CC 2004 03 22CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 22, 2004
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Ayotte, Councilman
Labatt, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Lundquist
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Bob
Generous, Paul Oehme, Matt Saam, Kelley Janes, and Todd Hoffman
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Uli Sacchet
Melissa Gilman
Janet Paulsen
Debbie Lloyd
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Villager
7305 Laredo Drive
7302 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT:
Mayor Furlong: Good evening and thank you for those in attendance here this evening
and those watching at home. Appreciate you joining us. One item of a public
announcement that was not on the published agenda, but in looking at the calendar, our
council does not meet for another 3 weeks and on Saturday, April l0th the city will be
sponsoring our annual Easter Egg Candy Hunt and Coloring Contest. It's going to be
Saturday, April l0th beginning at 9:00 at the Chanhassen Rec Center. It's for ages,
children up to 12 years old. This is a great event, not only for families but for
grandparents with their grandchildren as well, and it's a lot of fun. There'll be music and
coloring contest prizes, candy, and weather permitting the candy hunt will be outside this
year as opposed to inside, but ! would encourage all families to put it on their calendar
and join me and my children there on April l0th for the Easter Egg Hunt.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded
to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
Approval of Minutes:
- City Council Work Session Minutes dated March 8, 2004
- City Council Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated March 8,
2004
Receive Commission Minutes:
- Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated March 2, 2004
- Park and Recreation Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated
February 24, 2004
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Resolution#2004-12: Approval of Plans & Specifications; Authorize
Advertisement for Bids on the 2004 MSA Street Improvement Project 04-02.
Resolution#2004-13: Approval of Plans & Specifications; Authorize
Advertisement for Bids for Well No. 9, Project 03-02.
e. Accept $2,000 Donation for Safety Camp from General Mills.
f. Approval of 2004 Liquor License Renewals.
g. Approval of Contract with RPA for Check Diversion Program.
h. Resolution#2004-14: Approval of Capital Improvement Program Purchases:
1) Toro 550-D Groundsmaster Lawnmower & John Deere 5520 Tractor with
Cab and Broom for the Park Maintenance Department.
2) Dodge Dakota Quad Cab 4 x 4 for the Building Inspections Department.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
b. APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT, TH 41 TRAIL
CONNECTOR.
Councilman Lundquist: Discussion on this topic, one of my favorite topics from
meetings past. One concern I had was the range of bids being $33,000 to $75,000
concerns me. And the other reason that concerns me is the history that we have with this
particular contractor who staff is recommending as one that we've had a bad experience
with in the past on another trail with a large change order, several extra soil borings and
things like this so raise the flag for me. In speaking with Mr. Gerhardt I know that this
particular firm has added some additional staff and done some additional things to
mitigate that happening again, but just want to go on the record and say that we were
unhappy the first time and we can value the fact that they've taken steps to mitigate that
but given that this contract is the most competitive bid, I'm in favor of awarding it but
hopefully our friends at Bonestroo will not let this same thing happen again on this trail.
And if it does, they should expect to not have such a friendly response the next time we
come around.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Gerhardt, could you expand a little bit on what Councilman
Lundquist is saying.
Todd Gerhardt: Well, we've had a couple issues with Bonestroo in the past and since
that time they have hired a project manager, client manager is a better term I guess and
they provide weekly updates with us on projects that they're working on. Ask for input
from a weekly basis, so they have really stepped up their customer service and have
worked hard on their problem solving of issues. They still are in our pool of candidates.
2
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
They do provide competitive bids and you know staff will work harder with them in
trying to improve the quality of their services.
Mayor Furlong: Any discussions or questions? If not, is there a motion?
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you, is there a second?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any further discussion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to approve the
retention of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates to provide engineering
consultant services for the Highway 41 trail connector. The amount of
compensation for preliminary design, easement description, surveying, permitting,
final design, bidding, construction inspection, and the provision of record plans
shall not exceed $33,840. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously
with a vote of 5 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS.
Maria Lynn: My name is Maria Lynn and I live at 1050 Lake Susan Drive. Mayor
Furlong, members of the City Council, I'm here tonight to voice my strong opposition to
the current MnDot plan for Highway 212, specifically the 212/101 interchange.
Specifically the plan to route an off ramp directly into my neighborhood, Chanhassen
Hills via Lake Susan Drive is unacceptable. ! respectfully request that you as our elected
officials vote to reject the plan in it's current form. And continue to work with MnDot
and the Chanhassen city staff to develop an acceptable alternative. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Is there anyone else that would like to address the council through
visitor presentations this evening? Seeing none we'll close visitor presentations and
move on with our agenda.
LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you and good evening. This evening ! brought Deputy Kyle
Perlich in to introduce to the City Council. Kyle has been with the Carver County
Sheriff's office since 1997. Or excuse me, since 1994. He's worked in the City of
Chanhassen since 1997. Some of the different things Kyle has been involved in since
he's been with the county, he's been with investigation. School resource officer, and
while he was a resource officer he was doing quite a bit of bike patrol actually in the city
of Chanhassen during the summers, so he's got a lot of experience with youth, and that
actually is an investigator also who does a lot of youth investigation. So I'm glad to have
Kyle in Chanhassen. He is one of our top ticket writers here in the city and.
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Ayotte.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Kyle's wife is actually an officer in the city of Chaska as well. She's a
school resource officer there and she's also a very good officer so we're glad to have
Kyle in the city of Chanhassen. That's Kyle.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you deputy. Appreciate your service.
Sgt. Jim Olson: What I've included in the report for this month is I've got the area report
for the month of February for the city. I have the citation list for February. Also a copy
of crime prevention reports from Beth Hoiseth, copy of crime alert put out by Beth
Hoiseth, community service officer report, and I had intended to put a copy of the speed
study in the packet but I did not see that when I went through, when I went through it and
I apologize for that. And also some miscellaneous items that I'll go over. Monthly
numbers for the month of February compared to last year, our total calls for service last I
counted was 15 for the month, so those went down. Our DWI's were up from 5 to 17 for
the month of February, and they're also up totally for the year compared to last year. Our
assaults were up from 0 to 4, and our motorist assists were from up from 34 to 70, and I
attribute quite a bit to that, we had a lot of bad weather in the month of February and
motorist assists are cars sliding in the ditches and so on that we were assisting getting
back out so I attribute the weather for the motorist assists that were up. Our traffic details
were down from 51 to 25, and again I attribute that to, it was slippery out and we don't
want to be a traffic hazard when we're out looking at traffic. Or monitoring traffic so
disturbing the peace was down from 29 to 16. Fire calls were down from 24 to 17, and
Greg maybe will go over that a little bit also. Our traffic stops were down from 200 to
140 for the month of February, and again weather was bad in February. Our citations
were pretty close compared to last year. They were at 161 for the month compared to
184 last year. Any questions on the monthly numbers at all?
Mayor Furlong: Questions for the Sergeant?
Councilman Lundquist: Sergeant Olson, had just questions on the mainly the CSO
actually. Calls. Comparisons, year to date in February. Pretty substantial increase there
and ! know we had a change in the CSO program since. Do you attribute the change in
just the amount of hours of coverage we have now or is there something specific that the
CSO's are doing now that they weren't before.
Sgt. Jim Olson: I think it was the coverage, and also going to hate to go back to this but
driving was terrible in the month of February and so we had a lot more cars in the ditch
and accidents and so on that they were helping out on so assisting us so, I think it was
those two things combined.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for the Sergeant? Councilman Ayotte.
Sgt. Jim Olson: There's a couple other things I want to go over also but.
4
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Mayor Furlong: I had a question for Sergeant. On the calls for service, the traffic special
and traffic stops were down in February, and also down year to date. Is that specifically
re-deployment of deputies or because of the calls on some weather? The motor assists.
There's less time for the special traffic or is that just a short anomaly or has it been a
change?
Sgt. Jim Olson: I think a couple of things. Weather wise would have something to do
with that where they've been busy with a few other things, but we've also had them in the
neighborhoods quite a bit and I think you might see that from snowbird tickets. We had a
lot of those in the month of February. When they write a lot of snowbird tickets, it takes
them off the main roads and they're in the neighborhoods, which is a good thing, but
when they're off the main roads, the number of traffic stops are going to go down a bit
with that so.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Yep. I want to talk about the speed trailer for a minute, and I apologize
that the printout was not in the packet but starting next month I intend to put all of those
reports in the packet where you can take a look at them. We've been trying to be
proactive with the speed trailer and putting it in areas where we know that there's a speed
or a traffic problem to try to get a handle on that before we get the complaints. And I
think that will be an important tool for our Project Leadfoot with that. We're trying to
get it out every single day, unless it's bad weather or if it's real, like last Saturday it was
real windy. It's got a pretty big signature, or footprint so to speak, so we didn't want to
put it out because it was real windy but other than bad weather it will be out every day,
and well, I'll put that information in the packets from now on. We've also seen an
increase in theft. With the increase in temperatures we're starting to see an increase in
theft again. Both from vehicles and from construction areas, with some of the new home
construction that's starting up again. Take valuables out of your cars, and for the
contractors, there's some different things that we can do and that we might be able to
give you suggestions on, on how to help with thefts from your construction sites, and I
would encourage you to either call Beth Hoiseth at 952-227-1610, or myself at 952-227-
1601 and we can go over some of those tips with you. Another thing that I want to try to
reinstitute again in the city is that at one time there was a little packet that was handed out
when we did, when contractors came in and received a permit. For tips that they can do,
and I wanted to take a look at that to maybe start handing that out again. Construction
sites are difficult, they're generally tough to weigh and there isn't a lot of other housing
that's around them at the time that you know they first start putting these in, and it can be
difficult for us, but there's some things that we can do with contractors to try to help with
that, so. I also want to talk about ice safety briefly. It's warming up. Ice, I would be
very careful on ice for anybody going on to try and go fishing or walking around or
whatever and just be careful around the ice now. One thing that I'm looking at is total, is
I'm looking at total calls for service in the city, and calls for service are different than
actual crimes. You know call for services, when we get a call that comes in for a theft,
it's put down as a call. As a theft call for service. However once we get to that, it might
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
not necessarily be a theft. Maybe it's a civil problem, so it's not a theft but it's counted
as a theft, so I'm looking at total calls for service, actual crimes, arrests made or charges
filed from those crimes and then outcomes where there are ramifications for suspects. In
trying to come up with a total package for City Council to take a look at to see where it
might be best to spend, you know if you decide to go with additional dollars somewhere,
where it might be best to spend those at or if you wanted, whatever you want to do. I'll
give you the information and you're the ones that make the big decisions as far as what
you do with that, but it's been difficult trying to come up with some of those numbers but
! am working on that so. Anything else for the sheriff' s office?
Councilman Ayotte: I think just for clarification, what you're alluding to Sergeant Olson
is that we would have, with the additional holistic view that you're trying to come up
with the ability to take a look at what we may or may not want to resource, for example
with investigators, so.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Correct. That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? If not, Sergeant thank you.
Sgt. Jim Olson: Thank you. Have a nice evening.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Chief Geske is here this evening too. Good evening Chief.
Chief Gregg Geske: Good evening. ! guess I'm happy to report, as Sergeant Olson
referred to there, our call numbers are down. We start out both as the numbers are in
your update, or your packet. We did see, have seen a decline in calls and this month is
really down, which is a good thing. We did start out the month with a structure fire !
believe on the 2nd of March, which was in the Saddlebrook neighborhood. When the call
came in, ! guess the first thing ! did was call home and make sure it wasn't my own house
because ! live in that neighborhood, but it did come in in that neighborhood as opposed to
a specific address, but we had a good response. The fire we think, and it is under
investigation yet but we feel that the fire was, had burned and then was smoldering for
some time so we did make entry with the deputies assistance and the fire came up at that
time. We knocked it down. Did a good knock down. We had a good group of
investigators who went in investigation and it is under investigation as Mark Littfin
indicated in his update there so with that call we did have Excelsior in for mutual aid at
that call but it went real well for us on that call. We also had the Red Cross in to come in
and help with the homeowners because of course they were out of their home and help
them out for the first couple nights there so. Our new hire or our recruits that we have
our 8 new individuals. They have close to completing their Fire Fighter ! and they'll be
starting their Fire Fighter I! shortly. At that time, we're also starting to train with them
the way, they're getting trained to a state level and we'll start working with them so that
we can have them respond sometime in June with us, the way we do things in
Chanhassen and the way we respond with our vehicles and the way we do stuff so we'll
be working with them so that like ! say, we're working with them through June, working
with them on hot drills where we take them into a fire, actual fire situations and stuff so.
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Other than that, I guess it's good to report that our call numbers are down. If you have
any questions for me?
Councilman Labatt: The other night when you mutual aid to Excelsior, when you're up
on that house fire up on Greenwood. Just maybe run us through, when we send up our
fire trucks there, what happens to our coverage here in the city, maybe you can just give
us an update.
Chief Gregg Geske: That one actually they had called for a tanker so it was a situation
where the water was limited. We sent one tanker, which is located at our west end so at
that point we have that tanker that sits there all the time. Really for equipment we're
covered 100 percent because that's really a reserve status vehicle so we sent that over.
We dumped one load of water, and we sent two fire fighters with it so really it doesn't
strain us at all. We do have programs, or processes implemented if we do get called
mutual aid for other cities, we have the ability and depending upon what our people are at
our station, we can call other cities to use them to stand by at our station too, so if we do
get called mutual aid for any other city and we are stressed, you know we can utilize our
mutual aid from other cities to come in to cover us so. So really we don't feel that any of
those mutual aids times we're pretty well covered yet so. Any other questions?
Mayor Furlong: Anything else?
Councilman Ayotte: Is it possible to get the demographic profile of your volunteers?
Where they live, so that we could see for response time purposes where we may
anticipate a problem. I'm thinking about 212 coming in, and ! don't know if we've got
very many volunteer fire fighters in that area, or if we're having an effort to look towards
that area for eventual recruitment. Can you talk towards that?
Chief Gregg Geske: We do have some people living in the southern portion. Of course
they respond to our main station right now. Long term, as 212 goes through and we get
more development in the southern area, we will look at adding a satellite station or third
station in that southern area ! guess. First would come the station and then we would try
to recruit fire fighters in that area. We do have some that live down in that area right
now. It's required that you respond to the station within 8 minutes of the time of the call.
We have a lot that, and ! can give you a breakdown where those people reside but ! guess
the plan in the future, when we start seeing more of 212 come through there, we start
seeing more buildings long term, we are looking at adding a third station down in that
area, and then we would try to man it with people in that area.
Councilman Ayotte: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions? Thank you.
Chief Gregg Geske: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Appreciate the update.
