CC 2004 04 12CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 12, 2004
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. The meeting was opened
with the Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Furlong, Councilman Labatt, Councilman
Ayotte, Councilman Lundquist and Councilman Peterson
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Justin Miller, Roger Knutson, Bruce DeJong, Paul
Oehme, Matt Saam, Nate Bouvet, Kelley Janes, and Kate Aanenson
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Rich Slagle
Debbie Lloyd
Planning Commission
7302 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mayor Furlong: For tonight's agenda, the one item at staff's request, item number 4,
which dealt with the funding of the streambank stabilization project has, will be tabled
for this evening, if anybody' s here for that item, we will not be discussing it this evening.
So that we can gather some additional information. We'll bring that back just as soon as
that information is gathered. Are there any other additions or changes to the agenda? If
not we'll adopt it as posted subject to, with the exclusion of item number 4.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist
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 22, 2004
-City Council Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated March 22, 2004
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated March 16, 2004
Resolution #2004-16: Approve Playground Purchases; Meadow Green Park and
Bandimere Community Park.
Resolution #2004-17: Approval of Plans & Specifications; Authorize
Advertising for Bids, 2004 Street Reconstruction Projects, Project 04-01.
Resolution #2004-18: Award of Bids, Vehicles & Equipment Included in the
2004 Capital Improvement Program.
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Approval of a Request for Rezoning of 3.09 Acres from A2, Agricultural Estate
District to RSF, Single Family Residential; Subdivision Approval Creating Four
Lots with Variances; and a Conditional Use Permit for Development within the
Bluff Creek Corridor, Klingelhutz Development, Walnut Grove 2nd Addition.
Resolution #2004-19: Resolution Approving the Limited Use Permit for Non-
Motorized Recreational Trail from CSAH 17 to Carver/Hennepin Line.
All voted in favor, except Mayor Furlong who abstained on item l(e), and the
motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Roger Behrens: Sure, good evening everybody. My name is Roger Behrens. B-e-h-r-e-
n-s. ! live at 8780 Flamingo Drive. ! think you've got quite a number of folks here on a
busy agenda. ! want to talk about traffic lights actually. Maybe get some information
and to express some observations that I've noticed. On Highway 5, particularly starting
from Powers Boulevard, where Highway 5 and Powers intersect. Highway 5 and Market,
almost all the way through to Dell but in particular the Market intersection and the
Powers intersection, let's put it this way. It's very difficult to cross over Highway 5,
getting to the other side in the morning and in the evening. There might be some
problems in particular with the Powers one. I've noticed later at night, the left hand turn
signal will skip, or ! don't know if it's laser guided but I'll be sitting there. It will go
through the first one. No left hand turn signal. And then the second time around it will
hit it and you can go and sometimes ! was there for 5 minutes trying to make a left onto 5
onto Powers. In the morning the Market Street one, and ! use the park and ride. When !
just miss the left hand turn signal, ! waited as long as 5 minutes one time. Now in a
vacuum 5 minutes doesn't seem like a long time. When you're trying to catch a bus in
the morning, it can seem like forever. ! don't know, I'm sure there's been traffic studies
done. ! don't know if this is the first time you've heard about it. ! realize there's a lot of
other important things on the agenda. ! just wanted to bring it up as something that's
been kind of bugging me lately. ! don't know what can be done. And particularly when
it skips in a cycle too, that can be frustrating. ! don't know, that tends to happen, it's
happened more than once. It tends to happen when I'm not up, right up to the line
perhaps. Maybe it's a laser guided thing. ! don't know. I'm just here raising the issue so
appreciate the time.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I guess what we'll do is look into, unless Mr. Gerhardt there's
any comment at this point with regard to those signals.
Todd Gerhardt: We will look into it. MnDot has some control over those but we will be
working with MnDot to make sure that they're operating properly.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you for bringing it to our attention. We're still within visitor
presentations, if there are others? Good evening.
2
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Greg Swirtz: Good evening. My name is Greg Swirtz and the item you tabled is the item
that I'm here to discuss. I'm the President of the Christmas Lake Homeowners
Association and we've been working with Lori on the streambank stabilization. There
was a lake management plan that goes back to '96. Some of you may be aware of that,
and at that point in time this was in the highest priority section of that and we did
complete part of the project but we ran into problems because we weren't able to gain
access from the property owner to do the work on the creek. Since that time we've
received approval from the land owner, the cost of the project is $69,000 and we've
raised the money from the homeowners in the amount of $39,000. We're asking the City
to contribute the remaining balance of $30,000. There was a staff recommendation to
approve that, and then last Friday afternoon things kind of changed and you folks wanted
to get the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District involved, which we're fine with and
we've discussed postponing it for 30 days to try to get them involved to see what level of
participation they would be willing to do. It's a real important issue to all of us who live
on the lake. The amount of phosphorous and silt that is going into the lake over the
years, a delta's formed there. ! mean you can look at pictures. It's very clear to see from
year to year. There's 154,000 pounds of silt that are rolling in there every year, and that's
nowhere close to what is a standard of acceptable level on that, and so we would ask that
you consider this project and see what we can do with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District also to help because there's a number of other projects in addition that we are
doing with the lake. Every year we're trying to eradicate the milfoil. Last year we spent
around $16,000 harvesting milfoil, which we'll do again this year. Christmas Lake really
is a, ! mean it's a jewel of a lake and we're concerned about it. We're interested in trying
to preserve the quality of it, and asking for your help in doing that. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, very good, thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to
address the council regarding visitor presentations this evening? If not I'll go ahead and
close visitor presentations and we'll move onto the next item, item number 2.
PUBLIC HEARING: KENYON BLUFF, LOTS 1 & 2, PLEASANT VIEW; 400
PLEASANT VIEW ROAD:
Ao
Co
PUBLIC HEARING ON VACATION OF A PORTION OF OAK GROVE
RIGHT-OF-WAY.
REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT APPROVAL TO
SUBDIVIDE 2.1 ACRES INTO THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH
VARIANCES.
APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS AND
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT.
Public Present:
N~me
Address
Tom Goodrum
9841 Xerxes Curve
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Tom Rollings
Maryevelyn Monty
Larry Tivy
Mary Ann McCauley
Darlene & Don Miller
Debra C. Schultz
David Santana
Janice Andrus
Don Sennes
James & Richard Frerich
4550 Weston Lane
370 Pleasant View Road
370 Pleasant View Road
410 Pleasant View Road
396 Pleasant View Road
6614 Horseshoe Curve
6614 Horseshoe Curve
449 Pleasant View Road
6680 Mohawk Drive
651 Broken Arrow Drive
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, council members. As was indicated there's a couple
actions before you tonight. One, public hearing regarding the vacation of a street.
There's also a preliminary and final plat for your approval. And as a part of that there's
also a variance with the subdivision request. The subject site is located at the corners of
Pleasant View Road and the curve. This plot is existing as two lots. There's one home
sitting over the property line. The applicant would like to remove the existing home and
subdivide the property. The applicant met with the staff over a period of several months
and when it originally came in there was 4 lots proposed. There's a lot of different ways
to look at the subdivision itself, and that was to provide individual access points onto
Pleasant View Road at that corner. In looking at this, staff felt strongly that that wasn't
the best way to provide access to the site so we looked at the application of a public
street. While they would have the right by the subdivision regulations to get access to
those lots via the street, again we felt that wasn't the best way so we looked at a private
street or a public street and based on the fact that we could have individual driveways, we
moved toward the public street as meeting the subdivision criteria for the variance.
Again when it came in it had 4 lots. There is a bluff on the property and, the bluff is
located in this area, which exceeds the 30 percent. In looking at that, also going back to
the private driveway, looking at retaining walls adjacent to city property, the staff
recommended and the applicant agreed to move that down from 4 to 3 lots. All the lots
are in excess of the 15,000 square foot minimum and again we did recommend and
support the private driveway. Again we felt that was the best way to service the property.
So with this application there is a final plat. There is the 60 by 60 pad that is shown on
this as part of the final plat which you have before you, the applicant is moving, once
he's demonstrated he moves that, his home so probably 3 car garage that will go along
there so we also show that. As a part of this application there is a vacation of a right-of-
way. Going back to the original plat, if you can zoom on that a little bit more, you can
see this dedicated right-of-way that came in with this plat. With this plat. That right-of-
way was dedicated. Very narrow. Never built. Too steep for a road as a part of the
application of this they are recommending, requesting to have it vacated. Staff is
recommending, similarly we've done this on a couple other projects. Typically we don't
vacate unless it's kind of...redevelopment project, similar to the one you saw on
Minnewashta not too long ago. So staff is recommending vacation of that right-of-way
be included as a part of this development. All homes again meet the criteria. If you have
additional questions regarding the vacation of that right-of-way, there will be required
easements but future dedication for public easements as part of this plat but again we'd
4
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
be happy, Matt would be happy to, from the engineering department, to answer any
questions regarding that. Again we believe this is a well designed and again we worked
several months with the applicant to achieve what we believe is a sound subdivision.
Again it could have been more lots, and we are recommending preliminary and final plat
approval with the vacation, the right-of-way and the variance as part of the subdivision
regulations as part of the plat and there are findings supporting all those requests as part
of this and we are recommending with conditions of approval.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. The vacation of the private street, is
that a necessity as part of the development? Are there.
Kate Aanenson: If you go back to this kind of shows the vacation but the plat as it exists
today. This would be the lot line. The two lots. The house is sitting over the two lots.
This is the paper street as we call it. Could the lot still be built? Yeah, the lots could be
shifted down and all meet the requirements. ! guess the question we always ask ourselves
is what's the validity of leaving something there. We can assemble it with the piece of
property, instead of having no man's land over time. They have requested it in the past
but it's a way to clean up. It's pretty narrow. It would never be built as a street. There's
an existing house here that's within 64 feet of this side. This house is already, if this was
to stay a right-of-way, this structure right here as part of that would be, is already too
close. But the public right-of-way typically we require a 30 foot setback. That was a
little, about half of that distance so what it affects is the setback requirement too, but
there is enough room on the lot. ! guess our question back is, typically if it' s not going to
be used we'd like to assemble it with something else.
Mayor Furlong: Other questions for staff?. If not, with regard to the portion of a vacation
of the right-of-way, we'll open up a public hearing at this time. Anybody wishing to
speak on the issue of the vacation of the right-of-way, please come forward and address
the council. If you could state your name and address for the record.
Larry Tivy: Larry Tivy, T-i-v-y, 370 Pleasant View Road.
Mayor Furlong: If you could pull the microphone in front of your mouth please sir, thank
you.
