CC Minutes 2002 04 08CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 8, 2002
Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to
the Flag.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Labatt, Councilman Boyle, Councilman Ayotte and
Councilman Peterson
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Teresa Burgess, Matt Saam, Kate Aanenson,
Sharmin A1-Jaff, and Todd Hoffman
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Jerry & Janet Paulsen
Steven Lillehaug
Debbie Lloyd
Alison Blackowiak
David Happe
7305 Laredo Drive
1441 Heron Drive
7302 Laredo Drive
8116 Erie Circle
604 Summerfield Drive
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Jansen: Good evening. I apologize for our running a little late this evening. You were probably
told we were in interviews. We are fortunate that we do have numerous residents who have stepped
forward and volunteered their time for both our Planning Commission and our Park and Rec Commission.
The bad news is we mn a little late as we try to get all those interviews accomplished so I apologize for the
delay, but it was for a good reason. Going on with the agenda. Under public announcements I would like
to mention that we have our new library ground breaking celebration that will be happening next Sunday,
the 14th at 2:00 p.m. out on the comer of West 78th Street and Market Boulevard. It will be quite the
celebration and we hope that we'll see many of our neighbors and our residents there to celebrate the
beginning of the construction of this wonderful community landmark and we are certainly going to be there
thanking the community for having the vision to have approved the referendum that made this building
possible. And it is quite the celebration. This isn't your ordinary ground breaking. You'll be seeing some
of the announcements in the Villager and in flyers. We have Culver's who will be there providing us with
some of their custard, even thought they won't be open until the month of May. We also have a skit that
will be done by the Chanhassen Dinner Theater. There's a medley that's being done by the Chandeliers
and then also a performance of a tap and stock group, 10 Foot 5 so we have our Friends of the Library
members to thank for having put together such a wonderful celebration for us and we sure hope that you
can join us. Again that's next Sunday the 14th at 2:00. Moving on to the consent agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded to approve the
following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Receive Recommendation for Consultant Selection for Water Treatment Project, PW024P.
Resolution/12002-29: Approve Change Order No. 1 for Crestview Circle Street & Utility
Improvement Project 00-05.
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Approval of Temporary Gambling Permit Application, St. Hubert's Catholic Community, May 4,
2002
Approval of Bills:
1) Bills dated March 25, 2002
2) Bills dated April 8, 2002
Approval of Minutes:
- City Council Work Session Minutes dated March 11, 2002
- City Council Minutes dated March 11, 2002
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Minutes dated March 19, 2002
- Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated February 26, 2002
Approval of 2002 Lifeguard Services Contract at Lake Ann Beach, Minnetonka Community
Education and Services.
Approval of Settlement Agreement with Westra Construction and Engelhardt & Associates; Lake
Ann Park Building Project and Road Construction.
Approval of Plans & Specifications, 2002 Trail Connections Project.
Approve Amendment to the Personal Policy Concerning Payment of Overtime.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
c. Aooroval of 2002 Liquor License Renewals.
Mayor Jansen: Councilman Labatt, the discussion on item (c). Typically we move those items to the end
of the agenda. If you just have a question.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, this is not big deal.
Mayor Jansen: That we can address that would be fine. Why don't we do that now then.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. This deals with the approval of 2002 liquor license and in reading this, I see
that a couple of the establishments are delinquent in their property taxes and utility bills. One of them is,
and then I'm just curious as to Todd, if you can expound on how much they're late on and how many days
past or months.
Todd Gerhardt: It was all of 2001 property taxes and 2002 isn't due until, I think it's May of this year.
May 15th.
Mayor Jansen: And if I might ask you to add, our approval this evening is contingent upon those being
paid in full, correct?
Todd Gerhardt: That's correct.
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So no license will be issued until all back taxes are completely taken care of.
Todd Gerhardt: That's correct.
Councilman Labatt: I understand but do we, and I can't remember the liquor license ordinance. Do we
have a remedy in there that if an establishment falls behind in their taxes or utility bill, a suspended license?
Roger Knutson: Mayor, we take care of that once a year at this time, at the renewal time. So they can get
up to that period of time behind. We don't suspend them mid-term We deal with it at this time of year
when they come in for renewals. So they never can get more than a year behind.
Councilman Labatt: They shouldn't be behind at all.
Roger Knutson: Agreed but that's the system we have.
Councilman Labatt: So this approval here is in essence is giving them until May 1st to become current?
Todd Gerhardt: Yes. They are current on the utility bills. They have paid those and they have until May
1st or we do not issue a liquor license. Thus they cannot sell liquor out of High Timber.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Just so you understand. The facility here in Chanhassen does operate under a profit. It's
a larger organization that runs several hotels and have been impacted through the economy this past year
and are bringing on additional partners now to assist some equity position into the business. So with that
equity position they can then pay the real estate property taxes.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. So I take it, May 1st at 4:30 if they're not paid, somebody will be over there to
let them know that 6:00 p.m. they're closed.
Todd Gerhardt: That's correct.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: Answer all your questions?
Councilman Labatt: Yep.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Then if I could have a motion please.
Councilman Boyle: I make a motion to approve.
Mayor Jansen: And a second to approve l(c).
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the 2002 Liquor License Renewal
Applications as listed in the staff report. The license for High Timber Lounge is contingent upon
payment of delinquent taxes and utility bills. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5
to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Debra Hegeman: Debra Hegeman, 1459 Knob Hill Lane.
Mayor Jansen: And Mrs. Hegeman, I know that staff has had a conversation with you in regards to the
issue that you would have liked to have addressed with the council this evening, and the direction has been
of course that that is a matter that would not be something that the city or City Council would be able to
address. So if we can leave that issue in discussions between, I know staff is still in conversation with you
and we certainly appreciate that between yourself and the other party versus having that lengthy discussion
here this evening we would certainly appreciate that.
Debra Hegeman: Okay, I don't anticipate it being lengthy. I suspect it will probably be about 3 minutes.
It's just for clarification to point out a correction to some of the written documentation that I have sent to
the committees and to just advise you that there's a little bit more for you to use in your exploration of my
situation. So if you would grant me 2 or 3 minutes.
Mayor Jansen: Certainly.
Debra Hegeman: Thank you.
Councilman Ayotte: Talk into the mic.
Debra Hegeman: On March 27th I sent a package to the City Council, and there's a correction on page 72.
A typo says that Teresa Burgess inspected the road in 1999 and that was incorrect. She actually was there
in July of 2000 so that's the one correction I want to point out. And then the other thing that I want to
point out is that I'm just asking for the city's help. I have been in contact with Todd, with Roger, with
other personnel within the city, Teresa, and I think they're going to help. I really do. But my problem is
with the ordinance that was placed upon the road and the fact that that requires specific performance from
me for my covenants. So if the city has an ordinance, I beg them to enforce it. I really do because I have
performance issues within my covenants where they can take my house away if I don't perform what I'm
supposed to do. And I guess that's all I really want to say. Please help me.
Mayor Jansen: Appreciate that and certainly staff is doing what they can in their communications with you
and that's the most appropriate way for us to go about addressing your issue so thank you very much for
bringing it to our attention. Anyone else who would like to address the council at this time? Seeing no one,
we'll close visitor presentations.
PUBLIC HEARING: WELLHEAD PROTECTION PLAN, PW379.
Matt Saam: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. Yes, staff is requesting that the City Council
adopt the wellhead protection plan as prepared by the consulting engineering firm of SEH Inc. Just a little
background. The city is required by State Statute to prepare and submit a Wellhead Protection Plan to the
Department of Health. The trigger was the construction of Well 8 in November of 1999, which is requiring
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
us to complete this wellhead protection plan. Our deadline of 4 years is November, 2003 so we're well on
schedule to completing this. Really the goal of the plan is to prevent any human cause contaminants from
entering the public water supplies, basically through the aqua firs that the wells draw from. Wellhead
Protection Plan helps the city identify potential contaminant sources and gives us some goals to prevention.
The diagram that I have up here, I just want to go through quick for you. Really the meat and potatoes of
the plan are these green shaded areas. They're the DWSMA's. Drinking Water Supply Management
Areas. What they are, they're, all of the shaded area is property that is within a 10 year travel time of the
ground water reaching the well intakes. Now what that is would be say if there was a contamination in the
ground water up here, it would take it based on the ground water modeling, approximately 10 years to
reach the intake of Well 4. We're required by the Department of Health to manage these areas based on the
10 year travel time. The smaller circles in red are just shown, they're the 1 year travel time, just as a
comparison to the 10 year. These DWSMA's are shown for all 8 wells in the system. The school well is
abandoned but since it's still in the aqua fir and a potential contaminant source, we had to do a DWSMA
for it. The goals that I touched on briefly. Along with managing these DWSMA's, the drinking water
supply management area, another goal is public education about the wells, the water supply system. We
can do these through news releases, informational brochures, our drinking water consumer confidence
report. And then the other goal is data collection. Things such as monitoring the level, the static level of
the water in the wells. We currently do that, and then also obtaining geologic information regarding the
aqua firs that the wells draw from. Once again we are recommending that the plan be approved, and I'd be
happy to take any questions.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff at this time? Prior to my opening it for the
public hearing.
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah I have a couple. Define for me prevent human cause contaminants. What is the
range of that?
Matt Saam: Basically what we're looking at is non-surface related leaks. So like say a gas tanker up here
had a leak. Because our DWSMA's are considered non-vulnerable, that means they're not really
vulnerable to surface spills. So a human cause would be if there's a private well in some of these
DWSMA's that we don't know about. Say Farmer Jack here has a well that isn't on the County Well
Index, we have no record of it. Well if he would dump something in there or if something would spill into
that well, and if it's down an aqua fir that we're drawing our water from, that would be a potential for a
human cause contamination.
Councilman Ayotte: Just through aqua firs is what you stated before with respect to this process. What
this study is looking at, so it's.
Matt Saam: Correct.
Councilman Ayotte: So a 10 year span is just aqua firs?
Matt Saam: Correct.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. And lastly, will the introduction of water treatment cause us, the plan to go
kitty whampus? We're going to be introducing water treatment, how does that affect what we are
submitting?
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Matt Saam: Sure. And that's something I asked our consultant before the meeting. Really they're two
different beasts. How this could relate is it could help us in possibly siting a water treatment plant location.
Because they've already done a ground water model, which would help in siting a well. So if we want to
put treatment plant around, you know in a well field, that's how this would really relate to it but other than
that, they're two separate beasts.
Councilman Ayotte: Would it be helpful in any way to have any other entity review the plan, i.e. a public
safety entity rather than just the Met Council or?
Teresa Burgess: The plan is actually, if I could answer that real quick. The plan is actually reviewed by
several agencies. The Department of Health, the Met Council, the City, all of the surrounding communities
also review it. It does get reviewed extensively and because we're talking about ground water versus
surface water, I think you're getting at is there a potential for this to become contaminated purposely. The
only access into the aqua firs would be if you were to drill down and inject into them, which is something
that's hard to do without being noticeable. It's hard to drill a well without somebody noticing that kind of
activity. The intention is for us to understand where our potential problems could be and then to be able to
watch those areas.
Councilman Ayotte: Thank you.
Matt Saam: And basically if I could just add a little more. The management of these DWSMA's relates to
finding those hidden wells, the Farmer A's and such that are out there. And that would be something that
staff will be expected to start a data base on and start looking for those so.
Councilman Ayotte: Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Any other questions for staff prior to the public hearing? Okay. Thank you Matt. This is
a public hearing. We'll open this up, if there's anyone here that would like to make comment about the
wellhead protection plan. Please step forward to the podium. You mean you're not all here to speak about
the wellhead protection plan? Okay, seeing no one, we will close the public hearing and bring this back to
council. Council, any discussion? Otherwise I'll call for a motion.
Councilman Boyle: I'll make a motion that we approve the Wellhead Protection Plan as prepared by SEH,
subject to the conditions as stated.
Mayor Jansen: And a second?
Councilman Ayotte: And I'll second that.
Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council adopt the Wellhead
Protection Plan as prepared by SEH, lnc., subject to the following conditions:
Any revisions/comments deemed necessary after final review by the Minnesota Department of
Health shall be incorporated into the Plan.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR THE VACATION OF A DRAINAGE & UTILITY
EASEMENT FOR ST. HUBERT CATHOLIC CHURCH, LUR 02-03.