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION FOR TH 212 MUNICIPAL
CONSENT IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 03-09-1.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gayle Degler
Jon Horn
Lisa Freese
Jon Chiglo
John & Jacqueline Meyers
Mark Statz (BRAA)
Maria Lynn
Todd Schulz
A1 Klingelhutz
RJ Smith
1630 Lyman Boulevard
2550 University Avenue W., St. Paul
MnDot Metro, Roseville
MnDot Metro, Roseville
1011 Barbara Court
2335 West Highway 36
1050 Lake Susan Drive
1070 Lake Susan Drive
8600 Great Plains Boulevard
7741 Chanhassen Road
Paul Oehme: Good evening Mayor, City Council members. I'm before you tonight for
your consideration, resolution for municipal consent for 212 project. On January 26th of
this year the City Council held a public hearing to receive comments from the community
on the proposed improvement project. At the public hearing several concerns for the
aspects of the proposed project were received. These concerns included traffic noise,
traffic routing, property access, the 101 gap project and environmental issues. Since the
public hearing staff has updated council at work session on funding the project and
outstanding issues that we received at the public hearing, also staffs concerns with the
project as well. I'd like to take just a minute and talk about a few of the projects, or a few
of the issues that we're currently working on and have, are still looking at. One of the
issues that council and staff has raised is the 101 gap project. That's the project on 101
from Lake Drive to 86th Street. Currently that section of roadway is two lane rural
section with improvements to 212 on 101 being a 4 lane divided and basically a county
road section. Staff feels, and ! think the city feels that this section of roadway should be
upgraded to 4 lane, divided similar to be consistent with the 212/101 section of roadway
as well, so staff has been working with MnDot and the county to try to advance this
project and to coincide with the 212 project. The project as proposed would be a turn
back project to date, and would be turned back to Carver County's jurisdiction. The city
would receive a turn back of old 101 from Lake Susan Drive to a new cul-de-sac just
south of Riley Creek. To date no agency has any funds programmed for this project. We
did meet with again the county and our legislators as well to, and we have come up with
several funding sources, or several funding mechanisms. The most promising would be
the county, using county turn back funds to fund the majority of this project. State has,
would be contributing a significant portion of that improvement as well, and the city
would also contribute some funds to that work as well. In your background ! included a
preliminary funding proposal and ! want to thank MnDot really quickly for getting this
work completed in the time they did. What it shows is Carver County and MnDot and
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
the City of Chaska, both partnering to get, move this project forward. The total project
estimated cost right now is at about $2.3 million, of which the City of Chanhassen would
be responsible under this scenario, about $440,000. And that would include just the,
some storm sewer and curb and gutter, some improvements to the old 101 turn back
project and also bikeways and underpass improvements for a trail system under the gap
project. ! did include a letter from MnDot saying their intent to move this project
forward to coincide with the 212 project. ! did also include most recently an updated
letter just handed out. MnDot, and the only change in that letter was the MnDot's
willingness to upgrade the old 101 pavement section to city standards so that is now
included in this project. After, ! guess the next step under this project would be to
finalize the cost. A memorandum of understanding would also have to be drafted
between the city, the county and state to finally identify the funding, the design, the turn
back issues and those issues so it's work in progress. Hopefully we can get more of a
better handle on this project in the next couple months. The next.
Councilman Lundquist: Excuse me Paul, can you put the map, those maps up quick for
us visual guys.
Mayor Furlong: Do you have one of the whole project?
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, maybe hit that 101 piece that you just talked about first.
Paul Oehme: Sure. This is the improvements to 101. The new alignment of 101 going
to this direction. The existing alignment of 101 as it currently hits right now and how it
ties into Lyman Boulevard. The gap project that ! was referring to is basically north of
this location right here, up to Lake Drive, so it's about fourth in line or something. The
next item I'd like to briefly talk about is the proposed park and ride that is in conjunction
with the 212 project. MnDot has set aside land at basically the southwest quadrant of 212
and 101 for a park and ride and ! can show you here, it's just basically north of Lyman
Boulevard at the east bound entrance ramp to 212, off of 101. This project is more or less
separate from the 101, or from the 212 municipal consent project. Council will have
opportunity to review this project and consider approval at a later date. Just one note
under this item, that we did have a meeting with MnDot again on it last Thursday and one
of the concerns from the residents was bus traffic at the park and ride. MnDot is now
allowing for a right in for buses only on the on ramp to 212 so basically it will be an on
ramp, a right-in/right-out on the on ramp at this location here. There's also a right-
in/right-out, and it's not shown on this drawing for the park and ride as well, so that was
something new that was not included in your package as well. The next item I'll talk
briefly about is the Lake Susan Drive area. Several residents in this area have raised
concerns about potential cut through traffic in conjunction with the 212 project. Lake
Susan Drive sits just west of 101 and connects from 101 down to Lyman Boulevard.
Currently Lake Susan Drive does connect to 101. With the improvements, proposed
improvements to 212, the alignment would still connect to 101 and have access to the on
ramps, off ramps of the 212 project as well. There would be a signal at 101, and turn
lanes as well both left and right. The cut through issue, ! guess from a staff perspective,
when we look at cut through traffic, basically you look at where's the traffic going.
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
What's the motivation for cutting through? Is it quicker? Is it safer than some other
route? In all those instances, you know from a staff perspective, the cut through traffic
potentially could be minimal. If you look at the current layout of 212, there is access
again off of 101, and there's also access off of Powers Boulevard, which sits
approximately just under a mile from 101. The future development along Lyman
Boulevard will take place more or less with the Powers, some development would
potentially take place south ofLyman. ! guess from engineering's perspective, where are
those vehicles heading? If they are heading towards Powers, in that corridor there, or
west of Powers, it kind of makes sense that Powers Boulevard would be a quicker shot to
take the, cutting through Lake Susan Drive. It's also much safer route than taking
residential streets and again it'd be definitely quicker. So, but that's something that staff
is still concerned about. We did take traffic counts in 2002, and we are proposing to take
traffic counts again on Lake Susan Drive this summer. We will again take traffic counts
during construction of 212, and again after the construction of 212 as it moves forward.
And if a traffic problem is identified, the city will take appropriate measures to correct
that problem at that time. Right now we don't show any warrants for modification to
Lake Susan Drive. Sound mitigation was also a big concern for some residents in this
area, especially the North Bay Townhome Association area. MnDot did visit with, and
staff visited with the townhome association several times to address their issues. Staff
has, and will continue to work with MnDot to construct sound mitigation structures
wherever possible throughout the corridor as the project moves forward. Funding for the
project again is consistent with, or is the same as what council had seen back in February
23rd at the work session. Current funding is approximately $2.5 million dollars. Again
this project is estimated, it's still just an estimate. We'll have other numbers as the
project moves forward. Currently the funding for the work is proposed from
assessments, municipal state aid and park dedication funds. The assessment amounts
would be, they are proposed at this time to be levied against new development areas only.
And also again utilities weren't included in that dollar amount. All new trunk utilities are
being looked at in a separate project feasibility study at the 2005 MUSA area. So with
that, ! did hand out a modified municipal consent resolution for your consideration.
There's one item that was added, number 2. And if you'd like ! could run through those
briefly. Otherwise I'll stand for questioning. MnDot, representatives from MnDot are
here and also our consultant Kimberly Horn is here today to answer questions.
Mayor Furlong: Good, any questions for Oehme at this time?
Councilman Ayotte: Just very quickly, because ! don't hear as well as the rest so, you
know you got the visuals up for the young guys but for guys who don't hear as well. Just
to restate, MnDot's done a good job and is continuing to work with the city to deal with
the bus traffic issue.
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Councilman Ayotte: Succinctly put. To mitigate or reduce the traffic issue to areas
where we don't want the traffic.
10
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Paul Oehme: Correct. Where the residents have indicated that.
Councilman Ayotte: So where the residents targeted the concern, there's been a reaction
and a plan being worked?
Paul Oehme: Correct.
Councilman Ayotte: Number two. Although you didn't state it, ! just want to make sure
that it is brought out, along with the park and ride, that the park and ride guys are
addressing the buffer between the residents and.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Number three. The issue with the cut through issue. Lake
Susan. Part of the problem is being worked and there's a future effort collectively with
MnDot and us to deal with the balance of it, and traffic count is only an indicator. There
is a design effort to take care of the project.
Paul Oehme: Absolutely.
Councilman Ayotte: Alright. And then the other point is, because of a cooperative effort
with Carver County and MnDot and ourselves, we're going to get old 101 fixed.
Paul Oehme: We're going to sure try.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. And we're going to try to run it in tandem with the 212
project.
Paul Oehme: Succinctly, right.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. ! just want to make sure ! understood those points because
I'm slower than the balance of my colleagues.
Councilman Peterson: Paul, the only question ! had, you spoke of that if when the exit of
Lake Susan Drive is done, that and traffic counts we do find, for whatever reason people
are using it as a shortcut. ! can't fathom that they would either, unless they're lost or
whatever, but can you off the top of your head discuss what possible options are, after we
get it built, what are we going to do to mitigate that.
Paul Oehme: Sure. There's several options. Actually as long as our consultant's here,
he can explain a couple of those.
Councilman Ayotte: Nice job.
Jon Horn: Mayor and council, Jon Horn from Kimley-Horn and Associates. As Mr.
Oehme mentioned, we have been working with him as well as MnDot on this issue. In
11
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
terms of some various traffic calming techniques that are out there. One is there's ways
to narrow the roadways down in certain locations just to make it a little more difficult to
use that road for cut through traffic. There's potential for some one way roadways at
some of the locations. Potential cul-de-sacing. There's ! guess a wide range of options,
as issues come up that the 212 project isn't going to preclude from doing in the future to
address cut through issues. And really until we understand what the issues are, trying to
determine solutions for issues that we don't completely know yet, is difficult but there is
a whole ! guess tool bag of mitigation measures we could consider at a later date.
Mayor Furlong: Just to follow up on that. Is the data that's being collected, that was
referred to, is that going to give us, or council, is that going to give us sufficient
information to make an objective read on the change in traffic flows?
Jon Horn: Right, as Mr. Oehme described, we're intending to get traffic counts today and
then during construction and then again after construction to give us some sense in terms
of what the differences are in traffic volumes and ways to potentially mitigate those. So
we're just trying to gather the data today and in the future to be able to make those
decisions after 212's done.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other questions at this time for staff. If not, Mr. Chiglo or Ms.
Freese from MnDot, is there anything you'd like to address or comment upon? ! told you
next time you came we'd give you a seat at the table but.
Jon Chiglo: Well Mr. Mayor, council members. As Paul had mentioned, we've been
working closely with them over the last few weeks on some issues that your city has
regarding the 212 project and ! guess tonight with some modifications to the resolution,
we're prepared to agree to all your conditions, and ! guess ! would request that the
resolution reflect that. That we have agreed to that and it would be eliminated as
conditions of the resolution. But we would be happy to agree to all the conditions, and
then in addition to that, Lisa and ! had discussed adding a section of 101 between 86th
Street and Lake Susan Drive as part of the design build project so that would also be
completed and reconstructed. Or however, it'd be similar to the turn back portion of the
101 project to the north, but the portion that will be turned back to the city between 86th
and Lake Susan Drive would also be added to the design build project and be constructed
under that project.
Councilman Lundquist: That's the existing 101 right now?
Jon Chiglo: That's the existing 101 from approximately this point to this point. At this
point, it's from Lake Susan Drive to the cul-de-sac, or the proposed cul-de-sac.
Mayor Furlong: Within the current 212 project.
Jon Chiglo: It would be added to the 212 project. Originally we had stated that we
needed to figure out a way to fund it, and come to an agreement on the extent of the work
or the scope of the work and ! believe that through the 101 discussion for the turn back,
12
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
or the gap project, that scope has been defined and we're satisfied with where you're
going with that.
Mayor Furlong: And so the other portion of 101 that would be turned back to the city as
part of the 101 gap project would be funded through that gap project then, is that correct?
Jon Chiglo: ! guess I'd let Lisa comment on that.
Lisa Freese: Mr. Mayor, members of the council. The funding would essentially that
we've talked about, the breakdowns would stay the same and really logistically what Jon
was mentioning to you is that we would be able to do the restoration of the old 101
portion in the larger project rather than in the separate project that we'll be doing the 101
gap project in. ! think that just, for your realization that we are committed to moving
forward with all aspects of both of those projects.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good. Thank you. Any questions? From MnDot staff. No?
Okay. With that I'll bring it to the council for discussion. Thoughts?
Councilman Peterson: Move it ahead.
Councilman Ayotte: I'm just going to make this comment for you ma'am that this
council and MnDot and our engineering effort have addressed the concerns that you
referenced and the resolution has taken in a collective input from the residents and we've
heard you and it's been put in here so that not only does MnDot hate us, so will you. In
other words, it's hard to make everybody happy so we've really tried to compromise that
effort and boil it down to this resolution and it is ! think an excellent job. ! really think
SO.
Councilman Lundquist: Comment wise, I'd just like to again say, to commend the effort
that our staff has made along with MnDot in working together. ! know that there' s been a
lot of community meetings, community wide and in each, or most of the neighborhoods
that have had individual issues, and it takes a lot of time and effort and ! think if the
design changes that we've seen thus far and the things that are in this resolution and the
things that the representatives from MnDot have agreed to, and tonight, that that shows a
willingness on the parts of both parties to work together. We know the funding's going
to be tight on this project and it would be real easy for MnDot to just say you know
thanks but we heard you but we're going to go ahead anyway, so the fact that we're
working together on this and making some progress, and as Mr. Ayotte stated, for the
Chanhassen Hills is still a concern that ! have, but ! think the design that we have now is
the best available. There's still some work to be done there. This is only a 30 percent
deal so, and with the traffic counts that we're taking, ! think we'll be prepared to address
that if the need arises. ! believe that most people aren't going to use that as a cut through
because it will be quicker to go on 101 and around, so with that ! think it's time to move
on and get to the next phase.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt. Comments.
13
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Councilman Labatt: No. I'll just make it short. ! think it's time to get this project rolling
and staff and MnDot have addressed all my concerns of 101 and then actually did the
revised resolution and hearing that these, the 101, the old 101 will be in conjunction with
the big project is encouraging.
Mayor Furlong: Indeed, thank you. ! guess a quick question before some of my
comments. Mr. Knutson, Mr. Chiglo asked with their agreeing to the conditions on this
resolution, are we comfortable that that provides us the comfort that we're looking for?
That this council's looking for to pass the resolution without these conditions.
Roger Knutson: Maybe I misunderstood. I thought he said he concurred with these
conditions so you don't have to make approval contingent upon them.
Mayor Furlong: Upon these conditions.
Roger Knutson: Because they're concurring with them so you can just say in the
resolution, just add a statement MnDot has concurred with the resolutions. And the
conditions.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Did I misunderstand?
Jon Chiglo: Yeah, ! think we could work some language out that would just state that we
mutually agree to these listed conditions that would be worked through as the project
progresses, and take the approved with the following conditions statement off of that and
just say that we've mutually agreed with these 7 or 8 items. 8?
Councilman Ayotte: 8.
Roger Knutson: So having that in a separate document. MnDot provides this saying that,
you know we get a signature on it saying they agree with these conditions and that'd be
okay rather than having it in this motion.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, create a separate document.
Jon Chiglo: Yeah, I'll follow it up with a letter formalizing it but we just want to go on
record tonight telling you that we agreed with.
Mayor Furlong: We mutually agree on these 8 conditions and in addition to all the other
things we've talked about.
Jon Chiglo: You can leave them in there, it's just, we just would rather not have it
approved with these conditions because it's looked upon by our attorneys as a counter
offer to our offer. In essence.
Councilman Ayotte: The damn attorneys.
14
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Roger Knutson: I'm embarrassed to say I understand what he's talking about.
Mayor Furlong: Can you suggest some language then that would be mutually agreeable
here or, and maybe you want to give it some thought here for a second.
Roger Knutson: You can just add, which MnDot has indicated they agree with. Approve
with the following conditions which have been approved by MnDot.
Jon Chiglo: It would be another whereas statement and it would just state that MnDot
and Chanhassen have mutually agreed on a number of issues that will continue to be
worked through as the project progresses during design and construction. And then we.