Larry Tivy: Larry Tivy, 370 Pleasant View Road. And if you look at the last print that
the young lady showed, the little diagonal, that's my house. That was up there. We've
been working with the City Council for some time on this trying to come up with a
reasonable solution that's going to provide the developer a way that he can do his
business and we can protect our privacy, and what ! would like to suggest is seeing that
he was able to get the full 15 foot variance for vacancy, and there, my understanding
from talking with the City Council, that that's a done deal. And so ! say well that's fine
but what I'd like to do, because my concern is the encroachment on my privacy and
which quite frankly is going to be the same encroachment on whichever house he puts
there, the same thing. We're going to be looking at each other's house for breakfast and !
don't think anyone wants that. Because ! would suggest that we increase the off set to 35
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
feet, 40 feet or somewhere in that there so that the house that the builder, I'm sorry, the
developer is looking to put in there is going to be moved back far enough so that he can
use the land that's there to put a home and also afford us the privacy that we've had for a
number of years. ! bought that 4 acres so that ! could have a private environment and I'd
like to continue that. So that's number one. Number two is, we have a real concern over
what's going to happen to the trees in that environment, and ! know that we have a
canopy rule and it's very well defined but ! also note that there have been a couple of
construction projects that have gone on where the canopy rule was technically approved
and then during the construction obeyed. But what happened was that the trees were in
actuality, the root structure was damaged and then all of a sudden they're gone, and when
you take a 250-300 year old tree and it's damaged, you don't put it back and I'm really
concerned about that. We have a great bird sanctuary there. It gives us huge coverage
from the sun and the winds and once it's gone, it's gone. So I'm trying to be as
reasonable with the builder, sorry, the developer. ! keep confusing that term. I'm trying
to work with the village. I'm trying to work with the developer and I'm trying to work
with our neighbor to make this a win/win situation for everything, for everyone and !
believe it can be done. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak at the public
hearing regarding to the street vacation? Yes ma'am.
Maryevelyn Monty: My name is Maryevelyn Monty. ! live at 370 Pleasant View Road
and Larry Tivy is my husband and you folks, the councilmen are asked if there was any
compelling reason why this variance for the right-of-way should be granted and you said
that this is for cleaning up things. But then ! question, so why wasn't this extended for
the rest of the way over to the other road, so you've got a little section relative to the
right-of-way and the rest of it is kind of hanging there. And then also, is this important to
this development? ! mean does he need this additional 15 feet? Because from my view,
from what I've managed to educate myself on, they could then move their houses, the
house closer to our's, so the developer has said to me previously, several weeks ago he
said well ma'am, don't worry about that because they don't want to be looking at you,
but that's all well and good but what if they have their 3 story garage with, it's back to us
and now we have a 3 story tower blocking our afternoon sun. We've already had a case
of this on Pleasant View Road down by the intersection at Pleasant View and Powers
Boulevard. There's a small rambler house and then there's this very tall new house, but it
was explained to us well that's too bad. Yes, you're right. It's not aesthetically pleasing
but it's within the law, and ! respect the law greatly but if this variance doesn't have to be
done, if it's just, ! just don't know why it's being vacated. If it's being vacated for let's
clean up things, well let's clean it up the entire way that it goes so anyway, thank you
very much.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak, or do you
want to reply?
Kate Aanenson: ! just want to clarify. There's not a variance request. It's a vacation.
And again, when we're doing a plat, that's the time we always look at it. You know do
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
our due diligence. Say what's in the surrounding areas too, right. Again they have a
building that doesn't meet the setback either on the other side there. One of their
accessory buildings is too close to their property line too. I'm not sure how it got
approved but.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. With regard to her question about the remaining part of the right-
of-way that extends over to whatever that street is.
Matt Saam: Mr. Mayor, ! did meet with Maryevelyn's husband Larry Tivy regarding that
issue this past winter and the Tivy's have a large piece of property. He came in talking
about possible future development and if it would be in his best interest to maybe vacate,
or the city's best interest to vacate that entire parcel. We looked at it and ! felt that it
would leave him with the best development option in the future. Say he has to put in a
public street to split his lot, with the 15 feet there already he'd only have to dedicate say
45 more feet to meet our existing right-of-way requirement, so that's one of the reasons !
felt that this time, and also the slopes in that area. They're not as steep as they are at the
east end where it goes through this plat so for those two reasons ! said why don't we
leave it for now and it will leave him options in the future.
Kate Aanenson: ... earlier iterations of looking at this plat actually contemplated using
that right-of-way. So this would have been a street there and we worked really hard to try
to create as much buffer as we could so there wouldn't be a street in that area. So again,
there's a lot, as ! said, there was examples of showing driveways, 4 driveways coming to
Pleasant View. We didn't think that was acceptable. So we worked really hard to create,
because on a subdivision you have a little bit more control as opposed to an existing lot
of record, so we worked really hard to what we thought was, worked best in limiting the
access points.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. I guess Mr. Saam, just to clarify, it's in the neighboring
property's best interest also for the vacation? For future development did you say? Or.
Matt Saam: This neighbor Mr. Tivy?
Mayor Furlong: Yes. You said.
Matt Saam: What Kate pointed out with the setback encroachment, you could argue that
it is a benefit. In that respect because if the right-of-way stays there then it's encroaching
into the setback for the garage. So ! think that might be a question for the neighbor.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. We're still within a public hearing here with regard to the
vacation of the right-of-way. If anybody else would like to speak.
Don Miller: My name is Don Miller. ! live at 395 Pleasant View Road. I'm directly
across the street from this. ! just have a question. When you do a vacation like this, does
one property owner get all 15 feet or do you split it or how does that work? Because if
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
he's supposedly encroaching on his setback on his garage, if you take 15 feet away he's
going to be 15 feet closer.
Kate Aanenson: No, because it addresses differently but the easement you can include it
in your setback if it's dedicated as a street for right-of-way. That has a different setback
requirement. My understanding of vacation of a right-of-way goes back to what was
dedicated, and it was dedicated with this underlying subdivision with replatting so that
the excess right-of-way would go back to this property, because it wasn't dedicated with
those two lots.., so it would go back to that subdivision. Because this is a property line,
the side yard setback would be 10 feet so it'd be conforming. If it's a street...
Don Miller: ! just had the question.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then where the property reverts to is past circumstance
issue, is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: That's...
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Roger Knutson: That's correct. You really can't answer that question carte blanche. It
depends on the circumstances. Different rules depending on whether the street lies.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. We're still within the public hearing. If anyone else
would like to come forward. If not I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it.
David Santana: Excuse me, are we going to talk about point b now or you're talking
about closing the hearing?
Mayor Furlong: My understanding is that there was a public hearing at the Planning
Commission so typically the public hearing at this point at the council is relating to the
vacation of the right-of-way, yes. Not to the other parts of it. The reason they're all
together is just for efficiency of us considering them.
David Santana: Not of lots they're going to build there?
Mayor Furlong: We're going to be discussing as a council with staff. It's my
understanding that the public hearing for that took place at the Planning Commission
back in March.
David Santana: Then ! would want to address the council.
Mayor Furlong: With regard to the vacation sir?
David Santana: Yes. My name is David Santana. ! live at 6614 Horseshoe Curve
directly across from that property that is in question. My question is the amount of
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
homes that they're going to put there with this vacation and everything else that's going
on. What's going to happen to that already traffic pattern that's kind of dangerous going
around that turn. You know the property, you've been to my home Tom and concerned
that 3 homes there and the driveway set-up that they're trying to build with the street is
going to be really a bear to deal with without some other kind of control. I'm also
concerned about the construction time and where all this traffic's going to be sitting while
they're building all these homes. ! certainly don't want them on my property. Last part
I'm talking about is the culture of our neighborhood. We've got a neighborhood that's
been secluded over the years. It's been kind of back and tucked in a corner. No
clustering of homes and all of a sudden now we're going to have these three 7,000 square
foot homes clustered on 2 acres of property where everybody else has an acre plus, and
I'm just wondering how the council and city's going to deal with all of that, and changing
that culture that we've developed back there off of Lotus Lake that's been the driving
force of keeping us there, so obviously ! have a lot of questions about all of this. I'm
sorry ! missed, ! was traveling last week when this whole thing took place but my
property is why ! went there because it's just so secluded, so private. The fact that there
was no clustering of homes, no towering and this looks like it's going to be a housing
project up there. So thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Kate Aanenson: Would you like me to address that?
Mayor Furlong: Sure.
Kate Aanenson: Again, the option was to have individual lots with driveways onto
Pleasant View and we thought that was less acceptable. We thought it was better to put
them onto a private drive. Again there is some different size lots right in the middle of
Horseshoe Curve. The other kind of triangle across the street for the homes. There is
some different sizes in there. We have talked to other people that have larger lots. Over
time some of those do want to subdivide. Again, originally ! mean it has enough square
footage to come in at 4. We worked really hard to get it to 3 with the developer in good
faith. Again we could have had some different configuration. There was 3 or 4 iterations
that did work but it was really pushing it and...the developer to work to find a really !
think a sensitive to the neighbors. From that design. In your packet, which ! didn't go
through in the review, there was also a comment that came up at the Planning
Commission regarding traffic and speeds and there was a study done. It's in one of your
attachments from the Sergeant Jim Olson and talking about the average speed in the area
and there was a sidewalk request too. Again the speed limit was 25 and he said the
speeds that were surveyed were between 22 and 25. Request for a sidewalk in there, he
said would probably be less, it would be more dangerous than the situation now because
it gives a sense of security when the sidewalk doesn't go anywhere. Exactly, because it'd
be partial around that corner so, at that point it didn't seem to make a lot of sense but that
was followed up as a request that came out of the Planning Commission.
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Matt Saam: Mr. Mayor if ! could just add one more thing about the access location. We
looked long and hard at that. Many iterations. We've lined up the proposed private drive
access with existing Horseshoe Curve along the south side so we feel from a traffic
standpoint that's the best we can do.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, again if you go back to this one. There were a couple different
options of where this driveway should come in. ! showed you the one that we showed the
existing right-of-way. All the way over here. There's an option of T'ing it here and we
spent a lot of time based on driving it, looking at the sight lines where the best sight line
would be and that's again working with the developer felt that was the best location. For
grades, touch down points and visibility.