Public Present:
Name Address
Father Steve Ulrick
Jeff Walker
A1 Klingelhutz
Frank Sherwood
Vemelle Clayton
Bob Meuwissen
David Hinners
Doug & Josh Eckhoff
500 Del Rio
4088 West 135th, Savage
8600 Great Plains Boulevard
18393 Tristram Way, Eden Prairie
422 Santa Fe Circle
201 West 77th Street
935 East Wayzata
7495 Saratoga Drive
Matt Saam: Thank you. You get me once again. Just quickly. St. Hubert's is proposing a building
expansion. As part of this expansion they're going to be going into an existing sewer line here. Existing
water line up there on top left hand comer. As such they will be re-routing the sewer line and the water
line, putting in a new one. Will be granting us a new easement as a condition of their site plan approval.
So without the sewer and water line there, we won't need the existing easements that contain the existing
sewer and water line. That is basically it. I'd be happy to answer any questions. We're requesting
approval of the vacation of the existing easements.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff prior to the public hearing?
Councilman Ayotte: I'm afraid so. With the introduction of the change, would there be any preventive
maintenance measures that would be made more difficult or would there be any.
Matt Saam: With the new lines Bob, is that what you're referring to?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah.
Matt Saam: I don't believe so, no. It's pretty straight forward. I did go over this with Kelley. I was a
little concerned about the slope here. It's rather steep but he said their jetting, they have jetting capacity, or
long enough line to get around that comer so it shouldn't be an issue.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you Matt. This is a public hearing.
We'll open this up, if there's anyone present that would like to make comment on this project, certainly step
forward to the podium. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing and bring this back to council. Any
discussion council? Otherwise I'll call for a motion.
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Roger Knutson: Mayor just, I assume that's subject to the conditions set forth in the engineer's report.
Councilman Peterson: Affirmative.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you.
Resolution #2002-30: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City
Council approves a resolution vacating a portion of the existing drainage and utility easements as
defined in the attached easement descriptions, subject to the following condition:
The easement vacation will not be recorded until the new drainage and utility easements are signed
and submitted to the City for review and recording.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO THE VILLAGES ON THE PONDS PUD TO INCREASE
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INSTITUTIONAL BUILDING AREA; SITE PLAN REVIEW
FOR A 41,522 SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING; 8201 MAIN STREET, ST.
HUBERT CATHOLIC COMMUNITY; OPUS NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION CORP.
Public Present:
Name Address
Father Steve Ulrick
JeffWalker
A1 Klingelhutz
Frank Sherwood
Vernelle Clayton
Bob Meuwissen
David Hinners
Doug & Josh Eckhoff
500 Del Rio
4088 West 135th, Savage
8600 Great Plains Boulevard
18393 Tristram Way, Eden Prairie
422 Santa Fe Circle
201 West 77th Street
935 East Wayzata
7495 Saratoga Drive
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site is on Villages on the Ponds. Just to get your bearings on the
Villages on the Ponds. As you indicated there's 2 proposals here tonight. One is to amend the PUD
district, and we went through this exercise iteration when we looked at Presbyterian Homes trying to stay
within the EAW framework where we generated trips based on use. When the project was first put
together, St. Hubert's was the first building that was put in place and it was always anticipated they would
come back for expansion, and to date that's what they're asking. The good news is that they want to
expand a little bit greater than what was originally anticipated, so in order to give them the square footage
that they need, we have to take it away from somewhere else. So the first request, if you look through the
proposal in the PUD we explained to you the exercise that we went through to make sure, because our goal
is to make sure that we're staying original, or staying true to the original vision of the project. That we
have enough mix in there, and that was a concern that we had when we first met. That based on going
through the exercise that we did, in looking at giving them additional square footage and having to take
some of that away from retail, we believe the project still is try to the mixed use. So we are recommending
approval of the PUD. Included in your packet was a letter from the underlying property owners making
sure that they get sign off. They are on title. They will have to sign off on the PUD agreement. So that's
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
the first request. The second request is the site plan approval for the church. I just wanted to show the,
Matt kind of went through this with the sewer line vacation, but there was also, as this building, the
existing church here, the new and the shaded, it gets closer to that slope and there was some concern from
the Planning Commission as far as kids on that side of the building playing and because it's so steep, balls,
activities, sliding down the hill. They requested that a fence be added to that when they made their review
back in March. So that was an additional condition. The site plan itself is consistent with what was
already approved which is a beautiful building. Materials will be consistent with that. There's an
extension of the fellowship hall and the back side where they used the tilt up concrete for the gym will also
be included and then the classroom space. Again, consistent which already is out there and staff believes
it's consistent with what we originally approved and a very nice design. High quality. So with that we are
recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report which begin, there are two motions. Begin
on page 9. They're two separate motions so if you have any questions on that, I'd be happy to answer
them.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you Kate. Council, any questions for staff at this time? Okay. Seeing none, this is
not a public hearing and most of the comments I'm sure were shared at the Planning Commission as well as
a couple of memo's that I know council received but I do want to check and see if there's anyone in the
audience that was present that wanted to speak to this item before I closed this to council discussion. If we
can keep it relatively brief, much appreciated.
Dave Bangasser: I'm Dave Bangasser representing the St. Hubert's Building Committee and we've seen
the staff report and are in agreement with everything in the staff report. We did want to ask for one, what I
hope is a very minor consideration, and that is relative to the PUD. Our original request was to up the
institutional for St. Hubert's up to 135,000 square feet to just give us a little bit of flexibility. About 1,400
square feet over what we had intended to build to. At the Planning Commission meeting we were told that
Lotus and AUSMAR had requested that we bring that PUD adjustment back down to what we actually
intend to build at this time, and it seemed like a fine idea in concept and we agreed with that. Now as we're
into our working drawings, more detailed design, we have found a couple of very minor areas that we think
we may need to, we haven't decided for sure but we may need to bump out the building a little bit here and
a little bit there. We're talking a magnitude of maybe a few hundred square feet and as I understand it with
it approved as written up to the 133,574, we wouldn't have any flexibility to do that should our design
dictate that. So what I would like to ask or request is that you consider upping the institutional square
footage to 134,000 square feet so it's a little over 400 square feet more than what we submitted on our
plan. It just gives us a little bit of flexibility if we need it. If we don't end up building it then it obviously
doesn't impact the retail in the future. So that's all that I have. We do have members here if you have
questions.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, appreciate that. Kate, could you speak to that for us a little bit?
Kate Aanenson: ... show this because it's a little bit complicated math. When the Planning Commission
looked at it, and again trying to stay true to the project itself and it's mix. When they were over on the
square footage, the Planning Commission asked if that's not really what you need, why don't you reduce it.
Which seems reasonable but there's always things that happen in the field so what the applicant is
requesting is that there's some fudge factor, which we concur. But it has implications and I just want to go
through the math with you. If you want to turn to page 3 on your staff report, we actually when we did the
EA calculated the different sectors. Then based on the amendments that we made, we came up with what
we call equivalents and again that's to keep the traffic consistent, so what we looked at is moving it to 134,
and again what I'd like to put in the motion is up to 134,000 square feet so if there's something less that
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
they negotiate it with the underlying developer that we don't have to appear back. But I just want to walk
through the math if we could. So if we give them an additional, up to 134 for, I'm on the top of page 4
right now. If we give them the 134,000 square feet, or an additional 426 square feet, they actually would
lose 124 square feet of retail. So if you mm to the bottom of page 5, I just want to make sure that this, and
this would be carried through in the staff report, just so everybody's clear. Again on page 5, where we're
keeping a running total. This is our balance sheet. Check and balance sheet where we've got balances
after conversion. Instead of the 1,285 it would be 1,161 so there would be less, little bit less retail. And
that's a number that the Planning Commission was concerned with so what I'd like to say is if up to
134,000, if that works. It's through the negotiation we come up with something inbetween, we don't have
to come back with that, if that makes sense. So it does work for us. It's between the developers, if that
works for them. If you're comfortable with that, not a retail, we still think it works. Again stay true to our
original goals but this needs to be, I want to show this to you because it needs to be carried through on the
report when they come up with the contract.
Mayor Jansen: Sure. And originally when you had reviewed this prior to going to the Planning
Commission you had actually used 135,000 square feet, correct?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. As Mr. Bangasser indicated, the Planning Commission felt like if you
don't need that much then why are you taking it. And then so we slid down way to exactly then it got too
tight as they were looking at some of the designs so we do want to have some flexibility in there.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, but the key point is that any additional square feet that they don't use, we obviously
make the adjustment so that we can continue to develop the retail to it's full extent.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Great, appreciate that. With that I know.., like to give your perspective since you're
the other party involved.
Vernelle Clayton: I'll just address this one particular point. We have currently negotiated for the most
part, although some degree of agreement is still missing, based on the 130, all of our documents have been
using the new number. I think perhaps we could agree to the higher number but I do want to clear, it's
scary, it's really scary giving all of this space to St. Hubert's. Because we're really down to the wire and
so for the record our initial document, I think maybe our initial communication to you, I'm not sure, said
that it would be contingent upon our being assured, we being AUSMAR...that the council in approving this
project understood the method by which we arrived at the availability of this space for St. Hubert's of this
capacity. This capacity, the capacity in this project is what creates the value for the owners. We have
been selling parcels based on what they could build, not on how much land they're buying. So it has a
direct impact. And our approval is based on the assumption that it's understood exactly how much of retail
of first floor space that has windows on the street is actually considered to be service. Service has a little
less demand for parking and it is a separate, it's office service category is different from the retail category
and the uses. So what we don't and cannot have happen is a subsequent building come through and the
whole first floor be treated as retail. It has to be treated at the same pro-rata allocation that we used in this
formula. So I'm happy to have this opportunity. We assumed that that would not, that would be the case,
but our agreement to sign off on the PUD is conditioned upon that understanding. With that we think we, I
will try to convince the owners, to change it from the 133 to the 134,000.
10
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And Vernelle, I'm looking at the analysis of potential buildout on page 5. Where
you did share with staff the projects potentially that you're working on, at least conceptually, and I'm
assuming that those things.
Vernelle Clayton: They reflect the allocation of a certain percentage of service on the first floor.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Vemelle Clayton: And Bob Generous and I have worked through those numbers more than we want to.
Mayor Jansen: I'm sure. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Was there anything else that you
wanted to share? Okay, appreciate that. I will bring this back to council. Council, any questions for staff
or applicant at this time?
Councilman Boyle: A lot of numbers went by Kate. 14,000 extra square feet?
Todd Gerhardt: 1,400.
Kate Aanenson: 1,400.
Councilman Boyle: Oh, okay. I got too many zeroes. We went from 133,000 to 134,000, is that a correct
statement?
Kate Aanenson: Yes, but as the Mayor indicated, it originally came in at 135 and there was some concern
about, if you're not going to use the space why wouldn't we leave it in a retail so, and they were directed to
go back down to exactly what they had. Well as they were in design drawings they recognized they may
need a little bit extra space based on some code issues. It's specifically in the school area so they just want
a little bit of extra square feet if there's some things that need to be taken care of.
Mayor Jansen: So we're not coming completely back up to the original number that staff had
recommended approval of. We're coming to a mid-point somewhere inbetween based upon however they
end up with the drawings configured.
Councilman Boyle: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Did that answer your question?
Councilman Boyle: Yes it did.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Any other questions for staff or the applicant?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I don't know if council has comments. Otherwise I will call for a motion.
Councilman Peterson: I'd make a motion the City Council approve amendment to the PUD standards for
Villages on the Ponds amending Section (d) as noted in the staff report. Amending that to up to 134,000 in
Sector III.
11
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Mayor Jansen: And a second.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approves the
amendment to the Planned Unit Development Standards for Villages on the Ponds amending Section
(d) as follows:
1. Development Site Coverage and Building Height
1. The following table shall govern the amount of building area for the different uses:
Commercial/ Office/Service Institutional Dwelling TOTAL
Retail (sq. ft) (sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) Units Square Feet
Sector I 104,764 83,500 0 160 188,264
Sector II 60,000 14,000 0 0 74,000
Sector III 0 0 Up to 134,000 0 Up to 134,000
Sector IV 0 0 0 162 0
TOTAL 164,764 97,500 134,000 322 396,264
(Up to)
Building square footages may be reallocated between sectors and between uses subject to approval by the
Planning Director, with the intent not to increase the total traffic load. The following factors shall be used
in calculating the reallocation of building square footages between uses:
1 Residential apartment unit = 3 congregate care (assisted living or dementia) units.
1 Residential apartment unit = 2 elderly (independent) units.
1 Residential apartment unit = 360 square feet of office/service.
1 Residential apartment unit = 90 square feet of retail.
1 Residential apartment unit = 440 square feet of institutional.
950 square feet of office/service = 1,000 square feet of institutional.