Todd Gerhardt: Eliminate 1 through.
Jon Chiglo: Eliminate approved with the following conditions from the now therefore
statement.
Roger Knutson: So we understand, MnDot is in agreement on these 1 through 8?
Jon Chiglo: Yes.
Roger Knutson: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. And again I think, as my other members of the council
stated, ! think there's been a lot of cooperation on this project. I'd like to just start out by
recognizing and complimenting our city staff, Mr. Gerhardt, Mr. Oehme, others and also
Mr. Jon Horn with Kimley-Horn for all their efforts to date and looking out for the
interest of the city, and in particular our residents. I'd also like to thank Mr. Chiglo, Ms.
Freese and the other MnDot staff members who have not only listened to our request but
have willingly spent a lot of time and a lot of meetings with our staff, myself, other
members of the council being very available. They have been responsive to our request
during this entire process. The other thing that's important to recognize is ! think they've
consistently looked for ways to accomplish our request within the framework of rules and
regulations in which they work. What was particularly pleasing is that they look for how
they can get things done, not why they can't and ! think in doing so they have developed
a level of trust which is again exemplified here tonight in terms of agreeing to our
conditions. That is very important for us as we look at this project to accept this project.
! think it's also important that as a council we recognize and thank our residents who
came to the open houses and to our public hearing in January and even this evening, Ms.
Lynn. Many of them have talked to us. Sent us e-mails. Given us phone calls. And it's
by their interest and efforts that this process and this project will result in a better road
being built through our town. Without their contributions we and the staff wouldn't be
able to do a good job for you and you allow us to do our job better and so for that we
thank you. ! know our staff and MnDot have worked hard to address the issues. Some of
them have been mentioned this evening, most particularly those that have been raised by
15
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
residents. Noise, screening and landscaping, the park and ride which here tonight again
as a council we're learning that MnDot's agreeing to allow a right-in/right-out off the exit
ramp. Also a right-in/right-out off 101, which should effectively take bus traffic off
Lyman Road east of 101, which is something our residents wanted. We've talked tonight
about the cut through traffic on Lake Susan Drive and the steps that will be taken there.
And effectively what's been accomplished in the last few weeks here is a real workable
plan to fund the realignment and expansion of 101 all the way from just right near the
apartments, just north of the creek down to Lyman Boulevard. That's going to be done
through a cooperation of not just MnDot and the city but also Carver County and that's
how local government units and county and state government units can work together and
! think that's important that we're doing that. We have more work to do. Our resolution
this evening, there were some things that we wanted to make sure MnDot was aware of.
They've agreed to it which is wonderful. Continue cooperation. Even though there are a
lot of issues and there's more work to do, the benefits of new 101 to the city of
Chanhassen will be here for many years to come. It's going to reduce congestion, traffic
on Highway 5 and other roads. It's going to increase safety on 101 with the realignment
and expansion, taking traffic off the existing two lane road that is really unsafe. Too
often traveled at high speeds. It's going to include improving the safety throughout our
city in terms of developing our trail system and expanding that. And ultimately it' s going
to provide the necessary roads and development for the southern part of our city, which
not only the realignment of 101 but also the extension of Powers Boulevard down to
Pioneer Trail. This project is important for our continued growth and while growth
inevitably brings change and levels of temporary inconvenience, ! believe that this road
will be an invaluable asset for our city. So again, thank you to everybody that's been
involved with this. It's been a very important project to our city and people have put
forth the effort ! think that it was justified and we appreciate that. With that if there are
other comments, I'd be happy to listen to them. Otherwise ! would certainly entertain a
motion to approve the resolution as it has been amended.
Councilman Ayotte: So moved.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: It's been made and seconded. Is there any further discussion?
Resolution #2004-15: Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to
approve the resolution for the TH 212 Municipal Consent Project No. 03-09-1 as
amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to
0.
HIGHLANDS OF BLUFF CREEK; LOCATED AT 2930 WEST 78TM STREET
(NORTHEAST CORNER OF WEST 78TM STREET AND HIGHWAY 41);
PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT, LLC.
REQUEST FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL
LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY.
16
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Bo
C.
D.
E.
REOUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT;
REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) REVIEW FOR AN 18 UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT;
REOUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR 18 TOWNHOUSE
LOTS AND OUTLOTS; AND;
REOUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY
DISTRICT SETBACK REOUIREMENTS.
Public Present:
N~me
Address
Todd M. Simning
Ed Hasek
Steve Kroiss
Nathan Franzen
Scott Bertas
Susan McAllister
1851 Lake Drive West #550
Westwood Professional Services
Plowshares Development
Plowshares Development
6670 Vernon Avenue
2930 West 78th Street
Bob Generous: Thank you Mr. Mayor, council members. As you stated this is a land use
amendment, preliminary plat, conditional use permit, site plan review for an 18 unit
townhouse development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The property is located
on the northeast corner of Highway 41 and West 78th Street. Currently this property is
zoned A2 which is Agricultural Estate district. What that zoning permits is a single
family home or a farmstead. That's what the property is currently used for. The property
is guided in the comprehensive plan for residential low density uses. That permits
development densities of 1.2 to 4 units per acre. Appropriate rezoning of the property are
RSF, which is our single family residential district, which permits lot sizes of 15,000
square feet. The R4 district which permits single family homes or twin homes with lot
sizes of 10,000 square feet per unit, or planned unit development residential under the
PUD-R designation with low density, however density transfers are not permitted. Only
lot sizes down 11,000 square feet with an average lot size of 15,000 square feet.
However as ! stated, this property is located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The
intent of the district is try to preserve the land that is contributory to the Bluff Creek, and
then in this instance the headwaters for Bluff Creek which runs through the majority of
the city. To do what the overlay district attempts to do is encourage people to do density
transfers. As part of this development proposal, the applicant was requested to submit a
development sketch plan that showed what they could have developed on the property
without looking at the primary zone, or the Bluff Creek Overlay District. They presented
an 18 unit, twin home development. We use this as the potential outside development
capacity of the property and working with them furthering their development proposal. !
should note that this map showed the Bluff Creek Overlay District, and it's a little hard to
see. As a part of the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan. This
property is located in this wooded area here. As part of that plan the overlay district
actually included all the wooded areas on the property. However in working with the
17
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
applicant's consulting engineering firm, staff met on site with them and agreed that the
Bluff Creek primary zone boundary was the edge of the treed area north of the existing
farm house and then there's some out buildings that are located closer to Highway 41.
The developer, as part of their proposal, is proposing that the city permit them to realign
or change the primary zone boundary. Staff throughout this project has been pushing that
the primary zone boundary is the edge of the tree line. The applicant as part of their
proposal is requesting that the city allow them to adjust that. That change is within the
purview of the City Council to go forward with it. Their development proposal includes
18 townhouses. They're in three-2 unit structures and four-3 unit structures. As part of
staff's review, we're recommending that we maintain the existing Bluff Creek primary
zone, and in essence eliminate these 3 units, which would encroach into that. We have
agreed as part of this process to recommend that they receive a variance from the Bluff
Creek primary zone setback. The ordinance requires a 40 foot setback. Staff is
recommending that a 20 foot setback be established as part of this development. In going
through the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission did deny this project. Their
concern was the clarification in determination of the primary zone boundary, the amount
of tree loss that resulted from this development, specifically after they were tabled at one
time and came back with a development plan that addressed many of the engineering
issues that came up, including the sewer alignment, storm water... Additionally they
provided a trail along Highway 41 that would connect to the city trail as well as a
sidewalk system on West 78th Street which would connect this neighborhood to the
existing trail system and the surrounding trail system. After the Planning Commission
denied the project, or recommended denial, the applicant responded with one final
alternative. What this did was shift this roadway further to the east. Created a 4 unit
structure and a 3 unit structure where two-2 unit and one-3 unit structures were. What
they were able to do is preserve additional trees along the Highway 41 corridor. As part
of the review of this project we also looked at the potential for moving the storm water
pond to the north side of the property in the location, approximate location of the existing
barn. However, in doing that they fragment the existing wooded areas and staff believes
that that proposal would be environmental degradatory to the Bluff Creek corridor, so we
recommended that that not be approved. The applicant's proposal in essence is creating
an exchange or transfer of primary zone boundaries. They're going to create a new
primary zone in the open area of the barn, and eliminate some of the primary zone behind
the single, or the three townhouses in Lot 3. The exchange is about equal. They have an
extensive landscaping plan to reforest this area. Again staff was opposed to any
encroachment into the primary zone. We said the primary zone boundary is the primary
zone boundary and that's what we should stay with. ! should note that the applicant is
coming close to their 120 day review period. They have to April 3rd of this year, so there
are not more City Council meetings to review this project. Council has several options
before them. They can approve the development as proposed by the applicant. They can
approve the development with the shift of the lots, the road to the east and have 3 twin
home units. Or they can adopt staff' s recommendation to approve the development with
the existing primary zone boundary and the loss of the 3 units. And finally the City
Council could deny the application and find that the rezoning of the property is
inappropriate. Staff is recommending approval of the alternative for the 15 townhouse
units on this. The site plan approval, as part of that we would work with the applicant to
18
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
create design standards so that no two structures next to each other would have the same
architectural detailing or color, so we get additional differentiation, but we believe the
site plan per se is a fairly well thought out. And we're recommending approval of the 15
units. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Bob. Give me your justification for the 20 foot variance to the
primary zone? Have we applied any of the similar reasons or conditions to Vasserman
Ridge or given them the option or Pulte, Longacres, JMS Homes, Stone Creek, Walnut
Grove, as we continue on down along the primary line through Bluff Creek. Are we
creating.
Bob Generous: Within the Vasserman Ridge development, that was straight zoning. The
city did permit removal of trees and that's what we used as the delineation of the primary
zone boundary in this instance. However we required that they provide twin home units
and use a public street allowing Century Trail ! believe it is. That's the Arboretum
Village development. For the Vasserman Ridge, they did allow the city did allow
encroachment into the tree line. However they used the primary zone primarily as the
wetland edge, and so there's no variance involved. Stone Creek came in before the
ordinance was in place. We're working on Walnut Grove 2nd Addition. There's no
variance involved. They are outlotting all of the primary zone and maintaining a 40 foot
setback. For Walnut Grove that was prior to the ordinance being adopted. We did
negotiate where the development could take place. There was some tree removal as a
part of that, but we did preserve a significant portion of the Bluff Creek corridor, the
contributory area that's steep slope down into it. The only other development ! worked
on was the DayCo Concrete building in Chanhassen Business Park. They did receive a
setback variance from the primary zone boundary but we did not allow any tree removal.
They had to maintain the tree edge.
Councilman Labatt: So what about Longacres neighborhood?
Bob Generous: Longacres. That was in place prior to the ordinance being in place so we
have different, we didn't have the standards at that time. As part of the retro fitting if you
will, we amended the Bluff Creek Overlay District to exempt those houses from, when
they do an expansion such as a deck or such, they until recently had to come in for a
conditional use permit and if they had their setback did not comply with the 40 feet, then
they have established that as their setback.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. That's all ! have right now.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other questions for staff?.
Councilman Lundquist: Bob for clarification, ! want to make sure ! got all these right. !
don't see... The one that staff is supporting has, ! don't even know what you want to call
that. Can you throw that or put that plan up? Okay. And that has the storm pond down
19
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
along West 78th Street in the front there, yep. Okay. And staff is saying go with that but
take out Lot 3, correct?
Bob Generous: Block 3 so it's Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Block 3.
Councilman Lundquist: So we'd just eliminate those 3 units?
Bob Generous: Right.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay. The other of the alternative that the developer came back
with with, that's this one with the storm pond up north of Block 4, or Lot 4. That one,
yep.
Bob Generous: Yes, that's correct. Staff was opposed to this alternative because it
fragments the wooded area. Our whole concern is to maintain the integrity of that. It's
an example of upland woods or big woods.
Mayor Furlong: When you say fragments, this one shows a line of something going
down through the other woods. Is that what you're referring to?
Bob Generous: Right, and also you're encroaching into it and making a greater open area
rather than the wooded area.
Mayor Furlong: And is that the runoff then or.
Bob Generous: Yeah, that would be the storm water pond and they'd eliminate that on
West 78th Street.
Councilman Lundquist: And then this color one, what is that one?
Bob Generous: That's the applicant's latest alternative in response to the Planning
Commission discussion, and I should point out one other thing. The Planning
Commission also wanted us to look at potentially providing the roadway access out to
Century Trail rather than to West 78th Street. However in looking at that from an
engineering standpoint, it's a 14 percent slope so we can't meet it. What this plan shows
is by shifting the development to the east, if you will, we're able to preserve additional
trees on Highway 41. We believe that's a good alternative but again this Lot 3 would
have to go away, or this Block 3. We don't want, we're recommending that no
encroachment into the primary zone be done.
Councilman Lundquist: So staff's not in favor, what would be staff's opinion of the
colored one, take out that Lot 3 ?
Bob Generous: We would support that.
20
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Councilman Lundquist: And does that do, I mean essentially that just kind of squishes it
together from the one that you said you're supporting and saves some trees along 41 ?
Bob Generous: Correct, and it goes from having 2 twin units, which was consistent with
the north edge of the Arboretum Village, and then has a 3 and a 4 unit structure.
Councilman Lundquist: I see. Okay.
Councilman Peterson: As he's looking Bob, on this version, what I was trying to figure
out is that we're gaining trees on 41, which is a benefit. Versus on the current staff's
recommendation you're losing trees in comparison to this one. If granted the variance in
the primary zone, are we, is it about a wash in the number of trees or would there have to
be more trees taken out? If you left those 3 units in, would substantially more trees be
taken out than we're gaining by moving it over or not?
Bob Generous: I believe we're gaining more area by shifting it to the east. More canopy
coverage area.
Councilman Lundquist: So Craig, are you asking to take out this thing in the yellow
here? So you're saying go with what's in is the 18 units.
Councilman Peterson: If we do approve this version versus staff's recommendation,
we're gaining trees.
Councilman Lundquist: Right.
Councilman Peterson: Then the question is, do we, say because we're gaining trees on
this side, do we give them the opportunity to take out more trees in the primary zone. I'm
not saying I support that. I'm just saying if that is.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess to clarify too, it's my understanding or Bob, maybe you can
help me. In the green shaded area where in the one schematic showed you could have
located the pond there. Reasons you don't want to include the pond. Isn't under this
proposal, regardless of the fact that they're shifting, they are planning to reforest that
area?
Bob Generous: Yes, they would revegetate that area, correct.
Mayor Furlong: And how does that green area, from an area standpoint, compare to the
yellow area that they're proposing to take out?
Bob Generous: I believe it's slightly larger.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, comparable to slightly larger. Okay. And with this schematic we
also gain the blue area for trees which we didn't have in the earlier versions?
21
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Bob Generous: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other questions?
Councilman Peterson: Is that area, where you're recommending taking the 3 units out, !
was trying to read in here, what kind of trees are they? Are they the mature trees that are
most, everybody's most concerned about taking out or are they the 1 and 2 inch scrub
trees?
Bob Generous: Well there's 3 significant sugar maples in that area. The applicant has
said they redesigned the end unit on that. The most westerly one and shifted the porch
deck area to the west end of the building so they're actually able to come out farther and
they might be able to preserve one of those.
Councilman Peterson: Alright, second question. You've got, you're recommending
taking out 3 units. Can we redesign it so we leave in 1 or 2 versus take out 3 and still be
outside of the primary zone?