Janice Andrus: My name is Janice Andrus and I'm 449 Pleasant View Road. Directly
across from the proposed site. ! just wanted to ask a question following the line of
conversation we were just having. It sounds like you've really done a lot. ! missed the
first meeting as well and ! appreciate all those things, especially your consideration of the
bluffs and things. I'm downhill from there and get an awful lot of water that runs off that
whole hill, but ! guess my concern is, with the traffic pattern, are you going to do
something with stop signs? Because that is a very dangerous curve and just the increased
traffic and...comes up around that curve. It's very blind from either direction. My kids
stood on that road for years catching buses and it was always a very scary proposition and
we've just added to the traffic. Wondering if there's a stop sign in the picture. Thank
you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you.
Debra Schultz: Hello. I'm Debra Schultz, David Santana's wife. ! live at 6614
Horseshoe Curve. I'm the yellow house that's directly across the street from Betty
Kenyon's and ! have looked at that house for 8 years. The traffic in the last 8 years has
been unbelievable. ! don't care who has documented the speed limits or how fast people
are going or whatever, my mother's who's now in a nursing home has sat for 3 years
looking at that area because my sun room looks directly down onto the street there
because you go around the curve to Don's house. And the school bus has changed the
stop there for picking up the school children 3 different times in the last few years. The
children walking along there in the morning and then watching the traffic, anywhere from
5:00 in the morning to 8:00, even sometimes going to 10:00 is unreal. ! have seen people
on a bad day, I'm talking about just raining. I'm not talking about ice and snow. Slide
and going to my yard. Go up into Don's yard. Going to Betty's yard. And now that
you're building 3 houses there, and new driveways coming down, something's got to be
done about the street in that area then because it's hazardous to children. The wildlife is
getting devastated. And ! sit and because my husband travels a lot, I'm sometimes up til
2:00 in the morning and sometimes I'm up at 4:00 and 5:00 in the morning, and ! don't
think any of you, and ! know a lot of peace officers because they're not running around
there at that time in the morning, see some of the things that are going on also at that
time. The race, it's like a race track some days in the summer time. The young kids
coming through there. ! just think that 3 large houses going in that area and ! know
10
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
because living across the street, no one came and knocked on my door and asked me
about, you're talking about developing. About how much we could develop our house
into. So no one even said 3 or 4 houses were going in there at first. But this is going to
cause a lot of extra traffic and the problem also going from Pleasant View onto 101,
there should have been a stop light there a million years ago so that people are just
speeding and stopping and flying through at their own convenience. Before these houses
are built ! think a lot needs to be considered on how that whole area and driving through
there is going to be devastated.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you.
Mary Ann McCauley: I'm Mary Ann McCauley and ! live at 420 Pleasant View Road
and you all heard from me by e-mail on Friday so I'll keep this short. Anyone who has
investigated this property and who has decided to put that street where they're putting it
has never come down my driveway and tried to make a turn out on the street.
Michael Kohane: My name is Michael Kohane, 6870 Yuma Drive, Chanhassen. ! live
on the other side of the lake. We use Lotus Lake for recreational purposes and we hope
that we can preserve it. Our big concern is that a number of actually homes are coming
on the Carver Beach side of the lake and now we're hearing that more luxury homes are
coming on the other side of the lake. The lake is in dire straits anyway at this point. A
public letter to the Chanhassen paper about 6 to 8 months ago indicated with antidotal
evidence that there's significant issues with Lotus Lake. ! think that the City Council
should draw a line in the sand on this and maybe consider that new development should
be considered very, very carefully in the context of the preservation of Lotus Lake and
the local parks. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. This is still a public hearing with regard to the
vacation of the right-of-way. If anybody else would like to speak at this time, I'd be
happy, pleased to listen to them. If there's no one, then I'll go ahead and close the public
hearing and move back. At this time I'll bring it back to council. There may be
additional questions or if staff has additional comments with regard to, whether it's the
right-of-way or the preliminary and final plat, or the construction contract.
Councilman Ayotte: Want to start there?
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Ayotte, please.
Councilman Ayotte: The buzz word for me is safety. I've had discussions with Kate
earlier on this particular subject. ! think folks have worked hard on the development of
this project. Usually though the short sheet for me typically is safety. And ! agree that
engineering is probably doing all it can in regards to egress and ingress to the site.
However, a house or two on Pleasant View, because of circumstance is going to cause an
issue. With regard to traffic. So no one can ever say that the traffic pattern will be
improved with more, with one more driveway so on that point I'm concerned about
whether or not we have exhausted all investigation possible to take a look at what can be
11
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
done for traffic. Point one. Point two, with regard to the trees. It is always difficult, and
we've experienced this on this council that a contractor may do something overtly wrong
and we come back to that contractor, but when damage is done, damage is done and !
happen to agree with the comment with regard to the 200 year old tree. It's difficult to
replace. And ! also ask whether or not there are options for buffers to help offset some of
the concerns. But my main concern is traffic. And the safety aspects of things. Because
of Pleasant View. Not because of design. Not because of what Planning has done or not
done. Not because the developer's done all they can to make this is a great project. The
nature of the beast, Pleasant View has been a, ! know for at least the 3 years and 9
months a problem, and ! would like to see if there was a way to mitigate additional risk
even though it's only 3 houses. I'm not sure what the answer to that is but ! have, I'm not
comfortable with the project based on those points. Thank you Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments, discussion.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, with regard to the vacation, I think it's reasonable. I
haven't heard anything that says we shouldn't do it. It really is kind of the clean-up area
and when other ones come in we'll continue that vacation as other people come in and
subdivide their other variances, etc, etc, so ! think that's reasonable and we should
proceed with that. ! think one thing is important to clarify tonight is that this council
doesn't really have the ability to say no to the subdivision. It meets our city ordinances
and codes so we are obligated to check to see whether or not it meets those, and if it
meets those, then we have to say yes, go ahead with the project. In this case, you know
staff has gone a long way in working with the developer to get a better product, which !
think is a great thing. But again ! think it's important to know that we can't turn it down.
We can only make it better and ! think we've gone a fair amount in that direction. ! agree
with Councilman Ayotte. ! think let's just re-double our efforts to be sure that we do
whatever we can to increase the safety, whether it's a stop sign or whether it's some other
traffic calming procedures. ! know we've got a variety of things that we can use. Let's
do that, but other than that it seems like a reasonable subdivision. As much as ! don't like
subdivisions, you know we all know that most of our citizens want more open space.
That's why they moved here so when ! see these, it's worrisome but we haven't found a
way to stop that. So intellectually ! don't know whether we should but ! know it's
frustrating for everybody so those would be my comments.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments? Discussion.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, my comments are similar to Councilman Peterson's.
As ! drove by the property this weekend, it's unfortunate that the subdivision is going in
but, and taking out that big lot but it is what it is and as Mr. Peterson said, we don't have
a lot of options or choices so ! think given the circumstances that the staff has worked
within their power to do what they can and hopefully mitigate it some and as well with
Councilman Ayotte that we look very hard at what we can do in that area. First time I've
been down that road this weekend so there's some things that we probably need to do
there as well so ! would go along with that.
12
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Well ! don't, let me ask Matt a question here. Matt, from one of the
private driveways coming down and as you're looking to the left, or ! suppose in an
easterly, southeasterly direction. What is the recommended sight line for that, for an
intersection there?
Matt Saam: As in distance?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah.
Matt Saam: Off the top of my head I'm not, ! don't have that figure. But ! can tell you
that we did look at the access location for the driveway. Basically what we wanted to try
to do was to get it off of the middle of that curve because if you think about it, if it's in
the middle of the curve you really can't see once you look to the right or left. The
oncoming traffic so you want to get the access on a straight away. Up on the east side,
basically the opposite side, the grades in there are so steep that it really makes it not a
good location for a driveway. So then we look back along this, what I'll call the westerly
side and as ! said, we try to line that up with an existing street. And that's how we
arrived at this.
Councilman Labatt: Sure. And as you look kind of, could either a private driveway there
and you're got to look to the right, ! mean your sight lines are fine there. ! mean you
have a long straight away. But as you look to the west, my concern is what the neighbors
were saying is potential of a car coming around that curve. Even if you're traveling at 25
miles an hour, trying to equate that to number of feet per second.
Matt Saam: Yeah ! see your point. ! mean we would, we would like to have moved it
further that way but we have the bluff there, and again the existing street of Horseshoe
Curve is right there. ! will point out that we are having the developer put in a stop sign at
his access, so the residents, remember we're talking 2 additional houses. Three total but
2 additional.
Councilman Labatt: Right.
Matt Saam: The residents coming down there, they will be required to stop on Pleasant
View, look both ways before proceeding. We are also going to recommend that a blind
intersection ahead sign be placed. So those are mitigation.
Councilman Labatt: Can any sort of cutting of that corner be done to increase the sight
line?
Todd Gerhardt: Matt, could you go to the table so everybody can see what you're talking
about?
Matt Saam: ! think you're talking in this corner Councilman Labatt.
13
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Councilman Labatt: Exactly. Can any sort of, if I'm stopped at the end of the private
driveway there and I go to my left, is there, what can be done to increase potential to see
even 10 feet further?
Matt Saam: Sure, as you said within the right-of-way area, maybe you cut that back.
Instead of having a steep slope you cut it down some so your sight distance is, so you can
see a farther distance basically. And I mean we can have them do that within the right-
of-way.
Councilman Labatt: We can?
Matt Saam: Yes. As part of the grading. That's pretty typical.
Councilman Ayotte: Write that one down.
Mayor Furlong: You say it's pretty typical. I mean is that.
Matt Saam: Well in new developments, with right-of-way what I mean Mayor is we
don't like to have big berms within the right-of-way. We have sight distance
requirements so we like to keep a, I think it's a 2 percent gradual slope in there. So that's
what we'll have done in this area also.
Mayor Furlong: And that's pretty steep right in that corner, if memory serves.
Matt Saam: Yes. I mean the entire site is relatively speaking fairly steep.
Todd Gerhardt: Matt would you have to put a retaining wall in there?
Matt Saam: They may have to. I mean depending on 3 to 1 is our maximum slope
requirement so I'm not sure right now Todd if they would have, if the retaining wall
would be required or not.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, thanks Matt. Maybe, could you work on fashioning another
condition then along that line where within that right-of-way, as long as you're
maintaining a 3 to 1 ratio, I don't want to have to have them put in a huge retaining wall
but whatever does, serves a purpose of the point I'm trying to get across and let's try to
do what we can do to increase the sight line there.
Matt Saam: I'll work on it.
Councilman Labatt: Without you know taking down the whole hill.
Matt Saam: Sure, understood.