300 square feet of retail = 1,000 square feet of office/service.
290 square feet of retail = 1,000 square feet of institutional.
In no instance shall additional institutional building square footage be reallocated without an amendment to
the PUD.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: And the second motion please.
Councilman Peterson: Madam Mayor I make a motion the City Council approve Site Plan #96-11, File 2,
plans prepared by Opus Architects & Engineers dated 1/30/02 subject to conditions 1 through 26.
Mayor Jansen: And a second?
12
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve Site Plan/t96-11, File 2, plans
prepared by Opus Architects and Engineers, Incorporated dated 1/30/02 subject to the following
conditions:
1. A 20 foot wide utility easement over the proposed sewer line and watermain shall be prepared and
submitted to the City prior to beginning construction.
2. The applicant will also be required to provide the necessary financial security in the form of a cash
escrow or letter of credit to guarantee installation of the public utilities.
3. Provide the City with a copy of the MPCA sanitary sewer extension permit and Department of
Health watermain permit.
4. Add the latest City standard detail plate nos. 1002,2101, 2109, 2202, 2203, 5300.
5. Show all existing utilities.
6. Show the proposed sewer pipe type, class, slope, invert and rim elevations.
7. Silt fence Type III must be used and removed when construction is completed.
8. Revise the north sign arrow to point in the correct direction.
9. Vacate existing utility easements.
10. Add a benchmark to the plans.
11. Type III silt fence must be used and extended around the excavated area to prevent any migration
of the excavated material and an erosion control blanket should be installed within two weeks of
completion of the sloped area. The silt fence shall be removed upon completion of construction.
12. Slope should be 2:1 maximum with a fence on top of the slope.
13. Design calculations will need to be submitted for the additional site drainage.
14. Eliminate proposed manhole No. 101 and connect to existing manhole No. 6 as shown on the
City's as-builts.
15. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
16. The overhead doors shall be similar in color to the surrounding brick.
13
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
17.
The standpipe connections in the existing school portion of the building must be extended into the
new school addition. The standpipes were an accepted alternate means of protection in lieu of
providing access roads around the building.
18. The additions are required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
19.
The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
20.
The proposed Fellowship Hall must be a minimum of Type II-I HR construction and must be
separated from existing Buildings A & B by area separation walls.
21.
The roof/canopy at the drop off area on the north side of the building must be constructed of non-
combustible materials.
22. An additional overstory tree shall be added to the northerly landscape boulevard island.
23.
The applicant shall guarantee the survival of all transplanted material for one year past the date of
installation final acceptance of site landscaping.
24.
Square accents between the floors and top edge contrasting elements will be carried all around the
building.
25. The applicant will work with staff to minimize fill impact on trees below the southeast comer.
26.
The applicant shall secure easements from the appropriate property owners if off site grading is
necessary.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: I would just like to add that, to our St. Hubert's faith community that it's certainly exciting
to see you thriving and in need of this expansion. I know that the school has certainly been in need of some
extra space and to see the addition of the fellowship space certainly gives that northern face a wonderful
faCade, so I certainly think it's an excellent proposal and congratulations on your community thriving the
way that it is.
14
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT A 7.07 OUTLOT AND AN 11.5 ACRE
LOT (18.57 ACRES) INTO 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 20UTLOTS; LAND USE
AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY;
REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY; AND A
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD; WEST OF
LAKE LUCY, AND EAST OF ASHLING MEADOW SUBDIVISION; LAKE LUCY RIDGE;
NOECKER DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gloria & Dale Carlson
Tedd Mattke
Randall Noecker
6900 Utica Lane
Mattke Engineering
8315 Pleasant View Drive, Mounds View
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. The applicant is proposing to
subdivide 18 1/2 acres into 17 single family lots and 2 outlots. The property is currently zoned Rural
Residential and the proposal calls for rezoning to Residential Single Family. The easterly 7 acres of the
site is guided Residential Large Lot and the applicant is requesting a land use plan amendment to re-guide it
to Residential Low Density. The applicant is also proposing to fill 4,580 square feet of wetland. The
average lot size is 23,028 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.1 units per acre, and a net density
after removing roads and wetlands of 1.87 units per acre. The site is located south of Lake Lucy Road,
northwest of Lake Lucy and east of Ashling Meadows. Access to the subdivision will be primarily
provided via Lake Lucy Road. All lots are proposed to be served via internal residential streets. All
proposed lots meet the minimum requirements as far as area, width and depth of the zoning ordinance
pertaining to residential single family district. There are 2 outlots shown on the plat. They will contain
wetlands, proposed trail and a storm water pond. The site consists of 2 parcels that are being combined
and subdivided. The easterly parcel which is the 7 acres is part of Lake Lucy Highlands. Lake Lucy
Highland is a large lot subdivision served by an individual septic system and a well with a minimum area of
2 1/2 acres. This outlot is mainly wetland. The buildable area on this outlot on this site is minimal. It is
physically separated from the northerly portion. This will help. This is Lake Lucy Highlands. This is the
outlot. It is physically separated from the northerly Lake Lucy Highlands by Lake Lucy Road, and then
from this portion of Lake Lucy Highlands via a wetland complex. Staff has always viewed this portion
being guided the same land use as Ashling Meadow which is a low density residential and that's the reason
behind staff recommending approval of re-guiding this piece to a low density residential use. We've been
working with the applicant for approximately a year or more. The plan has gone through several changes.
To summarize these changes, the number of lots has dropped from 22 lots to 17. The buildable area, as
well as the usable area on each lot has increased. The majority of the lots have a usable back yard on them
now. And we have less grading on the site. There's still room for improvement. There are conditions in
the staff report that we believe will improve this plan. We are recommending approval with conditions.
Should the City Council decide to deny this application, staff would recommend that you direct the City
Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact to deny this application and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff at this time council?
Councilman Ayotte: With respect to the delta of 3 lots. There was discussion about going from 17 to 14.
15
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Sharmin A1-Jaff: That was a proposal that was put together by the neighbors.
Councilman Ayotte: I understand that. Would that proposal remove your concerns regarding the
environmental impact?
Kate Aanenson: Well I guess I'd answer the same way we answered with the Planning Commission.
Under this piece there's some touch down points that had to be achieved. One is the access tying into the
Lundgren subdivision. That's a fixed point. The uniqueness of this plat is the, trying to make the grades at
this point. Lake Lucy Road, which is a significant grade change between here, here, here, so in order to
make that, that's what's driving a lot of the loss in vegetation and the amount of grading is to make those
fixed points.
Councilman Ayotte: So the answer is that changing the number really wouldn't have a significant impact
on improving the environment?
Kate Aanenson: It may. There's, no matter what there's going to be significant amount of grading. It may
reduce.
Councilman Ayotte: So it's an I don't know? Alright.
Mayor Jansen: Any other questions for staff at this time? I guess one of the things that I would just like to
clarify, and I think you spelled it out rather clear in your presentation, but it's the land use amendment that
we're using to basically hold up this development if you would. The land use amendment really only
affects the easterly parcel. The western parcel is actually being developed under our ordinances and as you
said, all of the lots meet the ordinance guidelines currently. As I'm looking at this easterly lot, and the
number of homes that are actually there currently, I'm seeing one full home site, part of a second, and then
part of a yard of a third. So on the 7.07 acres we have maybe 1 ½ or 2 actual home sites. Not full. Only
one full.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: That's an accurate statement.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Which actually if we were building a large lot development, we're looking for one
unit per 2.5 acres, correct?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: So this is about 1 ½ for 7.07. I know when this was originally being reviewed, and now
it's gone past the Planning Commission several times. The grading issue is of course the main catching
point, and I commend staff and the developer, Mr. Noecker for working as hard as you have to try to reach
this point where you've minimized it a great deal from the initial review. As you're suggesting and
recommending approval of this plat, I'm assuming that you've looked at it and tried to discern if there are
any other changes within reason of our ordinances that we could make that would further reduce that
grading. Is that a safe assumption?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: That's a safe assumption, yes.
16
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Mayor Jansen: There was some debate on how far we should be moving the road over. That's the only
condition that you had suggested to the developer that you've said in the staff report he didn't actually
execute, though he has moved it some distance. About half of what you asked for. That's not a condition
in the staff report and I'm assuming from that, that you've discerned that there isn't a significant amount of
increase of environmental protection or tree preservation that occurs between where it's being proposed
currently and potentially moving it another 40 feet.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Teresa Burgess: There's another issue though also with moving it further. There's some additional
vegetation that's saved and that's relatively minor. It also reduces the need for the retaining wall. That
retaining wall can be reduced and engineering has some concerns about a retaining wall that large, that
close to a public road and so wanting to move that road over a little bit further gets that away from that
retaining wall.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So now it's more a retaining wall height issue versus necessarily a tree preservation
issue?
Kate Aanenson: We have retaining walls in the city that high in other places. It's not the first choice but I
guess based on the input we were getting from the Planning Commission, we wanted to preserve the larger
area of trees so. And because it's in a back yard, the retaining wall's in the back. That person, whoever
has that lot still has enjoyment of that before you get to the retaining wall in the back. Sharmin can point to
that. The retaining wall would be way down at the other end so there's kind of a visual break before you
see that wall.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And that finger if you would of green space that comes out now, yep there
underneath the cul-de-sac, that is what you gained in tree preservation is it not from?
Kate Aanenson: With the retaining wall, correct.
Mayor Jansen: With the retaining wall. And that was different from when it was reviewed the first time or
second time by the Planning Commission. Okay. So you did gain some significant tree preservation. I
believe that's where a lot of the larger trees are located?
Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I know that was an issue. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that I had tracked all
of the changes and what the actual impacts have been since this did go through a couple of renditions
coming through the Planning Commission and now coming back to us. This is not a public hearing.
However, if there's any new information that the applicant would like to add to the discussion from what
was included in the minutes of the Planning Commission, you're certainly welcome to do that. We
typically would limit that to about a 5 minute period or I'm sure we maybe have some residents here but
again it's not necessarily a public hearing but if there's any new comments, I would again ask for just a
neighborhood representative and that it be kept brief. But Mr. Noecker if you'd like to address your
development with us.
Randy Noecker: Thank you Mayor Jansen and council members.
17
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Mayor Jansen: If you could, thank you.
Randy Noecker: My name is Randy Noecker. Just a little bit of background. I've had previous experience
in developing in other communities including Blaine and Eden Prairie, Maple Grove, and Wyoming
township as well as Savage. And this by far has been the most difficult site to create a plan on.
Councilman Boyle: Randy, would you please move your microphone a little closer. Thank you.
Randy Noecker: Sure. And this plan as a result has gone through many, many revisions. The one thing
that I guess I would like to point out is, and it was, it has been a little bit discussed here but after the
Planning Commission saw the last plan we again met with staff and were able to add about 7/10th of an
acre of additional canopy which is basically that finger in there, and a few other spots in reviewing the site.
And we had, I guess the, one of the main things is, you have a lake elevation at 956 and you have an
elevation that goes into Ashling Meadows at 1026 which makes it a 70 feet elevation, topographical
change across that property, and it's just about 60 feet in elevation change from Lake Lucy Road to the
Ashling Meadows entrance. So it gives you a high level of change that you have to deal with. The road
itself is mostly 7 percent grade which basically maxed us out and we just had a lot of difficulty putting it
together you know. I guess that's about all I want to say.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Noecker? Okay, thank you. And again if there's
a neighborhood representative that would like to speak this evening, you're certainly welcome to step
forward. We would limit that to 5 minutes and if there's just new information from the Planning
Commission, we certainly had a large packet of minutes that we all read from the Planning Commission
discussions. Okay. Seeing no one, I'm going to bring this back to council. Council, any questions or we
can move into comments. Seeing no questions, any comments or discussion?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, I've got a few.
Mayor Jansen: Councilman Ayotte.
Councilman Ayotte: What I see here is we have a commission that has recommended not to approve it,
one. And I know I'm going to be unpopular here with some of these statements but I have no reason to
begin now looking for popularity.
Mayor Jansen: If you might pull your microphone a little closer for us, appreciate it.