Bob Generous: There's no way to do it with this because of the pond location and size
and the street location and the building location.
Councilman Peterson: As you look at the picture you look at where the 3 are and where
the primary zone is. Let's say you put a one unit back in there at an angle, couldn't that
be done from a layout standpoint?
Bob Generous: You don't get sufficient separation from the street to make that work,
yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Anything with regard to, you've got, going on Councilman Peterson's
thought here. You've got that 2 unit that's on the corner.
Bob Generous: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: It seems a little further back. Is there space to add another one next to
that and still stay out of the primary? Have you looked at that?
Bob Generous: ! haven't looked at that. So shift the 3 to the corner and have 2...
Councilman Lundquist: Because Block 2 would have 3 units in it.
Bob Generous: Yeah, ! don't know if the, yeah the setbacks still wouldn't work on that
one.
Councilman Peterson: I'm not concerned about the setback as much as taking out the
trees. If we get close, ! mean everything's a matter of degree but ! like your idea.
22
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Mayor Furlong: This thing seems to be a moving target. We'll stay with questions
before ! make more comments.
Councilman Peterson: We're problem solvers here today.
Mayor Furlong: Absolutely. Absolutely. Sure, Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: ! want to talk about this road. ! think Bob, and a few of us were
here for the Pulte discussion but my memory, when we discussed Pulte and we had
conversations at the council level and with Mr. Griswold from Pulte about positioning
that one Pulte unit, it's not on your schematic there that I'm looking at. Maybe you can
shift it a little bit. There, on there. Positioning that one in such a way where any future
development in the McAllister property could be accessed off of Century Trail through
the property right here. Is my memory correct?
Councilman Peterson: ! remember that.
Bob Generous: ! believe there was discussion on it.
Councilman Labatt: And from reading the Planning Commission minutes, and it seems
to me the applicant doesn't want to wait because the negotiation with the city on a price
to purchase the property is too lengthy. ! really think that that's the access to this lot is
off that Century Trail and not off of West 78th.
Councilman Peterson: But they're saying that the 14 percent grade.
Councilman Labatt: Well why is it a 14 percent grade though? 70 percent of this
property is being graded. How much of it is being graded? How are you making every
one of these units a walkout? How come you all of a sudden have to put this, how tall is
that retaining wall Bob? 8 feet?
Bob Generous: The one on West 78th?
Councilman Labatt: 4? It was 8 at one point wasn't it?
Matt Saam: It may have been in.
Councilman Labatt: It may have been back in January at the January meeting? It was 8
feet then. Why is that? Because we're making all these units, the developer wants all
these units to be walkouts. So if you apply the same elevations, is it still going to be 14
percent? If you don't allow so much grading.
Matt Saam: ! think the change that would need to happen to get away from the 14
percent is to make the units, as you said, from walkouts to lookouts or full basement type
structures. That would lower your street grade within the proposed development and then
get that 14 percent down to hopefully a 10.
23
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Councilman Labatt: Exactly.
Councilman Peterson: No, ! see your point. ! don't know that, ! find the road personally
an issue. If staff and the safety people are saying it's okay to do what we're doing, but !
remember the point. We did talk about that. We moved that one with the potential of
having an opening there.
Councilman Labatt: But that option, but the plan we did back then isn't being applied
now. But that wasn't the point of all our discussion back with Pulte. Our point was, to
access the McAllister property through here and that's being ignored right now by this
developer. And ! think that you know, we made conditions on Pulte. Could they maybe
have squeezed another unit in there on their own if we weren't going to apply those same
conditions now? They may have. Or they may have been able to put a couple in by re-
positioning, ! don't know but.
Councilman Peterson: ! agree with you Steve that there was, if they only decided to put 2
houses on that 6 acres and then it probably wouldn't be worth putting a road in there at
extra cost so, ! mean it all goes back to what's in there. At the time we made a decision
that if this happens, we should at least consider it. Whether we ever use it or not ! don't
think is the point. ! see your point, but as long as staff says you don't need the
connection there, ! don't know if we want to force one.
Councilman Ayotte: Well is it a question of not needing it or is it because of the 14 foot
issue wasn't addressed before?
Matt Saam: Really it's the 14 percent. From an engineering standpoint looking at it, we
believe ultimately this would be better to come off Century Trail. But if we're talking
about a 14 percent steep slope with icing and those type of issues, then we're fine with
coming off of West 78th Street, and MnDot has concurred with that. We got comments
from them and they're fine with coming off West 78th Street also.
Councilman Ayotte: Is there a gain if the 14 percent goes away? Is there a gain to go
through the other way?
Matt Saam: If we could get down to the 10 percent maximum, ! would say yes. It would
be better to come off Century Trail, or at least explore it in more detail.
Mayor Furlong: So expand a little bit on why it would be better. Just from a traffic flow
standpoint?
Matt Saam: Exactly. West 78th Street is a collector, more of a major type roadway. It
will have slightly higher traffic volumes than Century Trail will. So for an access
standpoint that sort of thing it's nice to limit your direct access to the major type
collectors.
24
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. We're still in questions for staff here. Are there any
other questions? Mr. Generous, you put up a plan and ! don't know which one it was. It
was the concept that showed the 18 twin homes. ! think you called them twin homes.
Yes. ! asked a question for you. This was prepared by the applicant?
Bob Generous: That is correct.
Mayor Furlong: Basically a concept of how they thought this could develop what,
without changing the zoning?
Bob Generous: Well it'd have to be rezoned because currently it's A2 but using the R4
zoning.
Mayor Furlong: Which is what it's currently guided for?
Bob Generous: Which is consistent with the low density residential.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So with the current land use guides, this would be or could be a
possible development without regard to the trees that are in there and the primary zone.
Bob Generous: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: How much verification did we do, if any, on verifying that this is a
viable program? At least from meeting the ordinance standpoint.
Bob Generous: We relied on the applicant's numbers showing that they have the, if
average lot area was 11,400 square feet, all of them exceeded the 10,000 square foot
threshold. We didn't actually measure all the numbers in there. We relied on their
numbers and so they all had 50 feet of frontage. Minimum of 100 feet of depth so they
all appeared to meet the ordinance requirement.
Mayor Furlong: So in cursory review, ! don't want to put words in your mouth but we
didn't go in and do a lot of detail.
Bob Generous: We didn't do.
Mayor Furlong: And so just for my clarification then, if an applicant came in for this
property trying to get it rezoned from agriculture to it's current land use, this could be a
potential.
Bob Generous: That would be a potential alternative.
Mayor Furlong: If taking out the trees within the primary zone or the trees on the north
side of the property was not a concern.
Bob Generous: Correct.
25
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And so what the plan that they've come in with and multiple
iterations down to this plan is really just taking those 18 and pushing it through the
southern part of the property so that we can preserve those trees up there.
Bob Generous: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Just for my understanding, and maybe this is a question for the
applicant later. With regard to this revised alternative, the colored one that we have, did !
understand your correctly that when you were listing off the multiple choice that we're,
yeah A, B through F it looks like, of things that we could do tonight. One of them was to
look at this shift and did ! hear you say two-3 units because this picture actually shows a
4 and a 3.
Bob Generous: The alternate B in the list, l(b) would be a 17 unit development which
would create three 2 south of, or south of that private street into the development. It
would also shift the road over, so it picks up that benefit. But it maintains a 2 unit.
Mayor Furlong: 3 unit limit as opposed to a 4 unit within that development. And is that
consistent, is that 2 and 3, is that consistent with the development to the east?
Bob Generous: The majority of it, yes. It's consistent, all the north side of Century Trail
are 2 unit structures. There are south of it some 3 and then ! think there's a 4, one 4 unit
structure within that whole area north of West 78th Street.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the unit south of that are 6 and 8.
Bob Generous: 6, 8 and 12's.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, those are questions ! have at this time. Any other
questions for staff?. If not, the applicant is here. Is there anything you'd like to address to
the council.
Todd Simning: Good evening council members. Todd Simning with Plowshares
Development. ! guess first off I'd like to thank staff. ! know this one has been a tough
project on ! think all of us and ! think that you guys could probably see that by the
number of reiterations of plan that we have there, and some of the confusion from you
know just different plans and different tree losses and saving trees and that. We were at
last Planning Commission meeting on March 2nd and at least in our opinion we left that,
not with an approval from them but we did get some direction, at least what we thought.
There were four items that at least we took away that we thought we were dealing with.
Access onto Century Trail as being one. The bituminous trail along 41 and what would
happen. Number three, they wanted to see some aggressive reforestation of some of the
quote unquote, staff defined primary zone. And number four, to really double check our
tree calculations and have accurate data when we came in front of you guys and met back
with staff. Taking that information into account, it was probably only several days later,
26
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
in fact ! think the next day ! actually called Bob and set up a meeting with all the staff
members including the parks, as well as Matt and the forester and that sort of thing. And
presented out thoughts to staff and to try to come away with a resolution to a lot of the
issues that were kind of outstanding with Planning Commission. When we left that
meeting we had, we thought it was a very positive tone. Thought we came to a
conclusion on everything, with the exception of one item, and that just happens to be the,
what ! would call the staff defined primary zone. Basically what I'd like to do is just, I'm
going to, you guys already have the comments or the long dissertation that ! gave during
the Planning Commission so I'm going to skip that and just basically go down to some of
the nuts and bolts of it. ! want to reference ordinance 286, which is deals with the Bluff
Creek Overlay District. ! truly believe that we are maintaining and we're consistent with
our request in our development with this ordinance. ! would also like to add that the
McAllister property, which is defined in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources
Management Plan as a woodland area, and Bob was correct. In that though the
recommendations that Ordinance 286 is supposed to be following is that in the uplands
area, that they recommend a 300 foot buffer strip alongside the creek. And clearly on the
McAllister property at this point, the staff defined area is much larger than a 300 foot
area there. In dealing with the other developments, Pulte and Lundgren Brothers, what !
do want to demonstrate to you on these aerial maps here. Let me get this into the
perspective. This is the McAllister property here. This is the Arboretum Village which
is Pulte's project, and then this is ! believe it's Vasserman, if I'm not mistaken, which is a
Lundgren Brothers property. The original or initial documents that we received from
staff included this primary and secondary line and it kind of shows it going through the
McAllister property. It shows where it relates to the Pulte project, and also where it
relates to the Vasserman Ridge/Lundgren Brothers project. This is a year 2000 aerial
where these just show the ghost plats that were actually presented to you guys and
approved. In 2002 you can see that the grading was actually done on the Pulte project.
Nothing has been done in the Lundgren's project yet but clearly as staff has demonstrated
to us numerous times, since going through this procedure, that they wanted to maintain
the tree line. This clearly shows that even the primary line, or what the staff defined
primary line was at the time Pulte was allowed to grade it and take significant trees out.
They had quite a few significant trees that were taken out in those areas. And then
coming back into year 2003 aerial for Vasserman Ridge, it actually shows that Lundgren
Brothers took out a fair amount of trees, and in fact plotted a cul-de-sac down in the
primary zone, or what staff defined as primary zone, and in fact now that they put houses
in here, they're even going to have to take down more trees. With this, at least my
demonstration, ! do believe that this documentation is solid proof that our request of
moving the primary zone, or staff defined primary zone from here to here is consistent
with the precedence that has been set for other developments within the Bluff Creek
Overlay District. We do want to move the primary line back to where we feel it's
adequate. Third thing that I'd like to touch upon is our unit type and structures. We do
feel that they are consistent with the adjacent neighborhoods. In our new proposal, and !
guess that's the one that I'm primarily talking about here, and I'll get to the details of
that in a second. That is correct. We have one 4 unit building. If you're looking at the
overall consistency of Arboretum Village, where they have some 2 units and 4 units,
some 6 and 8 unit buildings. All were 2 and 3 and we would like to have one 4 unit
27
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
building we feel is definitely consistent with the flow of what the general neighborhood is
over in the area. The first one happens to be in the yellow area where we would, we
request that the primary zone be pushed back. We are removing some canopy coverage
cover, okay. But we are not removing any significant trees out of that area, and if you
actually look at, and ! don't know if you guys have the, ! think you did in your packet, the
most recent tree inventory. You can see the numbers in red where we made some
significant changes. In that yellow area right there we are taking tree cover out but we
are not taking any significant trees out, and ! think that's very important for you guys to
know. ! believe that Councilman Peterson was the one asking about what kinds of trees
are going to be removed in that area, and they are the more of the scrub. The smaller
items that we did not have to tree inventory at all, so ! want to make certain that you guys
understand that.
Mayor Furlong: Excuse me. Sorry to interrupt you but just so I'm clear as to what
you're saying. In the tan area here, those circles that are identifying trees. Those are
going to stay? Or do those come out?
Todd Simning: In the yellow area right here.
Mayor Furlong: Are we looking at the same one?
Todd Simning: Let's make certain. ! don't think we're looking at the same one.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, then that's my fault.
Councilman Lundquist: There, that one.
Todd Simning: Okay. Yes, in that tan area there, those significant trees are not removed
at all.
Councilman Lundquist: So everything with the circle on there stays.
Todd Simning: They stay. Those are included in the tree inventory. We are not taking
those down.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Sorry for the interruption.
Todd Simning: No problem. The second thing that I'd like to point out is the
reforestation area. This .13 acres. Thanks Bob. You know I'm doing this for myself.
The reforestation area. Again we walked away from the Planning Commission meeting
with a real intent for them to, for our understanding that they really wanted to see some
good reforestation. What we went back to and presented to staff and it's incorporated on
the final revision that you guys ended up getting, was that we were actually going to be
putting an additional, ! believe it's 12 or 13 trees in that area, and if you look at the size
of the trees that we presented, ! believe, but I'm not certain because ! don't have it just
sitting right here. Where's your plan Bob? That last one. We've got so many plans.
28
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Councilman Ayotte: You guys have got to start numbering those things.
Todd Simning: ! know. Yeah, here we go. Instead of just going with say a 2 inch and 3
inch trees, we've actually presented more of a 4 inch larger trees to go in instead of just
puny little trees. We really wanted to, we see it as a benefit for even our development
that we can make that area look a little bit better and enhance the view. And so that's
one thing that ! think we're supposed to put 6 in, but ! believe that we're putting 11 trees
in that area, just to make it even denser than what is required of us. And then the third
thing that I'd like to point out in this is that by shifting the 3 units on the west side further
east, we do save an additional 5 large trees, and ! believe that they're mainly all sugar
maples. We have one 21 inch basswood. One burr oak, 28 inch. A 19, 21 and 20 inch
sugar maple, in those areas. So ! think that all in the whole scheme of things that we're
actually adding a net benefit to a substantial degree over what is really required of us.
And in fact on the required landscaping and proposed landscaping, we're 30 percent more
in tree replacement and we're 60 percent greater in shrub replacement than what we are
required to be doing. Fourthly what I'd like to touch upon is the request to remove, the
removal of city standard hammer head at the end of the private street. Due to the fact that
all buildings will include fire sprinkler systems, number 28 on page 17 of 20 actually
includes a statement in there that we have to get an approved hammer head. That was put
in there, and ! believe Matt could back this up because at, they didn't realize that we were
going to sprinkler our units over there. We are going to put fire sprinklers in all the units.
Having done that, we are going to keep a hammer head down there, just because we like
it for garbage trucks and that sort of thing, but we just ask that it not necessarily have to
be a city standard one, just in case it got too big and a tree would have to come out.