14
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Councilman Labatt: Okay. Other than that, I mean that's my point there. I agree with
Mr. Peterson and Mr. Lundquist that you know, they're entitled by zoning ordinance and
city code and state law to subdivide so, you know as we do our due diligence up here, is
we try to minimize the impact upon the neighbors and to create a safe environment. As !
look at the speed study, and ! drive Pleasant View Road often. It seems to be, since
Project Leadfoot was enacted up there, that I've seen speeds lowered up there. We're
adding 2 more homes so Matt how many vehicle, what do they call it? Vehicle.
Matt Saam: Trips per day?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, what are we adding?
Kate Aanenson: 3 per household.
Councilman Labatt: 3 per house?
Kate Aanenson: 30. Times that, yeah.
Matt Saam: 30. Yeah, it's 8 to 10 per lot so it's about 30.
Mayor Furlong: But there's already one lot so.
Matt Saam: So the addition would be roughly 20.
Councilman Labatt: Roughly 20 per.
Matt Saam: Per lot.
Councilman Labatt: Per lot per day per week?
Matt Saam: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: So there'd be more cars.
Councilman Labatt: There will be more cars but we're not.
Mayor Furlong: Yeah the incremental is, but there's still going to be more.
Councilman Ayotte: It was part of the conditions though to increase the sight line or
improve the sight line to affecting configuration of property and 2 stop signs is it?
Matt Saam: One at the bottom of the proposed driveway and then an additional blind
intersection ahead sign along Pleasant View to alert drivers.
Mayor Furlong: For westbound traffic on Pleasant View.
15
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Matt Saam: Yes, westbound.
Councilman Ayotte: Can anything else be done with?
Matt Saam: Not without, as ! said, really carving up the site and creating, no.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Well if the, as my fellow members of the council said, our goal
here when there are some limitations on what we can and can't do is to make the best of
it that we can. ! think to the extent from the development standpoint, it sounds like staff
did improve it by reducing the number of lots from an additional 2, or from an additional
3 to additional 2. The private street, from 4 total to 3 or additional, incremental and
according to the private street there's a single access onto Pleasant View versus 3 or 4
access points. ! guess there is a single access right now with the driveway, is that
correct? Where does that driveway come in?
Kate Aanenson: It shows up right in here. Right at the, closer to Horseshoe.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And based on what we've heard, given the subdivision but by
moving that access point further to the west, actually provides a safer access than where
the access point is now from a grade standpoint ! think was the reason you gave.
Matt Saam: Well a grade, but traffic, sight line. You want to get off the inside of that
curve Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so there is some improvement there. ! think with regard to the
speed study information, ! was surprised at the speeds. I'm glad to see that the data
supporting the traffic on that road has gone down because clearly it was an issue but !
know there are cars also that may exceed the speed limit from time to time, having driven
on it and having cars slow down behind me. One of the advantages ! see with regard to
the right-of-way vacation, which we haven't talked about much up here, is we're going to
be maintaining the drainage easement across that. And ! know drainage, any time you're
dealing with slopes such as we are, one of the conditions here is to make sure that there's
a detailed grading and drainage plan. Having that easement there protects the property to
the north, or ! assume is part of the permitting process and the completion of the
subdivision. We'll be able to review those plans ahead of time and make sure that the
added development doesn't impose a drainage problem on the neighboring developments
because obviously that's a concern anytime you're dealing with new construction or in
this case subdivision with new construction. So it's, you know ! think there are property
rights that are there. They're important that we protect, both in terms of the property
owner to develop. At the same time minimize as much as we can the impact on the
existing property owners, and while it may not be enough for some, it sounds to me as if
the staff has worked with the developer and the developer has accommodated in some
areas to get that done, so Councilman Ayotte.
Councilman Ayotte: One more question.
16
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Certainly.
Councilman Ayotte: Carving up the property, would that improve the line of sight? I
know you don't want to carve up the property but carving up property, does that improve
the line of sight? Given the slope.
Kate Aanenson: Can ! answer that while he's thinking about it. There's two issues there.
One, it's very steep and we talked about this with the city engineer. The steeper you go,
then you're putting in retaining walls adjacent to a public street which has a lot of issues
in itself. Because you're going up steeper so we kind of ruled that out. Again that kind
ended the discussion with the driveway. Again if you look at what percentage this traffic
is generating, ! think we have to keep that in perspective of the entire street, which the
problem is on the entire street. Not just this corner and ! think that's what we need to
keep in mind too and that's kind of what we were looking at too as an addition of the two
extra homes. There's 3 total but there's 2 additional homes coming in so we kind of
weighed that and what would be the purpose of having that long term maintenance issue
in the right-of-way. So when we looked at the bluff is driving that, we've got the one
area that the bluff and leaving it natural, ! think that's kind of what Matt was saying. To
increase the sight line but not put a large retaining wall that could be a long term issue
too. If ! answered your question.
Councilman Ayotte: Is there going to be a time where, as additional developments may
come about. We've got to be hitting the point where we're not going to see much more
along Pleasant View, but is there going to be a time where we need to take another
holistic view of Pleasant View from a traffic pattern standpoint based on adding more
traffic on that road with more development.
Kate Aanenson: I'll let the city engineer.
Councilman Labatt: Welcome to Chanhassen.
Paul Oehme: Good evening. Thank you Mayor, council members. There potentially
could be in the future, ! can't say for certain on that. It's a degraded roadway. It's
narrow. It's windy. It's poor sight distances as all of you know. In terms of future
development along this corridor, like Kate had indicated, most of these lots now are
pretty well built out ! think in terms of new growth in this area, in terms of additional
traffic patterns. At this time ! don't know if it would warrant it. ! mean we still can take
a look at it on an individual basis but to do a total traffic study, ! don't know. Just based
upon the numbers that I've seen, the background, ! don't know if it really warrants it at
this time but we'll continue to monitor it and address the issues as they arise.
Councilman Ayotte: ! guess that wasn't my question. My question was, at what point
with additional land development would we have to take a more holistic view of the
traffic? Is it 6 more developments? Is it 3 more developments? What's the trip wire that
sends we ought to revisit it?
17
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Paul Oehme: Well I think the issue would, in terms of traffic, 6 more developments, I
don't think 6 more developments like this is going to have a significant impact above and
beyond where the road is currently at. 6 more developments like this, it's not that much
traffic generated, although you know in terms of the existing traffic and I don't think it's
going to matter.
Kate Aanenson: And I'll just answer that from a planning perspective. Another school
of thought, and that's traffic calming. When we talked about widening this street and
making additional improvements, it also allows for faster speeds because you have better
sight lines, so there' s kind of a just position there. One is you have to slow down because
the sight lines aren't as great. When you want to minimize safety options you also,
there's a character to that neighborhood as far as the quaintness of the trees covering. We
have that also in parts of Minnewashta, Carver Beach and those sort of things so we try to
keep those balances in mind. How do you maintain the character and traffic calming
instead of creating a speedway with wider streets and curb and gutter so it kind of goes
back to, is it the number of houses or some other maybe ad hoc things that we could look
at again trying to maintain that character.
Paul Oehme: And again, I think it's monitoring. I think it's the programs that the city
have already initiated, the Leadfoot. Just making sure that we're doing our due diligence.
Trying to address issues as they arise. Making sure law enforcement personnel are out
there. You know monitoring the situation as well so I think.
Councilman Ayotte: Thanks Paul.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, is there any additional comments or discussion at this point?
Councilman Labatt: Can I ask Mayor, if Matt came up with number 28.
Matt Saam: Yeah, the new one.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah. The wording on it.
Matt Saam: Yeah. Work with staff to increase the sight distance near the proposed
access from the development onto Pleasant View. Increase the sight distance along
Pleasant View near the proposed access. I didn't think you wanted me to tell them
specifically what to do, retaining wall or you know all that so.
Councilman Labatt: You know what we want and I think you heard the gist of the
neighborhood and something needs to be done, and leaving it as is isn't the answer.
Something can be done I think. Whether how much is cut back or trimmed or moved is
up to you to decide. You're the engineer, not me.
Mayor Furlong: And I think the purpose of the increase is to maximize a safety elements,
still keeping in mind with engineering limitations. Okay. Alright, is there further
discussion? If not is there a motion? Which I believe start on page 12 of the packet.
18
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I'd move the City Council approve the partial
vacation of Oak Grove Avenue as shown on plans dated received February 26, 2004,
conditions 1 and 2.
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Is there any discussion on that motion?
Resolution #2004-20: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded
that the City Council approve the partial vacation of Oak Grove Avenue as shown
on plans dated received February 26, 2004, with the following conditions:
The applicant shall provide the city with the legal description of the vacated right-
of-way.
The applicant shall dedicate a typical drainage and utility easement over a portion
of the vacated portion.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I'd also put forth recommendation to approve the
preliminary and final plat for planning case 04-03 for Kenyon Bluff for 3 lots and a
variance to allow a private street as shown on plans received February 26th, and revised
March 24th subject to conditions 1 through 28.
Roger Knutson: And ! assume that includes adoption of the Findings of Fact as presented
by the Planning Commission.
Councilman Peterson: Affirmative.
Mayor Furlong: And number 28 was the one just read into the record by the city
engineer, thank you. Is there a second to that motion?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion on that? Additional.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council
approves the preliminary and final plat for Planning Case 04-03 for Kenyon Bluff for 3
lots and a variance to allow a private street as shown on the plans received February 26,
2004, and revised March 24, 2004, adopting the Findings of Fact and subject to the
following conditions:
19
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Environmental Resources Specialist Conditions:
a. Applicant shall submit landscape plan showing the 16 trees required to be
planted. Trees shall meet minimum size requirements.
b. Minimum bufferyard planting requirements for Lot 3 includes 2 overstory
trees, 4 understory trees and 9 shrubs.
c. Tree preservation fence shall be installed prior to grading at the perimeter of
the grading limits.
d. Any trees not shown for removal that are lost due to construction activities
will be replaced at a rate of2:1 diameter inches.
The applicant shall pay park fees in lieu of land dedication or trail construction on
two of the three lots. One lot is exempt from these charges due to the existing
single-family home on the property. The park fee on two single family homes
totals $5,600 and is payable at the time of platting.
Submit a 30-foot wide private cross-access easement against all three lots at time
of final plat recording.
Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained,
including but not limited to the MPCA, MN Department of Health, MCES, and
Watershed District.
5. The storm sewer must be designed for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event.
The applicant should be aware that any retaining wall more than 4 feet in height
must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
Also, it will require a building permit through the City's Building Department.
7. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal.
8. Show all of the existing and proposed utility easements on the utility plan.
On the grading plan:
a. Show all existing and proposed easements.
10. Add to the plans the following notes:
a. All sanitary services must be 6" PVC-SDR26 and water services 1" copper.