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, the staff has voiced concerns that still live with respect to grading and the
vegetation. I understand that the developer's done a lot of things to mitigate the risk, but there's still some
measure of risk as I understand it.
Mayor Jansen: If staff might address that. I believe you said that you have conditions in your
recommendation that address those concerns.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. We have recommended approval with conditions to mitigate those concerns.
Councilman Ayotte: Totally? To go with, to deal with the 70 foot elevation difference.
18
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Kate Aanenson: Well, the lots meet all the requirements. It meets the requirements. The only issue then
would be just the land use rezoning if you feel that's appropriate that the transition would. The Planning
Commission again was comparing subdivisions that were just to the east of this which have different
circumstances. Both those subdivisions were given a significant amount of variances, including the
application of a private drive. Up to 4 to 5 homes on some of those private drives. This applicant is
meeting the letter of the law as far as complete public streets, and that is compounding some of the ability
to make the grades with the transition of the elevation. So it makes it a little bit more complex.
Mayor Jansen: And the issue with the public streets, and I know I asked you this earlier today. I asked you
why a public street here, and you mentioned the Ashling Meadows development.
Kate Aanenson: Well going into that, yeah it's all public streets, correct. Going into, well we have to
provide access to the property immediately to the south, and also tying into Ashling Meadows, the
Lundgren subdivision immediately to the west so those need to be public streets. The only other application
would be the possible, the cul-de-sac that's going towards the large lot would be the only other application
for, that wouldn't necessarily have to be a public street.
Councilman Ayotte: And please bear with me. From what I can gather, a lot of people have done a lot of
things to try to make this fit and it's been difficult to fit because of circumstances that may be beyond the
capability of folks to influence. But because that situation exists, I'm having a hard time, irrespective of
the fact that there's adherence to ordinance to say yes. So I'm having a difficulty so if somebody could
help me through that, great. Otherwise I'm having difficulty with this. And so you'll know which direction
this vote will go because I'm having difficulty understanding how this can be.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Councilman Ayotte: That's just honest. I don't see how we should have this go in if it doesn't quite fit
because of circumstance.
Mayor Jansen: And I guess that's all in how you review the development which is what staff has brought
forward as far as their recommendations.
Councilman Ayotte: Understand.
Mayor Jansen: We have enough ability to push the development has gotten to this stage versus where it
was originally.
Councilman Ayotte: This guy's bent over backwards, I understand that.
Mayor Jansen: And again, you know staff recognizes that it's a difficult site, but within reason it will be
developed and it's whether or not what we're looking at on the western portion can be adjusted any farther
to provide any further preservation, which is what I was inquiring of staff earlier today is, you know are
there any additional revisions that we can make under our ordinances that we can legally influence the way
the western portion is being developed, and hence the number of units that would be developed on that
particular parcel. And the feedback as staff said here this evening is they think they have in fact massaged
this as much as we conceivably can and gotten that unit count down. I'm just trying to maybe speak a little
bit to where you're finding yourself. I too tend to lean towards wanting to maximize the preservation on a
19
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
site, and especially one as beautiful as this location. You hate to see this kind of an impact on a property
line this.
Councilman Ayotte: Well I'm looking more for issues of erosion. Issues of what happens down the road.
Issues of potential implications to the people who move in with surface water and so forth so it's not simply
because of the beauty, although that is a consideration. I'm looking at other issues at it and I just have to
tell you where I'm at. That's where I'm at.
Mayor Jansen: Oh absolutely, and getting more specific about what your issues are, we can have staff
address what they've done to take a look and review those things because there was a great deal of
conversation. Again it was around moving the road and being able to put in more drainage swales to be
sure that we weren't having that kind of erosion and one of the issues that staff was addressing in moving
the road also was to protect the erosion on the bluff that is along that western border of the property. And
that was one of those issues again that we were raising. You have a little bit of a compromise to preserve
the bluff on the west, you're moving the road further to the east, but those eastern lots have managed to
maintain their size, which is more significant than the ones that are towards the western edge abutting
similar sized properties. They could all be 15,000 square feet on a single family residential development
like this. And in fact we're looking at a little higher lot size. What is it? Our average lot size is 23,254
square feet. So it's come a long way and I'm only addressing those issues having sat through two
presentations of this at the Planning Commission and having heard them really reviewed in detail. Your
concerns were definitely some of the concerns that were expressed at the Planning Commission and that
staff addressed in the revisions that they were requesting of the developer. Council, any other questions or
comments?
Councilman Boyle: I'll make a comment. I think that a lot of the concerns have been addressed. I think
there's been good collaboration between the developer and staff, and some good changes made. Had it
come before this body, council prior to this I would not have given it a second thought but as it's currently
proposed I would lean towards approval.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you Councilman Boyle.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, it's a challenging decision obviously. I think that Madam Mayor, you
mentioned it early on that it's going to be developed. And then is it this one or is it another one, and the
odds are it's going to be very similar. As to whether it's tonight or whether it's a year from now. So then
if the next one is 14 lots, is it going to be substantially better? I'm hearing staff saying probably not
substantially. It might be better but not substantially. And so hence I'm struggling. I don't like what it's
doing, but I don't think I have a compelling reason to deny it. Because it's going to happen and in reducing
it further is the only other alternative and if staff says that won't substantially change the grading, then I
can't think of a good reason to deny it.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you and one point staff has made is that a lot of it is the roads that's driving
the need for the grading because we can't have the slopes on the roads that there would be without the
grading which is really tough to see happen. Councilman Labatt?
Councilman Labatt: Couple questions. At the end of that Lake Lucy cul-de-sac where the retaining wall
is, is there going to be a barrier up there? I looked at all these.
Teresa Burgess: The retaining wall comes up from the road so you can't drive off the edge of it.
20
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Councilman Labatt: Okay, but so as far as the back of that lot then, there's no.
Teresa Burgess: Retaining walls over 4 foot would be required to have a fence at the top.
Kate Aanenson: I guess the other thing I was saying too, the visual break because if that house on top is
going to have the woods in front so, that will help.
Teresa Burgess: They'll be required, when they put that fence.
Councilman Labatt: They'll be required to have some sort of barrier up there to keep?
Teresa Burgess: They'll have a fence at the top so nobody falls off of it.
Councilman Labatt: And then so a retaining wall over 4 feet, does that have to have a permit then? Is it
engineered?
Teresa Burgess: Yes. Any retaining wall over 4 feet is required to submit engineering drawings to the
city for review and file and it will have to be designed at the time it's installed.
Councilman Labatt: And then that's whether it's a block wall or a.
Teresa Burgess: Regardless of the style, it's required to submit a design.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then on number 11. The two underlying parcels of this development have
been previously assessed for one water hookup and connection charge. And these assessments now are
going to be spread over because they weren't paid, the 8,600 bucks so they're going to be spread over the
21 newly created lots?
Todd Gerhardt: 17.
Teresa Burgess: Let me review that real quick before I answer. That's what's being recommended by the
staff that we spread them out.
Councilman Labatt: It should be 17 then right? Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you.
Councilman Labatt: So we'll have to amend 11.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, but going back to my point here though. So that 8,600 bucks, why wasn't that
paid by the owners now?
Teresa Burgess: It's a deferred assessment. They're not required to pay it yet. They're in green acres so
they're not required to.
21
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Councilman Labatt: But why are we all of a sudden going to spread it over 17 new homeowners? Why
wouldn't we have that developer pay that assessment first? Or the property owner. Why are we going to
ding 17 new owners right away?
Teresa Burgess: We're putting it against the properties. When they sell those properties they'll have to
pay it off as each parcel is sold. They will have to pay off that assessment on that parcel.
Councilman Labatt: The developer will?
Teresa Burgess: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. And then number 18. That temporary cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency
vehicles will be required at the end of Lake Lucy Ridge Lane. Is that going to be just a dead end or is that
going to be a physical, it will be a turnaround put in there?
Teresa Burgess: They're required to put in a temporary cul-de-sac so that you can do a turnaround there
for both snow plowing and fire protection. And then they'll put up a sign that says that that road will
eventually be extended when the property to the south is developed.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. So when these two lots, 3 and 10 develop, what's going to be, is there going to
be curb there then and grass or is it going to be a little cul-de-sac?
Teresa Burgess: The cul-de-sac would come out at the time they develop and be re-done so that it would
be a street through.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. That's all I had.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I'll add my comments and try to keep them somewhat brief. In reviewing this
project and all of the changes that have occurred to it, what I keep reflecting back to was that the time to
avoid this type of an impact on this type of property would have been at the time that the zoning was
actually determined. I don't know that I necessarily would have been in favor of zoning this for the low
density that was made possible on the western parcel, and that's just being very candid. When I see
beautiful property like this I certainly want to see it impacted as little as possible. However, what we have
before us is a property that in fact is zoned low density and the current proposal is towards the lowest end
of what is possible. Within the low density it's a 1 to 4 units per acre and currently this proposal has been
brought down to gosh, what is it? 1.1 per acre gross and 1.87 units per acre net. So though I have my
druthers and would like to see something different here, it does meet our ordinances on that western part of
the property and if in fact we were to try to unhook the two properties, and leave the one with the large lot
development, we're not gaining a significant benefit from that. Whereas what we have done in having them
together is potentially impacted the property as little as we possibly can and address at least preserving the
bluffs. Trying to protect from some of the additional erosion. Now at least we have a proposal before us
that's maintaining that finger if you would of green space up around that cul-de-sac, though it might not be
the ideal in wanting to have one of these huge retaining walls as staff has pointed out in sensitive situations
like this, the city has gone ahead and constructed these walls in order to be able to have as much tree
preservation as possible. So with that said, and having already explored with staff whether there are any
additional revisions that we could in fact make to provide additional tree preservation, I have to echo what
Councilman Peterson said and that's that this is probably the best potential plan that we can hope to bring
22
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
in under these circumstances. We can't restrict beyond what our legal ordinances allow and at this point
what is allowed is very much what is in front of us. So with that said, council. IfI could have a motion
please.
Councilman Boyle: I'll make the motion that we approve with modifications and conditions staff has added
and the modification for the amendment to, what was it paragraph 11 ? Condition 11.
Councilman Peterson: So you're speaking to the land use amendment right now?
Councilman Boyle: Yes.
Councilman Peterson: Take them one by one?
Roger Knutson: Mayor, I think that'd be a good idea to separate the land use amendment into one motion,
which requires 4 positive votes to pass, and everything else into a separate motion which requires 3 positive
votes to pass dealing with the land use amendment first.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. All of the motions and recommendations begin on page 18 of the staff report, with
the land use amendment listed first. And so your motion was then to approve the land use amendment
Councilman Boyle.
Councilman Boyle: That is correct.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves Land Use
Plan Amendment #01-4 to re-guide Outlot A, Lake Lucy Highlands from Residential Large Lot to
Residential Low Density. All voted in favor, except Councilman Ayotte who opposed, and the motion
carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Jansen: And the motion carries 4-1. IfI could have a motion for the rezoning.
Councilman Peterson: Go ahead Gary.
Councilman Boyle: I'm trying to read it here. Motion to approve the rezoning #01-4 to rezone 18.57 acres
of property zoned Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family with, on that's a period.
Mayor Jansen: That's it. IfI could have a second please.
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves Rezoning
#01-4 to rezone 18.57 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single
Family. All voted in favor, except Councilman Ayotte who opposed, and the motion carried with a
vote of 4 to 1.
23
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Mayor Jansen: Motion carries 4-1. If I could have a motion for the preliminary plat please.
Councilman Boyle: Should I keep going?
Mayor Jansen: Sure. You're on a roll.
Councilman Boyle: Okay. Recommend approval of the preliminary plat for subdivision #01-10 for Lake
Lucy Ridge for 17 lots and 2 outlots as shown on the plans received February 19, 2002, subject to the list
of conditions.
Mayor Jansen: 1 through 36.
Kate Aanenson: Can we make...the fence that Steve had brought up. If you want to add 37, a fence on
the.
Sharmin A1-Jaff: On top of the retaining wall.
Teresa Burgess: Just adding the fence as a condition so it's clarified.
Councilman Labatt: Make that 37 then?
Councilman Boyle: Through 37, is that it?
Councilman Peterson: Add 37.
Councilman Labatt: Add 37, the fence.
Roger Knutson: And did you mention the change in number 117 Changing the number 21 to 17.
Councilman Boyle: Well if I didn't, I will now.