We're looking for flexibility there. Six, or ! guess the fifth item that I'd like to touch on
is the elevations and the changes to walkout versus lookouts. ! believe Mr. Labatt,
Councilmember Labatt may have asked this question about dropping elevations. The
reason that we looked at coming off of Century Trail, and deciding not to go ahead with it
is during the meeting that ! had several days after the Planning Commission meeting, all
the staff and ourselves and our engineers had met together and discussed that item. And
on that we did come away with the 14 percent grade as the first issue that we were trying
to deal with, but almost more importantly, and ! wish Mr. Hoffman hadn't left but the
parks gentleman, Todd, really didn't want to see that roadway come off of Century Trail.
The area that Arboretum Village dedicated to the city included part of this as park
through here, and he thought it probably not the best thing to do to all of a sudden
introduce headlights coming into the unit right next door, and then also as we're turning
here, the units that are over on the south side over here, introducing headlights into that
area. And so those two pieces of information we used to determine that ! guess we're not
really going to pursue it and it didn't seem like the best alternative. And ! don't know if
Matt has anything to add there but that was kind of the gist of it. In closing ! guess I'd
like to thank staff for their hard work. ! know this has been a tough project. I'd like to
thank the Planning Commission for their input that they gave us to come back with what
we feel is a much better plan. I'd like to thank City Council for hearing our case, and we
look forward to developing another great project in Chanhassen and ! guess I'm open to
any questions you guys might have.
29
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions.
Councilman Ayotte: Is the 14 percent grade issue that Mr. Hoffman raised a concern
about focused on using up park land versus headlights going into somebody's house? !
don't quite understand that point.
Matt Saam: Sure. There are, let me point it out on the plan.
Councilman Ayotte: Which plan?
Matt Saam: We can use this plan. Councilman Ayotte there are existing units roughly in
this area here, which face the street so what Mr. Simning was referring to was if we
brought a street down here, we potentially have headlights then pointing at those houses.
That was one of the issues we took into consideration along with this is not open space
parkland. The perception to the existing residents that oh, we live next to parkland but oh
wait a minute, here comes a street coming through there. In addition to the 14 percent. !
think they all added up to let's not pursue that at this point.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay.
Councilman Peterson: On a different drawing than that, point out your perspective of
where the 300 foot line that you're referencing is versus where staff' s recommendation is.
Todd Simning: Give me one second because. You guys can barely see this but it's a
green, kind of lime green dotted line that runs right through here. That happens to be the
300 foot mark. And so none of our units are actually in that. In fact technically if we
were living to the ordinance, and what ! believe the intent of it is, that would actually
open up this entire corridor over here for development purposes.
Councilman Labatt: ! need a clarification here because maybe you can define buffer strip
and help, I'm confused here with what he just said and you guys, the look of amazement
on your face.
Kate Aanenson: Well the 300 foot is not the ordinance. It's in the management plan,
which is just a plan. The ordinance is the governing documents as to what you follow.
He's citing the management, the Bluff Creek Overlay District plan.
Todd Simning: Correct, but in it it actually states in the resolution here in 286 that
they're going to implement the policies and recommendations found in the Bluff Creek
Watershed Natural Management Plan, and so again it.
Kate Aanenson: Correct, but the ordinance clearly said follow the primary district
boundary line, as this map that was referenced as a part of the adoption. So there is no
magic 300 feet. It moves less and it moves more than 300 feet. If you look at that map.
30
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Mayor Furlong: When was that map created?
Kate Aanenson: That was part of the management plan and that became adopted.
Mayor Furlong: When was it adopted?
Kate Aanenson: When we adopted the overlay district, that was put into the city mapping
and then that's where the ordinance says you can give the prima facia evidence to
determine where that line is, and that's what they've done. Right, not using a 300 feet
but where that line follows based on the tree line.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. ! think we're going to have more discussion on the primary zone
but do you have more questions Councilman Peterson?
Councilman Peterson: A couple yeah. When we were approving the petting farm, we
were moving some buildings around and allowing more buildings as ! recall. Were we
encroaching into that primary zone... ?
Kate Aanenson: Those buildings, well yeah. Those buildings were moved on without
location approval. They were moved on site, so.
Bob Generous: The plan that was approved for the interim use permit did not have any
encroaching into the primary zone.
Councilman Peterson: That was my question.
Kate Aanenson: That was one of the conditions to have a tree survey done which ! don't
believe is completed. Was never completed as part of that, going through the historic
preservation so we never had a tree survey done with that part of it.
Councilman Peterson: Then the last question, and it's a little bit more tougher perhaps,
but as developer's presented some pictures of Pulte and Vasserman and it looks like we
have allowed going into the same or similar tree area, or at least similar tree areas, ! guess
I'd like to get staff's response to that. It seems as though we've let neighboring
developments, as he's presented it. Again not giving you a chance to respond so I'd like
you to be able to respond to that.., as best you can, perhaps even using his documents if
you'd be so kind...
Councilman Ayotte: ! want to see him repeat that.
Kate Aanenson: Well just briefly, each project comes in and requests, both projects
request, all three projects requested a rezoning, so on each of that, the council has the
ability to review each. The merits of those and what the city's getting. For example on
the Pulte project it was a PUD. Transfer of density which they weren't able to maximize.
The driving caveat on that project was everything on that side was to be twin homes, so
that forced a different product type. ! think when we came to the end, at the end of the
31
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
day there was some minor concessions made. We decided we wanted a public street on
that north side. It did push a little bit but that was again a public street. ! think we have a
different circumstance here. On Vasserman Ridge, there was tree loss on part of that. As
far as where the location on the primary zone was. Again that project was a low density.
We did specific tree conservation easements on each of those lots. So again the merits of
each project is weighed individually for what you're getting. Again the driving force on
the Pulte was the twin homes and a public street. So we kind of spread the units out
instead of clustering them and that forced a little bit of a fanning effort on some of those.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, any more questions for the applicant or other questions for staff?.
Councilman Labatt: Well ! think a follow-up question to your point Craig is, Kate, are
we getting concessions from Plowshares such as we did in Lundgren Brothers and Pulte?
Kate Aanenson: Well ! think I'll go back to what Bob said in the beginning of the report
is that when each project comes in, in order to do this low density, you don't get the
ability to do the preservation of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Because you only have
the three zoning applications. RSF, straight subdivision, R4 or the PUD which allows 11.
You aren't able to employ the preservation and the density transfer, which we didn't do
on Vasserman but we did do on Pulte. We did the density transfer and we preserved all
the trees and took all the extraction to the north. So in this project you have to ask
yourself, what are we getting that's different in order to up zone it because we have to up
zone it in order to accomplish it. You know and allow them to cluster, what is the city
getting? A different product type, and that was one of the things when we met with the
Planning Commission that we talked about. And so ! guess I'd throw that back to you.
We gave our recommendation that we felt somewhere you know closer to 15 probably
would be better, and we were concerned about that we held Pulte to the two twins on that
side, on the north side. ! know we knew that was a big concern previously, so you know
! think one of the things we always try to look at is what is the product. What's the city
getting.
Todd Simning: And if I may answer that also. I would honestly believe that what you
guys are gaining is if you're looking at what the primary zone is, and what each of the
developments have here, you're actually gaining additional primary zone in the plan that
we actually show. And again as Kate stipulates, or states, that that 300 foot line is maybe
a moving target. Well in this case we're not asking to be pressed up against the 300 foot
line. We're not asking to remove significant trees inside the area that we're developing
and buildings will be there, and so ! really do feel that you guys are gaining an additional
protective area in this area, just simply because of that.
Kate Aanenson: I don't want to belabor the point but the 300 foot is the not the magic
empirical.
Councilman Labatt: You're misstating the point to the plan versus the ordinance. The
triangle that you're pointing at there, it can't be built because it's inside the primary line.
32
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Todd Simning: That is a, that triangle area right there is, it's again it's not, that really
isn't technically the primary zone. It comes down to a definition of staff or what they
believe is.
Councilman Labatt: Why isn't it?
Todd Simning: Well, I'm following, or at least I truly believe that I'm following the
Resolution 286 where it states in here the purpose of the Bluff Creek Overlay District and
in it it specifically says that it's implementing the policies and recommendations found in
the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan, and then when you go
back into the Bluff Creek Management Plan, it states in there, ! mean there's many
different pieces of information in this document. But in it it states that the primary
corridor boundary delineates a conservancy zone where undisturbed conditions are
desired. This is in the area where any type of development and/or human activity directly
impacts the morphological and biological characteristics of Bluff Creek. The
morphological characteristics are related to the stability of the stream and vary depending
on the variations in the flow regime, the amount of sediment carried by runoff, localized
erosion and non-point pollution associated with the type of human activities taking place
in the area. The management practices for this area will focus on the preservation
enhancement of natural conditions, but it does not say anything about tree preservation.
It talks specifically about the stability of the stream and those characteristics and what
they're trying to preserve as the headways of Bluff Creek. And so it isn't necessarily that
it's just dealing with trees. ! mean there's a little bit more involved so to say that it's just
trees and that's all we're dealing with here, the plan was actually, at least the way it
seems to be written, it seems to deal with more of the stream and the water conditioning
versus necessarily just trees.
Kate Aanenson: Can ! just add one more word on that. ! would agree with everything he
said. That is part of the plan but the ordinance clearly gives specific, under 20-1464
clearly tells the applicant how to define where the primary zone is and how to delineate it
and that's what we've asked.
Mayor Furlong: And what does that say?
Kate Aanenson: Well it just says that they have to provide data based on the map, and
they have the ability through prima facia evidence to go out and delineate that and that's
their obligation. And again, the map that we put in is based on these drawings that we
did as part of the plan and that shows a much larger area than 300 feet. There is a 300
foot, I'm not going to dispute that, that's talked about in the plan but that's not what it
says universally. If you follow this line throughout the Bluff Creek Overlay District,
there isn't a 300 foot. Again it moves sometimes closer, sometimes further. Again based
on topography. It's not all tree related. ! would concur with that. Sometimes there's a
large wetland expanse that it also picks up as a part of the creek, so there isn't an
automatic dimension...
Councilman Peterson: And this plan was in fact completed when? 3 years ago?
33
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Kate Aanenson: More than that.
Bob Generous: '96.
Kate Aanenson: Again that's a plan. The plan is just that. The implementation tool is
the ordinance and that's what we're referring back to citing what the ordinance says.
How to, and it's adopted in the code, and that's the tool that you follow. A plan is not the
rule. It's the intent, some of the intent statements but then it was put clearly into the
ordinance that you need to follow to identify based on the map that we adopted. Take
that. We're saying, you can go back and give us evidence on where that is based on what
we believe it, you know tentatively it is. We've identified it, to go out and say yes, this is
acceptable. Not in the right place. Give us the evidence to show us that.
Mayor Furlong: And so just for clarification then. Is it, is there some discretion that's
available with regard to where the line is, or.
Kate Aanenson: ... say you know what, while that may be the line, we're going to allow
you to encroach in it. Certainly you have that ability to say that, and you know.
Mayor Furlong: And have they gone through that effort to delineate then?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: And that's what was agreed to and what staff is presenting here?
Bob Generous: That's where we came up with the primary zone boundary. That's staff' s
recommendation if you will. We met in the field with the representative, from the firm
that represents them and said this is.
Mayor Furlong: And did they concur at that time in the field?
Bob Generous: Yeah, they believed that that edge, because if you move from the map
that was part of the plan to what staff's proposing, we shifted the line north also.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. If you look at that map, we also agreed the line should probably
move north, but not to the 300 foot.
Mayor Furlong: So the line that's shown here as staff's recommendation is north of what
was on the original map?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Bob Generous: Correct.
34
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Kate Aanenson: That's correct, and that was based on us meeting on site with the
professionals, with our forester, our wetland person to say is this the appropriate place.
Does this make some sense?
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Simning, was that, I mean.
Todd Simning: That is correct that we did do that, but if you look at all our plans, ! mean
basically we've said that when we were out there, we just took their recommendation and
that's why all our plans actually show, this is where kind of the proposed primary is and
here's where we believe it to be. So part of it's true. It's just the rest of the story.
Mayor Furlong: And then but the pink line, which is where you're saying you propose,
what are the natural features that support that line?
Todd Simning: Okay, which plan?
Mayor Furlong: I'm sticking with the color one. ! like color. So as ! understand this,
we've got an orange one that is the primary area as defined by staff, and somebody
correct me if I'm wrong on any of these assumptions, which goes through those 3 units.
And then there's the pink line just to the, just above that. It's a little more straight.
Todd Simning:
Mayor Furlong:
Todd Simning:
Mayor Furlong:
Todd Simning:
Mayor Furlong:
Todd Simning:
Just to the north of it, yes.
Just to the north that's your proposed.
That's our proposed, yes.
And what are the natural features that define that line?
The natural features that...
The pink one.
Define this line right here?
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Todd Simning: Actually there isn't, you know besides just being in the tree line, or
inside the trees, that's the only determination that any of us have been made on, or have
been making on where the primary line is. There isn't anything special of that except that
there are some significant trees right in that area, and again that is something that we
want to preserve ourselves. If that makes sense anyway.
Mayor Furlong: ! think so.
35
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Todd Simning: Again I want to reiterate that we're not, even though we're asking that
line to be moved backwards to what we want to see, we are not taking any significant
trees out of that area.
Mayor Furlong: Did anybody else have a, I've got just a couple follow-up questions.
Sorry Mr. Ayotte. On the hammer head issue. Mr. Saam, if we take out that condition
but include a condition that all units will be sprinkled, does that deal with the issues from
an engineering and safety standpoint?
Matt Saam: Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: I ask this question of Kate and Bob too. Are you comfortable with that?
Bob Generous: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: If the hammer head condition came out but we include a condition that
all units would be sprinkled, which it sounds like they're going to do anyways so it's not
anything adding to the applicant, that would be okay for us?
Bob Generous: Mark agreed to that also.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. And then, I guess the other question I have Mr.
Simning, at the Planning Commission on March 2nd, through all this, and I think this is
where this map came out, right after that. You commented about the fact that you had
moved the road to the east to save the trees on the west, and that you'd come back with
two 3 unit buildings to eliminate the one at the end, and shift everything over enough to
try to accommodate that. That being saving the trees on the west. The picture I'm
looking at here has a 4 unit and a 3 unit. What changed?
Todd Simning: Four units fit. We didn't know it at the time, that's the only thing that
changed. We weren't certain if they would fit or not and it actually did.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Mr. Sacchet, the
Commissioner Chair of the Planning Commission is here tonight. Is there anything that
you'd like to add to clean up the mud? A little bit.
Councilman Peterson: Do you have any more new plans?