11. On Lot 1, the house pad must be raised one foot in elevation to better facilitate
drainage away from the house.
12. On Lot 2, 10:1 slope must be used for the first 15 feet off the rear house pad along
with a 4-foot retaining wall.
20
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the
applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic
control plan.
The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges are applicable for each of the new
lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,814 for
water-main.
Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed
construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat for
review. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with
the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit
or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of
final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to
be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health,
MCES, and Watershed District.
The private street must be built to a 7-ton design. The developer will be required
to submit inspection reports certifying this.
The existing driveway to the site off of Pleasant View Road must be removed.
Show the standard 10- and 5- foot lot line easements on the final plat.
Delete the proposed infiltration basin.
Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required
for each lot at the time of building permit application for city review and approval.
In addition, as-built surveys will be required on each lot prior to occupancy.
The applicant must provide a water quality treatment manhole within the site.
A 20 foot wide public access easement over the private street will be required so
city utility crews can gain access to the public sewer and water lines.
Water Resource Coordinator Conditions:
a. Inlet control shall be provided following installation of inlet structures.
b. Silt fence shall be provided as needed to prevent sediment from leaving the
site.
c. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal
to 3:1.
d. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent
cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table
of slopes and time frames:
21
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
24.
Type of Slope
Steeper than 3:1
10:1 to 3:1
Flatter than 10:1
Stabilized within
7 days
14 days
21 days
These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm
water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer
inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made
systems that discharge to a surface water.
e. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street
scraping and street sweeping as-needed.
f. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time
of final plat recording, is $6,860.
g. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate
regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval.
Fire Marshal Conditions:
a. The new proposed street will be required to have a street name. Submit
proposed name to Chanhassen Building Official and Fire Marshal for review
and approval.
b. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street
lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer
boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and
operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
c. No burning permits will be issued for tree/shrub disposal. Any trees
removed must be removed or chipped on site.
25.
26.
Building Official Conditions:
a. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing
structures.
b. A building permit must be obtained to construct any retaining walls over 4
feet tall.
c. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections
Division before building permits will be issued.
Approval of the subdivision is contingent upon the City Council approving the
vacation of the right-of-way.
27. Access to all three lots shall be limited to the Private Street. Direct access is
prohibited off of Pleasant View Road.
28. Work with staff to increase the sight distance along Pleasant View Road near the
proposed access from the development."
22
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Is that the end of the motions? Is there any additional? I think that's it.
Roger Knutson: Did you?
Mayor Furlong: Oh, we have a contract and construction plans.
Roger Knutson: Yes.
Councilman Peterson: I'd move that we approve construction plans and specs and
development contract as submitted by staff this evening.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Any discussion?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council
approve the construction plans and specifications for Kenyon Bluff dated March 24,
2004, prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc., and the development contract dated
April 12, 2004, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall enter into the development contract and supply the City with a
cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $305,197 and pay an
administration fee of $20,527.
The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in revising the construction
plans to meet city standards.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
APPEAL VARIANCE FOR A 7,068 SO. FT. LOT AREA VARIANCE TO
SECTION 20-6150) FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A HOME, 795
PONDEROSA, THOMAS KOEHNEN.
Public Present:
Name Address
Vicky Hevey
Nancy Mason
Michael Kohane
Felix & Brian Thompson
780 Woodhill Drive
829 Woodhill Drive
6870 Yuma Drive
6899 Yuma Drive
23
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Mark & Julie Quiner
Shelly MacGillivray
Mark VanGuilder
Ally & Randy Vogel
Chuck Worsfold
Nancy Kennedy
Curt Bjorlin
Bruce Burrington
Lee Pillatzki
Sue & Bruce Koehnen
Tom & Erica Koehnen
6889 Yuma Drive
805 Ponderosa Drive
805 Ponderosa Drive
6890 Yuma Drive
6900 Yuma Drive
761 Ponderosa Drive
824 Lone Eagle Drive
6869 Yuma Drive
830 Ponderosa Drive
1830 Koehnen Circle
6280 Audubon Circle
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of City Council. This is the subject site.
It's located on Ponderosa near Yuma. It is a vacant lot of record, as opposed to the
application you just saw before us, a subdivision. This is not a subdivision. It's a
variance request. The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on March 16th
to request a variance from our ordinance which has a minimum lot square footage. It also
allows you go within the 75 percent rule, the minimum lot of 15,000. This is a lot of
record. The applicant did also apply for a variance of approximately 4 percent. The
Planning Commission did deny the variance. The applicant has met all the setback
requirements. It was over on the impervious and the Planning Commission felt that the
applicant could make some changes to the plan and meet those requests, so the applicant
did not appeal. I passed out a letter to you that he wanted that back on. He did not
appeal that request within the required number of days so that request is not before you
tonight.
Mayor Furlong: And just for clarification, that's the request for the.
Kate Aanenson: Impervious.
Mayor Furlong: Impervious coverage.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Yep, and states some reasons in there.
Mayor Furlong: So the only issue before us is.
Kate Aanenson: Correct, because what was appealed by the neighbors. Again, anybody
aggrieved of the decision made by the Board of Adjustments has a right to appeal that so
there were 3 letters written from the neighbors appealing the request of the variance.
Again, there were some issues that were raised at the Planning Commission and staff,
Nate our planner and Matt Saam did work on looking at some of those issues.
Specifically was the driveway location. With the proposed driveway comes out onto
Ponderosa and looking at that, the neighboring driveway also comes out onto Ponderosa.
It was felt at that time based on some elevations that appeared to be the best location of
the driveway. Again there's some significant trees that were requested to be staked in
that area. Another issue was drainage. Looking again, without the specific plan in front
24
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
in place, it appears that some of the drainage, approximately halfway through the lot
would go out onto Ponderosa via swale. The rest of it would be swaled around. Again
there is an ordinance requirement for, this is part of your most recent updated code
requirements that they need to submit, the applicant would need to submit to get a
building permit, which requires that they demonstrate all this on the building survey.
And again, that's done at the time of building permit. Lots of times on existing lots of
record on an older subdivision, sometimes those get kicked around between planning and
engineering for a number of reasons, whether it's tree conservation as opposed to a newer
subdivision where you've got one builder that's kind of notched those out. Sometimes
we have those, on this previous lot where they will be custom graded. There's a little bit
more give and take trying to figure out exactly where the best way, so they may come in
with one. We may tweak it, send it back. Try to work those issues out. So again on this
one we've made some preliminary recommendations to the Koehnen's and again we may
go back out after they submit and verify that. But it appears based on the issues that
came up at the Planning Commission that we think those issues can be resolved. Again
they'll have to show us on the building permit the elevations and there will have to be a
survey and all that will be shown on there. Again that's spelled out in city code. The
other thing that happens after it's built, they'll have to do an as-built survey to show that
they built it as according to what they submitted as far as the survey. So again it is a lot
of record. The staff' s position was that we recommend approval because unless someone
was to acquire the property, they have reasonable use to use it which we think a home is a
reasonable use. Again it does meet all the setback requirements and it will need to be
tweaked a little bit for the impervious surface and we expect to see that with the
revised.., survey. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mayor Furlong: Great, questions for staff.
Councilman Ayotte: What is the, let's say the as-built comes back and the swale is
missing?
Kate Aanenson: That's what ! was saying, that's typically what we would check and they
may go back. We'd hold it up and not approve it. Just call up the applicant and say
there's some things missing. Or we think the swale's not going to function properly.
Some of those sort of issues. We are going to require gutters and some of that too.
Councilman Ayotte: Are there time lines associated? Where are we at risk if we wait too
long to do the comparison, the as-built to what's built. Are there any parameters that we
have to hold to that would put us at risk?
Kate Aanenson: Certificate of Occupancy. Again they'll have to provide erosion control
during construction and that's inspected regularly, so once they want to get Certificate of
Occupancy, that's a requirement. If they don't have that, then they have to put security in
place. Sometimes we do have closings in the winter, which is difficult to do, then they
have to put security in place until we're able to verify that. That's pretty much a common
practice over the last few years.
25
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Councilman Ayotte: So what you're saying to me is that there's no risk, and once we
have the as-built, and we have the ability to inspect the as-built, we don't have...
Kate Aanenson: Low risk, correct.
Mayor Furlong: Are there other questions for staft? A sense on the drainage again. Just
as an issue there. You mentioned that it's subject to that. Is this, with the slopes of this
property and the swales that you described, is it going to be possible to control the
drainage so that it doesn't, as this property is built upon, if that's the route that we go,
that it's not sending additional water to the neighboring properties.
Kate Aanenson: That's our opinion looking with engineering.
Mayor Furlong: There's quite a bit of slope on this property.
Kate Aanenson: And with gutters too.
Matt Saam: Yes, we thought through a system, guttering the house. Routing the roof
drainage toward each of the streets, along with swales. Keep in mind we haven't seen an
actual survey with a proposed house plan. When we get that, then we'll know for sure,
do they need a retaining wall to get the swale or can they just grade it in? So those are
issues, as Kate said, we'll look at when the building permit comes in but we've instructed
the applicant they, he will have to put in a system of swales along with some gutters on
the house.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, with the purpose of directing the runoff, the drainage from the
property.
Matt Saam: Correct. Around his house and then so it's not going toward adjacent
houses. We want it going toward the street line everybody else.
Mayor Furlong: Given that there's no drainage control on this lot right now, is there any
expectation that with the swales we would improve the drainage relative to neighboring
properties?
Matt Saam: Relative to the two adjacent to them, yes. Downstream, that's a tougher one
because we are adding impervious so you could argue that the water's getting off the site
faster in the proposed or developed state then it is now so, but in regards to the
neighboring properties.
Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, with regard to the two neighboring properties?
Matt Saam: To the two adjacent neighboring properties we will be decreasing the runoff
toward them.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
26
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Kate Aanenson: I would say yeah, in that neighborhood itself, I'm not sure, most of it's
sheet flowing. There's not a lot of controlled runoff in that whole neighborhood so I'm
not sure that this person has to carry the burden for the whole neighbor, but we don't
want to increase this property onto somebody else's, and that was the goal in meeting out
there with the swales, right.
Mayor Furlong: And with the drainage plan that you're anticipating, you'll certainly not
add any drainage to the neighbor.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: And would likely improve it.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Or decrease the drainage. Thank you. With regard to the access point, !
know that was an issue, whether it came off Ponderosa or Yuma, basically from a safety
standpoint, and again we're dealing with there's an intersection right there.
Matt Saam: Yeah, Mr. Mayor we did go out and look at the site. Met with the neighbors.