Councilman Peterson: I thought I heard you say that.
Councilman Boyle: I did that once but maybe I'd better do it with this one too. With the addition, with the
change to number 11, the amendment and adding number 37.
Mayor Jansen: Which is the fence located at the top of the retaining wall. Were those all of our changes?
Okay. If I could have a second please.
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves preliminary
plat for Subdivision #01-10 for Lake Lucy Ridge for 17 lots and two outlots as shown on the plans
received February 19, 2002, subject to the following conditions:
1. Street lights shall be located at all intersections and at the end of the cul-de-sac.
2. A minimum of three overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot.
24
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
10.
11.
Proposed boulevard planting along all public streets shall be located outside of the right-of-way.
Planting and maintenance of these trees will be the responsibility of the developer/development.
Tree protection fencing is required around all trees proposed to be saved. Any tree lost will be
replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches.
The applicant shall submit to the city a table listing the lot and block and the number of trees
required on that property.
Trees required on each lot, each are 2 ½" diameter:
Block 1, Lot 1 8 Block 3, Lot 2 12
Block 1, Lot 2 8 Block 3, Lot 3 13
Blockl, Lot3 11 Block 3, Lot4 14
Block 1, Lot 4 14 Block 3, Lot 5 10
Block 2, Lot 1 5 Block 3, Lot 6 12
Block 2, Lot 2 7 Block 3, Lot 7 7
Block 2, Lot3 11 Block 3, Lot8 4
Block 3, Lotl 16 Block 3, Lot9 7
Block 3, Lot 10 7
The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in buffer yard
and rear yard areas.
If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be
required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans.
Staff has reviewed the ponding calculations and found that only minor modifications are necessary.
Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to correct the calculations.
Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations will need to be submitted. The storm sewer
will have to be designed for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will
need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds,
drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall
be 20 feet wide.
Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook. Staff recommends that the City's Type III erosion control fence,
which is heavy-duty fence, be used for the areas adjacent to the existing wetlands. Erosion control
matting or wood fiber blankets will be required for the steep, rear yard slopes of those lots in the
north and southwesterly portions of the site. A 75 foot rock construction entrance is required at the
site access off of Lake Lucy Road.
The two underlying parcels of this development have been previously assessed for one water
hookup and connection charge. The assessments, however, have not been paid. Staff is
recommending that the two previously assessed connection charges, which total $8,670 (2002
rates), be re-spread over the 17 newly create lots. In addition, each newly created lot will be
25
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
required to pay a sewer and water hookup charge of $1,383 and $1,802 (2002 rates), respectively.
Since the property is within the Lake Ann sewer district, a sewer interceptor charge of $1,057 and
a sub-trunk charge of $866 will also be due on each lot. The sewer and water lateral connection
charges for the new lots will be waived contingent on the developer installing the internal lateral
utility lines. All of the above fees are due at the time of building permit issuance.
12.
Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition
of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be
required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a
development contract with the City and to supply the necessary financial security in the form of a
letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of
final plat approval.
13.
Increase the amount of platted right-of-way along Lake Lucy Road from 74 feet to 80 feet in
width. This is the minimum required right-of-way width for collector streets, such as Lake Lucy
Road in Chanhassen.
14.
Submit a separate preliminary utility plan that shows the proposed rim elevations, invert
elevations, and pipe sizes for all proposed and existing utility lines.
15.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e.
Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Health Department,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Army Corp of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, and comply with their conditions of approval.
16.
The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge
from homes not adjacent to ponds or wetlands.
17.
The horizontal curves at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane do not meet a 30 m.p.h, design. As
such, the curves will have to be posted at a slower speed.
18.
A temporary cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be required at the south end of
Lucy Ridge Lane along with a sign stating that the road will be extended in the future.
19.
Submit a temporary easement for the proposed off-site grading on Ashling Meadows property.
The proposed and existing contours for the Ashling Meadows site must be shown on the grading
plan to ensure that the grading and drainage will work.
20.
Revises Lot 3 to be a full basement house pad with a rear pad elevation of 1004 and change Lot 4
so it is re-oriented toward Emerald Lane with front and rear pad elevations of 1012+ and 1008+
respectively. In the area of Block 2, all three of the proposed lots should be full basement house
pads with matching front and rear elevations or tuck-under type house pads. In addition, revise Lot
6, Block 3 to be re-oriented toward the adjacent cul-de-sac with a front pad elevation of 994+ and
a southeast walkout elevation of 986+.
21.
The proposed sanitary sewer lift station shall be designed to serve this development and the
neighboring properties to the east. Any oversizing of the sewer forcemain or lift station pumps,
beyond what is needed to serve this development, will be a city cost.
26
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
22.
Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation
Act (MR 8420).
23.
Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved unless otherwise approved by the City. All disturbed
buffer areas shall be revegetated with native, non-invasive vegetation. Buffers shall be surveyed
and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland
buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and shall pay the
City $20 per sign.
24. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
25.
All bluff areas shall be preserved. In addition, all structures shall maintain a 30 foot setback from
the bluff and no grading shall occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e. the bluff and land located
within 20 feet from the top or toe of a bluff).
26. The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates.
27.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation
areas and storm water ponds.
28.
Type III silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as
buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge.
29. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
30.
Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDot seed mix 25A, or a similar seed mix
that is approved for wetland soil conditions. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction
activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber
blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook.
31.
Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 12.94 acres, the water quality fees
associated with this project are $10,352; the water quantity fees are approximately $25,621. The
applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from
the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. At this
time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is
$35,973.
32.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Army corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of
approval.
33. Fire Marshal conditions:
27
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Submit a plan to the Fire marshal indicating roads and location of proposed fire hydrants
only for review. The submitted plans: grading, drainage, erosion control plan and
preliminary utility plan are too congested at this time.
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and brush must be either
removed from the site or chipped.
An approved turn around shall be designed and installed at the south end of Lucy Ridge
Lane to allow the turning around of fire apparatus. Submit cul-de-sac design and
dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval.
Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.4.
When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire
protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made
serviceable prior to and during time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code
Section 901.3.
Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads
of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving
capabilities. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.2.
34. Park and Recreation conditions:
a. A 20 foot trail easement is identified.
b. The trail alignment is not within the wetland buffer.
The trail easement may abut lot lines, but the trail alignment must maintain a minimum 6
foot separation from lot lines.
The pond berm, which the trail crosses, must maintain a minimum top width of 12 feet to
allow for a 2 foot %lear" on either side of the trail.
e. The 8 foot bituminous trail shall be extended to Lake Lucy Road.
The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of the trail with reimbursement for
material costs being made from the City's Park and Trail Fund. The trail shall be 8 feet
wide and built to bituminous material to city specifications. Full park fees ($25,000 park
fees and $8,500 trail fees), with one-third being paid at the time of platting and two-thirds
at the time of the individual building permits, shall also be paid.
35. Building Official conditions:
28
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
36.
Ordinance
Block 1
Lot l
25,322
170.79'
176'
30'/50'*/30'**
a. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
b. A demolition permit will be required prior to removal of the existing structures on the site.
All structure shall comply with the following table:
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE-RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Lot Home
Area Width Depth Setback
15,000 90' 125' 30' front/read
10' sides
10'
Lot 2
21,931
110.59'
188'
30'/30'/30***
10'
Lot 3
21,120
110'
192'
30'/30'
29
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
10'
Lot4
26,700
115.42'
206.59
30'/30'
206.59 comer lot
10'
Block 2
Lot l 21,055 120' 175' 30'/30'
10'
Lot2 22,008 116' 194' 30'/30'
10'
Lot3 22,689 127.54 187.69 30'/30'
164'comer 10'
lot
Block 3
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 4
Lot 5
Lot 6
22,080
19,596
19,670
19,877
29,583
18,781
89.22 on 160'
curve
125.87 comer 10'
lot
84.08' on 181'
curve
94.21 175
109 on curve 170'
127.69' on 229'
curve
77.76' on 180'
curve
30'/30'/60**
30'/30'/60**
10'
30'/30'/60**
10'
30'/30'/60**
10'
30'/30'/60**
10'/30'***
30'/30'
30
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
218' and
128'
comer lot
Lot 7 18,526 207' 146'
Lot 8 20,003 73.80' on 173'
curve
Lot 9 30,755 84.55 on 235'
curve
Lot 10 33,213 95' 278'
10'
30'/30'
10'
30'/30'
10'
30'/30'***
10'/60'**
30'/30'***
10'/60'**
Outlet A 27,000
Outlet B 291,196
The 50 foot setback includes a 10 foot average wetland buffer in addition to a 40 foot
structure setback.
The 60 foot setback includes a 20 foot average wetland buffer in addition to a 40 foot
structure setback.
*** The 30 foot bluff setback includes a 20 foot bluff impact zone.
37. A fence shall be placed at the top of the retaining wall.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Ayotte who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to
1.
Mayor Jansen: Our last motion is on page 25 for the wetland alteration permit.
Councilman Boyle: Motion that we approve the Wetland Alteration Permit #2001-3 for Lake Lucy Ridge
as shown on the plans dated and received February 19, 2001, and subject to the conditions 1 through 8.
Mayor Jansen: Great. If I could have a second please.
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approves Wetland
Alteration Permit #2001-3 for Lake Lucy Ridge as shown on the plans dated February 19, 2001, and
subject to the following conditions:
Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation
Act (MR 8420).
The plans shall show a fixed photo monitoring point for the replacement wetland. A five-year
wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The applicant shall provide proof of
31
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. The City shall
approve a wetland replacement plan prior to wetland impacts occurring.
Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved unless otherwise approved by the City. All disturbed
buffer areas shall be revegetated with native, non-invasive vegetation. Buffers shall be surveyed
and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland
buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and shall pay the
City $20 per sign.
4. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation
areas and storm water ponds.
Type III silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as
buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge.
Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDot seed mix 25A or a similar seed mix that
is approved for wetland soil conditions.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Army Corps of Engineers), and comply with their
conditions of approval.
All voted in favor, except Councilman Ayotte who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to
1.
Mayor Jansen: So that ends that agenda item. Thank you.
32
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO CREATE 20 LOTS, FOUR
OUTLOTS, AND A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH A VARIANCE FOR THE USE OF
PRIVATE STREETS AND FROM THE SUBDIVISION STANDARDS, AND A WETLAND
ALTERATION PERMIT ON 22.28 ACRES; LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 7 AT THE
END OF PIPEWOOD CURVE, HIDDEN CREEK ESTATES; MATRIX DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Cindy Gess
Perry Ryan
4001 Aster Trail
Ryan Engineer, Excelsior
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. As you indicated, there are two motions tonight for subdivision and for
wetland alteration permit. The subject property is located on the north side of Highway 7, adjacent to an
existing subdivision. It's been in there a long time, Pipewood Curve. One of the issues that we are trying
to address is hooking up Pipewood Curve and the 8 percent issue as you approach Highway 7, and as
you're aware Highway 7 is being upgraded so this project will work together with the upgrading of
Highway 7. The other issue with this plat is there's equal amount of upland as there is wetland,
approximately 8 1/2 acres of both, so it was a little complex. Over the years we've looked at a lot of
different plans for the site and we believe this site plan is well conceived. The area in blue is the edge of
the wetland. This application, they are looking at tying in existing Pipewood Curve and it was the staff's
recommendation that we wouldn't want this traffic to go through Pipewood Curve. MnDot has jurisdiction
over the access points and we believe that it was better to provide access coming the other way so that
people in the existing subdivision could come through at a safer access point. Again as MnDot's upgrading
that road, they will be working with this project to provide the access, and the existing Pipewood Curve
then would be blocked. Another issue with this is, there is a creek that runs through the property. Again
the large wetland, the creek that runs through the property here. When the applicant first approached the
staff they were looking at variances. We try to eliminate those inasmuch as possible. We did recommend a
revision to the plat and that's in this area here, along the cul-de-sac. We think the lot works better and they
concur. That hasn't been finally drawn yet but it will when it comes back for final plat. They've looked at
it and actually I think it works a lot better. What we also did is brought the street through the minimum
area of the creeks. Again the Watershed District will have to give approval for that creek crossing and we
do have a condition in here regarding the setback from the creek. The other issue then is the access to this.
