City Council Meeting - September 10, 2007 Mayor Furlong: Well let me clarify something. I mean there's a difference between a concept plan and preliminary plat, isn't there…help me understand. Make sure we're using the correct terminology. Roger Knutson: I believe there was a preliminary plat approved by this council. Mayor Furlong: And that was for the entire development in different phases? Roger Knutson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Roger Knutson: Mayor, so you know, when you give preliminary plat approval, as you said, it is not a concept approval. Preliminary plat approval says you've granted approval subject to complying with the conditions of that approval. You really don't have the, you really can't go back and redesign the plat, or the council can't force a redesign of the plat after the fact. You've given that approval and that approval sticks. You have the rights to that approval assuming they comply with the conditions of approval. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Rick Dorsey: So if I hear you correctly, I mean that wall was not in the preliminary plat so it shouldn't be there at all? Or is that something that can be negotiated now going forward or, I don't understand that part of it. Roger Knutson: I was referring to the stub street. Rick Dorsey: Okay. Well, the other part was not there. Is that the same application is allowed? Mayor Furlong: I guess that was one of the questions raised. Was it allowed? Roger Knutson: Mayor, at that point it's my understanding that you wanted to work out the details of that wall and you didn't make a final decision on it. Initially you said, developer go and talk to your neighbor and see if you can work something out. That's fine as an initial approach but ultimately if they can't agree, you can't delegate authority to a neighbor to make decisions. You can say try to work it out but if they can't work it out to their mutual satisfaction, then the council has to make a decision on it. Mayor Furlong: But it sounds like on the wall you have, you're okay with the 4 foot and allowing that. Rick Dorsey: I'm willing to work with that if they're willing to work with the other issue that's there I guess. I mean we talked about the whole property line is what we talked about that the grading along the property line because we never saw a grading plan and you know the preliminary grading plan as best I saw was not the same plan that they're working off of now. 5 City Council Meeting - September 10, 2007 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any other questions for Mr. Dorsey at this point? Is a representative from the applicant here? Ryland Homes here. Any comments you'd like to make? Mark Sonstegard: Good evening Mr. Mayor, City Council members. My name's Mark Sonstegard. I'm the Land Development Manager for Ryland Homes. I think just to clarify we've got a little bit of two separate items, yet they're the same item going on right now. Ryland, we've been mass grading the second phase of the Preserve and as they're working through the mass grading of the second phase we found out that we're running long on material. We approached staff. We went through a couple different plans to accommodate the extra material and that's basically the main reason why we're here tonight to address that issue. We worked with Paul and his staff on. Mayor Furlong: Nann could you do the overhead? Excuse me, Nann could you put the overhead camera on? Nann. Thank you. Mark Sonstegard: So basically this document, I've just got a black and white document but shows where the extra fill is going to go. Red is where actually a little bit lower than the original grading plan. Yellow is where we increase the fill 2 feet. Green is 4 feet and then blue is a little bit higher than 4 feet so basically we came to staff looking to help balance off the site. There was a large amount quantity where we didn't want to do a large export, especially on a bunch of new city roads and stuff like that, so we worked with staff on that. And that was the main reason for having this on the City Council agenda tonight. We've stayed within all the city guidelines. We're not asking for any variances on grading or anything like that with this new grading plan. The second item which is addressed in our application were the items that Mr. Dorsey brought up. With the second addition, final plat approval we were also looking for the grading plan approval and it's my understanding that the grading plan was approved with the condition that we work with Mr. Dorsey on this retaining wall issue and I did meet with Mr. Dorsey on site. We've had a number of conversations afterwards. We did agree on the 4 foot wall if we would, if he'd allow us to grade on his property. That seemed like a reasonable consideration. Mr. Dorsey also brought up the stub street and I'm reiterating but I'll just quickly go through it. His ideas were to lower this or even move it in a different location. Ryland already had a preliminary plat approved. We've already got our financing in. Our lot count. You know everything set up where we can't really afford to be moving around our lots for a project like this. So our talks kind of stalled so when we came in with this final draft, the reason the wall's at 7 feet, that's the best I could do on our property. I brought the wall closer to our lots. Brought it down from 12 feet to 7 feet at the highest spot so that's kind of why the wall's at 7 feet. I'm okay with going 4 feet if Mr. Dorsey would let us grade on his property a 3 to 1 slope and then when he develops his property he can tie in in the best area. With regards to the stub street, we've listened to Mr. Dorsey. Moving the stub street down here creates a public street turning onto another public street and going straight across onto a private street. I know staff wasn't in favor of that. Another thing we looked at briefly if Degler Circle would become public all the way around and therefore it would be a stub street. That would be redoing the whole preliminary plat that was already approved, plus Ryland would probably lose a couple lots due to some pinch points through here. Just the economics of that isn't really, would hurt Ryland. They basically are lot cost right now and about $168,000 a lot. If we lost a couple lots, we'd definitely incur that cost 6 City Council Meeting - September 10, 2007 so we prefer to keep this stub street where it was on the preliminary plat approval. I can work with Mr. Dorsey. We've lowered it 2 feet right now. I don't plan on building this until next year. Staff, you know we've had a couple conversations about lowering it even further and that's going to depend on what staff's wants. So if you have any questions on any item, I'd be happy to answer them. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Sonstegard? Mark Sonstegard: If I could add one more thing. We are, again like I mentioned, with our second addition plat approval and our grading approval, we have been grading this whole site. We've been stalled now for about a little over a month working with staff trying to get the project done. Right now the site is, we've got our erosion control and our seed and mulch on it but there's some issues where we really need to get out there to button it up for end of the year, otherwise the site's just going to be a mess and it's erosion and conservation type of issue right now so we'd prefer to get this moved along so we can wrap up grading for this year and then we can develop the next phase next spring. This is one of our better selling communities. We've got a lot of traffic through it. A lot of backlog of buyers that are interested in coming in. I'd like to stay ahead of it. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions? Councilman Litsey: Just a quick one. So the retaining wall issue's been pretty much resolved in terms of building it 7 or 4 depending on whether you're allowed to go on Mr. Dorsey's property or not? Mark Sonstegard: Correct. Councilman Litsey: Okay. And that was the opened ended question that was left from before right? Mark Sonstegard: That's my understanding. Councilman Litsey: Okay. And the stub street issue's kind of come up since then? Mark Sonstegard: Well it's something that Mr. Dorsey did bring up at that meeting and at the time I told him I can't move this street. We've got a preliminary plat approval and you know Mr. Dorsey came up with a bunch of ideas and he showed me some site planning that would redesign the site and I told Mr. Dorsey, this is our preliminary plat. I don't want to change it from here. I'll lower that street as low as I can to help accommodate you but to redo a site plan at this stage is a little too late. Councilman Litsey: So you worked with Mr. Dorsey, staff and your company will work at lowering that stub street best you can? Mark Sonstegard: I'll work with staff and whatever they suggest, I'll do. But to move it to a different location. 7 City Council Meeting - September 10, 2007 Councilman Litsey: Not economically feasible at this point? Mark Sonstegard: Especially if you know the public street coming in right to a private street, I can't change this road into a public street. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Oehme with regard to that. The idea of lowering the grading, it looks like, if I'm looking at this right, the red is already lower than what was originally planned, is that correct? Mark Sonstegard: Yeah, we did lower it a couple feet. Mayor Furlong: Couple feet. Mark Sonstegard: Right now we're still trying to keep all the drainage on our property. So from here the water on the street drains into our storm sewer but we're at a half a percent right now for this street. Mayor Furlong: So there's some limits there. Paul Oehme: Yeah, that's as flat as we want to go unless we were going to drain it onto the adjacent property. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Okay, any other questions? No? Councilwoman Ernst: Just one quick question. Mayor Furlong: Sure. Councilwoman Ernst: With the first option that you were talking about…so you said that you worked with the city on that or is that something that you decided that you couldn't do or did that, was that just something that… Mark Sonstegard: My understanding, and Paul can correct me if I'm wrong, to move this street down here would, it's something staff wasn't recommending because you'd be coming on a public street and you'd go across and right into a private street. Am I explaining it right Paul? Paul Oehme: Right. I mean yeah. That's correct. We do have again a preliminary plat has been approved and this issue, we have discussed where these streets are going to be going in back earlier this year. Last year. Where the public streets should be. Where the private streets should be. You know I think we've got a good project here that they can work so we'd like to keep it, the alignments, private and the public streets where they are in the preliminary plat. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions? Okay, thanks. 8 City Council Meeting - September 10, 2007 Rick Dorsey: Mark, can you just leave that map up… One quick comment where you're talking about public roads going into private roads. I really don't see a difference between what I'm suggesting and what was approved by the staff right here. This is a public road going into a private road. There's absolutely no difference. And the same thing coming here. Public into a private. Here you're turning, you have the option of turning off onto another public road so you know I don't understand that. I didn't understand that the first time around. The other thing I wanted to show is, this is the grading plan that was approved at the time of the approval of the project. As far as there actually was another plan in the packet, if you look at it in the Minutes and the approved plan for grading was only for site number 1. Or Phase number 1 which covered this area. We didn't have a final grade or anything to look at for the balance of the property line so to go and when we talk about the retaining walls, there were other issues along the property line that you're bringing up. The first thing was that it was a different plan if you remember. I said it was a different plan than what I had seen and I said I wanted time to review it because the retaining wall was not in that plan and this is the plan as far as grading that we ever had a chance to see prior to that plan coming in. So when we go back to the time period of looking at this thing, we didn't have a chance to look at those issues when it was planned as a preliminary plat. It wasn't there. It didn't exist. So you know from a standpoint of the neighboring property holder, we asked to see the site grading plans along the property line. That's only fair. We knew that we obviously saw the issue with the retaining wall. When we got in and looked at it we saw that there's going to be a problem with the road coming in at the wrong grade. Further issues that came up that I've got right now deal with this area down here. That wasn't ever in the plan that I remember seeing and having it there but I've got a drainage problem across there. I have a drainage easement of 100 feet across there and the approved plans said that it would remain in effect. The Planning Commission approval said that the plan that was being presented did not in any way encroach or impact on any easements. It wasn't that way when I saw it. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Oehme I guess, Mr. Dorsey's just raised a couple questions. What are you your thoughts on those? The orientation of the streets and grading plan… Paul Oehme: Yeah, we don't have a plan of what's going to go in to the east there. It could be multi-family. Mayor Furlong: You're saying on the Dorsey property? Paul Oehme: On the Dorsey piece. I'm just, it's better to tie those public streets in together into public streets if you don't know exactly how much traffic these roads are going to take in the future so we don't have a plan from Mr. Dorsey addressing, looking at trips. Looking at where this traffic's coming from. Where it could be going. Where it could be coming from so I'm just more comfortable tying public streets into public streets. The issue with the private drainage easement along Lyman Boulevard, I can refer back to the City Attorney but it's been my understanding that's a private matter between the developer and the property owner, or the underlying easement holder. Mayor Furlong: Okay and it...if it was transferred. 9 City Council Meeting - September 10, 2007 Paul Oehme: Right. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then so…complete grading plan at the time of the preliminary plat, that was approved? Paul Oehme: Right. Yeah, from preliminary to final plat, I think some grade changes were made along the lines. I don't know exactly where those drawings that Mr. Dorsey had come from so in every project there are several iterations. We've had several since we went from the first phase to the phases we are right now so there's always, there's always changes. They're always trying to be improved upon what's being presented. What's trying to be, what's being approved so. Mayor Furlong: Okay. But to your knowledge was there a grading plan at the time of the preliminary plat that is consistent with what's being requested here by the, for the change that's before us tonight because of the excess? Paul Oehme: Well, I can't comment on from the preliminary plat versus the plan, the overall grading plan. The balance of that site. Mayor Furlong: There may be changes. Paul Oehme: There may be changes but you know I'd have to refer back to the developer on that but you know what was approved was, you know staff's best effort to get a plan that we think, we're comfortable presenting to the council at the time. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for staff or Mr. Dorsey? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I guess I'm just confused about the whole changing of plans and times. I guess I assume when we approve a plat, it was, that was it. How much leeway do you have to change something once something's been approved? Or how much leeway do they have as a developer do they have to change grading and do things, if it was changed at all. I'm not sure I guess. Paul Oehme: Right. You know we try to be consistent with what was approved at the council level. I mean there has been times been minor changes to developments in the past. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But not huge changes… Paul Oehme: Not huge changes. I can't really comment on Mr. Dorsey's comment on the retaining wall being there or not being there when the final plat was approved so maybe the developer can comment to that issue. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Because that's really hard for me because I don't remember findings and plats and what we approved and the changes of all. 10 City Council Meeting - September 10, 2007 th Rick Dorsey: This map here was dated June 16 because actually the final plat that you approved on May 8, 2006. This is what was available. I tried to get it and it was not released from the city until November 30, 2006 to pass along to a developer. And this is what we got. We were trying to get that information all along for 6 months and did not get it. This is what we got. Their final plan I would have to assume came after that. Paul Oehme: What was approved with the preliminary plat, or the first phase. I mean the plans that you're, that Rick just showed you, that was, were the grading plans that were approved for the first phase. I don't believe we included the overall grading plan for the entire development in that phase. I think there was you know a plan that was out there but it was probably not included in that phase, so. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Then did we, oh I'm sorry. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry. Go ahead. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But did we ever see then those other plans and approve of those plans? Paul Oehme: At preliminary plat time? Councilwoman Tjornhom: And did they change then from what we saw? Justin Larson: I'm Justin Larson. I'm responsible for the plans everybody's looking at here. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Larson if you could state your company affiliation. Justin Larson: Yes, I'm with Westwood Professional Services. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Justin Larson: And the preliminary, unfortunately I didn't bring a copy of the preliminary plat but the application did include a grading plan as well, and I can tell you because I was very closely, probably the one who did all the work on it. That the grading plan didn't deviate much from what you see now in terms of where it ties up in the perimeter. I believe we did have a retaining wall along that eastern boundary at that time. We may not have had the details of the elevations but when we develop any piece of property in our neighbors, whether it's developed or undeveloped, it's our responsibility to tie to the grades that are there. At the point when we're doing the design. So what we're really talking about here is kind of extrapolating or guessing what grades that Dorsey's are going to be working with in the future, but really it's really encumbent upon us to just tie into those grades and we again, we're not deviating that much from the preliminary plat application that was approved. Does that answer the question? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes it does. Thank you. 11 City Council Meeting - September 10, 2007 Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you Mr. Larson. Any questions for Mr. Larson? No? Okay. Thank you. Yes. Regarding the grading plan or? Sure. Debbie Lloyd: Sure. I'm not prepared but I just think I haven't, Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I'm just think it has an opportunity to talk about this again. Originally in that main meeting I came in because I saw a difference in standards on the structure setback between this and the adjacent property and then Mr. Dorsey pointed out the fact that this retaining wall wasn't there and then later I started researching this and what's on the web site are two different plans. Tom, you and I had a conversation about this. This retaining wall is not on the plan on the web site and isn't there some sort of code regarding needing a variance for a retaining wall over X number of feet or whatever? If you would have had that, that would have just jumped out at you then. And then I started researching all the plans and I can tell you that this plat is different. There were 155 lots on the original plan. You say…what I counted was 153. Okay. So then I'm like well where are these coming from? Well the layout changed too. So I don't understand how you can approve a preliminary plat and then have things change on it. That has never been what I've seen occur here. I could have missed it because I haven't watched these large developments but smaller developments, you can't change items on the plat that much. I mean we have a regulation don't we about lot line adjustments, but to change the layout of this. I would think…so I think there's a lot here, a lot here that needs to be examined and again I have a lot more details but I wasn't prepared at all to talk about this. I'm sitting back there listening going, what's going on? Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Any follow-up questions for staff? Sir. Brian Sullivan: I'm Brian Sullivan. I'm with Ryland Homes. Just on the about her comments were, there were 5 lots on the other side of the creek and what we did is we did an exchange of some of those lots and we took 3 of those lots and put them into, into our site count so that's how that all worked out. Those numbers are different. I'm not sure where…that's probably an older version of something on the web site but I know the number of lots on here are consistent with what we had originally approved. The site plan hasn't changed as far as roads and lot dimensions. None of it has changed since preliminary plat approval. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Rick Dorsey: One more comment? Mayor Furlong: One more. Rick Dorsey: I'd like to have this tabled until we can look into this. Hearing there's changes in the plat, I want to look at it. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Let's bring it back to council for discussion and see if there are any questions. For staff or others at this point. Otherwise thoughts and comments on this. We started with request for modification to the grading permit. Now we've got other things that have been raised and I guess I'd be interested in what the council thinks in these matters. Thoughts, comments. Mr. Peterson. 12 City Council Meeting - September 10, 2007 Councilman Peterson: I clearly think there's some questions that need to be answered that we're not going to get answered tonight so as much I don't like tabling things, it's probably appropriate that we do that here and get staff and the applicant together and get some more of those questions answered. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Other thoughts? Comments? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I guess I agree with Mr. Peterson. I can't be a judge and jury for this tonight because I wish that someone from planning would have been here to answer some of these questions…just to make sure due process has been given and everyone had a chance to get it right. At least so we all feel comfortable knowing that it is what it is or always has been… Mayor Furlong: I guess the question I had for staff with regard to the, we've got a lot of noise here. First of all with regard to the grading plan that has been modified. Are people generally comfortable with that issue? Assuming we've got, I want to try to focus activities here so we can get this back relatively expeditiously as opposed to continuing to delay so while there are some questions to be, that have been raised here, there should, we should be able to verify whether or not the plat that is before us tonight is what was approved as a preliminary plat and that should be something that could be done, I would assume, without a lot of detail. Or a lot of time. So I guess the issue comes up with regard to the stub road and the grading were the two issues first. So are people comfortable with the revised grading plan generally? Now that we might approve tonight but we're going to, or is there more work that needs to be done on staff's level to work with the applicant? Councilman Peterson: My only question relative to that would have been, staff do you believe that there's any way of getting both parties, 3 parties in this case together to work out a more functional deal for all 3 parties or not? I mean I think you already went down that path as far as you can. Paul Oehme: Yeah, I think we've exhausted all avenues there in terms of retaining wall, you know the stub street elevation that's currently there so I think we're done. Roger Knutson: Mayor, if I could just pipe in. The developer has the right with the preliminary plat to develop the stub street where it is. Where you already approved it so if they say we're going to develop it there, well that is their right. The issue before you is whether they can have this excess fill and lay it over or do they have to haul it off site and that's the real question. Do they have to haul it off site per their original grading plan or will you allow the amendment so they can keep it on site? Mayor Furlong: So that's the question before us this evening? Roger Knutson: Yes sir. 13 City Council Meeting - September 10, 2007 Mayor Furlong: Okay. So I guess with that clarification, I mean with regard to the revised grading plan, is there general comfort that having worked with staff, that they're okay with that? As a council we're okay with that? Councilman Litsey: Yeah, just taking that singular issue, that seems reasonable. At least from my opinion, the grading plan. Revisions. I trust staff's looked at that and it's a reasonable request. Councilwoman Ernst: Then we can assume that the retaining wall is resolved. That's not an issue between the parties, is that correct? Mayor Furlong: Well I think as I heard it this evening, that with the grading plan here, that it would be a 7 foot retaining wall if Ryland or their developers are not allowed to go on the Dorsey property to do some additional grading, but if they are they move it down to 4 feet. Is what I understood and clarify with me, is that the grading plan that's in front of us? Paul Oehme: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: That's the question? Paul Oehme: That's the question. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Rick Dorsey made a statement from the audience which was not picked up on tape. Councilman Litsey: Well it sounds like to me. Todd Gerhardt: The current staff report calls for 7 feet. Councilman Litsey: You worked out a couple alternatives with the retaining wall and now correct me if I’m wrong Mr. Dorsey but you want to tie that into now that stub road and that's another issue that you're pulling into it. The way I understood it when we talked about this last time was that really the remaining issue was that you were going to get together with the developer and deal with that retaining wall. It looks like we've come to an alternative there. It's either going to be 7 or 4 depending on whether you're going to allow them to come onto your property or not. Rick Dorsey: I think what we've really looked at was my point was at that point in time there was no retaining wall on the map. And that what we would do is look at the property line and determine what could be done because the plan that I had seen had no retaining wall, has the drainage in a swale along the property line, and I said that I had not seen that plan. There was no retaining wall in it that I found and that I wanted to take and be able to review the grading plan along the property line. It was not just the wall. The wall was the instigator of it but I had not seen it and that was the thing that stood out immediately that something was not something that I 14 City Council Meeting - September 10, 2007 had seen. And as soon as we went out on site, it became very clear that the road was also, which is on the property line, going to be an issue. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And that was in November? Rick Dorsey: No, this was in May when you approved the plat for Phase II. Councilwoman Tjornhom: The original one you're saying. Rick Dorsey: No, this is for Phase II. Councilwoman Tjornhom: For Phase II? Rick Dorsey: Yeah. For Phase I, there was no grading plan. I mean it wasn't this grading plan that we're seeing here. Councilman Litsey: And I'd have to go back to the record but the impression I had at the time was you're going to work on the retaining wall issue and that's been done so. Rick Dorsey: But that's what I'm saying is that was only part of it. Councilman Litsey: Well that wasn't the impression I have but we'd have to look… Rick Dorsey: Okay, well we can go and look at the minutes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So I guess the question is, is there, you know the preliminary plat that was approved, to the extent that the developer continues to follow that approved plat, they're, as I'm understanding, within their rights to continue to move forward, is that correct Mr. Knutson? Roger Knutson: That's correct Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So the question before us then is with the grading plan and with regard to, and you know I think Mr. Litsey, your comment about what the issue was, and I think we had talked about could the developer continue to do some of the grading. Leave this to try to find the property owner is the opportunity to work out along that property line, and that's what I thought they've done. I mean to my knowledge it sounds like they have an option there between the 4 and 7 depending on whether they want to work together or not on that so. With regard to the other issues, you know I don't know that, I don't know that they're interrelated but for the fact that it just happens to be the same property. Councilman Peterson: And I think that being said, I think we can also address with staff saying let's look and see if we have an issue or not. Mayor Furlong: I think that would be a compliance issue that we should certainly charge them with but do you see that as a reason to not deal with the grading plan too? 15 City Council Meeting - September 10, 2007 Councilman Peterson: No… Councilwoman Tjornhom: No, I agree. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so we can go forward. Consider the grading plan which is, in the staff report allows, or recommends a 7 foot wall, is that correct? Paul Oehme: Correct. Mayor Furlong: And if we were to consider approval of that, I think we'd want to insert there, or 4 feet if the parties work together, which we heard this evening. Rick Dorsey: That would be the only way I'd be in agreement with the 4 foot. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Well but, but again the, Mr. Dorsey the, as I see it here, the 4 foot is okay if, with them as well if you allow them to go on your property. So if you don't allow them to go on your property, the grading plan before us would be the 7 foot. 7 foot wall. Is that may understanding? Paul Oehme: That's correct. Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Is there any more discussion with regard to the grading plan? Dealing with the excess dirt and dealing with the property line and retaining wall. Is there a motion with regard to that? Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve as submitted by staff. Councilman Litsey: Second. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And for clarification, that would be to allow a 4 foot wall if the property owner wants to reduce it to a 4 foot wall, they can be allowed to do that. Paul Oehme: Correct. And grant a temporary grading easement for that work. Mayor Furlong: Well I'm assuming that for them to want to do that, they'd want to have that temporary easement. Paul Oehme: Right. Mayor Furlong: So the property owner would make that decision, whether it's 4 or 7. Paul Oehme: Right. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So that motion being made, any discussion on that motion? With regard to the revised grading plan. Seeing none we'll proceed with the vote. 16 City Council Meeting - September 10, 2007 Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Litsey seconded that the City Council approve nd the changes to the grading plan for The Preserve at Bluff Creek 2 Addition, and to allow a 4 foot retaining wall with a temporary grading easement. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: And then I guess to staff I would ask them to follow up and diligently look into the issues raised this evening with regards to whether or not the applicant, or in this case the applicant, the developer is complying with our preliminary plat. Thank you. APPROVAL OF CERTIFICATION OF MAXIMUM PROPOSED LEVY TO CARVER COUNTY AUDITOR. Greg Sticha: Good evening Mayor and council members. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Wait a second. Gentlemen, if we can take the conversation to the hallway, thank you. Greg Sticha: At the August 27, 2007 work session council and staff reviewed the preliminary budget and levy for 2008. After discussion council directed staff to plan for preliminary levy of $9,854,965. That is a levy that was presented in the memo if you recall as Scenario #1. Just to kind of give a review of what Scenario #1 included, that budget included a 3 1/2% maximum wage increase for employees, a new police officer, kept all other expenses relatively flat without any reduction into any services that the city provides. Under that Scenario #1 the total tax levy increase compared to the total tax levy of 2007 would be a 2.92% increase. As a kind of item of information related to the 2.92% increase in the tax levy, a GFA list of the local metro or near metro communities was done in late August and I got some of the results back within the last week or so. 65 communities responded to the survey. Of the, the question it had in the survey was, what is your planned percent increase in your preliminary levy compared to your actual levy that was levied in the previous year? Of the 65 communities that were surveyed, Chanhassen's 2.92% was sixth lowest of the 65. The average increase of all the communities was 6.6%. Just to kind of give you a flavor of what some of our neighboring communities are planning for preliminary levy in 2008 for percentage increase. Eden Prairie is planning on 4.7. Minnetonka 4.7. Minnetrista 5%. Mound 5%. Orono 6%. St. Louis Park 6%. Prior Lake 8%. Chaska 8.6 and Shakopee 12%. One other item that I guess I kind of wanted to comment on was the results of a scenario 1 tax levy and general fund budget would result in a actual reduction in the city's tax rate. This would make 5 years in a row that the tax rate would be reduced as a city. The final tax rate for 2007 was 23.788. I'm estimating that the tax rate for 2008, based on Scenario #1 would be somewhere between 23.55 and 23.72, which would be a resulting a lower th tax rate compared to the previous year. At the council work session on August 27, council also directed staff to identify cost savings that we could see in the general fund that could be used for alternative sources or funding other projects as needed in the city. Staff did identify in that work session and after reviewing a few documents, we have come up with about $115,000 in general fund savings that we could identify that could be reclassified for other purposes or eliminated if council saw fit. That $115,000 includes $71,000 for the reduction if we decided to eliminate the vacant building inspector position that's currently in Scenario 1 and in the budget. An additional $44,000 in health care savings costs that our health care provider has made us aware of. That 17 City Council Meeting - September 10, 2007 total of $115,000 was just a little shy of some of council members ultimate goal of finding $150,000. Staff believes between now and year end it's possible that we could identify some other revenue sources or other items that could get us to this $150,000 but we certainly are at the $115,000 at this point. With all that information in hand, I guess staff is recommending seeing the council set a preliminary levy of $9,854,965 and approve a total preliminary general fund budget of $9,336,200 for 2008. Staff believes that that levy allows council the most flexibility between now and setting the preliminary levy. It offers council the ability to cover any unforeseen items that may happen between now and the end of the year. It also gives council the opportunity to redistribute or use some of the excess money that we talked about. Make it available for other opportunities to assist in funding of either our local streets or our public facilities that are identified in the CIP that are coming up here in the next couple years. With that, oh one item in note. If we do pass the resolution that's in front of you this evening, there is one typo. Under paragraph 1, the first sentence, third word in after the number 2008 should be included the word preliminary. And at this point I guess I would take any questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for Mr. Sticha. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have a question. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: In the past have we approved also preliminary budgets? Greg Sticha: Yes. We've included in the resolution a budget number and at this point in time the budget would be also considered preliminary, along with the preliminary levy. The term more th directly refers to the levy which has to be set with the county on September 15 and they call it a preliminary levy and then the final levy, they call it final levy which is passed in December. Within the resolution we also call our preliminary budget, our original budget that we pass in December, or in September with the preliminary levy, we also call it the preliminary budget so. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom, I had the same question because it jumped out at me and I went back and looked and this resolution is consistent with prior resolutions that we passed. But for, and to Mr. Sticha's clarification, the insertion of the word preliminary in front of that budget so, it is consistent. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Councilwoman Ernst: Greg, I heard you mention for scenario 1 about 2.9? Greg Sticha: Correct. Under scenario 1, that would result in a total levy increase of 2.92% compared to last year. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. Because in scenario 1 from last week's packet, it would be approximately 1.1% increase in property tax. 18 City Council Meeting - September 10, 2007 Greg Sticha: That would be the result of the average increase to the average property tax owner if you went with scenario 1. That's different than the amount of the total levy increase. Councilman Litsey: Maybe to put it in perspective, look at my tax bill, a little over 18% goes to city taxes and a 1.1% increase on that would be about 6 bucks. So I mean we've talking a very small amount so. I think you've done a good job identifying things. The only kind of problems that might come… Mayor Furlong: That's fine. We're still in questions. We're still in questions. Could you talk a little bit about the preliminary budget in terms of service levels. What's changing? Specifically I believe it's public service or public safety personnel changing. Greg Sticha: The only personnel changes are in public safety. We are adding a new police officer in 2008. And we did increase the number of hours for the senior center coordinator position by 4 hours. Those are the only two changes and. Mayor Furlong: That went from what, 20. Greg Sticha: I believe from 24 to 28. Mayor Furlong: 24 to 28. Okay. Alright. And then a full FTE within the public safety. Greg Sticha: Public safety. Mayor Furlong: Through our contracts through the sheriff's office. Greg Sticha: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Okay. All other service levels are maintained as well for personnel as well… Greg Sticha: Yep. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any other questions? At this point. If not, thank you. I want to bring it to council for discussion. Thoughts and comments. Councilwoman Ernst: Well as I indicated in the work session, I cannot support Scenario 1 with an increase to property taxes. I support Scenario #3. I don't know, it seems to me and maybe it's because it takes a little bit more time to check out some additional resources for additional revenue in order not to raise property taxes and obviously scenario #3 is, it would result in a 0% increase in property taxes for the homeowner. And I just feel that we could have done a little, spent a bit more time other than…additional revenues in place of raising property tax. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Litsey: Well. 19 City Council Meeting - September 10, 2007 Mayor Furlong: Councilman Litsey. Councilman Litsey: I think staff did a good job of identifying those available funds that we can tap into. I think there aren't a whole lot to look at any more so I think we're, scenario 1 is reasonable. As I stated in the work session, I actually would have preferred that it be, that the preliminary levy be a little bit higher until we take a look at some of the, like the street improvement fund and some of those things and look at perhaps whether we should increase the levy a little bit to supplement that which down the road we're facing a deficit but we've identified some of these. Perhaps we can…address that and Mayor Furlong brought up some interesting ideas on how…take a look at so although I'd prefer the preliminary levy to be a little bit higher, I'll support scenario #1. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Councilman Litsey: And one other thing, if that's okay. I'm very pleased that public safety's being addressed here. That was one of my goals of being on the council is that we increase the compliment when it comes to personnel in public safety and I think we've got a good plan to do that over the next few years within a reasonable…so I appreciate the council's efforts on that too. So, that's all. Mayor Furlong: Yep, thank you. Other comments? Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well I think I stated too that you know I don't want to box us in a corner with scenario 3 necessarily. I think we need to take some time to explore, look into the future which I think we did a little bit today to see what we have coming our way and what we can do to take care of some issues that might be…shortly so for that I'm voting for scenario 1 with high hopes that we end up with scenario 3 where we have a flat rate again this year and we can say that we didn't raise city property taxes again. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Peterson. Comments, thoughts. Councilman Peterson: Yeah I think that historically we've been maintaining or lowering the tax rate. I think we're going to do that this year too so scenario 1 gives us some flexibility without being redundant so I would support that and with the goal of 3 or better. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I think some of the information that Mr. Sticha presented this evening not only with regard to service levels, with regard to increasing public safety personnel. Something that we have done historically over the last 5 years and will continue to do as needs support, as well as other staff positions we have maintained. City Hall staff at the current levels and we can continue to do it. We've got commitments from staff that they'll be able to continue to operate efficiently and effectively within budget contained under scenario 3. I think the, given the purpose here is to establish the preliminary levy. It's at no higher than. It can go down and one of the things that we talked about in our last work session was taking the time over the next few months, September through November and into December and listening to public comment at the Truth in Taxation hearing as well as throughout that period of looking to identify where we 20 City Council Meeting - September 10, 2007 can reduce spending, but also looking further ahead at where some of the needs might be. But the goal I think gets back to, or the key to this gets back to what Councilman Peterson said and that is tax rate. We're you know, Mr. Sticha's estimating a conditional decrease in the tax rate here for the fifth straight year. We're now below 24%. 5 years ago we were at 39%. We've made tremendous strides there. He gave us some information with regard to what other cities are doing with us being the sixth lowest at 2.9 on a preliminary and others averaging around 6.6. I can tell you I was at a meeting today with Regional Council of Mayors and of the 14 of us there, we went around the room and said where we're looking. You know when I said 2.9 they all kind of looked at me. The fact is we can do it and we are doing it. Everybody else was at 4-5% or up from there in terms of what they were looking at, and yet we are continuing to invest and expand our services where necessary and continuing to invest in capital equipment and making major investments into the city so I am very comfortable. I agree with other comments made that staff has done a great job here, as they always have. But again looking at what the options are and giving us the options and alternatives in front of us and I'm very comfortable moving forward here with both the preliminary budget and preliminary levy. We have some work to do, to Councilwoman Ernst's comments. We have some time in front of us that we need to look diligently at the issues before us but I'm confident we'll be able to do that. So I'm very comfortable moving forward with the resolution proposed by staff with the insertion of the word preliminary in item 1 there prior to budget. So any other comments on that? If not, is there a motion? To approve. Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve as submitted by staff. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. With the amendment of, with items that were presented this evening. Councilman Peterson: Insertion, yes. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. With the word insertion. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion additionally on this? Resolution #2007-55: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council set a preliminary levy of $9,854,965 and approve total general fund expenditures of $9,336,200 for the 2008 preliminary budget and levy. All voted in favor, except Councilwoman Ernst who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: That completes our items of new business this evening. We'll move to council presentations. Anything? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I enjoyed the fire truck. The new fire truck… 21 City Council Meeting - September 10, 2007 Mayor Furlong: Our appreciation and thanks to Mr. Geske and others. Councilwoman Ernst: I think they did a great job. It sounds like they didn't spend any more money on this truck… Mayor Furlong: Well there was a lot of, the truck committee put in a lot of time. They looked for opportunities to save money and overall saved over $100,000 in terms of the purchase I believe so our appreciation to them for that. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, I think it will be exciting to show the truck off this coming fall at their open house that they have and the public can get a chance to see the new vehicle. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other comments? Just a quick one. For Mr. Hoffman, I know Dave Huffman Memorial Race was this weekend and there were Mr. Ruegemer and others, the race committee was involved and members of our Park and Rec Commission were there as well. It was a good turnout. They had over 375 participants in the race, which is the most that they've ever had I believe. Certainly more than last year's so it was good weather and a good event. I know Kathy Huffman, Dave's wife was there and his daughter and they really, they've been there every year and really appreciate what the city does and this group does for putting on the race so that was a fun event. Any other council presentations? Mr. Gerhardt, administrative presentations. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt: I just want to update you on the new Chanhassen High School. That project's moving along. Retaining walls. Foundation. Parking lots are in. They did make the decision to turf the fields and turf meaning artificial turf. So the new high school football field will have the artificial turf and I believe two of the practice facilities also will have the artificial turf. Soccer fields. Practice football will take advantage of that. It's a great, great technology. You know you don't have to mow it. You don't have to water it and that may save on their lawn sprinkling down the line and trying to keep that turf established so that's exciting news. Talked with Finance Director Steve Pumper. Things are going good from a building inspection standpoint. Working on a couple of little issues down the line on erosion control. Things like that but other than that things are going smooth out there. And that's all I have. Mayor Furlong: Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt? No? Okay. Very good. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Mayor Furlong: We have some unfinished, one unfinished item in our work session so that will, we will reconvene in work session in the Fountain Conference Room immediately following this meeting. Is there a motion to adjourn? Councilwoman Ernst moved, Councilman Litsey seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. 22 City Council Meeting - September 10, 2007 Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 23