If you've been out there, this property's kind of at the low point, or sag of a curve. So,
and the curve is on Ponderosa, so with this driveway coming out onto Ponderosa we feel
there will be good sight lines both to the east and west. You'll be able to see basically to
the top of the two hills, to both the east and the west. The other point that we looked at
was the driveway, if it would come out onto Yuma would add, it's a bit longer so it
would add a little bit more impervious and ! know with him being right on the border of
the impervious, he went for a variance before. We didn't feel it was necessary to make
him come that way.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then with regard to, you mentioned a lot of record. This is a
relatively small lot. Relative to our current standards.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: But this was a lot of record when those standards went into place, is that
my understanding?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: So it's a.
Kate Aanenson: We have some other up in Carver Beach area.
Mayor Furlong: And ! guess, explain to me, there are some that are much smaller that
have no homes on them.
27
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Reading the Planning Commission it looks like 8,000. This one is a few
feet below that.
Kate Aanenson: Just 7,000, yes. Correct. And we've had some other ones that have
come in for variance. Similar situation. Under sized lot. Under the 75 percent rule.
That have pursued the variance request.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Any other questions for staff?. ! guess at this
time we did receive, in terms of some letters from some residents appealing the decision.
Typically we will allow people to come forward if there's, ! guess my preference would
be a representative from those appealing the decision, if they'd like to come forward and
speak at this time.
Michael Kohane: Sorry, ! can go first..but we'd all like to say something...we can keep
it very brief if that' s okay.
Mayor Furlong: Well ! guess it's not a public hearing but if there's, you know we did
receive the letter and we read the letters, but if there's something additional that people
would like to add to the record. Certainly, why don't you state your name and address.
Michael Kohane: Michael Kohane, 6870 Yuma Drive, Chanhassen. We're appealing the
lot variance because we really don't think it's a buildable lot because of the size and it's
location and the shape of the lot. Where it sits and there's significant impacts on safety
and the drainage and the environment in that area. Again like others, it's difficult to,
we've mentioned most of the issues in our letters. We won't reiterate. Ponderosa Drive
is a major thoroughfare through there now. Adding another home there will create
significant safety issues with vehicles, children, all sorts of other things as well. So the
second point ! want to make, particularly was that ! was very concerned with the
performance at the Planning Commission. They seemed to me to be quite confused about
how they were to make a decision, and certainly as ! gather here, you don't have to have
any hard data to make a decision but the drawings were hand drawn by the applicant and
it wasn't particularly clear and there was a great deal of confusion and ! would like to
question the Findings of Fact based on the Planning Commission. I'm not a lawyer but !
would like to question that. And ! don't think they should be generally accepted. On a
couple of technical issues, ! received a package from the city last Friday, which dealt
with all the appeal issues. That's incomplete. My initial letter wasn't in there, and also
it's not in chronological order, and there's a list of names in there with no explanation
and ! would like that to be corrected before we went any further with this project. ! have
some direct questions to the owner of the property, whether that be the applicant or not,
I'm not sure. We're all very unclear about this down there. Is this lot big enough for a
family home? Is it safe to build on the corner? Is it good enough to cut down the trees to
build? And is it good to disrupt the drainage there whereas we understand it drains 38
acres down into a silt filtration pond which then drains into Lotus Lake. And then just a
28
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
general issue on, I know that your hands are tied with building, but seems to me, and our
community feels this too down in this area of Carver Beach that the City of Chanhassen
emphasizes home construction. You've got Highway 5, Big Woods development in our
area, luxury homes on this side of the lake, new ones on the other side of the lake, and for
the local community they see this as just replacement of the natural environment with
hard cover. With unknown consequences for the future. And the local Lotus Lake
community, when you go around and talk to people they're overwhelming against this
now and very, very concerned. They don't know what to do, and ! gather your hands are
tied too. But in this case I've asked the city, because it's an exceptional case, to commit
to the natural environment in some way. Make some sort of policy change or shift, and
maybe stop home construction on this small lot to send an indication to other people that
it might be possible to preserve trees and habitat locally, and in this way, as someone else
suggested to me, the city could become a genuine leader in trying to get around these
issues of conservation, preservation and development. So in short we appeal the first
variance. We don't think it's a buildable lot because of the site, location and shape and
size and the impact on the drainage and the environment and the safety issues there on
Ponderosa Drive. All of that's detailed in our letters, and ! myself personally question
the findings of fact to the Planning Commission and the packets that ! received was,
needs to be corrected. It was incomplete and not in chronological order to be interpreted
correctly. Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Is there any comments from staff?.
Kate Aanenson: I'm assuming the names are the names that went out to everyone within
300 feet. Are they in chronological order? Maybe not. But all the letters are shown as
attachments. ! think Nate and ! discussed the first letter did go to the Planning
Commission. You receive the Planning Commission packet so we assumed you had read
the first packet so we just included the updated ones because the council does get all of
the Planning Commission packets, so you had received it, so we just didn't put it in the
most recent. That was appropriate to the appeal.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, and again, if there's representatives that would like to
speak on this, if you're comfortable with the presentation just made, ! think that's fine. !
don't want to have a full public hearing but ! do want to make sure that if there are
additional points besides those raised in the letters that were provided, we'd be happy to
listen to them at this time.
Shelly MacGillivray: My name's Shelly MacGillivray. ! live at 805 Ponderosa Drive.
Our driveway is on Ponderosa Drive at that location and it's very dangerous. ! am
concerned for the safety for everyone. ! just would highly recommend, if there's any way
possible to put it on Yuma.
Ally Vogel: Hello gentlemen, my name is Ally Vogel and ! live at 6890 Yuma, directly
to the south of this lot and one thing that ! want to bring up, ! did send an e-mail out to all
of you addressing some of the drainage issues but one thing that may be a situation that
reflects on our property specifically was that a survey was done by the applicant probably
29
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
a couple weeks ago and we discovered that the lot line is in the middle of our driveway.
This driveway has been there for over 20 years and obviously when my husband and !
purchased the home we were not aware of any encroachment issues, etc, and now
obviously this is going to be a pretty good hardship on us or concern to figure out
whether or not we can seek an easement or have an adjustment made to that property line,
but it's, you know some of the neighbors have tried to purchase this lot from the
applicant in the past. Obviously now with this issue we'd be very interested in
purchasing a portion of that but that's something ! just want to make you aware of in
addition to everything else.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is the original applicant here this evening, if they'd
like to say anything to the council.
Tom Koehnen: Good evening everybody. My name is Tom Koehnen and ! live at 6280
Audubon Circle in Chanhassen and ! am the applicant in this matter, and I'd like to
address the issues that have been raised by those who have made this appeal. And in the
interest of time I'm going to keep my remarks short. I'm going to only address issues
that have been specifically raised in the appeal documents. On or about the 12th of
March ! submitted by variance request to the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission.
The request included two variances. One for a variance to the minimum buildable lot
size, and one for a variance to the 25 percent maximum hard cover requirement.
developed this proposal as a feasible and reasonable use for this property. Before
submitted this proposal ! met with the city planning department to get their input on how
to design this project with a minimum variances needed from the city. To put this legally
non-conforming lot to a reasonable use. After careful review the city and planning staff
agreed that my proposal, including the variance to the 25 percent maximum hard cover
was a feasible proposal for a reasonable use of this property. My proposal conformed
with the existing standards to which comparable properties in the area have been put.
The planning staff in it's report found that this proposal in it's entirety did not
downwardly depart from the existing neighborhood standards, and met all other
conditions for the city to properly grant these variances. On the 16th of March the city
Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to grant the variance to the minimum buildable lot
size as we heard, but voted to deny my variance to the maximum of 25 percent maximum
hard cover requirement. ! was glad the commission granted me my lot variance. My lot
size variance, but ! felt the Planning Commission's denial of the variance to the 25
percent maximum hard cover requirement was unjustified. That's how it stood until a
group of my future neighbors decided to appeal the entire decision in general, and both
the minimum lot size variance and the denial of the maximum hard cover variance
specifically and that is point 3 of the appeals documents. That's why I'm going to
address it right now. Now that both these issues have been re-opened I'd like to take this
opportunity to address both of them. First I'd like to address the minimum lot size
variance. The record clearly shows that this request meets the 3 tests for granting of a
variance. The request is reasonable by the opinion of the city staff has been consistent.
Placement of a single family house on this site meets the same use of the property that the
neighboring properties meet. Secondly the proposed foot print meets the unique issues
inherent in this property. Care was taken by both myself and on the part of the city staff
30
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
to treat this project as a unique situation and deal with all aspects individually. Finally
this project conforms to the existing standards in the immediate area. The record is clear
from the city staff report. The footage of the proposed houses within the range of house
sizes in the area. This lot is also within the range of lot sizes that have houses on them in
this area. Therefore ! believe the decision to grant the variance to the minimum buildable
lot size should be withheld. Secondly, now that my future neighbors have specifically re-
opened the denial of the hard cover variance, ! would like to address the issue. ! feel that
this request is also reasonable and meets those three tests. Therefore ! feel the City
Council should over turn the decision of the Planning Commission and grant me the
variance to the maximum hard cover ordinance of 25 percent. ! ask that the City Council
grant the variance of 3.6 percent for a total of 28.6 percent. This would be in addition of
some 258 square feet. First way to grant this variance a question of reasonableness must
be asked. It's my opinion and the opinion of the city staff as stated in their
recommendations dated March the 16th, an addition of 258 feet of hard cover to design a
safe driveway and adequate sidewalk is a reasonable request. Second question is one of
uniqueness. It is my understanding that the maximum hard cover requirement ordinance
was enacted as a blanket guide line to deal with drainage and runoff issues that arise from
placing a structure on a previously undeveloped lot. In this situation ! have had meetings
with the planning department and the engineering department of the city to discuss
methods and plans to mitigate the issue of drainage and runoff on this lot. All of my
proposed to the engineering department deal with drainage on this unique site were
deemed acceptable, feasible and reasonable as stated in the record in the staff report.
Thus in this situation it has been shown that ! can meet the intent of this part of the
ordinance with more than the 25 percent hard cover and granting of the ordinance was
wholly, this variance is wholly acceptable. Finally does the proposal meet the existing
standards in the immediate area? The answer to that question is also yes. As the record
shows, this area is filled with non-conforming lots. On average the lots do not meet the
minimum lot size. And further, many of the properties have non-conforming gravel
driveways that negatively impact drainage and runoff. That's my proposal, this proposal,
my original proposal meets and exceeds the drainage and runoff standards in place in the
neighborhood and do not depart downwardly from them. Because of these reasons !
believe, and ! think that the record shows that this variance is reasonable and should be
granted. I'd like to thank everybody involved for their time and consideration in this
matter and ! look forward to a speedy conclusion to this business, and further wonderful
cooperation on the part of the city as this project continues. I've brought copies of my
remarks for members of the council if they'd like to review them and I'd be happy to
answer any questions.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant?