There's an existing home here, two homes here. In looking at access to those, we asked the applicant to
provide how they could give access to that property. Through two private drives for each lot, or through a
cul-de-sac. The staff did, and so did the Planning Commission on their meeting on March 5th,
recommended approval for one drive. Private drive to serve both lots so the condition that the Planning
Commission had was the orientation and that's kind of what we've got into, some of the discussion with
variances to have the appropriate orientation of the home so it doesn't appear that it's pushed in there
backwards. Both of these homes will then have their backyard adjacent to the wetland and that was a
condition of approval. There will be berming along Highway 7 for noise attenuation. Again, the residents
were concerned about maintaining, maintenance of the creek flow which is a requirement. There was also
some concern of the neighbors up here as far as adjacent see you know the homes and the street coming
through in the future. Again some of the other plat that you just saw, there will be a condition that says
this street may go forward in the future. Those are all larger lots that can be further subdivided. We did
look at that. Also, the homeowner up here, or the cul-de-sac, temporary cul-de-sac will stop short of the
33
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
property line. Or if the wetland goes up further so there is a natural separation already based on the
wetland. So with that staff is recommending approval of the two applications, of the subdivision, and then
the conditions with the wetland permit. And the one private variance with the findings in the staff report.
I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff? Okay. Again, this is not a public hearing. If
there's any new information that the applicant would like to add, you're certainly welcome to step forward
and share that with the council. Otherwise we have the minutes attached. And then otherwise if there's
anyone from the public. Again, if there's any new comments or information to add, you're certainly
welcome to step forward and address those with the council at this time. Seeing no one, I'll bring it back
for council discussion.
Councilman Peterson: I think it's a pretty basic subdivision. I like it.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Thank you. Okay, great. I have to say this again, now we have back to back
developments that are in sensitive areas, and this one certainly reflects staff's efforts in proposing these
private drives to try to accomplish at least as little impact to these kinds of properties as possible. And we
certainly appreciate doing that and I know that that did address at lease some of the concerns of the
neighborhood. And it does seem as though it provides some consistency between the two developments.
And I know there was also discussion around the need for moving that access point and we did end up
receiving since the Planning Commission meeting a letter from MnDot that does document their direction to
us that there will only be one access point, so certainly having the access point through the new
development versus driving the traffic through the old development to get to the new is certainly providing
the least amount of impact, at least on those existing residents and giving them a safer access so that is
appreciated. With that, ifI could have a motion please. And the motion is on page 14.
Councilman Boyle: Okay. I make a motion that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for
Subdivision #2002-4, Hidden Creek Estates creating 20 lots, 4 outlots and street right-of-way with variance
for the use of a private street to access Block 6 shown on plans prepared by Ryan Engineering dated
12/14/01, revised 2/1/02, subject to conditions 1 through 39.
Mayor Jansen: Great. And if I could have a second please.
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approves the
preliminary plat for Subdivision #2002-4, Hidden Creek Estates, creating 20 lots, four outlots and
street right-of-way with a variance for the use of a private street to access Block 6, shown on plans
prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated 12/14/01, revised 2/1/02, subject to the following conditions:
The lot configuration for Block 6 shall be revised so that there is a minimum of 100 feet of lot width for
each lot at the westem property line.
2. Landscaping shall be installed on the south and west side of the private street accessing Block 6.
3. A 50-foot structure setback shall be maintained from Highway 7.
4. The front of the houses in Block 6 shall be oriented as shown on the preliminary plat.
34
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
10.
11.
12.
13.
Cross access and maintenance agreements shall be recorded against the lots for Lots 1 and 2, Block
6 for the use and maintenance of the private street.
The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards.
Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must
sign all plans.
Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review.
The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event. The
proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. Stormwater
calculations should be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized
adequately for the proposed development. All of the ponds are required to be designed to
National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. Drainage and utility easements will
need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including
ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum utility
easement width shall be 20 feet wide.
Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used around the grading perimeter of the site and that
Type III silt fence be used adjacent to all ponds and wetlands, adjacent to all wetland fill areas,
areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. A
75-foot minimum rock construction entrance must be added to the entrance that will be accessed
during construction. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading would require an
easement from the appropriate property owner. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction
activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or
sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management
Practice Handbook. Silt fence shall be removed upon completion of site grading and
reestablishment of vegetation.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the
City's Building Department.
Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time
of building permit issuance. The 2002 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,383 per unit for
sanitary sewer and $1,802 per unit for water.
Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest
editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and
specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the
form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the
conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be
35
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District,
Carver County, etc.
A registered structural engineer must design any retaining walls in excess of four feet in height.
Add all applicable 2002 City of Chanhassen Detail Plates to the plans.
Show all of the existing and proposed easements on the plans.
Show the location of the outlet control structures for all ponds.
The proposed development will be required to meet the existing stormwater runoff rates for the 10-
and 100-year, 24-hour storm events.
In areas where the existing utility lines have been abandoned/removed, the existing utility
easements must be vacated.
Upon construction of the new access: the existing Pipewood Curve intersection shall be closed, the
pavement removed to the edge of the TH 7 right-of-way, and a cul-de-sac turnaround installed at
the southwest end of Pipewood Curve.
Revise the plans to show the following for all of the public streets: a 31-foot back-to-back
pavement width, a 60-foot right-of-way radius, and a 45.5-foot pavement radius for the cul-de-sac.
The proposed private street must be built to a 7-ton design and enclosed within a minimum 30-foot
wide cross-access easement. The developer shall provide inspection reports to the city for the private
street.
Move the cul-de-sac public street accessing Blocks 1 and 2 to the northeast, approximately 100-
feet, eliminate the 90-degree curve, and place the cul-de-sac or turnaround portion of the public
street at the northwestern property line.
Install 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks on one side of all the public streets. The sidewalk shall be on
the north and west side of the streets.
On the utility plan: · Add storm sewer schedule.
· Show the proposed utilities sewer length, slope, type and class.
· Show storm and sanitary manholes rim and invert elevations.
· Combine the pond inlets to the southern pond to have just one apron entering the pond.
· Keep the hydrants on the same side of the street as the watermain.
On the grading plan:
· Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
· Revise Lot 2, Block 5 first floor elevation from 43.0 to 53.0.
· Show all pond contour elevations.
· Show the location of the 75-foot rock construction entrance.
36
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
27.
Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation
Act (MR 8420) and the conditions of Wetland Alteration Permit #2002-1.
28.
All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer or, if no wetland
buffer is proposed, from the edge of the wetland.
29.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation
areas and storm water ponds.
30. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
31
Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 8.5 acres, the water quality fees associated
with this project are $6,800; the water quantity fees are approximately $16,830. The applicant
will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site.
This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. At this time, the
estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $23,630.
32.
The applicant shall resubmit for city approval a landscaping plan that includes 166 trees. The City
Forester shall review the plans for the hardiness of the species.
33.
The applicant shall meet the minimum number and types of plantings required for the buffer yard
along the south property line. The applicant shall provide landscaping screening in depth rather
than all at the property line.
34.
Proposed boulevard planting along all public streets shall be located outside of the right-of-way.
Planting and maintenance of these trees will be the responsibility of the developer/development.
35.
All structures shall maintain a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water level (OHW)
of the creek between Lake Minnewashta and Lake Virginia.
36. The developer shall work to save significant trees, especially tree 58.
37.
The developer shall work with staff to dispose of the construction debris, furniture and
appliances on site properly.
38. The developer shall work with staff to insure uninterrupted stream flows.
39.
The developer shall post a sign that the northerly extension street will be extended in the
future and the cul-de-sac is only temporary.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: And the motion for the wetland alteration permit please.
Councilman Boyle: Motion that City Council approves the Wetland Alteration Permit #2002-1 to
grade and fill within wetland subject to the following conditions 1 through 13.
37
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you. And a second?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approves the
Wetland Alteration Permit #2002-1 to grade and fill within wetlands subject to the
following conditions:
Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans show a fixed photo monitoring point for the
replacement wetland. A five year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted.
The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and
Covenants for Replacement Wetland. The City must approve a wetland replacement plan
prior to wetland impacts occurring.
The applicant shall demonstrate that a wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a
minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained around the entire perimeter of existing
wetlands and proposed wetland mitigation areas, except in areas where a stormwater pond
abuts a wetland. Wetland buffers should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance
with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs,
under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and must pay the city $20 per
sign.
All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer or, if no
wetland buffer is proposed, from the edge of the wetland.
The buffer widths and setbacks shown in the drawing should be consistent with the buffers
and setbacks proposed in the table. The large pond on Lots 1-5, Block 5 should be moved
north to accommodate the increased buffers.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas and storm water ponds.
Type II! silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved
as buffer or, if not buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. The silt fence
shall be removed upon completion of construction.
7. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDot seed mix 25A, or a similar
seed mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions. All upland areas disturbed as a
result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched,
covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each
activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
38
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with
their conditions of approval.
10.
A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
11. Payment of full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication or construction.
12.
Payment of full trail fees in lieu of construction of any section of the city's comprehensive
trail plan.
13.
Provide for a sidewalk connection from Hidden Creek Estates to the Hennepin County
Regional Railroad Authority/Three Rivers Park District Light Rail Transit route multi-use
trail, including procurement/transfer of all applicable easements and permits.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR 9 LOTS, 20UTLOTS AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY ON 7.59 ACRES WITH A VARIANCE FOR A PRIVATE STREET;
LOCATED AT THE END OF KNOB HILL LANE; KNOB HILL 2N~ ADDITION;
METRO AREA PROPERTIES.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The applicant, Mr. Knoblauch is requesting a subdivision. This is separate
from the subdivision that's next to it in the fact that it's not the continuation of a subdivision. It's a
separate piece of property that he acquired. While it does have a Knob Hill 2nd, it's a separate one with a
separate development contract. The issues with this, as indicated, there's a subdivision and a request for
variances and there was also a request from the neighbors for greater tree preservation which led to the
relocation of the road to service the property. The applicant had requested a private drive but staff felt that
to do the public street that additional savings for natural features wasn't that great. The neighbors on this
side wanted additional tree preservation so the street was moved further away from the backs of those
homes, but in order to provide a conservation easement along the back, the road could not be shifted any
further. In your staff report on page 2 we took a comparison of some of the other subdivisions in the
immediate area. These lot sizes on this plat averaged 27,000, which is greater than the other Knob Hill
which is 25,000. Or the average in that area 20 to 17,000 so this has substantially large lots on it. Again,
it's being serviced by a private street. Staff and the Planning Commission did recommend against the
private street. The Planning Commission when they looked at it on February 19th also recommended
against the private street. With that, staff is recommending approval for the subdivision with the conditions
attached in the report starting on page 11. The motion for no variance and then the approval of the plat.
I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Any questions for staff'? Okay, again this is not a public hearing. If there's
any new information that the applicant would like to add since the Planning Commission, you're certainly
welcome to approach the podium with any additional comments.
John Knoblauch: Hi again. I'm John Knoblauch, 1450 Knob Hill Lane.
39
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Mayor Jansen: Good evening.
John Knoblauch: Hi. A couple of small tidbits I'd just like to address. Some of them maybe pertain or
not. Minor item on number 18. Page 12. I'd like staff to look at the adjacent properties to the east.
There's a concern over the maximum elevation of our pond, and I'd just like to address that. That we'd
like to get that looked at more closely. Like to get some shots of those homes to the east so we don't make
that pond too small. That would be the homes that back up along here. I don't think we've got elevations
of those homes yet so staff has kind of shot a 1002 elevation on there and it just, want to address that and
make sure that we actually go off of the 3 feet above the plates of those.
Kate Aanenson: And that's the condition that you have to meet the 3 foot OHW so if you can provide
evidence to that.
Teresa Burgess: At this time what staff would have would be the site plans from the building permits,
and we'd certainly be happy to share any information on elevations with the builder.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
John Knoblauch: Yeah, it might change that 1002 a little bit. That was pulled off of the grading plans.