Uli Sacchet: No more plans. No more plans. I'm Uli Sacchet, Chairman of the Planning
Commission and we were very excited about it because ! think it has a lot of qualities to
it. It's a lot of quality in the approach they've taken. A lot of diligence. As you can see
by the number of plans, several tree inventories, what have you. We sent it back. We
tabled it first because we had some questions, the placement of the NURP pond, which
was somewhat looked at here. The concern about the primary zone and so forth, and we
wanted that studied a little further and then it came back to the Planning Commission and
it kind of fell apart on us, to be honest with you. It seemed to have gone opposite than
36
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
what we would have wanted to see. Rather than solidifying it and focusing it, it was even
more, the issues more mushroomed rather than they got settled. We, ! think everybody
agrees that this is a relatively sensitive area environmentally, so we want to find the right
balance how we deal with that. And the fundamental question is what's the reasonable
use? And one thing we always are faced with quite often from the Planning Commission,
applicants come in front of us, the interest of the applicant is to find the maximum use,
and the maximum use is not necessarily the reasonable use and ! guess that's the difficult
thing, the balance to find. Where it really fell apart on us is with the question of the
primary zone. We felt when this question was raised, where is the primary zone, that was
really not within our reach of the Planning Commission to try to settle that and that
combined with the time pressures that seemed to be on this project, seemed to force our
hand that we had to recommend denial of it. And there are some other issues, but the
thing with the primary zone is actually quite striking. It only came out towards the end of
the discussion that he just had, and actually the developer makes a very credible, very
convincing strong case with the 300 foot distance and how it is with the neighboring
developments and all that. However, when we went back to the actual Bluff Creek
Overlay document, the line is not even east/west. It actually tilts down to the south on
the 41 side, so the line has been shifted around quite significantly already to
accommodate development, and with the density transfer to balance it into what we may
ultimately term reasonable use. But that's something as a Planning Commission we
didn't want to deal with, but then there are the other things. The aspects of the access
from Century Trail, because ! think Councilman Labatt had a very good point. The
reason why there's this grade is because you basically have two rows of buildings and
inbetween you fill up enough dirt so you can call them walkouts, because you get into the
buildings high enough so that then in the back of the building you come down a story
lower. And that's what people want to buy. ! mean that's in the interest of the developer.
However in terms of safety, maybe not just, ! mean one aspect we also consider is to have
both accesses. You actually have the Century and on the front here, but those are all
issues that we felt we didn't have time to really discuss sufficiently and pin down. They
were just thrown up and given the applicant made a very diligent effort to settle these
things down, but from the Planning Commission side, we didn't feel we had the time to
really cook this and then make it solid. Another aspect is with the grading. The first
proposal that came in front of us had 50 percent of their site graded. We tried to be more
sensitive to the environment. The second one came and there's 70 percent graded. Then
to make matters more muddy, it seemed like the same amount of trees were saved, even
though they're 20 percent more graded, and so the math didn't add up and that all
contributed to our recommendation to deny. Plus the more significant trees, the bigger
the impact. It's really the real significant trees that get hit the hardest. When one of the
reasons why we recommended looking at placing the NURP pond, the storm pond where
currently the barn is, where it's a little bit of an opening in the trees, is that in that area
it's not that much significant trees. It's more the box elder types. More the smaller ones.
The idea was not to ram it right into the woods, but to use it in that area. Again, whether
that really has sufficiently been studied, ! don't know. Overall from the Planning
Commission side we were a little disappointed with what came back to us and really in
summary felt our hand was forced through the time line, that we had to make a
recommendation to deny under the circumstances. Now what's, several of these
37
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
questions have been addressed further. The one with the Century Trail access. The one
with the moving the units further east to have more buffer on the, between 41 and the
development, which by the way that buffer was in the first proposal. Somehow on the
second one it kind of moved over, and now it moved back again but in the process all of a
sudden we have 4 unit and 3 unit buildings in there, which is a decision that you have to
take, whether that really fits in there in the context of the development around it. That's
probably all ! have. ! don't know if you have any questions for this specifically to what
we discussed in the Planning Commission but it's a little bit over, all over the place right
now this thing so ! hope you guys can pin it down. Wish you luck with that, thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Good, any questions for the commissioner? Thank you. Appreciate
your comments.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, ! just have one more question of staff. Could you
guys pull out, is there anything up there that gives me a better picture tonight of where
the rest of the development and what the density is around it? We got the twin homes
immediately to the east, but.
Kate Aanenson: This is the subject site. Then you've got Pulte Homes, which is !
believe less than 16 units an acre. Then you've got Vasserman Ridge which is a.
Councilman Peterson: I'm talking immediately, adjacent to it.
homes.
We've got the twin
Kate Aanenson: To the north end you have, just on the north side is single family.
Pardon me? 3.5. And then on the north side of that, which would be the Longacres
subdivision ! believe is 1.96. Just under 2.
Councilman Peterson: Where are the units directly to the south? ! guess there isn't any
in the south.
Bob Generous: Arboretum Village which is 8.7.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Then across the street we did the density transfer with the
church, and there are a few single family lots outside of the Longacres development, a
couple of lots.
Councilman Peterson: The reason why ! ask, ! do remember us them to put twin homes
on the north side to lower the density to make that transition.
Kate Aanenson: That is correct. That was a big issue.
Bob Generous: Arboretum Village, the overall net density was 5.7 units per acre.
Kate Aanenson: But on the north side.
38
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Councilman Labatt: The north side.
Bob Generous: 3.5.
Councilman Peterson: You remember the conversation Steve.
Councilman Labatt: Very much.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, it was a heated one to decrease the density even more.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess just for clarification, I know I read it. What is the density
of this one? Pick a version.
Bob Generous: 3.1.
Mayor Furlong: 3.17 That's the current alternative that's being proposed?
Bob Generous: At 18 units, yes. 3.18.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Okay, any other questions?
Councilman Labatt: No, comments.
Mayor Furlong: We're getting to that. Let's get through, and there may be some
questions as we go through the comments. Alright, why don't we bring it back to council
for comments. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: I'm just going to address one real quickly here on that hammer head.
! feel very strongly that if this project, and if is used very loosely, goes through tonight,
the hammer head has to stay in there. Up in Knob Hill, the Hageman's have a very
similar situation where cars making deliveries or visitors, as they come down there,
they're going to be using people's private driveways as turn around's unless we provide a
hammer head down there. Some of us on the council and staff got served with a
subpoena over Ms. Hageman's issue there and it' s, ! think very important that it stays in
there. To avoid another neighborhood that complains about vehicles turning around. Just
wanted to bring that up right away.
Mayor Furlong: Any other comments?
Councilman Labatt: I'll write some down, yeah. ! will have more but go ahead.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other comments? At this point.
Councilman Peterson: Yeah, I'm struggling, and ! think staff has presented a good
argument as to why we shouldn't take, and have those 3 units in there for the tree line,
and ! understand that and we're, you know part of what was offered, are we really getting
39
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
anything unique and distinctive? I'm sure they'll be well built and nice but they are
pretty typical to what is being offered around, so that was one of the factors that we're
willing to give more if we get something. ! don't know if, we haven't focused much on
architecture tonight but it seems as though they're pretty, you know they're good quality
but they're typical. Okay. ! would be leaning towards not moving on that tree line,
however in just looking at it, ! like the one where, this one. Alright, whatever you want
to call this one. I'm going to call it A, alright. Where they saved more trees on 41 and
moved the road seemingly to the east. ! would certainly be amenable to adding a third
unit to, ! haven't got a lot number here but, Lot number 2, to spread that out. To turn that
in there. The other thing that, and my mind is still processing, what ! don't like, if we
take out, this is Lot 3, right?
Councilman Labatt: Yep.
Councilman Peterson: If we take that out, you know look at the development then.
You've got unit, unit, unit, unit, unit and then open. It doesn't look great. ! haven't
addressed that in my mind yet, but if this one unit can be moved over to accommodate
that, I'd like to see that. Kate, do you understand my point?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
Councilman Peterson: And you're smiling for no particular reason ! assume but adding
more work.
Kate Aanenson: I'm thinking about the look. I'm just you know, there's a lot of
different ways to slice that so, to make it look good. ! mean whether you put a gazebo or
something in there to balance it out or...
Councilman Peterson: And that's what I need to hear. I mean is there ways to mitigate
that?
Kate Aanenson: Yep.
Councilman Peterson: You know so at the end of the day ! understand the 300 foot line.
! understand where staff is there. We put that primary zone in years ago, and ! think we
need a more compelling reason to change it, so those are my humble thoughts this
evening.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Ayotte.
Councilman Ayotte: I'm a little concerned about the vacillation that's gone back and
forth. First of all ! hear the engineering say yeah, it's a good idea if we go 10 percent
versus 14 percent. And then ! heard again that no, it's a bad idea because of the headlight
issue so there's a little vacillation going back and forth and ! understand, because
everybody's got their back to the wall to try to get something done by a time line, that's
fine but ! don't feel comfortable in pushing through a project because of time line issues
40
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
when we have all the changes that have occurred. ! know people have been working
towards trying to make things happen, but when ! see right in the middle of the effort a
change in position, that we reinforces my thought that maybe some things have not been
thought through as well as they need to be.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: I'll just keep mine short and say that ! concur with Councilman
Peterson.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Anything more?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah. Just a couple of comments. At times it's, we've heard the
comment up here we're shooting at a moving target here. And a couple things I'm going
to point out right away that it's funny how things change over time. 1996 when this Bluff
Creek Watershed Management Plan was established, the property owner Ms. McAllister
was on the steering committee, and now I'm having difficulty in the fact that things are
being interpreted differently now by their representative of the 300 foot and that. Mr.
Sacchet brought up an idea which in essence makes an entrance off of Century Trail, yet
keeping the exit so to speak, or right-in/right-out onto West 78th. I think there's a lot of
ideas and plans that we've talked about here tonight that need to be explored by the
developer, and the property owner. That being one of them right there. So ! would, I'm
not in favor at all of moving the primary line. That's been established and ! would like
to, if the applicant's willing to give a written extension, and give them some direction to
go back and explore that, with a good, hard look at that entrance and exit off of Century
Trail. We had some long discussions back in the Pulte day on that specific topic, and
we're not doing that justice today with what we went through 3 years ago. And if the
applicant is not willing to do it, then ! would support going along with the Planning
Commission's recommendation of denying it.
Mayor Furlong: It's clear that, and Councilman Labatt talked about hitting a moving
target and that's what this has been and ! think that was part of the disappointment and
frustration at the Planning Commission and with staff and probably with the applicant
too, and clearly ! think that's been our challenge tonight. What ! look at here, and I'm
not, ! don't know that I'm prepared at this point to allow the encroachment into the
primary zone. ! look at how it's been delineated or proposed by the applicant and ! think
that line effectively just accommodates this development as much as others, while
preserving the major trees. There are items that need to be explored. The open area off
Century Trail there, if memory serves is really a berm with a few pine trees on it. ! don't
know that that was explored, and again if the difference is just because they're walkouts
instead of lookouts, if the lookouts could accommodate that dual access. ! guess though
what, from a concept of taking the capacity of the property, which the applicant has said
is 18. We haven't as a city staff we haven't really verified that but let's assume, and
going back to reasonable use versus maximum use, that that's the maximum use at 18.
And maybe there's something a little less than that. What we are accomplishing or what
41
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
the applicant is assisting us in accomplishing is getting out of that primary zone short of,
! mean ! guess the alternative would be a decision to buy it or to.
Kate Aanenson: Or give relief through the variance which is what they were requesting.
Mayor Furlong: Or relief through variance, okay. But in terms of location outside of that
zone. ! mean overall ! like the concept of transferring the density to the southern part of
the property so that we can accomplish what the applicant has said in terms of preserving
the trees and enhancing the beauty of their property and as well, and getting it out of the
primary zone, so ! like that concept but what I'm hearing from council members, from
staff and from Planning Commission is that we haven't gone through the steps necessary
to get the best plan in place. This is a version but it continues to move. ! guess ! would
ask the applicant, ! know you were asked at the March 2nd Planning Commission but
would you be willing to give a written extension on this project so we can explore some
of these issues that have been addressed and raised this evening and since the Planning
Commission?
Todd Simning: ! don't think ! can actually answer that right now. I'd have to go back
and my business partner and ! would talk about it. Talk to our attorneys. Find out what
their thoughts are, and at that point ! guess make a determination but if you're asking me
to make a decision right here, ! think our deadline is April 3rd SO I mean we could by
April 3rd but tonight ! couldn't make that decision.
Kate Aanenson: That's not your next regular meeting. I think our next regular meeting
is...
Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry Kate, could you.
Kate Aanenson: ! think your next regular meeting would be April 12th, SO you don't have
a meeting before then. Just to be clear.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. ! guess then the you know, there are a lot of questions up here
versus just definitive conclusions. ! think again to restate, ! think this is a good working
document. ! don't know that we've reached the point of approval from approving the
change in land use and though I'm open to that for these purposes of pushing the
dwellings to the southern part of the lot, we've got to deal with the primary zone, access
to the property perhaps from Century Trail, but there are residents over there that may be
interested in that.
Kate Aanenson: Correct,... have another public hearing and invite them to come in.
Mayor Furlong: Exactly, and they may have looked at this and said well there's no
connection to Century Trail so you know it's fine with me. So there are issues there that
we're going to have to address. Councilman Peterson.
42
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Councilman Peterson: Roger, can we, we can vote on this this evening and make our
respective motion and get a second and either approve or deny it, and we can reconsider
it within a timeframe at a later date, can't we?
Roger Knutson: Yes. The answer is yes. There's one thing though, you need findings
for your, either your approval or your denial. Because of the unique characteristics of
this. ! know there are findings in here but ! think we would want to amend those to make
them consistent with what your discussion is, and ! think that'd be kind of important on
this project. So one thing, just to, ! heard what the Mayor said about getting an
extension. ! heard what the applicant said. You could direct city staff and myself to
prepare findings consistent with, and I'm not going to fill in that blank. Approval or
denial, and call a special meeting prior to April 1st to act on that. And then second, if the
applicant grants an extension, and that extension is received by Friday of this week, and
the extension gives us a reasonable time to the end of April, then you don't need this
special meeting. That's a multi faceted recommendation but.
Councilman Peterson: It matches this whole process.
Councilman Ayotte: ! don't feel comfortable with that at all.
Roger Knutson: We need to have findings for approval or denial.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Where do we want to go with this one?
Roger Knutson: If you wanted to make it absolutely simple, then you could just say
direct preparation of findings consistent with this and you could have a special meeting
which ! would recommend. Today is Tuesday, on Monday of next week.
Councilman Labatt: Well the purpose of the special meeting would be to.
Roger Knutson: Adopt the findings.
Councilman Labatt: Adopt the findings. Or are we telling Plowshares to come back with
option, or alternative what? ! don't know what number they're on.
Councilman Peterson: Well why dissimilar couldn't we.
Mayor Furlong: Go ahead.
Councilman Peterson: Approve staff' s recommendation with the caveat that with staff' s
discretion and with the developer's, we could add a third unit to the Lot number 2.
That's my opinion. Again I'm not as concerned about the road. If the staff says the road
is okay where it is, I'm concerned, I'll let them, let that go. That would be my motion.
Whether or not it's seconded and voted on, because ! don't know what we're going to
get. If none of us are really enthusiastic about going into the primary zone, they're not
going to come back with anything other than maybe one more unit in Lot 2, so.
43
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Councilman Labatt: But ! think though Craig, it comes down to you know, maximization
versus what's best for the property and this is something here where it appears to be
maximization, but maybe there's another alternative that they can come back with with a
few less units. With a road that was talked about 4 years ago. 3 years ago when we did
Pulte. There's alternatives and options that we need to look at before we go and approve
it. This definitely has good aspects to it. I'm not against the project at all. There's things
under there that I'd like to see that we look at more.
Councilman Peterson: And Steve, I don't disagree with you but I guess my attitude is,
I'd rather see less roads there in developments than more roads is safety is addressed. So
again I'm not focusing on that. I'm just presenting, this is where my head is at and
whether anybody else's head is there is up to discussion obviously and voting but ! think
what we have to move this ahead is what I'm hearing. So how we move it ahead is the
challenge. ! offered one alternative. ! don't know if there's another one there that can be
offered.