Councilman Ayotte: I don't know whether the question goes but I'm back to the lady
said that she had a survey done and it ended up in the middle of her driveway.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. Let me just clarify that. There was a survey done. It appears
that their driveway, it's a civil matter at this point. Their driveway goes across what Mr.
Koehnen believes is his property so they'll have to reconcile that between the two of
31
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
them. And just to be clear, the applicant did not appeal the impervious within the
required days. ! understand his frustration with the neighbors appealing, that he wanted
to throw that back into the mix. That is not before you tonight, just to be clear. That
deadline passed for appealing.
Mayor Furlong: It was his position to appeal?
Kate Aanenson: The neighbors appealed. Because the Planning Commission denied the
impervious, the neighbors were happy with that but they still wanted the house being
denied, so they appealed that portion which the Planning Commission approved. We did
not.
Tom Koehnen: If you look at Section 3 of the appeal document that my future neighbors
signed to you along with about 20 signatures.
Kate Aanenson: The Planning Commission denied it though so they couldn't appeal
something that was recommended for denial.
Tom Koehnen: All ! know is that they specifically appealed that part.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. Knutson.
Roger Knutson: I'm looking at the petition. First the cover letter says, we wish to appeal
the decision and request the City Council deny the lot area variance. Then when you
look on the petition pages itself, it says approve the lot size. They're appealing the
decision to approve the lot size variance.
Tom Koehnen: Last page of the comments in the letter. It's point 3, denial of lot
coverage variance.
Roger Knutson: It doesn't say they appeal it though.
Kate Aanenson: That was how we understood it. They referenced it but I don't think it
was appealed.
Mayor Furlong: I mean I'm reading this, I don't want to be the interpreter, that's what he
gets paid the big bucks but is the point of that, that they don't believe that without the lot
size variance it's not, or without the impervious coverage variance it's not a buildable lot.
Is that how I'm reading that? It was more to their point about why it was not a buildable
lot. I don't want to interpret what they said.
Roger Knutson: With the lot size variance they could build a house that meets all of the
requirements on.
Kate Aanenson: Correct...changes to modifications of the driveway width and some of
that, correct. And that was the Planning Commission's interpretation.
32
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Mayor Furlong: My sense is that's what the Planning Commission determined. Okay,
any other questions for Mr. Koehnen? If not, thank you very much. Appreciate your
comments.
Tom Koehnen: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: With that is there any follow up questions for staff or additional
questions or we'll bring it back to council.
Councilman Ayotte: In respect for the as-built's, there was a voiced concern that the
original was a sketch, so on and so forth. But the deliverable that you accept, the as-built
that you inspect to and conduct acceptance of the project is to what standard?
Kate Aanenson: The registered survey. That's what I've handed out to you is the
registered survey. And just to be fair, kind of going back to the neighborhood standard,
again what the burden is, I'm not sure all the neighbors have a hard surface driveway or
gutters, and again so we are raising the standard on this house for him to accommodate
some of those existing.
Councilman Ayotte: So any inspection to the as-built would be to a much higher
standard. ! guess I'm trying to articulate that so everybody understands.
Kate Aanenson: Yes, yes.
Councilman Ayotte: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other discussion? Any other points? Councilman Labatt or
Peterson?
Councilman Peterson: Roger, if we don't grant the variance we're essentially saying it's
a non-buildable lot then, is that?
Roger Knutson: That's correct.
Councilman Peterson: And there are obvious ramifications for doing that.
Roger Knutson: That's also correct.
Councilman Peterson: So once again our hands are somewhat tied.
Councilman Ayotte: However the point, I'd like to make a comment. ! think that thing
that's pivotal in this particular project, especially the issue of drainage and other things,
that when you submit an as-built and when you inspect on that as-built, versus how it has
been in the past, especially if that neighborhood has history, we haven't always done that.
So this is a new thing. And if ! could put some minds at ease, when you have the as-built
33
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
and you inspect the as-built and if the individual doesn't adhere to the constraints of that
as-built, it gets redone. And ! think that's a much better mode of operation than we've
seen in the past, especially 7 years ago for 6213 Cascade Pass where there was the same
issue. So ! speak from experience here. So they have come a long way and staff has
done an exceptional job of changing the ordinances and the procedures to ensure that we
do not have those sorts of issues, so if that puts your mind at ease a bit, ! hope it does.
Thank you Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments or discussion? Councilman Labatt? I
guess this is another difficult one, and to the extent that we're dealing with a property
owner that chooses to improve their property, you know there are certain property rights
that I look at that allows people to do that. If we didn't have that right, none of us would
have our homes here. And I think that's always the challenge with development that it
brings change. I think the key here or some of the keys that I look to are again, same
issues that we dealt with on a previous item. Safety from a traffic standpoint. Yuma is a
one way going north, south of Ponderosa and relatively narrow road as well as Ponderosa
itself. All the roads in that area are, and so there's one could argue that there's safety
throughout that neighborhood, especially when you get further north and try to go down
the bluff. It can be difficult. I think bringing it out onto Ponderosa, which is actually a
two way street provides, you know and with the grading, I'm going to defer to staff there
and I think with regard to that, that's helpful. The other advantage I see is that the
drainage issue, and that's clearly a concern. If somebody's going to improve their
property, they cause additional drainage or water going onto a neighbor's property and I
don't think so. And I think by working with the as-builts and with the drainage design, as
the staff has worked with them to come up with and will adhere to and make sure that
that's there, we can not only prevent additional flow but as I heard tonight, perhaps even
improve it or reduce the flow. I'll leave it to the engineers to get that done. But
ultimately you know I think, in addition to the items Councilman Peterson mentioned,
you know this is, it's a lot. There are a lot of small lots in that neighborhood and while
this one has not been built on before, it's always hard to see a stand of trees go. ! know
that is a fairly heavily wooded area too, further down Yuma and others so from that
standpoint ! think it's one of those things that we're stuck here between the existing
neighborhoods and the property...without adding burden from a drainage and other
physical burden to those property owners so, from that standpoint ! guess if there are
other comments or discussion. If not, is there a motion. And ! don't think there is a
motion. The fact that the Planning Commission approved the lot area variance, which is
the issue before us tonight, as ! understand it. The only issue before us tonight so a
motion would be to affirm the Planning Commission's recommendation, or to deny and
reverse.
Roger Knutson: I think they're one in the same so.
Mayor Furlong: Alright.
Roger Knutson: And that motion would also include adopting the Findings of Fact of the
Planning Commission as your findings.
34
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Good. Alright. Would someone like to make a motion?
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor ! would move that the City Council approve the
Findings of Fact in the staff report and approve the variance #04-11 for lot area from the
required 15,000 square feet for the construction of a single family residence on a 7,932
square foot lot. As shown on plans dated 2/12/04.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Is there any further discussion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council
approve the Findings of Fact in the staff report and approve Variance #04-11 for lot
area variance from the 15,000 square feet for the construction of a single family
residence on a 7,932 square foot lot, zoned RSF as shown on plans dated 2/12/04.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE; INCLUDING SUMMARY
ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION PURPOSES:
Ao
CHAPTER 10, LICENSING.
CHAPTER 11, MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS AND OFFENSES.
CHAPTER 13, NUISANCES.
Kate Aanenson: We'll take these a, b, c as written. Chapter 10, Chapter 11 and Chapter
13, and what I'd like to do, I'll stop at each one if you're ready to make the motion but
just kind of go through the salient points. You have reviewed these before. We followed
through with a comment so Chapter 10 with regard to license permits and miscellaneous
business regulations. Again this has to do with the liquor license. Again we exempted
3.2 malt liquor from the public hearing requirement. Adjusted the pull tab establishments
that have a liquor license. Eliminate the requirement that non-profits have to be located
in Chanhassen. They just be chartered so they're allowed here. And also eliminate the
organizations to direct where their gambling proceeds go. The city can pick where they
want them to go. They can't assign them to certain things. That's a council discretion,
and again we added...that were deemed just normally in the rental license. As we know
we have the three strike rule. We found an offense, you can see the ones that we added.
Murder. That wasn't one, manslaughter, assault, criminal sexual assault, and theft, arson,
burglary. Those are added to the strike rule because somewhere in that list they had an
issue on the strike rule so those will be added to the rental licensing requirement. So with
that, that's kind of a summary of the changes made to Chapter 10, so we are
recommending approval of that and the motion to that is in kind of the cover memo under
the recommendations approving Chapter 10 with clarifications.
35
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff.
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve.
Councilman Ayotte: ! second.
Mayor Furlong: It's been made and seconded. Any discussion? Yes. They mayor
would like to discuss something. Mr. Knutson, under Section 10-228, which is the rental
dwelling licenses. We discussed that, and Kate you mentioned that a little bit. Where the
point here is that it's on page 6 of the second section of your packet. Not the, so it has
the bold and the strike out components gentlemen. Here we're making it the
responsibility of the license holder, which would be landlord. To take appropriate action
to prevent conduct by tenants and their guests, and some of the things, gambling,
prostitution, obviously we want to do that. But when we're adding murder,
manslaughter, assault, help me, and help the residents, the public understand how do
these fit in and are there other parts that work against these? ! mean who's is it the
responsibility if a murder takes place ! guess is the challenge ! have. Hopefully the one,
the murderer.
Roger Knutson: You have to read this in context and I'll have to say I'm not sure how
murder works here because if you've committed murder ! think you're going to have.
Mayor Furlong: Have a different domicile.
Roger Knutson: Won't be occupying the apartment building. But so we're clear, if these
things occur, you can clear the strike so to speak and this is only covered on conviction.
You can clear the strike by kicking the tenant out. So you might not have been able to
prevent the murder, which is really a bad example frankly, but you can cure by evicting
the tenant. But again, murder?
Councilman Labatt: So just for point of clarification, so a person who has been tried and
convicted of let's say manslaughter. Served his time and been released from the
Department of Corrections, this doesn't prohibit him from living in an apartment in
Chanhassen. Correct?
Roger Knutson: That is correct.
Mayor Furlong: But if they did it while they were there.
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, but this you know, a person with a conviction record this does
not preclude, like if somebody was interpreting our ordinance to say well if I've been
convicted of theft, ! can't live in Chanhassen.