The other issue that was brought up with staff was moving of the trees. We've got a large line of trees that
has to be jockeyed or moved around on this property line. Also I'd like to propose that we're able to
possibly even move them within the next, and I don't know if this is possible or not but possibly in the next
30 days to improve the survival rate. We've got to move I think about 60 trees and if we move them in
July or August, when this grading is done, the survival rate will be pretty slim. They're 4 to, well actually
they're about, the tallest one's 6 feet. I think they're 2 to 6 feet tall. So that's a concern that I have. I'd
like to see a good survival rate on that. And then the other issue I brought up to the Planning Commission
is the silt fencing and I don't know if that was addressed. Just didn't want to go into the tree preservation
area that's highlighted here with any fencing. I'd rather individually fence out the homes that are in the
treed area at the time of the building permit application. The road is lower than those pads now so we
shouldn't have any erosion from road construction up in here. Also, we brought up a couple issues with
the road. Extension of the road. We've proposed a 28 foot road instead of the standard 31. And also a 50
foot radius on the cul-de-sac instead of 60. The radius on the cul-de-sac is important because it's pushing
those, these two pads farther back into the treed area. As a matter of fact this one has to go 55 foot
preservation instead of the standard 60. I'd really, really like to see council take a look at whether this 50
foot radius would be acceptable to move these homes out of this steeper area. And this is some real virgin
ground in the back here. It will also help on the elevations of the home pads. If you notice on there they
drop some of them, the one I think is a 10 foot drop in the pad elevations from front to back so that was one
of the key things that I had in there. The width of the road was strictly, we could also pull that a little bit
that way. That would help these two. We'd be able to pull these up a little bit closer to this side. We've
already made quite a concession here to these neighbors by putting this 40 foot buffer in here to help them
out. I'd just like to see a concession on the one with less blacktop there to move those homes out of the
woods farther. I think that was about it. Any questions?
Mayor Jansen: No, I'll just have staff address those issues. Thank you.
John Knoblauch: Yep.
40
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Mayor Jansen: And I think a couple of these actually came up and were addressed at the Planning
Commission meeting. Why don't we start with, it was condition 17. The revisions to the cul-de-sac right-
of-way. 60 foot radius and the street pavement width to 31 feet.
Kate Aanenson: It's addressed in the staff report on page, I'll let Teresa comment on it. Just so you can
find it. It's addressed on page 6. Second paragraph from the bottom.
Teresa Burgess: In meeting the 60 foot right-of-way width, that is a standard for us and we need that
space for a number of reasons. One of them, and with it all fresh in our minds is storm, is snow storage.
When we plow those areas, we need that area. We need the size of the cul-de-sac so that we can get that
turnaround with the snowplow. And also so that we can get fire equipment in and out of there so they can
turn around appropriate. So that is the need for the width. Again for the 31 foot, it is our standard and
there is a reason for standards. We need consistency throughout the city. It makes it easier for staff in
dealing with the public because we don't have to try and okay, what was the standard in this neighborhood.
But also it makes it more consistent for the other agencies that need to serve these. For instance the gas
company, the electric company need to use these right-of-way's as well.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, thank you. And then as far as individually silt fencing the lots along the lake.
Teresa Burgess: Silt fence is proposed on the building permit when it's brought in. That's when it's
reviewed and that silt fence is proposed by the developer. We review it make sure it's adequate. If it is not
adequate we will add to what they've proposed and we certainly do not want to see silt fence inside the
preservation area. They will be required to put up, there's a condition in here that they put up tree
preservation fence, which a lot of builders do use silt fence for their tree preservation fence. That's fine.
That's acceptable. That would put it up stream, but that's a different, a different use and those locations
are directed by, originally by the developer. We only review to make sure it's adequate.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And then what about moving the trees in the next 30 days?
Kate Aanenson: Well generally before we allow someone to proceed we like to have security in place.
Generally some sort of development contract to make sure the project's going to proceed. I guess that's
something we can work on. I'm not sure where they're at. The other thing I'd like to get an opinion from
the Forester as far as there's still road restrictions on and some of that, get some timing, but between now
and when this comes back for final plat...
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So we could direct the applicant to just work with staff on that particular issue.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Assuming they'll be back for final plat shortly. Within that next 2 month time
frame and then we can try to come up with some language to resolve that.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I think that addressed all of the issues that were raised. I don't know if there's
anyone here who from the public that would like to address this issue. Again it's not a public hearing but
you can certainly share any new comments with us on this particular proposal if you'd like to at this time.
Seeing no one, council. Questions or comments.
Councilman Peterson: I think it's reasonable. I don't see a compelling reason to change either the
driveway width or the turnaround so I'd recommend we remain static on what staff is recommending and
I'd move to go ahead.
41
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Mayor Jansen: Okay, anyone else?
Councilman Labatt: No, I'd be in favor of just leaving everything the way it is in the 17...the way it is.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. If I could have a motion please.
Councilman Peterson: Madam Mayor, I make a motion the City Council approve preliminary plat for
Knob Hill 2nd Addition, plans prepared by RLK dated January 17, 2002, revised February 6 creating 9 lots,
2 outlots and right-of-way for Knob Hill Lane subject to conditions 1 through 31.
Mayor Jansen: And a second?
Councilman Boyle: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded that the City Council approves preliminary
plat for Knob Hill 2na Addition, plans prepared by RLK Kuusisto, Ltd., dated January 17, 2002,
revised February 6, 2002, creating nine lots, two outlots and right-of-way for Knob Hill Lane, subject
to the following conditions:
1. Lots 1-6, Block 1 shall contain tree preservation easements in the rear yards as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1 Rear 60'
Lot 2, Block 1 Rear 60'
Lot 3, Block 1 Rear 60'
Lot 4, Block 1 Rear 55'
Lot 5, Block 1 Southerly 60' and the westerly 60'
Lot 6, Block 1 Rear 60'
Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to site grading.
Demolition permits must e obtained from the Inspections Division before demolishing any
structures on the property. The shed on Lot 2, Block 1 must either be moved to Lot 1, Block 1, or
demolished.
A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building
permits will be issued.
Separate sewer and water services must be provided for each lot.
An exemption or wetland replacement plan shall be approved prior to any alterations to the wetland
on-site.
Storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized
adequately for the proposed development.
CBMH 2 shall be a catch basin with a sump to remove grit from the storm water prior to discharge
into the proposed pond.
42
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
The proposed pond shall outlet into a public drainage system capable of handing the discharge.
Silt fence shall be provided immediately down slope of all proposed custom graded areas. Silt
fence shall be removed upon completion of site grading and re-establishment of vegetation.
Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1.
All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of
completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 7.05 acres, the water quality fees
associated with this project are $5,640; the water quantity fees are approximately $13,959. The
applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from
the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. At this
time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is
$19,599.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of
approval.
Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required for each of the
custom graded lots at the time of building permit application.
Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must
sign all plans.
Revise the cul-de-sac right-of-way to a 60 foot radius and the street pavement width to 31 feet.
The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 year and 100 year,
24 hour storm events. The proposed pond must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program
(NURP) standards. The high water level (HWL) of the proposed pond, shown on the grading plan
as 1003.9, must be lowered to a maximum elevation of 1002. This new HWL will provide the
required 3 foot vertical separation between the walkout elevations (1005) of the existing homes at
1368 and 1376 Ithilien and the pond's HWL in accordance with the City's SWMP. The storm
sewer must be designed for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements shall
be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage
swales, and wetlands up to the 100 year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet
wide.
Staff recommends that Type III silt fence be used along the western property line of the site
adjacent to Clasen Lake. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of
tree removal. A 75 foot minimum rock construction entrance should be added to the entrance that
will be accessed during construction. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will
require an easement from the appropriate property owner.
43
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
The pad elevation of Lot 1, Block 2 shall be raised to 1012 to better facilitate drainage on the west
side of the lot.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the
City's Building Department.
Each newly created lot will be subject to city sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time
of building permit issuance. The 2002 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,383 per unit for
sanitary sewer and $1,802 per unit for water.
Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the city's latest
editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and
specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the
form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the
conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be
obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District,
Carver County, etc.
Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plate Numbers: 1002, 1003, 1005, 1006, 2001,
2109, 2110, 2201, 2202, 2203, 2004, 2205, 3104, 3106, 3107, 5301, 5302, 5232, and 5234.
Lower MH-3 be lowered by approximately 3 feet in order to serve the basement of Lot 5, Block 1.
On the utility plan:
a. Show all the existing and proposed utility easements.
b. Add a legend.
c. Show the proposed storm sewer length, slope and type.
d. Show sanitary sewer pipe class, length and slope.
On the grading plan:
a. Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements.
b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
c. Add a note for removing existing bituminous driveway and restore with vegetation.
d. Show the storm sewer pipe, slope and length.
e. Show a minimum of 75 foot rock construction entrance.
f. Add a legend which describes the existing and proposed contours, Type II silt fence, property
lines, etc.
g. Show typical house pad with definitions.
On the preliminary plat:
a. Side and rear lot line easements should be shown as 5 feet wide.
b. Show all existing and proposed drainage and utility easements.
A minimum 20 foot wide public easement is required for the pond outlet which extends outside the
site property lines.
44
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
30. The developer shall dedicate a 20-foot wide trail easement along the eastem property line of Lot 6, Block
1. The development shall pay full park and trail fees pursuant to city ordinance for the eight new lots.
31. The applicant shall work with staff to develop a detailed evergreen buffer plan along the eastern
property line. The plan will include number and height of trees to be moved and specific location
where trees will be transplanted and also the height and location of new evergreens to be planted.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: I believe I also need a motion for the denial of the variance.
Councilman Peterson: What page is it on?
Mayor Jansen: 11. Just above the last motion.
Roger Knutson: That's fine. It's almost implicit in what you've done but I think just to make the record
clear, that'd be fine.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Councilman Peterson: I would recommend that the City Council denies the variance for the use of a private
street based upon findings in the staff report.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you, and a second please.
Councilman Boyle: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Boyle seconded that the City Council denies the variance
for the use of a private street based on the findings in the staff report. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
PRESENTATION OF REDISTRICTING PLANS.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, City Council members. You have staff's report in front of you. Karen Engelhardt
and Bob Generous have gone into quite a bit of detail talking about the different options. I just want to
highlight two changes that have occurred since the packet has gone out. Option 1-2, Nann can you zoom in
on that one?
Councilman Peterson: Option 1-27
Todd Gerhardt: Or Option 1, sorry .... District number 6 here. Roger recommended that we follow the
trail contour on it. The physical trail that's out there. We were following the section lines but Roger is
recommending that we follow the trail as a natural boundary.
Mayor Jansen: We don't have the trail on our map, correct? As I'm sitting here looking for it.
Councilman Boyle: Is that not the blue?
45
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Mayor Jansen: I think that's the creek.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, just to remind you. The purpose for my recommendation is just that we have to
follow physical features such as streets, rivers, trails, things like that.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And we can't find a section map on the, section line on the group no matter how
hard you try.
Councilman Boyle: I think that's a good enough reason Roger.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So when we get your current revision it will in fact reflect the trail for us?
Todd Gerhardt: Yes. You'll get a map just like that one.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. It is on this map.
Todd Gerhardt: We're calling these options 1-2 and 2-2, not to get them confused with Options 1... We
also expanded Precinct number 5. It was number 7 in this area highlighted here. And I can't remember
why we changed that one.
Roger Knutson: Same reason as in the other one. Trying to find a physical feature.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Staff is recommending that we go with 2-2. Of the two areas that you will see in your
current options that you have, it was separating a fairly large subdivision, Longacres. Under Option 1, the
precinct line falls along Longacres Drive. Staff is recommending you go with Option 2, in using the
precinct boundary of Lake Lucy Road. Longacres Drive is a minor collector road. Lake Lucy Road is a
major collector road so, and in using Lake Lucy it doesn't break up a fairly large residential subdivision
that Longacres is and better communication between the neighbors in trying to determine wherever the
precinct are at. So staff is recommending 2-2. If the City Council endorses 2-2, staff should be directed to
take citizen comments in the next 2 weeks. Bring those comments back to you for your April 22nd meeting
and put it up for formal approval for April 22nd. With that staff will take any questions that you have at
this time.
Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you. Council, any questions for staff?
Councilman Ayotte: Do you think April 22 is enough time? Is our back to the wall to.
Todd Gerhardt: The deadline is April 30th. We need to get it down to the County by April 30th so we'll
have it in the paper for next week. I think that would be more than enough time.
Councilman Peterson: Is the County waiting for us before they do their own line re-drawing?
Mayor Jansen: Yes. That's the way the process was actually designated, correct?
Todd Gerhardt: Yes, that's under State Statute.
46
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Councilman Labatt: In the adjustment on 2-2, in Precinct number 5. So pretty much all that encompasses
the parkland?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. There are no residential homes affected by the two changes under either option.
This is Eckankar. There's no residential associated with this area highlighted here, or in this area on
Option 1. That is the 100 acres woods.