Councilman Ayotte: If! may. I've seen staff working hard. There's still a little bit too
much ambiguity for me. I've seen the developer working hard to a point. I've seen the
commission working very, very hard but again I'll use the term vacillation. A lot of back
and forth and we're working towards a time line, and the intent ought to be the best
application. And ! heard the developer say, he was not willing to concede because he has
to have a chit chat with his partner. His partner has a cell phone, to see if there'd be a
willingness to extend, and ! heard no. There's not a willingness to extend so therefore it
influences me on my what my willingness is. So that's my point. ! don't see a
concession here. I'm feeling pressured and ! don't want to be pressured so if he's not
willing to give us an extension, ! would prefer, if we have to go ahead and do the
findings, we do that. Meet next Monday and ! know what my vote will be.
Mayor Furlong: Weren't there findings prepared by the Planning Commission in their
denial?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. ! think we'd want to modify those based on your.
Mayor Furlong: On our comments?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. There was pro and con, correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright.
Kate Aanenson: There's just some additional discussion that's taken place.
Mayor Furlong: And Councilman Peterson, if I understand your most recent comments,
adopting staff's recommendation would be to take out the 3 units in Block 3 that
currently encroach into the plan, but allowing an additional unit to be built on the Block
44
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
2, which is currently the only 2 unit item, if that can be done with consistent architecture
but remain completely outside the primary plat.
Councilman Labatt: In the setback from the primary? ! think they said they can't do it.
Councilman Peterson: ! didn't hear that. Maybe ! missed it but.
Mayor Furlong: Well and the question is at what level of setback at 40 feet. Kate and
Bob, I'm guessing it's Block 4. The 3 units near the green area on our Exhibit A. Are
those.
Kate Aanenson: Let's just make sure we're all tracking the same.
about taking this unit, shifting it over to that.
Mayor Furlong:
Kate Aanenson:
Mayor Furlong:
setback variance of 40 down to 20?
So you're talking
If it can stay back. The unit to.
You would just drop the 2 units.
The 3 units Kate to the east of there, those 3 units. Do those require the
Bob Generous: Yes they do.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Peterson: Without going through 10 pages, I agree with Steve's hammer
head. ! think we need that in there. Absolutely, and if it's not in there let's put that in
there too.
Councilman Lundquist: It's in there already.
Councilman Peterson: That's what ! thought.
Mayor Furlong: The applicant asked for that to be removed...
Councilman Peterson: ! think he asked, he wants one but he doesn't necessarily want to
go at the city code.
Mayor Furlong: Right. So ! mean to reach some resolution here, and ! guess I'm not
necessarily in favor of a special meeting. And so to reach some resolution, if there' s, you
know from a comment standpoint and such, ! mean if we went with staff's
recommendation, which would be the elimination of the 3 units on Block 3. And staff !
think was also recommending the variance to the 20 foot setback, if I'm not mistaken. So
45
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
that would allow those 3 units and 4 to remain and within that same 20 feet variance, if
they could accommodate a, now this is preliminary platting correct?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: So it comes back as final at some point in time.
Mayor Furlong: You know if that, if an additional unit could be added to Block 2 still
within that 20 foot variance, is that what I'm hearing you saying and I'm seeing staff nod
their head.
Kate Aanenson: Yep, yep.
Mayor Furlong: ! know the applicant's waiting to speak but you've got to give us a
minute here .... the calendar to move forward with what essentially is going to be a
concept. And if they can accommodate those factors within the final plat, or final, then
that would work. Is that, Councilman Peterson, am ! fairly summarizing you?
Summarizing? ! think ! spoke longer than you.
Councilman Peterson: Fairly summarizing me.
Mayor Furlong: And long windedly summarizing. Mr. Simning, you had something to
add.
Todd Simning: First off, before you guys would make any motion I'd like to understand
exactly what you would be possibly proposing, that would be number one. Just one
minute. Number two, just a couple items that were mentioned here that everybody seems
to be up against the gun on timing and things haven't been adequately looked at.
Between staff and ourselves and going back to Planning Commission on probably 6
different plans, we really have looked at, at least us internally have looked at so many
different options. ! just want, I'd like you guys to know that we really have looked at
everything, and things haven't been just haphazardly said oh, ! guess we don't want to do
that. And that was, it's been one of the frustrations for us as an applicant. ! know this is
a difficult parcel to develop because us as developers, you know again as you're looking
at maximizing you know and what you guys consider maximizing or doing regular, or
how would ! say? Maximizing or doing you know what would look best or be best, you
know obviously we know what's going to sell there. We need lots that are priced at a
certain amount. This isn't a $450 to $500,000 townhouse neighborhood that would be
placed here, and so the considerations that we've had, ! want you guys to understand this,
when we're looking at walkouts, we didn't force any walkouts. Our elevations were all
predicated on the elevation of the water level in the pond and so as the pond was at this,
and we knew that our openings had to be at, or our finished floors had to be here, it just
worked out to be walkouts. We really didn't force anything to be there and ! think that's
Councilman Labatt has mentioned that a few different times and ! just want you guys to
know that. Understand that. So these things internally have really been talked about and
46
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
we've been through this so I guess that, I just wanted to make certain you guys are clear
about that.
Mayor Furlong: Sure, thank you.
Todd Simning: And then lastly, if ! could understand. No, before you go there, I've got
one more question. If ! could understand exactly if we would grant an extension, when
would it that we could be back here to talk to you guys and to show you any plans that
are revised. ! guess ! don't understand, does that mean you're not going to see for 60 or
90 days because I'm going to be put off, or does that mean that we would work diligently
through something and we would have the opportunity to be up here sooner than later?
Kate Aanenson: Maybe we talk about the first thing first. The plan that we got...because
! would agree with his first statement. We worked very hard to get to where we are
today. So, just to be clear again on this plan, ! think that Bob pointed out in the
beginning, from the beginning to make this project work there's a little remnant here.
The city in good faith has worked to... so we have worked in good faith to try to
accommodate some of these things. My understanding of what they're saying now is that
these 3 units would go away. If you can come back on a final plat and make one of these
units attach over here, they'd be willing to look at that, with the same variance you're
getting over here for those 2 units.
Todd Simning: So basically lose 2 units?
Kate Aanenson: Yep.
Todd Simning: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: That seems like what they're formulating.
Councilman Ayotte: And then there was the ingress/egress issue that was.
Councilman Lundquist: Hammer head you're talking about?
Councilman Ayotte: The hammer head issue?
Todd Simning: And the hammer head to us, we do want a hammer head there. It was,
because we want people to be able to turn around. The only thing that we asked for was
that it didn't have to be a city standard for the fire truck per se. That was all.
Councilman Labatt: What's your reason for not wanting to do that?
Todd Simning: Just that, what do you call it? The size of it on the turn around right here,
we actually don't have enough room to accomplish that with what we have right here.
47
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Kate Aanenson: Can ! get clarification on that? So if my understanding is you're
agreeing to fire sprinkle.
Todd Simning: Yep.
Kate Aanenson: So that meets the fire marshal's requirements so if he still wants to put a
turn around in there, that's fine with us. ! mean the issue is, if it's not to city standards he
has to accommodate that in another way, which he is agreeing to in fire sprinkling so that
makes it a moot issue.
Councilman Labatt: Well ! think that I'm still trying to avoid a Debra Hageman
situation.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, he's providing the turn around. He wants the same thing.
Todd Simning: We want it. We want a hammer head.
Councilman Labatt: The question is, how big of a turn around are you going to provide.
One for a semi delivery truck? A 28 foot panel van? Maybe delivering, that's the
situation we have. Where the panel van couldn't turn around. They had to use a private
driveway.
Ed Hasek: It will accommodate a panel van.
Kate Aanenson: ! think what we can do, if we come back, if you're still planning on the
same motion when we come back under final plat, if we can look at that internally to give
something that...work with engineering, minimizing as much as we can to get it big
enough that it works. That's the goal.
Todd Simning: During, ! mean we had a need for this just because of during construction
there's not, we need room for guys to be able to move in and move out and we actually
specifically used the turn around here to set two dumpsters down in, and so the dumpsters
that we get, those 30 yard containers, are pretty long themselves and pretty wide, so
we're going to need it to be large enough to set two of those in there anyway. So we're
not really looking, I'm not looking to really make it that much smaller. ! just want to
make certain that ! have that flexibility ! guess to, if it's not city standard, that's all.
Councilman Ayotte: What was the 78th Street issue that was discussed before? Steve
you brought that up.
Kate Aanenson: The connection.
Councilman Labatt: The connection, yeah.
Kate Aanenson: And if we do do that then ! believe that we're obligated to go back and
hold a public hearing, as the Mayor indicated. The neighbors adjacent to it probably
48
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
didn't anticipate it. Again it's city property that we're taking out that we had tipped for
extraction for parks so that's kind of one of the reasons why we didn't see that
connection. One, there's a grade difference, and as Uli indicated...to create walkouts.
There is a change naturally and when we did Pulte, at that time the co-applicant on this
site wanted it to be left up or do a petting farm, so we didn't the road isn't really angled
the right way. While it would have been nice, I think at this point, based on that type of
development, it's a public. Right now as it's being proposed, it's a different street width.
The other street is a public street. It draws a big change in that it now becomes a public
street. It has huge implications. We did look at that. Now we're back to a whole
different design if we make that a public street, so at that point, we agree that it probably
makes sense to leave it private. Not make the connection based on grading. Going back
into city owned park property. The implications to the existing neighborhood. Kind of
where Craig was going.
Councilman Ayotte: Go back to your question, if we did request an extension, what
would be the date where we would come back and make sure he's not waiting forever
and a day? When was that?
Councilman Labatt: 30 days...to Todd.
Councilman Ayotte: 30 days?
Councilman Peterson: I guess what are we gaining by that?
Kate Aanenson: I don't know, well we also have to have a public hearing with, on this
other street.
Mayor Furlong: The question is what we're asking for.
Kate Aanenson: I don't think we can do that in 30 days. I'm not sure. Because we have
to notice the neighbors and get it on the Planning Commission, or back to the council.
You didn't want to hold the public hearing here. ! don't know, assuming we probably
remand it back to the Planning Commission because it's changed the site plan. So !
would say 60 days would probably be more likely.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Knutson, with regards to the findings of facts that are in our packet,
these speak to a 15 unit development.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Are they consistent with staff' s recommendation?
Kate Aanenson: Correct, except you'd add the one more unit if you went with what's
being floated.
Roger Knutson: Are you talking about the findings for approval?
49
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Yes. So, and if there are additional findings that we can pull from the
minutes of the meeting, if we're moving forward. ! mean ! guess, can we, give us some
flexibility here. If we approve these subject to amendment at our next meeting if staff
can find some additional findings of fact, does that provide us, get this done within the
timeframe.
Roger Knutson: If you want to approve it, that would work just fine. What you'd do is
you could move, if this is what you're going to do, move approval to subject to whatever
conditions you have directing staff to take the existing findings and discussion of this
meeting and massage those findings consistent with tonight, and bring them back for the
findings approval next time.
Mayor Furlong: And that does not have to be done prior to the deadline?
Roger Knutson: No. Not the findings in that situation.
Mayor Furlong: The decision has to be made?
Roger Knutson: Right. For approval.
Councilman Peterson: Just for clarification that motion would be relative to the motion
number 3 probably, preliminary plat, right?
Roger Knutson: ! believe the conditions.
Councilman Peterson: We're adding a couple conditions and subject to the facts of
findings on the motion number 3 which would be granting preliminary plat approval.
Roger Knutson: The findings are all, they're together. They wouldn't have to be but
they've been bunched and that's fine.
Councilman Ayotte: Just go with the preliminary plat would avoid the concern about a
public hearing.
Councilman Peterson: Well, public hearing isn't the issue of what we're talking about.
Councilman Ayotte: ! thought for the time line issue though.
Councilman Peterson: The time line issue isn't an issue if we move this ahead tonight.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, one other thing you should know is that this is a land use
amendment. You're going to need four votes.
50
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Roger Knutson: That's with that one aspect. The rest are simple majority.
Mayor Furlong: And the land use is to change it from guided low density to medium, and
that approval, if ! saw it correctly, that is conditioned upon this site plan. So it doesn't
provide someone from not pursuing this site plan and coming back and saying we want to
do the whole thing medium.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: That land use change would only allow for this plan to move forward.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright.
Councilman Ayotte: ! shouldn't have gone to the bathroom. In order for me to get this
comfortable with everyone, could you delineate for me the points that, one more time, so
I'm not losing what the conditions are that we're focusing on.
Councilman Peterson: We can do that in a motion probably.
Councilman Ayotte: ! want to hear this sucker.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman Peterson, you want to, are you comfortable going
forward, attempting a motion then based upon what you're proposing?
Councilman Peterson: ! think in my mind ! know how I'd like to move forward. Let's
give it a shot.
Mayor Furlong: Well let's give it a shot and start with something. If the motion's made
and seconded and council members want to try to amend it, we can do so.
Councilman Peterson: Okay, and the first motion ! would make, which ! don't think we
have a real issue with, would be that City Council approves the land use amendment from
residential low density to residential medium density contingent upon final approval of a
PUD and Metropolitan Council review and approval of the land use amendment. And
that's just rezoning it.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Councilman Labatt: Is this the one that takes 4 out of 5, right?
Councilman Peterson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
51
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Kate Aanenson: Just to be clear, that's what...is referring to this can do without...
Mayor Furlong: Specific to this project, okay. Alright. Is there discussion on that? !
guess my thought is, given that it is solely conditioned upon this project and conditioned
upon the final approval, which will incorporate where ! think we're going to go, ! would
support it. ! would not support changing the land use for the entire parcel without that
contingent to medium density. Is there any other discussion? Hearing none, I'm sorry.
Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: I'm still not happy with the fact that we're not looking at the road.
What the council did when ! was on and Craig were on, 3 years with Pulte. ! plan to vote
no on everything because I'm not pleased with what we're doing here. We're going to
throw a band aid on this thing and the old saying is, the broken clock is right twice a day.
Well we're a broken clock right now. We're not doing justice to this project by
approving this like this. So ! think that the Planning Commission has stated quite clear to
us that they're not happy with it. They're confused with it. They had hoped that March
2nd Plowshares would come back with something other than what they came back with
and it confused them more and now we're confused upon their confusion and we're just
making a hap hazard decision here and going to throw this through approval.
Councilman Peterson: I'm not making a hap hazard decision. ! think I'm making an
informed decision. ! just don't happen to agree with you on the road. Everything else
think we're on the same page on.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other discussion? Hearing none on the motion for the land use
amendment.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City
Council approves the Land Use Amendment from Residential, Low Density to
Residential, Medium Density contingent upon final development approval of this
planned unit development and Metropolitan Council review and approval of the
Land Use Amendment. Mayor Furlong, Councilman Peterson and Councilman
Lundquist voted in favor of the motion. Councilman Labatt and Councilman
Ayotte voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 3 to 2.
Mayor Furlong: The motion passes 3-2 but not sufficient majority, is that correct?
Roger Knutson: Motion fails.
Mayor Furlong: Motion fails? Okay. Is there any other motions at this point?
Councilman Peterson: Is there any necessity to based upon this?