Roger Knutson: And that would not work for lots of reasons.
36
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Councilman Labatt: Is the sky blue? Or is it light blue? People will read it differently
SO.
Kate Aanenson: Right, yeah and just put in context with the rest of the requirements of
the...
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: So with that, that's the changes to 10.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, we have a motion that's been made to adopt the changes. It's
been seconded. Is there any additional discussion?
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the
amendments to Chapter 10 of the City Code, Licensing, including summary
ordinance for publication purposes. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: That will include the summary publication purposes as well. That
motion prevails for both of those.
Kate Aanenson: Chapter 11, miscellaneous provisions and offenses. Again we made our
curfew ordinance consistent with the county's. Also delegate the city's regulations
regarding carrying firearms. We do have areas where you can shoot and then the city's
permitted the authority to regulate the discharge of firearms. That was something that
was missed there.., sheriff' s office also has reviewed this. And then the last one is, again
miscellaneous provisions of permit consumption of 3.2 malt liquor in city parks was
permitted. Again the criteria under Chapter 14, in the parks and rec portion. There's
some parks that do permit that. So those are a summary of the changes to Chapter 11.
Councilman Peterson: Go back to the liquor in the parks again. Why would this, we
talked about the wine issue, not to bring that back up again, but this isn't addressing that
specifically is it? That's coming back up in the parks, right?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. That's in Chapter 14 but, yeah.
Councilman Peterson: So passing this doesn't preclude us from making a decision on the
wine later on?
Kate Aanenson: No. This allows you to have the 3.2 malt liquor.
Councilman Peterson: But to my point, do we need to say in addition wine will be, if we
consider it, do we need to say in here? Everybody tracking with me?
37
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Yeah, probably at the time. If we consider that. If the issue is identified
to parts of the code, we'd want to update both parts of the code if we move forward with
that.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and again that was Section 14-61 does permit 3.2 so those parts
that have been identified, and ! think we did talk about that, with the wine, but let me
double check that.
Councilman Peterson: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions or discussion?
Councilman Labatt: Kate, on the hunting map. On the hunting map, on the back.
There's small little, I'm going to call it a heart shaped piece below the railroad tracks.
It's surrounded by the Powers Ridge Apartments and Mallory Court and the daycare
center there. Can we just eliminate that little piece? This little thing right here. ! mean
it's so small and my fear is a person.
Kate Aanenson: Is that bow hunting only Steve?
Councilman Labatt: Yeah, it's bow hunting but if a person shoots a deer with an arrow,
and it dies in the neighboring daycare.
Kate Aanenson: You have the authority to approve the map so.
Councilman Labatt: Can we eliminate that council? That little heart shaped piece.
Mayor Furlong: ! mean I'd, if we're going to do it I'd like to talk to the property owner
as well rather than just doing it right now. You just simply raise an issue. I'd like to at
least give him an opportunity.
Todd Gerhardt: It's tough to tell by this map but.
Kate Aanenson: It' s off of Powers.
Todd Gerhardt: We have a sewer easement that goes through there and that looks like
it's really close to the back so. And then the one in the corner, if you go east of there,
that's the one by the Paul' s, but ! thought everybody else in Mallard was developed.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, ! thought that was all...
Mayor Furlong: Then we need to update the map. And in doing so, if there are some
proposed changes, which.
Todd Gerhardt: We can bring it back.
38
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Kate Aanenson: Do you want to wait on this one and look at that?
Councilman Labatt: Well can we approve it subject to a new map or review?
Mayor Furlong: Well I think similar to the issue that Councilman Peterson raised, if we
want to go back and review. This is where it sits right now but similar to his issue with
regard to beverages in the park.
But for final adoption, this is the final read.
But we can update this at any time. There's nothing that prevents us
Kate Aanenson:
Mayor Furlong:
from doing that.
Kate Aanenson:
Roger Knutson:
bring this up at
can.
Mayor Furlong:
We can change it in a month or.
This doesn't require public hearings or notifications so if you want to
the next council meeting and amend this ordinance again, you certainly
Yeah, let's get the staff to review that and I don't know, when was the
last time it was updated?
Kate Aanenson: Actually we just updated it for this so yeah, but I think what we looked
at was development patterns and there was a criteria for that and so some areas were
taken out.
Councilman Lundquist: In the areas, gun and bow hunting. Is that restricted to just
hunting or is that discharge of any firearms in those areas?
Kate Aanenson: For bow hunting only?
Councilman Lundquist: For gun and bow hunting.
Kate Aanenson: So yeah, it could be both.
Councilman Lundquist: Is target shooting precluded from hunting or.
Kate Aanenson: Oh, if there's just target shooting? I'm not sure.
Roger Knutson: That would be okay in those areas. Technically what we're doing here
is not approving hunting. Indirectly you are but you're really just approving the
discharge of the bow and arrow and the discharge of the firearm. The regulation of
hunting is by the DNR.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
39
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Any other discussion or questions on the proposed changes in this
chapter? If there are none, is there a motion to approve as presented.
Councilman Ayotte: So moved.
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any discussion on the motion?
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve
amendments to Chapter 11 of the City Code, Miscellaneous Provisions and
Offenses. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to
0.
Mayor Furlong: Next item, Chapter 13.
Kate Aanenson: Chapter 13 regarding nuisance. There's a lot...looked at. The zoning
ordinance also refers back to nuisance standards, whether it's duration or frequency, but
we did spend a lot of time, actually before it went to Planning Commission and at the
Planning Commission reviewing this so what this does is kind of consolidate all the lists
within one section because again it was put in different chapters. This does not include
the, or includes animal noises. We pulled out the separate kennel thing, that's going at a
future date on the 26th, and that was mailed out to... kennel license so that will come up at
a future date. What this does provide for, also for emergency work which we've had
request for that come to you. When you have general construction noise, which
sometimes in the first...is a problem during the summer months. Will be an ongoing
construction building which the construction season is going. So again it's all
consolidated in one point. Again we spent a lot of time on this and reviewed that with
you so we are recommending approval of that section 13.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: Sorry Mayor. Does this one address some of the issues around
the General Mills facility and the unloading of flour?
Kate Aanenson: Yep. I did, if we receive a noise complaint on that. We do get those
frequently. Just for your edification, depending on the moisture content of flour, they do
use rubber mallets to get the flour out. ! did talk to the general manager up there, which !
do on occasion because sometimes it just reverberates. They have worked on posting it
again. Remind their drivers, the dock superintendent or the dock manager is also
reminding the drivers. There's a quantified number of drivers so they know who they
are. Just remind them again of how, not to just walk around the whole truck and bang it.
Again typically the flour is delivered during 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. They had a line down
so again that's one of those quirks that they were delivering at night so again that's when
it's heard, so it does cover that, exactly. And a lot of that...if they incur.
40
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, if I could just clarify one in the last issue. Only bb guns, pellet
guns, shot guns or bows may be discharged within the city limits pursuant to the map.
So no rifles. ! don't know if slugs are included in that or not. But I've got to believe not.
Roger Knutson: Shot guns.
Kate Aanenson: Shot guns, yeah.
Roger Knutson: You can shoot a slug out of a shot gun.
Councilman Labatt: You can deer hunt, yeah. Kate.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Labatt: I'm going to broach the topic here. The letter we got from Larkin-
Daly-Hoffman. This doesn't apply to what we're doing here tonight?
Kate Aanenson: No, right. No it's not. That's on the 26th. We did send it out for
comments. That particular ordinance to everybody that has a kennel license so we have
gotten some feedback from some of the people regarding that and we're looking at
making some changes from what we originally drafted so we're still in the works on that.
Councilman Labatt: Okay. ! just wanted to make sure he wasn't wasting his money
tonight. He was just really here to see us.
Mayor Furlong: Any other comments or discussion? Hearing none, is there a motion to
approve the proposed changes?
Councilman Labatt: Move approval.
Mayor Furlong: And a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Any further discussion on the motion?
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the
amendments to Chapter 13 of the City Code, Nuisances. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: You have your bowling pins in front of you. We officially received our
check for $1,138,000 and it's sitting in the bank.
41
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Councilman Ayotte: And all we get's a bowling pin?
Todd Gerhardt: Yep. I'd like to thank Justin and John Kelly for representing the city and
pushing this issue along. ! know it was a long time in coming but ! think it's a great
event for the city. ! think the group that made the decision 3 years ago to purchase the
bowling alley, the city will see the benefits of that decision in the next couple of months
as the bowling alley property comes down. The frustrations that we had to deal with this
last year ! think is an example of why we purchased the bowling alley. ! don't believe a
private developer could come in and try to redevelop that site on their own. ! think we'd
see the existing building stay in place as you see it today. Maybe with some land and
faCade improvements but ! think we're going to see the real benefits a year from now
when we're partaking in some of the restaurants and other activities in that area. So
again I'd like to thank Justin and John Kelly for staying on this issue and checking on it
almost hourly in the last couple of weeks. Any questions?
Councilman Labatt: Was that because we kept calling Justin? Give us the update.
Todd Gerhardt: Well ! just want to clarify to everybody, there are other things that Justin
worked on other than the bowling alley.
Councilman Lundquist: Should have lots of time now.
Todd Gerhardt: So we're looking forward to working on some other issues too so ! think
we're going to have that tonight with our EDA meeting. That will be the next project for
Justin and Kate and the entire staff has been involved in the bowling alley. It's a big
accomplishment for the city and basically doing it with very little assistance financially
from us. So great project. Just so you know, 8 attorneys Roger on this project.
Councilman Lundquist: With that many, how could anybody make money?
Todd Gerhardt: I don't know if anybody did.
Mayor Furlong: But it got done and ! think from our standpoint we appreciate Justin,
your efforts and Todd, this is something that you've been working on time and time again
over the years with regard to that property. ! think it' s, you know will be an end of an era
when it is razed in the coming weeks, but ! think ultimately the development will provide
long term benefit, for both our residents and businesses and so it's good to see that we
finally got through the legal issues and got it done and that's good to see. Good to see.
Councilman Lundquist: Is Justin going to sling the sledge hammer on the first shot?
Councilman Labatt: ! think he already has.
Mayor Furlong: You did offer them the keys didn't you?
Councilman Peterson: ! think he took down the sign, didn't he?
42
City Council Meeting - April 12, 2004
Mayor Furlong: Any other items?
Todd Gerhardt: No.
Mayor Furlong: What else did you do for us? Any questions for the city manager?
Todd Gerhardt: Lots of things. Every day.
Mayor Furlong: Any questions?
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to adjourn the
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was
adjourned at 9:22 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
43