Councilman Labatt: So the parcel that's to the left or to the west of that creek on the north side of 5 is
zoned high density. That's going to be in 7, correct?
Todd Gerhardt: In this area here?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, in which I'm talking right? Those trees there.
Todd Gerhardt: Yep.
Councilman Labatt: That will be in 7?
Todd Gerhardt: That will be in 7, yes.
Councilman Labatt: And that potential, is it the census is it, it's not taking into effect now though is it?
Todd Gerhardt: We took into account with our census population and future development of that area. 7 is
2,768 individuals so we tried to get that into the 3,000 number...
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Councilman Peterson: That speaks directly to one of my questions. You look at Precinct number 3, and in
either option, that's the smallest by a pretty significant factor and percentage wise. And I know we're
thinking ahead but that growth isn't going to happen probably until the next census so are we not creating a
smaller precinct knowing it's not going to get up to the 3,000 level until the next census?
Mayor Jansen: Actually part of that precinct comes into the MUSA line in 2005.
Todd Gerhardt: Right, and by the time they're occupying some of those homes, it could be, they could start
bringing subdivisions in in 2004. And then right in 2005 you could have physical people moving into those
homes. And you cannot, and Roger correct me if I'm wrong but we cannot move, change a precinct
boundary until after the next census, is the way I understood it.
Mayor Jansen: And I think part of the reason for that that Karen addressed in the last memo had to do with
the cost to the County as well, because we'd be affecting how they have it drawn. I think that was part of
one of the issues that you had in that original memo.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, they would have to potentially modify their precincts down the line too. So that's
why had the City approve it first and then the County.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
47
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Councilman Labatt: One more question. Are you done Craig?
Councilman Peterson: Yeah.
Councilman Labatt: Back on 2-2, the west of Lake Lucy. The border there where it goes from pink to
yellow, or purple to yellow. The section line is the divider?
Todd Gerhardt: Say that again?
Councilman Labatt: Just to the left of Lake Lucy, or to the west side. No. Come back.
Mayor Jansen: The actual lake.
Councilman Labatt: The actual lake where it goes from purple to yellow, that's a section line divider.
Mayor Jansen: Are you asking whether it needs to be along a physical feature the way that the other two
were that we ended up changing?
Councilman Labatt: Yep.
Roger Knutson: It should be along a physical.
Councilman Peterson: Way to go Steve.
Todd Gerhardt: That trail is in.
Roger Knutson: Todd, is Option 2 the same as Option 2-2?
Todd Gerhardt: I'm sure we did a section line again there.
Roger Knutson: Yeah. Why don't we just, my eyes aren't very good. There is, what is this... ?
Todd Gerhardt: It's a future trail. It's not in. There's a subdivision right here.
Roger Knutson: Maybe, is there a subdivision?
Todd Gerhardt: Right here and I think what we did is followed probably the southerly lot.
Roger Knutson: If you're following a subdivision line, where there's a markation of homes that.
Todd Gerhardt: Well this is a section line but.
Roger Knutson: Yeah you can't, you shouldn't be following a section line. I can't believe we missed that.
Thought I talked to Karen about all of these. I don't recall any discretion about this one.
Todd Gerhardt: So follow the plat on this one, does it, we approved Noecker tonight so that will potentially
be recorded.
48
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Roger Knutson: Is there a street here?
Todd Gerhardt: No.
Councilman Labatt: There will be just a street coming up like this that will dead end right here and this
will tie into that one.
Roger Knutson: So we could follow the streets you're putting in.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, should we just anticipate that this will be adjusted to follow.
Roger Knutson: Yes, we'll make a minor adjustment to follow the closest physical feature we can find
right there. Make the smallest adjustment possible.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Roger Knutson: Maybe there's a physical feature there I can't see.
Todd Gerhardt: Just like we did here, and we'll follow this lot lines over here.
Mayor Jansen: So everyone anticipates that that particular area of the division will change slightly.
Roger Knutson: We'll look for a physical feature and make the smallest change possible.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. Any other comments council? Or questions. At this point staff is asking us
which option we would like to have go out to the public to receive comment and they've recommended
Option number 2. Is council comfortable with that or any additional?
Councilman Ayotte: I've got a question. Is there any reason why we couldn't ask comments from the
public for more than a month? I mean why, why are we, there may be somebody out there that's smart and
can tell us.
Councilman Labatt: Well they've got to count houses in the next 2 weeks of people.
Mayor Jansen: Well and at this point if staff in fact is, and I happened to agree with the logic of not
dividing the Longacres neighborhood and going to the Lake Lucy Road since there is good reason for
making that shift.
Councilman Ayotte: I understand that. I'm just saying it would be, if nothing else possibly insightful to
get comments from more than one, that's all. I don't know is there a rule why we can't or?
Councilman Peterson: What are the odds of us getting any comments back?
Councilman Labatt: Slim to none.
Mayor Jansen: And I guess that's why I would have a tendency to want to put one out there so that they're
commenting on the one that we're looking at going in that direction on, so that if there are issues with the
49
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Option 2, they're specifically focused on this one and making sure that they're providing us any
adjustments. Or proposals to that option.
Councilman Boyle: Bob, I see where you're coming from but I think it might be confusing. Or add
confusion.
Councilman Ayotte: I'm not going to make that supposition...
Councilman Peterson: My only comments, I didn't read the staff recommendation until after I looked at
both maps, and my eye normally went to Option 1 because it seemed more geometrically smooth so that, in
other words more readable, which is I think a relatively compelling reason to go with Option 1. I don't see
splitting Longacres as being a major issue, but that's where, it just looks more logical.
Mayor Jansen: I guess I can relate to what staff is communicating as far as neighbors communicating to
each other where the polling place is and if someone south of Longacres tells them the polling place is
Precinct 7, and they're actually on the other side, the north side of Longacres, they've now directed
themselves to Precinct 7 and have to be re-routed up to Precinct 6. So I'm looking at it in more of the
confusion that would occur in the communication there amongst neighbors.
Councilman Boyle: I'm in concurrence with staff's recommendation.
Councilman Ayotte: Well fine.
Councilman Labatt: I'm fine with staff's recommendation.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. So if I could have a motion directing staff on taking Option number 2 out for citizen
comments and bringing that back to us then for our April 22nd meeting.
Councilman Peterson: Do we need a motion?
Roger Knutson: Well, if you're going to publicize something, I think they'd like to know that it's okay with
the council.
Mayor Jansen: I'll make a motion that we direct staff to take Option 2-1 with the minor revision.
Councilman Labatt: No, no, 2-2.
Mayor Jansen: I'm sorry, 2-2 with the minor revision that we're looking at between Section 5 and 7 out to
the public to receive citizen comment and bring that back for our adoption then on April 22nd. If I could
have a second please.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Jansen moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council direct staff to take Option
2-2, with minor revisions, out for public comment and back for adoption at the April 22, 2002 City
Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
50
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Mayor Jansen: And thank you to staff for having looked at this in enough time prior to this coming to us
that you could bring us a proposal this evening. It is a quick turnaround time that's expected of the city to
then get this to the County and I think that early review that staff had begun to work on, and should we give
credit to Karen Engelhardt and Vicki.
Councilman Labatt: Bob too.
Todd Gerhardt: And Bob Generous.
Mayor Jansen: And Bob Generous worked very hard on coming up with the proper redistricting based on
all of the guidelines that they had to follow to be sure that we did this properly. So our thanks to them.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
COUNCIL/COMMISSION LIAISON UPDATE.
Mayor Jansen: Any reports from council?
Councilman Ayotte: Well we got the poster done on the Environmental Commission. They took care of
business there and that came forward and they're moving forward with the bag. So that's all...
Mayor Jansen: Very good.
Councilman Ayotte: And bigger than that on my other activity, the water treatment thing just again,
Burgess did a nice job of that and the folks she's brought in from the community are great and that went
really well. I don't know if that was reported on last time or not but I thought I'd mention that on the water
treatment.
Mayor Jansen: Great. Appreciate that.
Councilman Peterson: Southwest Metro interestingly enough, we made a decision last month to expand
the, what you see there is the parking lot, another floor just because of the current activity so it was a pretty
big undertaking and they're worried that they're going to run short of parking with another floor so.
Mayor Jansen: Some exciting things happening out at that transit hub. Including the addition of a Krispy
Kremes.
Councilman Labatt: Really?
Mayor Jansen: Yep, as part of the development.
Councilman Labatt: Is it open?
Mayor Jansen: Not yet. Anything else?
Councilman Boyle: Nothing new on Senior.
51
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Mayor Jansen: Okay. From the Planning Commission, from right after our joint meeting there was a
Planning Commission meeting actually that Tuesday evening and I sat down with the commission
afterwards and we went through and made sure that I had documented all the points that had come up in
discussion that are now being addressed and brought back to them as far as the need for additional
information and one of the things that we did talk about, they specifically had requested a little bit more
interaction with the council so staff right now is working on setting up a work session for the Planning
Commission prior to one of our June meetings. Planning Commission would like to meet in a work session
prior to coming to council so we will meet again as a joint Planning Commission and Council at one of
approximately our June meetings, if not the first one in July.
Todd Gerhardt: It's programmed already in June. I'm just not remembering the date but I'll get an e-mail
out to you on that.
Mayor Jansen: Yeah, and we've kept it flexible based upon when they can actually get that work session
scheduled so that that can be accomplished as well. We did have some conversation around the liaison
position since that had come up as an issue during our meeting. They in fact as a group have not had a
conversation about the liaison position. One of the issues that we did address that evening, and I certainly
reacted to what they had brought up in our joint meeting in that it was the first time I had heard there, was
a concern with where I was sitting during the meeting so I positioned myself in the audience for that
meeting and that certainly seemed to address at least what seemed to have been the major issue with having
a liaison person.
Councilman Ayotte: What row were you in?
Mayor Jansen: What row?
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah.
Mayor Jansen: Actually Uli again emphasized that I'm easier to ignore if I'm sitting at the table with them
than if I'm out in the audience so, I don't know how to react to that but, they again one of the key issues
was communication and how do we keep that open communication between the Planning Commission and
the council so that there's good feedback going back and forth and we did discuss some of the issues that
they've had over the course of the year that I've been able to bring to council and then take back and have
addressed pretty immediately as far as any of their concerns so, they'll have some further discussion around
that position. I do not attend their work session so that they can have those open discussion and I'm
assuming that that will be one of those agenda items that as a group they will discuss then prior to our next
meeting, but.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah I think it's probably prudent that we put that on a work session for us to
discussion, not just the Planning Commission but all of them.
Mayor Jansen: Sure, yep. Absolutely.
Councilman Peterson: Because all of them ask for something different and we need to, I think we need to
address are we going to do the liaison on a go forward basis and if not, how are we going to maintain
communication, etc, etc so.
Mayor Jansen: Exactly.
52
City Council Meeting - April 8, 2002
Councilman Peterson: One of the work session items in the coming weeks.
Mayor Jansen: Yep, we will definitely do that. And again, that evening was the first that any issue was
actually addressed around the liaison position so with those concerns raised we can certainly address them
now going forward. I think that's everything under council/commission liaison.
APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION & PARK AND RECREATION
COMMISSION.
Mayor Jansen: Under agenda item number 12, we're actually going to not make the appointments to the
Planning Commission and Park and Rec Commission this evening because we did run out of time as we
were addressing our interviews. So moving onto administrative presentations.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: The only item I have to update the City Council on is the rental licensing. We're getting
close on that ordinance. We have to make a few minor changes to it, and the group had also asked to look
at the housing maintenance code which does impact the rental licensing individuals so we're hoping to bring
that back early part of May, so that has been delayed about one month so I think we're planning to see that
either in your first, last meeting in April or first meeting in May. So expect to see that either the end of
May or first part of June. But they are moving ahead and we've had some lively discussion.
Mayor Jansen: As anticipated. Very good. Thank you for the update. Any questions for staff under the
administrative section?
Councilman Ayotte: Who put that agenda together?
Councilman Labatt: Nobody's going to admit it.
Mayor Jansen: Our crazy work session agenda.
Todd Gerhardt: Trying to limit how many meetings you guys have so.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None.
Mayor Jansen: As noted on our agenda, we are going to adjourn and reconvene our work session then up in
the courtyard conference room so if I could have a motion to adjourn.
Councilman Boyle moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to adjourn. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
53