Roger Knutson: Mayor, since you, with this motion failing and everything else,
cascading cards as you understand, and they all fail. Now we will need findings of fact
52
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
consistent with denial. And we'll need to recommend, recommend a 5 minute meeting to
adopt those findings.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Should we go through the additional motions at this point or
should we set the findings of fact? We're going to need time to prepare those findings of
fact, is that correct?
Roger Knutson: Yes we are.
Mayor Furlong:
Roger Knutson:
I'll need a couple, few days.
Okay.
If you wanted to call, let's see today is Tuesday.
Roger Knutson:
Mayor Furlong:
work so.
Councilman Labatt: Monday.
Monday. You can call a special meeting for Monday.
And ! don't know about other people's schedules but Monday doesn't
Councilman Peterson:
Mayor Furlong:
Roger Knutson:
Mayor Furlong:
28th?
It doesn't for me either.
So we may have to find another meeting.
Tuesday?
Does Tuesday next week, the 27th work? Not for you? Wednesday the
Councilman Lundquist: No, none of the days other than Monday next week are good.
Mayor Furlong: Monday is the only day?
Councilman Peterson: We just need 3 people right?
Councilman Lundquist: Yep, you only need 3.
Mayor Furlong: ! might have been in the wrong month.
Councilman Peterson: ! feel like ! am already.
Councilman Lundquist: Monday the 29th.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. So Tuesday is the BOth. IS that, other than Councilman
Lundquist, would everybody else be available?
53
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Councilman Labatt: My palm pilot's dead so I don't have my calendar.
Mayor Furlong: You'd better be available.
Councilman Labatt: Monday's bad for you Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Yes sir.
Councilman Ayotte: Time wise, do we have, can you zero in on a time?
Councilman Peterson: We can call it any time.
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, I've got to take care of a plane issue so.
Mayor Furlong: 6:00.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Or 7:00.
Councilman Peterson: Earlier the better for me but ! don't have my palm pilot with me
SO.
Mayor Furlong: We need 3 days to call a special meeting?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, what ! would ask is that tomorrow morning the council members
get their calendars to the City Manager.
Councilman Labatt: Let's call a meeting for that date and could we just name a time?
Mayor Furlong: If that works, but there may be.
Councilman Labatt: Tuesday would work, ! just don't know what time.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Let's get our calendars to Mr. Gerhardt and with the goal of
having a special meeting on the BOth and if for some reason that doesn't work for
everybody, then we will find another date before the 3rd.
Roger Knutson: And then if you wanted to just simply direct staff to prepare findings
consistent with denial of the various items related to on Bluff Creek Project for your
consideration at your special meeting coming up.
54
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Without objection, can we do it that way? Without objection. Staff's so
directed. Do we need to go through the motion now Mr. Knutson with regard to the
other?
Roger Knutson: No, because that will be on your amendment.
Mayor Furlong: Those will be part of the findings of fact, all the other four?
Roger Knutson: And then you can adopt the findings and act on all aspects of the project.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Lundquist: Just for point of clarification. This project is basically dead now
because their zoning that is on this parcel will not allow that, correct?
Councilman Peterson: We won't see it again, if we see it again, for a couple months.
Mayor Furlong: It would have to start through the process.
Councilman Lundquist: Public hearing, Planning Commission, all that work that's been
put in is just.
Councilman Ayotte: It's not gone. They build on it.
Councilman Peterson: It's probably gone for this year.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Labatt: In comment to that ! guess, we have the option of getting an
extension of which was an option that didn't go so.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Knutson? Would the council have the option at the special meeting
to reconsider the motion that just failed?
Yes.
Thank you. Alright.
But you'll have to put that on the agenda because it will be a special
Roger Knutson:
Mayor Furlong:
Roger Knutson:
meeting.
Mayor Furlong:
Roger Knutson:
So we have to specifically identify what we're going to do?
Yes, you have to work off of a specific agenda. Unlike a regular
meeting like tonight.
55
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright.
Councilman Ayotte: With that reconsideration though wouldn't we need, it would take 4.
Councilman Lundquist:
reconsideration.
It would take you or Steve to make the motion for
Mayor Furlong: Because they were on the prevailing side.
Roger Knutson: That's correct.
Councilman Lundquist: And it would take, without myself, it will take all four because 3
out of 4 is not sufficient.
Todd Gerhardt:
Mayor Furlong:
the Mayor.
Could we take a 5 minute break right now?
! think that'd be great. Let's take a 5 minute recess subject to the call of
(Mayor Furlong called a 5 minute recess at this point in the meeting.)
Mayor Furlong: Call the meeting back to order. While we were on recess, Mr. Knutson.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, I had a discussion with the applicants and they've signed an
extension. I believe that is correct. We have that signed by everyone? So if you want to
give that time, some time to work and work through the process, then I would
recommend this first, you already have a motion that's been acted upon to deny the land
use plan amendment. To keep that alive, what you, if someone wanted to they could
move to reconsider and if that motion to reconsider passes, then it comes right back in
front of you and then you can table that with everything else.
Councilman Ayotte: Can we have discussion on the extension before that or do we have
to go through the, this motion first?
Roger Knutson: You can have the discussion on the extension first if you want.
Councilman Ayotte: I'd like to hear what that's all about so that I'm comfortable.
Roger Knutson: It's a 60 day extension for the applicant to consider everything you've
said here tonight and consider amendments to the proposal.
Councilman Ayotte: In terms of seasonal issues and so forth, is that a crunch? The 60
days? ! want an extension but ! don't want to be.
Councilman Peterson: It's up to.
56
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Councilman Ayotte: Oh, up to.
Todd Simning: Yeah, it's up to 60 days so if we could actually act further quicker we'd
love to.
Councilman Peterson: And I'd like to request that they get on the next meeting, if we
can. ! mean I'll state that.
Councilman Labatt: Well ! don't know if that's going to get my questions answered
enough to bring up a possible reconsideration motion. I'd like to.
Councilman Peterson: But ! think they know what they need to address to you, and it's
addressing your's and Bob's desire. If you don't feel as though they've accomplished
that, then that's up to them.
Councilman Labatt: I've heard that in order to look at doing the road they're going to
have a public hearing with the neighbors and they're not going to get that within the next
meeting. So ! mean that's my comfort level has to be broken. ! need to see some more
data on why this road wasn't considered back to the Pulte discussion.
Kate Aanenson: ! think we addressed it and I'd be happy to go through that again but if
you do want to have a public street, then ! think as a planning professional, we're
obligated to hold a public hearing.
Councilman Labatt: ! agree completely. ! agree completely.
Kate Aanenson: Right, and send it back to the Planning Commission. Hold a public
hearing. But just briefly in a nutshell, the reason why we didn't support one is we took
that land as an extraction. It's city property. It's over 17 percent, 14 percent slope. And
you've had, again we didn't notify the neighbors. We felt they're kind of two different
projects. Two different development proposals that it made sense, the uniqueness of
those two projects to leave them separate. So the grading issue, ! think we've been
consistent on that. And it works for the type of development proposal. We did explore
that and we did explore it with the applicant so, but it could go back.
Mayor Furlong: Right. ! think the value of considering a motion of reconsideration at
this point with the applicant is agreed to a 60 day extension. They still within that 60
days have to meet at least 4/5 of the council's standard in terms of land use amendment,
and the onus will be on them ! think to come up with what will happen. ! mean if motion
to reconsider is taken, at this point ! think the prudent thing to do would be to, for a
motion to reconsider is made and passes. It's my understanding that this council would
move back to right before the vote for the land use amendment at which point ! think it
would be appropriate, given that we have a 60 day extension to table that motion and
table all the rest and then move on. And this council wouldn't deal with it any more
tonight. But it would give the applicant time to address your issues, Councilman Labatt
and your issues, Councilman Ayotte with regard to the moving target and the various
57
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
alternatives. So, I guess I would ask either Councilman Ayotte or Councilman Labatt if
there's a motion to reconsider at this time?
Councilman Ayotte: Motion to reconsider.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Who has to second it?
Mayor Furlong: Anyone can second.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. We are back discussing, do we have to pass a motion to
reconsider?
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. We can discuss whether or not we should pass the motion to
reconsider, is that correct? Not the merits of the original motion for the land use itself.
Roger Knutson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on the motion to reconsider?
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to reconsider the
motion regarding the land use amendment for Highlands at Bluff Creek. All voted
in favor, except Councilman Labatt who opposed and the motion carried with a vote
of 4 to 1.
Mayor Furlong: At this point we are back considering Councilman Peterson's motion for
the land use amendment.
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to table.
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to table Land Use
Amendment from Residential-Low Density to Residential-Medium Density for
Highlands at Bluff Creek. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously
with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Do we need to table all motions?
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to table the remaining items on item 4.
58
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to table the
Conceptual and Preliminary PUD#2003-3, Preliminary Plat with Variance #2003-
19, Conditional Use Permit #2003-10, and Site Plan #2003-11 for Highlands at Bluff
Creek. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Okay, thank you.
Appreciate you working through it with us.
Thank you everyone.
Councilman Peterson: Do you want us to save these?
Councilman Labatt: No, we're getting new plans aren't we?
Councilman Peterson: Some of them ! would imagine so.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. At this point, if we may, at this point, given the late hour,
would entertain a motion to table item 5.
Councilman Peterson: Move to table.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to table amendments
to City Code, including Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes for Chapter
10, Licensing; Chapter 11, Miscellaneous Provisions & Offenses; and Chapter 13,
Nuisances. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5
to 0.
APPOINTMENTS
COMMISSION,
COMMISSION.
TO SENIOR COMMISSION, PARK
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION,
AND RECREATION
AND PLANNING
Mayor Furlong: I would like to do this tonight since this is our last meeting before April
1st. Appointments of various commissioners. Residents to be members of our various
commissions. So move onto item 6. On March 15th the City Council conducted
interviews with various residents on commission vacancies. We had vacancies on all
four of our commissions, the Senior Commission, Park and Recreation Commission,
Environmental Commission and Planning Commission. Following the interviews the
council discussed the various applicants and one thing that was very clear and was
unanimous from a council standpoint was that we have a number of qualified candidates
for all commissions. In fact we had more qualified candidates than we had openings.
Unfortunately we're limited to the number of openings that we can appoint people to so
not all the qualified candidates indeed will be appointed. What ! would encourage those
residents that at this point in time are not appointed to any commission, one, we certainly
appreciate your interest in serving. And two, we would encourage you to stay available.
59
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
There are various task force that the city has from time to time as well as there are some
interim openings on the commissions as well and we would encourage you to be
available for those. We considered as a council a variety of factors, including specifically
the candidates, background, skills, desires and also various factors related to the
commissions themselves for which they were applying. With that what I'd like to do,
without objection from the council, is identify the commissions and the individuals which
we discussed that would be appointed to the various positions, including which the
specific openings they'd be appointed to, and then if it's okay we could handle them all
with one motion. For the Senior Commission there were two, 3 year terms available. We
had four candidates apply. Curt Robinson and Marilyn Luthy were the two individuals
that we will appoint to those two 3 year terms. For the Park and Recreation Commission,
we had 5 total openings. Two 3 year terms, two 2 year terms and one 1 year term. To the
3 year terms that would expire March 31, 2007, we are appointing the two incumbents,
Thomas Kelly and Jack Spizale to be reappointed. Spizale. Sorry Jack. To the 2 year
positions that would expire March 31, 2006 we are appointing Kevin Dillon and Anne
Murphy. To the 1 year position that would expire March 31, 2005 we would be
appointing Steve Scharfenberg. In the Environmental Commission, there were two 3
year positions available and one 1 year position, due to an interim retirement, or
resignation. To the two 3 year terms, Jo Mueller and Dottie Shay, the two incumbents
would be reappointed to the full 3 year term and Dave Wanek would be appointed to the
1 year term vacancy ending March 31, 2005. For the Planning Commission Uli Sacchet
will be reappointed to his 3 year term expiring March 31, 2007. Is there a motion to
approve those appointments.
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Mayor Furlong: Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to make the
following appointments to the various commissions:
Senior Commission: Curt Robinson and Marilyn Luthy-3 year term.
Park and Recreation Commission: Thomas Kelly and Jack Spizale-3 year term, Kevin
Dillon and Anne Murphy-2 year term, and Steve Scharfenberg-1 year term.
Environmental Commission: Jo Mueller and Dottie Shay-3 year term and Dave
Wanek-1 year term.
Planning Commission: Uli Sacchet-3 year term.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Congratulations to those and again to all that applied but weren't
appointed we sincerely thank you for your interest and hope that you will be available in
the future as well.
60
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: I sent my staff home so we do not have to continue our work session
upstairs for the SCADA system. We'll schedule that.
Councilman Peterson: You sent what?
Todd Gerhardt: Unless you want to, but ! sent all my staff home.
Mayor Furlong: So ordered.
Councilman Lundquist: Question on administrative. Mr. Gerhardt, where do we stand
on the bowling alley closing?
Todd Gerhardt: Right now the closing has been scheduled for Thursday.
Councilman Peterson: This year?
Todd Gerhardt: ! didn't say what day but no, this year. We are working out the final
issues which we need Craig's help with. Southwest Metro's easement and not only do
we need your signature, we may need some input from Southwest Metro commission
member's standpoint, so that's the last item that needs to be executed.
Councilman Lundquist: So since this closing's been scheduled, do you anticipate that
that's going to happen or are we still flipping a coin?
Todd Gerhardt: Well, if it doesn't happen this week, ! think we're meeting as an EDA on
the 12th, or we could have a special meeting for the EDA to direct staff to invoke the 30
day notice to.
Councilman Peterson: Are you ready for that? ! mean now, are you getting to the point
where.
Todd Gerhardt: Yep, I'm ready. You know ! believe it will happen this week.
Councilman Peterson: I'm with you brother.
Todd Gerhardt: And, but you know, ! think if we can't get this last agreement signed, !
think it just wasn't meant to be and we need to move on and look at the next chapter.
Mayor Furlong: Are we waiting on Councilman Peterson's signature did you say?
Todd Gerhardt: Well, he needs to sign an agreement that everybody's agreed to.
61
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Todd Gerhardt: So, and getting everybody to agree has been the problem at this point.
Councilman Peterson: I've been busy lately. What do you want?
Mayor Furlong: I know. I just wanted to clarify what I was hearing. Okay. Any other
questions for Mr. Gerhardt?
Councilman Labatt: I've got one other, I've got one for Craig. Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Certainly.
Councilman Labatt: Thank you. I'm more curious, going back to our interviews 2 weeks
ago when we interviewed for the Southwest Metro and we appointed Ms. Ernst. The
other gentleman, did he get appointed?
Councilman Peterson: No.
Councilman Labatt: See I thought he had more weight than that to pull around over there
but.
Councilman Peterson: I missed that interview unfortunately so it was already pre-
determined before we got to that meeting so.
Councilman Labatt: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Fair enough. Any other items for Mr. Gerhardt or staff?. Any discussion
on the correspondence package?
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION.
Mayor Furlong: ! guess just, if there's none, before we adjourn, just to clarify Mr.
Knutson. Mr. Knutson, there's no need at this point for a special meeting next week with
regard to the item earlier, is that correct?
Roger Knutson: I'm sure you feel disappointed Mayor but that's true.
Mayor Furlong: That's good. Just wanted to clarify so that nobody's be sitting at home
watching. If there is no other business to come before the council this evening, we will
be tabling the last item of our, actually it was item B on our work session to a future date
so we will not be meeting afterwards tonight. Is there any other business to come before?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adjourn the
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was
adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
62
City Council Meeting - March 22, 2004
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
63